[Jungian Cognitive Functions] The difference between Fe of INFJ and Fi in general?

[gandalf]

Fe and Fi are supposed to be in conflict with each other. Fe is about harmony over strict values and authenticity and Fi about values and authenticity over harmony.

Yet I know, both by having read type descriptions and knowing them in real life, that INFJs, despite of being Fe sec, are all about true feelings. One INFJ (woman), for example, has told me that what she says or writes usually comes straight from her heart with no "proof-reading".

This makes Fe of the INFJ sound more like Fi to me. What is it that I am not seeing here? Or is it just that the INFJ's seek for harmony comes straight from the heart as well so that what comes from there is already biased by Fe?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

In general. That is the key, I think, to understanding how a function changes as it goes from the outside to the inside of a person. There will be gray areas.

Fe is about harmony over strict values and authenticity and Fi about values and authenticity over harmony.

When you try to apply values language to functions, I think that is when things go awry. Fe is both of the above, as is Fi.


Fe is simply an extraverting of feeling. Fi is an introverting of feeling.

Fe is turning feeling outward onto people and animals and including them in its context. Fi is turning feeling inward into yourself and considering how things should be among others and in the world.

Both can be warm, authentic, values-driven, imaginative, etc. It's just a different focus.

Fe is warmer outside, Fi is warmer inside. Both can be cold at times, and an Fe user uses Fi, just as an Fi user uses Fe.


It's just that most of the time, Fe is concerned with others, and Fi is concerned with a more abstract right.


I sort of think when functions are extraverted, they are necessarily more concrete, and when introverted, abstract.

Therefore, the most abstract functions are the introverted irrational ones (Si, Ni); followed by the introverted rational ones (Fi, Ti).

 

[SilkRoad]

For myself... I am more concerned about being understood (misunderstood), than I am about being authentic.

I don't think that's because I feel that being inauthentic or fake is ok or a good thing. I would say it's more because I already know I am authentic, I know that I am...myself and I have a clear sense of my own identity. I know that I don't always act consistently and I do let myself and others down at times, but generally I don't worry about being real and true to myself - it is fairly instinctive/intuitive.

However, I worry a great deal about being misunderstood by others; I also worry about whether I am overestimating my own ability to understand others, since I feel that they misunderstand me so much.

Do you guys think this is more of a personal thing, or is it reflective of the fact that I am Fe aux as an INFJ? It does seem to me that "authenticity" is more something within, not affected to the same degree by interaction with others, which would seem to match with Fi; whereas being understood and understanding others is necessarily based on a relationship/communication with other people. (Fe)

Sorry if this seems irrelevant to the OP, but it is what came to mind!

 

[21%]

One INFJ (woman), for example, has told me that what she says or writes usually comes straight from her heart with no "proof-reading".

This makes Fe of the INFJ sound more like Fi to me. What is it that I am not seeing here? Or is it just that the INFJ's seek for harmony comes straight from the heart as well so that what comes from there is already biased by Fe?

I think your example has more to do with how expressive the individual is, rather than Fe or Fi. More context here would help. When I risk conflict to give someone I care about advice, it "comes straight from my heart". When I try to defend something I really care about, it also "comes straight from my heart" (and if I'm really passionate about it there will be no "proof-reading") Fe seeks harmony -- but not in the sense that everyone has to be all happy and sweet all the time. If conflict is necessary, Fe can become pretty 'inharmonious'. However, the main thing is, Fe seeks to change the situation to attain harmony again (whether the adjustment comes from their part or other people's). Fi makes no such conscious effort to change itself or the environment.

But this in no way means that Fe is inauthentic and Fi is authentic. I totally agree with what [MENTION=7063]SilkRoad[/MENTION] said about Fe and authenticity.

 

[Mal12345]

Fe and Fi are supposed to be in conflict with each other. Fe is about harmony over strict values and authenticity and Fi about values and authenticity over harmony.

Yet I know, both by having read type descriptions and knowing them in real life, that INFJs, despite of being Fe sec, are all about true feelings. One INFJ (woman), for example, has told me that what she says or writes usually comes straight from her heart with no "proof-reading".

This makes Fe of the INFJ sound more like Fi to me. What is it that I am not seeing here? Or is it just that the INFJ's seek for harmony comes straight from the heart as well so that what comes from there is already biased by Fe?

My simple solution is just to say that INFJ is not equal to NiFe, at least not when talking about real people. It's not as if to say this INFJ type of person doesn't have personal values. Being INFJ or NiFe doesn't eliminate the possible of those.

I can't figure out what is so Fi about writing from the heart anyway.

 

[skylights]

i think the thing about Fi and "from the heart" is Fi users often think in terms of "fuck context, this is what it is", when we're thinking about our feelings or values, and therefore our expression of such things is often "unfiltered". whereas Fe users, while no less genuine, are more likely to tamper things to adjust to external context, what with Fe being an extraverted function and all. it's like what silk said about being concerned about being misunderstood - it's rare that such a concern comes to my mind in everyday life. i don't change things up front to be better understood, usually... i'll explain afterwards if i have to. so Fi can be more "authentic", if you will, in the sense that it is unchanged from inside to outside, but its true meaning is often lost in translation, whereas Fe can actually remain more constant from inside to outside because the user has adapted the "language" of the expression of Feeling to meet the understanding of those who are going to be exposed to it. but i don't think that means changing the Feeling, it's just about language.

but as for the OP, if you are dealing with a Ni dom, Fe will usually be serving the endgoals of Ni, so...

what i see in FJs is usually a more longterm outlook than FPs.

 

[Mal12345]

i think the thing about Fi and "from the heart" is Fi users often think in terms of "fuck context, this is what it is", when we're thinking about our feelings or values, and therefore our expression of such things is often "unfiltered". whereas Fe users, while no less genuine, are more likely to tamper things to adjust to external context, what with Fe being an extraverted function and all. it's like what silk said about being concerned about being misunderstood - it's rare that such a concern comes to my mind in everyday life. i don't change things up front to be better understood, usually... i'll explain afterwards if i have to. so Fi can be more "authentic", if you will, in the sense that it is unchanged from inside to outside, but its true meaning is often lost in translation, whereas Fe can actually remain more constant from inside to outside because the user has adapted the "language" of the expression of Feeling to meet the understanding of those who are going to be exposed to it. but i don't think that means changing the Feeling, it's just about language.

I can see that. It corresponds with what Jung said about Ti and Fi. According to Jung, they share in being theoretical, although the Fi uses "feeling-theory." In my own words, Ti aims for truth, Fi aims for authenticity. But they are both objective, they want their truths to be unsullied by some external context. Perhaps the concept that merges the two types is "right versus wrong," although the Ti function sees this as theoretical and the Fi function sees this as moral.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I can see that. It corresponds with what Jung said about Ti and Fi. According to Jung, they share in being theoretical, although the Fi uses "feeling-theory." In my own words, Ti aims for truth, Fi aims for authenticity. But they are both objective, they want their truths to be unsullied by some external context. Perhaps the concept that merges the two types is "right versus wrong," although the Ti function sees this as theoretical and the Fi function sees this as moral.

How can introverted functions be objective?

 

[Mal12345]

How can introverted functions be objective?

Fi and Ti are not perceiving functions, but judging functions.

 

[Mal12345]

Argh, you ask such interesting questions sometimes, but only because I keep mentally probing deeper into the issue. The process starts out as subjective, but the goal is to objectify the subjective content.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

When or how would Fi or Ti become objective?

 

[Mal12345]

When or how would Fi or Ti become objective?

Oh, let's say, by reducing a "person" to a "type."

 

[INTP]

How can introverted functions be objective?

How can any function be objective?

 

[Mal12345]

How can any function be objective?

Heh, I guess she snared me. I answered my own question instead of hers. Of course a function can't be objective, but it can be an objectifying process at times.

 

[INTP]

Heh, I guess she snared me. I answered my own question instead of hers. Of course a function can't be objective, but it can be an objectifying process at times.

Well, objectifying something and being objective are two different things

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Oh, let's say, by reducing a "person" to a "type."

Still not really following.

How can any function be objective?

Well, usually people call objective something that is experienced outside oneself, or can be represented by extraneous variables. Usually subjective is a personal experience from within one's body or psyche. This is the premise I'm using for these terms.

In applying this to functions, I think that, for example, Te and Fe (and Ne and Se for that matter), are more objective functions, because they exist outside a person. If one uses Ti or Fi, one is thinking or feeling deeply, which is purely subjective. Then, theoretically, Ti or Fi teams up with Se or Ne and a person makes a judgment about something or perceives something. That is my rudimentary understanding of functions.

I think it's an interesting nuance that Mal brings to light, this. How does this then manifest versus more objective extraverted T and F? What differences are elicited when irrational functions are subjective versus objective, and when rational functions are subjective versus objective. ?

 

[Mal12345]

Well, objectifying something and being objective are two different things

Of course, but labeling functions "objective" and "subjective" has its uses beyond getting caught up in semantics.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So I gather up Fe in the world and I drop it in my big Ni vat and it gets coated with my subjectivity. Everywhere and everything that has made my Ni what it is, coats the Fe, giving it my own personal flavor and style.

Take Si/Fe and you get a whole 'nuther kind of Fe.

If we could visualize Fe at work in the world, we'd all have the Universal Objective Fe definition which every 10 threads tries to explain. But we don't. We have subjective irrational functions personalizing them, making them completely unique. Not only between different Fe types of users, but intratype as well.


Interesting jag. Thanks.

 

[INTP]

Still not really following.



Well, usually people call objective something that is experienced outside oneself, or can be represented by extraneous variables. Usually subjective is a personal experience from within one's body or psyche. This is the premise I'm using for these terms.

In applying this to functions, I think that, for example, Te and Fe (and Ne and Se for that matter), are more objective functions, because they exist outside a person. If one uses Ti or Fi, one is thinking or feeling deeply, which is purely subjective. Then, theoretically, Ti or Fi teams up with Se or Ne and a person makes a judgment about something or perceives something. That is my rudimentary understanding of functions.

I think it's an interesting nuance that Mal brings to light, this. How does this then manifest versus more objective extraverted T and F? What differences are elicited when irrational functions are subjective versus objective, and when rational functions are subjective versus objective. ?

Well i see objectivity being seeing something as it is and subjectivity being seeing only some sides of it.

People are unable to see anything as they really are, because to see something as it is, you would have to see EVERYTHING in it and its impossible to not put some sort of subjective view on it. For example if you look at a ball, you can see, yes its a ball, but thats not all there is, the ball is made of molecules that you cant see(and we could take this to quantum physics level also). At the point where you say that molecular structure or the working of quantum mechanics of the ball is irrelevant to the ball, you are taking a subjective view on the ball.
Not to mention when we see a ball, we are inserting our own understanding of what the ball is, how we feel about balls etc, that cant be taken away, thus preventing us to be objective about the ball.

In conclusion, people are always subjective and unable of being objective about anything.

 

[INTP]

Of course, but labeling functions "objective" and "subjective" has its uses beyond getting caught up in semantics.

Objective and subjective as terms for functions are pretty crappy imo, since they arent really displaying the true nature of the functions and are misleading. That is unless you do it like jung and redefine subjectivity and objectivity. But if you do that, then you have to explain the definitions for subjectivity and objectivity and people who want the dummy version of MBTI arent willing to go that deep..