[Fi] What does Fi look like and what are ii'ts strengths and applications?

[Coriolis]

Fi is a feeling function but it is not related to emotions, if that makes any sense.

Do you think Fi is completely unrelated to emotions? How about Fe? What, then, are emotions? I often make the point that F is not emotion, and feelings are sensory input just like feeling tired or cold, but I am not sure how far this goes, of if I am even right about it. It just seems to make sense to me.

 

[Population: 1]

Do you think Fi is completely unrelated to emotions? How about Fe? What, then, are emotions? I often make the point that F is not emotion, and feelings are sensory input just like feeling tired or cold, but I am not sure how far this goes, of if I am even right about it. It just seems to make sense to me.

It's related to emotions but can be seen as independent from them. If Fi is how I feel (believe) something should be it is a value not an emotion.

An example is bullying. I detest the use of force simply as a show of someone's so called superiority. Might does not equal right. Now the concept of bullying doesn't necessarily evoke an emotion from me but seeing bullying being employed angers me. The act itself is offensive to me and fires me up. So I think Fi can be seen almost as personal commandments, inert and void of emotion until triggered. At least that's my view of it. Values don't equal emotion but the abuse of the value is met with emotion.

 

[Red Memories]

Do you think Fi is completely unrelated to emotions? How about Fe? What, then, are emotions? I often make the point that F is not emotion, and feelings are sensory input just like feeling tired or cold, but I am not sure how far this goes, of if I am even right about it. It just seems to make sense to me.

Let me put it in this sense.
ALL types have emotions. Everyone gets sad, angry, etc.
But Fi and Fe alike, are related to ethics, and how the person handles their said ethics.
This is not to say if someone crosses their ethics they do not have an emotional response. It is to say the process itself is to do with ethics, not emotions.
F takes in its own formal ethics. Fi tends to draw on inner values and will surround itself with people of like or different minds, as long as their ethics are not brutally assaulted or anything. Of course, Fi may even find a laid-back nature on this, depending on how they feel about it.
Fe takes in its ethics, and imposes them to a whole. They try to surround themselves with like-minded people to reduce outer conflict. If someone differs, they struggle a lot.

Just a perspective.

 

[Luigi]

Let me put it in this sense.
ALL types have emotions. Everyone gets sad, angry, etc.
But Fi and Fe alike, are related to ethics, and how the person handles their said ethics.
This is not to say if someone crosses their ethics they do not have an emotional response. It is to say the process itself is to do with ethics, not emotions.
F takes in its own formal ethics. Fi tends to draw on inner values and will surround itself with people of like or different minds, as long as their ethics are not brutally assaulted or anything. Of course, Fi may even find a laid-back nature on this, depending on how they feel about it.
Fe takes in its ethics, and imposes them to a whole. They try to surround themselves with like-minded people to reduce outer conflict. If someone differs, they struggle a lot.

Just a perspective.

That's right, an INFJ that I tried to be friends with tried to make me believe the same way as her, and when I refused, she lost her temper and our friendship ended abruptly.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I have come to understand Fi and Fe as being related to how we construct a sense of self, and how we gain a sense of reality. These kinds of orientations of thought are how I think about it.

Fi
"The universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything you want, you already are." RUMI

"We are stars wrapped in skin - the light you are seeking has always been within". unknown

Fi sense of self is more autonomous and not defined by relationship or orientation to others. There is an idea that we can come to know the capacity of all of humanity by looking deeply enough inside of self. Within the depths of our consciousness lies the capacity to be anything from the noble to the deplorable. Looking deeply enough inside we can understand saints and tyrants. It is like Indra's web, within the part is contained the whole, like a fractal.

Fe
"We all have our insecurities, but only others can show us reality. Your eyes only see your flaws, but someone else's eyes see perfection." unknown

"Letting others in on our struggles is how we show compassion for us. Instead of hiding out in judgment, we share our humanness and recognize it in others as well." unknown

I've heard a Fe orientation describe that the best way to learn about ourself is to observe our reactions to others. People can also gain a sense of self by their social orientation to others, we are defined by our role in society, our placement among others. I do think a strongly Fe sense of self factors in relationships and orientation to others as defining factors. It exists within a system of others.

In addition to this, there is a correspondence with Fi=intrapersonal intelligence and Fe=interpersonal intelligence, which people tend to have some of both. I don't think the two poles are entirely mutually exclusive which accounts for some of the confusion on this topic at times.

 

[Luigi]

I have come to understand Fi and Fe as being related to how we construct a sense of self, and how we gain a sense of reality. These kinds of orientations of thought are how I think about it.

Fi
"The universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything you want, you already are." RUMI

"We are stars wrapped in skin - the light you are seeking has always been within". unknown

Fi sense of self is more autonomous and not defined by relationship or orientation to others. There is an idea that we can come to know the capacity of all of humanity by looking deeply enough inside of self. Within the depths of our consciousness lies the capacity to be anything from the noble to the deplorable. Looking deeply enough inside we can understand saints and tyrants. It is like Indra's web, within the part is contained the whole, like a fractal.

Fe
"We all have our insecurities, but only others can show us reality. Your eyes only see your flaws, but someone else's eyes see perfection." unknown

"Letting others in on our struggles is how we show compassion for us. Instead of hiding out in judgment, we share our humanness and recognize it in others as well." unknown

I've heard a Fe orientation describe that the best way to learn about ourself is to observe our reactions to others. People can also gain a sense of self by their social orientation to others, we are defined by our role in society, our placement among others. I do think a strongly Fe sense of self factors in relationships and orientation to others as defining factors. It exists within a system of others.

In addition to this, there is a correspondence with Fi=intrapersonal intelligence and Fe=interpersonal intelligence, which people tend to have some of both. I don't think the two poles are entirely mutually exclusive which accounts for some of the confusion on this topic at times.

I don't understand. ITJs are Fe-polar, but both of those apply to me.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I don't understand. ITJs are Fe-polar, but both of those apply to me.

My post is just a way to frame it from an angle not usually taken. I showed two endpoints. Also, it is worth noting that according to Jung/MBTI theory everyone has both an introverted and extroverted judging function. Perhaps Te defines self based on it's external placement in the world, but focuses more on a pragmatic, objective placement externally to define self? My post raises questions and ideas and is not meant to be conclusive.

Also, to address the OP, I think that the deep autonomy of the introverted judging functions has a strength in that it doesn't get as shattered by criticism from others, loss of job or status, etc, It's lesser need for external reinforcement is a strength and a weakness. If its judgments go far afield, they may be more difficult to correct because the internal system is so autonomous. Extroverted functions rely more on external feedback, so have more of an inherent system to change when accurate criticism of the assumptions are shown? Of course if the external feedback is false, then that would also create a weakness for the external judging systems. Once again, this is more of a question than conclusion.

 

[Dreamer]

Let me put it in this sense. ALL types have emotions. Everyone gets sad, angry, etc. But Fi and Fe alike, are related to ethics, and how the person handles their said ethics. This is not to say if someone crosses their ethics they do not have an emotional response. It is to say the process itself is to do with ethics, not emotions. F takes in its own formal ethics. Fi tends to draw on inner values and will surround itself with people of like or different minds, as long as their ethics are not brutally assaulted or anything. Of course, Fi may even find a laid-back nature on this, depending on how they feel about it. Fe takes in its ethics, and imposes them to a whole. They try to surround themselves with like-minded people to reduce outer conflict. If someone differs, they struggle a lot. Just a perspective.

I often do say the feeling functions are about emotions and how we process them. Do we recognize and isolate our own emotions to understand them, to then understand ourselves? Or do we look outward to validate what we feel and mold what we perceive towards those emotions to then understand ourselves? I believe both Fe and Fi do have this inner sense of self and desire to understand the self (of course, the desire for self awareness will vary by individual), but the difference lies in HOW you make that judgement. I want to point out that in this view I have, Fe DOES still feel and feels their inner emotions just as strongly as an Fi user, but their perception of it is muddled with the perceptions of those they extend to for that external validation.

Now, I do also see a connection between the feeling functions to ethics and that personal development of where those lines are drawn. The difference again, being, are those ethics spawn from an inward exploration of values? Or an exploration of internal values WITH the voice of external reasoning and validation considered? When I think of where my personal ethics and values come from, and how I even attained them, they more or less all stem from personal experiences I've had. Does this mean an Fi user will go through childhood without much of an ethical base? Well, what child actually thinks of such things? Kidding aside, I believe we all start with the ethics of our parents and surroundings, but as we mature as Fi types, those preconstructed walls that were put in place, start to come down as we verify, ourselves, through the emotional processing I mentioned above, with experience and maturity, and we determine whether those initial values still contain personal meaning and attachment. If not, we toss them aside completely, or refine them.

In short, I personally view the Feeling functions through the lens of emotion versus ethics, because I see the ethics as the end result, the biproduct of this constant internal verification process, so I base my description on the "root". If we're strictly speaking within theory, your description is entirely right! Though, I tend to want to find ways to personally relate and understand new things so my explanation above is only subjective.

In case [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] may find interest in this post, I'm mentioning her as well.

 

[the state i am in]

Fi focuses on exploring feelings, values, and needs--a sense of importance--rooted in one's own ability to RELATE. It draws from one's own direct experiences, as a kind of value/emotions/needs map that helps them summon up a quality of presence that appreciates what it's actually like to experience something, the deeper qualities that characterize it and/or the path through experiencing it. This is partly why they often have a wonderfully attuned sociological awareness.

Fe is different. We focus more on objective perspectives and take snapshots that we compile into a strange, fractured but seemingly whole overview (as opposed to the wonderful deep cave analogy given by magpie). So instead of direct experience, we are building foundations on what assumptions we most trust to help us see what is going on. The focus then is more about cultivating intentionality, in fostering a quality of integrity that holds together our way of being ourselves into something good, something with a healthy outlook and with a resolute perspective in staying the course towards that (a kind of attitude intelligence).

This sense of prioritization is where our values lie, as we imagine them in a world in which we step back, push-play, and appreciate the goodness in the way that it circulates through our interactions and ways of being together, more than in terms of the Fi way of knowing that at the deepest level we are in alignment with our own needs (and being gracious in allowing and giving space for others to explore themselves to find that as well). As Fe users, examining ourselves directly, our experience more directly can be difficult and takes some time to learn to fully complete the loop and do the whole thing outside in and inside out. I think this blind spot is very similar to the one peacebaby mentions for Fi users, when she seems to be discussing the ideological sleight-of-hand that Fi users can do when they don't check in with the empirical side of things, the side that says not only measuring something from my own perspective but appreciating the aggregation of perspectives can sometimes be helpful in holding steady the different things that are getting in the way of hearing the other things.

Both feeling functions bring about an ability to listen deeply (and wholly) and to appreciate conflict, beauty, healthiness, expressive (personal, embodied) truth, and peace.

edit to add:
good Fe, I think, is attentive to the seeds we plant and their systemic consequences. good Fi, in contrast, seems to be attentive to the way truly listening to our own needs gives us space to CHOOSE while appreciating the importance of that freedom (with a corresponding and right belief that when you learn how to get out of your own way, caring and creatively committing to the good just happens, in part because we have such strong need to connect, to belong, and to meaningfully contribute to others).