• 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.

Clash of the Feeling Functions

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
tl;dr

Both Fe and Fi have their warmy/approving/connecty, cold/disapproving/disconnecty bits. Simplistic and biased to think otherwise.

It seems strange to say that Fi and Fe are two very different functions (different enough to fuel months of arguments on this message board in the past), but then turn around and argue that the two functions don't actually manifest themselves in any meaningful or observable differences in how the different types live their lives. Would you say the same about Te vs Ti? Ne vs Ni? Se vs Si?

But then I guess I'm being "simplistic and biased." :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'm done here.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Another gem about Fi:

I've never heard of such a thing, it sounds like propaganda.
It is true, of underdeveloped, Inferior Fi. It's strange how people insist on applying this characteristic to dom/aux usage. I could just as easily say that Fe is characterised by martyrdom, paranoia, whining about others owing you something, and generally projecting negative shit on everyone - but then that would actually be terrible, Inferior usage of Fe.

There is definitely a difference between Fi and Fe. Fi is the "chillier," more contemplative function. Whereas Fe is the "warmer," more hands-on function.
I'm OK with this label. I would agree that it's true as long as it clear that this is merely objectively speaking - ie. what it looks like from the outside. I think this is an useful piece of information to help in identifying these functions in others.

Too many of the descriptions of Fi are superficial and external, which is fine if it's just someone outside perspective. It's a different thing altogether when someone can't differentiate between an external experience of things and the underlying, unseen reality - what it looks like is not the same as what it is. Fi outwardly appears to be colder than Fe - but this is not the same as it being colder than Fe, which is the kind of stupid conclusion some people draw.

It seems strange to say that Fi and Fe are two very different functions (different enough to fuel months of arguments on this message board in the past), but then turn around and argue that the two functions don't actually manifest themselves in any meaningful or observable differences in how the different types live their lives. Would you say the same about Te vs Ti? Ne vs Ni? Se vs Si?

But then I guess I'm being "simplistic and biased." :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'm done here.
Maybe if you read the rest of what Seymour wrote you would see how he compared and contrasted the two. :rolleyes:
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Southern Kross;2412310[B said:
]It is true, of underdeveloped, Inferior Fi.[/B] It's strange how people insist on applying this characteristic to dom/aux usage. I could just as easily say that Fe is characterised by martyrdom, paranoia, whining about others owing you something, and generally projecting negative shit on everyone - but then that would actually be terrible, Inferior usage of Fe.


I'm OK with this label. I would agree that it's true as long as it clear that this is merely objectively speaking - ie. what it looks like from the outside. I think this is an useful piece of information to help in identifying these functions in others.

Too many of the descriptions of Fi are superficial and external, which is fine if it's just someone outside perspective. It's a different thing altogether when someone can't differentiate between an external experience of things and the underlying, unseen reality - what it looks like is not the same as what it is. Fi outwardly appears to be colder than Fe - but this is not the same as it being colder than Fe, which is the kind of stupid conclusion some people draw.

Mostly I was taken a-back at the idea that Fi is so maligned that it's generally noted that people don't want to claim it. I can definitely see how Fi can look cold and selfish and maybe arrogant, mostly because it can have a disharmonious effect in situations where Fi deems harmony inequitable.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Mostly I was taken a-back at the idea that Fi is so maligned that it's generally noted that people don't want to claim it.
Yeah, I don't know where that idea is coming from. :shrug:
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Maybe if you read the rest of what Seymour wrote you would see how he compared and contrasted the two. :rolleyes:

Bah. Just the usual stonewalling. I've seen 75-page threads in the past where you, Peacebaby, OrangeAppled, and Seymour insisted that no one was allowed to define Fi but you guys. And then you yourselves never defined it in any meaningful way. You guys Ne the subject to death and never let it come to closure. It's just the usual Fi control-freakism and stonewalling. It's all push-back and no substance.

It's why some discussions will never go anywhere. Material on Fi is discussed in the typology community at large, in books and articles, but it can't be discussed here because of loud pushback from a small coterie of control freaks. :girlfight:
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I will interject that to a Fi-er Fe feels cold. Compared to Fi there's an impersonal edge to it, which sounds amusingly contradictory, generally accepted interpersonal warmth feeling impersonal. I feel like this is the usual root of the Fe-Fi Feud on the Fi side.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Bah. Just the usual stonewalling. I've seen 75-page threads in the past where you, Peacebaby, OrangeAppled, and Seymour insisted that no one was allowed to define Fi but you guys. And then you yourselves never defined it in any meaningful way. It's just the usual Fi control-freakism and stonewalling. It's all push-back and no substance.

It's why some discussions will never go anywhere. Material on Fi is discussed in the typology community at large, in books and articles, but it can't be discussed here because of loud pushback from a small coterie of control freaks. :girlfight
Ugh, I know. All that reasoning and rational argument - who needs it? It's better just to make up a bunch of BS, blindly insist it's true, and ignore anyone that disagrees.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I just wanted to comment in turn on the one fragment above. I have an ESFJ brother. I don't think he would flagellate himself for years upon the loss of a friend. But I think issues of personal loyalty will keep him tied to negative or harmful people in his inner circle long past the point where I myself would jettison such people. And I've seen some ENFJs make much of loyalty issues.

IOW, Fe-users always seem to demonstrate some issue of strong connection with others, sometimes to a harmful degree; the exact nature of the connection varies from type to type, of course.

I absolutely agree with the loyalty point. This isn't to say Pe dom/aux isn't loyal, but FJs interact less with the immediate moment and more with our internal concept of a person (built from accumulated experience of them). We wont recognize immediate harmful behavior as harmful behavior until enough of it builds up to put a dent in the internal concept.


Both Fe and Fi have their warm/approving/connecty, cold/disapproving/disconnecty bits. Simplistic and biased to think otherwise.

My own experience inclines me to agree. I believe Ne can be as 'warm' as Fe, and is just as capable of readily 'connecting' as Fe is. It's far more about how enthusiastic someone is to engage with others (because that bleeds through in 'warmness') than Fe vs. Ne.

I've thought before that Vicky Jo has a strong tendency to conflate so instinct variant dominance with Fe and least so instinct variance with Fi. (There's a great deal about her typical descriptions that I don't resonate with- but that, in particular, usually stands out to me.)


Addendum: I'm certainly capable of flagellating myself for a long period of time because of some relationship failure. There are some people I don't reach out too mostly because of remaining guilt for things done and things left undone.

Yay!! We have ALL the fun.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Bah. Just the usual stonewalling. I've seen 75-page threads in the past where you, Peacebaby, OrangeAppled, and Seymour insisted that no one was allowed to define Fi but you guys. And then you yourselves never defined it in any meaningful way. You guys Ne the subject to death and never let it come to closure. It's just the usual Fi control-freakism and stonewalling. It's all push-back and no substance.

It's why some discussions will never go anywhere. Material on Fi is discussed in the typology community at large, in books and articles, but it can't be discussed here because of loud pushback from a small coterie of control freaks.

oh pot, why dost thou callest the kettle black? gaze into the mirror; it is thine own self in the darkness.


Let's examine you. Let's look at your emotions and motivations here. What is so provocative or threatening to you that you are unable to face your own emotions on the topic? We evoke anger, frustration in you ... you know that's all about you, right? Those emotions aren't about us? Why do you feel impotent here, like you have no voice? There is something inside of you, deeply hurt and wounded, that has been unheard and untended for a long time.

Because that's what I feel interfacing with you, and I sense almost a kind of defensive disdain for the "indulgence" we permit ourselves here. You speaking out is an attempt to quiet your own inner self by silencing us. You are trying to govern us in the manner you govern yourself. Set it free man! Get whinier and pissier if you need to! And find the tears in there, for having felt unseen for so long.

So, fellow Fi dom, why not travel along and learn with the rest of us? There is no club or coterie - we are just a bunch of random travelers on a journey. You're welcome to join, as all are welcome.
 

violett

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
397
Defined in a meaningful way, also, if you have a particular function in your stack you will recognized it within yourself without any doubts, especially if the author does a good job defining the function. I think its worth saying that if have doubts about whether or not you use the function more than likely you have those doubts because the function is unfamiliar to you. Bells should go off.

Introverted Feeling - Lenore Thomson

Quasi-defining statements:

p. 41: "When we use Feeling in an Introverted way, it operates as a kind of inner flame--a sense of personal values that may be difficult to explain or express directly but whose character informs our choices and inclinations."

p. 366: "Introverted Feeling ... encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern, a will to gauge the situation by an experiential ideal. For example, if we use Introverted Feeling to make a good spaghetti sauce, we won't follow recipes or measure ingredients. We'll sample the sauce as we're making it, gauging its taste, smell, and texture by their ideal outcome and adjusting for circumstantial variables so the emerging pattern stays on track."

p. 367: "To invoke Introverted Feeling, we have to know the difference between a good outcome and a bad one--know with our senses, in our bones [on the basis of living, breathing, first-hand experience]."

p. 370: "Introverted Feeling relies on the inward, right-brain criteria of experience and empathy to mark off decisions that go beyond our roles in society to affect us as human beings. Law and custom, after all, are the lowest common denominator of a defined community. We associate character and humane behavior with the moral imperatives shaped by inner values."

p. 371: "An inner point of reference, one trained by personal experience. [Bypassing matters of social standing] to focus on the quintessentially human."

Proposed definition #1

Introverted Feeling (Fi) is the attitude that everything that is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is the expression of a soul or life force, in terms of which everything ultimately makes sense. Everything that happens is the result of a soul expressing its unique nature.

From this attitude, each living thing is completely unique, and has unique needs. Every living thing needs to express itself and grow in its unique way. None of this can be put into categories or measurements, at least not without blotting out that utter uniqueness of each living thing. Because we are all living things, even though each of us is unique we can still connect to the life force as it exists in others. From an Fi standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying life force.

Proposed definition #2

Introverted Feeling (Fi) is the attitude of judging things good or bad based on how they harmonize or clash with a living being's inner essence. That inner essence or soul, and how things in the environment get along with it or conflict with it, is knowable only first-hand--ultimately, only by that soul. It is known by attending to one's own emotions in response to things. What you like is good--for you, not necessarily good for others. What you don't like is bad--for you, not necessarily bad for others. Anything outside your own soul is irrelevant to evaluating anything or choosing your course in life.

As a language of Ego Orientation

As a Dominant Function, Fi leads IFPs to live a life based on empathy and harmony between self and others--and/or to see life as a never-ending conflict between souls that are intrinsically different and opposed. ISFPs typically seek out a space in which they can be completely and spontaneously themselves, following their artistic impulses without regard to social expectation or definition of any sort. Some do their best to live life as a soap opera: creating and living out intense drama wherever they go. INFPs typically seek to understand the world in terms of drama, emotion, and people seeking their own unique callings (perhaps Garrison Keillor is a good example of that). Some, like John Gray, attempt to help others understand each other through empathy with each other's differences, and thereby find peace and synergy.

Developed Fi naturally leads people to favor mercy or forgiveness for people who have done heinous acts--anything from theft to murder to genocide--acts that, under the ordinary laws that make a society manageable (see Extraverted Thinking), would usually merit their imprisonment or execution. From a developed Fi perspective, the criminal is still a living soul, still unique and precious despite whatever he may have done. If we walked in his moccasins for a while, maybe we could see it his way. Without condoning his crimes, maybe we could see how we ourselves could have done the same things under similar circumstances. This use of empathy as one's ultimate anchor of orientation leads to a resolute non-judgementalness. First empathize--find something in your own heart that lets you see how someone could feel and act the way he did--and then you will probably find that you no longer feel hatred or a desire for retribution.

As a Secondary Function, Fi typically leads EFPs to tune into the unmet needs and callings of others--as an avenue to making a sale, as a way to intuit what would entertain people, as a channel to political gain by demonstrating that you understand people's pain (e.g. Bill Clinton), as a way to chart a course through life based on a calling felt to be unique to them. Sometimes it leads them to sense a higher calling to answer to, a sense that their actions have cosmic meaning by virtue of how they aid or hinder life.

As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.

As an Inferior Function, Fi typically leads ETJs to acts of self-destructive hedonism, creation of opera-like drama in their lives and the lives of those around them, obsession with "integrity" (like going down with the ship), instant and irresponsible abandonment of anything they don't like (the opposite of going down with the ship), and bizarre solitary acts of atonement for the harms they've done to others. Sometimes inferior-Fi leads ETJs to preach and even practice a sort of hyper-selfishness, e.g. Ayn Rand and the Landmark Forum. "I'm doing fine, so why should I give a damn about you?" (Very different from highly developed Fi, which leads you to see all people as connected and the highest joy of life as the experience of that connection.)

Tertiary and inferior Fi also sometimes lead TJs to view large numbers of people as "troglodytes": soulless or stupid creatures whose rotten situations in life derive only from their own intrinsic rottenness-of-soul. To take a comic example, Lex Luthor's lamentation in Superman, "Why is the world's greatest criminal genius surrounded by nincompoops?"

Perhaps the most typical manifestation of tertiary and inferior Fi is an attitude of psychologizing other people: a sort of pseudo-empathy in which one explains other people's behavior in terms of pitiful needs and psychological flaws that anyone would be ashamed to have. "Notice the defensiveness. He clings desperately to his ideas. Such weakness." (Nearly all psychological theories offer plenty of ammo for psychologizing, including Lenore Thomson's ideas.) Where developed Fi leads you to find something in your own soul in terms of which to truly understand someone else and see things their way, tertiary and inferior Fi typically lead you to find something in your own soul that you despise, in terms of which you can "explain" them and justify putting them down.

Naturally, you can see plenty of dominant-style Fi in ETJs, secondary-style Fi in IFPs, and so on--even inferior-style Fi in IFPs.

Introverted feeling is judgement with an emotional slant that causes the individual to view the object on a Subjective level. It is primarily a silent inaccessible function that is difficult to conceptualize. Therefore, unlike its extraverted counterpart, Extraverted Feeling, it is entirely individualistic, with a leaning toward the mystical. Introverted feeling is generally disconnected with typical external stimuli. Introverted feeling is only concerned with the external to the extent that the object has some relevance to a deep, internal value. Its primary objective is to harmonize ideologies, concepts, relationships etc. with the internal guiding force.

Whatever the individual values the most will dominate the motivations, goals and chief objectives of the individual. For example, if the primary value is God, then all other values will find themselves inexorably subjugated to this primary one. Often, unbalanced introverted feeling will create in the individual dramatic mood swings and decisions based on illogical rationales. However, at its best, introverted feeling provides a navigational quality that creates in the personality tenacity, idealism, honor, relationship wisdom and a unfaltering value system that is seldom compromised.

Introverted feeling is a counterpart to Extroverted thinking, as are all inferior elements to the dominant. Everyone attempts to accomplish the inferior through the dominant. By following first principles and proverbial logic (Te) i.e. literal proverbs, they accomplish being "good"(Fi). Though the elements look different they simply reverse the horse and carriage. An Fi will look at a business tycoon and blame them for the state of the poor. A Te realizes that simply feeling bad for the poor won't accomplish anything, because you can't take emotions to the bank (a common Te proverb) you need to actually DO something. Even if you don't FEEL for them, building a huge corporation and then donating your equity to charity is worth more than a single person volunteering their entire life. For this reason, even though still hated by a generally large amount of people, Bill Gates (textbook ENTJ according to typology forums) is more effective in donating ~$30 billion to build business around the globe for the poor and promoting philanthro-capitalism than an army of Mother Teresa's.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It seems strange to say that Fi and Fe are two very different functions (different enough to fuel months of arguments on this message board in the past), but then turn around and argue that the two functions don't actually manifest themselves in any meaningful or observable differences in how the different types live their lives. Would you say the same about Te vs Ti? Ne vs Ni? Se vs Si?

But then I guess I'm being "simplistic and biased." :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'm done here.

Just to clarify: I was responding to the article linked in the OP and wasn't trying to critique you or your response to the OP. I apologize that my intent was unclear and that it came across as a personal slam. We all have our own perspectives, and I was trying to explain why I found the article unsatisfying from my own perspective and understanding.

I certainly wasn't trying to shut down communication or silence dissent. And again, I'm sorry that my "tl;dr" came across as a harsh attack. It wasn't meant as such.

I do think it's worth talking about why and how perspectives differ, rather than merely that they do (which is clear). Is it different enneagram types, instinctual types, life experience, type development, other?

Might also be interesting to find out how people find Vicky Jo's materials helpful (and I have, at times), and how her material rubs some people the wrong way (which it does me in some ways)... because it seems like part of the issue may be how persnickety individuals are about word choice and connotation.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Fe is apparently a decent function--unless it's in the dominant position, in which case it's the embodiment of all that's evil and wrong with the world ever.

it seems like part of the issue may be how persnickety individuals are about word choice and connotation.
Yup. People have a tendency to read personal offense between the lines. It's a shame. The cynic in me says that it would be good to have a thesaurus on hand, though, so that each individual word in a writeup can be pedantically chosen to minimize offense.

Feeling offense at some statement is fine. It's natural. Figuring out what's offensive to oneself, why it's offensive, and what other possibilities exist in how it can be read--that goes a long way in figuring out what the message actually is. Then, the message can be evaluated on merit.
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
The article seems a bit shallow, IMHO. It's like "Wow I just realized that Fi has good points too so I'm going to write an article about it to enlighten the masses (because I'm an understanding and tolerant person)!" by someone who doesn't really understand the functions.

I think the reason why it has been so hard to define the functions is that a lot of conceptualization is needed, and people conceptualize things differently. Even "warm" and "cold" are experienced differently by different people, so no one can ever agree on what a function is.

My (Ti) approach is to read loads of descriptions by different people and construct my own internal understanding of what the functions are. I have my own definitions that I'm happy with and I don't feel the need to make other people use my definitions, because there's not one 'correct' single way to define it.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The quack is back!

Vicky Jo fails to grasp Fi and creates more dumb stereotypes?

Shocker!

I don't think this is even worth the energy of refuting.... it's so much WRONG that there's nothing else to say about it.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Bah. Just the usual stonewalling. I've seen 75-page threads in the past where you, Peacebaby, OrangeAppled, and Seymour insisted that no one was allowed to define Fi but you guys. And then you yourselves never defined it in any meaningful way. You guys Ne the subject to death and never let it come to closure. It's just the usual Fi control-freakism and stonewalling. It's all push-back and no substance.

It's why some discussions will never go anywhere. Material on Fi is discussed in the typology community at large, in books and articles, but it can't be discussed here because of loud pushback from a small coterie of control freaks. :girlfight:

Is there some personal annoyance of yours at not being heard? Forgive me, but I am not familiar with you (perhaps you've changed your name? That throws me), but the aforementioned posters are established, regular posters who put a lot of energy and thought into these discissions. If their posts get recognition or have influence, then that is why, not any control-freakism or stonewalling.

I will say that your attitude here seems to only reflect your viewpoint. You also present quite a contradiction: have we avoided any discussion that leads to a meaningful definition or have we dominated them with our own definitions? You cannot claim both.

Of course I and others can disagree with your take on things just as you can disagree with our individual takes on Fi. If there is consensus among some of us on Fi, it is no grand conspiracy to block others in discussions. Rather, both disagreements and agreements in these discussions help distinguish what is Fi mentality/personality and what is individual quirks or misunderstanding of theory. I find these discussions fruitful and in-depth, not remotely sidestepping.

I've gotten tons of feedback via PMs, VMs, quotes, and reps where people (especially Fi-doms) tell me that my descriptions of Fi are spot on for them. I've probably spent the better part of my posting time discussing Fi, to the point where I feel I've almost exhausted the subject and may be tiring others with it. I've spent a lot of time reading on Jungian theory and building my understanding, as well as constantly refining my own phrasing when discussing the functions. I will be arrogant and say I don't see that many others presenting the same level of analysis. I will also say that much of what I've read came from authors who are not Fi-Dom, so I'm not sure how I'm not accepting views on Fi from non Fi-dom.

To suggest this has mostly gone nowhere is simply not true for me or many others. I've polished my own grasp and feel pretty happy with whatever insights I've imparted to others. Feedback from other Fi-dom has confirmed to me this is NOT just my personal experience. You seem to interpret our closure as stonewalling instead of having already discussed the topic to death and discovered much consensus among other Fi-dom.

So maybe these Fi definitions (because I have offered definitions ranging from a brief phrase to a wall of text) are not "meaningful" for you, but they have great meaning for me as well as for many others, many of whom also identify as Fi-dom.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I absolutely agree with the loyalty point. This isn't to say Pe dom/aux isn't loyal, but FJs interact less with the immediate moment and more with our internal concept of a person (built from accumulated experience of them). We wont recognize immediate harmful behavior as harmful behavior until enough of it builds up to put a dent in the internal concept.
This is such a useful way of putting it - I rather like it and find it illuminating. I'll try to remember it in future. :) Some quick questions:

- So for you is getting to know someone a process of building up an internal picture of them? Is that the way you experience gaining gradual familiarity - like filling in the blanks?
- If you know someone well do you evaluate their behaviour as a closed system (ie. their current behaviour in contrast to their established patterns of behaviour) or is it partially weighed against your experiences with others?
- How would you contrast that with the Fi manner of evaluating others? I mean of course it's quite different but it can use internal concepts of human behaviour too. How do you see the differences?
- And what did you think of what [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] said about Fe defining boundaries through relationship roles? Does that gel with you?

I think the reason why it has been so hard to define the functions is that a lot of conceptualization is needed, and people conceptualize things differently. Even "warm" and "cold" are experienced differently by different people, so no one can ever agree on what a function is.
Exactly. However, I don't think this renders those impressions meaningless. If FJs commonly experience Fi as cold then that is a pattern worth noting and exploring. It's just that it may end up saying as much about Fe as it does about Fi.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
If FJs commonly experience Fi as cold then that is a pattern worth noting and exploring. It's just that it may end up saying as much about Fe as it does about Fi.

I don't think I've ever experienced Fi as cold. Quite the opposite actually. I always see it as warm (sometimes annoyingly so).
 

GarrotTheThief

The Green Jolly Robin H.
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
1,648
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I experience FE and FI as issues involving communication.

But the heat of a person or the warmth of their heart comes from their soul and spirit!

I know cause viking warlords came to me in a dream and delivered the message - that's a metaphor for an intuition I couldn't describe otherwise.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
- So for you is getting to know someone a process of building up an internal picture of them? Is that the way you experience gaining gradual familiarity - like filling in the blanks?

I suppose so?

- If you know someone well do you evaluate their behaviour as a closed system (ie. their current behaviour in contrast to their established patterns of behaviour) or is it partially weighed against your experiences with others?

Well it's not even possible for it to be an entirely closed system- I mean, as infants/children we get an idea of what 'experience of others' is like, and we apply that for the rest of our lives to the people we get to know. But the more I get to know an individual, I'd say the more 'closed system' my familiarity with that individual becomes? The people I've considered my closest friends- what I know about them is because it's information I've accumulated about them, as individuals. But then, the whole reason I chose them is because- weighed against my experience with others- they were the individuals who stood out and with whom I had the most meaningful exchanges. Maybe I don't understand this question.

- How would you contrast that with the Fi manner of evaluating others? I mean of course it's quite different but it can use internal concepts of human behaviour too. How do you see the differences?

Almost immediately after I posted, I realized we ALL interact with our own internal concept of other people. In the end, that's all ANY of us really have to go on. But for FJs, that internal concept is more based on the entirety of past experience of that person- not just the entity immediately in front of us. The more time and experience have gone into shaping an internal concept, the more we use that internal concept to interpret incoming information from that particular source.

- And what did you think of what Seymour said about Fe defining boundaries through relationship roles? Does that gel with you?

I think so, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. I tend (and I think, INFJs tend) to have boundaries based on my experience of individuals- the extent to which past experience (of that person) dictates I can trust their judgment (not their "motivations", but their judgment- and whether their values make their judgment incompatible with my own*) is the extent to which I don't have much of a boundary with them. I've explained my theory of the NiFe 'tier mechanism' before (I don't feel like looking for it just now, nor do I really have the energy just now to explain it well again)- it sounds like that's what he was explaining, but it's somewhat confusing to me to phrase it as "defining boundaries through relationship roles/obligations." I'd say it was more about defining boundaries based on experiential data that accumulates from interacting with/observation of different individuals- the boundary I have with each person I know has been customized according to my past interaction with/observation of them specifically.

*In this way, I think that our boundaries are subject to our personal values- but we take notice of the individuals with whom our personal values don't jive and place the boundaries on those people (unless further observation reveals the initial assessment was incomplete, which *will* happen if someone else's values *do* jive and they remain in our periphery), whereas it sounds like Fi does this in the other direction? The instinctive boundary isn't placed directly on the people so much as the immediate information coming from them? eta: And honestly, I think I might be going more into NiFe territory instead of effectively representing the Fe side of things here.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I suppose so?
I know it's a weird question if this is what you do naturally (it is basically unconscious then). I asked it because I suspect that it's so different to how I approach getting to know people.

Well it's not even possible for it to be an entirely closed system- I mean, as infants/children we get an idea of what 'experience of others' is like, and we apply that for the rest of our lives to the people we get to know. But the more I get to know an individual, I'd say the more 'closed system' my familiarity with that individual becomes? The people I've considered my closest friends- what I know about them is because it's information I've accumulated about them, as individuals. But then, the whole reason I chose them is because- weighed against my experience with others- they were the individuals who stood out and with whom I had the most meaningful exchanges. Maybe I don't understand this question.
No, you understood the question perfectly well. This was helpful.

Almost immediately after I posted, I realized we ALL interact with our own internal concept of other people. In the end, that's all ANY of us really have to go on. But for FJs, that internal concept is more based on the entirety of past experience of that person- not just the entity immediately in front of us. The more time and experience have gone into shaping an internal concept, the more we use that internal concept to interpret incoming information from that particular source.
I understood what you meant by it, though - the context gave it more meaning. :) I interpreted it as seeing a familiar person as a series of cues that reflect an internal model of them. The behaviour itself holds little meaning until it filtered and read through the lens of the model. There's a wholeness to it too when it gets to a certain stage, like drawing a circle around the person and saying, "everything I need to know about you to make sense of you, lies within this circle" - taking into account who they are, who they were and who they potentially are in their entirety, in isolation from time or context. That person is then (relatively speaking) individuated from the common human behaviour model that you apply for the less familiar general population. Correct? We all do the internal concept, but the Fe brand is more of a blueprint that has filled in for that individual in their totality (?), used to compare the reality to the schematics (and vice versa).

If this is all vaguely accurate, it's very different to the Fi approach (well the FP approach). I guess I observe common, fundamental behavioural threads across all people or types/groups (gained through experience and introspection) and apply these to individuals I come across. There really isn't a single model, nor do I look at a person as closed system. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that, in fact. When I meet someone it is with an openness - ready to let their demeanour to speak to me so I can pick up on 'behavioural threads'. I can't judge them because I haven't got a hold on their attributes enough to even measure them against something else. Once I start to register impressions of them I need to compare them to other manifestations of such impressions in myself or others and figure out what that tells me about this person. Perhaps seemingly counter-intuitively, this method feels like the best way to respect the individuality of the person. I suppose by recognizing their qualities as common to some or all people I feel as thought I am recognizing their inherent humanity. I don't know how this works with those I'm familiar with compared with those I'm not. I don't think there is a difference... :thinking:

So here's the weird thing where Fi is seen as being more attentive to the individual and Fe to the group, but from this angle, it's the other way around. I always describe an analogy for F differences as: Fi starts with the individual and steps backwards to view the wider context, whereas Fe starts with the wider context and then moves toward the individual (to which I attribute the relative impression of 'warmth' in Fe and 'coldness' in Fi). I just didn't realize the degree that Fe can hone in on that individual. I wonder if FJs feel that people are more inherently 'knowable' as a whole, than FPs do. :thinking:

I think so, I'm not entirely sure I understand it. I tend (and I think, INFJs tend) to have boundaries based on my experience of individuals- the extent to which past experience (of that person) dictates I can trust their judgment (not their "motivations", but their judgment- and whether their values make their judgment incompatible with my own*) is the extent to which I don't have much of a boundary with them.
So is that a direct connection for you: compatible values correlates to reliable judgement? Is compatible judgement something Fe users really look for?

Is this distinction between motivation and judgement significant to you? Do you feel that Fi users often wrongly conflate the two?

*In this way, I think that our boundaries are subject to our personal values- but we take notice of the individuals with whom our personal values don't jive and place the boundaries on those people (unless further observation reveals the initial assessment was incomplete, which *will* happen if someone else's values *do* jive and they remain in our periphery), whereas it sounds like Fi does this in the other direction? The instinctive boundary isn't placed directly on the people so much as the immediate information coming from them? eta: And honestly, I think I might be going more into NiFe territory instead of effectively representing the Fe side of things here.
What part does Fi do in the other direction?
 
Top