# Practical examples of Fi versus Fe



## Michael

Hi All,
I'm still trying to understand the differences in how Fi and Fe might express themselves when they are either the dominant or auxiliary functions. 

Could you suggest some practical examples?

I've read a lot of the theory, but I still have trouble seeing how Fi and Fe might show up in one's behavior.

In other words how would someone with strong Fi or Fe observe that function in themselves?


----------



## Kynx

Fi doesn't allow judgement to be determined by external values. It will usually stay true to a particular value judgement from one situation to the next, regardless of external circumstances that might influence Fe to adjust.


----------



## Michael

Neverontime said:


> Fi doesn't allow judgement to be determined by external values. It will usually stay true to a particular value judgement from one situation to the next, regardless of external circumstances that might influence Fe to adjust.


Hi never on time and proud of it

Thanks for the example. How does that Fi actually look to you? 

Would you say that once you have made up your mind about something, no amount of data is likely to change your mind?

or maybe

Once you believe in something, it's nearly impossible for anyone to get you to change your mind?

or

Your core beliefs are just about unshakable?

The reason I ask these dumb questions is that my as someone with INTJ preferences, my Fi takes a back seat to my Te.


----------



## Kynx

Michael said:


> Hi never on time and proud of it
> 
> Thanks for the example. How does that Fi actually look to you?
> 
> Would you say that once you have made up your mind about something, no amount of data is likely to change your mind?
> 
> or maybe
> 
> Once you believe in something, it's nearly impossible for anyone to get you to change your mind?
> 
> or
> 
> Your core beliefs are just about unshakable?
> 
> The reason I ask these dumb questions is that my as someone with INTJ preferences, my Fi takes a back seat to my Te.


I always re-assess my values whenever I come across new data. I will weigh it up against contents present within the values I already hold, if it outweighs the previous content in terms of importance then I will adjust values to what I see as more appropriate. I won't adjust them again without going through the same process again. 

Once a value is deeply held then it would take a lot to change it because I would have already considered it extensively before it became a core value. Each piece of data is like pieces of 'evidence' from a personal perspective and some pieces of evidence are more valid than others. A core value would be backed up by a lot of 'evidence'.


----------



## Michael

Sounds like a Te/Ti process with the only difference being the comparing the new data to some logic set or rules rather than comparing the new data to personal values.


----------



## Kynx

Michael said:


> Sounds like a Te/Ti process with the only difference being the comparing the new data to some logic set or rules rather than comparing the new data to personal values.


I agree.


----------



## bearotter

@Michael: the distinction between Fi and Fe is not that different from that between Ti and Te. The Ti attitude of introversion builds conceptual systems which explain things based on theoretical truths that make sense to the user -- the user's attitude is one of making sense of things to himself/herself in an extreme way, and the test of the reasoning is not whether something works in the objective reality, but a certain abstract internal consistency which is sensible to the user.

Whereas Te is concerned with reasoning about objective reality. 

Similarly, reasoning conducted under the Fe mindset is ultimately concerned with reasoning about the objective, whereas Fi is concerned with producing a system of evaluation which is sensible based on the user's own introversion -- this translates often to values held personal to the user. 

They are ultimately attitudes. I can form a proper conclusion about a physics problem by using Ti-Ne or someone could do it using say, Si-Te. There is one answer in the end. The difference is how we analyze it. Do we pass it through a conceptual system we made, or do we perceive what is conceptually relevant and play with the objective system directly?

Similarly, an Fi user also will consider external input, through Pe. But the format of their conclusions when they reason under the Fi lens will be deeply introverted.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime

Fe is more social conformist, Fi is more "do what the f*ck I feel I want"  lol


----------



## Entropic

*Practical example of Fe with Ti:*
You are in a relationship and you feel that it's time to break-up but you aren't sure of your decision so you call a good friend and explain the situation and ask what they think. You logically explain what you think of the relationship and its qualities to your friend and you discuss their conclusion with them. After logically thinking over the situation based on what your friend told you about the relationship you feel you can finally come to a logically sound conclusion of what to do. 

*Notice:* The Ti-Fe type's action will part be determined by how the friend perceives the relationship. This is what @_Neverontime_ means when she says that Ti-Fe is more influenced by external factors and it's also less consistent with the overall result. If the friend for example says, "I think you're just having a bad time right now, wait and see how it goes", the Ti-Fe type is likely to do just that because it's seen as a logically sound action to take. If the friend says, "I think your relationship is not really good for you at all and I think it's better if you break-up", the Ti-Fe type is more likely to do that because again, it seems like the most logically sound action to take. 

*Practical example of Fi and Te: *
You are in a relationship and you feel it's time to break-up but you aren't sure of your decision so you try to look at the relationship's different qualities like how you feel, how you think your partner feels, is it enjoyable, have you had fun the past few weeks when spending time together, do you feel your heart is in the right place etc. After evaluating all these qualities of the relationship, you can finally come to a conclusion of what you think is the right thing to do.

*Notice: *In contrast to the Ti-Fe example above, the Fi-Te type judges the situation based on how they experience it and refers to what are seen as external logical facts such as "not having fun together". The Fi-Te type considers all these possibilities and weighs them in her mind in order to arrive at a conclusion of what feels right. I cannot stress enough that for the Fi-Te type, it is about what feels right as opposed to the Ti-Fe of what is logically correct. The Fi-Te type is here seen to not consult anyone for example, and I think this is common for Fi-Te types as well. They arrive at their conclusions "alone" when it comes to the realms of Fi, just like Ti types seem to tend to arrive at their logical theories "alone".


----------



## bearotter

LeaT said:


> *Notice: The Ti-Fe type's action will part be determined by how the friend perceives the relationship. This is what @Neverontime means when she says that Ti-Fe is more influenced by external factors and it's also less consistent with the overall result. If the friend for example says, "I think you're just having a bad time right now, wait and see how it goes", the Ti-Fe type is likely to do just that because it's seen as a logically sound action to take. If the friend says, "I think your relationship is not really good for you at all and I think it's better if you break-up", the Ti-Fe type is more likely to do that because again, it seems like the most logically sound action to take.
> *


It's funny how true this is, and by extension for me since the introverted thinking is the strongest influence on these decisions, I often have a desire to look at the external factors logically if I look at them at all, but have an aversion at the same time to considering anything external at all....and want to decide the outcome of things logically before they even start.

So when stronger Fe-types try to "see how things go/work out," I can't identify at all. It's already clear to me what does and doesn't make sense, and I want to decide almost instantly using my model of what can and can't work.

Actually this inconsistency really bothers me, because like you mention, how one Ti's the reasoning determined by Fe can be largely arbitrary if Fe is too strong an influence -- the internal filter being weak.

Only with a really strong internal filter is inconsistency avoided, but then one ends up with the opposite issue (which of course is my issue).


----------



## Dalien

@Michael

Fe...
A small group of people are at a get together and disagreement fills the air. Fe will take into consideration each person's side and try to find a middle ground that will suite and unite them all... the disagreements flee the room.

Fi...
A small group of people are at a get together and disagreement fills the air. Fi will take into consideration that there is a disagreement and what it entails and use their own personal belief and dispel... the disagreements flee the room.


(PS... if one were to type me... I'm INFJ)


----------



## AliceKettle

I'm ISFP, and I guess I could say that I take in beliefs from the external world, evaluate them, and then form my own beliefs about the concept or idea.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent

@Neverontime Explained it pretty well as far as Fi Dominant is concerned. I'm not really sure how Fi aux would look, though.

To expand a bit on what she said in terms of having to reassess our values. (such as Fe would, but more naturally and Fe users are more comfortable adapting their values/morals) I think that since being Fi dom means we hold our values/ethics close to who we are as an individual, that it takes us a very important person or situation to make us rethink ourselves and our values. I typically stay true to mine, but if I realize I'm being hypocritical or unfair, or just simply _wrong_ then I have to sit down for a while and reevaluate myself. However, being put into situations where I'm in conflict with somebody else (a situation that specifically requires me to vocalize my opinion on something) it can get pretty uncomfortable for me, but in the end, I still stay true to myself. Non Fi users will mistake this for rudeness or closeminded-ness, but it's really not that at all. 

We simply know how we feel about something, and if we don't find a valid reason in changing this, then we stick to our guns and you just have to deal with it. I'll be as considerate about sharing how I feel about something as I possibly can without devaluing how I feel, but other people's feelings in these particular situations always come second, for me at least and in my experience. 

And since Fi is (obviously) introverted, a judging function and dominant, it can be quite intense sometimes. Ji in general can come off as selfish and subjective, and this includes Ti. It's 95% internalized, and can be messy when forced out of the person or projected onto a situation. A lot of thought goes into anything that concerns Fi, and in turn, when I'm forced to channel it in situations with people, I need a bit of time to ruminate on it.

any more questions? roud:


----------



## Dangerose

I'm a Fe-dom and one of my (former) best friends is an INFP, so I think I can give some ideas about how our types manifest themselves.

One thing is that she can often see me as bossy and shallow, whereas sometimes to me she seems somewhat selfish and snowflakey.
For example, when she has a problem, I will try to be there for her, and put a lot of effort into finding a solution for her. She comes to me with her troubles, which I like because it makes me feel like she trusts me and I like helping people. But when I've come to her with my troubles, I've often gotten a feeling like 'I don't have time for this, do you really think I care?' I think it's one of her faults, that she has trouble looking out of her own emotional sphere, and I think it's a pretty typical thing for Fi-users.

Personally, I often feel I have to tread lightly around her, because she takes issue with a lot of things I say. Her ethics are introverted, so she does not really openly share her opinions and usually I don't hear about it until I've actually made her angry. So I feel like I have to overqualify everything I say to avoid generalizations, which she hates. "I think you would enjoy this show, and although I know you don't like shows just because of the attractive men, there are some attractive men with great personalities which make it more appealing to me, and the world the show operates in is very interesting, although of course atmosphere is also not what you look for in a show..."

Fi reminds me a little of a rattlesnake, whereas Fe is more like a lion. 

That said, I admire how she is able to be her own person and not be overly affected by what people think of her, which is definitely one of my faults.

This may be more of a Si thing for me but I think it demonstrates her Fi pretty well; we were discussing our dream men/futures/whatever and I was saying like, "Essentially I want to marry someone intelligent and kind, who's going to be stable and who I can have a good life with-" and she got all irked, and told me how I was only looking for some trophy husband with lots of money and status -- which wasn't what I meant at all. And then she was talking about how she wanted to find someone deep and passionate, no matter what he looked like or what kind of money he made 'and it's not about marriage, it's about the power of the relationship'. It was frustrating to me, because it gave off this vibe of 'I'm going to find some coffeehouse hobo and live in romantic bohemian squallor while singing Kumbayah for the rest of my days' whereas she was hearing from me, 'I'm going to make a prudent match and raise my social status and quality of life and it doesn't matter _who_ it is'.

And I see her going out with these guys who are really flaky and unpleasant and they end up hurting her, but she ignores my concern, because to her comments like, "He was wearing pajamas on your date" are a shallow comment on his appearance, but what I am trying to say is 'He's not putting effort into your relationship'. In my relationships I'll be much more cautious and she interprets that as indifference. I say: "I think I might be starting to really like this guy" and she's like, "You just _like_ this guy, and you're seeing him so often?"

Aand I just realized, we are _actually_ Marianne and Elinor from Sense and Sensibility. Forget about reading my comment and just read or watch S+S. Marianne, of course, is Fi and Elinor is Fe.

I don't mean to sound like I hate Fi. Sometimes it wearies me, is all )

Ehh I'm really tired and my thoughts aren't making sense, I thought I had more to say but I'm going to leave it here. Hope I did not ramble randomly


----------



## owlboy

@Oswin you basically just described every FP I've ever disliked, lol. There are lovely FPs, and then there are THOSE ones, the Britta Perrys of the world.


----------



## Acadia

Fi has independent values. Fe that I've experience tends to be more concerned with finding compromise. 
that's not to say an Fi or Fe user can't toe the line at times 

but for instance, when I told my aunt's co-worker that I'm a vegetarian, my aunt {likely an ESFJ} was immediately concerned about what her co-worker thought of me, and set to tell him that I wasn't 'extreme'
my ISFJ cousin takes the blame for situations that are not his fault/responsibility 
my ESTP cousin is concerned with what others think of him and popularity 

and I'm really not worried about all that. people can think whatever they want about me. 
I'm not preachy. If someone wants the truth, I'll tell them the truth. People hear my opinions. 
I'm attentive to current events, and I base my opinions on what happens in the world and whether it's right or wrong 
and if it's wrong, I'm not afraid to tell people what I think about that matter. I'm not concerned with pleasing others.


----------



## mikan

I'm a Fi dom and I have an ISFJ friend so I can compare.
The way I see Fe, is as if they don't have their own likes and dislikes and suck at measuring anything.
For example, one of my best friends who i've known for 8 years (who is an ISFJ) if she had two choices to choose from: 1. Leave me or 2. everyone she knows in class will become sad, she would definitely choose 1 this is why I feel so frustrated, how come when I've known her the most than anyone else? In other words there is no sort of strong feelings in the situation. Fe would do anything to keep harmony within a group, as I see it theres no sense of what is important to them or not.
as I see Fe aren't hesitant to show their expressions or emotions since its shallow in nature (like a mirror) in the other hands Fi is more hesitant because its difficult, mixed gooey feelings all the time, also its introverted. This is why I don't outwardly care or express anything unless its something very important to me, or when I see fit.

Funny, today me and my ISFJ friend were discussing music. Her choice of music is very shallow, the typical "I love you, I like you" sort of clear words and expressions. I don't really feel anything listening to those kinds of songs. She, as well, doesn't understand my choice of my music. I prefer hidden meanings within, without too much obvious feelings, because I am the one who will analyzing the feelings within the song


----------



## owlboy

Listening to Fi doms try to explain Fe is so frustrating sometimes. Your accounts are so biased and generally just amount to ''Fe is fake, shallow, people pleasing, and sheeplike''.

That's not a practical example of how Fe actually works. That's just your biased opinion.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Here's a sort of funny practical example from Bob Dylan's speech this past weekend:



> Now some might say Tom is a great songwriter. I'm not going to doubt that. At the time he was doing this interview I was actually listening to a song of his on the radio.
> It was called "I Love." I was listening to it in a recording studio, and *he was talking about all the things he loves, an everyman kind of song, trying to connect with people. Trying to make you think that he's just like you and you're just like him. We all love the same things, and we're all in this together*. Tom loves little baby ducks, slow-moving trains and rain. He loves old pickup trucks and little country streams. Sleeping without dreams. Bourbon in a glass. Coffee in a cup. Tomatoes on the vine, and onions.
> Now listen, I'm not ever going to disparage another songwriter. I'm not going to do that. I'm not saying it's a bad song. *I'm just saying it might be a little overcooked.* But, you know, it was in the top 10 anyway. Tom and a few other writers had the whole Nashville scene sewed up in a box. If you wanted to record a song and get it in the top 10 you had to go to them, and Tom was one of the top guys. They were all very comfortable, doing their thing.



(emphasis added by me--gotta love that "a little overcooked" comment! Wonderful bit of understatement!)

source: Music Alone


----------



## ferroequinologist

owlboy said:


> Listening to Fi doms try to explain Fe is so frustrating sometimes. Your accounts are so biased and generally just amount to ''Fe is fake, shallow, people pleasing, and sheeplike''.
> 
> That's not a practical example of how Fe actually works. That's just your biased opinion.


If you called it our personal experience, you might get a few "amens" there. 

But of course we're biased--but if you had to live pretty much daily with Fe (the function as expressed in people, not Fe types, per se) by people constantly telling you how to behave and feel but not having any better reason than that's because what they do, or because it's what everybody does, or because you are "letting everybody else down," or "upsetting them", then you'd be biased too. 

But I fail to see how Mikan's post is is worthy of your ire. She gave a very personal, and rather detailed example. If you don't like the tenor, realize that that is just another practical example of the differences between Fi and Fe.


----------



## owlboy

ferroequinologist said:


> If you called it our personal experience, you might get a few "amens" there.
> 
> But of course we're biased--but if you had to live pretty much daily with Fe (the function as expressed in people, not Fe types, per se) by people constantly telling you how to behave and feel but not having any better reason than that's because what they do, or because it's what everybody does, or because you are "letting everybody else down," or "upsetting them", then you'd be biased too.
> 
> But I fail to see how Mikan's post is is worthy of your ire. She gave a very personal, and rather detailed example. If you don't like the tenor, realize that that is just another practical example of the differences between Fi and Fe.


........... I'm an *ENTP*. Do you think I like being told what to do? lmao.

''I don't like being told what to do'' is not what you base typology on. That's ridiculous. I think Fis can be sanctimonious, moralizing and selfish, but I don't try to pass my own biases off as facts when discussing typological functions, because your personal biases do not count as psychological analysis.

And where did I respond directly to Mikan? Did I quote Mikan in my post? Don't think so.

The thread title is ''practical examples of''. Not ''what is your biased opinion based on a few bad encounters?''


----------



## perpetuallyreticent

owlboy said:


> Listening to Fi doms try to explain Fe is so frustrating sometimes. Your accounts are so biased and generally just amount to ''Fe is fake, shallow, people pleasing, and sheeplike''.
> 
> That's not a practical example of how Fe actually works. That's just your biased opinion.


It just goes to show how foreign Fe really is to us. I mean, it happens with descriptions of Fi that are (most likely) written out by Ti/Fe users. Fi is always described as selfish, inconsiderate and uncompromising. I guess a lot of the time we tend to over generalize and use negative stereotypes for the functions we don't use/understand. 

Fe is really a beautiful thing, especially when tert/inferior, in my opinion. Every Fe user applies it differently but for some reason when it's low on someone's stack, when it comes out it's really intense and genuine.


----------



## owlboy

perpetuallyreticent said:


> It just goes to show how foreign Fe really is to us. I mean, it happens with descriptions of Fi that are (most likely) written out by Ti/Fe users. Fi is always described as selfish, inconsiderate and uncompromising. I guess a lot of the time we tend to over generalize and use negative stereotypes for the functions we don't use/understand.


I know, and when people try to present those as facts about Fi i defend Fi users as well.

I feel like people with several thousand posts on the site should be beyond those stereotypes, you know?


----------



## Ksara

owlboy said:


> I know, and when people try to present those as facts about Fi i defend Fi users as well.
> 
> I feel like people with several thousand posts on the site should be beyond those stereotypes, you know?


It's because of those several thousand posts perhaps confirming stereotypes :/


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Lincoln vs Thaddeus Stevens. Fe vs Fi. Lincoln is using Fe and being pragmatic. The best way from point A to point B is not a always a straight line. Fi wants the line to be straight. Not bend. Fe bends around the terrain to get where it is going. 

"A compass, I learned when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?"

<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; background-color: rgb(252, 250, 231);">


----------



## Ksara

Practice example:

Fi helps someone
Fe helps someone

Yup, they can achieve the same practical outcome.
But how they arrive at it is different.

One is a good person, so they commit a good deed (that is the value is drawn from within and then act according to their inner value)
One commits a good deed, and so is a good person (that is they fulfill the social role of being a good person by their actions)

The first draws their values from within, to be a good person. Then judge their actions as either aligning or misaligning to their inner values or what they consider a good person is. They strive for consistency and to be as close to their values as possible (and so commit a good deed).
They are also judging (by feeling) the distance between them and the object (say another person) and then act in accordance to close or increase the gap.
This is Fi

The second draws their values from the external world by judging their actions (or the actions of others) as fulfilling a social role to define a persons character. This role is externally defined. In this case the act of a good deed suggests the person fits the criteria of being a 'good person'.
They also judge (by feeling) the distance the object is from it's social role. If it is far away it may then fulfil a different social role.
This is Fe


Now a real life example, my mother who uses Fe, and my partner who uses Fi.

Now my partner values being able to help oneself, and to also be as physically strong and healthy. So unless I am struggling, he expects me to carry my bags. It's good for me to build up my own strength to remain physically fit and healthy.

My mother sees that because he is my partner he should carry my bags. That is, she sees this action as placing him in the role of a good partner. Any other action is not acceptable because it would define him as not being a good partner.


Neither way is better nor wrong, and both want what's best for me. It is just two different ways of judging what is right/wrong.


----------



## General Lee Awesome

> The second draws their values from the external world by judging their actions (or the actions of others) as fulfilling a social role to define a persons character. This role is externally defined. In this case the act of a good deed suggests the person fits the criteria of being a 'good person'.
> They also judge (by feeling) the distance the object is from it's social role. If it is far away it may then fulfil a different social role.
> This is Fe


this is why i did not think I was a nice person, just a person who like to do stuff for people xD


----------



## ferroequinologist

owlboy said:


> I know, and when people try to present those as facts about Fi i defend Fi users as well.
> 
> I feel like people with several thousand posts on the site should be beyond those stereotypes, you know?


Um.... what's the stereotype?


----------



## with water

I vs. We, man.


----------



## reveur

I don't know where to post that, sorry. There's no need for another thread, though.

Would you help me to figure something out? Which function expresses itself like this:

"I did it so they would worry".
"I hurt myself just to write to her later, that it's her fault".

Is that an unhealthy, manipulative Fe?
Or is that a selfish Fi?


----------



## Verity3

reveur said:


> I don't know where to post that, sorry. There's no need for another thread, though.
> 
> Would you help me to figure something out? Which function expresses itself like this:
> 
> "I did it so they would worry".
> "I hurt myself just to write to her later, that it's her fault".
> 
> Is that an unhealthy, manipulative Fe?
> Or is that a selfish Fi?


Very unhealthy either way. So unhealthy that it seems unwise to attribute it to either cognitive function; it would seem to be more like a lack of function. 

Sincere attempts to self-harm are an act of desperation -- a last resort when nothing else is working. I'm out of my league here. If you know someone doing this I'd suggest trying to help them find professional help.


----------



## reveur

Verity3 said:


> Very unhealthy either way. So unhealthy that it seems unwise to attribute it to either cognitive function; it would seem to be more like a lack of function.
> 
> Sincere attempts to self-harm are an act of desperation -- a last resort when nothing else is working. I'm out of my league here. If you know someone doing this I'd suggest trying to help them find professional help.


This person had professional help. I was encouraging to it as well. But in order to get help we need to want it, aren't we? 
It's in the past now, so... 

I'm trying to define and understand - for many reasons. But it's way too distorted, indeed.


----------



## Ixim

Fe is singing while Fi is some kind of obsession over good vs evil. Zealous perhaps?

Practical enough?


----------



## lawof23

I guess by now we all notice that Fe finds it hard to explain Fi, just as much as Fi finds it hard to explain Fe. Not to wade too much more deeply into the mire, but if it helps ...

So say I have to go to my cousin's wedding. I don't really personally _want_ to go, for whatever reason, but to go along and then anyway to 'play into the role' of being a satisfied and unobtrusive guest seems like something which Fe might find easier. It somehow strikes me that it's "not about me" or my personal values or preferences. To go along with things seems like the "right" thing to do, and potentially someone who wasn't prepared to do that so readily might appear to my (projecting...) consciousness as being someone who "needs to get over themselves". 

But written out like that, it's easy enough to understand (misunderstand?) the Fi critique of Fe as being "shallow" or "fake", etc. I'm feeling one particular way, yet behaving in another because it's "the right thing to do". Of course, to call it insincere is definitely to misunderstand what sincerity means: there's nothing necessarily any more "true" or "honest" about sticking to one's Fi guns than whatever a comparable scenario between Te and Ti would be. Not that I personally know anything about Te of course ... 

As I say, my own experience of Fi is generally negative, whether in the projective sense identified above (where it seems to me to be selfish, though of course ultimately only the projection of my own selfishness), Fi is also the 'dark whisper' of the "critical parent" for me: the nagging, gnawing, inner criticism of "you think X is being a jerk, why you don't you grow some balls and come out and say that? Why're you being such a big hypocrite about not standing up for what you believe in?" and so on.

I'm not sure how practical any of this is - unless, perhaps, you've been invited to my cousin's wedding - but hopefully a bit of a view from here in Fe-aux land.


----------



## daniluni

Iiiiiiii think im actually a Fe.... because people's opinions matter so much to me.


----------



## Ksara

lawof23 said:


> I guess by now we all notice that Fe finds it hard to explain Fi, just as much as Fi finds it hard to explain Fe. Not to wade too much more deeply into the mire, but if it helps ...
> 
> So say I have to go to my cousin's wedding. I don't really personally _want_ to go, for whatever reason, but to go along and then anyway to 'play into the role' of being a satisfied and unobtrusive guest seems like something which Fe might find easier. It somehow strikes me that it's "not about me" or my personal values or preferences. To go along with things seems like the "right" thing to do, and potentially someone who wasn't prepared to do that so readily might appear to my (projecting...) consciousness as being someone who "needs to get over themselves".
> 
> But written out like that, it's easy enough to understand (misunderstand?) the Fi critique of Fe as being "shallow" or "fake", etc. I'm feeling one particular way, yet behaving in another because it's "the right thing to do". Of course, to call it insincere is definitely to misunderstand what sincerity means: there's nothing necessarily any more "true" or "honest" about sticking to one's Fi guns than whatever a comparable scenario between Te and Ti would be. Not that I personally know anything about Te of course ...
> 
> As I say, my own experience of Fi is generally negative, whether in the projective sense identified above (where it seems to me to be selfish, though of course ultimately only the projection of my own selfishness), Fi is also the 'dark whisper' of the "critical parent" for me: the nagging, gnawing, inner criticism of "you think X is being a jerk, why you don't you grow some balls and come out and say that? Why're you being such a big hypocrite about not standing up for what you believe in?" and so on.
> 
> I'm not sure how practical any of this is - unless, perhaps, you've been invited to my cousin's wedding - but hopefully a bit of a view from here in Fe-aux land.


I like how you describe Fe's stand point here.
makes me reconsider if I fall on the Te/Fi axis.

I find for myself I would attend the wedding, even if I didn't want to.
The first reason is because people expect this of me and I don't want to have to deal with the emotional backlash for not attending because 'I didn't feel like it' (that's not a good enough answer for them).
Secondly If I don't attend, then I can not expect the same support from my cousin for when it's my big day.
Thirdly I do care about my cousin, attending even though I may not want to is my way of showing them I care enough about them to go out of my way for them.

do you think this is on the Fe/Ti axis (i'm curious what you think)?


----------



## ferroequinologist

Ksara said:


> I like how you describe Fe's stand point here.
> makes me reconsider if I fall on the Te/Fi axis.
> 
> I find for myself I would attend the wedding, even if I didn't want to.
> The first reason is because people expect this of me and *I don't want to have to deal with the emotional backlash for not attending *because 'I didn't feel like it' (that's not a good enough answer for them).
> Secondly If I don't attend, then *I can not expect the same support* from my cousin for when it's my big day.
> Thirdly I do care about my cousin, attending even though I may not want to is my way of *showing them* I care enough about them to go out of my way for them.
> 
> do you think this is on the Fe/Ti axis (i'm curious what you think)?


I dunno. It sounds more Fi to me... (notice the bold parts)

But this simple example is, I think, missing something--one has to dig deeper. It isn't just about the going or not going. One has to look at the reasons _behind_ it. 

So thinking about that, I can think of several scenarios where I would find it uncomfortable to go. It may be that I'm not happy with the person my cousin is marrying--I may think that they are not good for my cousin, or that the long-term prospects are not good. It may be that there will be other people there who I really find it difficult to accept (in such cases it is because they are horrible people, or tend to create drama around them, and I don't want to be there when it happens), or it may be simply that I don't feel comfortable in the environment. Weddings tend to be full of people who are only there because they are expected to, but they don't like the couple or the family, and tend to talk about them behind their backs, and then they go to the wedding, and are all full of sparkly and lovely words--full-on-hypocrites. Gag. Those kinds of environments just irk the fire out of me--and if that were the case, I would be highly motivated to _not_ go. But, for the sake of supporting my cousin, I would probably go.

But here's the thing, I will go, but I will the entire time feel that internal friction between going and not going, and will find it hard to ignore or escape. I will do all I can to help my family be happy--those that matter--but I will know or feel that, somehow, all I've done is prop up some fiction. Of course, if there is none of such drama, or if I am totally unaware of it, I will just go and enjoy myself. 

But the difference is that doing this, I feel like I compromised and have contributed to something negative. I feel guilty, or will find ways--like you mentioned--to help assuage the guilt--I'm doing it for my cousin, etc. I don't know, but I suspect that Fe would not find such a situation quite so agonizing. They'd just go, focus on the cousin and others, and do their best to make them comfortable. 

Although, now I think about it, I think we all have known people who are perfectly capable of letting their feelings known--disappointment with arrangements, or whatnot--at such events. Some tend to be more subtle, and others more forthright. That's the negative side of extroverted judging... 

I say that to remind ourselves that Fe and Te is about having a direct impact on others, not on self. It isn't concerned so much about self as it is focused on others--this may either be good--desiring good for the others in situations that require it, or expressing displeasure with someone's behavior, with the desire to change it. Fe focuses on others' reactions and behavior, etc. Fi, on the other hand, focuses on one's own reaction to others' behavior, etc. How do others impact me. Fi feels quite incapable of changing others' behavior or thinking or attitudes, and tends to be reactionary. Fe, on the other hand, tends to be proactive. So, like @daniluni said, others' opinions do matter to Fi, but not for the sake of how others will react, etc. but for one's own sake. 

I worked hand-in-hand for years with an ISFJ guy. I never ceased to be amazed at his ability in a group to be able to both sense out the atmosphere, but also to directly impact it. Although he is an introvert, one would never guess it watching him in action. H would be everywhere, talking with everybody, encouraging people to mingle, introducing people, etc. I honestly don't know how he did it, but I could watch him, and just be amazed at his ability to "massage" in the most direct manner possible the atmosphere in a meeting. It is a phenomenon that I have witnessed countless times, and watched amazedly. All of this before I learned about MBTI, etc. Now, looking back on it, I see his adept Fe at work. I never could do that. On the other hand, if there was someone who wasn't able to mingle with the rest, and who felt awkward, I could single out that person, and talk to them, and help them feel more comfortable, and we frequently would get into long, deep discussions about things. Sometimes others would join in, but my "abilities" lie in dealing with people one-on-one, not groups. And in groups, I tend to gravitate to an individual. I've noticed my wife is similar in this (Ti-dom).

Sorry. I've rambled...


----------



## TheEpicPolymath

Nice


----------



## Ksara

@ferroequinologist

don't worry about the rambling, It was still interesting. It really goes to show that Fi and Fe can sometimes look the same on the outside, or lead to a similar observable action (in this case going to a wedding)


----------



## ferroequinologist

ferroequinologist said:


> I worked hand-in-hand for years with an ISFJ guy. I never ceased to be amazed at his ability in a group to be able to both sense out the atmosphere, but also to directly impact it. Although he is an introvert, one would never guess it watching him in action. H would be everywhere, talking with everybody, encouraging people to mingle, introducing people, etc. I honestly don't know how he did it, but I could watch him, and just be amazed at his ability to "massage" in the most direct manner possible the atmosphere in a meeting. It is a phenomenon that I have witnessed countless times, and watched amazedly. All of this before I learned about MBTI, etc. Now, looking back on it, I see his adept Fe at work. I never could do that.


I know---bad form to reply to one's own post... but I've been thinking. 

I think a large difference between strong Fe and strong Fi is the above. Fe has the aptitude to directly impact the feelings of others--and has a desire, or at least a willingness to do so. Fi, on the other hand, has not real ability nor desire, nor aptitude for doing that. At best, it will maneuver itself so as to minimize others' impact on self. This does not mean that Fi does not impact others, but that it doesn't have any interest in doing so. If it does, it tends to be indirectly via other functions (Se or Ne, or Te). 

Also, my wife's inferior Fe also doesn't like to directly try to affect others' feelings--unless it's been really set off (like our Te). And then, it's kind of a weird blend of Fi sentiments but expressed in a very Fe way. I really don't think I can describe it any better. In any case, I think that inferior Fe can masquerade as Fi, but it's not real Fi, but an inferior Fe afraid of itself. It's kind of like when I am reduced to resorting to Te, I tend to turn it on myself--organizing myself or trying to justify to myself a certain course of action. It it only ever turned on others as a last line of self-defense when overwhelmed by someone else attempting to suffocate me with their extroverted judgment. And I always feel the full guilt of my actions afterwards. But that's not to do with practical differences between Fe and Fi, except how they may look in the inferior (at least from my perspective)


----------



## lawof23

Ksara said:


> do you think this is on the Fe/Ti axis (i'm curious what you think)?


To a certain extent this question seems to be aimed at me, so it seems appropriate to try and answer.

I'm no reliable judge of anything, but personally I thought the reasoning/explanation part was very helpful in helping frame the kind of 'model' you're using to process, analyse, and react to the world. If I had to put something down, I'd suggest that I'm not sure my own Fe-Ti experience seems to take it any further than an internal impression of "who cares what you think '23? Just look at what is the right thing to do in this situation". Obviously my name isn't lawof23, but you get the idea.

The other points you mention, well on reflection they all seemed perfectly reasonable and logical processes. But for me, throwing logic into the mix doesn't necessarily seem to add anything useful. I have to go to it, I'm obliged. It's the right thing to do; it's right to do the right thing to do. It just isn't that _relevant_ whether there are any particular logical reasons to go, or whether or not it seems like "the right thing to do" in any kind of subjective sense.

For what it's worth, to me I thought your post made it sound like you were approaching from more of a Fi-Te angle, but as I say I know nothing about anything (of any consequence) so don't get unduly hung up on how I happen to view things.


----------



## Sultanim

I would go to wedding just to not hurt the other's feelings.


----------



## Ksara

lawof23 said:


> To a certain extent this question seems to be aimed at me, so it seems appropriate to try and answer.
> 
> I'm no reliable judge of anything, but personally I thought the reasoning/explanation part was very helpful in helping frame the kind of 'model' you're using to process, analyse, and react to the world. If I had to put something down, I'd suggest that I'm not sure my own Fe-Ti experience seems to take it any further than an internal impression of "who cares what you think '23? Just look at what is the right thing to do in this situation". Obviously my name isn't lawof23, but you get the idea.
> 
> The other points you mention, well on reflection they all seemed perfectly reasonable and logical processes. But for me, throwing logic into the mix doesn't necessarily seem to add anything useful. I have to go to it, I'm obliged. It's the right thing to do; it's right to do the right thing to do. It just isn't that _relevant_ whether there are any particular logical reasons to go, or whether or not it seems like "the right thing to do" in any kind of subjective sense.
> 
> For what it's worth, to me I thought your post made it sound like you were approaching from more of a Fi-Te angle, but as I say I know nothing about anything (of any consequence) so don't get unduly hung up on how I happen to view things.


Thanks 

You do give an interesting perspective.
My question is, if you don't mind, how do you know what the right thing to do is?


----------



## shyextrovert

I'm also curious about this and im gonna ask about a personal example because I'm self absorbed ;D

Hi there! Ok so I am a huge feeler (well my huge, I'm only 5'2" ).. Therefore I can't quite tell if I'm more of an Fe or Fi user. Part of what confuses me, is I care a huge amount what other people think... To my own demise.. But as far as motive, i believe it's because I don't want to be treated poorly by someone who doesn't like me, rather than "for the good of the group".. For instance, I get embarrassed in front of strangers sometimes but am more able to burst it off as "I'll never see them again", whereas if I get embarrassed in front of people I know, I freak out and think they won't like me anymore. (I'm aware that's unhealthy, lol). But I have a friend who said he cares a lot about what strangers think but trusts that those who know him love him enough to not write him off for saying or doing something dumb.Help?


----------



## shyextrovert

Brush not burst* im on the elliptical and can't quickly figure out how to edit my post. Ha


----------



## The Nameless Composer

Neverontime said:


> Fi doesn't allow judgement to be determined by external values. It will usually stay true to a particular value judgement from one situation to the next, regardless of external circumstances that might influence Fe to adjust.


I think it's impossible for judgement not be determined by external values, since we're all social beings who live in an environment, not in the vacuum of our minds, but maybe those values are pre-determined and more internally set, and less flexible in the situation. I do get what you mean, though, that's a common description of Fi. Fi does have more of a tendency to do that, but I'm not sure it's even possible for someone to NOT to at least somewhat influenced by external values to an extent. Fi users maybe just less than Fe users.


----------



## The Nameless Composer

bearotter said:


> @Michael: the distinction between Fi and Fe is not that different from that between Ti and Te. The Ti attitude of introversion builds conceptual systems which explain things based on theoretical truths that make sense to the user -- the user's attitude is one of making sense of things to himself/herself in an extreme way, and the test of the reasoning is not whether something works in the objective reality, but a certain abstract internal consistency which is sensible to the user.
> 
> Whereas Te is concerned with reasoning about objective reality.
> 
> Similarly, reasoning conducted under the Fe mindset is ultimately concerned with reasoning about the objective, whereas Fi is concerned with producing a system of evaluation which is sensible based on the user's own introversion -- this translates often to values held personal to the user.
> 
> They are ultimately attitudes. I can form a proper conclusion about a physics problem by using Ti-Ne or someone could do it using say, Si-Te. There is one answer in the end. The difference is how we analyze it. Do we pass it through a conceptual system we made, or do we perceive what is conceptually relevant and play with the objective system directly?
> 
> Similarly, an Fi user also will consider external input, through Pe. But the format of their conclusions when they reason under the Fi lens will be deeply introverted.


Good description, but we should be careful with the use of the word 'objective.' I think both Fi and Fe seeks logical consistency, which isn't quite the same as objectivity, and I believe emotions also have some sort of logical structure/framework. 

Would it be accurate to say...if Fi and Fe feel stealing is wrong, Fe might give a reason about how if we allowed stealing society could not function, whereas Fi would say 'but it's just wrong' because I feel so?


----------



## BroNerd

The Nameless Composer said:


> Good description, but we should be careful with the use of the word 'objective.' I think both Fi and Fe seeks logical consistency, which isn't quite the same as objectivity, and I believe emotions also have some sort of logical structure/framework.
> 
> Would it be accurate to say...if Fi and Fe feel stealing is wrong, Fe might give a reason about how if we allowed stealing society could not function, whereas Fi would say 'but it's just wrong' because I feel so?


I don't think that Fe would necessarily need a relationship between "stealing" and "society" for stealing to be considered wrong.
However, I get your point. An Fe user would focus on what they perceive others would feel about stealing and how it would affect others - taking a more objective and detached approach. A Fi user would project how he/she would feel about stealing onto others and make a judgment about stealing being wrong that way.


----------



## BroNerd

I think the best way to describe the difference between Fe and Fi is how their emotions are influenced. 

An Fe user is more likely to be affected by the emotions of those around them. An Fe user will often have difficulty understanding how he/she truly feels about a situation - but has an acute understanding of how others feel about a situation. A Fe user's emotions are easily affected by the emotions of those around him/her. I have seen Fe users go from happy to sad instantly due to negative vibes. A Fe user is also probably more aware about how others feel about him/her than how others make him/her feel.

An Fi user is deeply aware of how he/she feels about a situation. This is something which there isn't as much confusion. An Fi user can also be successful at understanding how others feel..but it usually comes from the Fi user projecting his/her emotions onto the other person and determining how a person is feeling that way. As an Fi user, I also find that I'm very aware about how others make me feel but not necessarily how others feel about me without employing some sort of projection.


----------



## ferroequinologist

BroNerd said:


> I think the best way to describe the difference between Fe and Fi is how their emotions are influenced.
> 
> An Fe user is more likely to be affected by the emotions of those around them. An Fe user will often have difficulty understanding how he/she truly feels about a situation - but has an acute understanding of how others feel about a situation. A Fe user's emotions are easily affected by the emotions of those around him/her. I have seen Fe users go from happy to sad instantly due to negative vibes. A Fe user is also probably more aware about how others feel about him/her than how others make him/her feel.
> 
> An Fi user is deeply aware of how he/she feels about a situation. This is something which there isn't as much confusion. An Fi user can also be successful at understanding how others feel..but it usually comes from the Fi user projecting his/her emotions onto the other person and determining how a person is feeling that way. As an Fi user, I also find that I'm very aware about how others make me feel but not necessarily how others feel about me without employing some sort of projection.


IMO, this is very good... Curious about an Fe perspective on Fe from this.


----------



## TheEpicPolymath

Fe- Crying
Fi- Stubborn beliefs


----------



## Schizoid

Let's say an Fe and Fi user forgot to give up their seats to an old lady in the bus and everybody in the bus ended up angry and started attacking them.

Fe ended up upset and starts thinking to self, "Is their opinion of me really right? Am I really an awful person like what they said?"

Fi would also be upset too and starts thinking to self, "People are ridiculous! Giving up seats in bus should be something that is being done willingly, nobody should be forced to do something."


Fe types are basically more prone to self-doubts than Fi types, especially when their values gets questioned. Fi types have a very firm opinion of their values, unlike Fe types whose values tend to sway very easily when people questioned their values.


----------



## ALongTime

The way I see Fi; you start off with some broad, general beliefs about what things are good or bad, and then your life experiences, and new information, refines those beliefs, adding more and more layers so you can cope with grey areas in life and know what's compatible with those original core values. You end up building this huge, multi-layered, internally consistent system, so anything you encounter in life you can easily judge what's right or wrong, and anything that's new you find out how to fit it in to the system consistently. If you think about things long enough there's a 'morally right' way of doing anything, even crossing the street, and because it's a complex system it's not always what's obvious.

Regarding stubbornness; I think as the system becomes more refined I can change my actions if my actions are no longer consistent with the system. So, new experience 'a' causes me to adopt principle 'b' meaning that I can no longer do 'c' because the way 'b' is incorporated into the wider system means that 'c' is no longer consistent with my ethics and I might decide that maybe I should now do more 'd'. But as these things happen, the core values only get stronger.


----------



## ALongTime

Schizoid said:


> Let's say an Fe and Fi user forgot to give up their seats to an old lady in the bus and everybody in the bus ended up angry and started attacking them.
> 
> Fe ended up upset and starts thinking to self, "Is their opinion of me really right? Am I really an awful person like what they said?"
> 
> Fi would also be upset too and starts thinking to self, "People are ridiculous! Giving up seats in bus should be something that is being done willingly, nobody should be forced to do something."
> 
> 
> Fe types are basically more prone to self-doubts than Fi types, especially when their values gets questioned. Fi types have a very firm opinion of their values, unlike Fe types whose values tend to sway very easily when people questioned their values.


Assuming that "nobody should be forced to do something" is the Fi value of the user, a particular action or inaction could be justified in other ways depending on the individual. But you're right on having a firm opinion, for criticism on ethical grounds I'd be confident that, if nothing else, at least my intentions were good.


----------



## The Nameless Composer

Ksara said:


> Practice example:
> 
> Fi helps someone
> Fe helps someone
> 
> Yup, they can achieve the same practical outcome.
> But how they arrive at it is different.
> 
> One is a good person, so they commit a good deed (that is the value is drawn from within and then act according to their inner value)
> One commits a good deed, and so is a good person (that is they fulfill the social role of being a good person by their actions)
> 
> The first draws their values from within, to be a good person. Then judge their actions as either aligning or misaligning to their inner values or what they consider a good person is. They strive for consistency and to be as close to their values as possible (and so commit a good deed).
> They are also judging (by feeling) the distance between them and the object (say another person) and then act in accordance to close or increase the gap.
> This is Fi
> 
> The second draws their values from the external world by judging their actions (or the actions of others) as fulfilling a social role to define a persons character. This role is externally defined. In this case the act of a good deed suggests the person fits the criteria of being a 'good person'.
> They also judge (by feeling) the distance the object is from it's social role. If it is far away it may then fulfil a different social role.
> This is Fe
> 
> 
> Now a real life example, my mother who uses Fe, and my partner who uses Fi.
> 
> Now my partner values being able to help oneself, and to also be as physically strong and healthy. So unless I am struggling, he expects me to carry my bags. It's good for me to build up my own strength to remain physically fit and healthy.
> 
> My mother sees that because he is my partner he should carry my bags. That is, she sees this action as placing him in the role of a good partner. Any other action is not acceptable because it would define him as not being a good partner.
> 
> 
> Neither way is better nor wrong, and both want what's best for me. It is just two different ways of judging what is right/wrong.


It could also be your mother is more old-fashioned and is about 'tradition for tradition's sake', whereas your partner is a pragmatist and that makes sense to him. I agree, women in many cultures carry heavy load, and if she is capable of carrying things why not? Women have muscles too, it's not like they shouldn't use them at all. Men might be stronger on average, but unless it's too heavy for you to manage why should the man carry it just because it's the man? I always thought certain gender 'rules' just didn't make sense...unless maybe you are suggesting all women are too weak/delicate, or as a way too woo her into bed.


----------



## The Nameless Composer

BroNerd said:


> I think the best way to describe the difference between Fe and Fi is how their emotions are influenced.
> 
> An Fe user is more likely to be affected by the emotions of those around them. An Fe user will often have difficulty understanding how he/she truly feels about a situation - but has an acute understanding of how others feel about a situation. A Fe user's emotions are easily affected by the emotions of those around him/her. I have seen Fe users go from happy to sad instantly due to negative vibes. A Fe user is also probably more aware about how others feel about him/her than how others make him/her feel.
> 
> An Fi user is deeply aware of how he/she feels about a situation. This is something which there isn't as much confusion. An Fi user can also be successful at understanding how others feel..but it usually comes from the Fi user projecting his/her emotions onto the other person and determining how a person is feeling that way. As an Fi user, I also find that I'm very aware about how others make me feel but not necessarily how others feel about me without employing some sort of projection.


Maybe empathy comes easier/faster to an Fe user, but is shallower, and takes a little more time for an Fi user but is deeper? As a generalisation?


----------



## Chesire Tower

owlboy said:


> Listening to Fi doms try to explain Fe is so frustrating sometimes. Your accounts are so biased and generally just amount to ''Fe is fake, shallow, people pleasing, and sheeplike''.
> 
> That's not a practical example of how Fe actually works. That's just your biased opinion.


This!


----------



## Chesire Tower

Schizoid said:


> Let's say an Fe and Fi user forgot to give up their seats to an old lady in the bus and everybody in the bus ended up angry and started attacking them.
> 
> Fe ended up upset and starts thinking to self, "Is their opinion of me really right? Am I really an awful person like what they said?"
> 
> Fi would also be upset too and starts thinking to self, "People are ridiculous! Giving up seats in bus should be something that is being done willingly, nobody should be forced to do something."
> 
> 
> Fe types are basically more prone to self-doubts than Fi types, especially when their values gets questioned. Fi types have a very firm opinion of their values, unlike Fe types whose values tend to sway very easily when people questioned their values.


However, it depends on who is the one questioning them; if it is not anyone whose opinion I value, I would not have that response. But yeah, with someone whose opinion I respect, it would cause me some degree of doubt although my very strong Ti would at least partially counteract it.


----------



## ninjahitsawall

I'll often do something for someone else on the basis that I feel obligated to, and I'd feel guilty if I didn't. So my experiences with helping others tend to feel pretty self-interested. I can also be skeptical about others who want to help me, looking for ulterior motives or some sort of catch, because pure altruism probably doesn't exist. So sometimes I prefer not to have 'emotional support.' I'm sure some of this is also b/c of my type, not just the Fi, though.


----------



## Kyusaku

The biggest and most common flaw is to take Fe or Fi (or any function) and analyze them in a vacuum. You can't talk about Fe without Ti and you can't talk about Fi without Te.



Schizoid said:


> Let's say an Fe and Fi user forgot to give up their seats to an old lady in the bus and everybody in the bus ended up angry and started attacking them.
> 
> Fe ended up upset and starts thinking to self, "Is their opinion of me really right? Am I really an awful person like what they said?"
> 
> Fi would also be upset too and starts thinking to self, "People are ridiculous! Giving up seats in bus should be something that is being done willingly, nobody should be forced to do something."
> 
> 
> Fe types are basically more prone to self-doubts than Fi types, especially when their values gets questioned. Fi types have a very firm opinion of their values, unlike Fe types whose values tend to sway very easily when people questioned their values.


I like your example, and I want to complete it !

So you're on a crowded bus, but got a seat. A regular person comes to you and ask for your seat, trying her best to convince you she needs it, yet that person isn't old, nor does she look sick nor pregnant. The bus starts rolling again and she keeps pestering you, and begins to involve other passengers around, by talking louder and making a ruckus.

If you are an Fi user, you'd think the person seems fine, and probably will be until the next station, that this is legitimately your seat and no is no, end of story. Te will provide additional justification, and even confirmation of the judgment Fi has passed.

Now as an Fe user you're going to realize that person thinks you're in her way. You wonder how bad is the confrontation going to be. Is it worth a seat ? You can already feel the energy pouring from her into you, invading your peace of mind. You main objective becomes to get rid of that person fast, it can be giving your seat or giving her the death stare. Fe assesses the outside situation, while Ti gives you the prospect of how things might evolve and help you choose the best course of action.

The difference between Fi and Fe, is that Fi has a stance on the legitimacy of its action right from the start, and from there tries to persuade others of that legitimacy. While Fe starts with the observation of what the situation at hand is, and from there tries to make the best of it.


----------



## ALongTime

Kyusaku said:


> I like your example, and I want to complete it !
> 
> So you're on a crowded bus, but got a seat. A regular person comes to you and ask for your seat, trying her best to convince you she needs it, yet that person isn't old, nor does she look sick nor pregnant. The bus starts rolling again and she keeps pestering you, and begins to involve other passengers around, by talking louder and making a ruckus.
> 
> If you are an Fi user, you'd think the person seems fine, and probably will be until the next station, that this is legitimately your seat and no is no, end of story. Te will provide additional justification, and even confirmation of the judgment Fi has passed.
> 
> Now as an Fe user you're going to realize that person thinks you're in her way. You wonder how bad is the confrontation going to be. Is it worth a seat ? You can already feel the energy pouring from her into you, invading your peace of mind. You main objective becomes to get rid of that person fast, it can be giving your seat or giving her the death stare. Fe assesses the outside situation, while Ti gives you the prospect of how things might evolve and help you choose the best course of action.
> 
> The difference between Fi and Fe, is that Fi has a stance on the legitimacy of its action right from the start, and from there tries to persuade others of that legitimacy. While Fe starts with the observation of what the situation at hand is, and from there tries to make the best of it.


I see what you're saying but I'm not _completely_ sure in terms of Fi. I think an INFP at least would want to avoid the conflict, but probably for different reasons. That's an interesting point actually, conflict avoidance is in most INFP descriptions but it does sound more Fe on the surface, but I think it comes from a different place to Fe types. 

Normally I probably would think that, well, I can't know whether they need the seat or not and it's only a seat so they can have it, especially if they asked nicely; one of my Fi values is a sort of unconditional kindness. My general philosophy to giving up seats on busses (and yes, I have thought about it a lot over the years!) is I would to anyone who asks nicely, but if they _demanded_ it or I judged them to be a bad person for some reason then I'd be reluctant to give them the seat, no matter how old they are or how much they need it.

What I wouldn't care about is what they think of me, or what other passengers would think of me, if my Fi has judged that they're not getting the seat then I couldn't care less if they all hated me. But usually they can have the seat, I don't see myself as an unreasonable person! Your description of Fe is helpful.

One real-life example once was when an older person got on a train I was on, she didn't actually appear that incapable of standing, but still I wouldn't judge that, and she was there for all of five seconds before shouting aggressively "is no-one going to give up a seat for an older person!!!?" and then went and glared at me (me, specifically, probably because I was the youngest and male). Well, no, I didn't get up! I would have happily and probably spontaneously done it if she was nice about it. Did that contradict my value of unconditional kindness? I would say on one level but not in the scheme of things, maybe if I'd shown her kindness it would have been beneficial to her and help her be a kinder person, but maybe it validated her unkindness, that's certainly something I had to weigh up on the spot, and something I thought about for a long time afterwards. If no one else had given a seat (they did) and she was obviously struggling I might have changed my mind. What would have been your reaction as an Fe user?


----------



## ferroequinologist

ALongTime said:


> Normally I probably would think that, well, I can't know whether they need the seat or not and it's only a seat so they can have it, especially if they asked nicely; one of my Fi values is a sort of unconditional kindness. My general philosophy to giving up seats on busses (and yes, I have thought about it a lot over the years!) is I would to anyone who asks nicely, but if they _demanded_ it or I judged them to be a bad person for some reason then I'd be reluctant to give them the seat, no matter how old they are or how much they need it.
> 
> What I wouldn't care about is what they think of me, or what other passengers would think of me, if my Fi has judged that they're not getting the seat then I couldn't care less if they all hated me. But usually they can have the seat, I don't see myself as an unreasonable person! Your description of Fe is helpful.


What you said here. But I notice one more thing. It seems that typically, Fi looks beneath the action, and attempts to find or judge the motive/value of what is being done or said. Fe seems to me to base and judge solely on the action, so Fe descriptions of this dilemma seem to concentrate more on what is done, while when Fi types talk about it, we ponder what may be the motive, what may be our motive, and can immediately think of exceptions etc. But first and foremost, like you, unconditional kindness is my primary guiding factor. 



> One real-life example once was when an older person got on a train I was on, she didn't actually appear that incapable of standing, but still I wouldn't judge that, and she was there for all of five seconds before shouting aggressively "is no-one going to give up a seat for an older person!!!?" and then went and glared at me (me, specifically, probably because I was the youngest and male). Well, no, I didn't get up! I would have happily and probably spontaneously done it if she was nice about it. Did that contradict my value of unconditional kindness? I would say on one level but not in the scheme of things, maybe if I'd shown her kindness it would have been beneficial to her and help her be a kinder person, but maybe it validated her unkindness, that's certainly something I had to weigh up on the spot, and something I thought about for a long time afterwards. If no one else had given a seat (they did) and she was obviously struggling I might have changed my mind. What would have been your reaction as an Fe user?


And I very much get where you are coming from. If somebody were to act that way to me, I would suddenly hesitate in my preparedness to move for them. Actually, in your situation, I suspect that I might have given that person a stare-down, and let them know I understand what they want, but also let them know that I think they are being rude, and in the end, I would have slowly stood, given them my seat and actually said something like, "despite your rudeness, I am offering you my seat" to hopefully let them know that they didn't need to be rude. I know it's a bit passive-aggressive, but honestly, I don't need that kind of manipulation or aggression, and if somebody rethinks their rudeness because of something I said, then it was worth it.


----------



## Kynx

The Nameless Composer said:


> I think it's impossible for judgement not be determined by external values, since we're all social beings who live in an environment, not in the vacuum of our minds, but maybe those values are pre-determined and more internally set, and less flexible in the situation. I do get what you mean, though, that's a common description of Fi. Fi does have more of a tendency to do that, but I'm not sure it's even possible for someone to NOT to at least somewhat influenced by external values to an extent. Fi users maybe just less than Fe users.


Fi, as a function, is not determined by external values. It might take external values into consideration, it might even correspond with external values, but at the decisive point it's always determined by the subjective standpoint. To Fi, the objective value is never more than another option to be considered.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Neverontime said:


> Fi, as a function, is not determined by external values. It might take external values into consideration, it might even correspond with external values, but at the decisive point it's always determined by the subjective standpoint. To Fi, the objective value is never more than another option to be considered.


And yet we consider our values to be universal, and non-changing... (but yeah, generally applied to self first of all)


----------



## RichardHead

What is:

A willingness to go out of your way to do things which will objectively help/make things better for someone,yet in a case specific way. Simply cause you realize how bad the situation is or may be,even if it's not so very bad per say. Wo imposing what you think is best on them,unless you know you really have to(eg diminished state of consciousness etc) or bc of a negative effect it might have on other individuals.. 

Wo all the values,''to be a good person'' crap.

Simply seeing the situation,feeling for someone(or not but just realizing how things may be for them) and doing the best you can. And to see that as a priority over other things in general.


----------



## BroNerd

The Nameless Composer said:


> Maybe empathy comes easier/faster to an Fe user, but is shallower, and takes a little more time for an Fi user but is deeper? As a generalisation?


I would definitely say that empathy does take more time to develop for Fi users since we kind of consider our own emotions/feelings unique from those of others. I don't like shallowly interpreting what others are feeling.


----------



## Kynx

ferroequinologist said:


> And yet we consider our values to be universal, and non-changing... (but yeah, generally applied to self first of all)


I consider them non-changing because I consistently apply them from one context to another. Fi aims for congruent values across different concepts. It looks for similar 'motifs' within different situations and assigns value accordingly. Fe can accept different values for different situations, even when the general 'motif' is the same.


----------



## Kyusaku

ALongTime said:


> I see what you're saying but I'm not _completely_ sure in terms of Fi. I think an INFP at least would want to avoid the conflict, but probably for different reasons. That's an interesting point actually, conflict avoidance is in most INFP descriptions but it does sound more Fe on the surface, but I think it comes from a different place to Fe types.


Yes, as an Fe my incentive to avoid conflict is how it emotionally affects me, and usually it spoils my whole day. I think INFPs have a harder time explaining their disagreement, maybe because the motivation to change someone's mind isn't there, or maybe because their reasoning isn't always understood the right way, and they are self aware of it ?



ALongTime said:


> Normally I probably would think that, well, I can't know whether they need the seat or not and it's only a seat so they can have it, especially if they asked nicely; one of my Fi values is a sort of unconditional kindness. My general philosophy to giving up seats on busses (and yes, I have thought about it a lot over the years!) is I would to anyone who asks nicely, but if they _demanded_ it or I judged them to be a bad person for some reason then I'd be reluctant to give them the seat, no matter how old they are or how much they need it.


I partly think the same, someone nice enough will get my attention, but I won't give in. Everyone gets to sit or to stand once in a while, it's a matter of luck in part, it is unpleasant for everyone to stand though, forcing others to take your place for no better reason than displeasure is a bit thin. I would even feel insulted in a sense, as if I had to recognize my own welfare matters less than that persons own. I don't like people trying to push me I guess, except when they have valid justifications for it.



ALongTime said:


> What I wouldn't care about is what they think of me, or what other passengers would think of me, if my Fi has judged that they're not getting the seat then I couldn't care less if they all hated me. But usually they can have the seat, I don't see myself as an unreasonable person! Your description of Fe is helpful.
> 
> One real-life example once was when an older person got on a train I was on, she didn't actually appear that incapable of standing, but still I wouldn't judge that, and she was there for all of five seconds before shouting aggressively "is no-one going to give up a seat for an older person!!!?" and then went and glared at me (me, specifically, probably because I was the youngest and male). Well, no, I didn't get up! I would have happily and probably spontaneously done it if she was nice about it. Did that contradict my value of unconditional kindness? I would say on one level but not in the scheme of things, maybe if I'd shown her kindness it would have been beneficial to her and help her be a kinder person, but maybe it validated her unkindness, that's certainly something I had to weigh up on the spot, and something I thought about for a long time afterwards. If no one else had given a seat (they did) and she was obviously struggling I might have changed my mind. What would have been your reaction as an Fe user?


Interesting, that's how Fi ponders then. The long term effects of your actions is what matters to you right ? 

As for me I first gather informations about my situation, who is talking to me and why, does that person have authority, and read her behavior. In that situation I would probably have given her my seat, and for a similar reason that you would have in the first case described. Old and weak people get to sit, even if they are rude. It is a principle, I see a form of necessity to comply with it. In a way I join your conclusion, because what triggers my reaction is the same as you, I want people to respect those principles, and so I have to respect them myself first.


----------



## The Nameless Composer

BroNerd said:


> I would definitely say that empathy does take more time to develop for Fi users since we kind of consider our own emotions/feelings unique from those of others. I don't like shallowly interpreting what others are feeling.


Maybe that's why me and some of my family members seem to have somewhat different ideas about empathy, with each considering the other unempathetic in different ways. For my parents it was more a lack of apparent action that showed a lack of empathy, for me a lack of demonstrated feeling.


----------



## The Nameless Composer

I have no problem with giving up my seat for the disabled, elderly, pregnant, those with children.etc. It just seems like the decent thing to do.


----------



## Kynx

owlboy said:


> Listening to Fi doms try to explain Fe is so frustrating sometimes. Your accounts are so biased and generally just amount to ''*Fe is fake, shallow, people pleasing, and sheeplike* ''.
> 
> That's not a practical example of how Fe actually works. That's just your biased opinion.





owlboy said:


> ''I don't like being told what to do'' is not what you base typology on. That's ridiculous. * I think Fis can be sanctimonious, moralizing and selfish* , but I don't try to pass my own biases off as facts when discussing typological functions, because your personal biases do not count as psychological analysis.
> 
> 
> The thread title is ''practical examples of''. Not ''what is your biased opinion based on a few bad encounters?''


If you look at this from a different angle, it's not frustrating, it's actually enlightening. The most consistent practical examples of Fe vs Fi are right there. 

Both of the perspectives represented by the bolded statements are equally valid. Neither perspective is true. The difference between Fi and Fe _is_ the bias. Each is consistently seeing something which the other is not. 

That's because of different perspectives, each outside of the awareness of the other. 

Which is why Fe and Fi types can never agree on a definition. It's because of their opposing attitudes, that they aren't able to see the same thing.


----------



## ALongTime

Kyusaku said:


> Interesting, that's how Fi ponders then. The long term effects of your actions is what matters to you right ?
> 
> As for me I first gather informations about my situation, who is talking to me and why, does that person have authority, and read her behavior. In that situation I would probably have given her my seat, and for a similar reason that you would have in the first case described. Old and weak people get to sit, even if they are rude. It is a principle, I see a form of necessity to comply with it. In a way I join your conclusion, because what triggers my reaction is the same as you, I want people to respect those principles, and so I have to respect them myself first.


Well that's definitely how I ponder things, yes. Even a trivial decision, like which side of the street to walk on for example, can be made in to an ethical decision if you consider the implications, then the implications of the implications, etc. etc. there will be a "morally right" choice for anything in the end. I can't say I consider every action of my life that deeply, I'd be paralysed, even an Fi-dom has other functions of course, but when I consider a choice that's the kind of thought-process I go through.

I guess how I see Fi is, it starts of with a few very general, broad principles of what is fundamentally good or bad, and then develops through introspective analysis, becoming more and more refined into specifics. Maybe Fe, then, does the reverse? Starting of with a lot of specific, applied principles.


----------



## Kyusaku

ALongTime said:


> Well that's definitely how I ponder things, yes. Even a trivial decision, like which side of the street to walk on for example, can be made in to an ethical decision if you consider the implications, then the implications of the implications, etc. etc. there will be a "morally right" choice for anything in the end. I can't say I consider every action of my life that deeply, I'd be paralysed, even an Fi-dom has other functions of course, but when I consider a choice that's the kind of thought-process I go through.
> 
> I guess how I see Fi is, it starts of with a few very general, broad principles of what is fundamentally good or bad, and then develops through introspective analysis, becoming more and more refined into specifics. Maybe Fe, then, does the reverse? Starting off with a lot of specific, applied principles.


It ties to the whole concept of choice, do you believe it exists ? To me choice is more of an illusion, not because you are "forced" to go a certain path, but because there are no incentives for you to follow any others. Have you ever thought about doing something really stupid, that could potentially destroy your whole life, and felt how powerful that thought was ? Because that's supposed to be freedom, doing whatever you want whenever you want. Yet we rule it out instantly, so it feels like freedom but it's not. To me there always exist the perfect choice, in knowing exactly how and why, and in having the timing right, and it feels great when you manage to do those choices and see how well everything turns out to be. But once you go this way from A to B to C, where does it ultimately leads you and what will become of you ? The more you strive for perfection the more rational you become, like a clock ticking in perfect sync with the universe, and the less human you are, you become like a force of nature with no will of its own.

As Fe, principles concerning feelings are much more visceral. Whenever someone talks about a situation, I always kind of run the whole scene in the background of my head, and try to get what each person felt. I see persons and their feelings as jigsaw puzzles and I try to fit them together, because there are no single pieces, everyone is tied to someone else.


----------



## aendern

These are hands down the easiest two functions to tell apart.

Fe is objective (duh, extraverted) -> bases value judgements off external opinions
Fi is subjective (duh, introverted) -> bases value judgements off internal opinions (i.e. the opinions of the subject)



An Fe user and an Fi user are shown two paintings:
One is a Jackson Pollock and the other is similar but by some nobody.

The Fe preferrer is going to prefer the Jackson Pollock because he/she knows that Pollock is a well-known painter whom a lot of people like. This is Fe forming its value judgement based on objective opinions (opinions that come from external sources--not from the subject).

The Fi preferrer is going to look at both paintings and determine which one he/she likes better. The Fi preferrer is going to ignore everyone else's opinions because he/she doesn't care about them. This is Fi forming its value judgements based on subjective opininions (opinions from the subject himself--not from others).


While Fi is personal to the subject and will of course vary from subject to subject, it will tend to value individual happiness over the happiness of a group.

You can think of Fi as the spoiled child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. 

You can think of Fe as the doormat pushover who struggles to say no to people and always wants to make others happy.

^these are, ya, caricatures, but you will find them to be accurate if you spend a lot of time around people (or really any time at all).

If you engage an Fe preferrer in conversation, you will find that they spend a lot of time talking about other people. Usually they are very complimentary of others and speak positively of others. If you ask an Fe preferrer's opinion of something, you will find they will try to relate that something to someone they know or know of. They don't need to _personally _relate to a topic to see value in discussing it. They will drop names and avoid talking too long about themselves. You will have a really hard time trying to get them to say something negative about someone else. They just won't do it. They make excuses for people and always try to speak positively of others.

When you engage an Fi preferrer in conversation, you will find that they do a great deal of talking about themselves. If you bring up a topic and ask their opinion of it, you will find they will always find a way to relate the topic back to themselves. The Fi preferrer needs to connect with a topic in order to desire discussing it. Something they can't relate to will be sort of stowed away in the back of their mind in the sort of "I'll get to that later" stack. Those things that don't pertain to me are not the most important things to think about right now. Fi is much more carefree when it comes to talking truthfully and honestly about others. If someone is toxic, they won't beat around the bush and make up excuses for them. They'll tell you how it is.

Fe needs others' feedback for value judgements. This is how external judging functions work. Fi finds external feedback distracting--prefers to decide things on their own in a vacuum away from the opinions of others. 

If Fi is going to decide something, they will tend not to tell you about it because they don't want your opinion.

If Fe is going to decide something, they do want your feedback. They live for it.

Again, hands-down the easiest two functions to tell apart. I struggle to see how so many people think of themselves as infx's. It's just unfathomable to me.


----------



## The Wanderering ______

Ksara said:


> Practice example:
> 
> Fi helps someone
> Fe helps someone
> 
> Yup, they can achieve the same practical outcome.
> But how they arrive at it is different.
> 
> One is a good person, so they commit a good deed (that is the value is drawn from within and then act according to their inner value)
> One commits a good deed, and so is a good person (that is they fulfill the social role of being a good person by their actions)
> 
> The first draws their values from within, to be a good person. Then judge their actions as either aligning or misaligning to their inner values or what they consider a good person is. They strive for consistency and to be as close to their values as possible (and so commit a good deed).
> They are also judging (by feeling) the distance between them and the object (say another person) and then act in accordance to close or increase the gap.
> This is Fi
> 
> The second draws their values from the external world by judging their actions (or the actions of others) as fulfilling a social role to define a persons character. This role is externally defined. In this case the act of a good deed suggests the person fits the criteria of being a 'good person'.
> They also judge (by feeling) the distance the object is from it's social role. If it is far away it may then fulfil a different social role.
> This is Fe
> 
> 
> Now a real life example, my mother who uses Fe, and my partner who uses Fi.
> 
> Now my partner values being able to help oneself, and to also be as physically strong and healthy. So unless I am struggling, he expects me to carry my bags. It's good for me to build up my own strength to remain physically fit and healthy.
> 
> My mother sees that because he is my partner he should carry my bags. That is, she sees this action as placing him in the role of a good partner. Any other action is not acceptable because it would define him as not being a good partner.
> 
> 
> Neither way is better nor wrong, and both want what's best for me. It is just two different ways of judging what is right/wrong.


Well Said.


----------



## Ksara

emberfly said:


> These are hands down the easiest two functions to tell apart.
> 
> Fe is objective (duh, extraverted) -> bases value judgements off external opinions
> Fi is subjective (duh, introverted) -> bases value judgements off internal opinions (i.e. the opinions of the subject)
> 
> 
> 
> An Fe user and an Fi user are shown two paintings:
> One is a Jackson Pollock and the other is similar but by some nobody.
> 
> The Fe preferrer is going to prefer the Jackson Pollock because he/she knows that Pollock is a well-known painter whom a lot of people like. This is Fe forming its value judgement based on objective opinions (opinions that come from external sources--not from the subject).
> 
> The Fi preferrer is going to look at both paintings and determine which one he/she likes better. The Fi preferrer is going to ignore everyone else's opinions because he/she doesn't care about them. This is Fi forming its value judgements based on subjective opininions (opinions from the subject himself--not from others).
> 
> 
> While Fi is personal to the subject and will of course vary from subject to subject, it will tend to value individual happiness over the happiness of a group.
> 
> You can think of Fi as the spoiled child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.
> 
> You can think of Fe as the doormat pushover who struggles to say no to people and always wants to make others happy.
> 
> ^these are, ya, caricatures, but you will find them to be accurate if you spend a lot of time around people (or really any time at all).
> 
> If you engage an Fe preferrer in conversation, you will find that they spend a lot of time talking about other people. Usually they are very complimentary of others and speak positively of others. If you ask an Fe preferrer's opinion of something, you will find they will try to relate that something to someone they know or know of. They don't need to _personally _relate to a topic to see value in discussing it. They will drop names and avoid talking too long about themselves. You will have a really hard time trying to get them to say something negative about someone else. They just won't do it. They make excuses for people and always try to speak positively of others.
> 
> When you engage an Fi preferrer in conversation, you will find that they do a great deal of talking about themselves. If you bring up a topic and ask their opinion of it, you will find they will always find a way to relate the topic back to themselves. The Fi preferrer needs to connect with a topic in order to desire discussing it. Something they can't relate to will be sort of stowed away in the back of their mind in the sort of "I'll get to that later" stack. Those things that don't pertain to me are not the most important things to think about right now. Fi is much more carefree when it comes to talking truthfully and honestly about others. If someone is toxic, they won't beat around the bush and make up excuses for them. They'll tell you how it is.
> 
> Fe needs others' feedback for value judgements. This is how external judging functions work. Fi finds external feedback distracting--prefers to decide things on their own in a vacuum away from the opinions of others.
> 
> If Fi is going to decide something, they will tend not to tell you about it because they don't want your opinion.
> 
> If Fe is going to decide something, they do want your feedback. They live for it.
> 
> Again, hands-down the easiest two functions to tell apart. I struggle to see how so many people think of themselves as infx's. It's just unfathomable to me.


This is a good explanation


----------



## Deadly Decorum

Neverontime said:


> Fi doesn't allow judgement to be determined by external values. It will usually stay true to a particular value judgement from one situation to the next, regardless of external circumstances that might influence Fe to adjust.


Biggest indicator.

I thought I was an INFP for the longest time, but nah, I use Fe. I would have a cause or belief that no one else would share, and I felt alienated as I got tormented or called "stupid", so I shoved my values away on the inside so no one would judge them, or even completely abandoned them. I created an environmentalist club in 4th grade and wanted everyone to share my values with me, but only four people joined, and so I left. I wanted to be seen as cool and be accepted by my peers, and quit doing things I liked because I felt alienated when people made fun of me for them. I eventually quit being an environmentalist and even littered to look "cool", when a few years before I wanted to organize an event for earth day (everyone thought picking up trash on the street was stupid so I just picked the trash independently and took care no one would see, lol).

Fi wouldn't give a shit about any of that.

If your values change through external evidence, you're an Fi-Te user.

If your values change through others' perceptions of them, you're an Fe-Ti user. I constantly use other people's advice and what they think to make a decision. Fi doesn't need that.


----------



## RichardHead

Can someone answer my post/question here previously posed?
@emberfly

I suppose I am totally Fi. But I think I am also totally Ti. I guess I am very all round?

But eg what about all these INFPs? They just do as they're told. Their values sound all but subjective or they wouldn't be as common/ or having as much in common w other INFPs. And neither seem to have originated from within themselves but are probably mostly based on outside sources and criteria of +/- and/or certain personal experiences(or lack thereof). 

It's also almost always prompted or justified by some shitty rationale that doesn't hold true in reality and neither strives to so. The backup logical justifications of their ''Fi'' are all but ''Te''.

Eg INFP: How would you feel if someone else would do that to you? 

Me:

Not amused but.. I am me- I am not someone else. I deserve better than them in the first place. I do more and better with what I have. Yolo. I don't particularity like other ppl that much but for sure like to have the things I enjoy. And exactly because there are so many ppl who would(screw me over),I need to look after myself. And it's not like they're gonna die or whatever..

So what the anatomy of one's inferior Fi attitude coloring their judgments? How did it come about? Do these ppl really have a clue? Maybe they just wanna be accepted and treated accordingly so this is the way they go about it? Maybe they're just not that skilled at life and prefer to avoid potential ''trouble'' and are even threatened at the notion of meeting the kind of attitude in someone else who does not.


----------



## aendern

RichardHead said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone answer my post/question here previously posed?
> @emberfly
> 
> I suppose I am totally Fi. But I think I am also totally Ti. I guess I am very all round?
> 
> But eg what about all these INFPs? They just do as they're told. Their values sound all but subjective or they wouldn't be as common/ or having as much in common w other INFPs. And neither seem to have originated from within themselves but are probably mostly based on outside sources and criteria of +/- and/or certain personal experiences(or lack thereof).
> 
> It's also almost always prompted or justified by some shitty rationale that doesn't hold true in reality and neither strives to so. The backup logical justifications of their ''Fi'' are all but ''Te''.
> 
> Eg INFP: How would you feel if someone else would do that to you?
> 
> Me:
> 
> Not amused but.. I am me- I am not someone else. I deserve better than them in the first place. I do more and better with what I have. Yolo. I don't particularity like other ppl that much but for sure like to have the things I enjoy. And exactly because there are so many ppl who would(screw me over),I need to look after myself. And it's not like they're gonna die or whatever..
> 
> So what the anatomy of one's inferior Fi attitude coloring their judgments? How did it come about? Do these ppl really have a clue? Maybe they just wanna be accepted and treated accordingly so this is the way they go about it? Maybe they're just not that skilled at life and prefer to avoid potential ''trouble'' and are even threatened at the notion of meeting the kind of attitude in someone else who does not.


(What is your question?)


----------



## ElliCat

RichardHead said:


> But eg what about all these INFPs? They just do as they're told.


In all honesty, most of the time I don't give a shit. Someone wants me to do something, and I don't feel terrible about it, so why wouldn't I do it? I value kindness, so I actually like to help people out. And if it gets them off my back, even better.

But when I care, I REALLY care. You ask me to do something I think is a bad idea, no fucking way will I do it. Before I got into the functions I just thought of it as having integrity (but now I know it's a bit more complicated than that). People don't see that side of me all that much, and probably only my family and my boyfriend really know how stubborn I can be in these situations. They see me as anything but a pushover; totally the opposite of how everyone else probably thinks I am.



> Their values sound all but subjective or they wouldn't be as common/ or having as much in common w other INFPs. And neither seem to have originated from within themselves but are probably mostly based on outside sources and criteria of +/- and/or certain personal experiences(or lack thereof).


I guess I'm a mixture of both. Ultimately I just "know" if something is right or wrong, and I use external ideas or experiences to try to explore those feelings and really understand them. Things are rarely black and white, so getting to know all the shades of grey is important to me. And because it's all subjective, I think there's more of a focus on the self, and staying true to one's own values. Sure I'd like others to at least think about adopting some of them, or at least staying true to their own beliefs (makes them more trustworthy, in my eyes), but seeing others go against them is nothing compared to the terrible feeling I get when I violate my own core values. This is because Fi working in tandem with Si creates a really vivid inner world, which often feels more real to me than the outside world.

I guess those with a higher social variant in Enneagram, or with a really strong vision/crusader steak, might be more likely to get out there and try to change things. But I'm really quite self-centred in that way. I just like to keep my own little world in order. Anything else is a bonus.



> It's also almost always prompted or justified by some shitty rationale that doesn't hold true in reality and neither strives to so. The backup logical justifications of their ''Fi'' are all but ''Te''.
> 
> Eg INFP: How would you feel if someone else would do that to you?
> 
> Me:
> 
> Not amused but.. I am me- I am not someone else. I deserve better than them in the first place. I do more and better with what I have. Yolo. I don't particularity like other ppl that much but for sure like to have the things I enjoy. And exactly because there are so many ppl who would(screw me over),I need to look after myself. And it's not like they're gonna die or whatever..


Eh, I could argue that if more people were considerate of others, there wouldn't be as much of a need to look out for people willing to screw you over. But whatevs.

I would agree that younger and/or less developed INFP's have more of a tendency to take their own internal experience as the yardstick by which to measure all human beings. But that's why it's so important for us to get out and meet people and really live life (which isn't easy, especially if you've often been told there's something wrong with you growing up, or if you suffer from mental illness, both of which can really make you feel socially crippled). The more you interact with others and use your external functions (in this case Ne and Te) to really connect the dots and understand what makes different people tick, the more you can incorporate that into your inner world. So I don't just ask myself, "how would you feel if someone did that to you?" and stop there. I take everything I know about that individual in question and ask, "given all that I know about them, how do you think they would feel if I did this to them?"

Which isn't a guarantee that I'll get it right. But it's a heck of a lot more likely than if I just go by my own feelings.


----------



## Kebachi

ferroequinologist said:


> If you called it our personal experience, you might get a few "amens" there.
> 
> *But of course we're biased--but if you had to live pretty much daily with Fe (the function as expressed in people, not Fe types, per se) by people constantly telling you how to behave and feel but not having any better reason than that's because what they do, or because it's what everybody does, or because you are "letting everybody else down," or "upsetting them", then you'd be biased too. *
> 
> But I fail to see how Mikan's post is is worthy of your ire. She gave a very personal, and rather detailed example. If you don't like the tenor, realize that that is just another practical example of the differences between Fi and Fe.


I had the same experience through my grandparents, who were heavy Te - Fi users (Grandpa ISTJ, Grandma ESFP). I was constantly told to hold in my feelings and that talking about emotional issues was a no-no. I was yelled at when I would cry or be expressive, even grounded for expressing emotions once, no lie. My grandpa would tear up my bed over and over again because he was training me to make it correctly. He would stand over me as I washed dishes and nitpick everything that I did, which of course would cause me to mess up all the more. The whole while I was not allowed to be expressive or I would be punished.

How is THAT not annoying? I've had many Te/Fi bosses we were quite the same. Domineering types of all walks of life can be aggravating. I had a hard time with Te and Fi as a result of my experiences, but I know that being biased is only going to cause further disconnects and issues. I think it's better to look at each person you meet as a blank slate, they shouldn't be held accountable for other people's behaviors. 

Also, Ire? He expressed no ire, he was just using Ti to point out inconsistencies in some of the posts made here.



owlboy said:


> ........... I'm an *ENTP*. Do you think I like being told what to do? lmao.
> 
> ''I don't like being told what to do'' is not what you base typology on. That's ridiculous. I think Fis can be sanctimonious, moralizing and selfish, but I don't try to pass my own biases off as facts when discussing typological functions, because your personal biases do not count as psychological analysis.
> 
> And where did I respond directly to Mikan? Did I quote Mikan in my post? Don't think so.
> 
> The thread title is ''practical examples of''. Not ''what is your biased opinion based on a few bad encounters?''


So secksy Ti. THIS should've received so many thanks and it blows my mind that it pretty much went unnoticed.


----------



## lumostartarus

When your best friend suddenly acts uncomfortable around you
Fi: "did I do/say something wrong?" "does she hate me?" "did someone talk shit about me to her?" "what's wrong with me?"
Fe: "is she okay?" "did something happen to her?" "did someone mess with her?" "what's wrong with her?"


----------

