[Fe] Fe Misconceptions

[miss deceit]

So I've noticed a few people on forums and in discussions in general (not specific to this site) who seem to misunderstand what Fe is, and it can be quite frustrating at times so I want to make a post about it. I also mistyped as an NTJ due to misunderstanding this myself.

I believe the best definition for Fe comes from Socionics, which reads as follows:

Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.

I especially prefer the term "sense of community and emotional unity" over the commonly used "harmony". One can build a sense of community on deep negative emotions, but there usually won't really be harmony. Even in general, harmony usually doesn't exist because if you try to stop "arguments" you often end up with people being passive aggressive to each other.

The other main reason I prefer this definition is that it matches the term Extraverted Feeling the most. It reads the external emotional atmosphere, how everyone feels and is able to express emotions in order to inspire those feelings in others. This is great because it doesn't add any motivations to the description. I believe motivations are better explained through enneagram. So an Fe dom 8 or 3 would probably use their functions differently (in perhaps a more self serving way, but not all the time) than an Fe dom 2 or 9. With this we get a more raw definition of what Fe is, and how the Fe user uses it is individual to them and can vary.

What Fe is not:
- Following social norms without question
- Serving others
- Being completely conflict avoidant
- Harmony (it can be this, but it doesn't have to be this)

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

 

[AceHop]

This dude did a video on you, thoughts ?
YouTube

 

[miss deceit]

This dude did a video on you, thoughts ?
YouTube

Seen it, didn't think it was that good. Also this is not the thread for that - stop derailing.

 

[Tilt]

So I've noticed a few people on forums and in discussions in general (not specific to this site) who seem to misunderstand what Fe is, and it can be quite frustrating at times so I want to make a post about it. I also mistyped as an NTJ due to misunderstanding this myself.

I believe the best definition for Fe comes from Socionics, which reads as follows:


I especially prefer the term "sense of community and emotional unity" over the commonly used "harmony". One can build a sense of community on deep negative emotions, but there usually won't really be harmony. Even in general, harmony usually doesn't exist because if you try to stop "arguments" you often end up with people being passive aggressive to each other.

The other main reason I prefer this definition is that it matches the term Extraverted Feeling the most. It reads the external emotional atmosphere, how everyone feels and is able to express emotions in order to inspire those feelings in others. This is great because it doesn't add any motivations to the description. I believe motivations are better explained through enneagram. So an Fe dom 8 or 3 would probably use their functions differently (in perhaps a more self serving way, but not all the time) than an Fe dom 2 or 9. With this we get a more raw definition of what Fe is, and how the Fe user uses it is individual to them and can vary.

What Fe is not:
- Following social norms without question
- Serving others
- Being completely conflict avoidant
- Harmony (it can be this, but it doesn't have to be this)

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

I can resonate a lot. I am ENFJ 3w4-5w6-9w8. Some people were trying to type me as ENTj on the other forum actually.

 

[miss deceit]

I can resonate a lot. I am ENFJ 3w4-5w6-9w8. Some people were trying to type me as ENTj on the other forum actually.

Yeah it's frustrating. ENTJ is thrown at me quite frequently as well. I was gonna post it on the "Is the Above User accurately typed thread" but last time I did something like that I was accused of taking the thread too seriously so I just made my own. I'm glad other ENFJs can resonate with this though, I see we have a similar tritype (besides me being an 8w7 gut type and yours being 9w8)

 

[Tilt]

Yeah it's frustrating. ENTJ is thrown at me quite frequently as well. I was gonna post it on the "Is the Above User accurately typed thread" but last time I did something like that I was accused of taking the thread too seriously so I just made my own. I'm glad other ENFJs can resonate with this though, I see we have a similar tritype (besides me being an 8w7 gut type and yours being 9w8)

For me, it's less about the social norms and harmony and more about the implications of the behaviors and how it might affect others. And if the social norm goes against that aim, I will go against it.

I think most Fe doms are keyed into social norms and group dynamics but they will use it to their disposal. Only the sheltered ones are part of the "hive-mind" mentality

 

[Earl Grey]

For me, it's less about the social norms and harmony and more about the implications of the behaviors and how it might affect others. And if the social norm goes against that aim, I will go against it.

I think most Fe dims are keyed into social norms and group dynamics but they will use it to their disposal. Only the sheltered ones are part of the "hive-mind" mentality

I've been calling this thing 'social currency' and you've put it into words.

Why social currency? Because I see my Fe-friends as being much more attuned to the emotional undercurrent, the emotional give and take (thus currency) that goes around. It's like a shared net almost in groups that work under a enough similar Fe-structure (?) of boundaries and expectations. Something I also noticed are Fe users doing this usually for its own sake, because it's the 'right thing to do'.

Extrapolating further from this is that depending on their temperament (or if you want to get typology, MBTI or whatever other yardstick it is) the Fe may weave up this kind of social structure or respect it and assimilate into it. I've always wondered why the distinction, because everyone does it- it has to be done every now and then in real life, and the answer always seems to boil back to that Fe is independently interested in it for its own sake.

 

[miss deceit]

For me, it's less about the social norms and harmony and more about the implications of the behaviors and how it might affect others. And if the social norm goes against that aim, I will go against it.

I think most Fe dims are keyed into social norms and group dynamics but they will use it to their disposal. Only the sheltered ones are part of the "hive-mind" mentality

Agreed, I'm exactly the same on this front. It's what I was getting at with "It reads the external emotional atmosphere, how everyone feels and is able to express emotions in order to inspire those feelings in others. ". Like I'm definitely very aware of social norms and values, but do I follow them? Often times, no. I mean even the fact that I'm a trans woman could be considered going against social norms, so whenever I am creating awareness regarding trans issues I'm usually going against social norms even if I articulate it in a way that will get more people on board. Some sheltered Fe doms do become part of a hive mind, and we see unhealthy Fe doms become cult leaders or extremely manipulative and then when healthy that same Fe energy is channelled into other things such as activism or just helping their community in general (those aren't all of the ways it can be channelled of course, those are just some examples). Fe doms with more assertive enneagram types maybe willing to use shock value when they are putting forward a point in order to create passion in others, it just depends on the person. So I think it can be definitely frustrating to see it being reduced down to "Fe = social norms and harmony" when it's much more than that (especially when other functions, often the N and T functions are so highly praised)

 

[indra]

Repulsor Blast!

I am Iron Man!

 

[Tilt]

I've been calling this thing 'social currency' and you've put it into words.

Why social currency? Because I see my Fe-friends as being much more attuned to the emotional undercurrent, the emotional give and take (thus currency) that goes around. It's like a shared net almost in groups that work under a enough similar Fe-structure (?) of boundaries and expectations. Something I also noticed are Fe users doing this usually for its own sake, because it's the 'right thing to do'.

Extrapolating further from this is that depending on their temperament (or if you want to get typology, MBTI or whatever other yardstick it is) the Fe may weave up this kind of social structure or respect it and assimilate into it. I've always wondered why the distinction, because everyone does it- it has to be done every now and then in real life, and the answer always seems to boil back to that Fe is independently interested in it for its own sake.

Ha interesting. That's a great way of putting it. I also call it "social logic" because there is a set of parameters that are created on both individual and social levels and how a person plays by the "rules of engagement" affects the outcome.

However, the tricky part is that since Fe is externally-based, it can be very context-dependent (cultural background, family background, religious affiliation, personal values). Just putting a group a Fe doms together in a room isn't going to bring about harmony. There may actually be discord in figuring out who's perspective is the most optimal for the group. It's like that with Te doms in their own respective domains.

 

[Earl Grey]

Ha interesting. That's a great way of putting it. I also call it "social logic" because there is a set of parameters that are created on both individual and social levels and how a person plays by the "rules of engagement" affects the outcome.

However, the tricky part is that since Fe is externally-based, it can be very context-dependent (cultural background, family background, religious affiliation, personal values). Just putting a group a Fe doms together in a room isn't going to bring about harmony. There may actually be discord in figuring out who's perspective is the most optimal for the group. It's like that with Te doms in their own respective domains.

Exactly- thus the need of a similar enough shared net of structure of boundaries and expectations. This just goes to show that Fe alone isn't about creating harmony necessarily, neither it is to come about naturally just because someone is an -FJ (or -TP, I suppose). It is also dependent on the accompanying functions and of course, the individuals' background and experiences, and even personal interests (despite some people saying that is the realm of Fi and not Fe).

The prevailing perspective may not even necessarily be a harmonious one, or one that is interested in harmony as an end result, eg; activism is the 'disruption of 'harmony' technically speaking, it is an example where there is a breaking and upturning of the currently prevailing 'Fe structure' for another. I guess it is in that sense that Fe is the 'objective' Feeling function, in that this way it is oriented towards the external, the outer object, not the lone / personal subject of the self.

 

[Tilt]

Agreed, I'm exactly the same on this front. It's what I was getting at with "It reads the external emotional atmosphere, how everyone feels and is able to express emotions in order to inspire those feelings in others. ". Like I'm definitely very aware of social norms and values, but do I follow them? Often times, no. I mean even the fact that I'm a trans woman could be considered going against social norms, so whenever I am creating awareness regarding trans issues I'm usually going against social norms even if I articulate it in a way that will get more people on board. Some sheltered Fe doms do become part of a hive mind, and we see unhealthy Fe doms become cult leaders or extremely manipulative and then when healthy that same Fe energy is channelled into other things such as activism or just helping their community in general (those aren't all of the ways it can be channelled of course, those are just some examples). Fe doms with more assertive enneagram types maybe willing to use shock value when they are putting forward a point in order to create passion in others, it just depends on the person. So I think it can be definitely frustrating to see it being reduced down to "Fe = social norms and harmony" when it's much more than that (especially when other functions, often the N and T functions are so highly praised)

Totally agreed with you. There's a reason why ENFJs are considered "The Mentors". In order to be an effective teacher, you sometimes have to be willing to go against the grain.

Oh btw, I am JustWandering on 16types.

 

[Tilt]

Exactly- thus the need of a similar enough shared net of structure of boundaries and expectations. This just goes to show that Fe alone isn't about creating harmony necessarily, neither it is to come about naturally just because someone is an -FJ (or -TP, I suppose). It is also dependent on the accompanying functions and of course, the individuals' background and experiences, and even personal interests (despite some people saying that is the realm of Fi and not Fe).

The prevailing perspective may not even necessarily be a harmonious one, or one that is interested in harmony as an end result, eg; activism is the 'disruption of 'harmony' technically speaking, it is an example where there is a breaking and upturning of the currently prevailing 'Fe structure' for another. I guess it is in that sense that Fe is the 'objective' Feeling function, in that this way it is oriented towards the external, the outer object, not the lone / personal subject of the self.

Exactly. I like you. You seem to be one of the few Fi users who I have come across who seems to understand the essence of Fe.

 

[Earl Grey]

Exactly. I like you. You seem to be one of the few Fi users who I have come across who seems to understand the essence of Fe.

It took years, and observing and understanding my close ISFJ friend. Typology has been an appreciable supplement to that. I do not think I necessarily understand it the way Fe-users do (it's theoretical, but not felt), but coming from you, someone I have seen to have a good grasp, understanding, and experience of your own type / the intricacies of Fe, this is good to hear, and I am taking this as a sign that I'm on the right track.

 

[miss deceit]

Totally agreed with you. There's a reason why ENFJs are considered "The Mentors". In order to be an effective teacher, you sometimes have to be willing to go against the grain.

Oh btw, I am JustWandering on 16types.

Ah I see, I think "Mentor" is a much better title than "Protagonist" personally. I definitely do often slip into that mentor role, teaching others, even if it wasn't asked because it's so natural.

Yeah, I've seen you around but idk if we've had much interaction - I'm also on there, you can probably guess my name but I'm queentiger over there.

 

[miss deceit]

Exactly- thus the need of a similar enough shared net of structure of boundaries and expectations. This just goes to show that Fe alone isn't about creating harmony necessarily, neither it is to come about naturally just because someone is an -FJ (or -TP, I suppose). It is also dependent on the accompanying functions and of course, the individuals' background and experiences, and even personal interests (despite some people saying that is the realm of Fi and not Fe).

The prevailing perspective may not even necessarily be a harmonious one, or one that is interested in harmony as an end result, eg; activism is the 'disruption of 'harmony' technically speaking, it is an example where there is a breaking and upturning of the currently prevailing 'Fe structure' for another. I guess it is in that sense that Fe is the 'objective' Feeling function, in that this way it is oriented towards the external, the outer object, not the lone / personal subject of the self.

Yes, this I agree with all over.

To add to this, I don't like the whole "Fi = selfish, Fe = selfless" thing because besides the connotations of those words it's too reductionist. I'd say people - including myself, (with the odd exception) are mostly selfish (which isn't a bad thing mind you). Even with activism, a lot of people are activist for causes that have affected them deeply so you could even argue that is selfish and for a lot of activists I'd imagine they may not be such strong activists with causes that don't affect them. As I said as well, harmony is difficult because it often just creates more passive aggressiveness rather than an environment that may not be harmonious but everyone can air their issues openly. It also all depends on context, as Consilience said.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

I think your definition is pretty reasonable. I've always found it irritating and misleading that Fe is always associated with harmony seeking and only following "tribe values." Fe is very much about being able to navigate and manipulate the "emotional environment" as a whole and also about considering/looking at external perspectives while building your own understanding of things (in specific reference to lower valued Ti). I think having a more generalized definition such as this that separates from motivations (since mbti is specifically supposed to be about the thought process, not the motivations if I'm not mistaken) gets closer to the point than some of the shittier definitions I've seen as of recent.

 

[Earl Grey]

Yes, this I agree with all over.

To add to this, I don't like the whole "Fi = selfish, Fe = selfless" thing because besides the connotations of those words it's too reductionist. I'd say people - including myself, (with the odd exception) are mostly selfish (which isn't a bad thing mind you). Even with activism, a lot of people are activist for causes that have affected them deeply so you could even argue that is selfish and for a lot of activists I'd imagine they may not be such strong activists with causes that don't affect them. As I said as well, harmony is difficult because it often just creates more passive aggressiveness rather than an environment that may not be harmonious but everyone can air their issues openly. It also all depends on context, as Consilience said.

I think the problem with the 'selfish, selfless' is that the notion assigns a moral judgement where it does not make sense to have one. Everything is self-derived; no one manifests information from thin air, it is taking advantage of the information you have and can access and can manipulate for various causes. Calling it selfish is false from the simple fact that it is inapplicable. Self-derived seems more accurate, but these are all semantics.

Most of all, in the end of the day, charitable causes generally provide a net benefit for many individuals- I personally can't care much for how and why it first came about, especially if it spirals into a semantic, moral debate of if the initial motivations behind it, "Boo hoo, your motivations weren't 'pure',"- don't care, 100 more people have houses now.

I don't think harmony necessarily creates a passive-aggressive environment, the passive-aggression seems to stem from the personal baggages of people involved in whatever the group is doing. An stifled environment is by definition not a harmonious one (necessarily) to begin with, just oppressed, or selective for their own reasons, which may not be bad or necessarily anti-harmonious.

 

[Lexicon]

I tend to think of Fe [my aux function] as a filter/driver for how I engage with the external world. While I'm aware of social norms & expectations, I don't adhere to them blindly or always believe they have a purpose, morally or socially. I factor them into my delivery to enhance overall communication/mutual understanding when necessary. Harmony isn't my end-goal, either. It's not my job to bring that to the world, & it feels obnoxious on some level to believe I should impose that on others to begin with.

I do value mutual understanding which brings about a baseline emotional connection between humans. I suppose they're different names for the same thing, in the end. Connection, harmony. It's nice when possible, but Fe's also helpful in terms of picking up on when that's simply not gonna happen. Humans are messy, dissonant creatures. I can't realistically expect everyone to maintain a harmonious atmosphere at all times, but a neutral one sure can be nice, haha.


When making decisions, I automatically factor in how it will impact those around me & how to approach them about it (or if they need to be), more often than not. I pick up on emotional states/background noise easily & will freely adjust how I communicate with an individual based on that in a given moment, to ensure that person'll be receptive to what I'm trying to convey. That's always been a social tightrope I've been adept at walking (well, mostly). Emotional patterns/underlying dynamics often jump out at me easily, but I'm not sure if that's Ni or Fe or the two working together.


While I might think I know where a person's coming from/have some elaborate idea of their state of mind, I try to sit back & let them disclose on their own, & build trust slowly over time, without pressure. Fe offers cues here, when to disclose or when to press.

Fe definitely doesn't mean wholly conflict avoidant. If anything, Fe makes me want to problem-solve as quickly as possible, for all involved. Conflict is simply a part of life with other people, & unresolved conflict feels like an anvil hanging over my head, waiting to drop. I hate drawing that out. My sensitivity to others' emotional states makes it uncomfortable at times, but I look at things from a big picture/longterm perspective, so, my personal discomfort is irrelevant if it means the overall issue will be remedied/everyone's happy (or close to it).




I could see an emotionally underdeveloped person fitting the Fe stereotypes, but most people I know who are dom/aux Fe aren't that closed off or hamfisted with it.


Might elaborate more on this later, but that's my 2cents for now.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, this I agree with all over.

To add to this, I don't like the whole "Fi = selfish, Fe = selfless" thing because besides the connotations of those words it's too reductionist. I'd say people - including myself, (with the odd exception) are mostly selfish (which isn't a bad thing mind you). Even with activism, a lot of people are activist for causes that have affected them deeply so you could even argue that is selfish and for a lot of activists I'd imagine they may not be such strong activists with causes that don't affect them. As I said as well, harmony is difficult because it often just creates more passive aggressiveness rather than an environment that may not be harmonious but everyone can air their issues openly. It also all depends on context, as Consilience said.

I have said something similar to the highlighted here and there, namely that even altruism comes from what one might call selfish motives, because it is rooted in one's personal values. Even if you set your own wishes aside to support the wishes and values of the group, presumably you do this because prioritizing the group over yourself as an individual is something you personally value. It can start to look circular.

I think the problem with the 'selfish, selfless' is that the notion assigns a moral judgement where it does not make sense to have one. Everything is self-derived; no one manifests information from thin air, it is taking advantage of the information you have and can access and can manipulate for various causes. Calling it selfish is false from the simple fact that it is inapplicable. Self-derived seems more accurate, but these are all semantics.

Yes, any moral judgment is separate from the distinction between self- and externally-derived/sourced. Selfishness is not always a bad thing, and I suppose the flip side is that selflessness is not always good. Recall the familiar flight attendant spiel about putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others. Selfishness as giving priority to meeting your own needs is not only necessary and justifiable by most moral systems, but it also provides a more solid footing from which to help others. Otherwise one can easily become part of the problem, i.e. just another person needing help.

Most of all, in the end of the day, charitable causes generally provide a net benefit for many individuals- I personally can't care much for how and why it first came about, especially if it spirals into a semantic, moral debate of if the initial motivations behind it, "Boo hoo, your motivations weren't 'pure',"- don't care, 100 more people have houses now.

I don't think harmony necessarily creates a passive-aggressive environment, the passive-aggression seems to stem from the personal baggages of people involved in whatever the group is doing. An stifled environment is by definition not a harmonious one (necessarily) to begin with, just oppressed, or selective for their own reasons, which may not be bad or necessarily anti-harmonious.

Your first paragraph is how I think as well. As for passive-aggressive environments, that seems to be related more to how one goes about trying to achieve harmony rather than to the notion of or desire for harmony itself.