1) my feelings are easy to describe in words (conversationally, not in writing)
a) often
b) not often, but more so in writing
virtually never, even when they are overwhelming. sometimes i'm better at describing them in writing, other times not, but even when i find an apt written definition for them, it comes only after i have spent a considerable time reflecting and filtering a huge stream of verbal junk and random thoughts. so definitely b).
2) I empathize with people by
a) taking on their feelings as my own
b) thinking about how I would feel in that situation or drawing from experience of how I've felt in that situation in the past
if a) is about having an instinctive and immediate sense of what people feel, whether through nonverbal cues or some other means, then i suppose i am more a). i do tend to sense others' emotions directly and they can cause pain on an almost physical level. but sometimes this fails and i use b) to fill in the gaps. i've also become increasingly wary of making hasty judgments about other people and what they may be feeling - these can be correct 95 percent of the time, but the remaining five percent can be horribly wrong and one may have to pay too high a price for this - so i've been making a conscious effort to use the second option more.
i don't think these two modes of understanding others' feelings can be separated - one informs the other, and i think most of us use both in a varying proportion. even those who lean heavily toward one probably still supplement it with the other from time to time.
i was wondering whether this may be more about N vs. S than Fi vs. Fe. N would imply being guided by one's instinctive sense of another person's internal state, which is usually based on nonverbal cues or unconscious knowledge of prior interaction (which is exactly what gives one the impression of direct empathy); S would imply relying on what one knows to be a fact, and drawing conclusions from that.
besides - why does the OP mention that option b) would be more indicative of Fi usage? from what i've read so far on this forum and others, many INFPs seem to have a fairly direct, immediate sense of others' emotions, which tends to come without much conscious thought. it would seem that at least for someone who is Fi-Ne or Ne-Fi, this is likely to be a much more raw, direct experience which may or may not receive much "processing" afterward. not sure how it would work for Fi-Se or Se-Fi, or whether a Fe-Ni/Ni-Fe user would experience it in a similar manner.
3) my emotions show a lot on my face
a) YES!
b) not usually
more leaning toward b), but it depends. i've been told that i have a flat expression most of the time and can look distant, even close to catatonic, and/or there is a distinct impression that a dark cloud is hanging over my head, other than that it is difficult to tell. but then it depends - my expression can become very vivid if something invigorates me, e.g. if i'm discussing a topic i am enthusiastic about or there has been a sudden flare of emotion between me and the person i an speaking to.
i'm not 100 percent sure how precisely this would relate to Fi vs. Fe. there appear to be contradictory opinions regarding this - some say that Fi users tend to be more animated because they believe in free, authentic expression, are not afraid that their feelings will disturb others, and do not contain them on purpose; others say that it is the Fe users who are more animated, because expression of emotion through body language is part of small talk and general social interaction, even on the most superficial level, and some Fe-doms tend to either exaggerate existing emotions or look as though they feel a lot even when they do not. so i'm uncertain which of these two options is supposed to be "more Fi" or "more Fe".
4) I am good at tailoring my behaviors and demeanor to various social situations
a) yes, unless I am with a really mean spirited group of people
b) no
undecided, but much more b) than a). as a friend said the other day, my sense of tact varies from one occasion to the other. i don't have a good instinctive sense of what is or is not to be done in a specific social situation - i can become lost because my mind has gone blank and i am unsure what i should say, and i can be blunt and offend without intending to do so. on the other hand, i can be reasonably tactful (when talking to someone in a formal context, i consciously try to evade anything that might cause conflict and use stock conversational strategies or phrases if i have to - i do have enough social experience for this) and i've been told that i have a noticeable polite/compromising streak and seem to be doing my best to adapt to other people and their needs. in a sense, i think this can also show my lack of social skills, in that i sometimes don't know when to defer or to apologize, so i do it anyway, rather than risking error in the opposite direction. at least one of my friends is extremely irritated by this and thinks i apologize far too much and don't know the genuine meaning of the word "sorry".
5) I place higher priority in
a) unity, team work, external harmony
b) self expression, internal harmony
b). but then i think that, if all is well with regard to b), a) will sort itself out automatically. the two are inseparable.
6) my feelings come from
a) my heart
b) my gut
not sure what this is supposed to mean. if this question is about emotion that is more understandable and describable, but more "tame", as opposed to emotion that is more instinctive and eludes definition, but also more overpowering and/or having the potential to cause meltdowns, then i am certainly b).
i don't know whether this is connected to Fi vs. Fe. many NTPs seem to describe emotions that are more similar to mine (i am not entirely sure i am INFP myself), but they use Fe, not Fi. it seems to be more a question of general function alignment (e.g. being thinking-dominant as opposed to feeling-dominant) or individual emotional organization (e.g. differences in the ways each person experiences their emotions, possible issues such as depression or alexithymia and many other factors) and not using extroverted or introverted feeling.
if this question is about something else, i don't know how i am supposed to answer.
7) I care more about
a) how a decision will effect people's feelings and well being
b) the principle of the matter.
there is an internal contradiction in this. i guess i could say i put my principles first, but if these principles could be summarized in one phrase, it would be "never place the dead/abstract principle over the living/tangible person". so there.
also, there are situations where one's decision can hurt a person's feelings in the short term, but would be beneficial for them in the long term, or vice versa (one of the more obvious examples would be choosing to enable someone who has an issue - is an alcoholic, substance-addicted, codependent/lives off someone else while being more than capable of supporting him- or herself, etc. - to continue in the same manner, or at least to refuse to support their addiction or irresponsible lifestyle). in any of them, i would prefer not to please the person's immediate feelings if this may help avoid much more serious consequences, even if this places our relationship at risk.
one of the previous posters said that "feelings" matter little whereas "overall well-being" matters everything, and i would agree.
8) the external world has a strong impact on my feelings
a) yes. I am adaptable, but also easily effected
b) no, though I tend to gravitate toward places with a similar vibe to how I already feel
yes and no. i "blot out" my surroundings for extended periods of time, but i can't say they don't affect me. at certain moments, i am probably hypersensitive to my environment - random small occurrences or sensory detail can set me off in ways others may find difficult to understand, if i'm in the right (wrong) mood or there is a random association that connects them to someone else i had felt before. and i am certainly receptive to physical beauty, for instance, in art or nature.
perhaps it is more b) than a), but i honestly wouldn't be able to decide.
9) my beliefs come more from
a) how I was raised, community values, how things effect people
b) myself. even from a young age, I've always had strong views that sometimes differed from what I was taught. I can't really explain it, they were just "there"
i would say it is more b), but this is an oversimplification. i suppose to do have an internal compass that may tell me something is wrong even when it is commonly accepted, or right even if it is rejected by the mainstream (which is probably what Fi is about), but i can't say that my beliefs are "just there". i think i have always tried to contrast what my parents told me or what other people believed in in against this sense of right/wrong to determine which of these ideas i can adopt. this is a conscious and sometimes arduous process. if this is Fi, it has nothing to do with beliefs simply "being there", at least not for me.