# When will we put to rest the "introverted feeling types are selfish" nonsense?



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Since you weren't quoting dulcinea, instead, quoting me, it's not my responsibility to 'know' that you've leapt out of the framework of the thread. I can't mind read. Luckily, I've read Jung so once you quoted your perspective, this provided context to me.


dulcinea didn't provide a particular framework in the OP, and even Jung mentions that it's wrong to call FI selfish so there's no reason to even separate the frameworks for this



> But it does.


you provide no reasoning so what do you expect from this discussion? "no"? 

The idea of controllingness for the "Fe" types comes from MBTI's FJs, not Jung's FE. But the MBTI doesn't test for functions, and their function stacks are prescribed after you get your 4 letter type and coupled with the mix of all types in E-I there's no consistent definition of them. Linda Berens kinda separates the two as she uses her own framework of 8 functions so each one has its purpose. On that note, this is the 3rd framework mentioned in this thread so complaining about me doing it is even more moot lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

dulcinea said:


> It pops up every now and then, and is irritating when it does.
> Introverted feeling types are not necessarily selfish.
> Some all.
> The only thing all introverted feeling types have in common is a tendency towards subjectiveness in feeling, so for an extraverted feeler to say introverted feelers are selfish is sort of implying
> ...


I take people one at a time. I don't assume anything. I've never noticed this about Fi users.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> dulcinea didn't provide a particular framework in the OP, and even Jung mentions that it's wrong to call FI selfish so there's no reason to even separate the frameworks for this


Because you leapt to attitudes and grip, relative to attitudes. You're talking about the totality of the individual and how the unconscious might behave. Analogous, a thread about which seeds grow better under specific conditions and you leap in and start talking about the conditions that the fruit requires.



> you provide no reasoning so what do you expect from this discussion? "no"?


Didn't think it was necessary since the text was in your face but if you need me to lead you there, I've pulled out the sentences that pertain to it. I don't understand why you can't understand this.



Berens said:


> *The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure.
> 
> The "social graces," such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling.*
> 
> Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh,* and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling*.





Red Panda said:


> The idea of controllingness for the "Fe" types comes from MBTI's FJs, not Jung's FE. But the MBTI doesn't test for functions, and their function stacks are prescribed after you get your 4 letter type and coupled with the mix of all types in E-I there's no consistent definition of them. Linda Berens kinda separates the two as she uses her own framework of 8 functions so each one has its purpose. On that note, this is the 3rd framework mentioned in this thread so complaining about me doing it is even more moot lol.





Jung does describe Fe losing its shit on its environment said:


> But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. *Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. *They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually _is_ different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Because you leapt to attitudes and grip, relative to attitudes. You're talking about the totality of the individual and how the unconscious might behave. Analogous, a thread about which seeds grow better under specific conditions and you leap in and start talking about the conditions that the fruit requires.


the attitude is always, primarily about the totality of the individual, if we could all do everything to equal degrees this thread wouldn't need to exist



> Didn't think it was necessary since the text was in your face but if you need me to lead you there, I've pulled out the sentences that pertain to it. I don't understand why you can't understand this.


The FE responding to its environment and expected behaviors is not the one doing the controlling, especially since real FEs will adjust along with it, until they reach their limits of course, which then kinda becomes a matter of switching attitudes. It doesn't come from a deeply rooted need to win against the environment and thus impose your will on it. Though FE might try to keep the peace, it's primarily because they think it's expected of them until it becomes clearer it's not. So they either accept it or if it's way too against their values they might have their introversion triggered. Jung seems to describe what happens when the FE is "overacting" their feeling, it can certainly be weird and unbelievable and annoy people.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

I think this is part of the key differences between introversion and extraversion.

For one thing extraversion is more likely to lead someone to think that there is an external force or outline for reality. Introversion is more likely to lead to the internalisation of information as a format for reality.

A person of either bent is not excluded from the other, though. It's more of a tendency. And I think it extends to the functions as well. For example, strong Te users will likely find it difficult to divorce their understanding of what works from their ideas about efficiency, after all, if you can do it better and more efficiently *why wouldn't you?!*

Strong Fe, as I see it, seems to create an all-encompassing consideration for people as an abstract. And this is not abstract as in intuitive, but in the sense that we make maps to represent territory, knowing that the land is not literally what the map shows, but that it is better for our purposes. In the context of people this is likely to seek a broad and unifying idea of what people are and how there are commonalities between us as a broad spectrum. This is used in various ways, but largely for the idea of shared habits and behaviours which allow us to group together in an illogical but rational fashion, as our bizarre species dictates.

Of course neither of these considerations are either shallow or filled with depth, as that would depend upon the person, their experiences and complementary functions. But I think there are broad patterns that can be ascribed to either.

Another pattern might be the subordination of the individual to broad and overall concepts. Like for example, how Fe types complain about their obligations to others taking up their time. Not realising that they have a choice in the matter, because, to them, not fulfilling a social obligation is abhorrent and unthinkable. The sad part is that too strong a leaning towards Fe doesn't just result in losing yourself in the group, it also involves missing the point about how relationships with others are more personally meaningful based on how you interact with one another, not just how many tasks you can do on the assumption the other parties needs/wants them.

I remember a work colleague complaining to me about a situation where she resented that her dying aunt seemed to enjoy her sister's company more than hers. But when I probed her she explained that when she went to see her aunt, all she did was tasks she thought needed doing, laundry, cleaning, restocking things, and it turned out she didn't actually stop to talk and spend time with her, instead she would exchange superficial pleasantries, but not actually talk to her aunt as a person. Her sister, by comparison, would sit with the aunt and talk about her life, look at old photos and generally reminisce, in a way that was meaningful for the aunt. Yes her sister didn't necessarily do all the household chores, but...what was really more important at that moment in time? Time spent on tasks and obligation, or time spent with someone who may not be around much longer?

That habitual Fe guilt was getting in the way of seeing something more meaningful.

As always the answer lies in the areas we are most blind and unconscious to.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> The FE responding to its environment and expected behaviors is not the one doing the controlling, especially since real FEs will adjust along with it, until they reach their limits of course, which then kinda becomes a matter of switching attitudes. It doesn't come from a deeply rooted need to win against the environment and thus impose your will on it. Though FE might try to keep the peace, it's primarily because they think it's expected of them until it becomes clearer it's not. So they either accept it or if it's way too against their values they might have their introversion triggered. Jung seems to describe what happens when the FE is "overacting" their feeling, it can certainly be weird and unbelievable and annoy people.


Relative to imposing their will onto others, an EFJ will impose social rules onto others. They won't always bend.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Relative to imposing their will onto others, an EFJ will impose social rules onto others. They won't always bend.


If you're talking about MBTI, an EFJ is not always a FE type, in fact many of their behaviors described in the MBTI are introverted by Jung's standard, such as their need to be in control and resistance to changing their minds/feelings/plans etc (not always as it can be the result of being a Rational too - depends on the person). It's an inherent problem in the way MBTI defines their premises and their alternation of attitude. If their response to a changing environment is to try and bring it back to their own standards, then they're most likely an introvert, especially if we're talking habitually.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> If you're talking about MBTI, an EFJ is not always a FE type, in fact many of their behaviors described in the MBTI are introverted by Jung's standard, such as their need to be in control and resistance to changing their minds/feelings/plans etc (not always as it can be the result of being a Rational too - depends on the person). It's an inherent problem in the way MBTI defines their premises and their alternation of attitude. If their response to a changing environment is to try and bring it back to their own standards, then they're most likely an introvert, especially if we're talking habitually.


Okay, at this point, you're just making shit up. I'm out.


----------



## aurora-rosa (Apr 11, 2021)

Jung put all introverts as selfish, regardless of cognitive function, and he said that it is common for extroverts to find introverts egocentric


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

aurora-rosa said:


> Jung put all introverts as selfish, regardless of cognitive function, and he said that it is common for extroverts to find introverts egocentric


Common complaint does not mean it is true.
ITs think no other types THINK. It is the same thing. Obviously everyone thinks, but to what extent. Everyone else is just not up to their standard.


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

I think many Te users think that Ti users are selfish as well. My mom is most likely ESTJ, and she always tells me (xNTP) that I'm selfish. She thinks that if I'm capable of doing more, then I must do more. It's not like I'm irresponsible. If I'm responsible for something, I would do it at my own pace, in my own way. But, I'm not going to volunteer to do more just because I have the time. I wouldn't even do it for pay because I care about my own sanity. My mom works really hard, and then later complains how she's the only one who's working hard. It's not like she's being forced to work hard. I care more about working smart-- put in 20% of the effort and get 80% of the gain. I'm not going to do the last 80% to get 20%. I think it annoys her sometimes how I do most things effortlessly. If there's too much effort on what you're doing, then you're probably not ready yet.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

aurora-rosa said:


> Jung put all introverts as selfish, regardless of cognitive function, and he said that it is common for extroverts to find introverts egocentric


I don't recall this but might have missed it and are open to being wrong. Would you mind citing where Jung stated this?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

aurora-rosa said:


> Jung put all introverts as selfish, regardless of cognitive function, and he said that it is common for extroverts to find introverts egocentric


I think he did exactly the opposite.



> In spite of these peculiarities the introvert is by no means a social loss. His retreat into himself is not a final renunciation of the world, but a search for quietude, where alone it is possible for him to make his contribution to the life of the community.
> This type of person is the victim of numerous misunderstandings—not unjustly, for he actually invites them. Nor can he be acquitted of the charge of taking a secret delight in mystification, and that being misunderstood gives him a certain satisfaction, since it reaffirms his pessimistic outlook. That being so, it is easy to see why he is accused of being cold, proud, obstinate, selfish, conceited, cranky, and what not, and why he is constantly admonished that devotion to the goals of society, clubbableness, imperturbable urbanity, and selfless trust in the powersthat-be are true virtues and the marks of a sound and vigorous life.


Introversion just outlines the sort of conditions under which one may effectively function and contribute. Values may be subjective, but they don't necessarily have to be concerned exclusively with the self. it is supposed to be hard for Fi types to become selfish due to the compensatory effect of Te, which tells them there is always something bigger than them.



> So long as the ego feels subordinate to the unconscious subject, and feeling is aware of something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. Although the unconscious thinking is archaic, its reductive tendencies help to compensate the occasional fits of trying to exalt the ego into the subject. If this should nevertheless happen as a result of complete suppression of the counterbalancing subliminal processes, the unconscious thinking goes over into open opposition and gets projected. The egocentrized subject now comes to feel the power and importance of the devalued object


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Okay, at this point, you're just making shit up. I'm out.


I'm not making anything up, it's all in the premises of how things are defined, from Jung to MBTI. But suit yourself.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> No, the latter comes from how the MBTI defines their function stack, which is mixed with traits of introversion. Needing to control the environment is definitely related to introversion from the original observations made about the two attitudes, since introversion is the one that has difficulties accepting external influence and needing to be on top of the environment.


Gmmmmn.. . I'd say i 'need' to control the influx from the environment onto me, for the reason you state. it's control in the passive sense though, very different from proactively running around out there telling the world what to do. ain't nobody etcetera.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lilysocks said:


> Gmmmmn.. . I'd say i 'need' to control the influx from the environment onto me, for the reason you state. it's control in the passive sense though, very different from proactively running around out there telling the world what to do. ain't nobody etcetera.


Yes, that's the common way it manifests especially for the introvert perceivers (S/N doms). Though it's more passive it can still have an effect on the external especially when it comes to relationships with other people with whom you have to share life with, and in those cases it can turn into more active sometimes when the person feels the external is trying to burst their bubble way too hard and fast for their comfort. Since it also affects one's epistemology it can manifest in the general philosophies and lifestyle of these people, which is true for any type in their own way of course.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

I think I will say some info to end conflicts. Take it as an indicator if you do not believe, as I do, Big Five and MBTI is connected.

Extraversion could see Introverts as selfish. I think it's even a common misunderstanding.

Introverts have indeed a way of regulating external stimuli. It's because they are more absorb than extroverts by external stimuli. For example, they salivate more when having a recompense. Extraversion is know for being a part of Plasticity traits.

Fe is indeed controlling to me. It's pratically the same as the Industriousness of the Big Five. With Orderliness (Te), they constitute the Conscientiousness trait, known for having very controlling people. With my ENFJ mother I have some real problems with that because I am not at all conscientiousness. Being INF((T))P I have low Te/Fe.

*Why Fi is seen as egocentric?*

To known this, we have to make a bit of sociology and History. In occidental society the criterium for objective truth is "Reason". Reason, and not Passion. Ti and not Fi. Reason is affiliated to T types, that often see themselves as "theoric", "reasonable". Reason is selfless. It's a social construction. We know it was used by white men to determine races and women as "emotive", or "hysterical". But we know it's a difference of Agreeableness, or of reward dependance.
T people are more aloof and it has been seen in occidental society as the same as objectivity. Fi is diabolized because it is made to question occidental society, Fi is stereotypically associated with arts, literature, and it was for a long time the only pieces of work that could question "Reason", noticeably trough the questionning of aesthetics (which is affiliated with philosophical discussion about the notion of Beauty and objectivity), the etablishment of psychology and relativism. NFPs succeed to me in each era to threaten this perception of objectivity as Reason. Derrida to me (an ENFP) succeed in doing it, taking a drastic turn to criticize Reason.

In occidental societies, you can't be a Feelers (without being INFJ I mean) and a theorician as the same it's antithetic. There always as been a clear distinction between social sciences and physics for example. Same dichotomy Passion versus Passion.
I think Feelers, and particularly Introvert Feelers has inherited from this stigma. Nevertheless, if we take the Big Five, agreeableness shows low agreeable people as more self center and self focused. But you can be introvert and a feeler at the same time which made me think introverts are not particularly egoistical.

Fi and Fe differs enormously in the way they proceed. I think this is the actual problem of the discussion.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lecomte said:


> I think I will say some info to end conflicts. Take it as an indicator if you do not believe, as I do, Big Five and MBTI is connected.
> 
> Extraversion could see Introverts as selfish. I think it's even a common misunderstanding.
> 
> ...


An NE type, i.e. ENFP is not even primarily an introvert feeler in the Jungian theory as their main attitude in life is extraversion.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> An NE type, i.e. ENFP is not even primarily an introvert feeler in the Jungian theory as their main attitude in life is extraversion.


Yes it is true. But ENFP has Ne-Fi actually

Also quoting Jung does not make statements true I think


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lecomte said:


> Yes it is true. But ENFP has Ne-Fi actually
> 
> Also quoting Jung does not make statements true I think


??? If it's true then why are you saying it isn't, in the next sentence? 

I didn't claim that quoting Jung makes his statements true.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

@RedPanda
It's true ENFP are Ne doms, but they are also Ne-Fi doms


Sorry if was implying you think quoted Jung made your arguments true but I need to have a discussion based on consensus. Can you ask you that?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lecomte said:


> @RedPanda
> It's true ENFP are Ne doms, but they are also Ne-Fi doms


Not with the original theory in mind, but the MBTI has altered what the attitude means and doesn't pay attention to what Jung observed. For example, it's often said by the MBTI that extraversion is how we deal with the external world, but real extraversion also relates to how we deal with our internal world as well, and similarly for introversion. Then people try to psychoanalyze based on a mix of both systems and doesn't really work well.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Not with the original theory in mind, but the MBTI has altered what the attitude means and doesn't pay attention to what Jung observed. For example, it's often said by the MBTI that extraversion is how we deal with the external world, but real extraversion also relates to how we deal with our internal world as well, and similarly for introversion. Then people try to psychoanalyze based on a mix of both systems and doesn't really work well.


So, you are saying Jung was dealing more about internal life ? And MBTI is more about external world?
I find it funny because I was really seeing cognitive function as internal feelings, but someone on this forum point out it was actually objective behavior

To the Big Five it's more about behavior, so it's not only about being artistic but it's also being drawn to artistic ideas for example. This is like a mirror (even if the internal life could be very different from the external life). When I am talking about Fi and Ne I was talking about it from this perspective.

So what were the changes made by Myers-Brigg and Jung? How Jung saw extraversion/introversion? I am interested in it because whether we like it or not the Big Five comes from these previous models


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lecomte said:


> So, you are saying Jung was dealing more about internal life ? And MBTI is more about external world?
> I find it funny because I was really seeing cognitive function as internal feelings, but someone on this forum point out it was actually objective behavior
> 
> To the Big Five it's more about behavior, so it's not only about being artistic but it's also being drawn to artistic ideas for example. This is like a mirror (even if the internal life could be very different from the external life). When I am talking about Fi and Ne I was talking about it from this perspective.
> ...


I mean, what he observed and named Extraversion and Introversion are two different attitudes of adaptation that characterize our relationship with the world and ourselves. They're not supposed to be attitudes of a function, but of the person as a whole, he called them 'directions of consciousness'. MBTI says the way you deal with the world is the function you extravert, and the way you deal with your inner self is what you introvert which is not accurate to what Jung described as the extravert generally subordinates himself to the external while the introvert subordinates the external to himself. The extravert allows external influence to flow inwards and change the self, while the introvert doesn't and likes to keep things under control either through avoidance or changing the external to match the internal.

Yea, I'd agree that functions are objective ways our brains work, if that's what they mean, how do you mean they are internal feelings?

All NPs are described as adaptable to external information by the MBTI, which matches what Jung saw as extraverted intuition but doesn't really match the idea that we're somehow introverted in judgment, because if we were then we wouldn't be able to be adaptable to external information as adaptability happens at both perception and judgment. We have to make decisions and conclusions about the things we perceive, and incorporate them into our understanding, which is why it makes no sense to just switch the attitude. From the MBTI manual: "They constantly seek the challenge of the unknown and adapt to new possibilities as they arise."
On the contrary, NJs are described as people who want to bring their internal visions into the world "They strive to accomplish the goals of their inner vision and are driving, persistent, and determined. "

Then, the way they describe Fi and Fe are very similar but also reversed in a way, compared to how Jung did. Both are very invested in harmony and people getting along, the Fi can get hurt when their values are pressed then insist on their ways, but the Fe can also get hurt when their values are hurt and try to impose them as well. Additionally, FJs are described as investing more in people who share the same values, which is something that imo fits Jung's FI a lot better - as the introvert feeler has a need for their environment to not challenge them (at least not uncontrollably), so it's important to them that their environment is kept under control. Jung's EF type are described as people who change their values and allow external influence to shape them, not people who need to express their own by controlling what others do. Yes they can be hurt or annoyed by others, but the way they deal with it matches more how FPs do as the focus is on the objectivity of their ideals ("the right way"), which is an trait of extraverted attitude. I'll post a screenshot of this cause I can't paste this part.

Basically what I'm trying to describe here is how the MBTI has potentially reversed what the attitude does in judging functions compared to the original meanings. There's a lot to say and think about this but I'll stop here coz too much.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

We are though. And we're damn proud of it (the more advanced among us anyway).


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

dulcinea said:


> It pops up every now and then, and is irritating when it does.
> Introverted feeling types are not necessarily selfish.
> Some all.
> The only thing all introverted feeling types have in common is a tendency towards subjectiveness in feeling, so for an extraverted feeler to say introverted feelers are selfish is sort of implying
> ...


Choosing to act upon your own personal views alone and not considering the feelings of others is not only selfish but it’s toxic. Sometimes think “how does the other person feel, what things could have led them to behave in a way I did not anticipate” instead of assigning meaning to their actions without first looking at their viewpoint


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

MoStoner12 said:


> Choosing to act upon your own personal views alone and not considering the feelings of others is not only selfish but it’s toxic. Sometimes think “how does the other person feel, what things could have led them to behave in a way I did not anticipate” instead of assigning meaning to their actions without first looking at their viewpoint


By itself, your statement is correct, but in the context of the discussion, it is wrong. 

Yes, it is important to consider the feelings of others, but your statement suggests that Fi types don't think about other's feelings. A thought process of an Fi instead might be: "I've considered the feelings of other people, and I've concluded they don't matter enough."


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> By itself, your statement is correct, but in the context of the discussion, it is wrong.
> 
> Yes, it is important to consider the feelings of others, but your statement suggests that Fi types don't think about other's feelings. A thought process of an Fi instead might be: "I've considered the feelings of other people, and I've concluded they don't matter enough."


There's also the aspect of needing to take actions that might appear to be cruel to the observer but is actually an unknown kindness.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> By itself, your statement is correct, but in the context of the discussion, it is wrong.
> 
> Yes, it is important to consider the feelings of others, but your statement suggests that Fi types don't think about other's feelings. A thought process of an Fi instead might be: "I've considered the feelings of other people, and I've concluded they don't matter enough."


Read my first sentence again....I clearly say it is the very act of disregarding any human as not being important enough that makes it selfish. You think you have thought and considered, but do you really understand, and if you can understand someone’s pain and still act only according to your own internal feeling that is in fact selfish and toxic to the highest order....there is a reason Hitler is an INFJ 😉


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

mia-me said:


> There's also the aspect of needing to take actions that might appear to be cruel to the observer but is actually an unknown kindness.


This action is probably more natural for ENTJs and something many INFPs can learn from, which includes me.



MoStoner12 said:


> Read my first sentence again....I clearly say it is the very act of disregarding any human as not being important enough that makes it selfish. You think you have thought and considered, but do you really understand, and if you can understand someone’s pain and still act only according to your own internal feeling that is in fact selfish and toxic to the highest order....there is a reason Hitler is an INFJ 😉


Then by your definition of selfish and toxic, that is what I am.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> This action is probably more natural for ENTJs and something many INFPs can learn from, which includes me.


It can have serious blowback so be prepared for it, if you plan on using this strategy.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> This action is probably more natural for ENTJs and something many INFPs can learn from, which includes me.
> 
> 
> Then by your definition of selfish and toxic, that is what I am.


Do with that information what you will


----------



## Deuce (Feb 16, 2021)

MoStoner12 said:


> Choosing to act upon your own personal views alone and not considering the feelings of others is not only selfish but it’s toxic.


Put that way, I wholeheartedly agree but plenty of Fi users tend to try to reach for a compromise that take both things into account, both our personal desires and the feeling of others, at least on matters of everyday life, schedule things and all. We can't do that however if the other party doesn't verbalize what their take on a subject is (and we have to guess it/mindread it, which can happen sometimes with high Fe users).
Also sometimes the feelings of others are a fleeting thing that is anecdotal when you look at the bigger picture. For example, should I not break a romantic relationship that doesn't work because the other person is going to feel heartbroken ? Even if I can understand and empathize with the heartbreak, obviously staying into the shitty situation would cause more damage to both person's wellbeing in the long run than the pain of the break-up is going to engender.
Or (a situation I have encountered lately) should a teacher go through the work of reaorganizing all their schedules because _one_ student had a panic attack on how tight the work schedule is ? IMO no. We can do basic maths thought, if a majority of students has a panic attack, it does indeed give weight to the want they express.



MoStoner12 said:


> Sometimes think “how does the other person feel, what things could have led them to behave in a way I did not anticipate” instead of assigning meaning to their actions without first looking at their viewpoint


About thinking about the why and how the person feels and their viewpoints, yes, ofc, that's pretty much why INFP have Ne and ISFP Ni. Functionally speaking, it's pretty impossible for them to begin with the perception instead of first having a "snap judgment" inwardly either positive either negative of a situation, because Fi still is the dom function and it's way easier to use, more automatic and stronger that the others.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

Deuce said:


> Put that way, I wholeheartedly agree but plenty of Fi users tend to try to reach for a compromise that take both things into account, both our personal desires and the feeling of others, at least on matters of everyday life, schedule things and all. We can't do that however if the other party doesn't verbalize what their take on a subject is (and we have to guess it/mindread it, which can happen sometimes with high Fe users).
> Also sometimes the feelings of others are a fleeting thing that is anecdotal when you look at the bigger picture. For example, should I not break a romantic relationship that doesn't work because the other person is going to feel heartbroken ? Even if I can understand and empathize with the heartbreak, obviously staying into the shitty situation would cause more damage to both person's wellbeing in the long run than the pain of the break-up is going to engender.
> Or (a situation I have encountered lately) should a teacher go through the work of reaorganizing all their schedules because _one_ student had a panic attack on how tight the work schedule is ? IMO no. We can do basic maths thought, if a majority of students has a panic attack, it does indeed give weight to the want they express.
> 
> ...


i think i read somewhere that the INFP answer to everything is "it depends"...coulda been another type though...
anyway...
im glad you agree with me 
judging an ever changing world according to your internal framework doesnt make sense to me. because your internal guidance system, set on pretty much fixed moral codes based on personal experience is unlikely to match the ever changing external world, which doesnt operate by your rules. but that could be my high Ne talking. 

i mean i dont use feeling so youre preaching to choir about fleeting feelings. but i dont think its that simple. for example if girl breaks up with you because she feels youre not worthy of her time and there are better options, she can dump you. but as soon as she sees you with girls who are better looking or more popular than her she will suddenly 'be in love' with you again. no matter how the relationship was. just because her internal value system has to recalibrate back to how she originally saw you. if that makes sense. i dont understand women but i think thats the general process. i dont think "but the other person will be hurt" comes into it, when ending a relationship.

i mean, i wish the world was that black and white...but thats why i started with the "it depends" statement. it depends on the reason the one student had the panic attack. the ideal job of a teacher in my mind is to optimize and create the most conducive environment for all their students to learn. if youre a teacher, and one student has a panic attack, what if one year its just one student, and the next year its another student, and the next year its two students, and then its back to one student. over the course of maybe 15 years youve now traumatized 15 to 20 students. was that really worth it? what if that class was the difference between someone becoming drug addict and curing cancer and the one student you gave a panic attack was the swing in global healthcare. 

teaching is a hard one though i dont envy it... its hard to pinpoint if i dont know how and why and how many students in total. but you dont have to change everything, you can just make slight changes to how you deliver your lesson or find another compromising alternatives
students are not statistics, they are malleable impressionable humans who each matter on an individual level. that could be a radical view though
also, maybe a change will force you improve you lesson and make you a better teacher because it forces you to look at things from a different angle, leading to more benefits in the long run

its almost "impossibe" for then Fi doms to not make internal snap judgements, but at least in the case of INFP you should theoretically be able to change your mind because youre a perceiver and has Ne auxiliary. you dont have to act on your Fi, i think you can use Fi to imagine how others feel very well (entps dont generally use Fe for harmony purposes so i assume you can use your functions for more than their stereotypical intended process too) ... but im not in your head and i dont know any infp so i wouldnt know how your brain works 

for example Ne is for finding theories, relationships and patterns in the external world, but at least me, i use that to almost change reality just to mess with things though (but going back to the "it depends thing" that could be my relief Fe seeking excitement subconsciously, i dunno)


----------



## Deuce (Feb 16, 2021)

MoStoner12 said:


> i think i read somewhere that the INFP answer to everything is "it depends"...coulda been another type though...
> anyway...
> im glad you agree with me
> judging an ever changing world according to your internal framework doesnt make sense to me. because your internal guidance system, set on pretty much fixed moral codes based on personal experience is unlikely to match the ever changing external world, which doesnt operate by your rules. but that could be my high Ne talking.


Lol, that's fun the differences in perception, I tend to perceive the external world as changing, hard to grasp, full of possibilities, etc., and actually the only point I see as unchanging is myself (my own sense of identity/what I believe to be important, good), etc. So that's just why I make decisions on that, the rest is too much like sand to offer a solid foundation for action. Like in the example you gave about the one student who is able to swing healthcare system, even if I could forget about how Fi gets attached to some decisions more than to others, I can't really think of a decision making process which would allow me to deal with this level of uncertainty.
But yeah I think both every I**P feels a sort of cleavage between the outside (a sort of chaotic playground) and our inner world, which is super orderly and that we feel a sort of lowkey existential dismay because of that.



MoStoner12 said:


> i mean i dont use feeling so youre preaching to choir about fleeting feelings. but i dont think its that simple. for example if girl breaks up with you because she feels youre not worthy of her time and there are better options, she can dump you. but as soon as she sees you with girls who are better looking or more popular than her she will suddenly 'be in love' with you again. no matter how the relationship was. just because her internal value system has to recalibrate back to how she originally saw you. if that makes sense. i dont understand women but i think thats the general process. i dont think "but the other person will be hurt" comes into it, when ending a relationship.


In the sense of some sort of "this dude is coveted by another girl, it makes him desirable" or of competition between girls ? Or in the sense of pinning more for things we can't have ? Yeah I can see that happening, maybe in younger persons, but I'm not sure if it's function-related ? I tend to consider what I have ended closed, not look back, and just look for other possibilities instead.



MoStoner12 said:


> i mean, i wish the world was that black and white...but thats why i started with the "it depends" statement. it depends on the reason the one student had the panic attack. the ideal job of a teacher in my mind is to optimize and create the most conducive environment for all their students to learn. if youre a teacher, and one student has a panic attack, what if one year its just one student, and the next year its another student, and the next year its two students, and then its back to one student. over the course of maybe 15 years youve now traumatized 15 to 20 students. was that really worth it? what if that class was the difference between someone becoming drug addict and curing cancer and the one student you gave a panic attack was the swing in global healthcare.
> 
> teaching is a hard one though i dont envy it... its hard to pinpoint if i dont know how and why and how many students in total. but you dont have to change everything, you can just make slight changes to how you deliver your lesson or find another compromising alternatives
> students are not statistics, they are malleable impressionable humans who each matter on an individual level. that could be a radical view though
> also, maybe a change will force you improve you lesson and make you a better teacher because it forces you to look at things from a different angle, leading to more benefits in the long run


Oh I was not the teacher, lol (though it's a course to become one), I was another student just observing the rift. In the context, I was a bit annoyed because the student prior to the panick attack asked that such and such class be modified. All happened in the quarantine where everyone find it hard to organize themselves because you can't have more than X hours live and the rest have to be done on the internet, then there are lecturers coming from the outside who themselves have their own agenda, teach in several institutes themselves.
So my first reaction albeit silent was really : "ask all 3 teachers and all the lecturers to readjust their already complicated agenda to just one person ? It's sort of egoistic ?"
So even if I agree on the fact that each individual matter and if it's way more easier for me to see the individual level than the collective one in plenty of circumstances, it's not always feasible without wreaking other individuals' agendas.




MoStoner12 said:


> its almost "impossibe" for then Fi doms to not make internal snap judgements, but at least in the case of INFP you should theoretically be able to change your mind because youre a perceiver and has Ne auxiliary. you dont have to act on your Fi, i think you can use Fi to imagine how others feel very well (entps dont generally use Fe for harmony purposes so i assume you can use your functions for more than their stereotypical intended process too) ... but im not in your head and i dont know any infp so i wouldnt know how your brain works
> 
> for example Ne is for finding theories, relationships and patterns in the external world, but at least me, i use that to almost change reality just to mess with things though (but going back to the "it depends thing" that could be my relief Fe seeking excitement subconsciously, i dunno)


that what's happen honestly, the changing mind thing. I don't have the same beliefs at all than 2 years in the past, etc. Acting on Ne like letting possibilities capture you instead of predeciding everything in the light of some ideal, too. Clearly not as often as Ne-dom though.


----------



## MoStoner12 (Apr 24, 2021)

Deuce said:


> Lol, that's fun the differences in perception, I tend to perceive the external world as changing, hard to grasp, full of possibilities, etc., and actually the only point I see as unchanging is myself (my own sense of identity/what I believe to be important, good), etc. So that's just why I make decisions on that, the rest is too much like sand to offer a solid foundation for action. Like in the example you gave about the one student who is able to swing healthcare system, even if I could forget about how Fi gets attached to some decisions more than to others, I can't really think of a decision making process which would allow me to deal with this level of uncertainty.
> But yeah I think both every I**P feels a sort of cleavage between the outside (a sort of chaotic playground) and our inner world, which is super orderly and that we feel a sort of lowkey existential dismay because of that.
> 
> interesting, yes i can imagine the internal organized self but based on the accurate external world which is then internalized to suit a framework leads an ever changing perspective on existence. subconscious Te and Si also trying to reconcile to a state of logical order yet all the while always keeping the dominant Ne viewpoint. i find that a fascinating way to look at the world
> ...


like i said before, its a crazy mix to have as your first two functions, Fi and Ne.


----------



## CR400AF (Feb 6, 2021)

That's indeed why Aushra's definition on introversion is better IMO.
Introvered means focusing on relationships. It's clear, well-defined and it would help to clarify such misunderstandings.


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

dulcinea said:


> It pops up every now and then, and is irritating when it does.
> Introverted feeling types are not necessarily selfish.
> Some all.
> The only thing all introverted feeling types have in common is a tendency towards subjectiveness in feeling, so for an extraverted feeler to say introverted feelers are selfish is sort of implying
> ...


My interpretation is that T and F functions are related to Freud's Ego construct. Therefore Ti, Te, Fi and Fe dominant types all have high egos (clearly defined boundaries and set of values, i.e. self esteem).

When T or F is introverted, it is not affected by external feedback. That makes Fi and Ti dom types individuals with high levels of ego and self esteem who do not give a fuck about feedback from others. That renders them self-centered.

Se and Ne functions OTOH I believe are related to Freud's id construct. Id is related to impulsivity and need for self-gratification. The model suggests that Ti/Fi doms' secondary function is either Se or Ne, which renders them individuals with high ego coupled with moderate id. 

That demeanor is what makes Ti/Fi dom selfish. They can counter this by opening up their isolated ego to external feedback by developing their Te/Fe functions respectively (i.e. becoming more "social"). Developing Si or Ni around middle age would also help as I relate Ni/Si functions to Freud's superego construct, i.e. conscience.


----------



## MsMojiMoe (Apr 7, 2021)

This is why so many of us feel misunderstood....

there are things where I can see where ppl can misinterpreted some of the things I do as “selfish”. Like I dont go to a lot of family events, work events....ppl think I’m selfish for not going to my little sister graduation, for example, but i didn’t even go to my own graduations, none of them. i need a lot of time alone, this taken as being selfish.

but back to the OP’s point.....

to understand someone like me ( not saying all IxFx are like this)....but I must tell what drives me ....well here it goes....what drives my IxFx...

I NEED not want but NEED to know how I connect to God/universe, myself, nature,including mankind...I need to know why, if any reason at all or not, I need to know why Im here, if there is a God ( not necessary a god to worshipped but something intelligent connecting or something about all of this is more than meets th3 eye and I need to know what, I need to know if there is a reason, I need to connect.....this burns so deeply in me. This is so intense.

I was happy to follow religion at first when I was young bc I really wanted to believe but then I realize mankind is very corrupt and sometimes we don’t even know how corrupt we ourselves has become.. we get so busy following agrendas(religion/labels/status/ we forget what we already know in our hearts, we forget basic human values.....we starts to believe we don’t have to care about others if they don’t fit our labels, we don’t have to care about human values. God values, economic values etc always come first, we don’t even know what is God or if it truly exist, but ppl will use their religion to Crucify others instead of using it to Resurrected their own soul. They hide behind their religions to hate ( not everyone), but ppl forget what’s right in front of them, humans...and on my journey I learned human values are number one....anytime I see ppl or leaders try to get ppl to hate another kind...I automatically know not to follow at all cost. They are against humans And only care about their labels/ agendas.

i believe in this connection and I trying to be the best me. Keyword: connection ( not a very selfish word),

I want paradise on Earth not in death, not in Some fairy tale heaven...”you don’t have to try in your life bc you get paradise in heaven”....yes I called bs....I just can’t ...it’s too convenient....so, it’s important to me that our species really tries to survive and not wait for death, to do this we have to get off earth....whole different topic

but if this is what I come to truly believe than that means We,not just me, have to figure how to get along....so I want to be good for mankind ( not necessarily obedience) , so I must learn to accept myself, love myself, understand myself, hold myself accountable, then a healthy me can be in this life and that’s beneficial for everyone Not just me.

“you first must love yourself”...you must learn to accept yourself....to be able to truly accept others for who they are

this Is so you can know the real me not a condition verse of me. I really wish others would give me the same respect.

anyways, I going to leave you with a song that can put it very simple

best I am by Flaw


----------



## vikalpaul8 (May 14, 2021)

I find when an introvert is faced with a problem it's more "there's a problem, how can I solve it?"  vidmate download instasave


----------

