• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What would the world do without Fe?

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
No offense to anyone intended, but this is a ridiculous question and it should not have as many serious replies as it does. Precisely what are you changing about people that would yield the result of there being "no Fe" ? Its just GONE without anything to supplement its status? What else are you fundamentally altering about people/brains to get the result of "no Fe"? Seeing as functions work cohesively/together and opponent to one another, are the other cognitive functions going to be fundamentally altered by there being no Fe?


I guess its a "fun question" but to me it's akin to asking "what would the universe be like without the Carbon atom"? It's like Uhhhhhmmm......precisely what did you change about the universe to produce the result of there being no carbon? Did you fundamentally change the nuclear forces and mechanisms for ALL atoms, or perhaps you wiped out all atoms in series 14 of the periodic table? What happens to the characteristics of Nitrogen and Oxygen when you pull the existence plug on carbon?

There's absolutely no way to answer such a question unless you elaborate on what you are changing in the system to produce said result.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I'm still disappointed that these questions/thoughts were never addressed:( Only because I think this entire post is awesome and reflects many of the ways I look at things. Well, not only that: the fact that it just kinda fell by the wayside seems to indicate protean wasn't exactly 'heard' or acknowledged/understood either -- there was no interaction/dialogue related to this post (well, that wasn't soon deleted).

I pretty much agree with it as well; it's a great post. I created a whole metaphor to encapsulate my thoughts on the topic!

No one commented directly on that metaphor post either (except Z's tl;dr :rolleyes:) ... I don't assume though that it went unnoticed and unappreciated simply because no discussion arose from it.

What you were hoping to see, cascadeco? :) What part jumps out at you?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
This is true; I have noticed Ni tends to dig in deeper, and stick on topic and want to delve fully. However, I don't think it's strictly Ni, as I have also noticed that NTJ's *tend* not to respond to NiFe type responses. As a general trend.

I notice that too. I notice particularly when I do it and I know I'm not responding in a way that'll work well for the other person if at all. It's an issue IRL too. Lo and behold, unfortunately, I believe it does have a considerable basis in function perspectives: we point our truth meters in opposite directions and assess feeling in different places. INTJs and INFJs can see a lot of similarity in one another, but what we actually get up to on the inside and outside veers off in different directions. It ends up being hard work sticking to the other person's topic and method.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I'm copy-pasting this list of histrionic traits knowing very well that I am in no position to make any diagnosis on anybody. But I think it would be a pity for the mutual understanding of introverted and extraverted Feeling functions if personality-displays that are, as it were, not typical for any of them but for a personality disorder, where taken for a display of standard Fi-ness.

As an ENFP it has bothered me to observe in many threads for several months, that O has excused her self with Fi and assumed authority on what ENFP-hood is. I do not feel represented.

Do you believe that (if this were accurate) she is therefore not warranted a voice?

Why haven't you shared your thoughts too in those threads? It would be a pleasure to hear your POV.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Oh, bleh, I'm about to retire for the evening, but main concepts:

-Unanswered question re. whether it is perceived that Fe doesn't understand people who think differently than them, which leads to:
-General misconception of Fe being wholly group centric with little capacity to appreciate and accept individual differences (this rather goes against the NiFe's I know in real life), and conflating Fe to equal group and Fi to equal self when in reality both dom-F's desire harmony and irl, in group settings, I don't honestly see a huge amount of difference regarding this, in terms of desire of all to work together smoothly and without conflict -- to reach a consensus/common understanding. And both are (or can be) highly intuitive in a 1:1 setting and appreciative and respectful of individual differences. Perhaps in different ways, but I find the Fe/Fi Group/Self split false in some ways.
-The tendency by some to attribute certain behaviors or responses to a specific function or type when in fact the behavior could be enacted by a variety of other types or functions. This tends to be the major stumbling block in any Fe/Fi discussion, as you inevitably get into sympathy/empathy (just as one of many examples), people tend to want to attribute one to Fe and one to Fi, when in fact it's not nearly as black and white as that, and an individual ENTJ in fact might have a helluva lot more empathy (or sympathy) than an INFP or ENFJ...etc (as another dumb example).
-When sticking to pure cognitive functions you are removing the context itself (as per protean, a few examples being office politics, fear-based work environment, indirect/direct communications, Interaction Styles, economic climate) --- in effect you are quite potentially drastically tunnel-visioning yourself into seeing through only a cognitive-function lens, when in reality you may be totally warped in that because you may not know that Person A is bipolar or addictive or narcissitic, or has severe trust issues, or is going through bankruptcy or a divorce, or has insanely low confidence so enacts a facade and seems to be an mbti type he is not, so labeling his behavior as 'totally Te' might be a blatant falsehood as there could be a myriad of other reasons for his behavior... etc etc).

Blech..I hate getting on a soapbox.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I notice that too. I notice particularly when I do it and I know I'm not responding in a way that'll work well for the other person if at all. It's an issue IRL too. Lo and behold, unfortunately, I believe it does have a considerable basis in function perspectives: we point our truth meters in opposite directions and assess feeling in different places. INTJs and INFJs can see a lot of similarity in one another, but what we actually get up to on the inside and outside veers off in different directions. It ends up being hard work sticking to the other person's topic and method.

I let Z know this, but I'm somewhat relieved that you guys are acknowledging this, as I was starting to think I was blowing it out of proportion or was imagining it, to a degree. I guess I feel like I try to 'dialogue' with you guys, to an extent, but if/when I periodically don't get much in response, if anything, I have sort of ceased doing it. At least online. irl some of my closest friends though are NTJ's.

Interesting to hear that you both note and acknowledge this.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Oh, bleh, I'm about to retire for the evening, but main concepts:

-Unanswered question re. whether it is perceived that Fe doesn't understand people who think differently than them, which leads to:

First, I don't think any of us can claim to fully understand anyone else. But I think there are some types (generalizing) that seem "harder" for me to read.

Does Fe not understand ...? I don't think that's a fair statement, no. That being said, I think the same Ti - Te dynamic exists within Fi - Fe. Te says: "This is the way things are; these are the facts". Ti says: "There could be facts you are missing, things you're not seeing; how can you simply accept this as truth?"

If you are looking for a black and white yes or no, I can't offer an answer - I think it applies more to each individual than the generic group of Fe users. There are healthy and unhealthy people in general.

-General misconception of Fe being wholly group centric with little capacity to appreciate and accept individual differences (this rather goes against the NiFe's I know in real life), and conflating Fe to equal group and Fi to equal self when in reality both dom-F's desire harmony and irl, in group settings, I don't honestly see a huge amount of difference regarding this, in terms of desire of all to work together smoothly and without conflict -- to reach a consensus/common understanding.

Agree; but I equate harmony more with enneagram and type 9 in particular. Personally I don't view Fe and Fi as group vs self. I do think Fe users can be stroked and reassured by a group dynamic in a way Fi users are generally not, however. I loved the light example from the INFJ thread ... the combination of colours. All the lights of a group shine together to see what colour will be made vs each person's light existing without this merging.

And both are (or can be) highly intuitive in a 1:1 setting and appreciative and respectful of individual differences.

Agree

Perhaps in different ways, but I find the Fe/Fi Group/Self split false in some ways.

*watches the expansion with interest*

-The tendency by some to attribute certain behaviors or responses to a specific function or type when in fact the behavior could be enacted by a variety of other types or functions.

Agree; check out that cool cake metaphor earlier in this thread. ;)

This tends to be the major stumbling block in any Fe/Fi discussion, as you inevitably get into sympathy/empathy, people tend to want to attribute one to Fe and one to Fi, when in fact it's not nearly as black and white as that, and an individual ENTJ in fact might have a helluva lot more empathy (or sympathy) than an INFP or ENFJ...etc.

Agree; it can be very circumstantial

-When sticking to pure cognitive functions you are removing the context itself (as per protean, a few examples being office politics, fear-based work environment, indirect/direct communications, Interaction Styles, economic climate) --- in effect you are quite potentially drastically tunnel-visioning yourself into seeing through only a cognitive-function lens, when in reality you may be totally warped in that because you may not know that Person A is bipolar or addictive or narcissitic, or has severe trust issues, or has insanely low confidence so enacts a facade and seems to be an mbti type he is not, so labeling his behavior as 'totally Te' might be a blatant falsehood as there could be a myriad of other reasons for his behavior... etc etc).

I personally agree, but the NT's (in general) will tell you that of course there are exceptions, they are not trying to put people in boxes, they are only trying to track and log tendencies, not absolutes.

I appreciate you posting all this cascadeco - thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
I'm beginning to think it's not so much functions as response patterns. I'm going to take an avoidance perspective on this one, in the realm of shame vs. guilt:

What we're calling "Fe" can manifest itself as an aversion to shame. The person seeing the world through the filter of Fe has an intense shame response, and consequently seeks to avoid it through socially acceptable behavior and a reliance on the esteem of others. The downside is that without an anchoring sense of guilt to pursue moral behavior, a person with this worldview can act immorally, as long as the group approves. When this is unstable, the "shunning" behavior manifests, as that person doesn't want to bear the transferred shame of association.

On the other hand, what we're calling "Fi" is primarily an aversion to guilt. The guilt response is far stronger than the shame response, and thus, the person seeks to avoid guilt through the strong adherence to a personal code of ethics. The downside is that these ethics need not be based on external reality, since guilt is a deeply personal experience, and so can seem capricious and random. Along with this, when unstable, there can be a deep aversion to admitting responsibility, since this necessarily involves a guilt response.

Ladies and gentlemen, have at it.

Nicely done. :nice:

Very astute.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
so i was just brainstorming a little... this could all be wrong, strong Fe users let me know...

cascadeco said:
-General misconception of Fe being wholly group centric with little capacity to appreciate and accept individual differences (this rather goes against the NiFe's I know in real life), and conflating Fe to equal group and Fi to equal self when in reality both dom-F's desire harmony and irl, in group settings, I don't honestly see a huge amount of difference regarding this, in terms of desire of all to work together smoothly and without conflict -- to reach a consensus/common understanding.

first of all thanks for the reply to what i posted, it's great for us both to be chill about this! :) i see what you mean about posting what you did find interesting - that it didn't get commented on much. that's pretty Ni, lol. looking at the box from outside the box. it's cool. and your point about INTJs tending not to respond to NFJ as much is interesting too. i actually feel "on the same page" as INTJ posts frequently, which has been a surprise to me (no offense to INTJs obviously, we just only share 1 letter) but i have strong tert Te and if an INTJ has strong tert Fi then we share two of our top 3 functions, which is interesting. types that "look" totally different can be more similar cognitively than types that "look" the same (aka share more letters) in some ways.

anyway, about Fe = group and Fi = individual, i don't really think of it like that either... the way i had understood it was more that:

Fe is better attuned to interpersonal relations
  • i picture Fe as tending to the outer threads that connect people. awareness of person-to-person dynamics, generally better in groups because is externally oriented, more aware of status and roles within relationships, more attuned to maintaining bonds, better awareness of graduated trust levels, in tune to how to form and preserve a relationship with another person and how people interact with other people both 1-on-1 and in larger systems. works outside -> in to connect with a person.

Fi is better attuned to intrapersonal relations
  • i picture Fi as tending to the inner threads that make up what people are. awareness of inner belief and feeling, best usage in groups is on a unifying/inspiring level, more aware of subjective values and how they affect a person, more attuned to connection based on ideals, baseline open trust based on focus on intention, in tune with how to build a person up inside and in finding inner commonalities between people. works inside -> out to connect with a person.

so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.



disclaimer -- just to emphasize, i understand these as generalizations. i would like to get some Fe and Fi differences mapped out though because otherwise the terms "Fe" and "Fi" have no meaning or purpose, and i'd like to better understand both functions. and we all use both Fe and Fi, so we will all demonstrate aspects of both, and they may manifest differently as colored by our other functions.



to loop back to the point of the thread (lol!) a world without Fe as i've framed it here would lack tending to interpersonal connections. it would be difficult for large groups to organize, which has the interesting effect of both making peace and extended harmony impossible and making large-scale organized war less likely. more like we'd just have groups running around and burning down one another's villages when they periodically got pissed off at one another. without Fe, we wouldn't have any lasting, cohesive institutions like universities. :sad: it'd be hard to make any forward progress, as we'd be caught up in personal squabbles all the time, and we wouldn't have lasting friendships or relationships, either.

curiously -- i went to a small liberal arts university (possibly my favorite place in the world, but i'll try to assess it neutrally, lol) and it occurs to me now that the student population, in general, seemed to be lacking in Fe strengths. students there are very loyal to their departments but not as much to the institution as a whole, and overall unity/spirit is lacking - which i found really unfortunate. it is strong in Fi strengths, though - very attuned to values and self-development, and multitudes of small groups dedicated to causes.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
so i was just brainstorming a little... this could all be wrong, strong Fe users let me know...



first of all thanks for the reply to what i posted, it's great for us both to be chill about this! :) i see what you mean about posting what you did find interesting - that it didn't get commented on much. that's pretty Ni, lol. looking at the box from outside the box. it's cool. and your point about INTJs tending not to respond to NFJ as much is interesting too. i actually feel "on the same page" as INTJ posts frequently, which has been a surprise to me (no offense to INTJs obviously, we just only share 1 letter) but i have strong tert Te and if an INTJ has strong tert Fi then we share two of our top 3 functions, which is interesting. types that "look" totally different can be more similar cognitively than types that "look" the same (aka share more letters) in some ways.

anyway, about Fe = group and Fi = individual, i don't really think of it like that either... the way i had understood it was more that:

Fe is better attuned to interpersonal relations
  • i picture Fe as tending to the outer threads that connect people. awareness of person-to-person dynamics, generally better in groups because is externally oriented, more aware of status and roles within relationships, more attuned to maintaining bonds, better awareness of graduated trust levels, in tune to how to form and preserve a relationship with another person and how people interact with other people both 1-on-1 and in larger systems. works outside -> in to connect with a person.

Fi is better attuned to intrapersonal relations
  • i picture Fi as tending to the inner threads that make up what people are. awareness of inner belief and feeling, best usage in groups is on a unifying/inspiring level, more aware of subjective values and how they affect a person, more attuned to connection based on ideals, baseline open trust based on focus on intention, in tune with how to build a person up inside and in finding inner commonalities between people. works inside -> out to connect with a person.

so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.



disclaimer -- just to emphasize, i understand these as generalizations. i would like to get some Fe and Fi differences mapped out though because otherwise the terms "Fe" and "Fi" have no meaning or purpose, and i'd like to better understand both functions. and we all use both Fe and Fi, so we will all demonstrate aspects of both, and they may manifest differently as colored by our other functions.



to loop back to the point of the thread (lol!) a world without Fe as i've framed it here would lack tending to interpersonal connections. it would be difficult for large groups to organize, which has the interesting effect of both making peace and extended harmony impossible and making large-scale organized war less likely. more like we'd just have groups running around and burning down one another's villages when they periodically got pissed off at one another. without Fe, we wouldn't have any lasting, cohesive institutions like universities. :sad: it'd be hard to make any forward progress, as we'd be caught up in personal squabbles all the time, and we wouldn't have lasting friendships or relationships, either.

curiously -- i went to a small liberal arts university (possibly my favorite place in the world, but i'll try to assess it neutrally, lol) and it occurs to me now that the student population, in general, seemed to be lacking in Fe strengths. students there are very loyal to their departments but not as much to the institution as a whole, and overall unity/spirit is lacking - which i found really unfortunate. it is strong in Fi strengths, though - very attuned to values and self-development, and multitudes of small groups dedicated to causes.

:yes: :D

Now imagine when we hit our shadow...we enter into a world that the opposite function understands.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Now imagine when we hit our shadow...we enter into a world that the opposite function understands.

Yup, and it's interesting that you bring this point up

I'm pretty sure that Jung urged people to integrate their shadows into their personality.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, but bear in mind too: My Fi "rules" could quite closely match any Fe ones ... there's quite a lot of natural overlap, commonality, between the two functions.

I agree with that.

It can overlap. And sometimes it does. It's just that Fe (by nature) tends to be "collective morality/social expectations" driven by a group -- the group codified idea of how to make the community function on an interpersonal level -- and Fi tends to be individually personalized.

But the separation everyone keeps drawing is not that distinct. Both impact each other's development. Group rules develop based on the personal morals of the individuals, and personal morals are impacted by the group environment. Neither perspective comes out of the ether all alone.

And Fe "rules" vary from group to group, place to place ... I generally observe and study them to learn what they are in order to not step on any toes. I value relationships and peaceful coexistence, so therefore I care enough to do this.

They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.

Why am I so careful? Because there's this sense I have, that if I break them, inadvertently or not, it will be noted and held against me in the future. My true nature and intent are less relevant it seems. The Fe "brownie points" or "faux pas" I score become data points, that an Fe user seems to use as reference to predict my future behaviour and thus make judgements about my character.

So does it seem irrational to look for consistency in someone's behavior? I think one definition of mental illness is inconsistency in behavior (either that, or extreme rigidity). Most people are consistent enough that we can even bother to discuss this topic and personality types. And if we were in relationships with someone whose behavior was unpredictable, well, we typically feel like (and are advised to) get out.

I think looking from the outside-in, "true nature and intent" is hard to perceive. It's based solely on the word of the person who has been acting inconsistently with their statements, and there are many many people in this word who express one intention and do something else. Extreme example: My alcoholic father might have gone around and bemoaned to everyone that "he loved his family" ... and I actually have no doubt that INSIDE he FELT like he loved us and had feelings of commitment toward us... but from my perspective that was bullshit, he never acted on any of it or expressed it in a relevant way that solidified our relationship.

All because he did not behave in a way that was consistent with his actions and the impact of his actions, nor showed any awareness of how to tie any of it together or admit where it might look inconsistent.


Fe is based on expressed behavior.
Fi seems based on unexpressed intent.

Obviously there are problems with either being used as an ultimate "rule of thumb." We have to use both to somehow "circle in" on what actually is unfolding and who people are.

I'm still disappointed that these questions/thoughts were never addressed:( Only because I think this entire post is awesome and reflects many of the ways I look at things. Well, not only that: the fact that it just kinda fell by the wayside seems to indicate protean wasn't exactly 'heard' or acknowledged/understood either -- there was no interaction/dialogue related to this post (well, that wasn't soon deleted).

I think it was a remarkable post, and I'm disappointed as well.

Of course, maybe it was ignored because no one could take any beef with it?
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

What's interesting though is that half of the INTJ posts tend to resonate with me, and I can relate quite well to the ideas presented, and may even agree. I think it's ultimately, as you said, choosing which frame to view through. While I find your frame quite valid and 'true' for what it is, I tend not to put as much weight/focus on it. Perhaps this is what you meant about NiFe? (although it's hard to discern if you even relate at all to NiFe posts... I'm just trying to figure out if NiFe's can 'bridge' to INTJ perspective easier than INTJ's can bridge to INFJ's, or whether it's in fact equal and it's just a matter of opposite reaction/presentation - NiFe's trying to reach out more and NiTe's letting things slip by that they don't particularly find noteworthy to regard ;))

Peacebaby said:
*watches the expansion with interest*

haha...ohh, I don't know that I want to delve into that. :smile: To be honest, doing so would just be stating trends in the end, and my whole difficulty with practical application of mbti is that when you are faced with an individual - random Joe - you can't just pick up the Trend and try to apply it to Joe. The trend might be all well and good and true, but it applies to a group in its entirety; it describes tendencies within a specific type or function. To try to fit trends of a group to an isolated, individual data point in the spectrum doesn't work imo. Seems backwards to me. Each data point will add further data/info to the group as a whole, but you can't go in reverse. Well, imo.

I suppose that's why I am unable/unwilling to say 'Fe does this across the board', and 'Fi does that across the board'. I understand the usefulness and desire by others to do so - again, it's choosing to just step back and view it as a theoretical framework - an organizational structure - and that's fine. I do it too; I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm always categorizing people and things, and I think it's a thing humans do naturally. It's useful when you're painting broad strokes/trends. But it crumbles to pieces the minute you start having people interacting and providing their own input -- case in point on this board. Then all of the inconsistencies start bubbling up, you have Fi people huffing that they don't relate to some of these 'Fi trends' (and rightfully so), you have Fe people huffing that they don't relate to Fe stereotypes... I just find the usefulness of all of it can fade when you start working with an actual person in front of you (as most people don't fit the archetype - the Trend - of their type to a T).

Peacebaby said:
I personally agree, but the NT's (in general) will tell you that of course there are exceptions, they are not trying to put people in boxes, they are only trying to track and log tendencies, not absolutes.

Sure. And I get that. But this ties into what I just said.. it's one thing logging and tracking tendencies from afar. But it doesn't work to apply Trends - statistics, if you will -which by their nature apply to the Group as a whole, to an isolated individual.

I'm reminded of my friends' INTJ boyfriend who was mulling over whether or not he wanted kids. He started looking at statistics to see overall happiness levels of those who had kids vs. those who didn't, presumably to then use that data as a way to determine whether he should have kids or not. That's fine and dandy, but as my friend and I were thinking/saying (well she said, not me ;)), the fact that, say, 70% of people who had kids were happy, had no bearing on whether he as an individual would be one of those happy ones. Not to mention the flakiness of people answering the questions and the statistical method/questions themselves being off and not really giving fruitful data, the different types of people who would be in the have-kids poll vs. don't-have-kids poll, etc. Well anyway.

skylights said:
so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.

Great post!!! This bit here is particularly interesting/great...I'll have to mull over it a bit, but it seems to make sense.
 

Speed Gavroche

Whisky Old & Women Young
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
5,152
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Excelent question.

adolf-hitler1.jpg
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
But the separation everyone keeps drawing is not that distinct. Both impact each other's development. Group rules develop based on the personal morals of the individuals, and personal morals are impacted by the group environment. Neither perspective comes out of the ether all alone.

@bold: agreed

They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.

:) Yes, I do do that - view "communities"' as "individuals" ... I look at each person in a very individual way too, as well as within the particular contexts of their life (family groups, social groups, cultural groups). It's like a series of concentric circles, ripples in a pool of water, with the individual at the center.

So does it seem irrational to look for consistency in someone's behavior? I think one definition of mental illness is inconsistency in behavior (either that, or extreme rigidity).

No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?

I think looking from the outside-in, "true nature and intent" is hard to perceive. It's based solely on the word of the person who has been acting inconsistently with their statements, and there are many many people in this word who express one intention and do something else.

Hmm yes, I agree.

Extreme example: My alcoholic father might have gone around and bemoaned to everyone that "he loved his family" ... and I actually have no doubt that INSIDE he FELT like he loved us and had feelings of commitment toward us... but from my perspective that was bullshit, he never acted on any of it or expressed it in a relevant way that solidified our relationship.

All because he did not behave in a way that was consistent with his actions and the impact of his actions, nor showed any awareness of how to tie any of it together or admit where it might look inconsistent.

And I agree there has to be an enmeshing; you can say everything that sounds all good and flowery but the rubber has to hit the road sometime (so to speak). You can't just say you love someone - if your actions are in opposition, you risk losing that relationship.

You know on the forum, it's challenging to deliver those kinds of concrete affirmations, at least I find it so. I rep people, say hello when their walls are accessible, try to build those relationships up. Lots of what I would call "Fe expressions". But even here, there are groups that exist that are kind of challenging to access. And you have less of a voice because you're not "in" that group.

But what other things would an Fe user find lets them feel comfortable getting to know someone? Is it really just about an Fi user being patient and following the Fe guidelines til they are granted access?

Sometimes I personally wonder if I should even try to be careful, follow the Fe guidelines. I seem to get tripped by them despite my desire not to offend anyone. I am probably the most group-oriented harmony-loving INFP on this site too, so if I can't seem to navigate without insulting people ... man it's tough. It's easier IRL because there's so much more info for me to draw from (body language, group dynamics, and so forth.)

Maybe I should just express myself naturally and let the resultant outcome be what it is. If I can't get it right, is it worth trying so hard? (rhetorical question; of course I will always try, but you have no idea how much effort I put into this.)
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
@bold: agreed

They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.

:) Yes, I do do that - view "communities"' as "individuals" ... I look at each person in a very individual way too, as well as within the particular contexts of their life (family groups, social groups, cultural groups). It's like a series of concentric circles, ripples in a pool of water, with the individual at the center.



No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?



Hmm yes, I agree.



And I agree there has to be an enmeshing; you can say everything that sounds all good and flowery but the rubber has to hit the road sometime (so to speak). You can't just say you love someone - if your actions are in opposition, you risk losing that relationship.

You know on the forum, it's challenging to deliver those kinds of concrete affirmations, at least I find it so. I rep people, say hello when their walls are accessible, try to build those relationships up. Lots of what I would call "Fe expressions". But even here, there are groups that exist that are kind of challenging to access. And you have less of a voice because you're not "in" that group.

But what other things would an Fe user find lets them feel comfortable getting to know someone? Is it really just about an Fi user being patient and following the Fe guidelines til they are granted access?

Sometimes I personally wonder if I should even try to be careful, follow the Fe guidelines. I seem to get tripped by them despite my desire not to offend anyone. I am probably the most group-oriented harmony-loving INFP on this site too, so if I can't seem to navigate without insulting people ... man it's tough. It's easier IRL because there's so much more info for me to draw from (body language, group dynamics, and so forth.)

Maybe I should just express myself naturally and let the resultant outcome be what it is. If I can't get it right, is it worth trying so hard? (rhetorical question; of course I will always try, but you have no idea how much effort I put into this.)


I don't think this is about mbti.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

For myself, I think this is true - starting from a position of guardedness and, over time, getting to know the person and seeing whether they are consistent in who they are. I don't think I would tie it to their behavior 'meeting a certain standard' though beyond consistency and authenticity to *who they are* -- so I don't have some pre-formed template as to how I think they are or how they should be that they have to line up with. It is unique to them alone, but if there are drastic inconsistencies, then I won't be able to trust in who they are or know who they are.

In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?

It's probably fair that others might feel they're jumping through hoops. On my end, I've never been one who is in a rush to dive deeply, I pace things based on the individual and the dynamic/interaction itself. THEY might fully divulge right away, which is one thing, but on my end I won't reciprocate until I have that trust in who they are (see above) and that has been demonstrated over time - rather than just a momentary mood or phase that they are in. On the rare occasion I gain that trust relatively soon; typically with fellow dom-N's. But as a rule of thumb it builds up over time. I will say I don't relate at all to starting from a position of a trust and then booting them out if they violate it. Trust is the end result for me, not the starting point, and of course they might still get booted out later on if they then majorly violate something once the trust has been established. I'd have to then question my whole concept of who they are and basically start from scratch (in some ways).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?

Oh, nice! :)

I need time to think about that one (since I'm having to get some work done right now too), and meanwhile will let others respond to it while I'm thinking...
 
Top