What would the world do without Fe?

[onemoretime]

*watches the expansion with interest*

That's what she said.

 

[Poki]

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.

So if we say that Fi starts intra and Fe starts inter, then switching would be trying to start intra instead of starting inter, not exactly reaching Fi building that trust. As opposed to keep trying to reach intra. Would be like jumping ship for Xe instead of trying to reach Xi the normal way.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I don't think this is about mbti.

Please share with me what you think it is about; I welcome your thoughts.

Edit:

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?

@bold: THAT. yes. I think I've noted two or three times now in thread that I agree with it, pretty much as it stands. Not sure why my agreeing with it is overlooked either.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thanks for that whole post. I want to focus on this:

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.

I think that most Fi users will agree with starting from a position of trust, and most Fe users will feel as you do.

That is a key difference.

All, please weigh in and share on that point. Interested to expand it.

 

[uumlau]

Thanks for that whole post. I want to focus on this:



I think that most Fi users will agree with starting from a position of trust, and most Fe users will feel as you do.

That is a key difference.

All, please weigh in and share on that point. Interested to expand it.

It may well be the key difference.

As an INTJ, I ended up essentially having to "turn off" emotions, because of the tendency of Fi to too readily trust. I "use Te" to substitute for Fe, but it still sucks at the job, because it really doesn't know when to hand it over to Fi.

Fe seems to be very capable of starting from a general distrust and to slowly and gradually warm to a person over time, possibly halting at "a particular level of trust" beyond which one is not allowed to cross.

Fi, for me, is that binary, on/off. I trust you with my heart, or I simply don't hold much affection for you at all and interface (albeit kindly and respectfully) via Te. And from seeing other Fi people in my life, it is "mostly binary." Lately, however, I've been slowly changing this on purpose, letting people see more of what is inside me, but not letting them all the way in. Perhaps this is kind of a "backwards Fe?" Where I still keep a close guard on my feelings, but send out "Fi probes" to see if a person is OK?

Anyway, it would likely behoove both Fe and Fi to recognize that these initial Fe/Fi states of distrust vs trust exist.

As for developing the opposite function, I think such recognition makes it easier how to train "the other function" even though one's preference would remain preferred.

 

[Amargith]

*smiles*

For me it works the opposite way of Fe. I start people off with the benefit of the doubt. I'm curious about them and I will assume, as I don't know them, that they have their reasons for doing what they do. I will do recon however. As much as they will allow me to do. I'll read them, observe them, question why they do things, but unless they do something that violates my trust, and even *then*, I won't judge. I'll judge once I'm failry certain I've got their number. Once all puzzle pieces fall into place. *Then* I feel justified in judging them, as I know the judgement will be way more nuanced and infused with understanding of who they are, which is vital for me.

It can also happen that they suddenly demonstrate a behavior that I find offensive. Once I figure out *why* they do it, I'll make the decision to keep them in my life and if so, in what capacity. The level of trust they get, at that point gets refined and cemented. Often, this is the trust given in a particular area of their personality (like their shticks ), and I'll do the same with other areas of their personality and behavior, until I have a complete picture. The reason I do it that way is to balance out fairness towards the other person and protection of my own tender heart. I admit, sometimes they blindsight me and take me by surprise, which results in a lot of heart ache. But then..that doesn't kill me, nor is it something I'm not able to handle. I just consider it a lesson for the future, to catch it if it were to occur again in another situation.

 

[Jaguar]

generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

You just described me.

 

[skylights]

@bold: THAT. yes. I think I've noted two or three times now in thread that I agree with it, pretty much as it stands. Not sure why my agreeing with it is overlooked either.

yep, basically. it seems like pretty much everyone agreed. and it was well-developed and well-rounded enough that i didn't feel like it was necessary to say much else on the topic.

So if we say that Fi starts intra and Fe starts inter, then switching would be trying to start intra instead of starting inter, not exactly reaching Fi building that trust. As opposed to keep trying to reach intra. Would be like jumping ship for Xe instead of trying to reach Xi the normal way.

hm, yeah. i think we still tend to keep our baseline trust levels, but we attempt to use the other function's strategies more. i'm in a couple social groups and they certainly require the practice of Fe strengths, but i still work within a more Fi paradigm even if i'm using Fe more behaviorally. like i'm still more attuned to inner workings, both mine and the other person's, even if i'm using interpersonal skills.

actually i think one of the flaws of the "intrapersonal" multiple intelligence according to gardner is the notion that it only applies to oneself.

It may well be the key difference.

As an INTJ, I ended up essentially having to "turn off" emotions, because of the tendency of Fi to too readily trust. I "use Te" to substitute for Fe, but it still sucks at the job, because it really doesn't know when to hand it over to Fi.

Fe seems to be very capable of starting from a general distrust and to slowly and gradually warm to a person over time, possibly halting at "a particular level of trust" beyond which one is not allowed to cross.

Fi, for me, is that binary, on/off. I trust you with my heart, or I simply don't hold much affection for you at all and interface (albeit kindly and respectfully) via Te. And from seeing other Fi people in my life, it is "mostly binary." Lately, however, I've been slowly changing this on purpose, letting people see more of what is inside me, but not letting them all the way in. Perhaps this is kind of a "backwards Fe?" Where I still keep a close guard on my feelings, but send out "Fi probes" to see if a person is OK?

Anyway, it would likely behoove both Fe and Fi to recognize that these initial Fe/Fi states of distrust vs trust exist.

As for developing the opposite function, I think such recognition makes it easier how to train "the other function" even though one's preference would remain preferred.

nice points. "backwards Fe" is a good way to describe it, lol. it's Fe acting for the sake of Fi.

i feel similarly about Fi's autotrust, but i'm not sure if i can/do turn it off... maybe turn it down... but off, i dunno... anyway i think that trust, for me, is based in some really core beliefs about humanity -- like that people are fundamentally good. i think it's hard for me to see Fi as binary because it informs almost everything i do.

uumlau would you mind expanding on how you see Fi binary IRL?

there are just a couple people in my life who cause my trust levels to plummet. like a guy i know who distrusted me and accused me of doing something i didn't do before he even met me. we're friends now, even though he still thinks i did it, but i can't shake the awareness of how guarded he is (not to mention shaking my pissed-off-ness that he was cold and accusatory before we even met), and for that reason, i don't ever really feel comfortable around him. one of my close friends, a Fe dom, is closer with him and she doesn't seem to mind filtering through what's crap and what's not - she finds it interesting and entertaining, if kind of stupid - he almost seems like a game to her - though she keeps him at a distance too. honestly i don't understand how he can function in the world, being so distrustful. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. he doesn't trust anyone, so they can't trust him, so he has no reason to trust them.

 

[Jaguar]

How, or why, we trust is not the result of a single jungian function. I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You just described me.

Do you have anything of value to add, or are you just here to take more pot-shots from the sidelines and contribute to an overall tone of distrust and indiscretion in this thread?

You know my position very well; I certainly don't attribute behaviour to MBTI. I don't need your "winky" emoticons as some sort of indirect reminder. But I do have an interest in examining the functions to see if they correlate at all to communication trends I have noted here over time. Fundamental blocks between people, and I am interested to see how to bridge those gaps.

Yet I grow tired of your insubstantial posts. You push the same weary rhetoric in every thread you participate in. Most of the time I ignore it, and when you post something of value I try to rep you and encourage your positive participation.

Not that it makes much difference, it seems.

But I see what you do. Just because I have the good manners not to point out your poor ones doesn't mean people don't see the "real" you in there.

 

[Glycerine]

How, or why, we trust is not the result of a single jungian function. I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.

yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.

 

[Jaguar]

Do you have anything of value to add, or are you just here to take more pot-shots from the sidelines and contribute to an overall tone of distrust and indiscretion in this thread?

You know my position very well; I certainly don't attribute behaviour to MBTI. I don't need your "winky" emoticons as some sort of indirect reminder. But I do have an interest in examining the functions to see if they correlate at all to communication trends I have noted here over time. Fundamental blocks between people, and I am interested to see how to bridge those gaps.

Yet I grow tired of your insubstantial posts. You push the same weary rhetoric in every thread you participate in. Most of the time I ignore it, and when you post something of value I try to rep you and encourage your positive participation.

Not that it makes much difference, it seems.

But I see what you do. Just because I have the good manners not to point out your poor ones doesn't mean people don't see the "real" you in there.

So you're going to keep this up, even after last night? The outbursts are going to get even worse? Fine. I will let a mod know why.

Take care.

 

[garbage]

I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.

Hmm. Interesting question, Jaguar. However, I would argue that the opposite is true. Burger King's tagline is "Have it your way," which appeals to the Fi mindset.

I think you'll find that my position on the matter is logically thorough and completely defensible.

Excelent question.

[hitler]

Also, Gahndi

 

[uumlau]

yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.

I don't think that's what people are trying to get at. Absolutely, specific issues in specific individuals are a result of a huge host of things going on in that one's life, and Jungian functions or typology play a partial role, at most.

However, discussing things in functional terms is not to imply that the functions cause the problem, but rather that those who rely strongly on that function perceive the problem(s) in a certain way or ways. I don't trust or distrust due to Fi, but rather my perception of trust appears to be "all or nothing" in emotional terms. I do "degrees of trust" in what I feel are "Te terms." I.e., once I get to "degrees of trust," it doesn't feel "emo" to me any more, but far more cold and rational and distant. It also feels very difficult for me to translate the "Te degrees of trust" into something more "emo," especially if I'm interested in getting closer to someone. It only translates, for me, into "emo" when I fully trust.

The entire hypothesis may be bogus: whatever I perceive as mapping to Fi or Te may not really consistently or correlatively map. But for now, we have people comparing notes. The idea isn't fleshed out. It certainly isn't "true" one way or the other: it's an investigation with several individuals participating, providing their own perspectives.

For instance, I suspect that in "Fe terms," it may very well feel more "emo" or less "emo," depending on the degree of trust. (I.e., Fe feels more or less "warm" towards one, given the degree of trust.) If you don't think it does, that's a wonderful data point to include. If you think it does, same thing. Either way, there's probably more detail you could provide from your perspective. It's by sharing perspectives that we all learn.

 

[proteanmix]

I don't think that's what people are trying to get at. Absolutely, specific issues in specific individuals are a result of a huge host of things going on in that one's life, and Jungian functions or typology play a partial role, at most.

However, discussing things in functional terms is not to imply that the functions cause the problem, but rather that those who rely strongly on that function perceive the problem(s) in a certain way or ways. I don't trust or distrust due to Fi, but rather my perception of trust appears to be "all or nothing" in emotional terms. I do "degrees of trust" in what I feel are "Te terms." I.e., once I get to "degrees of trust," it doesn't feel "emo" to me any more, but far more cold and rational and distant. It also feels very difficult for me to translate the "Te degrees of trust" into something more "emo," especially if I'm interested in getting closer to someone. It only translates, for me, into "emo" when I fully trust.

The entire hypothesis may be bogus: whatever I perceive as mapping to Fi or Te may not really consistently or correlatively map. But for now, we have people comparing notes. The idea isn't fleshed out. It certainly isn't "true" one way or the other: it's an investigation with several individuals participating, providing their own perspectives.

For instance, I suspect that in "Fe terms," it may very well feel more "emo" or less "emo," depending on the degree of trust. (I.e., Fe feels more or less "warm" towards one, given the degree of trust.) If you don't think it does, that's a wonderful data point to include. If you think it does, same thing. Either way, there's probably more detail you could provide from your perspective. It's by sharing perspectives that we all learn.

Here's a Fe dom telling you what they feel (none of these people are Fe doms BTW) and you begin your post, "I don't think that's what people are trying to get at."

As a Fe dom (a person supposedly more inclined to use this function) she says no this is not the case, I don't default to distrust, she's telling you WHY the issue is occurring and it's dismissed. Once again, why are there so few FJs (and TPs) commenting in this thread when they're supposedly the people who use Fe consciously? Wouldn't they know what they're doing? Wouldn't their opinion hold a little more weight in this matter since they're doing it?

I feel like I have commented several times over as a Fe dom why people are possibly seeing what they're seeing and I'm yelling over a bunch of people who are like "whatever, let me tell you how you're supposed to function."

So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.

Do I default into distrust rather than trust? No, I feel mostly neutral towards the vast majority of people I met and I certainly don't start from a position of distrust. Unless I have reason to suspect or distrust you I feel neutral towards you.

OK, so I ask once again am I interpreting this correctly: Now people are hypothesizing that Fe starts from a position of distrust. This gets better!

 

[uumlau]

Here's a Fe dom telling you what they feel (none of these people are Fe doms BTW) and you begin your post, "I don't think that's what people are trying to get at."

Thank you for responding, Pro!

As a Fe dom (a person supposedly more inclined to use this function) she says no this is not the case, I don't default to distrust, she's telling you WHY the issue is occurring and it's dismissed. Once again, why are there so few FJs (and TPs) commenting in this thread when they're supposedly the people who use Fe consciously? Wouldn't they know what they're doing? Wouldn't their opinion hold a little more weight in this matter since they're doing it?

I feel like I have commented several times over as a Fe dom why people are possibly seeing what they're seeing and I'm yelling over a bunch of people who are like "whatever, let me tell you how you're supposed to function."

So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.

To be clear, I don't believe I have dismissed anyone's responses. If you believe I have dismissed any of yours, I'm fully willing to go into more detail w/r to any specific case. I endeavor to be brief, so as not to bore the reader, and it is possible that I may have ignored a point you believe important in the interests of time and space [and superstring theory(!)].

Do I default into distrust rather than trust? No, I feel mostly neutral towards the vast majority of people I met and I certainly don't start from a position of distrust. Unless I have reason to suspect or distrust you I feel neutral towards you.

OK, so I ask once again am I interpreting this correctly: Now people are hypothesizing that Fe starts from a position of distrust. This gets better!

Well, I think it was originally presented here:

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.

A position of "guardedness."

Does "guardedness" translate to "neutral" or "distrust," to you? I could see either being valid. I'm interested in how you feel/think about it.

Personally, I would hypothesize that Fe handles "degrees" of trust, in (please forgive, for lack of a better word) "emo" terms. I.e, one who is dom (or aux?) Fe feels positive or negative trust as more or less "warmth" or "coolness" towards a person. Personally, I "feel" trust as binary. I either "analyze" to figure how much risk I am willing to take, in a cold, calculating way, or I "just trust someone," effectively without reservation.

 

[PeaceBaby]

So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.

yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.

I thought the meant it was a joke. Is your experience true Pitseleh?

 

[Glycerine]

I thought the meant it was a joke. Is your experience true Pitseleh?

yes. That was a true experience but I played it off more as a joke.

 

[Jaguar]

yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.

The events of childhood shape us greatly, and what we experience can either deter or encourage the development of certain functions. I read an article in one of the monthly newsletters for Psychological Type where a coach was discussing people who went through unusual childhoods. For example, those who were raised in emotionally or physically abusive homes, alcoholic homes, drug addict homes etc. would have functions highly developed, that could/would be out of the expected norm, since the functional development occurred as a coping mechanism to "surive." This is why so many people don't fit into a perfect MBTI box. The functions simply do not line up, and they know it. But then as InsatiableCuriosity once posted from the MBTI practitioner's handbook, Not everyone is a type.


By the way, for the 3856th time, the FEELING function is not to be confused with physiological emotions or being "emo." I am going to print up T-shirts for all the forum members:

FEELING isn't emo!

Hmm. Interesting question, Jaguar. However, I would argue that the opposite is true. Burger King's tagline is "Have it your way," which appeals to the Fi mindset.

I think you'll find that my position on the matter is logically thorough and completely defensible.

I stand corrected. Lol.

 

[cascadeco]

A position of "guardedness."

Does "guardedness" translate to "neutral" or "distrust," to you? I could see either being valid. I'm interested in how you feel/think about it.

For me, neutral. It's not that I distrust them, because I don't. But, it honestly doesn't even make sense to me to trust someone from the get-go, when you basically know nothing about them. Trust, to me, implies some sort of history, actual 'data', if you will, so that you actually have a reason to hold that trust in them. Over time you've learned more and more about them.

And to be clear, 'trust' in this case has to do with Belief in their authenticity, and 'solidity' as a person (i.e. tied to consistency). Also, a belief that the Relationship - the entity itself, so not just them as a solo person, but the two of us together - has a solid foundation and stands the test of time, which can only be known by, well, it actually standing the test of time.

Personally, I would hypothesize that Fe handles "degrees" of trust, in (please forgive, for lack of a better word) "emo" terms. I.e, one who is dom (or aux?) Fe feels positive or negative trust as more or less "warmth" or "coolness" towards a person. Personally, I "feel" trust as binary. I either "analyze" to figure how much risk I am willing to take, in a cold, calculating way, or I "just trust someone," effectively without reservation.

I'm not sure. The closer I feel to someone, the more I might let them into my world, and the more open I will be w/ regards to various sides of my personality. If I don't feel as close to someone, they won't see as much. It doesn't really have to do with my not trusting them as an individual, sometimes it has more to do with my not sensing that the Relationship itself is mutually beneficial and healthy for both, and that we'll both gain something out of it and grow together. I may just not desire that level of closeness with the person - simple as that. Doesn't necessarily equate to my 'distrusting' them.


(and btw, I never meant to imply that Fe 'started from a position of distrust'. I merely answered Peacebaby's inquiry w/ regards to myself. It may have been postulated after the fact, though. And, as should be obvious based on my previous posts, I'm not saying 'this is Fe', or the like. This is me.)