Fe vs. Fi, Disloyalty, Allegiance, Or the Lack Thereof…

[Sunny Ghost]

[*]What constitutes loyalty?

To me, loyalty is still being there for a friend even if you hit a rough patch. To me, it's the same in love and in friendship. You don't drop someone because of a disagreement. Loyalty is also being there when your friend needs you, as well as making the tough calls every once in a while. Such as knowing your boundaries on whether or not you need to step in a point out something for your friend, or whether or not something can be brushed aside.

[*]What is expected of those pledging friendship and allegiance?

Loyalty in return. That means trust and comfort as well.

[*]If someone displays disloyalty, what is the appropriate response?

It depends. I suppose it takes a lot for someone to really push my buttons. But keep pushing, and eventually I'll have my words on the matter with you and won't want you part of my daily life anymore. I'll still play nice at face value, if it's required, but I will no longer call you or respond to you after that.

• How loyalty is displayed and how such behavior is interpreted by [Fe/Fi].

• I suppose, to me loyalty is displayed in both actions and words. I'd lean more heavily towards actions. It took a long time for me to fully trust the loyalty of an ESTJ friend... and we've had a couple of falling out's with one another. However, now she's one of my best friends. She's finally learned to be kinder with her words, she's supportive, she goes out of her way for me, and basically has shown that she's always there for me no matter what. She used to be a bit too blunt and had no problem pointing out my flaws, even minuscule ones that didn't matter. Though I respect this with bigger things, she's learned to choose her battles and with the small things, she'll go along with me and be supportive of me or my nature now. haha. And believe me, I notice whenever she does it... but I respect her just the same.
  
  

  [*]Who has the right to express disagreement per [Fe/Fi]?

  Who has the right?? Anyone has their right to express disagreement. Everyone has their own agenda, be it to uphold a societal norm or an internal value.
  
  

  Please share your examples of when Fe and Fi have differing senses of disloyalty, loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity.

  Something I've noticed between me(Fi/Se) and my sister(Fe/Si), is that she's often more quick to pass judgment. But she's also more quick to make new friends and back up her friends. With me, though I might pass judgment, I often don't let that block my interactions... I allow people a second and sometimes third chance before I decide someone is unworthy of my time. My sister would make a quick judgment, even if it's the first time meeting someone, and then decide they aren't worthy of her time.
  
  
  

  Since these discussions can become very heated, let me remind everyone that this is intended to be a respectful and open discussion of these differences. Your comments, kudos, and criticisms, are welcome as long as you input is delivered in a kind and conciliatory manner.
  

  So feeler of you.

 

[cascadeco]

I have a system of "loyalty" for people in general. I have a personal ethic to not talk about people behind their backs in environments where they could be affected by the discussion. If I have an employer or coworker who causes me problems, I will talk to my family or fiance' about it, but not to coworkers. The closest I come to talking behind a back is discussing some family issues with family because there is an established common trust and concern. If I know the other person loves someone as much as I do and we are both worried about them, then there is discussion of mutual concern and problem solving, but I don't say critical hurtful things. I also feel strongly protective of the people I love, and the worst situation is when I can't act to help when someone has caused harm. I would go to great lengths to help.

I can relate to this.

To the OP, honestly I'm having a hard time with the concept of loyalty, because I don't really view things in this way - being 'loyal' to a group, or whatever. 'Loyalty' for whatever reason conjures up some sort of obligatory thing in my mind - like, a mindless thing, where once you're part of a group/team you're loyal to it no matter what. That just because I'm part of a group, I signed some sort of 'loyalty' paperwork stating that I would forever be with them. I don't really think, with groups (work-related, etc), there's a 'no matter what' clause for me. (And I'm not sure that's what's being said anyway, I'm just clarifying on my end). I'll support a group/idea if I believe in it, or if it's reasonable/logical, etc, but I won't support it just for the sake of loyalty if it doesn't make sense or I think it's not the way to go.

But as far as generally being kind, not talking down to others, not gossiping or bringing someone's name down, and trying to communicate effectively - that's just generally how I try to approach everyone, and to me it's being a decent human being; I don't understand how loyalty has anything to do with that.

As for my friendships and relationships, I am in them because there is a mutual connection and we both gain something out of it. I respect them, I want to help them if I can help, I want to build and nurture the relationship, and want the best for the other. If disagreements happen, they happen - after all, we're two separate individuals with distinct personalities. There aren't 'rules' as to how or when disagreements should be brought up, other than that I would 'expect' out of a healthy relationship that critiques/disagreements are raised in a respectful manner, to discuss, rather than to immediately label the other negatively. Simply sharing viewpoints to reach understanding. I guess... for me, because I have such a small circle of close friends, and don't really do the acquaintance thing, if someone is in my life, they're IN it, and on my end I will prioritize them and will value the relationship and all of that - so I am there for them if they need me. If that's loyalty, then that's loyalty!! Like I said, I've just never really used that term before. And, this person will continue being in my life until/unless we'd begin drifting apart or it became apparent to me that they weren't treating me well, etc.

 

[Athenian200]

You are part of a group, and a decision gets made that you disagree with on principle, and it was a particular person's brainchild. Instead of talking to the person (or the group, for that matter) about it and giving them a chance to hear your view and change their own minds on the merits of your view, you organize a boycott?

Wait, I didn't get the impression that she was part of the group that made the decision.

Naturally, I would discuss it with the group first if I were before resorting to the boycott.

 

[Starry]

You are part of a group, and a decision gets made that you disagree with on principle, and it was a particular person's brainchild. Instead of talking to the person (or the group, for that matter) about it and giving them a chance to hear your view and change their own minds on the merits of your view, you organize a boycott?

What? Ah no. I am not sure what I wrote that gave you that impression.
If I was loyal to a cause that I discovered was hosting a ‘male only’ event…I would first seek understanding. I would not call the dude on the side. I would say in a meeting of all members… ‘help me understand this’. If, after careful consideration, I concluded the event was sexist in nature…yet the group did not see it my way and was going to proceed with the event as planned…I would remove myself from the group…and no longer contribute to the cause (ie: boycott).

 

[sculpting]

awesome thread!!! I have to pack for a trip but I promise to come back in a day or two as these are really cool ideas!!!

(Loyalty is huge for me. )

 

[Southern Kross]

^ Loyalty is big for me too but to be honest I'm struggling to frame a specific definition of it. Its such a deep, unquestioned value in me that I'm not really clearly conscious of how I draw the lines. All I know is, I know it when I see and when I see a lack of it. I realise this is rather inadequate and probably is unfair on others but I find it hard to pin down such a big concept term. Its like asking "what is beauty?" or "how do you define cruelty?"

I might have to think about this some more. Although it would help if more Fi users would contribute their definitions. I like aspects of the others Fe-users' descriptions but don't feel 100% on them...

 

[skylights]

i... am not a loyal person by nature. but don't get me wrong - i'm not a disloyal person by nature either. i'm just like... aloyal. to people, at least. the concept didn't really make sense to me for a long time, and it just isn't a frame of mind that i enter often. i have a hard time with conventional loyalty because a lot of it just really seems counterintuitive to me - blindly trusting someone, not speaking up when you feel like something is wrong, trusting a fallible human, etc. and shouldn't you just be generally nice to everyone, and not talk behind their backs as a baseline rule?

but anyway, what i just realized in writing this, is that i tend to be much, much more loyal to ideals than to people. i understand loyalty to ideals, but it really alters the way my personal sense of loyalty works - i'm very, very dedicated to certain groups, but my loyalty is more to the ideals of those groups than to the people themselves. i feel like people are flighty, changing, make questionable decisions, and are not always good. ideals, on the other hand, are stable and detached. they're timeless, infallible, and don't change their minds.and overall, i don't like being loyal to people because i end up being torn in two directions - either being loyal to them or loyal to my ideals. because when it comes down to that, my own ethics are going to win out.

my understanding of people-loyalty is less "devotion" or "consistency" and more "unconditional love". it's much less uncomfortable and much more intutitive in that light.

- what constitutes loyalty?
being willing to stick with something, or someone, especially despite potential negative impact on you.

- what is expected of those pledging loyalty?
equality. reciprocal loyalty.

- if someone displays disloyalty, what's the appropriate response?
depends on the situation. i think part of understanding loyalty as unconditional love is giving the other party the benefit of the doubt, and trying to assess what's going on, why it happened, etc. it's wanting to take care of the other person even though the situation is hurting you. that said, once they've broken the "contract", they've broken the contract. you have no responsibility to be loyal to them, even though it would probably be better to.

I'm not sure where loyalty even enters into the first case, [...] It sounds like it's more a matter of Fe language versus Fi language and being rubbed the wrong way.

yeah... though i mean, honestly, if i were the head of an NGO and had worked really hard on this program, and an aquaintance called me up telling me why it was such a bad idea, i would probably be unhappy too.

on the other hand, if EW feels similar to how i do about loyalty, then it would make sense that she was doing the best for The Cause, and it would be weird that he would get upset with her for trying to help The Cause. but if he thought, as Fe users tend to do, that the criticism was a reflection on him, and not the idea, then i can understand why such a thing happened.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

i... am not a loyal person by nature. but don't get me wrong - i'm not a disloyal person by nature either. i'm just like... aloyal. to people, at least. the concept didn't really make sense to me for a long time, and it just isn't a frame of mind that i enter often. i have a hard time with conventional loyalty because a lot of it just really seems counterintuitive to me - blindly trusting someone, not speaking up when you feel like something is wrong, trusting a fallible human, etc. and shouldn't you just be generally nice to everyone, and not talk behind their backs as a baseline rule?

but anyway, what i just realized in writing this, is that i tend to be much, much more loyal to ideals than to people. i understand loyalty to ideals, but it really alters the way my personal sense of loyalty works - i'm very, very dedicated to certain groups, but my loyalty is more to the ideals of those groups than to the people themselves. i feel like people are flighty, changing, make questionable decisions, and are not always good. ideals, on the other hand, are stable and detached. they're timeless, infallible, and don't change their minds.and overall, i don't like being loyal to people because i end up being torn in two directions - either being loyal to them or loyal to my ideals. because when it comes down to that, my own ethics are going to win out.

my understanding of people-loyalty is less "devotion" or "consistency" and more "unconditional love". it's much less uncomfortable and much more intutitive in that light.

- what constitutes loyalty?
being willing to stick with something, or someone, especially despite potential negative impact on you.

- what is expected of those pledging loyalty?
equality. reciprocal loyalty.

- if someone displays disloyalty, what's the appropriate response?
depends on the situation. i think part of understanding loyalty as unconditional love is giving the other party the benefit of the doubt, and trying to assess what's going on, why it happened, etc. it's wanting to take care of the other person even though the situation is hurting you. that said, once they've broken the "contract", they've broken the contract. you have no responsibility to be loyal to them, even though it would probably be better to.

yeah... though i mean, honestly, if i were the head of an NGO and had worked really hard on this program, and an aquaintance called me up telling me why it was such a bad idea, i would probably be unhappy too.

on the other hand, if EW feels similar to how i do about loyalty, then it would make sense that she was doing the best for The Cause, and it would be weird that he would get upset with her for trying to help The Cause. but if he thought, as Fe users tend to do, that the criticism was a reflection on him, and not the idea, then i can understand why such a thing happened.

Boy, Orobas is right. This is really a very interesting thread. Thanks to all the responses so far! Let me start from Skylights answer and work backwards.

Skylights, this is EXACTLY how loyalty feels for me. I hadn't really thought this through before this thread, but it is true that my loyalty is to the ideals of the situation and not to the people involved per se. And, I just realized that I was operating as if everyone had the same Fi sense of loyalties that I do. I think this is exactly what happened here... which is a bit heartbreaking to me because I care so much about the cause and about the people involved. I would never want anyone involved to assume that I was working against them. It's more like I assumed we were both working for the same thing... which had nothing to do per se with the people and more about the CAUSE.

So given this, how would one approach such a situation in a way that didn't ruffle Fe feathers? How could I have supported the CAUSE without making the Fe user feel like I was attacking them. Suggestions are welcome.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

OH, and PS, I was wondering if these were good ol' boys, because that's what it sounds like to me, some good ol' boy shit, and I see you're in South Carolina, yes? Move north.

Ha ha ha! I completely cracked up when I read this. I wouldn't say this was a Good Ole Boy thing... but I would say there was a bit of an "I've been a big fish in this small pond and no one has ever had the audacity to challenge me like this before" thing going on.

I think that I'm coming to understand that loyalty is a concept that never meant a whole lot to me because I have always felt like loyalty implied throwing allegiance to a person / group of people and this paled in comparison to being loyal to the ideals a person / group of people cleaved to.

Does this make me disloyal? I don't think so. I think (and I'm just beginning to sort this out so be forewarned that what I'm about to say is a work in progress) that I feel loyalty to principles and moral truths. It's sort of hard to describe, but I think the best way I can explain it is to talk about Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Now bear with me for just a minute...

The Allegory of the Cave

In The Republic, Plato describes a group of people who have been chained to the wall of a cave their entire lives. They are chained in such a way that there is a large blank wall in front of them, and a fire behind them. This arrangement is important because it means that the people can only see shadows on the wall projected by objects that pass in front of the fire.

The point of the story is that the people can't see the objects themselves, only the shadows these objects project. After a time, the people mistake the shadows for reality itself. They forget that they are only seeing shadows of reality which are a poor substitutes indeed.

In this allegory, only philosophers can see true reality because in studying philosophy, a person can perceive a truth beyond the shadows. The relevant point here is that there are different kinds of reality. There is what we can see (the shadows or material manifestations of reality that we can see and touch), and then there is the highest form of reality which are the Truths (with a capital T) that project the shadows we (humanity is likened to the prisoners in the cave) see.

At least to me (an Fi-user) this is a great analogy that explains how Fe feels to me. Fe feels like the shadows projected by my Fi Truths. (Again, note the capital T in Truths.)

In terms of loyalty, I guess I feel like being loyal to a person feels a bit one-dimensional. People, even people I love and who are very dear to me, make mistakes. If I place my loyalty to them as individuals ABOVE my loyalty to the Fi truths I believe in, then I run the risk of betraying my Fi values in the name of fidelity to a lesser Fe reality. Does this make any sense at all?

I'm not trying to put down Fe. I'm just trying to be honest with how it feels to me, the Fi-user. I think of my BFF who is an INFP. She and I are very close. We would do anything for each other. But the glue that holds us together is that we both believe in very similar Fi truths. I would never expect her to be blindly loyal to me in the name of her friendship. Nor would I be loyal to her just because she is my BFF.

I would support her because I love her. And, because one of my Fi values is supporting the people you love. But if she violated one of my Fi values, I would - without hesitation - call her on this... as a way of being loyal to her. Because at least for my BFF and me, one of our most important ways of caring for each other is to provide honest feedback to the other if we observe the other straying from our mutual Fi value system.

 

[sculpting]

^ Loyalty is big for me too but to be honest I'm struggling to frame a specific definition of it. Its such a deep, unquestioned value in me that I'm not really clearly conscious of how I draw the lines. All I know is, I know it when I see and when I see a lack of it. I realise this is rather inadequate and probably is unfair on others but I find it hard to pin down such a big concept term. Its like asking "what is beauty?" or "how do you define cruelty?"

I might have to think about this some more. Although it would help if more Fi users would contribute their definitions. I like aspects of the others Fe-users' descriptions but don't feel 100% on them...

I can be extremely loyal to a leader-if I feel they are pursuing the best path for the group. This loyalty means I will stand up and tell them when they have messed up and they can evealuate that and work to fix the issue. It ties in a lot of integrity/honesty/respect/trust/holding them to their word, types of values for me. It means I can rely on them to lead us in a way that embodies those idealistic values I have. So perhaps the person becomes an embodiment of the values? I had an ENTJ I worked for who I adored and was very loyal to.

I can feel extremely loyal to members of a team that I may belong to. This doesnt mean being nice-but rather working side by side to push forward towards objectives. When the work becomes overwhelming, part of that loyalty means that you step up and take some of their work-as much as is needed-without them having to ask. Loyalty is about always being there as a resources and being dependable and making sure do what we say we will do. It also means that I may have to be harsh at times-as indy pointed out-draw boundaries and call out others who are not pulling their fair share or who have delivered results that hurt the rest of the team. It feels a bit like locking my arms with their arms and then pulling together to get the job done.

I dont really feel "loyalty" to those I am in close relationships with. Loyalty isnt the correct word. Devotion is a better word to use. I am devoted to my children, to my SO, to my family. I am devoted to very close friends. It includes most of the above ideas about loyalty-but also includes a willingness to sacrifice myself if need be on their behalf. Like I have been given them as a gift to care for...

Ideas..I dunno..loyalty to a cause I feel is justified, maybe? But that really isnt loyalty as much as tenaciousness. If it is worthwhile I will fight, literally fight, for the cause.

 

[skylights]

Skylights, this is EXACTLY how loyalty feels for me. I hadn't really thought this through before this thread, but it is true that my loyalty is to the ideals of the situation and not to the people involved per se. And, I just realized that I was operating as if everyone had the same Fi sense of loyalties that I do. I think this is exactly what happened here... which is a bit heartbreaking to me because I care so much about the cause and about the people involved. I would never want anyone involved to assume that I was working against them. It's more like I assumed we were both working for the same thing... which had nothing to do per se with the people and more about the CAUSE.

So given this, how would one approach such a situation in a way that didn't ruffle Fe feathers? How could I have supported the CAUSE without making the Fe user feel like I was attacking them. Suggestions are welcome.

i know what you mean about heartbreaking! i've run into this with a good friend (ENFJ) before when assessing a group that she was leading. i commented on a negative aspect of it, just assuming that she would understand i meant it as a neutral observation for the sake of seeing where we could help fix it, and she took it as an insult to her leadership, which i never, never meant. i still do it accidentally sometimes... it really takes work to remember to be careful about it because i just don't naturally think that way.

one way i've found of getting around this, which i have learned mostly from observing my mom (ESFJ), is to flatter the person you're talking to while offering neutral suggestions as a different way of getting the intended outcome, if that makes sense. so in this example, maybe like telling the guy how much you appreciate his work, how people are really excited about it, etc, but mention that something occurred to you, which is that maybe he would be able to reach even more people by extending his efforts out to women too, if he hasn't already considered that (which, given Pi, he may well have, and chose not to for a specific reason.) and if he says he'd rather not, then he'll probably explain his reasoning why, and you can either be in accordance with that or, if you still disagree, present your case for why you think it'd be beneficial.

for me, it's been a big growing experience to need to shift myself to understand things in this light, but sometimes it's a much more effective system than the Fi-Te way of going about things. it feels a little disingenuous sometimes, but i try to think of it in terms of supporting and respecting the person while trying to change an outcome, instead of my conventional ideal-orientation. i think that it's hard to shift to people-loyalty, but when i'm thinking about my relationship with my best friend (ENFJ), for instance, i feel like i just have to "suspend" my own rules and be patient, and that's how i'm loyal to her. i know that she also has to do the same to put up with my more open temper and less interpersonal awareness.

I can feel extremely loyal to members of a team that I may belong to. This doesnt mean being nice-but rather working side by side to push forward towards objectives. When the work becomes overwhelming, part of that loyalty means that you step up and take some of their work-as much as is needed-without them having to ask.

I dont really feel "loyalty" to those I am in close relationships with. Loyalty isnt the correct word. Devotion is a better word to use.

i echo both of these sentiments

 

[cascadeco]

In terms of loyalty, I guess I feel like being loyal to a person feels a bit one-dimensional. People, even people I love and who are very dear to me, make mistakes. If I place my loyalty to them as individuals ABOVE my loyalty to the Fi truths I believe in, then I run the risk of betraying my Fi values in the name of fidelity to a lesser Fe reality. Does this make any sense at all?

I'm not trying to put down Fe. I'm just trying to be honest with how it feels to me, the Fi-user. I think of my BFF who is an INFP. She and I are very close. We would do anything for each other. But the glue that holds us together is that we both believe in very similar Fi truths. I would never expect her to be blindly loyal to me in the name of her friendship. Nor would I be loyal to her just because she is my BFF.

I would support her because I love her. And, because one of my Fi values is supporting the people you love. But if she violated one of my Fi values, I would - without hesitation - call her on this... as a way of being loyal to her. Because at least for my BFF and me, one of our most important ways of caring for each other is to provide honest feedback to the other if we observe the other straying from our mutual Fi value system. View attachment 5704

I'm sorry, but I'm not really understanding why you're bringing Fe/Fi into this at all and differentiating between their two supposed different approaches to loyalty. I mean... basically what you're saying above is similar to what I think I wrote in my response - just that I'm not blindly loyal to anyone or anything. I don't operate that way.

Am I misunderstanding a distinction you're trying to make between the two?

 

[Fidelia]

To me this is not about our actual beliefs and feelings about The Cause so much as how we go about trying to make our goals come about. Fi tends to speak up when it feels it must out of conscience. Fe tends also stand up, but it does it differently, looking at how it can make a bad situation better. Fi sees this as selling out. Given the choice between being ignored entirely by going at the issue head on or trying for the best possible outcome while still remaining involved, it will choose the best possible outcome, recognizing that this might not go as far as it would like to eventually see things go. Fe is a function that tries to get the most accomplished that it can. It doesn't aim for perfection so much as what it can realistically make happen.

 

[Tiltyred]

I think many of us are intensely passionate about The Cause. But you can't accomplish The Cause when you don't know how to use power. Part of using power is knowing who's in charge and how to get to that person. It always comes down to working with people. Powerful people have big egos. You kind of have to top from the bottom until you get to the top.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I've seen these contrasts between Fi and Fe reversed. I've often heard descriptions of NFJs being all about fighting for a cause and NFPs being more personally oriented. It mostly depends on where you get your information. The position in favor of that is that J is about acting on the world and P is about perceiving the world. I'm not saying that is what I think, but it is one element that makes the Fi/Fe discussion complicated and convoluted.

Loyalty is a sensitive subject because every one of us has been hurt when someone has been disloyal. It is tempting to be able to label that pain as "other". We are in some way distinct from those who have hurt us. They are categorically different, and that makes us safer and more innocent.

 

[Thalassa]

The second example in your OP just sounds like primitive goober guy male pack behavior, not Fe. It's an example of immaturity and misogyny more so than a case of Fe.

Though...you're probably right, people with Fe are probably more likely to do that now that I think of it. Just not mature, well-adjusted ones.

 

[PeaceBaby]

To me this is not about our actual beliefs and feelings about The Cause so much as how we go about trying to make our goals come about. Fi tends to speak up when it feels it must out of conscience. Fe tends also stand up, but it does it differently, looking at how it can make a bad situation better. Fi sees this as selling out. Given the choice between being ignored entirely by going at the issue head on or trying for the best possible outcome while still remaining involved, it will choose the best possible outcome, recognizing that this might not go as far as it would like to eventually see things go. Fe is a function that tries to get the most accomplished that it can. It doesn't aim for perfection so much as what it can realistically make happen.

@bold 1: Sorry this isn't clear to me; Fi sees what as "selling out"?

@bold 2: This sounds a little presumptive that the Fe outcome is the best possible outcome. That's a pretty subjective viewpoint.

Fe is a function that tries to get the most accomplished that it can. It doesn't aim for perfection so much as what it can realistically make happen.

Maybe the friction point is not so much Fe vs Fi but Fe vs Te here. Te will strive for what it can realistically make happen as well ..... perhaps it's the manner of working toward the goal that's more the rub. Fe will work the people, not question the ideas so much; Fi will not question the people as much as they will seek the most practical idea.

 

[Athenian200]

I think the best way I can explain it is to talk about Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Now bear with me for just a minute...

The Allegory of the Cave

In The Republic, Plato describes a group of people who have been chained to the wall of a cave their entire lives. They are chained in such a way that there is a large blank wall in front of them, and a fire behind them. This arrangement is important because it means that the people can only see shadows on the wall projected by objects that pass in front of the fire.

The point of the story is that the people can't see the objects themselves, only the shadows these objects project. After a time, the people mistake the shadows for reality itself. They forget that they are only seeing shadows of reality which are a poor substitutes indeed.

In this allegory, only philosophers can see true reality because in studying philosophy, a person can perceive a truth beyond the shadows. The relevant point here is that there are different kinds of reality. There is what we can see (the shadows or material manifestations of reality that we can see and touch), and then there is the highest form of reality which are the Truths (with a capital T) that project the shadows we (humanity is likened to the prisoners in the cave) see.

At least to me (an Fi-user) this is a great analogy that explains how Fe feels to me. Fe feels like the shadows projected by my Fi Truths. (Again, note the capital T in Truths.)

In terms of loyalty, I guess I feel like being loyal to a person feels a bit one-dimensional. People, even people I love and who are very dear to me, make mistakes. If I place my loyalty to them as individuals ABOVE my loyalty to the Fi truths I believe in, then I run the risk of betraying my Fi values in the name of fidelity to a lesser Fe reality. Does this make any sense at all?

I'm not trying to put down Fe. I'm just trying to be honest with how it feels to me, the Fi-user. I think of my BFF who is an INFP. She and I are very close. We would do anything for each other. But the glue that holds us together is that we both believe in very similar Fi truths. I would never expect her to be blindly loyal to me in the name of her friendship. Nor would I be loyal to her just because she is my BFF.

I would support her because I love her. And, because one of my Fi values is supporting the people you love. But if she violated one of my Fi values, I would - without hesitation - call her on this... as a way of being loyal to her. Because at least for my BFF and me, one of our most important ways of caring for each other is to provide honest feedback to the other if we observe the other straying from our mutual Fi value system. View attachment 5704

Thank you for posting this.

One thing I think you should know, though, is that I see this same picture, but with Ti close to the flame instead of Fi, and with Te watching the shadows on the wall rather than Fe.

The biggest essential difference between us, is that I don't believe there are universal ethical/moral "truths." I believe that there are universally true principles that can be understood, but that they are impersonal and amoral. I believe that while impersonal truths exist independently of human perception/belief, that moral/ethical values are dependent on societies and human perception to exist. In other words, different societies can define morality differently, and live comfortably with very different ideas of right and wrong. Because they are only a function of the way the human mind defines "good" and "evil." It is our common agendas/goals which make things good or evil to us.

In other words, I believe that truth exists independently of human perception, but that morality/values/ethics do not. Think about it... if there were no sentient life, morality could not exist or manifest. Which seems to lead to the conclusion that it does not exist independently, but is a set of moral ideals and beliefs that follow from our consciousness and interaction with one another.

I see the universe as this vast, empty, impersonal system, with all matter and energy interacting according to impersonal rules, without consciousness. And this almost applies to lower levels of life... until their brain development reaches a certain point, and they become both self-aware, and aware of others. That is when morality and values are born.

I think that in order to understand Fe, you also have to understand Ti. Ti is the reason that Fi doesn't make sense to Fe users.

When an Fi user acts on their values in a way that affects others, the Fe user usually doesn't see what the Fi user sees. All we see is your shadow Te trying to impose rules that, to us, seems arbitrary and based only on your will. Because the Fi is invisible.

 

[cascadeco]

Maybe the friction point is not so much Fe vs Fi but Fe vs Te here. Te will strive for what it can realistically make happen as well ..... perhaps it's the manner of working toward the goal that's more the rub. Fe will work the people, not question the ideas so much; Fi will not question the people as much as they will seek the most practical idea.

Hmm...this confuses me a bit, but I've seen this sort of statement made in other places on here so my question isn't directed towards you per se, Peacebaby.

Anyhow, I don't really understand why Fe-ers wouldn't question a bad idea. I mean, there are bad ideas galore out there - I'm all about rooting out bad ideas/decisions. I'll work with people and the organization as it exists (current Reality), but I don't really see how working with people and discarding bad ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

[Tiltyred]

I think PB must mean Fe doms, not INFJs.