Fe politics versus Fi politics

[SolitaryWalker]

This is Fi out of control.

Fi example.

Notice how she acted despite how everyone else was acting. (subjective)

This is Fe out of control.

Fe example.

Notice how she provided reasons and explanations for why she felt the way she did. (objective)

Any questions?

Jung uses the term objective to describe the extrovert showing that the extrovert orients around the object. He wasnt using objective in the vernacular.

Fe derives values from the object. Fi from the subject. So Fe values human goodness because society values it, Fi because it appeals to her sensibilities.

 

[Kiddo]

Jung uses the term objective to describe the extrovert showing that the extrovert orients around the object. He wasnt using objective in the vernacular.

Fe derives values from the object. Fi from the subject. So Fe values human goodness because society values it, Fi because it appeals to her sensibilities.

That is one way of interpreting it. Anyway, I'm basing my examples more on my experience than on the Jung descriptions.

Are you saying that my examples are poor? Or do they still adequately demonstrate the difference?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That is one way of interpreting it. Anyway, I'm basing my examples more on my experience than on the Jung descriptions.

Are you saying that my examples are poor? Or do they still adequately demonstrate the difference?

The point you had made was that Fe is better at explaining their behavior to others after they have lost control over their emotions than Fi.

Only slightly so because Fe has more access to Thinking and secondly because Fe values are more easily understood by the public by and large because they derive their values from the public. Yet this grants Fe only a slight advantage at explaining behavior to others because doing so sucessfully requires primarily a Thinking skill. Fe only has slightly more access to Thinking, not a lot more.

Your point is sound, namely that Fe has an easier time explaining behavior to others, though one important note to make in regards to this statement is that they will have only slightly of an easier time. This is the point you have ommited.

Your post is not adequate to depict the salient differences between Fi and Fe because you have focused only on two aspects distinguishing the two. Namely that Fe is closer oriented with the external world and that it access Thinking more easily. This therefore does not shed light on the fundamental differences between the two types.

 

[Haphazard]

Well, the 'Fe' guy (yes, apparently that was a guy. It's hard to tell, but it was all over the news) was making a big deal about treating somebody nicely if they're having a hard time, while the 'Fi' woman was making a huge deal about her own personal beliefs without any effort to relate them to the context of the external world.

I think that's about right.

 

[SillySapienne]

I guess I have Fi as my secondary function, whatever that's supposed to mean..

But I have realized a trend...

People who have Fe as their primary or secondary functions tend to make me go all...

, , , , during arguments.

Truth be told, I associate Fe with PC mongering lunacy/idiocy. (Sorry, I do).

I am compassionate, not sympathetic, empathetic, not projective.

I value other's feelings and opinions, but I value honesty and, "the Truth" of things, even more.

How would I explain/define my Fi, well, lucky for me, Frank Herbert has already eloquently done so for me...

"Respect for the truth comes close to being the basis for all morality."

 

[redacted]

This is Fi out of control.

Fi example.

Notice how she acted despite how everyone else was acting. (subjective)

This is Fe out of control.

Fe example.

Notice how she provided reasons and explanations for why she felt the way she did. (objective)

Any questions?

i think those are some pretty good examples... the only thing is, i think the first lady is a tertiary Fi user (seems like an ISTJ).

 

[Haphazard]

i think those are some pretty good examples... the only thing is, i think the first lady is a tertiary Fi user (seems like an ISTJ).

The point is that they were supposed to explain what happens when Fi and Fe spiral out of control. The guy with Britney was probably not even an FJ, (just a wild guess) but was decrying getting along with other people -- which is quintessentially Fe.

 

[entropie]

People who have Fe as their primary or secondary functions tend to make me go all...

, , , , during arguments.

Truth be told, I associate Fe with PC mongering lunacy/idiocy. (Sorry, I do).

 

[Kiddo]

Truth be told, I associate Fe with PC mongering lunacy/idiocy. (Sorry, I do).

That is pretty close. Being politically correct means being sensitive to other's differences whether they be cultural, religious, ethnic, etc. And sensitivity is reacting appropriately to the emotions or situations of other people. When done verbally, this is known as tact. Sensitivity and tact are fundamental tenets of Fe.

As Bluewing said, Fe focuses on making society better, whereas Fi is related to just making it's user happy. Fe users want others to accept their values, so society can be a better place for everyone whereas Fi users could care less what others think of their values because their values only serve to make them happy.

Personally, I associate Fi with closeminded and needless attacking of differences which translates into lunacy/idiocy.

Just as Fe can be associated with being overly PC, Fi is associated with bigotry. So Fe users will usually find Fi users to be intolerant and prejudiced and Fi users will find Fe users to be imposing and coercive. Transcending the Fi/Fe barrier is something I've noticed that even the most intelligent posters have little success with doing. As a result, most debate threads end up with the NTPs and NFJs against the NTJs and NFPs. It's one of the most recognizable patterns on this forum.

In simple terms, it is a battle between the value constructs of tolerance (Fe) and morality (Fi). Taken to the extreme, tolerance can be seen as inherently immoral by Fi users, and morality can be seen as inherently intolerant by Fe users.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That is pretty close. Being politically correct means being sensitive to other's differences whether they be cultural, religious, ethnic, etc. And sensitivity is reacting appropriately to the emotions or situations of other people. When done verbally, this is known as tact. Sensitivity and tact are fundamental tenets of Fe. .

These are fundamental tenets of Feeling. Not only Fe.

The salient difference between Fe and Fi is that the former derives its values from society and the latter from the individual. Naturally the former has more loyalty to the individual than to the society and latter vice versa.

As Bluewing said, Fe focuses on making society better, whereas Fi is related to just making it's user happy. Fe users want others to accept their values, so society can be a better place for everyone whereas Fi users could care less what others think of their values because their values only serve to make them happy. .

Only corrupt Fi behaves in the fashion you've described, it becomes slave of the ego analogously to how Fe becomes slave of the object.

Sound Fi is concerned with the welfare of the individual by and large, it asks questions most akin to how is my life best lived? It appeals to all individuals not just the individual asking the question.

Soren Kierkegaard exemplifies this phenomenon. Unsound Fi will be egocentric just like unsound Fe shall prostitute the inner being in favor of the community.

Personally, I associate Fi with closeminded and needless attacking of differences which translates into lunacy/idiocy.

Just as Fe can be associated with being overly PC, Fi is associated with bigotry..

Bigotry is usually a result of groupthink. As Nietzsche said, insanity in individuals is rare, but in groups more common. No individual, no matter how obtuse would endorse tenets akin to racism or sexism or any other prominent forms of bigotry. Fe is therefore in closer affinity with bigotry as this function is more likely to give into groupthink.

 

[Haphazard]

I don't know if exactly 'bigoted' and 'overly PC' are the right words. I'd say that, at worst, 'invasive' for Fe and 'egocentric' for Fi would be more accurate. Ironically Fe seems to be intolerant of Fi (even though they get to tout 'tolerance' as one of their strong points) and Fi can be plenty tolerant if it sees tolerant as an important part of its values system.

*AHEM.*

And everyone knows that lunacy is primarily Ni, and idiocy is primarily Se.

 

[Kiddo]

These are fundamental tenets of Feeling. Not only Fe.

I disagree. I see nothing in Fi to indicate that sensitivity or tact are a part of its process. Sometimes, it seems to even be the opposite, as in a complete rejection of sensitivity and tact.

The salient difference between Fe and Fi is that the former derives its values from society and the latter from the individual. Naturally the former has more loyalty to the individual than to the society and latter vice versa.

How is that in disagreement with what I said overall? Just out of curiosity, do you read through the whole post before you reply?

Only corrupt Fi behaves in the fashion you've described, it becomes slave of the ego analogously to how Fe becomes slave of the object.

If that is the case then most of the NFPs and NTJs I encounter on this forum utilize corrupt Fi. It is a mainstay that they only care about how they feel about themselves. How others feel about them or their values is irrelevant.

Sound Fi is concerned with the welfare of the individual by and large, it asks questions most akin to how is my life best lived? It appeals to all individuals not just the individual asking the question.

I find no appeal to the absolution inherent in Fi, so I am the exception to your rule. The exception disproves the rule.

Soren Kierkegaard exemplifies this phenomenon. Unsound Fi will be egocentric just like unsound Fe shall prostitute the inner being in favor of the community.

That is more or less what I was saying.

Bigotry is usually a result of groupthink. As Nietzsche said, insanity in individuals is rare, but in groups more common. No individual, no matter how obtuse would endorse tenets akin to racism or sexism or any other prominent forms of bigotry. Fe is therefore in closer affinity with bigotry as this function is more likely to give into groupthink.

I'm not speaking in terms of philosophy, but in terms of observable psychology. Most of the NTP/NFJ vs. NFP/NTJ battles on this forum end up with the NTP/NFJ side calling the NFP/NTJ side "intolerant" or "prejudiced" and the NFP/NTJ side calling the NTP/NFJ side "imposing" or "coercive". I have examples if you would like to see them. You can start by looking at the "Forum Politics" thread in the Graveyard which demonstrates a division between those two groups, and many of the subsequent accusations. So I find your conclusion about Fe to have absolutely no basis in reality. Philosophy and conjecture does not take precedence over science and observation.

 

[Haphazard]

Kiddo's prejudice against Fi is scary.

i think those are some pretty good examples... the only thing is, i think the first lady is a tertiary Fi user (seems like an ISTJ).

I'd say inferior Fi user (ETJ) because from my observations of ITJs, misuse of teritary Fi immobilizes the person and collapses in on itself rather than explode like that.

 

[Kiddo]

I don't know if exactly 'bigoted' and 'overly PC' are the right words. I'd say that, at worst, 'invasive' for Fe and 'egocentric' for Fi would be more accurate. Ironically Fe seems to be intolerant of Fi (even though they get to tout 'tolerance' as one of their strong points) and Fi can be plenty tolerant if it sees tolerant as an important part of its values system.

*AHEM.*

Those are probably superior word choices.

When I think of Fi I think of Ayn Rand's, "enlightend self interest" and when I think of Fe I think of the Aristotle's Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And everyone knows that lunacy is primarily Ni, and idiocy is primarily Se.

Thanks for condemning my type along with yours.

Kiddo's prejudice against Fi is scary.

I've been told as much.

My greatest flaw is I have a lot of Fi, but I'm not very good at utilizing it. Thus I am doomed to become what I despise.

 

[Giggly]

Kiddo's prejudice against Fi is scary.

 

[Haphazard]

Those are probably superior word choices.

When I think of Fi I think of Ayn Rand's, "enlightend self interest" and when I think of Fe I think of the Aristotle's Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Well, the only problem with that is that if Fi decides to absorb Aristotle's Golden Rule as an axiom, it can apply to Fi as well as Fe.

I can respect the way Fe works but it just tends to rub me the wrong way in real life.

Thanks for condemning my type along with yours.

Oh, I love to condemn Ni. It's just so damned condemnable.

I've been told as much.

My greatest flaw is I have a lot of Fi, but I'm not very good at utilizing it. Thus I am doomed to become what I despise.

Have you, umm, ever thought of trying to use it better instead of ranting against it?

 

[Kiddo]

Well, the only problem with that is that if Fi decides to absorb Aristotle's Golden Rule as an axiom, it can apply to Fi as well as Fe.

Actually, it has been tried. Have you ever heard, "Judge not ye be judged". However, the proof is in the putting. Despite the fact those words were spoken by JC himself, many Fi motivated Christians still cling to condemning sins simply because they are mentioned in the Old Testament. They call this, following the "Holy Spirit", which is a little voice inside them that tells them the difference between "right and wrong conduct". Sound familiar? Fi is a sneaky little bugger.

I can respect the way Fe works but it just tends to rub me the wrong way in real life.

I think Fi serves a purpose, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way.

Oh, I love to condemn Ni. It's just so damned condemnable.

The sad thing is that I understand why others condemn Ni (coming to conclusions with insufficient information) but I simply don't care. And yet at the same time, I condemn Fi. Of course, Fi users don't really care that I condemn their function anymore than I care that others condemn mine.

Have you, umm, ever thought of trying to use it better instead of ranting against it?

I've been trying to utilize Fe to accept Fi under the tenant that it makes many individuals happy and should be respected as a form of diversity. However, Fi often rejects the very reasoning I use to try to accept it, so in order to rise above, I need to be detached, which means I have to utilize that damn Ti thinking function. So I just need to learn how to use my tertiary function and I'll be set. But when I am in an emtional state, that proves difficult if not impossible.

 

[Haphazard]

Actually, it has been tried. Have you ever heard, "Judge not ye be judged". However, the proof is in the putting. Despite the fact those words were spoken by JC himself, many Fi motivated Christians still cling to condemning sins simply because they are mentioned in the Old Testament. They call this, following the "Holy Spirit", which is a little voice inside them that tells them the difference between "right and wrong conduct". Sound familiar? Fi is a sneaky little bugger.

You seem to be ignoring the other puddings. A lot of Christianity may be Fi-motivated, Fe can create an environment of 'cultural Christianity,' instead of caring about the tenets of Christianity instead cares whether people are Christian or not, believing because people are 'saved' by Christianity, so therefore constantly trying to convert others to Christianity because they 'care' about them.

Because of their social environment, they have no limits on being PC and therefore don't understand that this is being invasive to people of other religions. Their environment has led them to believe that Christianity is the One True Path and that everyone else should follow it, too.

I'm willing to concede that many of the lunatics are Fi, however it's Fe that allows the lunacy to perpetuate and grow (thus the poison of 'groupthink' that Spinoza here was talking about). Fi is the spark, but Fe merely fans the flames.

 

[Kiddo]

Ok. I concede that they both suck. Feeling reflects the worst of human nature.

It's only redeeming quality is it can, at times, reflect the best of human nature.

 

[Haphazard]

That's not what I meant. ;_;

Fi gets corrupted by the inside, Fe corrupted by the outside. How much Fe is corrupted depends wholly on the environment -- Fi's corruption depends on the strength and nature of the individual.

I mean, which would you rather entrust your values to? Either of them could be a raw deal, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "Feeling reflects the worst of human nature." I suppose when the worst parts of human nature are revealed, it's through feeling, but if not entirely good, I'd say for the most part, feeling is mostly harmless.

It's those damn perceiving functions I'd be worried about.