Fe/Fi: Festive Holiday Edition

[Z Buck McFate]

Here's a conception of the distinction I'd like to bounce off folks.

It's derived from the distinction that's been posted before that Fi focuses on the 'space within' a person, whilst Fe focuses on the 'space between' people. Here's the thing. I do understand that Fi types aren't pulling this out of their asses, and that it's based on something bona fide in their experience - and I can see ways in which it's true. When I protest this distinction, it's not simply a compulsive reaction to seeing (yet again) a characterization of Fe (which tends to get applied to FJ) that subjectively feels unfair. I do think there's something unbalanced about it. I would have a hard time believing that if distinctions between FPs and FJs were systematically put forth in terms of Pi/Pe that FPs wouldn't take issue with it (in other words, ways in which individuals are inherently inclined to want/need 'space within' sort through information vs. ways in which individuals rely on established group conception as a starting point and seem to want/need others to pay full attention to the immediate 'space between' people so that they can switch things up, enact things immediately, etc).

This idea has been brewing, for me, for a while:

FP perception is seated in the 'space between' people, and perpetually moves towards the 'space within' to compensate and find what feels like an organic balance/equilibrium. It seems as though harmony in the 'space between' people can typically be taken for granted, but harmony in the 'space within' requires effort to establish.

FJ perception is seated in the 'space within' the person, and perpetually moves outward to the 'space between' to compensate and find what feels like an organic balance/equilibrium. Harmony in the 'space within' is easier to take for granted because that's where FJ's perception is seated anyway, but harmony with the 'space between' is something that requires effort to establish.

There's an explanation of instinct variants floating around somewhere that suggests our instinct variants are unconscious preoccupations that compensate for an initial lack of that kind of instinct in formative years. It makes sense to me that unconscious preoccupations with the 'space within' and the 'space between' people would similarly ultimately be the result of compensating for an underlying contrary predisposition.

There are other reasons it makes sense, to me, to see it this way: the ease with which Pe dom and aux can be so mercurial in the immediate 'space between' people (often without understanding that it interferes with an FJ's ability to maintain a sufficient 'space within' for themselves when they are constantly interrupted by the immediate 'space between' changing); the need FJs have to establish harmony in the 'space between' so that their 'space within' can breath (without realizing that establishing harmony in the 'space between' - which seems superfluous and unnecessary to FPs, because they can take it for granted - interferes with an FP need to establish harmony in the 'space within').

For FJs, if something like harmony (the concept of which is going to differ somewhat across individuals) can not be established for FJs and the external world remains too unpredictable- then we stop being able to take harmony in the 'space within' for granted. In my own experience, I only really need 'harmony' with a few connections- and I need regular access to those connections for it to be reliable support- if I have that, then my 'space within' will generally have the sufficient room to breathe and I won't feel preoccupied with establishing harmony with it. I mean, I do preoccupy myself with it, but that's kind of my default that runs in the background and I don't need to make an effort really. (I do need to make an effort to make sure that preoccupation is working on something productive in a healthy way, but that's slightly beside the point). Yet if I don't have some solid, (relatively) harmonious connection to the external world, then I can't take harmony in the 'space within' for granted.

Whereas with FPs, it seems like they can't work on harmony in the 'space between' until they feel harmony sufficiently established in the 'space within'? And so long as harmony can be established for the 'space within', then harmony in the 'space between' is something that's almost effortless and practically takes care of itself?

Discuss.

 

[notmyapples]

I believe 'Fi focuses on the 'space within' a person, whilst Fe focuses on the 'space between' people' is a far oversimplification of the Fe/Fi difference and yes, while it has a vague distinction in reality, it's one of those lines that can be used obnoxiously towards one function (Fe being more concerned with the outside than the inside) and spread false implication or prejudice. Much alike the old 'Fe is selfless and Fi is selfish'.

I see the word harmony used very specifically towards Fe users, but as you pointed out, harmony works in correlation with both of the functions. Fe users strive towards harmony on the outside, more willing to forsake the harmony inside themselves if it means keeping the peace between others. Fi users strive towards harmony within themselves, more unwilling to forsake that harmony for the peace between others.

This doesn't mean that Fe users can't have a strong self-preservation instinct or Fi users can't be mediators. But a Fe user will first give up their internal values before risking social harmony and an Fi user will first give up social harmony before breaking their internal values. For example, this is why Fe users tend to tell white lies more often and most commonly to make others feel better, while an Fi user is more likely to turn their head up at the idea of forsaking authenticity, no matter the situation.

Whereas with FPs, it seems like they can't work on harmony in the 'space between' until they feel harmony sufficiently established in the 'space within'? And so long as harmony can be established for the 'space within', then harmony in the 'space between' is something that's almost effortless and practically takes care of itself?

Speaking as a Fi-dom, I'd say my beliefs align with this sentiment. I view harmony between others as having a direct connection with the harmony within themselves and internal harmony will naturally bleed through the cracks, just the same as internal disharmony. As a young child and before discovering MBTI, I found people who put more effort into their outwards appearance or interactions than their personal growth as deceptive. Now, older and no longer holding such a black-and-white view of human behavior, I know Fe users function the opposite way as I where harmony on the outside deflects disharmony within themselves and subsequently helps them grow together with others. A trait that I've even gone through a few phases of jealousy over. Of course, both of the feeling functions aren't stark contrasts and Fi needs to learn to properly handle external disharmony just as Fe needs to learn how to handle internal disharmony, but preference is very different and easy to tell apart when you know to look for it.

Although, it's well to remember we're comparing a Ji function with a Je function. Fi's process has more in common with Ti than Fe and Fe's process has more in common with Te than Fi, so it's not like they're yin and yang. They may appear to have the same surface values, that being harmony as we've already established, but their process and approaches to the world are extremely different. It still shocks me that INFP's mistype as INFJ or vice versa so commonly, but I suppose that accounts towards other outside sources interfering with the typing process.

 

[Yama]

I see the word harmony used very specifically towards Fe users, but as you pointed out, harmony works in correlation with both of the functions. Fe users strive towards harmony on the outside, more willing to forsake the harmony inside themselves if it means keeping the peace between others. Fi users strive towards harmony within themselves, more unwilling to forsake that harmony for the peace between others.

This doesn't mean that Fe users can't have a strong self-preservation instinct or Fi users can't be mediators. But a Fe user will first give up their internal values before risking social harmony and an Fi user will first give up social harmony before breaking their internal values. For example, this is why Fe users tend to tell white lies more often and most commonly to make others feel better, while an Fi user is more likely to turn their head up at the idea of forsaking authenticity, no matter the situation.

For the most part I agree with this, but I would like to also point out that I would never ever break my values. I will lie about them to others when convenient, such as if I'm never ever going to see that person again in my life. Then I'll just tell them what they want to hear so we don't get into a pointless confrontation. But I would never forsake my values for external harmony; I would only refrain from speaking of them in front of the wrong audience. I generally avoid people who don't share my values anyway.

I will bite my tongue for the sake of getting along, when it's with someone I don't care about. By 'don't care about,' I mean someone who I don't ever plan on having a personal relationship with (this includes friends). I would never befriend (or date) someone who didn't share my values, or at the very least was neutral about them. I definitely wouldn't bother with people who hold opposite views. But in everyday conversation with your grocery store clerk, neighbors and coworkers (I don't care about them beyond the superficial), and even certain family members, I'll just change the subject instead of making a scene over it. I would never abandon or reject my personal beliefs for the sake of external harmony. Only keep them quiet when it's not worth fussing over.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

For the most part I agree with this, but I would like to also point out that I would never ever break my values. I will lie about them to others when convenient, such as if I'm never ever going to see that person again in my life. Then I'll just tell them what they want to hear so we don't get into a pointless confrontation. But I would never forsake my values for external harmony; I would only refrain from speaking of them in front of the wrong audience. I generally avoid people who don't share my values anyway.

I will bite my tongue for the sake of getting along, when it's with someone I don't care about. By 'don't care about,' I mean someone who I don't ever plan on having a personal relationship with (this includes friends). I would never befriend (or date) someone who didn't share my values, or at the very least was neutral about them. I definitely wouldn't bother with people who hold opposite views. But in everyday conversation with your grocery store clerk, neighbors and coworkers (I don't care about them beyond the superficial), and even certain family members, I'll just change the subject instead of making a scene over it. I would never abandon or reject my personal beliefs for the sake of external harmony. Only keep them quiet when it's not worth fussing over.

Yeah, I get a bit stuck on that myself. This thing people have about Fe users giving up personal values for harmony - I don't get where that notion comes from. I can sorta walk through an interaction where someone doesn't (or others don't) share my values without feeling inauthentic if I don't stop everything to state how my values are different - I don't see that as giving up my values though, not even remotely. My values are still very much intact inside me. I've started to think that FPs maybe can't understand compartmentalizing like that - like they're afraid their values will actually change or something if they don't state something immediately, and they assume others have an equally tenuous hold on the 'space within'. I don't know how else to make sense of it. (And the primary reason for this thread is to test how well I'm making sense of it - this theory has been on my mind for quite a while, actually).

But I personally don't bother if someone (or some group) isn't important to me simply because there doesn't seem to be much point. My tenuous hold is on the external/interpersonal world, and superfluous work in that direction is a big deal that I avoid when/where I can.

 

[Red Memories]

Yeah, I get a bit stuck on that myself. This thing people have about Fe users giving up personal values for harmony - I don't get where that notion comes from. I can sorta walk through an interaction where someone doesn't (or others don't) share my values without feeling inauthentic if I don't stop everything to state how my values are different - I don't see that as giving up my values though, not even remotely. My values are still very much intact inside me. I've started to think that FPs maybe can't understand compartmentalizing like that - like they're afraid their values will actually change or something if they don't state something immediately, and they assume others have an equally tenuous hold on the 'space within'. I don't know how else to make sense of it. (And the primary reason for this thread is to test how well I'm making sense of it - this theory has been on my mind for quite a while, actually).

But I personally don't bother if someone (or some group) isn't important to me simply because there doesn't seem to be much point. My tenuous hold is on the external/interpersonal world, and superfluous work in that direction is a big deal that I avoid when/where I can.

this is really interesting because there is a lot of people who view Fi as a function with internal values they do not voice loudly but you're defining Fi and Fe - minus the loss of values, exactly how I view it. lol.
I think hearing Fe is actually harder for me because for a while I did feel like Fe equates to groupthinking. In reality they just choose to surround themselves with people of a similar mindset to avoid conflict, aka what [MENTION=23583]yama[/MENTION] described. I don't really care, you respect me I respect you, but you're certainly going to hear my POV. Just how I am. Some think that is Fe creating a ripple of trying to make people conform but from what I understand of Fe, Fe doesn't try to force conformity, Fe tries to enforce harmony and does so by aligning with people of the similar mindset or reframing from stating their POV although they HAVE one. Fi can be internal but Fi can also state its POV. BOTH CAN DO ITTT.

 

[Yama]

In reality they just choose to surround themselves with people of a similar mindset to avoid conflict, aka what [MENTION=23583]yama[/MENTION] described. I don't really care, you respect me I respect you, but you're certainly going to hear my POV.

I'm not sure how much this relates, but I thought I would add that I find it impossible to separate 'me' from my opinions. So if someone doesn't respect my values, they're basically not respecting me either. Which is why I prefer to befriend similar people. Not quite an echo chamber because I'm still willing to listen to disagreeing opinions in debate settings but like, I only want to be friends etc with like minded people.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

this is really interesting because there is a lot of people who view Fi as a function with internal values they do not voice loudly but you're defining Fi and Fe - minus the loss of values, exactly how I view it. lol.

I suspect I'm being sloppy with words and phrasing it poorly. Yes, you're right, my experience of IxFPs is that they don't necessarily voice objections loudly/immediately. But there is a certain kind of pull to/focus on the immediate moment that gets exhausting to deal with. There's a general difference between FP 'authencity' and FJ 'authencity' -and the way FPs seem to systematically view FJs as disingenuous because what they're feeling "right now" doesn't match what they're immediately expressing. Or something. Really I should be referring to this as Fi 'authenticity' vs. Pi 'authenticity' maybe - because Pi authenticity actually is very important, but it's more about consistency than it is about whether someone's immediate feelings match what they're immediately expressing. FJs are more likely to go through the motions and evaluate what to do about values disparities in their down time.

I hope that made sense. At any rate, yes, I agree that Fi doms don't necessarily loudly voice objection. But there is an immediate sort of balking that takes place at expectations to simply use rules to navigate amongst others. Or something.

Some think that is Fe creating a ripple of trying to make people conform

There definitely are FJs who seem intent of making others conform, or who get really angry when others don't share their views and take a forceful tone. Just like there are FPs who don't get clearly forceful like Js do, but who put forth calm yet somewhat ridiculous rationalizations/shapeshifty logic to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. Even though it's often said Fe has the lion's share of this problem, the tenacity with which someone feels entitled to direct shared reality in a self-serving directly isn't type related - even if the specific approaches they use are.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm going to just repost something I wrote in the "Dear Fe user" thread. My overall point here is that I don't think it's useful to define the distinction between Fe types and Fi types by saying Fi types focus on the space 'within' the individual while Fe types focus on the space 'between' people. I can understand why it seems that way, because the manner in which FJs maintain awareness of the space 'within' is different - but implying it doesn't happen or that it is quantitatively 'less than' is basically just not seeing that 'gorilla' (as per analogy below). The whole reason a chaotic external environment - in which others demand attention be pulled immediately to the space between people - is more difficult for an FJ to navigate than an environment in which there are no surprises is BECAUSE it pulls attention away from the space 'within'.

I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea/understanding the notion that Fe types (appear to) get angry at people for holding unpopular opinions or for going against the grain of the group. I understand (from having read this basic assumption over and over again, from different people) that truly is how it looks- but I have a really hard time understanding it. It's like assuming an engine works because the spinning tires make it go- as if the spinning tires are the source of the energy fueling the engine, instead of it actually working in the other direction.*

I think in general, judgments that are typically doled out by FJs are not fueled by popular view- at least, no more or less than any other type. They are fueled by actual observations about the world, actual critical observation done on an individual level: where introverted perception is people-oriented, there's a priority to troubleshoot potential interpersonal problems. (Not to mention, where Pi > Pe, there's less tolerance for the external world imposing surprise obstacles.) Metaphorically speaking, there are dominoes we are reluctant to knock over- not because "it simply isn't done" or because we are lemmings and we're afraid to go against the grain- but because authentic critical assessment has recognized the consequent dominoes that fall along with it and decides ahead of time that it isn't worth the consequence. No offense, but it seems like (some) FPs and TJs can be completely blind to the consequent dominoes that are actually fueling our (very individual and critical) 'judgment'.

This study about perceptual blindness has been brought up before to explain why some types 'see' something completely invisible to other types: the invisible gorilla.

Yes, it can be very frustrating when one individual FJ decides for other people that some particular domino isn't worthy of knocking over and acts (indeed, truly believes) as if there's something clearly 'objective' about that decision- that is arrogant. But a lot of that stems from the assumption others can also see what we're seeing- it doesn't occur to us to explain certain things because it seems like the reasons behind the thinking are *right there* in plain sight, and it could potentially even be offensive to point them out. When an FJ feels a strong emotional charge about the way something is being done in the external world, it's because their internal senses are perceiving a very real gorilla that's invisible to others. It's not because of "group values" (although the more real that gorilla is, the more likely there will be others in the group who also sense it). Other types do the same damn thing in their own way- TJs getting similarly forceful about their 'invisible gorilla' (because for Js, it can be exceptionally difficult to immediately put into words**) and Ps getting forceful in a more 'calm' way with rampant rationalization. When we, as individuals, become exclusively focused on our own invisible gorilla, and impulsively dismiss the possibility there are gorillas (in others' perceptions) we aren't seeing or that could possibly be as important as our own gorilla, it's the effect we tend to have on the world around us- it's a strong need to feel heard without simultaneous ability to listen, and it is indeed arrogant.

The important thing to take away here is that the judgment doesn't come from "the group", or from some floating Fe hivemind out there- it's because we see a very real aspect of shared reality that you don't see. While deindividuation is a real phenomenon that occurs and influences an individual's way of processing information (more specifically, believing certain information is more 'correct' than it actually is), it doesn't happen more to Fe types. It's a human frailty shared equally across all types. And- I feel like a broken record here, like I've already 'preached' this over and over- I very much believe that if it seems to us like some entire 'type' falls prey to deindividuation more than our own type, there's likely a very real 'gorilla' we aren't seeing.

*And before someone points out that you can start a car sometimes by making the wheels spin (battery issue)- you can't if there's no gasoline. In this analogy, the car is not electric and gasoline/fuel = individual, critical thought.

**

This video is a good example of Te getting forceful. This guy has his sights on a 'clear' priority- and he wants to plow over Ti guy's invisible gorilla because his own is 'clearly' the only important priority at hand. 'Group think' isn't fueling this guy's priorities- it's something distinctly internal, but just very different from Ti guy's priority.

 

[notmyapples]

For the most part I agree with this, but I would like to also point out that I would never ever break my values. I will lie about them to others when convenient, such as if I'm never ever going to see that person again in my life. Then I'll just tell them what they want to hear so we don't get into a pointless confrontation. But I would never forsake my values for external harmony; I would only refrain from speaking of them in front of the wrong audience. I generally avoid people who don't share my values anyway.

I will bite my tongue for the sake of getting along, when it's with someone I don't care about. By 'don't care about,' I mean someone who I don't ever plan on having a personal relationship with (this includes friends). I would never befriend (or date) someone who didn't share my values, or at the very least was neutral about them. I definitely wouldn't bother with people who hold opposite views. But in everyday conversation with your grocery store clerk, neighbors and coworkers (I don't care about them beyond the superficial), and even certain family members, I'll just change the subject instead of making a scene over it. I would never abandon or reject my personal beliefs for the sake of external harmony. Only keep them quiet when it's not worth fussing over.

Breaking personal values was vague of me. More like bend or work within them if it is a means for others. Like, for example, an Fe user who doesn't believe in lying says to someone 'you look nice' when they really don't. That type of thing. It's not necessarily breaking them as much as not holding them to such a concrete esteem, which can look like breaking them to an Fi user on the outside but it isn't really.

 

[Agent Washington]

Breaking personal values was vague of me. More like bend or work within them if it is a means for others. Like, for example, an Fe user who doesn't believe in lying says to someone 'you look nice' when they really don't. That type of thing. It's not necessarily breaking them as much as not holding them to such a concrete esteem, which can look like breaking them to an Fi user on the outside but it isn't really.

...Why isn't it? Coz from what I see, a lie was told in that case. Either whatever purpose you're trying to strive for is worth bending a rule for- in this case, lying- or you don't believe lying is wrong.

I am aware this sounds accusing (blame Te ) but I just don't see how that makes sense.

 

[notmyapples]

...Why isn't it? Coz from what I see, a lie was told in that case. Either whatever purpose you're trying to strive for is worth bending a rule for- in this case, lying- or you don't believe lying is wrong.

I am aware this sounds accusing (blame Te ) but I just don't see how that makes sense.

Look at it a different way. If someone has two clashing values, one being making others feel good and the other being honest, then they have to make decisions in certain situations about which one will lead their interaction. In a way, they are still being genuine by telling that white lie because their honest goal in the interaction is to make you feel good about the compliment, not just make a truthful comment like perhaps Te.

I guess if you use Te to objectively look at it, this is breaking an internal value in favor of another. I view it as more of a temporary shift than a break.

 

[Agent Washington]

Look at it a different way. If someone has two clashing values, one being making others feel good and the other being honest, then they have to make decisions in certain situations about which one will lead their interaction. In a way, they are still being genuine by telling that white lie because their honest goal in the interaction is to make you feel good about the compliment, not just make a truthful comment like perhaps Te.

I guess if you use Te to objectively look at it, this is breaking an internal value in favor of another. I view it as more of a temporary shift than a break.

You seem to type as Fi, so would you say that that's applicable for Fi users as well?

I see what you mean, I ... don't agree coz Te xD

 

[notmyapples]

You seem to type as Fi, so would you say that that's applicable for Fi users as well?

I see what you mean, I ... don't agree coz Te xD

Viewing it as a break or favoring one value over another in social interaction?

 

[Agent Washington]

Viewing it as a break or favoring one value over another in social interaction?

Favouring one value over another, yeah.

 

[notmyapples]

Favouring one value over another, yeah.

Speaking completely personally and as I believe to be in healthy cognitive use, no.

I'm always questioning whether or not my reaction to a situation is appropriate to how I really feel. I feel horrendous if I look back on a situation and realize that there was a better way to coherently express my emotions than I initially chose. If I feel like someone was in the wrong over something and they apologize, I don't need to make it clear that they were in the wrong but I silently refuse to reassure them. If I feel like I'm in the right, I will absolutely refuse to apologize, no matter the consequences, no matter the backstory, no matter the person. I never tell white lies because they are still lies and make me feel bad, so I live by a code of 'if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything' as opposed to 'a compliment can make a person's day'.

Again, this is just my own personal experience and comes from a healthy balance between Fi and Te. When I was younger and my Te was undeveloped, I was more likely to give into another person's feelings to avoid situations of confrontation or conflict. But I still felt terrible about it.

 

[Agent Washington]

Speaking completely personally and as I believe to be in healthy cognitive use, no.

I'm always questioning whether or not my reaction to a situation is appropriate to how I really feel. I feel horrendous if I look back on a situation and realize that there was a better way to coherently express my emotions than I initially chose. If I feel like someone was in the wrong over something and they apologize, I don't need to make it clear that they were in the wrong but I silently refuse to reassure them. If I feel like I'm in the right, I will absolutely refuse to apologize, no matter the consequences, no matter the backstory, no matter the person. I never tell white lies because they are still lies and make me feel bad, so I live by a code of 'if you don't have something nice to say then don't say anything' as opposed to 'a compliment can make a person's day'.

Again, this is just my own personal experience and comes from a healthy balance between Fi and Te. When I was younger and my Te was undeveloped, I was more likely to give into another person's feelings to avoid situations of confrontation or conflict. But I still felt terrible about it.

Whoa, I relate to this even though I'm def a T type xD Like I would do the same thing too

Thanks for elaborating!!

 

[notmyapples]

Whoa, I relate to this even though I'm def a T type xD Like I would do the same thing too

Thanks for elaborating!!

That's good, this process only came from me developing my Te.

No problem!

 

[Agent Washington]

That's good, this process only came from me developing my Te.

No problem!

My Te is whack, I was consciously focusing on developing Fi so that I don't do the thing that you mentioned before developing your Te (it felt more like... impersonating Fe, which I can still feel myself sometimes do) but I guess Te helps to anchor it a lot better. *notes it down*

School has been forcing me to use my Te a lot more, I just need to learn to use it in everyday circumstances.

 

[notmyapples]

My Te is whack, I was consciously focusing on developing Fi so that I don't do the thing that you mentioned before developing your Te (it felt more like... impersonating Fe, which I can still feel myself sometimes do) but I guess Te helps to anchor it a lot better. *notes it down*

School has been forcing me to use my Te a lot more, I just need to learn to use it in everyday circumstances.

I think that a lot of Fi users, especially in social structures like public school, can subconsciously force themselves into Fe patterns and impersonation. I think that a Te/Fi user really needs to remove themselves from those situations, be it physically or emotionally, to give their judgment functions space to develop and work properly. It's difficult because my Te is what helps me pull back from that stuff and set boundaries, but without my Te developed I was in a stalemate. I wanted to pull away but I couldn't. I think that a Te user might struggle in a the same way with Fi, they want to pull away but there aren't sure how because their Fi isn't telling them whether or not to do it. But in order to develop Te or Fi, you have to do it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Something else that has occurred to me (time and again) is that introverted perception makes different kinds of leaps than introverted judgment. I haven't posted about it because it's difficult to put into words. And every attempt just ends up with me deleting nearly every statement I make. So I'm going to have to leave it at "the kinds of leaps" for now.

While there's some overlap between what 'hooks' or 'triggers' each type and the kinds of leaps they make, it's still a distinctly different type of information.