# How does Fi cultivate their values?



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

OK, try this if you will: *Fi *versus *inferior Fe dominated by Ti*.
Where does the difference lie? Or rather, how does Ti affect/transform/depend on Fe and vice versa? As we're all aware, there are plenty of people out there who find themselves stuck at INxP.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Fi does not just latch onto values. That would be like saying that the T functions just latch onto technical reasoning. No function does this. These functions would actually make the decisions whether or not to. Emotions determine attraction to values, but they don't rationalize whether or not you actually do or do not value something. Everyone has values, but the F functions are the ones that rationalize why they should invest themselves in certain values and how to promote them/act of them/feel about them/define them in either a self-congruent way with their own personal feelings (Fi) or define them so that they can be established with relevance to outer world goals and intended to reach some objective consensus with others (Fe).


I would like to hear/read your response to my second post in this thread, post #3. The general consensus from this thread seems to be Fi's values come from the external world, if that is the case how does Fi differ from Fe if it's getting it's values from the same place and from the same raw materials? Furthermore why would introverts have Fe if they're main focus is internalizing their inner world? How can extroverts have Fi if their main focus is to impact the outer world through actions. How are Fe and Fi different if they create their values in the same ways?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I'll throw the basics out there, again:
Fi is subjective (internalized) valuation. Its process is valuing based upon what is relevant to the individual.
Fe is objective (externalized) valuation. Its process is valuing based upon what is relevant to the community.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I would like to hear/read your response to my second post in this thread, post #3. The general consensus from this thread seems to be Fi's values come from the external world, if that is the case how does Fi differ from Fe if it's getting it's values from the same place and from the same raw materials? Furthermore why would introverts have Fe if they're main focus is internalizing their inner world? How can extroverts have Fi if their main focus is to impact the outer world through actions. How are Fe and Fi different if they create their values in the same ways?


Extraverted judging functions seek to evaluate based on the present context. Introverted judging functions seek to refer to established internalized principles for evaluation. While Fe & Te may refer to memories, possibilities, or projections for reference, they still make their decisions based on comparisons in context. Fi & Ti look inward to principles, generalizations, ideals not as a reference but as the means of measurement. How they reach judgments is quite different. I've posed the difference before as: "Is the ruler in my hand or in my mind?"

So, where do the established internalized principles come from? Well, we know that Fi & Ti attach new principles on top of what they already have established, like the bricklaying analogy provided earlier in this thread. New bricks are laid when a new presented idea (either from the external or from one's own mind) meshes with the previously accepted principles. It should be noted that principles aren't unconditionally accepted once-and-for-all. They can be rejected at a later time if they come into conflict with other accepted principles.

But here's the big question: Where did the foundation or first bricks come from? Judging from Carl Jung's interest in the archetypes, he would almost certainly say that at least some of the first bricks come from the collective unconscious. Some probably come from instinct. Another likely source is the nature of our attachment to our mothers. Developmental Psychology may have additional answers to this question.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Bumblyjack said:


> But here's the big question: *Where did the foundation or first bricks come from? Judging from Carl Jung's interest in the archetypes, he would almost certainly say that at least some of the first bricks come from the collective unconscious. Some probably come from instinct. Another likely source is the nature of our attachment to our mothers. *Developmental Psychology may have additional answers to this question.


Ok, now I am starting to understand. Now we are getting somewhere. This was what I was looking for. So are we saying Fi (perhaps Ti as well) individuals have this (or more of this)? While those who use predominantly Te/Fe don't? Are we saying that Fi types have this internal archetypal image created from the very beginning within them from birth and it's instinct to survive is based on the Fi function. Rather then the objective external standard of from others known as Te or Fe? 

So in essence we are saying Fi is already created on it's own even before the being in question can even begin to process external information? The external world just feeds it more to give it more work to branch out and spring from, but the seeds themselves were already there? It just uses the external world to nourish it, to build itself up even more? 

That makes sense to me. I can see that beginning to take shape.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

Arrow said:


> So in essence we are saying Fi is already created on it's own even before the being in question can even begin to process external information? The external world just feeds it more to give it more work to branch out and spring from, but the seeds themselves were already there? It just uses the external world to nourish it, to build itself up even more?
> 
> That makes sense to me. I can see that beginning to take shape.


Well, Fi is the mental process/cognitive function/thinking style. It isn't the values themselves. In the brick laying analogy, values are the bricks while introverted feeling is the bricklayer and guy who references the bricks when making judgments (though I prefer a librarian & books analogy). I'm saying that there is likely some kind of foundation in place during early child development and that Fi builds on that.


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Ok, now I am starting to understand. Now we are getting somewhere. This was what I was looking for. So are we saying Fi (perhaps Ti as well) individuals have this (or more of this)? While those who use predominantly Te/Fe don't? Are we saying that Fi types have this internal archetypal image created from the very beginning within them from birth and it's instinct to survive is based on the Fi function. Rather then the objective external standard of from others known as Te or Fe?


I really want to give you an answer that is correct but also short and not confusing.

People of different types incorporate each function with a different complex in the psyche (i.e. there's one for the dominant function, auxiliary, etc. all the way to the eighth function). Each complex has understandings associated with it of the role this function "should" or is expected to play and how the individual views that function's use and display in themselves and in others.

What I'm trying to say is that everyone of all types has all 8 functions. The differentiation into the 16 types is simply due to the roles the person's psyche assigns to each function.

So, where am I going with this? My point is that this Fi development stuff happens in everyone. Fi simply is treated differently from type to type. Some types embrace it as their dominant function and central to their worldview (INFP, ISFP). Some relegate it to a conscious supporting role (ENFP, ESFP, ISTJ, INTJ). Others have it as a semi-conscious balancing complement to their dominant function (ESTJ, ENTJ). The other eight types have it mostly suppressed in the unconscious.

If you're interested in learning more about how the 16 types incorporate the functions into their psyche, I recommend reading the article @Eric B wrote on the subject: "Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type".


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I would like to hear/read your response to my second post in this thread, post #3. The general consensus from this thread seems to be Fi's values come from the external world, if that is the case how does Fi differ from Fe if it's getting it's values from the same place and from the same raw materials? Furthermore why would introverts have Fe if they're main focus is internalizing their inner world? How can extroverts have Fi if their main focus is to impact the outer world through actions. How are Fe and Fi different if they create their values in the same ways?


It's the processes that differ, not the values, since after all, we all inhabit the same planet and are the same species. Secondly, why are you equating "internalizing their inner world" with Fi? All of the introverted functions do this, not just Fi. Fi is about evaluation simply, period. And why are you equating "impacting the outer world" with Fi? I mean, all introverts and extroverts have an equal number of introverted and extraverted functions. Um, there's a lot of info on how Fe and Fi are different - they don't create "evaluation" methods in the same ways, that's just the point. I think someone like @_LiquidLight_ might be able to succinctly explain this to you.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It's the processes that differ, not the values, since after all, we all inhabit the same planet and are the same species. Secondly, why are you equating "internalizing their inner world" with Fi? All of the introverted functions do this, not just Fi. Fi is about evaluation simply, period. And why are you equating "impacting the outer world" with Fi? I mean, all introverts and extroverts have an equal number of introverted and extraverted functions. Um, there's a lot of info on how Fe and Fi are different - they don't create "evaluation" methods in the same ways, that's just the point. I think someone like @_LiquidLight_ might be able to succinctly explain this to you.


LiquidLight couldn't explain it any better than you just did. He as explained it at least 100 times, clearly. I'm at the point that people will either get it, or don't, because there isn't words left in the human dictionary to get across how these two functions differ.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Interjecting here: I just wanted to say, I kinda envy Fi users and their ability to have very distinct internal values and ideas. I remember my whole life I would hear people debate on a point, and if someone gave a really sound logical point, I would think "wow that's a good point. I agree!" but when someone gave a really good rebuttal I'd be like "wow that's a good point too. I agree!" so I would always be a tiny indecisive when it came to values growing up. It's like, I always wanted to agree with everyone, because I could understand how a person could feel a certain way; I always admired people who would take a stand and say: "This is my belief, and I'm not swaying!" There are very few things that I'm like that on, because with most things there's a nagging voice in the back of my head thinking: "But what if I'm wrong? What if there's a better way to go about things?" 

Yeah, enough derailing, lol.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

My values come from the outside world. I agree. I don't believe that one just comes up with a set of values from nothing, or it would be unrealistic and unreliable. If you are already in your 20s that's impossible because life forces you change and adjust and refine your own value system in order to, first, survive, then thrive. And it is by the process of refining can one come up with something unique. If you strictly follow the society's impersonal value for 10 years you can survive but it will not be unique and personal.

So basically my value system is the result of different things form life-- experience, the values of people around me, philosophy, etc. I take things in, consciously or unconsciously, scrutinize, analyze, judge, compare and contrast them, come up with some conclusions and make them my own, little by little I come up my own theory. They are not random things, but are practical and useful for my life.

I rely on my belief to guide my action, but nonetheless I keep my mind open, if there is some new things or theories that I find personally meaningful and useful I will adopt them. Also in conversation I don't impose my own value on others nor do I immediately reject others' perspectives that are different from mine. I give thought on them before making a judgment.

Someone says that Fe constantly changes their belief in conformity to society. I know I'm not Fe when I read this because I don't change my own value for the sake of becoming the same as the society. I change only if I found it absolutely important or personally meaningful. It would also be tiring and disorienting to change all the time. If you think big, you will find that it is not beneficial for the development of the society and the individuals if everyone act and think in the same way. We need different opinions and different kind of people.

I guess the "Fi way" is the natural and typical way for people to cultivate themselves, right? I really can't imagine another way to cultivate yourself. Fe doesn't sound concrete.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Fi does not just latch onto values. That would be like saying that the T functions just latch onto technical reasoning. No function does this. These functions would actually make the decisions whether or not to. Emotions determine attraction to values, but they don't rationalize whether or not you actually do or do not value something. Everyone has values, *but the F functions are the ones that rationalize why they should invest themselves in certain values and how to promote them/act of them/feel about them/define them in either a self-congruent way with their own personal feelings (Fi) or define them so that they can be established with relevance to outer world goals and intended to reach some objective consensus with others (Fe).*


So the bolded is the most helpful thing I've read so far on this entire thread. Lately I've been questioning (again, I know, I ought to stop) my type. Just because. >.> And I really started looking into Fi versus Fe. Which confused me a bit. This cleared it up. I suppose the hardest part would be to see how you can see such a thing within yourself or other people. Of course, that always seems to be the challenging part. XD


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

One thing I would add is that my Fi grows stronger as I grow older. Either I was not a Fi and then became one, or I was Fi and then it grew stronger. I've lived in three different cultures up until now, and because of this I realize that I need a set of values that best fit myself instead of several that are impersonal, since any social rule and values are less useful or even useless outside their own societies. None of them can I fully rely on to solve all of my problems and the questions and ideas generated by the conflicts between different cultures I experiences. It is by comparing different value systems can I create my own that is able to answer all these questions and have the potential to best serve myself now and in the future.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

@Arrow

Fi is a processing/rationalizing function, not a storehouse. The so-called storehouses are either Ni or Si. Without 'food for thought' via extraverted functions, there is nothing for Fi to process. For Fi to determine whether something is valid or invalid, it needs to check with an external standard, thus it works in tandem with Te. (If we switch the order around and put Te in front, the concept is still the same.)

Regardless what our functions are, we need two forms of reference - the self (introverted) and the environment (extraverted). Take the self out and it becomes "mindless"; likewise, take the environment out and it becomes "psychosis". (Not literally, but as an analogy.)

I might just be reiterating whatever's already been said, though, FWIW.

It's my opinion that for Fe to make sense, Ti must be understood. Otherwise, it's back to the same old "Fi is deeper than Fe" thing, when in truth, the so called depth is not evaluated by the same yardstick.


As to the original question of how Fi cultivates values.

For me, I derive my values from the impact of actions, the outcomes, whether they make any sense over the long run, how they impact me and what I feel about them. I find it hard to follow external standards of values because I don't handle contradictions in values very well, especially of my own.



Master Mind said:


> Certain experiences I've had in my life aroused certain feelings in me ("This is wrong"), and it was those experiences that showed me what I value. I would analyze how I felt about certain situations and later I would attempt to crystalize my own personal world view and code of ethics, also reading any sources who expressed what I had felt (As Michel de Montaigne said, "When I quote others I do so in order to express my own ideas more clearly"), but it originated in myself, as there are things which I value that very much goes against what is considered the "norm." And I definitely know it isn't Fe.


This very much describes the way it works for me too.

I tend to monitor my reactions towards "situations" to reflect on my values, and I have a tendency to gravitate towards ideas that support my worldviews. (Admittedly, I'm not certain, but this looks like Te to me, searching for something in the objective realm.)


----------

