A question about function attitude preferences

[Such Irony]

Something I've noticed regarding the inferior function is that it can be difficult to identify with it in the sense that we may not always see our selves as a "user" of that function. Sometimes we will think we prefer the opposite attitude of that function instead.

For example, INTPs have inferior Fe. Being the inferior function, we may not always use it in the most constructive manner. Fe descriptions tend to emphasize more the constructive use of the function. Therefore INTPs often do not relate well to the Fe description and may find themselves identifying more with the opposite attitude of feeling, Fi.

I've seen a similar thing with INFPs. Their inferior is Te but I've often found them preferring Ti.

I'm wondering if this true for you regarding your inferior function? If so, do you think its typical or atypical for your type? Do you think it can be attributed to poorly written function descriptions? Do you think its due to poor self-awareness or a combination of these factors?

I ask because I often find myself identifying more with Fi than Fe and typically score much higher than Fi than Fe on function tests. I don't think I'm INFP because I identify way too much with dominant Ti.

It's been said that the combination of Ti+Fe can look like Fi on the surface but is not really true Fi. Maybe that's where the confusion comes in.


Another thing I'm wondering about is the effect of the dominant function on functional attitude preference. Do people with the dominant in one attitude tend to greatly prefer that attitude and tend to reject or even look down on the opposite attitude?

I'm a dominant Ti and I clearly identify myself as a Ti user. Sometimes I find myself neglecting the Te perspective but I don't look down on Te. However, I've seen this with some of the other function pairs. Dominant Fi looking down on Fe users, etc.

 

[Eric B]

Don't see how I missed this one.

It can be explained by the Lenore Thomson “ship model” of “right brain alternatives”. (that is, for P's). The opposite functions in the “preferred” attitudes (which “should” be #7 and 8) are “used” quickly when the preferred functions can't solve the problem.

My take on this, is what I think I just described elsewhere. A distinction between [re]active “use” of the function (in which it is picked up as “strong” on the cognitive process test, and it often comes out close to the ship order), and as a perspective, where in this case, it more passively picks up a threat. Hence, for us, Fi will appear to have stronger “use” than Fe, or be "acted out" more. But it will still be likely unconsciously acted out, however!

 

[skylights]

Sometimes I think it's easier to understand the "attitude" of the shadow function because you share that attitude - for example, me natively understanding how Se operates, even though I don't really understand what Se sees - and I find it harder to understand how Si works, even though I better understand what Si sees.

It's been said that the combination of Ti+Fe can look like Fi on the surface but is not really true Fi. Maybe that's where the confusion comes in.

This too. I feel like ENFPs with more conscientious enneatypes (2, 3, 6) can come off as Fe, and Ne+Fi can even sometimes "feel" similar to Ni.

As for dom function, I really appreciate Ni users' thought trains, but with it being a Perceiving function, I think there's less clash potential than with Judging functions. My guess is that Fe-Fi is the most conflicted because it's both Judging and personal. Ti-Te would probably be next, being Judging but impersonal; then Si-Se, being Perceiving but concrete; and finally Ni-Ne, being Perceiving but abstract. That's my guess, at least. But that's only in terms of pure functions. Ni might usually be easy to appreciate in general but me looking at Ni+Te can sometimes be a huge WTF.

 

[copperfish17]

It seems that one of my posts on another thread may have spurred these questions, so allow me to engage.

From my understanding, the function descriptions may not be too helpful when it comes to understanding each of 'em "in action" (especially with Fi and Fe). Poor self-awareness may be a factor, though I wouldn't know, right?

IMO, the difference between Fi and Fe stems from "motivations" and not necessarily specific behavior(s). For example, Fe-users who are said to value the "group" over "individuals" may rebel against a group for an individual, with the right motivations. Also, although I'm certain of my allegiance to Fe, my Ti has a huge influence on how and when my Fe is "used"/displayed. I imagine it would be difficult for people around me to pin me down as a Fe-user [I may even seem like a Fi-user, methinks, especially to strong Fe users], though to me my Fe seems to be quite strong.

EDIT: Other factors may play in to exacerbate the confusion as well. For example, I'm strongly introverted and certainly don't make an effort to be well-liked - whether I'm well liked or not by the general masses isn't that important to me in the first place. This kind of attitude is usually categorized as an Fi-user characteristic, but the reason I hold such an attitude has little to do with motivations pertaining to Fi [which may go along the lines of, "If people don't like (the essence of) WHO I AM, then I don't care whether they hate me or not." <- May not be well articulated, but I tried.]

In what ways do you identify with Fi? I guess this is what I would like to know.

 

[Eric B]

I guess "motivations" is a good way to think of it. And the motivations would be the internal or external attitude that differentiates them.

Again, the line between the attitudes can be very fuzzy, and is really not a hard division. The most differentiated is the dominant, because the ego chooses its dominant function + dominant attitude. Next, the auxiliary tend to follow the opposite attitude. But it's really four functions (S, N, T, F) you're juggling around and the eight are just a construct we use to show how the four are normally (consciously) oriented by the ego.