Distrustful of Fe?

[proteanmix]

Why are people so distrustful of Fe? It is the one function that I see the most consistently criticized (along with Si) as being hypocritical, manipulative, self-righteous, and insincere. What about this function makes people think of it in those terms?

Imagine what the world would be like without Fe. I think it would be a very unwelcoming place. If belonging (cue theme from "Cheers") is important to people then I think Fe is the mechanism through which this occurs. Is Fi able to do this just as well as Fe? Are people wary of Fi also or is this only reserved for Fe?

[Natrushka]

Perhaps it's because it is not understood?

[Jennifer]

[quote=proteanmix;43282]Why are people so distrustful of Fe? It is the one function that I see the most consistently criticized (along with Si) as being hypocritical, manipulative, self-righteous, and insincere. What about this function makes people think of it in those terms?

Imagine what the world would be like without Fe. I think it would be a very unwelcoming place. If belonging (cue theme from "Cheers") is important to people then I think Fe is the mechanism through which this occurs. Is Fi able to do this just as well as Fe? Are people wary of Fi also or is this only reserved for Fe?

Fi seems very good at connection with people one on one. Basically, Fi uses a personal investment with others in order to convince them of one's motivation.

Meanwhile, Fe uses a socially agreed-upon "language" or context to convey feelings of commitment and goodwill -- or the opposite, I suppose, if one is trying to be very clear publicly of their disdain for someone.

(Example: Someone will purposefully break etiquette -- the accepted rules -- in public in order to show purposefully disdain for someone else. It could be showing up for a dinner party with obviously inappropriate clothing. Or using a particular comment during a public political debate to "call someone out." Etc. The whole point here is to embarrass or snub. But it's still Fe.)

Because Fi is so personal, it's easier to embrace than Fe, which is more impersonal and detached. Fi also "stays the same" -- you can usually tell when someone is very fond of you or cares about you -- but Fe can change as society changes. What is appropriate in one time period sometimes becomes inappropriate as the years pass. Thus, Fe seems more arbitrary (because it actually is) and impersonal and fickle, in some ways.

These are a few of my thoughts on it...

[proteanmix]

Fi is subjective and changes at someone's personal whims much quicker than Fe can ever hope to keep up. And I don't see how Fe is any less personally invested in another person than Fi is. The whole point of Fe is to find the threads that connect us all together.

Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others' feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Fi is subjective and changes at someone's personal whims much quicker than Fe can ever hope to keep up. And I don't see how Fe is any less personally invested in another person than Fi is. The whole point of Fe is to find the threads that connect us all together.

That's all true, but it doesn't seem to be addressing what I am suggesting. Perhaps I just can't articulate it well.

Fe is more analytical than Fi. It is a system. And everyone fits into the system. It does not matter what your personality is, or the person you are relating to. One size fits all. You can actually write etiquette books and articulate the "rules of society" at the time they were written, and if someone follows these rules, they will be practicing good Fe.

Fi is more intuitive or feeling oriented. You aren't following rules of how to treat someone, you are exuding a personal-level (not public-level) warmth. You have to make a direct connection to the other person, based on who you are and who THEY are, specifically. It is NOT one size fits all. The rules are harder to articulate. They are not nearly as clear cut.

Does that make any more sense?

[Natrushka]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Fi is more intuitive or feeling oriented. You aren't following rules of how to treat someone, you are exuding a personal-level (not public-level) warmth. You have to make a direct connection to the other person, based on who you are and who THEY are, specifically. It is NOT one size fits all. The rules are harder to articulate. They are not nearly as clear cut.

Does that make any more sense?

Hell, yes. I don't think I've ever understood Fe/Fi quite so well as now.

[Ivy]

This is all well and good, but what about Fo and Fum? Those are the ones I don't trust.

[Natrushka]

<sniff> What's that I smell?

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

That's all true, but it doesn't seem to be addressing what I am suggesting. Perhaps I just can't articulate it well.

Fe is more analytical than Fi. It is a system. And everyone fits into the system. It does not matter what your personality is, or the person you are relating to. One size fits all. You can actually write etiquette books and articulate the "rules of society" at the time they were written, and if someone follows these rules, they will be practicing good Fe.

Fi is more intuitive or feeling oriented. You aren't following rules of how to treat someone, you are exuding a personal-level (not public-level) warmth. You have to make a direct connection to the other person, based on who you are and who THEY are, specifically. It is NOT one size fits all. The rules are harder to articulate. They are not nearly as clear cut.

Does that make any more sense?

Yes it makes, sense I just disagree about it.

I'm going to refer to Linda Berens about this, because she does a better job at explaining the differences between Fe and Fi than me.

Evaluating Processes
Fe: Who can I connect with or relate to in order to learn better? Who can I help in this learning? How can I use this to improve my relationships?

Fi: What is really important here? What is of value to me, and what do I want out of it? Who is good to learn from?

I see Fe doing exactly what you describe Fi as doing. Fi (to me) is all about recognizing what's important to the individual, it doesn't necessarily require connection to others but does it require connection to oneself. It helps people to connect to what's important to them, whereas Fe is all about the connection. Fe is like the infrastructure that allows Fi to communicate.

And then we have societal Fe and personal Fe. While I agree societal Fe is very structured, what about interpersonal/intrapersonal Fe? For example, why do FJs try to make their homes as comfortable to others as possible, whereas FPs make their homes as comfortable for themselves as possible?

So as Nat says, maybe we don't really understand what Fe is?

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Fi is subjective and changes at someone's personal whims much quicker than Fe can ever hope to keep up. And I don't see how Fe is any less personally invested in another person than Fi is. The whole point of Fe is to find the threads that connect us all together.

Fi doesnt change at whim. Fi traces back to the person's axioms that their values are built on. It usually takes years for those to change..and if they care about you, the reason they do is because it is in tune with their values, and this will only change if you cross them..

With Fe..you only need to cross the values enforced by the community. If the Fe likes you at this point, and the social rules change tomorrow, and now you're not in tune with the rules as you were yesterday the Fe will no longer appreciate you. It doesn't matter how you feel, it only matters how others do.