[NF] Fi vs. Fe: What do YOU really feel?

[beyondaurora]

I believe the reason was to understand her type and herself better. But Jack is right. The action may not even be type related. Why use type theory to explain a human problem? She is uncomfortable with him calling her honey. The reasons for this can be anything from past relationships, a bad association with the word, a sacred association with the word, past feelings brought back by the word, a fear of the unknown, feeling uncomfortable with men, a defensive need for self protection, etc. Why would it be about Fi vs Fe any more than these other things? Why would suppressed feelings due to a troubled past be about either also? That's a human reaction to avoid pain. The emotions don't come out with it sometimes because they rip to the core. Not just for INFJs, but for every type. Type is about cognitive functions, how you take in data and process it. What interface was put in for connecting with self and the world. It says nothing about emotions. An example is the INTP who has Fe as inferior. If you broke up his family he would be as distressed as any INFJ would. His feelings of loss would run just as deep.

The important thing to realise is not everyone works the same as you, but they are all humans. Anything human is shared by all the types. It is just styles of expression and approach that are not. Many people who scare you just work differently, but they are people. They may show it less when you kick them in the head and stuff, but they still feel it. And when it comes to bad people, you can ask any ENFP the number of times they have looked into someone's soul and seen pure evil, they will probably say never. But people often are too scared to look deep enough to see anything different. Life is easier and less complicated if you can write people off and keep it in black and white. And according to the media and some the streets are full of evil.

I think what I'm trying to say, is if you are trying to type yourself, it isn't the right way. If you are trying to fix underlying issues in your life, look at them from a human perspective, and look at others from a human perspective. Type can help you see how people work, but the issues attack at a deeper level.

Ugh. I feel so misunderstood by you and Jack Flak.

The examples I used were just a couple of many floating around in my head.

Perhaps I should have used the examples of not walking on someone's grass or dressing appropriately for a job interview.

I have an interest in learning about the functions. I do not clearly understand Fi and Fe and wondered whether my observations were related to Fe as I understood them to be.

Look, I may be off base in my assessments of the functions, but writing my post off as 'irrelevant' as Jack Flak did, and trying to assign my experiences to 'a troubled past' without at least responding to the possibility of these experiences being attributed to the cognitive processes in question as you did, is frustrating as hell.

 

[BlueScreen]

Example: My mother was abusive and negligent. My siblings and I were taken away. How do I feel about that?

The truth is, I don't feel much of anything, but based on the circumstances, if someone asked me how I felt about the situation, I would say 'well, she was abusive and negligent!' as though those factors alone (without any interpretation by me) embody 'feeling'. ?

So the past didn't trouble you and feelings that aren't felt aren't suppressed?

My point was what do cognitive processes have to do with it? These aren't cognitive process related issues. That is just what I wrote a post about. If you don't feel anything about the past you are suppressing the feelings. Or have dealt with them and are at home with them. If you don't like what the guy in the store says to you then you don't like it. It is individual, human, choice, environmental influence, whatever other words describe the real world. I don't see how cognitive functions are relevant, and that is what Jack was saying. There wasn't a misinterpretation. He just read into it more, and saw it had little to do with them. Note that not walking on grass and dressing appropriately for a job are also personal choice.

Maybe if I put it like this. I see an infinite landscape, you see down an infinitely deep well. Both are the world. Each type sees the world in different ways, what we do with those visions is our own. You can look at certain situations as common projection of the underlying visions, but only in a broad fashion. Maybe as a trend toward something; not specific actions. Because both Bob and I see the same painting we don't both walk off down the same street with the same impression.

 

[Skyward]

So the past didn't trouble you and feelings that aren't felt aren't suppressed?

My point was what do cognitive processes have to do with it? These aren't cognitive process related issues. That is just what I wrote a post about. If you don't feel anything about the past you are suppressing the feelings. Or have dealt with them and are at home with them. If you don't like what the guy in the store says to you then you don't like it. It is individual, human, choice, environmental influence, whatever other words describe the real world. I don't see how cognitive functions are relevant, and that is what Jack was saying. There wasn't a misinterpretation. He just read into it more, and saw it had little to do with them.

This is one of the tougher things to distinguish, and from what Ive learned, it's a lot more relaxing when you can say 'I just don't like it' and don't have to attribute it to some internal type function all the time. There's still closure but it isn't forced into the rigid MBTI framework.

 

[Apollanaut]

What I've said a hundred times is that people (and now you, specifically) are redefining the functions based on what you do. If you thought your primary function were Ti, you'd be calling it that instead of Ni. Clear as day.

But that's not what I was doing! I am very clear on which behaviours fall within which specific type function, according to the descriptions of numerous professionals at the Jungian end of the typology field (and let's not forget that Jung himself was the first to explicitly set out to describe them in a scholarly fashion).

Even before Jung, observant people had been noticing distinct categories of human behaviour and modes of thinking for thousands of years - sufficient to make informed guesses as to how an individual (or even a society) is likely to behave in a given context. Psychology itself would be impossible without some form of categorisation, however artificial or constrained.

In the last few years, a number of extremely astute people have given special attention to winnowing out the eight Jungian type functions from the mass of data presented by the average human being. I'm referring to analysts such as John Beebe and especially to the author and type expert Lenore Thomson, whose excellent reference book "Personality Type, An Owner's manual" is still my primary source of reference for the nature of the functions.

The fact is that many people see this model as an elegant and useful description of human nature; it is not simply a theory or hypothesis, it has actual, practical value in helping people to understand both themselves and others. For this reason, I shall continue to study, comment on and utilise the 8 function model until something even better comes along (any suggestions?)

 

[LostInNerSpace]

The meaning of this analysis (Which is coincidentally a lot closer to being Ni-derived than the above quote) is that the function prescription is only minded superficially, and it's completely unnecessary. Analysis of the type INFJ is enough, and it's what you're doing, regardless.

I didn't really understand what you were saying before, but this is what I tend to do. That is why I have not bothered to learn functional dominance in much depth. I go by the profiles.

 

[Apollanaut]

Look, I may be off base in my assessments of the functions, but writing my post off as 'irrelevant' as Jack Flak did, and trying to assign my experiences to 'a troubled past' without at least responding to the possibility of these experiences being attributed to the cognitive processes in question as you did, is frustrating as hell.

You are NOT off base in your understanding of the functions! Quite the contrary, you were spot-on in your assessment, according to the leading experts in the field of cognitive dynamics. I and many others have found the type function model to be far more than just a nice, tidy abstract theory.

It has real, proven value for helping us to understand a huge range of human behaviours and modes of cognitive processing from the inside out. This understanding can then be applied by a skilled practitioner to devise novel yet practical solutions for a range of the seemingly-eternal dilemmas of the human condition, possibly for the first time ever! Does that sound like something worth pursuing in the face of inevitable skepticism and nit-picking?

(Oh dear, I've stepped back on to my INFJ soapbox once more!)

 

[Jeffster]

Fe is contained in the word Feel.

If you use Fi, then it comes out as Fiel. Which doesn't quite look right. But...but..that's how I fiel dammit!!

Now, you know what it's like to be dominated by Fi.

*bows*

 

[Apollanaut]

There is an activity that I really enjoy doing when I'm feeling especially hard on myself. I take a piece of paper, close my eyes, and begin scribbling until I feel done. I open my eyes and look at the scribble to see what image emerges between its spaces. I then fill in the image with watercolor paints. It's been an amazing discovery for me! I always feel much lighter after this activity.

Perfect! This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I was thinking of (gets a self-gratifying shiver-down-spine at the uncanny accuracy of his own awesome Ni powers)

 

[G-Virus]

Seconded. Sounds like Fe to me. Relevance? None.

Troll Much?

It was a simple question, does this resemble Fe or Fi . . . No one asked for your input in determining if this is important or relevant. You have already discussed your theory on this over 10^3 times in many other posts so this was just a redundancy and needless shitting on a thread that was personal to someone.

I know you can't help it, but try to limit the trolling just a bit buddy.

 

[cascadeco]

I believe the reason was to understand her type and herself better. But Jack is right. The action may not even be type related. Why use type theory to explain a human problem? She is uncomfortable with him calling her honey. The reasons for this can be anything from past relationships, a bad association with the word, a sacred association with the word, past feelings brought back by the word, a fear of the unknown, feeling uncomfortable with men, a defensive need for self protection, etc. Why would it be about Fi vs Fe any more than these other things? Why would suppressed feelings due to a troubled past be about either also? That's a human reaction to avoid pain. The emotions don't come out with it sometimes because they rip to the core. Not just for INFJs, but for every type. Type is about cognitive functions, how you take in data and process it. What interface was put in for connecting with self and the world. It says nothing about emotions. An example is the INTP who has Fe as inferior. If you broke up his family he would be as distressed as any INFJ would. His feelings of loss would run just as deep.

I think what I'm trying to say, is if you are trying to type yourself, it isn't the right way. If you are trying to fix underlying issues in your life, look at them from a human perspective, and look at others from a human perspective. Type can help you see how people work, but the issues attack at a deeper level.

I think this is an awesome post.

Not to take away from what you're wanting to learn, beyondaurora - just wanted to comment on this post because I think it's so true, just in a general sense. What he's saying isn't really even specific to the OP, so I don't think it was a dig at your questions or the thread or anything. I think he was just speaking generally - but yeah, it wasn't really the info you were seeking.

I'm a poor person to get info from when it comes to cognitive functions, as I'm afraid I've gone to the dark side and don't really buy into much of it a whole lot anymore, and end up throwing in a lot of caveats and other non-mbti psychological stuff and all of that. But according to standard theory, Apollanaut's suggestions on authors to pursue is a good one, and others in here have given good tips on Fe vs. Fi.

 

[Jack Flak]

Look, I may be off base in my assessments of the functions, but writing my post off as 'irrelevant' as Jack Flak did, and trying to assign my experiences to 'a troubled past' without at least responding to the possibility of these experiences being attributed to the cognitive processes in question as you did, is frustrating as hell.

Try being a lone voice of reason in the dark sometime.

The difference remains irrelevant to everyone but the historian, even though they may refuse to believe it.

But that's not what I was doing! I am very clear on which behaviours fall within which specific type function, according to the descriptions of numerous professionals at the Jungian end of the typology field (and let's not forget that Jung himself was the first to explicitly set out to describe them in a scholarly fashion).

Even before Jung, observant people had been noticing distinct categories of human behaviour and modes of thinking for thousands of years - sufficient to make informed guesses as to how an individual (or even a society) is likely to behave in a given context. Psychology itself would be impossible without some form of categorisation, however artificial or constrained.

In the last few years, a number of extremely astute people have given special attention to winnowing out the eight Jungian type functions from the mass of data presented by the average human being. I'm referring to analysts such as John Beebe and especially to the author and type expert Lenore Thomson, whose excellent reference book "Personality Type, An Owner's manual" is still my primary source of reference for the nature of the functions.

The fact is that many people see this model as an elegant and useful description of human nature; it is not simply a theory or hypothesis, it has actual, practical value in helping people to understand both themselves and others. For this reason, I shall continue to study, comment on and utilise the 8 function model until something even better comes along (any suggestions?)

Oh, you don't get it, I see. The above analysts have only tread new ground in the wrong direction, by sticking with Jung's nomenclature and distorting the definitions so that they may coincide more closely with actual type function. I, on the other hand, altered the nomenclature, and described what I saw. To insist on using the useless, antiquated model isn't even better than nothing. It results in people gaining confidence of understanding, when they really have none at all.

Troll Much?

It was a simple question, does this resemble Fe or Fi . . . No one asked for your input in determining if this is important or relevant. You have already discussed your theory on this over 10^3 times in many other posts so this was just a redundancy and needless shitting on a thread that was personal to someone.

I know you can't help it, but try to limit the trolling just a bit buddy.

Thanks, I'll be fine without your Fe.

I posted here only to help, because as should be obvious to you if you open your eyes, knowing whether a specific action was the result of "Fe" or "Fi" does not help people determine their type correctly.

 

[Totenkindly]

I figure this is all part of a balancing system.

Some posts might be helpful or unhelpful.
Some, relevant or irrelevant.
Some might have been helpful if delivered differently, or in a different context; but in the manner or location in which they were offered might have become unhelpful or irrelevant to the expressed need.

If someone finds a post helpful or relevant, they'll respond to it.
If not, they'll ignore it.

Unhelpful and/or irrelevant posts should be ignored rather than engaged.

(Hmm, bonus question: Wth function am I using now?)

In that way, the system stabilizes itself...

 

[Jack Flak]

I figure this is all part of a balancing system.

Some posts might be helpful or unhelpful.
Some, relevant or irrelevant.
Some might have been helpful if delivered differently, or in a different context; but in the manner or location in which they were offered might have become unhelpful or irrelevant to the expressed need.

If someone finds a post helpful or relevant, they'll respond to it.
If not, they'll ignore it.

Unhelpful and/or irrelevant posts should be ignored rather than engaged.

(Hmm, bonus question: Wth function am I using now?)

In that way, the system stabilizes itself...

That would be Ni/Fe.

(I say so as if I'm completely confident because no one here can prove me incorrect.)

 

[Snow Turtle]

(Hmm, bonus question: Wth function am I using now?)

For giggles.

Three scenarios. I'd say it's Ti with Fe as main motivator. There's the possability that Fe does not even play a factor in it however.

In more normal speech...

1)Getting rid of the conflict by presenting truth. - Ti with Fe primary (Alt. Possibility: Fe/Ti may be generated by Fi)
2)It could just be a desire to point out truth in general generated by Fi, desire to express the self. Fe irrelevant.
3)A combination of 1) and 2) with focus on 2) but having 1) as an additional bonus so to speak.

It's impossible to determine the exact motivations from just that post. Ti is definitely being used. Fe/Fi is more ambigious, in how they interact or whether they are being played. Not to mention that Fi and Fe values can often adopt and become very similar.

Ni/Ne/Se/Si/Te doesn't seem to play a major role in this discussion (even if they are being used.)

 

[nightning]

I figure this is all part of a balancing system.

Some posts might be helpful or unhelpful.
Some, relevant or irrelevant.
Some might have been helpful if delivered differently, or in a different context; but in the manner or location in which they were offered might have become unhelpful or irrelevant to the expressed need.

If someone finds a post helpful or relevant, they'll respond to it.
If not, they'll ignore it.

All of above = Ti. Merely describing the existing system

Unhelpful and/or irrelevant posts should be ignored rather than engaged. Why? Answer question and you see whether it's Te or Fe... My Ni say I should bet on Fe though.

In that way, the system stabilizes itself...

 

[CzeCze]

I think what Jack is saying is that regardless of whether or not you can correctly assign any function to an action (which he says you can't), that alone is anecdotal in your overall pattern of being and your overall pattern of being = you.

Profiles are more useful because they take a snapshot of the overall pattern. Just picking and choosing particular instances in your life where you've used Fe over Fi or Ti over Te will wil make you just choose those instances that give back up the answer (type) that you want to be.

Is that it?

Having said that, I think what Beyond Aurora and Apollonaut (sp, sorry) is saying is different. They're saying they just want to flesh out and understand the functions themselves and learn how to discern the motivations and thinking behind a function.

True, functions don't exist in a vaccuum in people (just like you never do something solely because you're a man or just because you're Amish)

However, function analysis is theoretical and you need to theoretically piece together the parts (functions) to make the whole (profile) and make it applicable. Or work from the macro to the micro and break down human behavior and patterns into interlocking/interchangeable pieces to create a system of predictability/understand...eability (yes that's a word)

So I don't understand how you could even say you believe in type theory if you don't even believe in the functions?

I'm confused.

Again, I don't think what Jack/Noigm is saying and Aurora/Apollonaut are in opposition to one another. I personally find it really useful, even in theory, even for conjecture, and especially when the exercise has been couched that way -- to try to understand the functions. I don't think BeyondAurora is saying, "I think I used Fe therefore I am INFJ" she's just trying to understand her own motivations for thinking and acting within an MBT framework.

For instance, I have no idea how Ni operates. So if someone were to give me really pedestrian, accessible anecdotes from real life for examples, that would help me understand it a lot. There's a fine line between theory and reality and extrapolation and application but I think as long as people understand that, this kind of questioning can be very useful.

 

[CzeCze]

PS - I am total type newbie. It's like an esoteric science to me. I have no idea what type counselors and therapists would think of most of the conversations we have on this forum. So just speaking in laymen's terms, I personally like conversations trying to parse out the differences between functions.

 

[Jack Flak]

Which Ti, Jung or everyone else?

 

[nightning]

I only know of one Ti, and it's not socionics.

 

[Jack Flak]

I only know of one Ti, and it's not socionics.

Since Socionics is based more closely on Jung's definitions than Myers-Briggs is, I assume you mean "everybody else," in which case you're closer to being correct--Since "everybody else" doesn't know shins from Shinola.