• 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.

Fe politics versus Fi politics

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I simply think that you missed an important point in Jung's descriptions about the difference between Fi and Fe, being that Fi is more intensive than extensive, so an Fi will tend to focus their caring on a select fewer individuals and give a more intensive emotional bond to those few, when they are lucky enough to have someone be accepting of this. Sometimes it is hard to find people who want that kind of intense closeness.

I felt Jung meant "intensive" as to the individual and "extensive" as in to society or the community. Hence why it made sense when my ENFP friend seemed to demonstrate how his feeling was related to his identity or concept of self and whereas my introspection of Fe leads me to see it as related to interdependence or our concept of others.

It just struck me as being off the mark to say that an Fi will put themselves above the people they care about. If you believed that, you would have a hard time understanding any Fi dom you are truly close to in your life. That's all I was saying.

But that isn't at all what I was saying. As I said in that post...

He then argued that his life is about his choices and anyone else's choices are incircumstantial. but he explained that does not negate that he cares about people or the choices they make, only that other's choices are irrelevant to his existence. The most important thing to him is his choices, because he believes they dictate his happiness. From an Fe perspective, that seems somehow cold, but from a Ti perspective, it seems incredibly realistic.

That isn't to say that Fi isn't aware of others, but only that it is aware of others through its awareness of self.

Now undoubtedly, my later post was poorly worded, which was why I asked you to ignore it, and even told you to completely dismiss it. What I was actually saying, and you may still disagree, was...

An Fi dominant person would put their character above nurturing bonds.

and

An Fe dominant person would put nurturing bonds above their character.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I felt Jung meant "intensive" as to the individual and "extensive" as in to society or the community.

He is also meaning intensive as far as focusing on a select few relationships.


An Fi dominant person would put their character above nurturing bonds.

and

An Fe dominant person would put nurturing bonds above their character.

I think this is too simple for both.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
He is also meaning intensive as far as focusing on a select few relationships.

But both INFJs and INFPs are suppose to have "select few relationships". :huh:

I think this is too simple for both.

Perhaps. They certainly aren't mutually exclusive. At least not anymore so than Fe and Fi are.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
But order of functions matters in how the function is expressed. Ni and Fe well balanced can be more Fi like.

Then how is that any different than saying there are eight versions of Fe and eight versions of Fi?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't know how to be clearer here. You said that an Fi dom would hold themselves to be more imporant than their dearest bonds and that's just not true. I know it from my own personal experience. Unhealthy Fi would put their own ego glorification above everyone and anything else in life I think, but this would not be the rule for all Fi, especially those who put love of others as part of their higher purpose. I would never put my own wants above the needs of a person I held to be dear and close to me.

Well, I agree with this too, and your prior comment -- that the INFP tends to devote to a few very close intense relationships and place them higher than themselves, rather than looking at broader shallower (not in the bad sense, but just in terms of spreading the same amount of love over a broader group) connections.

My one INFP friend is very much this way. In a church setting, Fe people tend to "spread out" and operate on much a broader level; my friend might interact with a LOT of people... but he treats each relationship as an intensely personal one. In the end, his resources run very low, and he has to prioritize relationships; he can't just operate on a more procedural level with people in order to maintain a relationship like an ESFJ or another might, it is like he takes each person into a personal cloistered room of his heart and shuts the curtain, so they're alone in a sense and in this very intense connection in the moment. It's SO personal. And he really is quite selfless in his pursuit of this... which is what bites him in the bottom sometimes.

I have to admit I have a hard time relating to the seeming giant gap between Fe and Fi, and the whole topic of this thread -- I just don't see see them as being in opposition, or someone having only one, and none of the other. I think most people blend the two, and it's just a matter of degree. But that takes us out of strict mbti theory I suppose. [also I can still totally relate to pieces of both Fe and Fi as they've been defined throughout this board]

It's definitely difficult. I'm having trouble articulating the differences, although I can "feel" them. And they tend to spill over.

Again, if you look at Ti vs Te, Ti deals with defining the nature and essence of things, and this determines how they all interact. Te deals with "literal truth" as well, but more the "procedural" end -- how things function, how to make things happen, sequential steps, etc.

Fi and Fe can be seen as similar, in that the Fi is interested in the nature of the individual and the people (what "values" define the inner nature of the person, and how can they be honored? Just like Ti defines the inner nature of the thing and how can that definition be honored?), while Fe is more interested in how people interact and what procedures are to be followed to express the choice values and commitments of each person as part of that community.

Also, most behavioral processes/decision points are far more complex than breaking it down to just one sole function -- there are a myriad of 'lesser' functions that would come into play for the person to reach their final conclusion (well, not in all cases, but in a more developed individual it would be the case). Sure, the dominant function might have the strongest hold, but the other functions would build onto it, and add a support system, if you will.

Yes. I think we're just describing the functions mostly in isolation, just to try to get our "hands" on them -- just like you might describe a person from one angle in a history book but have to necessarily drop other angles if you wish to isolate particular attributes -- but realistically each function is being flavored and colored by the others in operation at the time. We're a mix of sliders for all the functions, in operation to various intensities at the same moment -- NOT one function operating at one time.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
there's really only one version of Fe and one version of Fi.

this is the problem -- we're talking about these functions as if they can exist independent of others. and they can't...

if you're talking about PURE Fi and PURE Fe, then Fi is feeling with the current internal state factored highest, and Fe is feeling with the current external state factored highest.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
if you're talking about PURE Fi and PURE Fe, then Fi is feeling with the current internal state factored highest, and Fe is feeling with the current external state factored highest.

And I agree with that definition. :yes:
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't know how to be clearer here. You said that an Fi dom would hold themselves to be more imporant than their dearest bonds and that's just not true. I know it from my own personal experience. Unhealthy Fi would put their own ego glorification above everyone and anything else in life I think, but this would not be the rule for all Fi, especially those who put love of others as part of their higher purpose.

I would never put my own wants above the needs of a person I held to be dear and close to me.

Same here, I would NEVER put myself above my closest bonds. EVER.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Absolute statements such as that are vague and make one consider the motive behind such a claim.

A close bond is a relationship between the self and another. When you put a bond ahead of yourself, you vow to put all of your effort and resources into making the most beneficial choices for your relationship. The bond itself is a part of you, and you are a part of the bond. If you forfeit yourself for a bond, you're kidding yourself, as there can be no bond without you, and the weakening of "you" is a direct threat to the bond.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
When I say I would not put myself above a person I really care for, an intimate, I mean that I would never put my wants above their needs. It stands to reason that I would not sacrifice my needs for their wants however. That would be a form of suicide, soul murder that no healthy type would engage in I would think.

Dana puts it well too saying that it is a vow to make the most beneficial choices for the bond.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
I know heart, and that is probably what was intended to be communicated by Sunshine. (sorry sunshine)

That is a great way of putting it: putting their needs above your wants. I think the human bond is the most beautiful thing on Earth (yeah, did someone ever say I was an INTP? better quote me. ;)) and to cherish it and to work for it provides a degree satisfaction met in few, if any, other ways.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
I know heart, and that is probably what was intended to be communicated by Sunshine. (sorry sunshine)

That is a great way of putting it: putting their needs above your wants. I think the human bond is the most beautiful thing on Earth (yeah, did someone ever say I was an INTP? better quote me. ;)) and to cherish it and to work for it provides a degree satisfaction met in few, if any, other ways.

I agree. And I think this is the point where Fe and Fi break down if they're both healthy. :)
 

Sunshine

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,040
MBTI Type
ABCD
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
When I say I would not put myself above a person I really care for, an intimate, I mean that I would never put my wants above their needs. It stands to reason that I would not sacrifice my needs for their wants however. That would be a form of suicide, soul murder that no healthy type would engage in I would think.

Dana puts it well too saying that it is a vow to make the most beneficial choices for the bond.

Yeah. Same here.

Interesting. I wonder if people really mean it when they say that.

They do.

Lol Kiddo why are you so surprised that people actually care about each other and are willing to put their loved ones' needs abover their wants?

I know heart, and that is probably what was intended to be communicated by Sunshine. (sorry sunshine)

Yeah that's what I meant
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
They do.

Lol Kiddo why are you so surprised that people actually care about each other and are willing to put their loved ones' needs abover their wants?

Oh, I'm not surprised about that at all. Now here is a question for you...

Would you sacrifice your needs for the needs of others?

It's one thing to distort the question by weighing it as "wants" versus "needs" but lets strip the rhetoric and see how it turns out.
 
Top