• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NF] When Fe & Fi Go Awry: The Definitive NF guide to F-ness (Let the Antics Ensue)

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well but if they are innate (which they are supposed to be) then built into our genetic code is exactly what they are.
And if they're not, then we need to understand what makes you Ni dom and me Ti dom. The implications for functions/preferences not being innate are pretty huge. Especially when it comes to Fe.

And then, yeah, we come to stuff like "learned" Fe vs "natural" Fe. Is there a difference? This is all pretty important - to me at least. I'm only interested in MBTI/Typology because I want to deepen my understanding of human nature. For pragmatic purposes? It's just not worth it. Most people muddle by without a typological map, and I can't say that an understanding of the theory has improved my relations with others in any meaningful way.
Not strictly speaking. The typology is just about the dichotomies. Basic MBTI is the typology.
Function theory builds a whole elaborate back story on top of that. It's interesting, but that's all it is, a story. Anyone can make up a story. Why should I choose this one above another? Why shouldn't I just make up my own? Most of the stuff function theory predicts isn't even accurate. If a model has no predictive power, it has no use, as far as I'm concerned.
But I don't want to stray too far off topic. I just wondered how others have reconciled these anomalies.:)

Well, the MBTI is based on Jung's Psychological Types, which is all about the 8 functions (well, each of the 4 functions expressed in an introverted or extraverted attitude). Jung only really mentions the auxiliary function briefly in passing a few times. It is by combining the primary and auxiliary functions that the Myers and Briggs defined the 16 types. I agree that the basic presentation of typology is all about the 16 types, but the 16 types are built from the 8 (4x2) functions. An INFP is not just a disorganized, indecisive INFJ... but without the functions it's hard to explain how.

I also don't buy that type is entirely genetic, otherwise each pair of identical twins would have the same MBTI type. We don't. There's some evidence that the extraverted/introverted dichotomy has a strong genetic component (between 39% to 58%), but that still leaves plenty of non-genetic influence. The other dichotomies don't seem to have much of a genetic component whatsoever. I personally suspect that type becomes fixed in childhood, and is mostly immutable by the time we become adults.

I do agree, though, that once you move much past primary and auxiliary functions the expected patterns don't seem to universally apply (and even for primary and auxiliary I suspect some have oddball combinations). Still, like any categorization system, it is "true" in so far as it describes aspects of reality in a useful manner. Fe vs Fi is a useful distinction for me, personally, since it shines some light on some personal blind spots.

I'd like to hear from other NFPs and NFJs on this thread, too, so we can hear if their perceptions match up with those described by others of their type.

EDIT: Repeated a lot of what uumlau has posted in the interim. Sorry for the repeated info.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I must strongly disagree. The Jungian functions are distinctly typological in nature. Jung was very specific that they were archetypes, extreme examples, and that people had other functions in play. MBTI is a popularization of Jung's original "theory of types," looking at Jung's functions from a PoV of primary and auxiliary, perceiving (irrational) and judging (rational).
Yes, I've read Psychological Types and I understand the history. Jung didn't intend his work to be used in the way that it has though. I just think a lot of the stuff that has been done in his name is so fanciful and speculative that I can't take it seriously. Much along the lines of the criticisms you've made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do.

I also don't buy that type is entirely genetic, otherwise each pair of identical twins would have the same MBTI type. We don't. There's some evidence that the extraverted/introverted dichotomy has a strong genetic component (between 39% to 58%), but that still leaves plenty of non-genetic influence. The other dichotomies don't seem to have much of a genetic component whatsoever. I personally suspect that type becomes fixed in childhood, and is mostly immutable by the time we become adults.
What are you basing that on? No one is really doing research on MBTI, but on Big Five, its reckoned to be ~40-60% genetic, IIRC.

Still, like any categorization system, it is "true" in so far as it describes aspects of reality in a useful manner.
The only stuff it describes accurately is pretty much the stuff that can be predicted from a person's own responses in taking the test, or self-identifying - the reasons for which should be fairly obvious in each case.
Don't mind me, I'm just feeling distinctly skeptical of late.:)
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What are you basing that on? No one is really doing research on MBTI, but on Big Five, its reckoned to be ~40-60% genetic, IIRC.
After googling around a bit, I must have been misremembering or simply mistaken. Looking at the references to "Twins and Type" in http://www.winovations.com/Articles/Creating_a_Winning_RD_Culture-Part%20I.pdf, looks like at least one study claimed that all the dichotomies had a genetic component. Otherwise, looks like the material is mostly applied from Big 5 studies (which don't correlate exactly to MBTI definitions). There's a fair amount of evidence that Big 5 traits have a substantial genetic component.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do.

Jung was describing 8 distinct types, and he makes it clear that he is talking about each "type" as pure, dominate function in isolation—as a caricature, since a single function (or function in an orientation, in his terms) doesn't exist in isolation in practice.

So, his description of "introverted feeling" types would be Fi-doms (ISFP and INFP, in MBTI terms). And INFJ would not qualify, despite being introverted and preferring feeling over thinking. They would fall under "introverted intuition," since that's what predominates for them. I don't really see any other way to interpret it that makes sense. Jung types describe the dominate function freed of any influence from the auxiliary. Of course, his four introverted types would all be given an "I" on the MBTI, since the orientation of dominate function matches the overall orientation of the person (in theory).
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, his description of "introverted feeling" types would be Fi-doms (ISFP and INFP, in MBTI terms). And INFJ would not qualify, despite being introverted and preferring feeling over thinking. They would fall under "introverted intuition," since that's what predominates for them. I don't really see any other way to interpret it that makes sense. Jung types describe the dominate function freed of any influence from the auxiliary. Of course, his four introverted types would all be given an "I" on the MBTI, since the orientation of dominate function matches the overall orientation of the person (in theory).
Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.

While that's a self-consistent stance, I don't think it's very arguable from Psychological Types itself. For example:

Jung p345 said:
[Introverted vs Extraverted Thinking] Each type of thinking senses the other as an encroachment on its own province, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, each revealing to the other its least favorable aspect. Introverted thinking then appears as something quite arbitrary, while extraverted thinking seems dull and banal. Thus the two orientations are incessantly at war.

Or (much more to the point):

Jung p330 said:
Generally speaking, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the maintenance of the psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual invariably behaves in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological processes may be observed that involve the mechanism of introversion. We call a mode of behavior extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under the conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply "happen to one." These things need not be mere slips of the tongue or pen or other such oversights, they can equally well be half of three-quarters intended, for the less differentiated functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. A classic example of this is the extraverted feeling type, who enjoys and excellent feeling rapport with people around him, yet occasionally "happens" to express opinions of unsurpassable tactlessness. These opinions spring from his inferior and half-conscious thinking, which, being only party under his control and insufficiently related to the object, can be quite ruthless in its effects.
(bold above mine)

So, don't see it really as arguable that Jung didn't think that functions have an attitude and the attitude of a given function may not match the dominant attitude.

Anyway... my apologies for going to far afield of the topic.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
While that's a self-consistent stance, I don't think it's very arguable from Psychological Types itself. For example:

So, don't see it really as arguable that Jung didn't think that functions have an attitude and the attitude of a given function may not match the dominant attitude.
I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.
 

Affably Evil

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
73
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
I have a question regarding Fe aux users though:
Fe is a judging function right? So what is the perceiving function that feeds it? For INFJ, supposedly Ni. How does this make sense? Introverted intuition is focused inward and on possibilities. How does this feed information about external standards and "feeling tones" to Fe to make judgments? (I'm thinking in terms of process flow, because that's how this stuff is described.)

Introverted intuition: the interior is chaotic: raw, sensory input without meaning. Patterns do not exist external of the mind: they're a part of how people process information.

Like with the recent discussions of Jung typology: it's a way of ordering unordered information, creating conceptualizations of abstract ideas, creating a new point of view of looking at a person's actions and preferences, rather than something that is absolutely necessarily biologically concrete and measurable.

Ultimately, the world is too great and complex to fully comprehend: like trying to count grains of sand or the stars. But you can imagine constellations and try to map the sky: ultimately, we can only see those constellations because we're looking at them from Earth. They don't exist anywhere else.

It's not so much that Ni is focused inward so much as that the internal associations and contexts don't have an external structure (yet.)

Extraverted feeling: so if the inside is raw unprocessed associations, Fe seeks to create a consistent external structure through judgements and values. Which then you can use to draw those raw processes into concrete forms. For example, for myself, shaping a personal social identity (while inside its chaotic and beyond words) and putting those aspects into context with a larger community to reach others. Or putting theoretical insights into an outward form, an applicable form like in a post on a forum — though that doesn't mean this post is of any use itself!

Because of that structure then, Extraverted Feeling looks at people's behaviors and is then prompted to interpret it in a standardized way. And because the extraverted aspect is based on values and principles, Fe has a need to find common ground with others to verify the structure. However, because of the standardization, those who who are acting in a non-standardized way (and/or are Fi :hug:) can get trod on or stifled in a mess of over-generalization. Does that sound like what ends up happening?

In terms of Ni-Fe mental processing... I get the feeling that Fe with Ni can have a tendency to focus on linguistic inclusivity because Ni is likely to be very sensitive of how we use words to shape an external meaning. Which is probably why I get bothered when someone is interpreting me in a way I did not intend, or if they're trying to access my unconscious raw processes that I'm protective of. :blush:

For me, I always thought everybody approached life/reality the way I did before I started exploring typology, so I kept getting baffled when I'd run into certain kinds of conflicts with people — like an ISTP friend who told me that abstract concepts were a waste of time, or an ENFP friend whose feelings I had hurt, or an ISFJ parent who was constantly trying to classify the world (visual field) and all these facts without any context apparent to me. It's helped a lot though for imagining the different ways people are approaching reality and internal structure (judgment)/external chaos (perception) or internal chaos/external structure. While I think trying to use typology as a hard and fast rule for understanding people EXACTLY is a load of bunk — everyone has a infinite variation of genetic makeup, so of course there's infinite variation of processing preferences — has given me new perspectives and new ways of relating to people. Which I think might be how the Ni-Fe thing works in a nutshell.

Uh, I'm not sure how far afield I wandered from your question, Morgan. I hope it was a little helpful.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Introverted intuition: the interior is chaotic: raw, sensory input without meaning. Patterns do not exist external of the mind: they're a part of how people process information.

Like with the recent discussions of Jung typology: it's a way of ordering unordered information, creating conceptualizations of abstract ideas, creating a new point of view of looking at a person's actions and preferences, rather than something that is absolutely necessarily biologically concrete and measurable.

Ultimately, the world is too great and complex to fully comprehend: like trying to count grains of sand or the stars. But you can imagine constellations and try to map the sky: ultimately, we can only see those constellations because we're looking at them from Earth. They don't exist anywhere else.

It's not so much that Ni is focused inward so much as that the internal associations and contexts don't have an external structure (yet.)

lol. Ni and Ne to me are much, much more confusing than Fi and Fe. you may as well have described Ne here.

I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.

eh, the thread was beginning to stagnate, anyway. i think it's a pertinent and useful part of the discussion, if you choose to keep it here.

i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at, though. i think i'm tending to see the function as a sort of conveyor belt, and you can either switch it to E or I, but it's hard to have both going at once. so they're really the same process - Feeling is Feeling, after all - but just working in two different directions.

what are the implications of the functions themselves not having attitudes? off the bat i would suppose that it means that we, instead of having a 8-part function order, would have a 4 or even 2 part order - simply the dominant and auxiliary, and an orientation. if that's true, what are your thoughts on I/E balance?
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Yes, I've read Psychological Types and I understand the history. Jung didn't intend his work to be used in the way that it has though. I just think a lot of the stuff that has been done in his name is so fanciful and speculative that I can't take it seriously. Much along the lines of the criticisms you've made.
Obviously, I'm not going to disagree too strongly with this synopsis. It seems that some people just like to make up things about how functions are ordered, how they relate to one another, and so on, without realizing that it is always "just a typology", not a science. Just an ordered way of labeling concepts, so that we can talk about things in a coherent way.

As long as we don't lose track of which properties we've put in which bucket, we're good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't talk about the functions in the way that they have come to be spoken about. He distinguished between the attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and 4 functions (T/F, S/N). Where he spoke of the "introverted thinking" type, he was talking about an introvert with a preference for thinking over feeling judgment (not a "Ti-dom"). I think this distinction is more useful than talking about 8 distinct functions and a whole manufactured hierarchy of supposed strengths and weaknesses. An extrovert who prefers feeling makes sense. Fe as a function? Meh. Seems people can even agree what it does/doesn't do

This is an interesting point, and I don't reject it in its entirety, but I think you might be missing something. Indeed, we could redo our typology labels as "In, It, If, Is, En, Et, Ef, Es" instead of "Ni, Ti, Fi, Si, Ne, Te, Fe, Se," and we're still talking about the same things.

I must emphasize that he is talking about functions separately from types. There is a bit in his description of extroverted thinking where he talks about introverted thinking (p. 194 of The Portable Jung):

But -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- there also exists an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is oriented neither by immediate experience of objects nor by traditional ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following manner: when my thoughts are preoccupied with a concrete object or a general idea, in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back to my starting-point, this intellectual process is not the only psychic process that is going on in me. I will disregard all those sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, and will merely point out that this very thinking process which starts from the object and returns to the object also stands in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a sine qua non, without which no thinking process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, to objective data, it is still my subjective process, and it can neither avoid nor dispense with this admixture of subjectivity. Struggle as I may to give an objective orientation to my train of thought, I cannot shut out the parallel subjective process and its running accompaniment without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel process has a natural and hardly avoidable tendency to subjectify the objective data and assimilate them to the subject.​
[Bolded emphasis is mine. Any errors in this quote are mine.]

In other words, in this section his is explicitly talking about introverted thinking, and later on in his introverted thinking section, he references the fact that he discussed it here. He obviously regards the human mind as having both objective and subjective thoughts, and that the extrovert cannot avoid subjectivity nor can the introvert avoid objectivity. It is, in fact, his opinion that it is excessive objectivity or subjectivity that causes problems and neuroses. The person is not extroverted or introverted, except as a "type." And he did not limit his types ("archetypes") to just extroverted and introverted, but expressed each in terms of a function.

Therefore, I must disagree with your assessment here:

Yeah. I think it's a mistake to read it that way. Functions don't have "attitudes", people do.

I believe my quote above indicates that Jung believed functions have attitudes, and that people express both the objective and subjective forms within themselves, though they may strongly emphasize one or the other. That we have parallel thought process, both conscious and subconscious, which carry either objective or subjective attitudes, and that it is impossible for a human not to have these - that they can be suppressed into the unconscious to varying degrees, but they do not stop operating.


I can see why Jungians read that and interpreted it in terms of function attitudes, but I just don't see enough support for it.
Even in that excerpt, Jung talks about Introversion and Extroversion as "mechanisms" or modes, in their own right. This doesn't make sense if they are intrinsically linked to functions.
I believe, based on my quote and other readings, he was generalizing what Extroversion and Introversion meant; that the objective/subjective attitudes are their own independent property, and that it's useful to use this property in psychological analysis because it is readily visible.

He talks about functions being "employed" in extroverted or introverted ways. That is, energy is directed via these functions in an introverted or extroverted way. That doesn't support the idea that Introverted Feeling is a different process from Extroverted Feeling. Merely that introverted feelers and extroverted feelers are likely to use the "feeling function" in different ways. A critical distinction.

Maybe this should be split off into a separate thread.

Actually, I think it belongs in this thread. It adds a great deal of clarity.

I've some ideas from another quote of his that I want to expand upon, where he contrasts the subjective from the objective functions in a general way, showing how they are largely at odds with one another. This "at odds" appears to me to totally describe the Fe/Fi differences, which very strongly parallel the Te/Ti differences, said parallel allowing me to effectively show Fe users how to put the subjective shoe on the other foot. I'll post these other ideas as I have time and such that they are in the context of this thread.
 

Affably Evil

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
73
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
lol. Ni and Ne to me are much, much more confusing than Fi and Fe. you may as well have described Ne here.

That very well may be; I'm still learning about the functions! If I'm lagging behind in conceptual understanding I'd be very very thankful if someone could help me out.

To continue with the metaphor, I had thought that while Ne notices the constellation and the picture it makes (and thus triggered associations of stories) and generate all these different ideas about the patterns the stars make, Ni might declare that looking at stars in terms of constellations is only useful from a human-on-Earth's point of view because from somewhere else the pattern would look different and we're only seeing a fraction of the universe anyway.

Not to put you on the spot, skylights, but does this sound completely off from your experience of Ne? It would help me a great deal in hearing what you (or anyone else who wants to jump in with this!) know about the function, particularly (to keep this somewhat on topic) how Fi might get extraverted through it and build an image of the big picture. I'm trying to understand all the functions better and it sounds like Intuition tends to be one of the more mysterious ones. I'd be especially grateful if we could connect Intuition with how we NFs utilize it with Feeling, to clarify against how Sensate Feeling tends to operate. :)

In other words, in this section his is explicitly talking about introverted thinking, and later on in his introverted thinking section, he references the fact that he discussed it here. He obviously regards the human mind as having both objective and subjective thoughts, and that the extrovert cannot avoid subjectivity nor can the introvert avoid objectivity. It is, in fact, his opinion that it is excessive objectivity or subjectivity that causes problems and neuroses. The person is not extroverted or introverted, except as a "type." And he did not limit his types ("archetypes") to just extroverted and introverted, but expressed each in terms of a function.

Uumlau, your posts are, as always, very interesting to me. Do you have further thoughts on subjective versus objective thoughts, especially how they might act through the Feeling judgment as a preference? If I'm understanding this correctly, do the conscious and subconscious thought processes then directly correlate to the function being extroverted or introverted — then the successive function preferences as to how we navigate between introverted functions and extroverted functions...?

It does make sense to me to consider that a person is only introverted or extroverted through preferring an extroverted or introverted function, rather than a person being inherently introverted or extroverted and then utilizing, say, Thinking. Might the preference for subconscious thoughts then account for an introvert's need for downtime? Or would Jung attribute that as having more to do more with requiring objective thinking?
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I deleted as soon as I realised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Or you know, you could just ask the question.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sorry, That was unnecessary too. I'll come back when I'm not in grips of raging tonsilitis. Short temper.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Since you're sick, I felt sorry for you and went back to hunt for the obscure question in a wall 'o text.

To answer your question: nah, I don't think it's healthy to have to go into your ESTJ shadow and freak out on people before you communicate about what's bothering you. I do, however, think it's normal for INFPs to do this.

I usually don't keep things in when they bother me. When I go STJ it generally involves confronting people and telling them what to do. It often feels necessary when I do it. I think it's something to be drawn upon in times of stress or when nothing else really will work.

But the mature thing to do is to communicate with people if it's possible to do so before it gets to that point. Talking things out is a very efficient way to avoid huge misunderstandings and unnecessary hurt feelings.

I'm a big fan of getting things out in the open. But I do have a serious weakness: I tend to hold things back, myself, usually when my pride is at stake...let's say, for example, with a guy I like...I want to be cool about it and not look like a total emo freak. Well, if I let this go on for too long, I act even worse than I initially would have had I just communicated my thoughts or feelings calmly and rationally.

I don't know what it's like for an INFP to just hold things inside til they explode, but I do know what it feels like as an ENFP to limit my natural preference for expression due to embarrassment or wanting someone to think better of me. In the end, it's a mistake. Just talking about things makes everything so much easier to handle than holding it in and freaking out.

For example, next time just re-state the question you want answered - or link to it if it's too long to re-state -instead of whining that everyone is ignoring you or that you're sick. That isn't INFP informing vs. directing, it's just being irrational. Te is your friend.
 

stormyapril

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
63
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
8
Esoteric wench, peace baby, fidelia and Z Buck-

This thread is amazingly inspiring-a rosetta stone of sorts. I admire each of you so much for trying to understand and work through this area of miscommunication. There seemed to be a great deal of tension at times, but each of you seemed so open to trying to understand and explain each others perspectives. It takes a great deal of maturity and good will for others to explore and self evaluate as you each did.

Xello's concern resonated with me. Even if individuals can move past this wall here, via extensive interactions, and much forgiveness, how much of that can we ever translate to the real world?

In the real world we perceive the world through our internal windows-perceptual blind spots are filled in with our internal map or what we perceive to be reality-not the other person's reality. Thus much of our daily interactions are based upon mutual, unrecognized misunderstandings and projections. We just think we understand each other.

On a last note, at the end of the thread it seemed several Fe users exhibited discomfort at using Jungian functional theory and almost were dismissive of it. Yet the Te users, even INFPs, seemed to embrace it while recognizing the simplistic, reductive nature of it.

To me, the natural question arises-Does being an Fe user somehow inhibit the ability to break down behavior into discrete, objective, analyzable quanta the way a Te user would naturally be able to do? Thus it isnt that Jungian functions are incorrect, just that an Fe user may never be able to fully employ a Te approach on themselves or others as they already are using Fe. So perhaps Jungian functions may not be the best tool for an Fe user in self understanding.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
It will start out as some one pointing some thing out, and over a serious of months, if I start to see a pattern forming, I may be tempted to run past some one, to see if they recognise the pattern. If it continues to gain form and I can start pin pointing specific issues that affect other people as well as myself, I may start running it past people who are in a position to sort it out. If I see no action, and/or the issue becomes worse, the balance is dangerously close to tipping. It then only takes one action that seriously affects every one, for me to step up and speak out, like a switch, or match lighting up. Quite often when you see an Fi-dom go into fighting mode, what appears to be like a momentary outburst, has actually been bothering them for weeks, months, even years.

I hear what you are saying here firey - and I can relate to this pattern. Want you to know I am following you so far.

The unfortunate thing is when we are in this mode, it isn't actually our most articulate, for me I'm like the sergant major who been spurred into action, to take control. And that's the thing, I'm doing, no longer thinking, I've selected my action for better or worse.

But you are thinking, or at least you have been, all along the way ... you have selected your action, indeed it may be for better or worse, but as you said above, it may have taken you weeks, months or even years to get to this point. The decision to speak out is your empowerment, it's the energy necessary to create change. If people had been paying attention or given a hoot at some point, you wouldn't be in this position, no?

Sometimes it works....when people haven't been prepared to take responsibility, but it takes a heck of alot to get me there. By that point, I've put my feelers out, checked how the land lies, done my research, I've already spoken with the people that need to spoken with, I don't always think that it's a surprise, (it always appears to be).

@bold: At this point in my personal experience, I don't buy it when people think that a known issue has come "out of the blue". If you are anything like myself, you've taken the belabored, tactful diplomacy route and found those efforts fruitless. In fact, I believe any knee-jerk reactions to an issue to be both a method of trying to enact a form of face-saving damage control and a way of trying to control you. To basically "shut you up" and shut you down.

What's more of a surprise to people is that you're not a milquetoast after all (like they may have imagined or hoped) - that you have a backbone, have chutzpah and will get up and get energized about the things that matter ...

I've been told this many a time, I should do my talking before I go into battle, but as far as I'm aware I have done. Is the form of communication that isn't quite right, or does this boil down to informative vrs directive styles of communication?

And here's the key to know if you are engaging appropriately - are you truly making a clear-cut case for change all along the way? Are you paying attention to the little alarm bells as they ring for you, or do you tend to push them out of your mind until that big moment where you feel you MUST speak? Are you noting the strong Fe users in your midst and appealing to their sense of propriety? Are you verbally or in writing, engaging strong Te users to be advocates as well? If that's not happening, this is the area where you could potentially improve your approach.

Hope that's helpful - ask me more about it and we can drill down.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Uumlau, your posts are, as always, very interesting to me. Do you have further thoughts on subjective versus objective thoughts, especially how they might act through the Feeling judgment as a preference? If I'm understanding this correctly, do the conscious and subconscious thought processes then directly correlate to the function being extroverted or introverted — then the successive function preferences as to how we navigate between introverted functions and extroverted functions...?

It does make sense to me to consider that a person is only introverted or extroverted through preferring an extroverted or introverted function, rather than a person being inherently introverted or extroverted and then utilizing, say, Thinking. Might the preference for subconscious thoughts then account for an introvert's need for downtime? Or would Jung attribute that as having more to do more with requiring objective thinking?

Here's what Jung has to say about objective vs. subjective:
Jung said:
... Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be the decisive factor, it remains an enigma to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He inevitably comes to the conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or crack-brained bigot. Today he would be suspected of harbouring an unconscious power complex. The introvert certainly lays himself open to these suspicions, for his positive, highly generalizing manner of expression, which appears to rule out every other opinion from the start, lends countenance to all the extravert's prejudices. Moreover the inflexibility of his subjective judgment, setting itself above all objective data, is sufficient in itself to create the impression of marked egocentricity. Faced with this prejudice the introvert is usually at a loss for the right argument, for he is quite unaware of the unconscious but generally quite valid assumptions on which his subjective judgment and his subjective perceptions are based. In the fashion of the times he looks outside for an answer, instead of seeking it behind his own consciousness. ...

This applies to Fe vs Fi and Te vs Ti (and to a degree Ne vs Ni and Se vs Si, but Jung appears to be speaking more in terms of judgment, here). Fe and Te deal with the objective. Fe applies its reasoning to that which is visible, shared, known to all observers, and it uses, a priori, known and shared assumptions, premises, a shared means of analysis. Fi, while it nominally deals with similar material, being a "feeling function", is dealing with a personal, subjective perspective that is not shared, neither by virtue of its observations nor by virtue of its analytical premises.

Fe speaks as if things are obvious, shared, known, objective. To contradict these obvious things is bizarre, if not antisocial or worse, to Fe. Fi, however, has to contradict several of these things, because Fi observes different things, and judges by an internal subjective standard that is idiosyncratic to the individual. Fi tries to speak, is stuck with the "Fe language" of "obvious things," and often becomes tongue-tied, believing that it can communicate and reason by virtue of objective concepts. It largely fails, except for where Fe and Fi naturally overlap on basic fundamentals. The nuances are lost.

Fi becomes its most articulate when it speaks in its own terms, ditching the "objective" concepts. When Fi users share, part of the sharing is the personal frame. The frame isn't judged. Rather, the frame is the basis of communication, providing a "frame"-work for sharing judgments. Thus one might describe an event or happenstance or personal experience, all from the personal, subjective viewpoint. Then another might describe a similar, but probably not exactly the same, experience, and share thoughts about how one dealt with it.

The conflict between Fe and Fi becomes obvious, then: Fe has its shared frame, and that shared frame imposes itself upon the Fi subjective frame. Fe talks in terms of "we" and "you," Fi talks in terms of "I." Each instinctively rejects the other's frame.

Both frames have truth and validity: a priori rejection of either on the basis of the frame is not merited. The Fe side evolves a wisdom that understands how human beings interact with one another. The Fi side possesses a different wisdom that is based on self-understanding, perhaps self-mastery: an understanding of what each individual human being is truly like, and how we differ. Each side stands to benefit by listening to the other.
 

Adasta

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
393
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
The conflict between Fe and Fi becomes obvious, then: Fe has its shared frame, and that shared frame imposes itself upon the Fi subjective frame. Fe talks in terms of "we" and "you," Fi talks in terms of "I." Each instinctively rejects the other's frame.

Both frames have truth and validity: a priori rejection of either on the basis of the frame is not merited. The Fe side evolves a wisdom that understands how human beings interact with one another. The Fi side possesses a different wisdom that is based on self-understanding, perhaps self-mastery: an understanding of what each individual human being is truly like, and how we differ. Each side stands to benefit by listening to the other.

I think this is accurate, and also explains accurately the basis from which Fi/Fe is expressed to its most "altrustic" end. I'm going to say straight away that I'm quite new to all this Fe/Fi stuff in an academic sense, so apologies if you feel I've got it all wrong - corrections are welcome.

Nevertheless, from experience, Fe seems to enjoy making the majority feel good and will deny/ignore/reject whomever in a group it sees as disrusptive or as not desiring to integrate. This is to ensure that the maximum amount of people are feeling good. The joy is in the successful interaction of several individuals, in which Fe plays the role of "deal-maker" e.g. look at all the guests at my party, having a great time together. Fe seems skilled at convincing people that they are feeling good/having fun etc. and forgetting their own worries/concerns, but has difficulty in bringing that out when a minority of people act otherwise, seemingly labelling them "difficult" and as not worth the time/effort when everyone else seems to be getting along well.

Now the one dissenting voice in this scenario is all too often Fi. Continuing with the theme of a party, Fi feels that, if the party does not serve him/herself ("I don't feel like a party today"), then the party is worthless and, unforgivably, without meaning. This disrupts Fe's carefully laid plans and wonderfully-implemented harmony and appears to be nothing more than obstinate and destructive behaviour which, to an extent, it is. Fe seems to consider Fi's alternatve view in this scenario as selfishly destructive: why are you acting this way to the detriment of all the guests and undermining all my efforts? Fi, however, sees the party itself as undesirable and participation in it, therefore, artifical and dishonest: why do I have to "perform" for these people if my heart's not really in it?

I think both types are operating at their best when Fe can revel in the role of "host" and Fi can talk to a small group in the role of "animated" speaker. It's difficult for one to operate in the role of the other: as Fi, attending to all is tricky because the number of people coupled with time constraints means one cannot engage with each person in a satifactory way. Conversely, Fe would probably hate being stuck in a small group for an extended period, because there's only a finite amount of time to display and impress their exuberance onto that group.
 

Random Ness

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
270
Wow. This is a loooong thread. I have no freaking idea if this was addressed or not but I'll bring it up again. :)

I think Fi has a tendency to cause trouble with Fe because more often than not, Fi users make "intent" very important in a situation. Fi says "I didn't mean to cause any harm" and Fe says it's irrelevant. What matters is results, not method.

Not me...I care much more about intentions than results.
 

Random Ness

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
270
I agree with everything you said, Adasta. As for the group thing, large groups can be good for me because people interact with each other so I don't have to constantly be babysitting and pleasing somebody. Large groups can also be bad for me if people aren't all participating and I have to babysit and please multiple people/groups at once.
 
Top