• 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?

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I think the problem you're running into is you're trying to break processes down into places they can't go. They're inadequate to cover this. They don't stretch that far. It's not being resistant to categorizing functions, it's about understanding they have reached the end of their rope and outlived their usefulness. It's like a woman trying to put her ass into jeans that will not fit. Give it up, it's not happening! Once things are this granular (trust, love, intimacy, feeling understood, etc.) the distinctions are lost.

I agree with most of what you said, Protean, but I still think one needs to have these discussions to figure out how far the functions really do stretch...

I mean, isn't that largely the point of this forum? Discovery via discussion?

As I said before, I haven't read much before post #140, and until these last few pages, I'd just skimmed the couple pages that occurred since I left this thread yesterday, but, based on what I gleaned (and I may be wrong), it seems like people were trying to draw a connection between being trusting and Fi and not being trusting and Fe.

For the record, we all know how low Fe is on my list of functional preferences, and Fi is pretty much #2-3 for me, but I sure as shit ain't a trusting person.

I read people and give them the trust I believe they deserve, but my default position certainly doesn't start at "trust".

Moreso the opposite, really.
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Some crap split somewhere else, find it yourself if you're so inclined, it's not interesting though so you'll be disappointed if you do.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Can we have a drama-fest on Ti later on, coz that's the function that confounds me the most :D
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Fe being a necessary evil! *runs for cover* :peepwall:
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Coz I don't understand it...care to explain it to me? :)
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
I agree with most of what you said, Protean, but I still think one needs to have these discussions to figure out how far the functions really do stretch...

I mean, isn't that largely the point of this forum? Discovery via discussion?

I am totally OK with this, but it takes 300+ posts of confusion to even reach this conclusion.

Instead of saying Fi=authentic, Fe=fake, ask how does Fe/Fi manifest its authenticity?

Instead of saying Fi=trust/Fe=distrust, ask how does it manifest itself these functions?

Instead of saying Fi=empathetic (this one boils my blood!), ask how would it manifest through these functions?

You get the picture. That way, you can accommodate and stretch stretch it further, without putting them at loggerheads and like the freaking Montagues and Capulets. Tupac vs. Biggie. People end up dead like that.

Or huffing off in a tantrum. <------THAT IS A JOKE
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Fi does the same. I seek the difference between the two...the exact difference ;)
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
The thing is that there isn't an exact difference. There is so much overlap. :)
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The thing is that there isn't an exact difference. :)

And that's what makes this so hard, hence the frustration, as the difference is in the little things..where you'd least expect it and in the most annoying nooks and crannies.

So...shall we try this thread again? Once more, from the top?
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I thought just you said Ti pisses you off, and yet here you are. :tongue10:

Read again...I said that Ti confounds me, so I wanted to start a drama-fest on that topic :D
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Do you see how it's already starting off on the wrong foot? There is no neutrality in descriptions. It's the same thing when people say "Fi is authentic." You're automatically setting up an oppositional force. If one thing is real then the other is fake. If one is, the other isn't. Do I believe that is the case? No, I don't. But many people do. And because it's hard to break out of either/or thinking. I fall into it too...I'm not absolving myself.

I think the same thing happens in both types of threads of this ilk. We have threads where "Fi is selfish", "Fi is pretentious", "Fi is whiny-emo".

Oppositional force, as you say. We both have feelings about that.

I asked people to splice the Fe and Fi out of the mission statement I posted earlier. No one has tried. In my very first post in this thread I asked these questions. I said this before all the drama and no one responded to it.

My response was:

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.

(Which protean aptly pointed out by posting the mission statement earlier in thread.)

Meaning, to pull functions out of that would be a true challenge. I don't think it's possible. The expression of Fi values could look exactly the same as any Fe values.

I think the problem you're running into is you're trying to break processes down into places they can't go. They're inadequate to cover this. They don't stretch that far. It's not being resistant to categorizing functions, it's about understanding they have reached the end of their rope and outlived their usefulness. It's like a woman trying to put her ass into jeans that will not fit. Give it up, it's not happening! Once things are this granular (trust, love, intimacy, feeling understood, etc.) the distinctions are lost.

I think it's fair to say many of the posters in thread agree with this. People are just stretching it to see how far it can go.

I mean, we still try to put on those jeans, right? :)
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
Satine: I am bit hesitant to. I would be a masochist to accept. Get domino as fresh meat. :)
 
Top