[INFJ] INFJs describing Fe

[Siúil a Rúin]

I don't remember a thread like this, but it would be interesting if the people who have longstanding typed as INFJs describe for themselves how they understand and relate to the concept of Fe.

I don't know how to tag even though I tried. Also, if I didn't @ you as an INFJ know that I wanted to, but just couldn't find you.

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]
[MENTION=7111]Fidelia[/MENTION]
[MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION]
[MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION]
[MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]
[MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION]
[MENTION=16382]Ene[/MENTION]
[MENTION=112]Kyrielle[/MENTION]
[MENTION=9273]Vasilisa[/MENTION]
[MENTION=6689]Polaris[/MENTION]

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

INFJ and ISFP are the two types I've ever settled on and I tend to feel like I'm strangely half-way between, but I do think there is a long-term misunderstanding about INFJs and Fe, so the thread has utility outside of my own wonderings and meanderings. I don't relate to standard descriptions very well, but other INFJ have started describing unique ways they relate to Fe, but I don't remember it being focused into a single thread, but more scattered about in the generalized Fi/Fe type discussions.

 

[Polaris]

In myself, some examples of what I consider Fe are:

-Being in tune with the social atmosphere and overriding mood
-Placing considerable importance on making other people feel good, even at the cost of my personal feelings
-A focus on supporting interpersonal harmony
-Being sensitive to other people's feelings toward me
-Consideration of how I come across to other people
-Concern for the well-being of others

 

[cascadeco]

I can't post here without also posting some of my overarching thoughts on mbti and how it's used - I think a lot of confusion can happen because everyone has some element of each of the abstractions known as 'functions', and so when I write here, I'm writing more in the context of viewing myself as NFJ, and not as NFP or SFP or SFJ. Also I think confusion can arise between FP/FJ because it can be difficult to discern whether something is a personal value (Fi) or not -- ie any 'opinion' could be argued to be a personal value, if you really think about it. (Plus - everyone has personal values. There's also the converse of this - Fi users can have values tied to how people are treated/ tied to externals - so both can mirror each other in some ways / or everyone has both imo.)

I am externally on top of things, externally aware of social dynamics/ interactions, and tend to find it offensive when people don't account for other people. Very straightforward example: A table of old men/regulars who come into our coffee shop every day don't like our new furniture and yesterday took it upon themselves to move a table to where their old table had been - in doing so, they absconded with a bunch of chairs and thus stole all of the seating from everyone else -- leaving a long bench with little tables and no little chairs opposite the bench since they took all of them for their private little Round Table session. This really aggravated me as I find it really rude and entitled and inconsiderate of everyone else. Things like this probably cross my mind every single day. I also at the end of the day must embrace the fact that I'm not a 'live and let live' sort of person -- I actually think there are universally positive and negative things and I am very bothered by large-scale societal things and so on. I tend to focus quite a lot on observing everyone else and thinking / getting angry about how such and such behaviors cause such and such effect, and on a large scale it causes x, which leads to y, and so on. Edit: I think what is typically viewed as 'Fe' comes into play with this because though I have lots of soap-boxy societal/'people opinions', I tend not to vocalize as a) I don't want to hurt peoples' feelings, which I will inevitably do if I voice said opinions (and if I'm honest: additionally make me seem like a big meanie, a role which I don't take pleasure in taking, even if it is what I actually think); b)I may view keeping thoughts to myself as more beneficial, as voicing them won't accomplish or change anything; or similar sorts of 'what will the outcome be' reasons.

For a long while I have worked to be more 'live and let live' (hence my Fi-ish alter-ego / ability to come across this way), but the reality is I've never been that lax or mellow. I can be in general much more soap-boxy. Over the years, though, I really have and do try to curb these things and keep things in check -- as I know precisely how irritating it can be (dom-Fe can irritate me to no end, as can aux-Fe) - probably because I see these tendencies in myself but try to keep them at bay.

I also historically have bent over backwards at times trying to accommodate people, and some of this is due to my own uncertainty / lack of definition in having Super Solid This is How And Who I Am and It Won't Be Changing (I highly, highly envy strong Fi folks for this, in some ways) ---- and I'd say in terms of romantic relationships a real issue for me has in fact been my NOT having super solid core values -- there are/ have been many things that I have not necessarily been sure of and the result is I can be highly malleable to a potentially self-damaging way, not to mention belatedly confusing to the other person when I suddenly reverse course when I finally realize I personally am not actually ok with something -- something I can / have been taken advantage of in the past (not necessarily maliciously) - a lack of solid values means one can be far too drifting and uncertain -- which leads to a very unique set of disadvantages and amorphousness. This is markedly different from 'live and let live', I'd add -- it's a different sort of mushiness in a very different way.

Also historically I would tend to build upon commonalities and not focus on things lacking; I still do this, however as I grow older I either become more 'lazy' or just realize it's not worth it, so I don't 'build' as much and am simply diplomatic.

There's probably a lot more I could say. And as usual.... I never speak for all NFJ's or Fe.

 

[Earl Grey]

Holy hell. Not Fe, but some of the things @cascadeco posted sound like how my ISFJ and 2 INFJ friends describe the differences between themselves and I.

A part of the strength of Fe I think, is to be able to not only 'scope out' what is important/required/etc in a certain social group, but to take it up and fulfill those things- usually, emotional needs (and even if they are not immediately emotional, the core is emotional accommodation).

I had a lot of difficulty with Fi/Fe initially for that same reason- it's hard to see whether or not something is an 'internal value' the Fi-way or not. My Fe-friends, of course, have their own values. A huge commonality between them, especially the less assertive Fe seems to obligate themselves into those structures, and to other people. They turn other people (or the situation, or the 'social structure') into their responsibility. Kind of like a mother hen to the group, in a way.

What I have also noticed, is that they are much more amenable to be corrected / directed otherwise. They are very accommodating in nature. They are sooner to listen and comply when told that they are expressing something wrong. I find that as long as it does make sense, they are more amenable to accommodating to the social norms around them, and more readily feel guilty if they do not 'live up' to it. I find that they are also more likely to begrudgingly follow something they disagree with instead of unabashedly (and idealistically, yet impractically and impulsively) pushing back the way some high Fi can do. One thing I also expect to see from them often enough is them questioning themselves and wondering if they did right by something or someone, based off the outcomes that occur (externalized Feeling, basically, I guess).

I've had much more difficulty dragging Fe-friends out of negative situations because they just seem to base their decisions off the external that way, because what is 'right' to them is what accommodates and provides for others and makes them feel better, so when they cannot fulfill that, there is a bigger sense of 'guilt' and that they are wrong, even if it is the situation that's shitty (or a guilt that they cannot fix the situation itself). They need more external validation that "Yes, you're right, they're wrong" especially if they've been entrenched deeply in those negative situations, and every time I dig in, it keeps looping back to "I failed those other people" even if they know, logically speaking, that they were in the right.

I find that they are very easy to talk to, because they take in input so very readily and sometimes I feel as if they are borderline looking for excuses to be able to motherhen you. Not a bad thing. Looks like they really, really enjoy taking care of and 'hosting' others. Knights in shining armor, and I mean this in a good way. They are generally very well-meaning and focused on the best for you, whether or not they do end up going about it the right way. Sometimes I feel like I'm being thanked by them if I let them take care of me.

TLDR; huge commonality I've seen in Fe-users that I've come to even expect at this point:
- obligates themselves to others / external structures
- are much more amenable to being corrected, especially if they agree with their surroundings
- gauge themselves based off the end result of what they do, that involves other people, and derives their sense of accomplishment and self-value from it

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I've kind of blathered about this at length, so I'll just post a link to a thread I'd started (about how I perceive Fe) instead of posting everything I posted there. Historically I've been pretty vocal about how messed up Fe descriptions are (and how they lead a lot of people who are FJs or TPs to identify as FPs or TJs, amongst other consequences).

This is maybe a succinct enough chunk to repost here:

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.

My tenuous hold is on the external/interpersonal world - I see 'small fires' in the external/interpersonal world as 'potential big fires' (and tend to react according to what I anticipate they'll become, rather than what they immediately are) precisely because paying attention to the space between people is so exhausting - and superfluous work in that direction is a big deal that I avoid when/where I can.

Using the example casc posted: "A table of old men/regulars who come into our coffee shop every day don't like our new furniture and yesterday took it upon themselves to move a table to where their old table had been - in doing so, they absconded with a bunch of chairs and thus stole all of the seating from everyone else -- leaving a long bench with little tables and no little chairs opposite the bench since they took all of them for their private little Round Table session." I don't just 'see' people moving chairs and tables around so they can sit the way they want, I also 'see' the work they are creating for other people. Exposure to people being like this - doing stuff that 'takes' from others seemingly without a second thought - tends to make me nihilistic and resentful. This could be avoided if they first laid down some disclaimers (to employees) about how they want to move stuff around, and they'll move it back when finished, and/or they'll break it up early if others come in and there's a lack of seating area (but they'd also have to be open to hearing something like "we usually have a rush of people in an hour, so it'd be helpful if you could put stuff back by then").

I think that introverted perceiving is kind of like a Rube Goldberg contraption; incoming information tends to present itself along with potential consequences of the thing/event itself. Instant connections are made about the path a thing/event is going to take. We don't look for it, it actually just happens simultaneously. We 'see' that if someone drops a marble down Hole A, then it will (probably) knock over four dominoes and do down Tunnel J before ending up popping the balloon at the end. But if someone drops a marble down Hole B, it will set a different set of events in motion. For FJs, the 'potential consequences' usually involve interpersonal events. (For TJs, the 'potential consequences' are objective events. I don't know, insert something here about knowing that some certain behavior will destroy a carburetor.)

I also historically have bent over backwards at times trying to accommodate people, and some of this is due to my own uncertainty / lack of definition in having Super Solid This is How And Who I Am and It Won't Be Changing (I highly, highly envy strong Fi folks for this, in some ways) ---- and I'd say in terms of romantic relationships a real issue for me has in fact been my NOT having super solid core values -- there are/ have been many things that I have not necessarily been sure of and the result is I can be highly malleable to a potentially self-damaging way, not to mention belatedly confusing to the other person when I suddenly reverse course when I finally realize I personally am not actually ok with something -- something I can / have been taken advantage of in the past (not necessarily maliciously) - a lack of solid values means one can be far too drifting and uncertain -- which leads to a very unique set of disadvantages and amorphousness. This is markedly different from 'live and let live', I'd add -- it's a different sort of mushiness in a very different way.

I can relate a lot to this, and I can remember reading something along these lines in an INFJ description - I think it's in Lenore Thomson's book. There's something about how INFJs can tend to 'go along' with something at first, just for lack of having a strong immediate position.

 

[21%]

I am externally on top of things, externally aware of social dynamics/ interactions, and tend to find it offensive when people don't account for other people.

This!

I think this captures the heart of it. It's like everyone has an aura exuding out of them, and all the auras combine into a 'public aura'. As an Fe user, I have a firm stance on what color the 'public aura' should be at any given moment. For example, 'right now it's appropriate for everyone to be friendly and try to get everyone involved in conversations', or 'right now this particular person isn't feeling well, so everyone should be attentive and make sure they don't feel worse', etc. I'm highly aware of who is contributing what to the 'public aura', which means I'm also very aware who is not contributing. Of course, the appropriate public aura is always changing, depending on the situation, and can change. For example, 'this friend has spent the past hour venting about work and everyone has spent so long consoling her, and now she appears to be feeling better, so maybe it's time for everyone else to have a chance to vent or tell the group about their lives, too' And then if it's in my power, I will try to 'steer' the interactions that way.

Fi might sense exactly the same thing, but is more focused on individual auras and pay less attention to the public aura, and tends to be much less inclined to try to manipulate the hue of the public aura.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I hope people will continue describing in general terms. I do have a specific question I'm curious about - how do you feel in social environments that are structured for people to move and behave together? This could include church services where people are to stand, sit, sing, kneel, and move in unison, it could include performances like musicals involving dance or instruments coordinated together, possibly the military, or any of the social environments that require coordination of behavior and movement?

Do these provide a kind of settled or peaceful sense or an unsettled sense? Does it depend on context? Are there some positive examples that feel good?

 

[cascadeco]

I hope people will continue describing in general terms. I do have a specific question I'm curious about - how do you feel in social environments that are structured for people to move and behave together? This could include church services where people are to stand, sit, sing, kneel, and move in unison, it could include performances like musicals involving dance or instruments coordinated together, possibly the military, or any of the social environments that require coordination of behavior and movement?

Do these provide a kind of settled or peaceful sense or an unsettled sense? Does it depend on context? Are there some positive examples that feel good?

I think I am highly sensitive to what I see as group manipulation, so I often don't do well in organized environments or want to be a part of them. This could be tied to my instincts, or could just be awareness of group dynamics and finding it loathsome if I disagree. (Refer to my recent rant - I'm pretty counterphobic to many group expectations, marketing to the masses, social group scary behavior.) I guess it depends on context and whether I see it is nefarious (lol) or good, whether I agree with it, whether I don't and find it fitting to state that, or whether I don't and find it utterly futile to state that.

It's a weird dichotomy, being aware of it and able to not ruffle feathers too much, but also despise much of it. I think this element can be why a lot of NFJ's in particular can relate more to Fi descriptions.

 

[21%]

I hope people will continue describing in general terms. I do have a specific question I'm curious about - how do you feel in social environments that are structured for people to move and behave together? This could include church services where people are to stand, sit, sing, kneel, and move in unison, it could include performances like musicals involving dance or instruments coordinated together, possibly the military, or any of the social environments that require coordination of behavior and movement?

Do these provide a kind of settled or peaceful sense or an unsettled sense? Does it depend on context? Are there some positive examples that feel good?

Personally, I feel they can be a bit silly/pointless, especially ones that have become soulless rituals. However -- and this is big however, I'm often really moved if the people involved are really into it. If the participants really believe in it, are a hundred percent in the moment, and share a sense of unity, I can completely be swept up in it too and find it a positive and powerful experience.

My INFP hubby is strongly against these things, though.

Edited to add: so the conclusion is, what I appreciate is not the 'structure' itself, but people's reaction to it, and I think it can be a beautiful thing.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Here's another question - in what ways is Fe experienced and expressed outside the context of social interactions with people? Couldn't one argue that Te and Fe would be equivalent in terms of social expression but different in their focus on logic/objective vs values/subjective information processing and judgement? Could Fe be ideas based to the same degree as Te? Could Te be as socially based to the same degree as Fe? Is there a reason they would be different both being Je and both dealing with external environment whatever that happens to be?

Many social interactions are Te-based. Managerial styles can be Te, cops, judges, lawyers, professors, casual social exchanges of ideas and debates, these can all be conducted with pure Te and they are all fundamentally social exchanges.

So then how is Fe applied to aesthetics and art, philosophy and religion? I find in discussions that Fe is socially defined and Te idea based. I don't see how this is consistent with the theory. In the same way an INTJ can be idea based and not socially based - couldn't an INFJ also be idea based and not socially based in its expression of Fe?

 

[Earl Grey]

I find Te being more goal oriented. Tiny example, today, a friend was told "Hey, look, [other friend] is here, say hi!" (a stereotypically Fe thing to do)- but this one friend is very hissy, and hates talking when he doesn't like to. He just grumbled and left. The Fe may want to adhere to social norms and the social constructs, and may see the greeting as a part of a standard procedure to achieve that. A Te friend then piped up saying, "You should have let him do what he wanted."- seems superficially Fe, until you actually dig into the why;

"If you know that might drive him away, then you need to consider which goal is more important since they [social norms & having the friend join and chat] are contradictory."

The Te in this case is more 'flexible' because it is end-results based, so whatever fulfills those ends are what is 'best'. If saying hi to everyone does it, Te would do it, if not, then it wouldn't- EDIT: basically, being able to accept the rules of conduct, but change it depending on the end result.

Fe will more likely poll based off the accepted norms (generalized ethics- Fe), and trip in situations where those- social norms, do not apply, or are less relevant. Or, rather than Fe being less goal-oriented it's more that they have different goals, different focuses, different roads. 'Goals' VS compliance to shared ethics- different ideas of what constitutes the desired end result so, idea-based? Sure, but it may not be for the same reasons, even if it may be towards the same (or different) ends.

(Fi, in contrast, may stubbornly go "But I say hi to everyone! That's important to me! I don't care what you say about it!" regardless of the goal / end result, that 'dig in their heels' quality about them)

By the way, I'm not Fe, but I am enjoying pitching in with examples of Fe incidents from Fe friends. If you want to this to be purely INFJ / Fe members' perspectives only, do tell.


EDIT: You edited your post!

So then how is Fe applied to aesthetics and art, philosophy and religion? I find in discussions that Fe is socially defined and Te idea based. I don't see how this is consistent with the theory. In the same way an INTJ can be idea based and not socially based - couldn't an INFJ also be idea based and not socially based in its expression of Fe?

I may be wrong, but this seems more of an N/S axis thing than a T/F one. Those subjects seem to be a more N/S focus, with the T/F delivering them in different reasons, and with different ways, and towards different ends.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

@Earl Grey
im not sure I agree about Te being more flexible about the greeting. I think Te is less likely to read subjective social nuance and will rely on accepted rules of conduct until they know clearly to change a rule for another result. A skilled Fe user will be the host that remembers each specific need and remember to place this person on the quiet end of the table and another so they can see out the window. Te would be more pragmatic and less nuanced for hints and cues that have no logical basis.

 

[Earl Grey]

@Earl Grey
im not sure I agree about Te being more flexible about the greeting. I think Te is less likely to read subjective social nuance and will rely on accepted rules of conduct until they know clearly to change a rule for another result. A skilled Fe user will be the host that remembers each specific need and remember to place this person on the quiet end of the table and another so they can see out the window. Te would be more pragmatic and less nuanced for hints and cues that have no logical basis.

I wanted to try express exactly this, this is what I meant by 'flexibility'- being able to accept the rules of conduct, but change it depending on the end result. I will append that to my original post. I agree with everything you have said here.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I wanted to try express exactly this, this is what I meant by 'flexibility'- being able to accept the rules of conduct, but change it depending on the end result. I will append that to my original post. I agree with everything you have said here.

It's also important to realize that there are differences in how INFJs use Fe so I actually want to get away from the established definition and find new ways of thinking about it because on forums that gets squashed by status quo Fe.

My question about Fe as extroverted value based judgements being applied to ideas and not simply social exchanges is foundational to this discussion and long overdue. It has been a long-standing short sightedness to equate Fe with socialization and all other judging functions given more emphasis on processing ideas. This has nothing to do with perceiving functions. It is purely a question of judgement. I think it is one huge reason there are long-standing gross misunderstandings. It didn't occur to me until after starting this thread but it is important to hear what INFJs here think about it.

 

[Earl Grey]

It's also important to realize that there are differences in how INFJs use Fe so I actually want to get away from the established definition and find new ways of thinking about it because on forums that gets squashed by status quo Fe.

My question about Fe as extroverted value based judgements being applied to ideas and not simply social exchanges is foundational to this discussion and long overdue. It has been a long-standing short sightedness to equate Fe with socialization and all other judging functions given more emphasis on processing ideas. This has nothing to do with perceiving functions. It is purely a question of judgement. I think it is one huge reason there are long-standing gross misunderstandings. It didn't occur to me until after starting this thread but it is important to hear what INFJs here think about it.

I see. I wasn't aware that there was a ideas vs social exchanges distinction between T(e)/F(e), let alone if it is true. I think it would help the thread to explain what is meant here by 'ideas'? How has Fe been equated to, or excluded from aesthetics, art, philosophy, religion? What are 'idea based' expressions? This is an important thing to specify, because those who may know little about this (like myself)- am having some confusion with this.

Isn't say, social championing is a form of expressing an idea, a philosophy? Are philosophies not fundamentally oriented towards a 'way of living'- that is, people-oriented? What kind of distinction is being made between being 'idea-based' and 'socially-based'?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I've kind of blathered about this at length, so I'll just post a link to a thread I'd started (about how I perceive Fe) instead of posting everything I posted there. Historically I've been pretty vocal about how messed up Fe descriptions are (and how they lead a lot of people who are FJs or TPs to identify as FPs or TJs, amongst other consequences).

This is maybe a succinct enough chunk to repost here:

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.

My tenuous hold is on the external/interpersonal world - I see 'small fires' in the external/interpersonal world as 'potential big fires' (and tend to react according to what I anticipate they'll become, rather than what they immediately are) precisely because paying attention to the space between people is so exhausting - and superfluous work in that direction is a big deal that I avoid when/where I can.

Using the example casc posted: "A table of old men/regulars who come into our coffee shop every day don't like our new furniture and yesterday took it upon themselves to move a table to where their old table had been - in doing so, they absconded with a bunch of chairs and thus stole all of the seating from everyone else -- leaving a long bench with little tables and no little chairs opposite the bench since they took all of them for their private little Round Table session." I don't just 'see' people moving chairs and tables around so they can sit the way they want, I also 'see' the work they are creating for other people. Exposure to people being like this - doing stuff that 'takes' from others seemingly without a second thought - tends to make me nihilistic and resentful. This could be avoided if they first laid down some disclaimers (to employees) about how they want to move stuff around, and they'll move it back when finished, and/or they'll break it up early if others come in and there's a lack of seating area (but they'd also have to be open to hearing something like "we usually have a rush of people in an hour, so it'd be helpful if you could put stuff back by then").

I think that introverted perceiving is kind of like a Rube Goldberg contraption; incoming information tends to present itself along with potential consequences of the thing/event itself. Instant connections are made about the path a thing/event is going to take. We don't look for it, it actually just happens simultaneously. We 'see' that if someone drops a marble down Hole A, then it will (probably) knock over four dominoes and do down Tunnel J before ending up popping the balloon at the end. But if someone drops a marble down Hole B, it will set a different set of events in motion. For FJs, the 'potential consequences' usually involve interpersonal events. (For TJs, the 'potential consequences' are objective events. I don't know, insert something here about knowing that some certain behavior will destroy a carburetor.)




I can relate a lot to this, and I can remember reading something along these lines in an INFJ description - I think it's in Lenore Thomson's book. There's something about how INFJs can tend to 'go along' with something at first, just for lack of having a strong immediate position.

I wanted to click like on this post, but remember something about you not liking that?
Anyway, I wanted to say this is one of the clearest Ni-Fe-Ti descriptions I have ever read. That future-oriented sense of the outcomes of external dynamics expressed through the Rube Goldberg machine that has the perfect logic underneath that appears almost random on the surface. It is one of the most apt metaphors for social outcomes possible.

I'm actually hoping that you might have some insight into the question I made about how Fe applies to the world of judging ideas and concepts of a more subjective value-based nature. I do think I'm onto something that Fe descriptions are almost always socially imbedded more than the other judging functions. We look at Fi as how it holds moral ideals, and then the way it imposes them socially is secondary. Ti is almost never described in how it applies socially, and Te is always discussed in terms of ideas where we don't typically expect an INTJ to have any particular social needs. I get why Fe could be argued to be the most naturally skilled at social navigation because people are subjective and value based in their behaviors, but I do think Fe has overlaid with assumptions about traditionally defined extroversion and that it is incorrect. In the same way a strong Te person could be asocial and apply Te to how they judge and process ideas they encounter, perhaps a Fe person could mostly apply extroverted value judgment to how they process ideas without assuming a greater need to interact socially. How does Fe process the values and aesthetics of the history of painting or music, how does it incorporate the values of Beethoven or Monet as different from Fi? This is a very interesting question to me. And I am looking forward to your input and the input from everyone else.

When I was younger I think I would have to type as INFJ, being very, very aligned with the type. I would organize large performances, wrote and directed a large scale musical, would conscientiously try to befriend all the social outcasts, etc. It is funny how I've changed after years of various traumas and pain. I don't know if personality type can genuinely change, or if the definition of INFJ are focused on earlier life expressions of it. Maybe I have moved through the functions in a way that I am an older INFJ that is focused on Se? I was very focused on Ti for the years I was married to Ti-doms almost to the point of seeming like a Thinker instead of Feeler.

I have always wanted to see a video series of types describing themselves through the lifespan. I have always wanted to see a video devoted to a type where a teenager, a young adult, someone with children, middle aged, and elderly people are all discussing their relationship to type.

Anyway, I hope my original question is addressed because I think this is extremely important to discuss Fe outside of traditional social extroversion applications of it.

 

[cascadeco]

Here's another question - in what ways is Fe experienced and expressed outside the context of social interactions with people? Couldn't one argue that Te and Fe would be equivalent in terms of social expression but different in their focus on logic/objective vs values/subjective information processing and judgement? Could Fe be ideas based to the same degree as Te? Could Te be as socially based to the same degree as Fe? Is there a reason they would be different both being Je and both dealing with external environment whatever that happens to be?

Many social interactions are Te-based. Managerial styles can be Te, cops, judges, lawyers, professors, casual social exchanges of ideas and debates, these can all be conducted with pure Te and they are all fundamentally social exchanges.

So then how is Fe applied to aesthetics and art, philosophy and religion? I find in discussions that Fe is socially defined and Te idea based. I don't see how this is consistent with the theory. In the same way an INTJ can be idea based and not socially based - couldn't an INFJ also be idea based and not socially based in its expression of Fe?

I really am not sure, and part of it is that I find speaking in functions doesn't end up making a whole lot of sense, since they always go in tandem with other things (hence why most Fe descriptions in actuality seem more SiFe based, and it's really difficult, if not impossible, to parse out a function in isolation as it's rather meaningless in isolation -- it has no 'goal' or anything that is providing definition for it to tie to).

So, I am speaking here as INFJ (or rather - as one who identifies most with these dichotomies as well as NJ / FJ temperaments rather than others), and I'm purposefully (actually I do this most of the time on here) speaking of my own views and how I see it -- because we all know at this point my just spewing What NiFe is like according to theory is not going to get us anywhere we haven't already been --- per all of the other threads and simply cutting and pasting the same function definitions over and over again.

It's first important to remember that as an introvert, anything extroverted is not the 'priority' per se. Fe is simply what is latched onto moreso than Te in terms of 'honing' Ni or being the focus of Ni. Ti will often put a harsher edge on pure Fe 'reactions'; Ti hones and provides nuance to what otherwise might be really across-the-board generalities . I do not mean this in a negative way - I mean that Ti can logically break down social interactions, deduce things, helps in bringing structure and sense to an otherwise loopy suspicion or belief/hunch that Ni might be by itself, and might add caveats to what could otherwise be an 'Always give people a second chance' Fe way of interacting with people (this example doesn't even make sense but hopefully you get the idea - I'm too tired to come up with a better one).

Personally I think Fe ties to all sorts of things outside of being purely tied to social interaction. With NiFe it becomes almost an abstraction in less everyday sort of interactions -- it's looking at society as an almost impersonalized 'thing' and all of the pieces going into it, all of the various personalities, all of the variability and tendencies, needs, wants, what people do under stress, what people do when less stressed, what tends to happen in groups when X is done, when Y is done, what can cause a chain reaction, all of that -- it's projecting on a large scale what is likely to happen; chain reactions, ripple effects, if these people do this, those people will likely start thinking that, which will make them do this, which will .... etc etc).

I have no input on how Fe ties to aesthetics/art, other than if someone has the desire to impact things in a certain way - create a certain 'vibe' for a building, for a group of people, for a party, whatnot, then the act of assessing how to create the proper desired 'vibe' might have ties to Fe. No idea here, just making stuff up.

Philosophy and religion - think it ties to my paragraph on large-scale views of humanity and the world; it's people-centric, though, factoring in human emotion and personality and differences probably moreso than Te naturally would. What People/societies need psychologically to function; religion is often a psychological/emotional necessity for most people, for example. Not to say INTJ's cannot do this; INTJ's can have a good read on the 'human element', but it ends up being more along the lines of Ayn Rand visions (which in all honesty are incredibly depressing) vs, hmm, not able to come up with a good similar comparison from an INFJ.

Here is something from my old original type thread, way way long ago in the history of typc. Several ppl chimed in at that time that it was NiFe, mostly, and an INTJ stated it was mostly Ni since he'd written many things similar to it before. Simply sharing it here to illustrate that for an INFJ (or INTJ) it's more difficult to parse out the Fe in a super meaningful way where they relate to the descriptions of Fe, because INFJ isn't driven by Fe in the first place. Also I should add that I am including it here because I think it helps illustrate an answer to your question of INFJ's and religion/philosophy -- I wrote like 60+ pages of this stuff back in 2003/2004 and it's a similar vein -- all focused on 'the people' and 'the world' and 'all of these people' and etc etc. Very people-focused, in short. Very everyone-else externally focused; not focused on my own inner landscape outside of pulling these thoughts out of it and writing them. Though this blip of it isn't religion or philosophy per se, the manner of assessing things was similar when I wrote about those topics (as opposed to.... efficiency focused? optimization focused?)

Edit: And I again am *in no way* implying other INFJ's here or elsewhere will agree with all of the above, and I suspect they certainly won't agree with all of the below - after all we're not all clones.

...However, the problem is that when this attitude arises - this attitude of not accepting any responsibility for ones own piece of the puzzle, and blaming one of the other pieces - society molds itself around this attitude. The lawsuits, the rules, the red tape, the bureaucracy. It's always someone elses fault, and again, people want to take the easy way out; the way that requires the least amount of effort on their part. People don't have any thoughts or opinions of their own, but rather they take on, as their own, the thoughts and opinions of others. Now, it is perfectly fine to agree with others, and to find others who share the same thoughts and feelings as yourself. But it is not perfectly fine to have thoughts and opinions that you have no reason for having, other than the fact that someone else - some authority figure - has them, which means that they are valid and right. If you did not at some point question why you agree with so and so, or why you believe that so and so is right, and independently, out of your own critical thinking, reach the same conclusion, then you have no basis for your thoughts, and they are meaningless. So am I angry at those who do not think and are not independent? Yes. Do I recognize that a good percentage of people are not intelligent enough to understand all of this and they don't even know that they are doing this (not thinking)? Yes. Do I realize that it is a complicated world and many people have many more daily struggles of survival than I? Yes. But these people are often the same ones who do not take any responsibility for their own actions. These are the people who prefer to let someone or something else take care of them. These are the people who expect something/someone outside of themselves to fix things. It is a circle. The people feed off of the books and news stories and tv shows, they come to accept these things and believe in them, and because they accept and believe and don't question, there is a demand for more of it, and it continues on, and our culture becomes more silly, irrational, dependent, and lacking its own judgement. But how did I get here? Well, it's something that can't be resolved - I'm angry at the masses because they don't think, but this anger is not true anger, as I also know (or don't see how) it could never be anything different from this. I think this is humanity, and the majority of people are not going to think, for many possible reasons. And the majority of people do not believe in personal accountability; in other words, they do not recognize their responsibility in any given situation. I am angry at this, and this is inexcusable for all of these people to be like this, but I think this is how it is. - 06/24/2004

The above is what I believe. It is inexcusable for people not to think, and for people not to take responsibility for their actions. It is inexcusable for people to make excuses. That said, there is a segment of the population that is, mentally, helpless. I am not speaking of these individuals - those who are still children (by age only; those who are still unaware of much, and can be easily molded), and those who are mentally handicapped, whether from birth or through old age. Adults who manipulate and take advantage of this naievity because they know they can are moral wretches. The young and elderly are easy victims, and anyone who takes advantage of the truly helpless is utterly in the wrong. This is an absolute. [Tangent: This also could be the introduction to a discussion on education and environment - exactly what are the young being taught to regard as the truth? The fields of study with the most drastic implication for being taught incorrectly, or untruthfully, are history and science...ironically, even current events. And unfortunately - but something which is to be expected - religion for a vast number of people is elevated higher than education. Religion is stated as absolute, and fields such as science and history are considered relative.] By the time one is an adult (I will not debate what this age is, because this is a matter of opinion, and of culture), one moves beyond the point where he can use excuses in his life. He is fully responsible for his actions and reactions, and the chain reaction that happens as a result of every action, and he must accept the results, because he helped bring them about. And of course, there are certain things that could happen to someone where he played no role in bringing it about, such as another apartment tenant leaving a candle burning and causing the entire building to burn to the ground, or natural disasters, etc etc. But I'm speaking of everything that does not involve this carelessness by someone else, mindless destruction, or randomness. If that particular adult refuses to see or accept his responsibility, and instead blames things on his past, or on his parents, or on his colleagues, or on his inept decisions, or on the devil, or on God, or on whomever he feels has caused him injustice, then he is still a child and will not easily receive respect from me. I'm speaking of situations that directly impact a person's life. Situations outside of a person's capacity to change or impact cannot be blamed on that individual, as such. World and national politics and the specific decisions that are made by those in power are completely outside of most people's hands, and these people therefore have the right to complain, and protest, and demand changes and improvements, if they disagree. And to not complain or demand, if given the opportunity, would be a denial, and would be hypocritical and inexcusable, and that person would then have no right to voice any opinion on the matter in the future. The other issue, which I alluded to earlier, is that our society has become so backwards that I don't see how it would be conceivable to get it fixed. Because it is so backwards, there are a lot of "people problems" that are getting worse. But back to accountability. I will give a few examples, and let it be known that I do believe there is a very small percentage of the population that have mental illnesses or addictions that are a result of genetic makeup, and this very small percentage should be on medication to manage their disposition. Example 1. The huge numbers of overweight people in the US. They will blame the diet fads that don't work, the fact that they're pre-disposed, genetically, to weight gain and that it's not fair that skinny people don't have this problem, the fact that they don't have time to exercise, the fact that restaurants serve unhealthy food, the fact that weight has always been an issue and they can't keep it off, etc. But these same people don't watch what they eat, they cave in and have a late night snack, they skimp on exercising, they purchase junk food, they eat out several times a week, and they live for short term results. They have no discipline, and they aren't willing to change their lifestyle. Example 2. There are so many personality "disorders" out there now that people are given prescriptions for. This is just a theory, but I think a very plausible one. It is much more comforting to believe one has some sort of disorder that isn't one's fault and which is magically the reason for all of one's problems, rather than going through the extremely lengthy, painful, and difficult process of becoming aware of yourself and your personality, making lifestyle adjustments to better cope with it, and really digging into your problems to find the reason behind them and dealing with your emotions and issues firsthand.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I wanted to click like on this post, but remember something about you not liking that?

I want to address this, because I think it might actually be a good example of how 'Fe' plays out in me, but I'll spoiler it because it's not the primary question you're asking here.

It doesn't even remotely bother me if someone uses the 'like' button on my posts. My 'like' anxiety is about how it makes others feel when I do/don't like their posts, it's not about getting or not getting them myself. I don't pay attention to it, I have notifications turned off and it only comes to my attention when someone says something. It's interesting to me that somehow others got the impression that I actively prefer others not 'liking' my posts, because I've explicitly stated (repeatedly, every time someone says it ) it's kinda the opposite of what's true. I do realize that it's just an automatic way to express oneself, and my only active preference in this regard (whether or not others use the button) is for people to do whatever they want/whatever is easiest for them. It's kind of funny to me that somehow the opposite of that stuck in others' minds - that I would get annoyed or something. It's as if there's a tone I'm deaf to and somehow others got the idea that I'm particularly sensitive to it, so they're more careful about not making that sound around me - when the truth is I'm the last person to be careful about it with because I just don't hear it. (On one hand, I explain this every time and it's frustrating to not be heard. On the other hand, it's interesting and somewhat farcical that someone will read this and walk away thinking, "Shit, I gotta remember to not like that woman's posts, because she will have a bad reaction.....to this thing that she doesn't even know is happening.")

*Anyway*.

In regard to how I think it pairs up with the INFJ/Fe topic though: I stopped using the 'like' button myself, a while ago, because anticipating the reaction it causes feels like too much work to me - precisely because of the 'Rube Goldberg'/too much info to process issue. If three people respond to something I've posted, and I only like two of the responses - especially if the person whose response wasn't particularly very stimulating to me doesn't get responded to very much, doesn't get their posts 'liked' very much, etc. - then the 'potential consequence' of ostracizing that person makes the whole thing feel like too much work to me. I'd like the 'like' button if it were private - if only the people receiving the 'likes' could see the 'likes'. But I have a difficult time blocking out the 'potential consequences' of the public spectacle of it all, so I block it out all together and don't pay attention. And since I stopped paying attention to it, no kidding, I enjoy posting here more.

Now, this doesn't seem to be an issue that other INFJs have, so it's really just an example of how the 'Rube Goldberg contraption of interpersonal consequences' plays out in me. Though similar concerns were stated about the 'like' button back when there were public discussions about whether or not this forum should start using it, I think I might be the only INFJ who had to start ignoring it.

I'm actually hoping that you might have some insight into the question I made about how Fe applies to the world of judging ideas and concepts of a more subjective value-based nature. I do think I'm onto something that Fe descriptions are almost always socially imbedded more than the other judging functions. We look at Fi as how it holds moral ideals, and then the way it imposes them socially is secondary. Ti is almost never described in how it applies socially, and Te is always discussed in terms of ideas where we don't typically expect an INTJ to have any particular social needs. I get why Fe could be argued to be the most naturally skilled at social navigation because people are subjective and value based in their behaviors, but I do think Fe has overlaid with assumptions about traditionally defined extroversion and that it is incorrect. In the same way a strong Te person could be asocial and apply Te to how they judge and process ideas they encounter, perhaps a Fe person could mostly apply extroverted value judgment to how they process ideas without assuming a greater need to interact socially. How does Fe process the values and aesthetics of the history of painting or music, how does it incorporate the values of Beethoven or Monet as different from Fi? This is a very interesting question to me. And I am looking forward to your input and the input from everyone else.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question (I assume emphasis is on the bolded), but I'll answer what I *think* you're asking. (Lol? And though I'm clearly only truly working with knowing my own POV, I'm going on what I've perceived myself to have in common with other INFJs.)

I'm kind of stuck on whether there is any difference, ultimately, in how different types 'process' values or aesthetics? Except maybe in speed. I mean, I can see difference in how that processing is expressed, and/or the extent to which a person might need the valuation to be a group process (i.e. extroverted vs. introverted - and frankly, I'm not convinced it's really Fe vs. Fi so much as just E vs. I). There are times when a need to 'get' the value of a popular thing comes across more like insecurity to me than actual extraversion though - like there's some fear (or something) that one is not 'incorporating' the information the right way unless it's similar to the way everyone else is doing it (at least, those who have the appearance of doing it 'correctly'). The actual appreciation though - that highly subjective reaction itself - I'm guessing that's universal?

As far as expression of processing meets INFJ:

I can remember it being said in the older threads that Ni has a sort of cloud of 'blankness' around it. The 'Rube Goldberg contraption of interpersonal information' takes up a lot of internal space, and in and of itself it's actually an attempt to sort information objectively (as objectively as interpersonal information can be sorted). There's a sort of aversion to classifying things directly as right/wrong or good/bad - rather, it takes notes on how others classify things as right/wrong or good/bad, but I think it looks like "blankness" because it's relatively devoid of such value judgments in itself. I do not think these values are internalized as they are observed (and mistaken as one's own, which is what the typical Fe description would suggest) so much as cataloged as potentially useful information which gets used to navigate the external environment. The experience is subjective by nature, but there's an inherent compulsion to maintain an as-objective-as-possible viewpoint of what's happening around me, between people. In fact, there's a kind of anxiety that surfaces when that objective 'footing' feels slippery.

And so personally, in regard to ingesting (?) art and aesthetics and/or the meaning it's attempting to convey - at least, for me - I think anything that strikes me in that subjective way tends to travel slowly through the Rube Goldberg, where the information is distilled down to some core of its affect. I do like discussing that affect, but typically only with those whose opinions tend to help that subjective process (who perceive it similarly enough that their opinion contributes to my processing, instead of distracting from it). I do get enthralled when I find someone whose aesthetic so closely matches my own that their voice enhances that processing, rather than distracting from it - so I do indeed get something valuable/meaningful out of sharing that meaning with others - but for me, understanding the subjective impact of the affect takes precedence over bonding over the affect. As far as what makes people chase the deeply subjective affect vs. bonding over affect (i.e. chasing solitary meaning vs. chasing 'connecting' meaning?), I'm not sure. It might not even be a question of E vs. I so much as a person's personal attachment tendencies (how they form attachments to others).

I actually have no idea if this answers your question. Or if it even makes sense.

I have been somewhat interested lately in Amanda Palmer's twitter feed because her approach to chasing meaning is so different from mine. I'm guessing she's ENFP. There's an element of her presence that's constantly in need of feeling connected (?) to the audience. Or something. It's like her 'art' is built on the connection. It's very fluid. She interacts immediately to information - like information hits her already defined enough to interact with, which is something I can't begin to understand because it takes me forever to give shape to things that cause an emotional reaction in me. I'll come back later and post some screen shots of what I'm talking about (that has to be done from my phone).

 

[Coriolis]

Here's another question - in what ways is Fe experienced and expressed outside the context of social interactions with people? Couldn't one argue that Te and Fe would be equivalent in terms of social expression but different in their focus on logic/objective vs values/subjective information processing and judgement? Could Fe be ideas based to the same degree as Te? Could Te be as socially based to the same degree as Fe? Is there a reason they would be different both being Je and both dealing with external environment whatever that happens to be?

Many social interactions are Te-based. Managerial styles can be Te, cops, judges, lawyers, professors, casual social exchanges of ideas and debates, these can all be conducted with pure Te and they are all fundamentally social exchanges.

So then how is Fe applied to aesthetics and art, philosophy and religion? I find in discussions that Fe is socially defined and Te idea based. I don't see how this is consistent with the theory. In the same way an INTJ can be idea based and not socially based - couldn't an INFJ also be idea based and not socially based in its expression of Fe?

Both Fe and Te can be based in or focused on ideas, but the ideas might be different in nature, and pursued for different reasons. In your coffee shop example, I would have been annoyed, too, because removal of the separate chairs made the small tables less usable for other customers. So, my focus is on the lost utility, but the result might be the same. I suppose what I am saying is that the social aspect of it is not important, or is at most buried in the utility given that having a chair on the other side of the table serves mostly to enable two people to sit together.