I have been reading much of this, but didn't quite make it through all 20 pages, so apologies if this has already been stated by someone.
Lenore Thompson and Socionics both present a function-attitude model which presents what I think is a truth about these preferences....Basically, if you are Fe-dom (as an example), then Fi is not all that unconscious or mysterious, etc. Rather, you don't feel a need to use that feeling-attitude much because for you, Fe covers it. But you actually would access that part of your psychology far more comfortably than Ti, which would reside at the entrance to the unconscious (ironically, giving it a greater pull on your psychology, BECAUSE it is under less conscious control). Likewise, a Fi type can access Fe pretty easily if so inclined, although like all other functions, it will be in the service of the ego (in this case Fi, or perhaps Pe). Fi and Fe types appear to dismiss each other because, well, they do that within their own psychology. This is true of all functions with different attitudes, IMO. They threaten each-other far less than they simply see one as a less effective way of dealing with that particular function (in this case - Feeling). Most of the time, that means they tolerate and even respect the other attitude pretty easily.
This sort of brings us to the whole thing about personal values. YES, personal values DO NOT equal Fi. They don't define it, are not exclusive to it, etc. They are not even exclusive to Feeling. I think part of this confusion stems from what was originally meant by that phrase. It is often interpreted to mean "what an individual determines is important", when I think it simply meant "determining what value is in relation to the human condition". It is personal in that it has a human quality, not that it stems from an individual.
The former is something almost all people do - they know their own likes/dislikes and have various things that they deem important or unimportant, etc. The latter indicates a Feeling focus, but not Fe or Fi, just Feeling in general. It is using the human experience as the gauge. Thinking types prefer to gauge things impersonally, which doesn't eclipse their having personal values or moral standards, but their decision making is not focused on what something means to the human experience.
So the primary difference between Fi and Fe is the attitude, as they serve the same function (and why they view the other as semi-redundant). This boils down to the part of the human experience each focuses on, what they use as the gauge.
While this is an oversimplification, I think it is better and more helpful than many other simple ways of differentiating the two:
- Fi focuses on the space within people
- Fe focuses on the space between people
Basically, if you wanted to understand the value of things in relation to the inner human experience, then who is your best case study? Who can you thoroughly explore internally with no holds barred? Yourself! The self is the prototype for the inner experience for the Fi-dom. They are using the self as a gauge for what value things have in relation to the inner human condition. They spend a lot of time building and refining this gauge. Emotions are examined to understand what needs of the inner experience are being signaled as met or violated. They recognize the parallels between the inner states of all people (much as the physical human body has essentially the same parts and basic needs but can look very different and require different ways of meeting those needs). The focus on unique preferences is just recognizing how the same core needs can look so different and be met differently, but the main point is that there ARE those bigger values which are a truth beyond the self. So that is Fi....something of a paradox
.
Similarly, Fe, being extroverted, wants to understand the value of things in relation to the shared, interactive human experience. How does Fe type go about that? They have to interact and observe interaction. They have to learn about people as they are in relationships, not in their isolated internal states. They have to ask: how do people relate and connect and what are the results of this? I think it is less about a group than dynamics, which can just be two people. This doesn't mean the person doesn't hold personal preferences or values, but they just focus less on it, because that is not their gauge for the bigger meaning (something Fi types are actually focused on more also). To refine that gauge means you have to be in that space a lot. This doesn't mean they ignore their own emotional reactions either. Rather they don't study what it means for themselves so much as how it affects that "space between". How it affects that space is, in fact, often what spurs a genuine emotion within them, because the emotion is just a signal of a value being met/violated. Example: affecting that space positively is met with a positive emotion.
Remember that extroversion is much more in "real time". Introverted functions are conceptual and seek to bypass constraints of time/culture/situation/etc. Extroverted attitudes form according what is happening in a specific context. This is why we associate Fe so much with cultural values, although that is NOT what it is. Rather, Fe is gauging value using the external dynamics between people, so it is ACTIVE. It shapes as much as it is shaped. It HAS to be open to affect and affecting to be an accurate gauge. Fi is less active outwardly; it is resisting affect and declining to affect in order to keep a purity of the prototype (the natural self, untouched by outer contexts). Neither can do this 100%, but it is what the focus is on.
Now, for IxFJs, this can be murky because they are introverts and the inner experience is the part of reality they focus on. For an introvert, the inner world is more real, it is what is valid and trustworthy. Since these individuals will have more focus on their inner world, and less tendency to seek interaction, then that may make the lines between Fe and Fi very unclear (as there are not perfectly clear lines to begin with, as the Thompson and Socionics models illustrate). I think what can help distinguish this is observing the "space" you tend to focus on when determining value that is NOT a matter of personal preference. Is it the self as a prototype or is the dynamic between people? Which do you see as leading to a more reliable end for determining a bigger value? Perhaps you recognize both roads go there, but which are you inclined to take?
Personally, I do feel many ISFJs mistype because of misunderstandings of Fe. In a previous thread on ESFJs mistyping as ENFP, I briefly explained why I think ISFJs sometimes mistype as INFP (more than INFJs would). That is not the focus here, and neither is Fi, but I think it all relates to how Fe is misrepresented.
