Developing Fe

[Thalassa]

No, just Jag.

The thread isn't about Feeling types.

That entry is the extroverted feeling type, i.e. Fe dom

And you certainly are not god.

 

[Jaguar]

That entry is the extroverted feeling type, i.e. Fe dom

This thread isn't about Fe Dom types or any type.

 

[Thalassa]

Jaguar I don't believe that you want to even follow Jung's definition of what Fe is. That's fine, but please at least admit you're doing so.

The OP wants to know how Fe operates, and there was discussion of how Fe dom works etc.

 

[Jaguar]

Jaguar I don't believe that you want to even follow Jung's definition of what Fe is. That's fine, but please at least admit you're doing so.

The OP wants to know how Fe operates, and there was discussion of how Fe dom works etc.

This thread isn't about Fe Doms, what I want, or Jung's definition of an Extraverted Feeling type in the 1920's. This is 2011.

 

[Thalassa]

Why are you trying to police the conversation? Other people were talking about Fe doms and how to learn the motives of extroverted feeling. I find your hostility to Jung...who created the concept of Fe...very strange in a thread asking about developing Fe.

It appears that you're trolling me and attempting to attack me, as far as I can tell. I have every right to share this information on Jungian Extroverted Feeling as you do your "sliver of Fe" points you decided to post.

The OP and others reading this thread can decide for themselves whether they will be sensible enough to take Jung's original description of Extroverted Feeling into consideration when discussing extroverted feeling.

Stop being so bossy.

 

[skylights]

well, i know people are divided, but my personal opinion is we can use both the introverted and extraverted attitudes of each of the processes.

i am a Fi aux who tends to surround herself with Fe doms so maybe i can offer some thoughts on our differences that i've observed? i don't know if we can ever totally change our personal style, but i think we can definitely learn some behaviors from the other side of the fence.

Would Fe come from just thinking about how my actions affect those around me, and putting them first, or is there something more to it?

the thing that i think differs Fe from my Ne-lead Fi (which apparently frequently looks like Fe to others) is that Fe users seem to prioritize interpersonal dynamics over intrapersonal dynamics. Fe users look at relations between people. whereas i think of Fi+Ne as "pinging" between two people - check one person's mood/affect/values/etc and then check the others', then see how they match, and analyze the situation based off that. but Fe users don't seem to work that way... they check action-consequences, like you said, and impact. they seem to look at the lines between people, instead of pinging back and forth between people. and so that's how they see what i miss. and they can do it with one person in isolation, because even in isolation that person is affected by a whole lot of people-factors, but also they can do it with whole groups. whereas Fi users tend to suck at groups because it's hard for us to keep track of everyone all at once. it's like a Fe user looks at a spiderweb while Fi users look at the attachment points.

personally i learned a lot of Fe strategies from my mom, who's an ESFJ. i think she's part of why i come off a little Fe. one of the major things i've learned from her is just to wait. Fi tends to be very reactive, but sometimes that does not have the best impact. it feels like betraying yourself to not act upon witnessing an event that rubs your F wrong, but Fe wisdom shows that biding your time and approaching from the sideline can be much more effective and have much less negative consequences for both you and the situation you're trying to remedy.

my close ENFJ friend is also very cause-effect attentive in terms of people situations. she is very good at understanding what makes people act the way they do, and then using that understanding to work with them. i am like that in a similar way, but mine is less... conscious? like i "feel" others and understand their present being and work with that, digging to the core of who they are. whereas my friend sees everything that has gone into who they are, and then extrapolates to the present based on that. i think this is a very NeFi-FeNi difference, she definitely has very well developed Ni aux. from her, i have learned to take more stock of situations - to watch how people impact one another. i never found people-watching particularly interesting personally, but when i put myself in her frame of mind, it becomes a fascinating push-pull of will and interaction.

another close friend of mine is ESFJ, and she is very other-attentive. she tends to be very interested in what you're doing, where you're going, how you've been, etc. one of the things i've really noticed with her is that she doesn't seem to try to come up with similar scenarios to relate. my native way of empathizing is to relate a similar situation i have been in, but she gets interested in your story without reverting to her own to try to understand yours, and i think that's an important aspect of Fi. Fi, literally introverting Feeling, is going to try to draw things back to oneself. and while that's awesome for self-understanding, and we can use that later to understand others, in the moment it takes away from the other person's experience. Fi users can learn to not draw the other person's story into themselves so much - to look for what the story means in terms of the other person more than what the story means in terms of ourselves.

How would Fe work if there were some rift in a group's dynamic?

given the Fe users that i would know, they would usually try to bring the group into consensus, or at least some kind of harmony. ime, NFJs seem to be more interested in "steering" groups in a certain direction, while SFJs seem to be more interested in "protecting" groups. which, really, are sort of both the same thing, but NFJs tend to press ahead and "wayshow" while SFJs tend to stay behind and tend.

 

[htb]

Stepping away from the abstract constructs of theory, I find that, simply, Fe-prevalent types more successfully gain favor through convention than Fi-types. Likewise, I've seen Fi-dominant types — especially INFPs — flourish with their personal, endearing style, though they never quite know all the steps to the dance when it's demanded. For my own, the best characterization would be that whenever I've tried to flash that big smile, it instead comes across as a baring of teeth. As a result, I limit my activity that requires precise etiquette, and instead try to benefit from being straightforward and earnest rather than affable.

My conclusion would be, then, that Fe can't be developed per se — and attempts to do so result in social distortions of a "my hovercraft is full of eels" magnitude.

 

[Thalassa]

Stepping away from the abstract constructs of theory, I find that, simply, Fe-prevalent types more successfully gain favor through convention than Fi-types. Likewise, I've seen Fi-dominant types — especially INFPs — flourish with their personal, endearing style, though they never quite know all the steps to the dance when it's demanded. For my own, the best characterization would be that whenever I've tried to flash that big smile, it instead comes across as a baring of teeth. As a result, I limit my activity that requires precise etiquette, and instead try to benefit from being straightforward and earnest rather than affable.

My conclusion would be, then, that Fe can't be developed per se — and attempts to do so result in social distortions of a "my hovercraft is full of eels" magnitude.

Interesting. That was my entire point of posting the Fe dom description...Jung points out the the Fe type feels Fe sincerely, they aren't conforming to what is suitable just to be liked, that's genuinely what they want and how they flow.

Others may disagree, and that's fine, but strictly speaking from Jungian perspective mimicking Fe...is not Fe.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Stepping away from the abstract constructs of theory, I find that, simply, Fe-prevalent types more successfully gain favor through convention than Fi-types. Likewise, I've seen Fi-dominant types — especially INFPs — flourish with their personal, endearing style, though they never quite know all the steps to the dance when it's demanded. For my own, the best characterization would be that whenever I've tried to flash that big smile, it instead comes across as a baring of teeth. As a result, I limit my activity that requires precise etiquette, and instead try to benefit from being straightforward and earnest rather than affable.

My conclusion would be, then, that Fe can't be developed per se — and attempts to do so result in social distortions of a "my hovercraft is full of eels" magnitude.

I like you already .

Question: I have toyed with the idea in my head of whether people can consciously change their personality type. Based on your last sentence, would you say that would be pretty much impossible to do? Outside of perhaps someone who REALLY straddles the middle of a scale? (ie, 50/50 t/f).

My premise is that our types are preferences... And preferences could change... But that by the time we are conscious of what our preferences are, they are already locked in.

(does this even make sense or am I rambling again?)

 

[INTP]

Dear god do I have to do this? I suppose I must.

you should post the Fe function description, not (just) the ExFJ type description

 

[crack]

To OP:

I think you are simplifying Fe and Fi to action, correct? I.e., Fe users are automatically nice/non-offending, and Fi users operate according to their own values?

If this is how you are thinking of Fe/Fi, then you CANNOT develop Fe without abandoning Fi. On this last page, Marm says Fe IS a "personal value" (z) What this means is Fe's Fi (does this make sense?) is that "social harmony" is the most important thing. While Fi's Fi is whatever they have decided their Fi rules are (maybe they value social harmony above all like the Fe user, or maybe they don't give a shit about social harmony) Fi's Fi is totally individualistic, in that it can be anything, to determine what an Fi's Fi is you need to speak with that person.... whereas Fe seems to have "social harmony" as an ultimate value (through which everything else stems).

You wish you had Fe's social ease, but the problem is you have your own values where "social harmony" isn't at the absolute and never-changing top, so you are never going to behave Fe-like. Like you said, behaving Fe, I think, is just a rearrangement of your priorities... but because your priorities are different (your Fi's Fi vs. Fe's social harmony rule), you aren't ever going to become Fe without totally abandoning your Fi.

-----

For clarity purposes/not answering the OP's question: Marm also said somewhere earlier in this thread that Fi's Fi (personal values) can be values that are shared by Fe's Fi. (And vice versa of course, but not the point.) I agree with this.

 

[Thalassa]

you should post the Fe function description, not (just) the ExFJ type description

Then be a dear and post it yourself.

 

[ThatGirl]

You wish you had Fe's social ease, but the problem is you have your own values where "social harmony" isn't at the absolute and never-changing top, so you are never going to behave Fe-like. Like you said, behaving Fe, I think, is just a rearrangement of your priorities... but because your priorities are different (your Fi's Fi vs. Fe's social harmony rule), you aren't ever going to become Fe without totally abandoning your Fi.

Good point.

 

[INTP]

Then be a dear and post it yourself.

i have it on paper and it takes long time to write it all. and after all, you are the dearest

 

[Kasper]

Some OT junk moved to the graveyard, please be nice to your local madmins and carry on your OT conversations there yourselves in future. THANKS

 

[SRT]

Interesting. That was my entire point of posting the Fe dom description...Jung points out the the Fe type feels Fe sincerely, they aren't conforming to what is suitable just to be liked, that's genuinely what they want and how they flow.

Others may disagree, and that's fine, but strictly speaking from Jungian perspective mimicking Fe...is not Fe.

It might be true, that mimicing a function that can't be genuinely developed is impossible, but I'm attempting to gain a better understanding/appreciation for Fe users, and that by doing so I can "grow" my own Fe, which would lead to an even greater understanding. Its more like I want to hear the thoughts of Fe users to understand them, and then decide whether or not I can also accept that line of thinking for my own values. So its not "true" Fe, but I'll still have "more" Fe. And I think thats better than assuming that because we approach things differently that its impossible for there to be a "true" understanding.

This is going to be a little off-topic, but this is what turned me off of continuing to study the different typologies. I mean, it seems to me that the purpose of Jung, MBTI, KTT, eneagram, socionics, etc. was to understand people who, on the surface, seemed different, and bridge the gap that existed between people, by first understanding how they think. But it sounds, more and more, that the most of the followers of these beliefs go "well I'm an x and you're a y, so now that I know there's a definite difference between how we approach z, its impossible to really understand you, so why bother?" I'd have just as hard a time understanding another INFP as I would an ESTJ, and once I did, I don't think the understanding would be any deeper as well. These rifts exist, but only theoretically. Treating them as if they're real is just going to exacerbate the problem, in my mind. I don't want to change my type, but I don't want to be confined by it either.

I'm pretty sure that you've already answered me on this point. This^ was just me trying to be clear about what I'm trying to do, and my reasons for it, with some frustration vented in.

Oh, and I really like the posting you gave of Jung's extroverted feeling, but reading it made me go , lol. I'll need more time to understand and respond to it.

 

[SRT]

Stepping away from the abstract constructs of theory, I find that, simply, Fe-prevalent types more successfully gain favor through convention than Fi-types. Likewise, I've seen Fi-dominant types — especially INFPs — flourish with their personal, endearing style, though they never quite know all the steps to the dance when it's demanded. For my own, the best characterization would be that whenever I've tried to flash that big smile, it instead comes across as a baring of teeth. As a result, I limit my activity that requires precise etiquette, and instead try to benefit from being straightforward and earnest rather than affable.

My conclusion would be, then, that Fe can't be developed per se — and attempts to do so result in social distortions of a "my hovercraft is full of eels" magnitude.

Yes, but developing strengths and developing weaknesses both have their own place. It sounds like you're say that because "Fi" is a strength, it would be better for me to build on it, or adapt it. While valid, I think that at this point in my life, I should focus more on the outward implications of my views/actions, which is something that I just characterized as being "more Fe", because I believe that there'll be postive outcomes that'll only be known once I've finished. IOW, unintended consequences.

 

[SRT]

well, i know people are divided, but my personal opinion is we can use both the introverted and extraverted attitudes of each of the processes.

i am a Fi aux who tends to surround herself with Fe doms so maybe i can offer some thoughts on our differences that i've observed? i don't know if we can ever totally change our personal style, but i think we can definitely learn some behaviors from the other side of the fence.




the thing that i think differs Fe from my Ne-lead Fi (which apparently frequently looks like Fe to others) is that Fe users seem to prioritize interpersonal dynamics over intrapersonal dynamics. Fe users look at relations between people. whereas i think of Fi+Ne as "pinging" between two people - check one person's mood/affect/values/etc and then check the others', then see how they match, and analyze the situation based off that. but Fe users don't seem to work that way... they check action-consequences, like you said, and impact. they seem to look at the lines between people, instead of pinging back and forth between people. and so that's how they see what i miss. and they can do it with one person in isolation, because even in isolation that person is affected by a whole lot of people-factors, but also they can do it with whole groups. whereas Fi users tend to suck at groups because it's hard for us to keep track of everyone all at once. it's like a Fe user looks at a spiderweb while Fi users look at the attachment points.

personally i learned a lot of Fe strategies from my mom, who's an ESFJ. i think she's part of why i come off a little Fe. one of the major things i've learned from her is just to wait. Fi tends to be very reactive, but sometimes that does not have the best impact. it feels like betraying yourself to not act upon witnessing an event that rubs your F wrong, but Fe wisdom shows that biding your time and approaching from the sideline can be much more effective and have much less negative consequences for both you and the situation you're trying to remedy.

my close ENFJ friend is also very cause-effect attentive in terms of people situations. she is very good at understanding what makes people act the way they do, and then using that understanding to work with them. i am like that in a similar way, but mine is less... conscious? like i "feel" others and understand their present being and work with that, digging to the core of who they are. whereas my friend sees everything that has gone into who they are, and then extrapolates to the present based on that. i think this is a very NeFi-FeNi difference, she definitely has very well developed Ni aux. from her, i have learned to take more stock of situations - to watch how people impact one another. i never found people-watching particularly interesting personally, but when i put myself in her frame of mind, it becomes a fascinating push-pull of will and interaction.

another close friend of mine is ESFJ, and she is very other-attentive. she tends to be very interested in what you're doing, where you're going, how you've been, etc. one of the things i've really noticed with her is that she doesn't seem to try to come up with similar scenarios to relate. my native way of empathizing is to relate a similar situation i have been in, but she gets interested in your story without reverting to her own to try to understand yours, and i think that's an important aspect of Fi. Fi, literally introverting Feeling, is going to try to draw things back to oneself. and while that's awesome for self-understanding, and we can use that later to understand others, in the moment it takes away from the other person's experience. Fi users can learn to not draw the other person's story into themselves so much - to look for what the story means in terms of the other person more than what the story means in terms of ourselves.



given the Fe users that i would know, they would usually try to bring the group into consensus, or at least some kind of harmony. ime, NFJs seem to be more interested in "steering" groups in a certain direction, while SFJs seem to be more interested in "protecting" groups. which, really, are sort of both the same thing, but NFJs tend to press ahead and "wayshow" while SFJs tend to stay behind and tend.

This was really great, skylights. Its true for me, I also have a tendency to focus on individual dynamics more than groups, especially with the "pinging" as you said.

So to be clear, would you say that your advice is to take a breath, and step outside of myself more often?

 

[entropie]

Developing Fe should be measured against what you want to achieve first. As with all things in life, before you develop something, you should always ask yourself want you want to achieve, so you can evaluate if you are developing the right thing. If you want to have a foolproof way of maneuvering thru the world, being nowhere the center of attention, Fe is your thing. It involves all the rules and regulations not spoken about in society necessary for superficial get-alonging . (hope my word creations still make sense in english ).

Still, tho I have tertiary Fe, my manners are ultimatively retarded. Even if I'ld try hard, everybody would notice that Feing just aint natural for me. Many Te people have learnt to mimick some sort of Fe in public relations. They mimick that behind a sort of manlike charme. So many men exclude the right interpretation of other people feelings by masking behind "being a man and man have no emotions". Woman who do that in business have it even harder in business, they can be branded of being manlike creatures, who have no emotions.

So the key in my opinion, if you want to reach the goal of being socially more accepted is accepting you and not mimicking Fe. You'll never be able to do that, believe me, I am together for 5 years with an infp and no chance she will ever understand the rules of the Fe game . She's unique and living that uniquess is what makes her socially accepted. She's a leader often due to that and can easily rot thousands of brainless followers around her, because she aint playing the Fe game, she 100% real.

That's the key in my eyes, it is one of the most hardest things to ever achieve in life but first you need to understand yourself and what you want and then you need to understand the others, a thing F/N users do well, especially Fi users and if you have that you can assume a position and be somebody.

If you want to learn more about Fe, I'ld advise you to watch the show Friends. It can be boring at best. Becoming unique and being in sync with ur abilities, that's a real goal

 

[htb]

Others may disagree, and that's fine, but strictly speaking from Jungian perspective mimicking Fe...is not Fe.

Agreed. I can only assume that Fe-types sincerely express what they've successfully assimilated, but, contrariwise to Fi-types, often seem at a loss when interactions stray from the script.

I like you already . Question: I have toyed with the idea in my head of whether people can consciously change their personality type. Based on your last sentence, would you say that would be pretty much impossible to do? Outside of perhaps someone who REALLY straddles the middle of a scale? (ie, 50/50 t/f). My premise is that our types are preferences... And preferences could change... But that by the time we are conscious of what our preferences are, they are already locked in.

Well, thanks! I think it's possible to masquerade in real life as another type, particularly when aided by physical attributes. A magazine-cover-beautiful INTP with yuppie standing can pretend she's a socialite; a tall, Scot-pedigree INFP can pose as a tough guy among his hockey teammates; a highly intelligent ISTP can have a pretense to strategy — until revelatory events cause respective coldblooded analysis, ruminative philosophy, and bare-knuckle improvisation.

While valid, I think that at this point in my life, I should focus more on the outward implications of my views/actions, which is something that I just characterized as being "more Fe", because I believe that there'll be postive outcomes that'll only be known once I've finished. IOW, unintended consequences.

Don't get me wrong: most people are capable of the Hello-how-do-you-do routine, and some can learn it better than others. There's nothing wrong with refinement, especially as an alternative to eccentricity. But time and again, I find that for Fi-types, it's learned and projected, and when pressure is applied it gives way to what comes more naturally.