I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any comments about how Ne, Se or Te are more ‘shallow’ or inauthentic than Ni, Si or Ti- nor are there comments from Ni, Si, or Ti types going on and on about how they intuit/sense/think so much more deeply than Ne, Se or Te types (respectively, sticking to same N, S or T comparisons)- so why is this so common with Fe/Fi?
It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.
There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.
(I know this discussion is *kinda* going on in another thread, but I didn't want to further derail that thread.)
edit: also, I was hoping to steer clear of the empathy/sympathy debate, and focus on the E/I differences of deep/shallow vs. depth/breadth. I mean, no one ever refers to Ne as being shallow, I don't think there's any argument about it's 'breadth' being significant- so why is it so different for F?