Misconceptions About Fe

[Kestrel]

I've been perusing some of the older threads on this board concerning Fe.

There appears to be some consensus that the moral structure of Fe is somehow derived from society, culture or some external construct along those lines. I can't speak for others, but as a supposed "Fe user" I don't don't really identify with this interpretation. I grew up with religion and modern American culture, and yet, I don't agree with either on a Fe level. I'm sure my morals have been influenced by some external structures, like my family (and perhaps religion and culture to a lesser degree), but they hardly define them.

It also seems that some people see Fe as being somewhat "codependent" and fake. Perhaps this is an "unhealthy" quality of Fe. I would rather be brutally honest than tell someone a lie just to spare myself guilt or a nasty reply. There are some exceptions to this, but I've learned that most people can easily see when I'm "just trying to be nice".

I also have a hard time believing I'm incapable of experiencing Fi. It seems like all these functions are defined in such a rigid manner. But they're actually fluid and amorphous, impossible to define concretely. How do we know when one function stops and another begins when they all work cohesively?

I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are on this.

 

[Snowey1210]

I've been perusing some of the older threads on this board concerning Fe.

There appears to be some consensus that the moral structure of Fe is somehow derived from society, culture or some external construct along those lines. I can't speak for others, but as a supposed "Fe user" I don't don't really identify with this interpretation. I grew up with religion and modern American culture, and yet, I don't agree with either on a Fe level. I'm sure my morals have been influenced by some external structures, like my family (and perhaps religion and culture to a lesser degree), but they hardly define them.

It also seems that some people see Fe as being somewhat "codependent" and fake. Perhaps this is an "unhealthy" quality of Fe. I would rather be brutally honest than tell someone a lie just to spare myself guilt or a nasty reply. There are some exceptions to this, but I've learned that most people can easily see when I'm "just trying to be nice".

I also have a hard time believing I'm incapable of experiencing Fi. It seems like all these functions are defined in such a rigid manner. But they're actually fluid and amorphous, impossible to define concretely. How do we know when one function stops and another begins when they all work cohesively?

I'm wondering what other people's thoughts are on this.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that the MBTI system is the be all and end all as many do. Apparently I have Fe as an tertiary function, however I'm more predisposed to engage in Fi type experiences than Fe as these feel more real to me.

Extroversion and Introversion are functions far more fluid than the MBTI suggests. When we act upon our feelings we are using Fe however I believe it is informed by Fi to some extent (I'm not really sure how feelings aren't really my strongpoint ) But the point is I'd just be aware that the MBTI is a preferential system it identifies what you act upon the majority of the time. Fe is not a bad thing, in fact it drives mediation a value too common betrayed in modern society.

 

[entropie]

There appears to be some consensus that the moral structure of Fe is somehow derived from society, culture or some external construct along those lines. I can't speak for others, but as a supposed "Fe user" I don't don't really identify with this interpretation. I grew up with religion and modern American culture, and yet, I don't agree with either on a Fe level. I'm sure my morals have been influenced by some external structures, like my family (and perhaps religion and culture to a lesser degree), but they hardly define them.

You do deny the fact that Fe is your support function, your primary is Ni. Therefore it is natural for your opinions in Fe not to be derived from society, because your Fe is steered by your Ni.

 

[htb]

Extraverted feeling is more complex than gestures and behaviors recognized within a society, certainly. My own experience, however, bears out a lot of conjecture. I typically have viscerally negative reactions to Fe expressions (as defined by theory), and respond with spontaneous affirmation to Fi expressions (as defined by theory). It's become more pronounced over the last few years.

A girl at work showed a bit of a liking for me, recently; we attended a couple figure drawing sessions and shared a couple of coffees. She could be ESFJ, ENFJ or maybe even INFJ. Weirdly, or perhaps reasonably, enough, it was her manifestation of Fe that prevented chemistry. Too polite, too conventional, too frequent projections of responsive facial expressions. I was standoffish, and I think she's moving on; for the best.

Tertiary Fe (theoretically deployed by ExTPs for tactical and information-gathering purposes) provokes me to the point of a poker face, if for nothing else to throw the user off; auxiliary Fe strikes me as ornate, if sincere, the stuff of compliments interleaved with patient criticism; primary Fe is quotidian and methodical; as for inferior Fe, an ISTP colleague is the only one with whom I've found an appreciation for authenticity, though he does rib me for my odd formulations of ethics and appreciation.

 

[redacted]

Fe has nothing directly to do with society. It just has to do with tangible-ness.

As in, I agree completely.

 

[entropie]

Fe has nothing directly to do with society. It just has to do with tangible-ness.

As in, I agree completely.

I think in the role of the entp the Fe, or no...wait. The role of the Fe in the entp has ALOT to do with society.

there are those moments when you feel beaten by reason. And then, depending on the one you are talking to, you either have to resort to T or F. To resort to T is easy and solves conflict then most of the times, although you wont be the one having the last word.

But F that's a different thing. When I ever felt that beaten down that I had to have to resort to that, I basically fell into a lethargy of societies accepted norms of behaving. And that's why I probably dont like discos. Because when I am forced on the Fe, its like you have to really get to a toilet but there is noone, even not miles away . I hate that feeling.

 

[redacted]

It indirectly has to do with society because society is basically made up of the value judgments of society, which are tangible.

Fe is good for awareness of societal values, but an Fe user doesn't have to agree with society or anything....

 

[entropie]

Yes

 

["?"]

You do deny the fact that Fe is your support function, your primary is Ni. Therefore it is natural for your opinions in Fe not to be derived from society, because your Fe is steered by your Ni.

Agreed. Most introverts have a blind spot to their auxiliary (extraverted) function. It may be what others see in you superficially however you may not see at all.

 

[TaylorS]

I've always though of Fe and Fi like this:

Fe: Judgment oriented towards the feelings and sentiments of others
Fi: Judgment oriented towards the feelings and sentiments of one's self

Fe is not really "superficial" (unless it is an inherently superficial social interaction) except when used by a mentally unhealthy individual. Instead it uses social norms and mannerisms as objective tools to help "get into" the minds of others, just like Te uses commonly accepted impersonal rules and procedures to get things done.

 

[raz]

I only dislike Fe because it seems like all it does is try to satisfy the other person. To me, that's just not even worth doing. As a Te user, if I had to describe my life, it would be in one word: management. I look at everything as something to just be "handled." Fe is more of, what, social consideration? Look at Fi, though, it looks to human values for judgments and looks at the human factor for making decisions.

Take for instance, I was watching the new Wolverine movie. Near the end, they show the Deadpool mutant who is a transformed version of a much more human like mutant from the earlier part of the movie. This man apparently let his body and mind be taken over by the leader of the organization to become an "ultimate mutant." He had several powers implanted inside of him, his body was surgically enhanced, he lost his free will, and he became nearly the strongest mutant. But, at what cost? He basically gave up his mind and body to the people who did that to him. Afterward, I was thinking about that in a deeper context, and just thinking to myself, "how could someone do that to themselves? I can't believe the change that he made, and what it cost it took to do it."

From what I've read, that was an Introverted Feeling judgment. It looks to empathy as a guide. I'd like to think that ideas such as free will and dignity came from Introverted Feeling. How would Extraverted Feeling respond to such an example?

 

[Totenkindly]

I only dislike Fe because it seems like all it does is try to satisfy the other person.

Actually, good Fe honors everyone involved as much as possible. That includes the person using it. The goal is to honor the social roles and obligations and expectations that exist that support relationship of some sort -- no less but no more, either.

Bad Fe either exploits relationships with others for personal influence or it treats oneself as an inferior and ignores one's own needs. That was never the point. But the issue here is it's not really a matter of what the individual wants, it's a matter of how the individual is woven into the social fabric and what role(s) they play. Emotion then often is attached to the roles that people play.

Afterward, I was thinking about that in a deeper context, and just thinking to myself, "how could someone do that to themselves? I can't believe the change that he made, and what it cost it took to do it."

From what I've read, that was an Introverted Feeling judgment. It looks to empathy as a guide.

It's valuing the internal subjective individuality of each person and using that as the litmus to decide the validity of an action.

F gets attached to emotions far too much. It's not an emotive function, it's a judging function. It evaluates things and comes up with conclusions, but just based on relational values (either the welfare of the system at large and how people fit in, or the welfare of each individual as the locus of focus).

I'd like to think that ideas such as free will and dignity came from Introverted Feeling. How would Extraverted Feeling respond to such an example?

Fe would look at what Deadpool was obligated to do, what promises he had made, what the needs of the group were, what roles Deadpool had agreed to, and what would enable everything to continue to operate smoothly. It could also consider Deadpool's personal well-being in the context of the larger group (and it thus might consider the long-term of deadpool's decision to be wrong if it deprives the group of his individuality that he would need to engage).

If Deadpool made the decision in order to gain personal strength and glory (i.e., for individual-based reasons, and thus self-ish ones), regardless of the impact on the larger group, then it was more Fi he was using, not Fe.

 

[raz]

If Deadpool made the decision in order to gain personal strength and glory (i.e., for individual-based reasons, and thus self-ish ones), regardless of the impact on the larger group, then it was more Fi he was using, not Fe.

Why is that Fi? The character he was before the transformation made me think he was an ESFJ. But, decisions like those, what's stopping a TJ from doing some like that? Or would those decisions be a product of Te combined with Fi to ignore the needs of others?

This reminds me of the story of Vegeta in Dragonball Z. He was the strongest warrior of the Saiyan race, and then Goku comes along and he's a low level Saiyan that's able to defeat Vegeta. For the rest of the story of the show, Vegeta's pride is continuously hurt as Goku surpasses him time and time again, although he keeps working to be stronger. In a later saga, Vegeta ends up letting himself be taken over by a wizard to receive a significant power boost, but his willpower is strong enough to receive the boost without losing his free will. In the end, he justifies letting a wizard help him surpass Goku mostly also because he felt that he was being affected by the people around him, and he was losing his complete independence. The effect of the spell allowed him to become cold-hearted again along with becoming stronger than Goku for the time being.

Vegeta is an ISTJ, and that latter example in the later saga is an example I'd think of him using Si, Te, Fi and Ne at once.

 

[violaine]

Actually, good Fe honors everyone involved as much as possible. That includes the person using it. The goal is to honor the social roles and obligations and expectations that exist that support relationship of some sort -- no less but no more, either.

Bad Fe either exploits relationships with others for personal influence or it treats oneself as an inferior and ignores one's own needs. That was never the point. But the issue here is it's not really a matter of what the individual wants, it's a matter of how the individual is woven into the social fabric and what role(s) they play. Emotion then often is attached to the roles that people play.

It's valuing the internal subjective individuality of each person and using that as the litmus to decide the validity of an action.

F gets attached to emotions far too much. It's not an emotive function, it's a judging function. It evaluates things and comes up with conclusions, but just based on relational values (either the welfare of the system at large and how people fit in, or the welfare of each individual as the locus of focus).

Fe would look at what Deadpool was obligated to do, what promises he had made, what the needs of the group were, what roles Deadpool had agreed to, and what would enable everything to continue to operate smoothly. It could also consider Deadpool's personal well-being in the context of the larger group (and it thus might consider the long-term of deadpool's decision to be wrong if it deprives the group of his individuality that he would need to engage).

If Deadpool made the decision in order to gain personal strength and glory (i.e., for individual-based reasons, and thus self-ish ones), regardless of the impact on the larger group, then it was more Fi he was using, not Fe.

Thank you, Jen. This is a brilliant analysis. The guiding light in interactions with others is mutual respect. Evaluating your own and others' attitudes; making constant, subtle corrections to your own behavior.

When people take advantage or are not respectful of others, my level of respect for them drops away. I will care much less about catering for them. I will tend to lose interest in them as well. They have to draw first blood though.

 

[Totenkindly]

Why is that Fi? The character he was before the transformation made me think he was an ESFJ. But, decisions like those, what's stopping a TJ from doing some like that? Or would those decisions be a product of Te combined with Fi to ignore the needs of others?

If we are discussing whether something is more Fi or more Fe, then I was saying it was more Fi. (That's the context here.)

Now, if we want to discuss "full type" and not just F functions, yes, a TJ using Te buttressed by Fi in some way is actually a pretty viable combination. Fi-primary people = IxFP, and they tend to not be as ruthless in the external world due to the flexy nature of Ne/Se -- they "play around" and explore. Deadpool sounds like he had a goal and other considerations fell by the wayside, hence it was more likely to be Fi shackled to Te. Te will drive towards closure and Fi is used not to determine if something is "right" but as a "reason" for the person to wield their Te ruthlessly.

This reminds me of the story of Vegeta in Dragonball Z. He was the strongest warrior of the Saiyan race, and then Goku comes along and he's a low level Saiyan that's able to defeat Vegeta. For the rest of the story of the show, Vegeta's pride is continuously hurt as Goku surpasses him time and time again, although he keeps working to be stronger. In a later saga, Vegeta ends up letting himself be taken over by a wizard to receive a significant power boost, but his willpower is strong enough to receive the boost without losing his free will. In the end, he justifies letting a wizard help him surpass Goku mostly also because he felt that he was being affected by the people around him, and he was losing his complete independence. The effect of the spell allowed him to become cold-hearted again along with becoming stronger than Goku for the time being.

I'm inclined away from trying to derive consistent personality functioning from anime, esp of the level of Dragonball Z -- the style is more focused on form and structure, NOT on inherent consistency of psychological motivation. The characters tend to be pawns of the storyline, rather than truly driving the storylines themselves. That's also why the dialog tends to be pretty wooden, it's just a vehicle for the plot/action.

Vegeta is an ISTJ, and that latter example in the later saga is an example I'd think of him using Si, Te, Fi and Ne at once.

it's possible, but I have trouble analyzing anime characters because of the problems noted above. The writers thought of the dramatic arc first, then had the character do what was necessary to make it happen. It's not necessarily consistent.