Differences/Similarities of Fi Between SFPs and NFPs

[Dreamer]

I've certainly found a lot of common ground with other Fi users, and speaking with an Fi dom/aux in many ways feels like speaking or at least understanding a mutual sort of "presence" of themselves, of the world around them, and how the two entities blend and mingle. I've also come across some differences when it came to sharing thoughts with SFPs in how they understand Fi and thus, see the world around them. These dialogues I have with SFPs often fascinate me because they seem similar in how they view themselves, and thus the world, however there is often a minute twist to it all, where the once parallel paths begin to drastically diverge and become their own unique personality type.

My question and point of this thread, is how do you understand yourself and the world around you, through your Fi, what does it feel like? What do you see? Feel free to take this question any which way you desire as I don't want to limit how one describes their experience. I'm curious to see how Fi is potentially translated when led by Se versus Ne, or when Fi leads Se or Ne. How does that shift in function/alignment alter the perspective afforded by Fi?

 

[equinoxx]

My last ex was an ISFP, and my current partner is INFP. My best friend is also INFP. Here are some differences I've noticed in the way the two types express their feelings:

Both tend to get silent at first when they were feeling upset. I've noticed this about IXFPs. I have to ask probing questions and bug them until they finally reveal how they're feeling.

When the ISFP would express his negative emotions, he'd show it more physically. Crying, yelling, and when he was REALLY mad he would throw things. He's also punched walls before. (Then again, he did have anger issues, so I won't go out and say this is an ISFP thing.) When he was depressed, he would create things. Art was his muse.
The ISFP was a bit more conflict avoidant than the INFPs, and preferred to push away his issues or pretend they aren't there rather than think through them and/or talk about them. When the issues would finally come to surface and he'd express how he felt, it was rather explosive.

The INFPs don't express their feelings as outwardly as the ISFP. It's also more difficult to get them to speak about their emotions than it was for the ISFP. I've noticed INFPs don't often let themselves cry in front of people, but you can see the tears welling up in their eyes, and the sulking in their face. Although all IXFPs have a tendency to isolate when they're upset, INFPs can be uncomfortable with physically showing others how they feel, and will probably want to be alone for a while to cry or sulk, unless they're with someone they can really trust.
When the INFPs are finally pulled out of their isolation & silence, they will want to analyze the issue, either by talking it out, or writing. Once they "get it all out", they'll distract themselves with something calming (a movie, a video game, a nap, etc.) to let the negative feelings subside.

To sum it up;
ISFPs process their feelings more physically, and will express it outwardly (through crying or yelling) and tend to let out pent-up emotions by taking it out through something physical. Art, building things, exercising, going for a walk, etc.

INFPs are more prone to overthinking their feelings, and will need to outwardly analyze the situation in some way, through talking it out, writing, or even artwork (but compared to the ISFP, the artwork will be more about the emotions it represents than the creation of the art itself, if that makes sense). If they need to cry, they'll likely feel uncomfortable with it and isolate themselves.

Sorry if none of this makes any sense. ;_; I tried to explain it the best I could!

 

[magpie]

You probably are interested in hearing about people's individual experiences and theories, but since my perception of typology has shifted into something I don't think others would find valid, I'm going to just copy and paste a socionics thing.

INFP

+Fi = positive, warm relationships. Psychological factors play a vital role for them. Without recognition of ethical values such as individuality and the uniqueness of others, religion and spirituality, non-interference in others lives, concrete humanism, etc., the stability they strongly desire is hardly possible.

-Ne = the unusual, alternative and bizarre. Despite its groundedness, this quadra respects unusual and talented people who offer creative alternative possibilities. The spread of new information is not impeded, no matter how avant-garde it might be. In Delta groups, there occur periodic flashes of sensationalism and spikes of interest centered around original people who put forward alternative ideas of development.

ISFP

-Fi = minimization of negative relationships. This element is critical of evil. They desire to get away from bad people and poor relationships, and to protect themselves from enemies and adversaries. They want to minimize negative experiences, because as we know from psychoanalysis, all extruded problems are liable to generate an emotional reaction one way or another, with a physical cost for the purification of the subconscious.

+Se = durability and resistance. This quadra is well capable of defending itself and its position. For them power is not easy to acquire, as to do this they must resist the volitional Beta quadra. However, once it is seized, they can hold on to it despite all attempts at restoration. Protectiveness, ability to defend themselves against all force, ability to keep that which was acquired - these are the principles that they respect. This quadra can be called the quadra of criticism and reforms. In contrast to the 'fire' Beta quadra, which is oriented primarily politically, this quadra is oriented more socially.

 

[Sacrophagus]

You probably are interested in hearing about people's individual experiences and theories, but since my perception of typology has shifted into something I don't think others would find valid, I'm going to just copy and paste a socionics thing.

No one has reached the meridian of knowledge to thoroughly explain human psych, and thus the validity of your perception will not be trialed, rather, welcomed to further our reach.

I'd be glad to read what your thoughts and experiences have brought into fruition.

 

[magpie]

No one has reached the meridian of knowledge to thoroughly explain human psych, and thus the validity of your perception will not be trialed, rather, welcomed to further our reach.

I'd be glad to read what your thoughts and experiences have brought into fruition.

I think there's been a continuous misinterpretation created by type descriptions and association of value toward functions when the cognitive functions are actually simple and neutral, with no association of one function over the other toward descriptives like "imaginative", "creative", "abstract", "concrete."

Intuition is system based. Its general direction is in seeking to apply the system to the individual. Sensing is essence based. It seeks to discover the system through the individual. Meaning that there is an opposite flow of energy, that's all. You can still end up in the same place for the same reasons.

There is no concrete/abstract divide, with S dealing primarily in what is concrete and N in abstractions. That's impossible and silly if you think about it at all - everyone always deals in both by nature of being human. Sensing is, however, more direct. It deals directly with the concrete and it deals directly with the abstract, because it seeks to uncover the essence in both, kind of like a deep sea diver. Intuition is once removed from essence because it views things systemically, like a bird's eye view.

I type as ISFP. I can't separate my Fi from my Se - they are inherently interwoven, each influencing each other to the point that I would argue there is actually no separation. They are not two distinct things. Obviously Fi in an INFP is going to be very different than in an ISFP because it's inseparably woven into the Ne. The Ne and Se difference makes what the respective Fi of these types values different. Penetrating (S) or expanding (N), landing on (S) or taking flight (N). Se comes to its understanding through its depth of perception - it sees, feels, touches, experiences, it takes a bite of everything and chews it and digests it and becomes it so that it knows what it is. This is done to concepts, theories, abstractions, and all manner of other things people like to view as primarily the focus of intuitive types. That's not so - intuitives just have a different method of understanding the same things, and for the Fi Ne user, they value those different methods more.

People with an ability to express themselves well - writers, poets, for example - tend to be sensors, because they can take something abstract and feel what it really is and put it into the realm of language. They can transform it, like an alchemist. Obviously there are intuitive writers too.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I think there's been a continuous misinterpretation created by type descriptions and association of value toward functions when the cognitive functions are actually simple and neutral, with no association of one function over the other toward descriptives like "imaginative", "creative", "abstract", "concrete."

Intuition is system based. Its general direction is in seeking to apply the system to the individual. Sensing is essence based. It seeks to discover the system through the individual. Meaning that there is an opposite flow of energy, that's all. You can still end up in the same place for the same reasons.

There is no concrete/abstract divide, with S dealing primarily in what is concrete and N in abstractions. That's impossible and silly if you think about it at all - everyone always deals in both by nature of being human. Sensing is, however, more direct. It deals directly with the concrete and it deals directly with the abstract, because it seeks to uncover the essence in both, kind of like a deep sea diver. Intuition is once removed from essence because it views things systemically, like a bird's eye view.

I type as ISFP. I can't separate my Fi from my Se - they are inherently interwoven, each influencing each other to the point that I would argue there is actually no separation. They are not two distinct things. Obviously Fi in an INFP is going to be very different than in an ISFP because it's inseparably woven into the Ne. The Ne and Se difference makes what the respective Fi of these types values different. Penetrating (S) or expanding (N), landing on (S) or taking flight (N). Se comes to its understanding through its depth of perception - it sees, feels, touches, experiences, it takes a bite of everything and chews it and digests it and becomes it so that it knows what it is. This is done to concepts, theories, abstractions, and all manner of other things people like to view as primarily the focus of intuitive types. That's not so - intuitives just have a different method of understanding the same things, and for the Fi Ne user, they value those different methods more.

People with an ability to express themselves well - writers, poets, for example - tend to be sensors, because they can take something abstract and feel what it really is and put it into the realm of language. They can transform it, like an alchemist. Obviously there are intuitive writers too.

I remember an N saying how a certain S they knew didn't like mbti because they liked to judge people as individuals. I was like well since I am reading about mbti right now I must be an N. It's funny because according to some people I am becoming more N, but according to your definition I am becoming more S. Maybe I am becoming more of both though. But yeah, after being obsessed with defining myself in labels for the past 5 years, I am ready to retire and become a full time sensor. These types of systems of organizing people can be helpful, but they seemed to have caused me more harm than good.

 

[magpie]

I remember an N saying how a certain S they knew didn't like mbti because they liked to judge people as individuals. I was like well since I am reading about mbti right now I must be an N. It's funny because according to some people I am becoming more N, but according to your definition I am becoming more S. Maybe I am becoming more of both though. But yeah, after being obsessed with defining myself in labels for the past 5 years, I am ready to retire and become a full time sensor. These types of systems of organizing people can be helpful, but they seemed to have caused me more harm than good.

Yeah, definitely. I've ultimately found little satisfaction in MBTI. I don't want to use it to classify others, it's too dehumanizing and from my perspective, says nothing particularly important. I also think it's vaguely boring and lazy to rely on a premade system and let it influence your perception.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, definitely. I've ultimately found little satisfaction in MBTI. I don't want to use it to classify others, it's too dehumanizing and from my perspective, says nothing particularly important. I also think it's vaguely boring and lazy to rely on a premade system and let it influence your perception.

I made a post all along the same line of reasoning elsewhere on the forum.

Once you learn about typology and your individual type, it puts a cage of generalized parameters around your thought process, based on how your type "should" act and"should" respond to stimuli, versus your perception operating completely organic fashion without a layer of bias, as opposed to subscribing to what you think you should do based on your type.

I think that's where most of the type confusion comes from -- When you try to reference yourself versus generalized descriptions, without taking into context the factors of one's upbringing and family dynamics, socioeconomic factors, ect.

Basically, within each type exists such a wide range of gray area and others factors that influence our individual thought processes, it can cause you to question your type and yourself if you're taking it too literally and wonder why you don't fit as neatly into an archetype as maybe you think you should.

 

[Hiraeth]

People with an ability to express themselves well - writers, poets, for example - tend to be sensors, because they can take something abstract and feel what it really is and put it into the realm of language. They can transform it, like an alchemist. Obviously there are intuitive writers too.

Interesting. So do you think most of the famous artistic types that people seem to so often type as intuitives are actually sensors? Scandalous!

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I don't know why, but I find isfps much more agreeable to me than infps. I'm not sure why. I genuinely like them. I find mbti/socionics only to be a language that I like to use because I have no other words for certain concepts. I try to use it descriptively, but not proscriptively so as to limit the other person.

 

[magpie]

Interesting. So do you think most of the famous artistic types that people seem to so often type as intuitives are actually sensors? Scandalous!

I think Se users and Se valuers make up the majority of people in performing and fine art fields. Because writing is a mode of expression with a lot of variety depending on what you're writing and why, all types are more evenly represented amongst writers. I do think that people tend to type famous artists immediately as N no matter what, and that's a mistake imo.

 

[Dreamer]

I think Se users and Se valuers make up the majority of people in performing and fine art fields. Because writing is a mode of expression with a lot of variety depending on what you're writing and why, all types are more evenly represented amongst writers. I do think that people tend to type famous artists immediately as N no matter what, and that's a mistake imo.

The great Impressionist painters come to mind when thinking of art and sensing such as Van Gogh's work. I usually prefer to visit Contemporary art museums and like to stay in that end of the art world but Starry Night and Monet's Water Lilies (one of the many he produced) will always be favorites of mine from that time period.