[Fe] An ENTP Fe Demand

[onemoretime]

Woo, you guys can do that?

How come?




(The Fi analogue in my own behaviour? Perhaps those times when I chill right down and deliberately count the other person as an obstacle rather than an individual. If I'm especially confident, it can include sneering. But that's Te/Fi on the rag and doesn't happen much because it's costly.)

Because they pissed me off, so fuck that asshole. Honestly, that's the only rationale behind it. It's the most irrational part behind our character - any offense must be met with completely disproportionate retaliation, because, quite frankly, I don't play that shit. That's all there is to it.

I'll put it this way - Tommy DeVito from Goodfellas was a perfect example of a sociopathic ENTP. Usually fun and gregarious, but if you crossed him, he'd make sure that you're dead.

 

[entropie]

One presumes it must exist, what with Fe being the relief function. But what does it amount to? All I think I'm immediately aware of is ENTPs don't like having their sincerity questioned.

Or do you?

Needs only one tad bit of change, namely: their "presumed sincerity".

Besides that, it was perfect

 

[Kalach]

So-o-o-o... what pisses you guys off, generally speaking?





(Full Disclosure: this topic was prompted by wondering who was likely to be able to discuss Fe well or at least be able to promote discussion of Fe as a function. Theory says "ENTPs will!" because it's relief for you guys. Utilitarian much? Yeah well, it sorta kinda maybe worked for INTJ and Fi, so...)

 

[Kalach]

So, where to being? With arbitrary claims! Fi is emotional awareness of individual functioning. Fe is emotional awareness of group dynamics. How hard can it be to describe? A "group" is any number of persons more than one; "emotional awareness" is any partisan reaction in the individual; "dynamics" includes both static and interactive states.

Hypothesis: ENTPs need groups of people to be harmonious by and large for thinking to actually operate, Ti being more about truth chains than concrete facts, meaning it's better for people to be pleasant while following truth who knows where because goodwill works better than ill. Ill will might send the truth search off into lying territory and we wouldn't know until the contradiction was found.

 

[jenocyde]

Because they pissed me off, so fuck that asshole. Honestly, that's the only rationale behind it. It's the most irrational part behind our character - any offense must be met with completely disproportionate retaliation, because, quite frankly, I don't play that shit. That's all there is to it.

Oh god, yes. I found myself about to take a 12 year old to task once and was so utterly ashamed (amused) with myself.

So, where to being? With arbitrary claims! Fi is emotional awareness of individual functioning. Fe is emotional awareness of group dynamics. How hard can it be to describe? A "group" is any number of persons more than one; "emotional awareness" is any partisan reaction in the individual; "dynamics" includes both static and interactive states.

Not sure I agree the group dynamic part. Meaning "group" vs. any person who is not myself. It could be just the one. Where Fi seems completely self absorbed, on the flip side, I am completely absorbed in the other. This stuff, this retaliation stuff, is the negative aspect. But I have been known to starve myself with a smile on my face in order to loan money to someone in a way that won't make them feel guilty. When I care about feelings at all, I am more likely to care more about how someone else is feeling than I am to care about my own feelings. My rationale is usually of the "Well, I'm strong and I can take it, but this person would break under the same circumstances, so I will sacrifice myself for him/her" variety.

Hypothesis: ENTPs need groups of people to be harmonious by and large for thinking to actually operate, Ti being more about truth chains than concrete facts, meaning it's better for people to be pleasant while following truth who knows where because goodwill works better than ill. Ill will might send the truth search off into lying territory and we wouldn't know until the contradiction was found.

No. Saying something is a need is not the same as saying it is better. And I don't completely understand that last sentence you wrote.

And why is Ti not about concrete facts?

 

[Kalach]

Not sure I agree the group dynamic part. Meaning "group" vs. any person who is not myself. It could be just the one.

Yup. The idea of "group" includes the ENTP as a group member. So, you plus the other(s).

Fe isn't about group dynamics in that sense?

And why is Ti not about concrete facts?

Honestly? I have no idea. I have the impression Te is anchored to objects while Ti is about anything that can be talked about, but it works better if it's about unanchored truth, truth that came from other truths, which came from other truths, which came from nowhere, we just started talking about it.

 

[jenocyde]

Yup. The idea of "group" includes the ENTP as a group member. So, you plus the other(s).

Fe isn't about group dynamics in that sense?

But do you get that it can be just about the other, without the ENTP being a part of that group?

And really, it's a relief function, not our way of life.

Honestly? I have no idea. I have the impression Te is anchored to objects while Ti is about anything that can be talked about, but it works better if it's about unanchored truth, truth that came from other truths, which came from other truths, which came from nowhere, we just started talking about it.

I was under the impression that on the most basic level Te is about organization and Ti is about analysis. You can organize truths and you can analyze objects.

You may be confusing things with your impression of Ne, in which case I would ask you to remember that Ti is not the exclusive playground of Ne users.

 

[Kalach]

But do you get that it can be just about the other, without the ENTP being a part of that group?

It still needs the ENTP (or Fe user) to be affected, doesn't it? "Affected" as in have the affective part of the feeling.

Unless I'm mighty, mighty mistaken and viewing Fe as if it being internal like Fi is somehow an important aspect.

And really, it's a relief function, not our way of life.

I reckon relief functions are a way of life. It seems like they govern a lot of how people do anything.

I was under the impression that on the most basic level Te is about organization and Ti is about analysis. You can organize truths and you can analyze objects.

Sure. But pragmatic organisation of truths sometimes loses truth and analysis of objects sometimes goes way too deep and loses the object.

You may be confusing things with your impression of Ne, in which case I would ask you to remember that Ti is not the exclusive playground of Ne users.

My impression of Ti is that coherence is more valuable than concreteness. The big ball of truths hangs together properly as a whole vs every sequence of inference ultimately rests on some foundation that doesn't need questioning.

 

[jenocyde]

Unless I'm mighty, mighty mistaken and viewing Fe as if it being internal like Fi is somehow an important aspect.

Most likely. Extroverted feeling is not very internal. It says so right in the name.

On a very general level everything is internal at some point, but my Fe is not usually conscious of how something will affect me, only how it will affect someone else.

I reckon relief functions are a way of life. It seems like they govern a lot of how people do anything.

Possibly. I'm still learning.

Sure. But pragmatic organisation of truths sometimes loses truth and analysis of objects sometimes goes way too deep and loses the object.

Yes. No one is as perfect as they think they are.

My impression of Ti is that coherence is more valuable than concreteness. The big ball of truths hangs together properly as a whole vs every sequence of inference ultimately rests on some foundation that doesn't need questioning.

Concreteness is the name of the game with Ti. It's all about precision, which is why INTPs are so fucking wordy. Inconsistencies are the one thing that will make their hair stand on end.

I know we are using the same words but I can't help feeling like we are talking about different things. Can you please define concreteness, coherence, truth and fact as you see it? Let's be as precise as possible.

 

[Kalach]

Most likely. Extroverted feeling is not very internal. It says so right in the name.

On a very general level everything is internal at some point, but my Fe is not usually conscious of how something will affect me, only how it will affect someone else.

Hmmm... the object of the feeling is outside the person. Still, I'm very, very curious about the affective part. (And I'm not at all sure what I mean by that.)

Concreteness is the name of the game with Ti. It's all about precision, which is why INTPs are so fucking wordy. Inconsistencies are the one thing that will make their hair stand on end.

I know we are using the same words but I can't help feeling like we are talking about different things. Can you please define concreteness, coherence, truth and fact as you see it? Let's be as precise as possible.

Do we have to? I know I'm going to be caught out for using circular definitions. By concreteness I think I mean no more than the subject of the thinking is recognised as a thing outside of the person. Actually, more than that--the subject of the thinking is understood to be composed of properties that can be discovered and once discovered don't need to be questioned (or if questioned, then the object ceases to the thing under discussion). Maybe Te accepts that there is a certain level of discussion beyond which discussion is pointless. For a Te discussion to work, some aspects of the discussion are logically primitive.

Ti, by contrast, I am assuming, allows everything to be discussed. Indeed, intends that everything will be discussed or the discussion cannot be considered adequate. As such, the key measure in Ti discussion is how well whatever is said in the discussion sits with (coheres with) EVERYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW IN TOTALITY!

I wonder if there's not a corresponding few things to say about Fe and Fi. Fe takes some level of feeling to be basic, or maybe that at some point the object of feeling is dissected only pointlessly, whereas Fi says YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT ARBITRARY LINE THERE! (And what that means, yes, you guessed it, I don't know. I'm just intuiting connections here.)

 

[Nat]

entps and fe.

1. an amazing social grace-they can seem very sincere and very sweet. but not artificially/used car salesman like an estp can. They use it much more smoothly. In meetings they can be exceptional at redirecting whole conversations, smoothing ruffled feathers, converting you to thier ideas. They can be very nice and polite. I am at the point that I enjoy this interaction, I play with them, but if they are not close, I do not trust them. Mt Fi cant help but respond and smile and interact, however my Te sits inside logically understanding the game. Often I think they are sincere-they do not know what they really want or feel-they are confused by thier own emo.

I see this in the ENTP at my work (people are completely bowled over by her when they meet her), but staff who work with her over time complain that she's completely fake - one day polite and nice, the next day ignoring everyone or having a complete fit.

I've tried very hard to get to know/understand her but it seems like there's no way to know if she genuinely likes you or is just playing with you to serve her own purposes....

 

[jenocyde]

Do we have to? I know I'm going to be caught out for using circular definitions. By concreteness I think I mean no more than the subject of the thinking is recognised as a thing outside of the person. Actually, more than that--the subject of the thinking is understood to be composed of properties that can be discovered and once discovered don't need to be questioned (or if questioned, then the object ceases to the thing under discussion). Maybe Te accepts that there is a certain level of discussion beyond which discussion is pointless. For a Te discussion to work, some aspects of the discussion are logically primitive.

Ti, by contrast, I am assuming, allows everything to be discussed. Indeed, intends that everything will be discussed or the discussion cannot be considered adequate. As such, the key measure in Ti discussion is how well whatever is said in the discussion sits with (coheres with) EVERYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW IN TOTALITY!

You mean kind of like how we are communicating now? For you, it's enough that certain words were thrown out and a general comprehension is assumed. For me, I need to know how your words match not only the general definition, but the definition in this specific context before I can continue.

I wonder if there's not a corresponding few things to say about Fe and Fi. Fe takes some level of feeling to be basic, or maybe that at some point the object of feeling is dissected only pointlessly, whereas Fi says YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT ARBITRARY LINE THERE! (And what that means, yes, you guessed it, I don't know. I'm just intuiting connections here.)

I think you are on to something. Fi is used in the same way as Ti, in my observation. Values and feelings change depending on the context, whereas with Fe, there is a general consensus of what is "good" and what is "bad", regardless of the current circumstance.

I see this in the ENTP at my work (people are completely bowled over by her when they meet her), but staff who work with her over time complain that she's completely fake - one day polite and nice, the next day ignoring everyone or having a complete fit.

I've tried very hard to get to know/understand her but it seems like there's no way to know if she genuinely likes you or is just playing with you to serve her own purposes....

You maybe shouldn't read so much into it. Her being engaging one moment and reclusive the next most likely has nothing to do with you or whomever she is conversing with at the moment. Most likely, she is engaging when her brain is clear of other things, and reclusive when her mind is busy processing something.

I find it also very difficult to like or dislike a person. I had a very short memory and a very short attention span. If my brain is clear and receptive and you are in front of me and are being pleasant, you will get the impression that I like you. If I am otherwise engaged, or you are acting douchebaggy, you will get the impression that I don't. Every time I see you, I look at you with a clean slate unless some horrible transgression has occurred. In which case, wait a few weeks for your slate to be clean again. Either way, I don't spend much time or energy thinking about if I like someone in general or not. I'm mostly neutral. You simply exist.

A lot of times people feel that they are close to me because I "confide" in them. But what they don't understand is that I just speak to whomever is in front of me. It could be you or it could be your mom, makes no difference if something is on my mind and I need to talk it through. Me "sharing" has nothing to do with me being close with you, or even liking you.

 

[Kalach]

What if it's true that Te thinking and Ti thinking differ seemingly in being coded to or free to wander away from... objects? For Te the discussion is done when the object's place in the external world of otherwise fixed objects is determined. For Ti, the discussion is never really done, ever, because there are no objects really, there are only concepts, and (one presumes) the depth and interconnectedness of concepts qua concepts is endless.

So now to Fe and Fi...

I assume that just as (he says hopefully) Fi is a partisan reaction to one's sense of the order of the inner system, Fe is a partisan reaction to one's sense of the order of the outer system. And for Fe, just as for Te, the feeling event is concluded when the correct place for an object in that outer world is determined (thought, in fact, not truly concluded until that object is in its correct place).

Now... "object" and "place" for Fe... respectively, in gross terms, people and relationships. In more subtle terms... smiles, gestures, body language, goals, hopes, dreams, organisations. Etc. Human stuff.

The affective part... when something is out of place, Fe feels bad. When something is in place, Fe feels good.


So but really, the objects of Fe and the organisation of those objects...

What are they?

 

[onemoretime]

There are no objects. It's purely reception and reaction to human-oriented stimuli. What you see as Fe manipulating others and being "fake" is actually Ti instructing us on what we need to do in reaction to others to accomplish a specific goal. Being Ne-dominants, we can do this on the fly. That's why it ends up seeming so cold and calculated over time - because it is, entirely.

 

[Kalach]

What? No. C'mon. There has to be objects. Maybe "objects" is the wrong word. The stuff about which Fe is about.

And don't say "feelings".

Oh wait. "Human-oriented stimuli." Hmmm...



Say, Fe is tertiary, so it's turned to for good purpose and for ill, to revitalise auxiliary function projects or to sabotage them, and it's F so it's motivational, so presumably ENTPs would really like it if other people were... what?

 

[onemoretime]

Not so goddamn caught up in themselves.

 

[Kalach]

And how does that jibe with being dual to INFJs, hm?


Oh noes! ISFJs!

 

[onemoretime]

And how does that jibe with being dual to INFJs, hm?


Oh noes! ISFJs!

IxFJs are intimately interested in others above themselves, if you catch their interest

 

[thisGuy]

Fe is controlled by NeTi

make of that, what you will

 

[Nat]

You maybe shouldn't read so much into it. Her being engaging one moment and reclusive the next most likely has nothing to do with you or whomever she is conversing with at the moment. Most likely, she is engaging when her brain is clear of other things, and reclusive when her mind is busy processing something.

I find it also very difficult to like or dislike a person. I had a very short memory and a very short attention span. If my brain is clear and receptive and you are in front of me and are being pleasant, you will get the impression that I like you. If I am otherwise engaged, or you are acting douchebaggy, you will get the impression that I don't. Every time I see you, I look at you with a clean slate unless some horrible transgression has occurred. In which case, wait a few weeks for your slate to be clean again. Either way, I don't spend much time or energy thinking about if I like someone in general or not. I'm mostly neutral. You simply exist.

A lot of times people feel that they are close to me because I "confide" in them. But what they don't understand is that I just speak to whomever is in front of me. It could be you or it could be your mom, makes no difference if something is on my mind and I need to talk it through. Me "sharing" has nothing to do with me being close with you, or even liking you.

I figured her being engaging/reclusive on and off was just part of her personality. Funnily enough she used to think I had a problem with her because I didn't talk a lot with her, which is confusing because I would think she of all people wouldn't take that personally.

The part about not liking/disliking people is interesting to me though... I have very strong feelings about a people - I'd like to be more neutral!

Do you find this the same with long term relationships e.g. friends?