[Fe] Is Fe fake or manipulative?

[Resonance]

It's highly doubtful that the OP would make the statement I pointed out as a projection of Demon Fi.

Beebe actually describes what Demon Fi does. "IxTP's the personal factor in situations, or conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away."

That's not what's going on here at all. That statement seems like it would have come from an xxFP or an IxTJ.

oh, lol, I picked up the same thing totally agree.

My question was more a criticism of typology in general, ie. that we really have no idea how these functions are supposed to stack up/work out/etc and everyone has a different take on it.

 

[jixmixfix]

Oh because you just made a very Fi seeming statement. ISTPs don't have Fi.

What I meant by personal feelings had more to do more with internal structure than what a I'm "feeling" at the moment. I don't favor feeling over logic, I favor internal structure over external structure. aka being prepared mentally before dealing with a situation. I think that is an xi trait or even just an "introvert" trait in general.

 

[Anew Leaf]

What I meant by personal feelings had more to do more with internal structure than what a I'm "feeling" at the moment. I don't favor feeling over logic, I favor internal structure over external structure. aka being prepared mentally before dealing with a situation. I think that is an xi trait or even just an "introvert" trait in general.

I'm really disappointed in this thread. I had predicted 40 pages.

Also this post by jmf is win. Xi is definitely all about the internal structure over external. It's like NERV under tokyo 2.

 

[jixmixfix]

Fixed. But methinks you're still not grasping that whole critical disagreement vs. trolling "thing".



Does your inferior Fe inform your current opinion to any significant degree or is it mostly based off of your interactions with (evil?) Fe-doms?

My current opinion has been informed, now be gone troll.

 

[jixmixfix]

In the eight-function stack model (e.g. Berens'), I mean. Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi.

Te Si Ne Fi are shadow functions that doesn't mean they are the least developed.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm really disappointed in this thread. I had predicted 40 pages.

If you set your posts per page to 100, then it's only on pg 4. A LOOONNNGGG way to go!

 

[Viridian]

Te Si Ne Fi are shadow functions that doesn't mean they are the least developed.

Ah, okay. I meant more along the lines of "less developed if you don't stretch a bit and keep doing what is comfortable for you".

 

[Little_Sticks]

No! Fe is the best funkshunz ever invented. It can do no wrongz! BTW, happy 100th! Here's to many more.

Wayyyttt.....OMGZ U R RITE.

AND THANKS!! Happy birthday to you to for living another day!!

 

[jixmixfix]

Every single one of you is "Feking the funk" and you know it.

As Saturned would say: "Yay! I winz ze thread!"



P.S. Just kidding. I love all of you and you're all invited to an MBTI party at my house tonight.

Directions:
If you are coming from the north:
Drive south until you get to my place.

Coming from the south:
Drive north until you get to my place.

Coming from the east:
Drive west until you get to my place.

Coming from the west:
Drive east until you get to my place.

We'll be discussing Fe into the wee hours of the night and we'll be serving lots of AppFetizers. BYOB.

I'll be sure to bring cofee and cake FOR EVERYONE!

 

[Anew Leaf]

Like my grandpappy used to say, "Can't spell Fake without some Fe!"

 

[jixmixfix]

Like my grandpappy used to say, "Can't spell Fake without some Fe!"

Edit: Like my grandpappy used to say, "Can't spell cofee and cake without some Fe!"

 

[wildcat]

Would the surplus Fe be a demonstration of something already demonstrated? (redundancy)
I mean, more Fe than Fi. Fe doesn't change, it's just a remaining demonstration of an object not present. So I'm thinking it continues to demonstrate for the object, which is now nothing but a phantom limb.

Or, is it also an agent for another object? In which case, not all Fi may be expunged by demonstrative Fe.

A phantom limb. Well said. In a way already: that is: immediately. A dichotomy is one process.

There is only one D- therefore it also acts as an agent for another object. But then it is not Fe any more.
Not all Fi may be expunged by demonstrative Fe. Only as much as is covered by the common ground: what we perceive by the lowest common denominator.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Fi is much more concerned with their internal feeling of what is right and true, even if that means being disruptive. It's not like seeking disruption, but not minding if you cause it if it promotes what the Fi user sees as right or true.

Authenticity is seen as paramount, even though Fi users may also like harmony.

For Fe users it seems that harmony and connection are paramount, even though they may also like authenticity.

I know this post is a little older but I had to stop and make note of it. This is the best description of Fi that I think I've ever read. Marmie hits the nail on the head. Thanks so much for posting this Ms. Dearest.

 

[onemoretime]

Ah, okay. I meant more along the lines of "less developed if you don't stretch a bit and keep doing what is comfortable for you".

It's not even that. You could have very well-developed shadow functions doing what's comfortable for you, provided you have a fairly crappy self-image.

 

[SilkRoad]

How about this?

I have a bit of a natural mistrust of people, in terms of their trustworthyness (enneagram 6, and getting a bit older and wiser with some painful experiences and whatnot.) Yet, I still feel the need to approach people in a friendly and open manner. It's not that I want to get something out of them. I just feel that this is the best approach and it leaves doors open for at least smooth relations, and possibly closer relationships if they prove trustworthy.

So...does that mean I'm being fake?

 

[Rail Tracer]

How about this?

I have a bit of a natural mistrust of people, in terms of their trustworthiness (enneagram 6, and getting a bit older and wiser with some painful experiences and whatnot.) Yet, I still feel the need to approach people in a friendly and open manner. It's not that I want to get something out of them. I just feel that this is the best approach and it leaves doors open for at least smooth relations, and possibly closer relationships if they prove trustworthy.

So...does that mean I'm being fake?

Nope, it just means you are being cautious of who you meet. You've learned that not everyone can be trusted, but you've also learned that not everyone who acts or looks a certain way is truly untrustworthy. It is like the difference between a complete stranger and a "best" friend. Most will most likely trust the friend many times more than the complete stranger.

 

[SilkRoad]

Nope, it just means you are being cautious of who you meet. You've learned that not everyone can be trusted, but you've also learned that not everyone who acts or looks a certain way is truly untrustworthy. It is like the difference between a complete stranger and a "best" friend. Most will most likely trust the friend many times more than the complete stranger.

Agreed! However, I get the impression from some comments on this thread that some feel that ANYTHING other than being completely transparent with your feelings toward others (extreme application of Fi?) counts as being "fake". Honestly, while complete transparency would have some advantages for sure - and I think more transparency in some situations than most people are willing to show would be a good thing - I don't think it's all that tenable in an awful lot of situations.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Agreed! However, I get the impression from some comments on this thread that some feel that ANYTHING other than being completely transparent with your feelings toward others (extreme application of Fi?) counts as being "fake". Honestly, while complete transparency would have some advantages for sure - and I think more transparency in some situations than most people are willing to show would be a good thing - I don't think it's all that tenable in an awful lot of situations.

Yeah, the issue is that we don't live in a black and white world like some of these comments seem to paint of a picture. What we say and do have direct and indirect consequences. It is good to be more transparent when the time calls for it, but in other situations, being less transparent is a must. It doesn't mean that we are being "fake," because we also live in shades of grey and shades of many other colors. Being transparent is only one of the many variables that people should look at when interacting with people.

Do I yell at a kid for not knowing how to multiply and divide? Do I tell this kid that he is stupid for not knowing how to? Do I tell this kid how to multiply and divide instead of yelling at him for not knowing how to do so? I am being truly transparent for telling the kid that he is stupid - it is his feelings and not mines right?
Do I call out a co-worker in front of everyone for not doing his job? Or do I talk to the boss, in private, about this co-worker (and thus having some tact on the way I go about things.)
Do I tell someone that they suck - even though I also like the person?
Do I want to worry others by saying that I am having a horrible time?
Do I lie to others by saying I am having the best of times?

There are many ways to go about things that aren't completely transparent, doesn't mean it is any less real or "fake."

 

[sculpting]

It's not that it "represents" the truth to them; it is the truth to them. The internal state only affects them through how it influences the feeling of the external environment, such as when someone doesn't realize the surly face they present to the world. It's this external manifestation that causes the problem, not the internal state itself. The only reason to even address the internal state is because it is blocking and obscuring that person's true self, and not because any truth arises from it.

What is the goal in terms of growth and development with respect to the internal/external selves in an Fe dom (I have made the assumption that is what you guys are talking about..)?

We're talking about theoretical cognitive functions. We can only piece together what reality is the best that we can from what we say to one another. We cannot know it.

Because the internal feeling is nothing more than an annoying distraction that gets in the way of what's truly important to you: promoting an atmosphere of peace and happiness.

Is there no value in the internal feeling at all? (Not saying there should be, you have expressed this in an interesting way, thus just asking extra questions.)

That's part of the problem I think we have in these sorts of discussions. We don't share in portions of the truth. We each have a monopoly on the truth. For each of us, what we individually believe is true is the only truth that matters, or even the only truth that is real. The trick is in understanding that while your own personal truth is perfectly true and valid, someone else's truth is just as valid and true. Function attitudes are a manifestation of what each person's truth is.

 

[onemoretime]

What is the goal in terms of growth and development with respect to the internal/external selves in an Fe dom (I have made the assumption that is what you guys are talking about..)?

Can't say for sure, not being an Fe dom. I would imagine, though, that it would best be described as "selflessness." In other words, the complete surrender of letting go of one's desires, and unquestioning dedication to the well-being of others. For one's external experiences, it is growing in that function preference so far as it begins to "resemble" the dominant. An ESFJ may see all the possibilities for affecting the social environment, choosing the exact approach based on deep understandings of past experiences. An ENFJ may instantaneously react to any given situation in a perfectly endearing way, so perfect and exacting that it may seem otherworldly.

Is there no value in the internal feeling at all? (Not saying there should be, you have expressed this in an interesting way, thus just asking extra questions.)

Of course there's value. It's a part of me, after all. The value, though, comes at best from what it adds to life. Most of the time, it serves as a buzzer to alert me to things about myself that I'm not taking care of. I won't go in a direction because my ethical compass pulls me in that direction, but I will turn away from one because it's telling me not to go there. Another way of putting it - I cannot label who I am in any meaningful way, but I can put a multitude of labels on the things that I am not.