[Fe] Is Fe fake or manipulative?

[Ginkgo]

Let us say D (D for demonstration) is an Axiom.
The D of a thing is not the thing then.
It is an agent. The thing is an object.

The agent is Fe.
The object however is Fi.

Look for the lowest common denominator.
Let us say there is more Fe than Fi.
Simple arithmetics. Quantification.
Only as much as Fe is the match of Fi, Fe demonstrates Fi.
What happens to the surplus Fe?

Would the surplus Fe be a demonstration of something already demonstrated? (redundancy)
I mean, more Fe than Fi. Fe doesn't change, it's just a remaining demonstration of an object not present. So I'm thinking it continues to demonstrate for the object, which is now nothing but a phantom limb.

Or, is it also an agent for another object? In which case, not all Fi may be expunged by demonstrative Fe.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

(Weird, never got a quote alert for this.)

Criticizing your approach to this topic, disagreeing with you, and providing my own opinion is not what I consider trolling. If so, I've been doing this foruming thing all wrong for quite some time.

+5

Well said!

 

[Crescent Fresh]

I guess what I'm trying to say is what other types see as being "fake" is actually more like "navigation", based on the ideal of social harmony. For Fe-users, the whole world is about the flow of the Fe language, it's like a bowl of water, where every little disturbance causes ripples in all directions. You are a water molecule connected to all other water molecules, and if you're a good person, you don't want to cause a stir. Most Fe behaviors are motivated by just that.

I really think you have sum it up well there.

I don't know why people seeing Fe as manipulative mechanism whereas I see it as a mere defensive mechanism--be it for striking a social harmony. I mean what's the point of showing negative feelings to affect a whole group? I really consider it as a selfless and unselfish act.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I think I now realized why INFJs tend to be mostly misunderstood by others.



Question: Does Fe vs. Fi has a bigger impact on social disagreement and misunderstanding or Te vs. Ti?

I always thought Te vs. Ti has a bigger impact but now I felt it's Fe vs. Fi.

 

[INTP]

i dont get it how this topic keeps on going so long. and because the topic is so long already, i cba to find out by reading the whole thing..

 

[SilkRoad]

I really think you have sum it up well there.

I don't know why people seeing Fe as manipulative mechanism whereas I see it as a mere defensive mechanism--be it for striking a social harmony. I mean what's the point of showing negative feelings to affect a whole group? I really consider it as a selfless and unselfish act.

I agree with this. Although, while it is often used defensively (I certainly do that, as an INFJ 6), that's not the "best" way to use it. To me, judicious use of Fe has the result of...smoothing the way for what are probably more important things, or other essential things. A background of harmony and acceptance can allow people to feel more free to open up to others, to be creative, to help others, or whatever the case may be. And when I talk about "smoothing the way", I don't mean being fake. I mean that it provides a solid foundation.

I think over-use of Fe could be fake, though I don't think it would be *just* Fe in such a case. I guess I'd say this: over-use of Fe could be fake, over-use of Fi could be selfish and draining (ie. insistence on inflicting your emotional state on others, regardless of what it is, all the time.) And I think I've definitely met people who do one or the other.

 

[Thalassa]

huh? no.

Oh because you just made a very Fi seeming statement. ISTPs don't have Fi.

 

[Thalassa]

i dont get it how this topic keeps on going so long. and because the topic is so long already, i cba to find out by reading the whole thing..

It may be because he's an Fi type in denial.

 

[Elfboy]

It's hard to understand why someone would value social order and harmony higher than their own internal state, the way I come to see it the persons internal feelings should matter more than what is going on around them externally. When a house is built it is built for the ground up from it's most basic foundation. The Fe user stems their internal feelings through their external affairs.

I agree with Marm, this sounds like a very Fi statement

 

[Viridian]

Oh because you just made a very Fi seeming statement. ISTPs don't have Fi.

If you want to nitpick, they do, but it's their least developed function...

 

[Thalassa]

If you want to nitpick, they do, but it's their least developed function...

No, they don't. Their inferior is Fe.

 

[Viridian]

No, they don't. Their inferior is Fe.

In the eight-function stack model (e.g. Berens'), I mean. Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi.

 

[Pan-en-theist]

A whole night to think about this Fe function. A new paradigm came to me and it is this: to really, really understand Fe, one has to experience it. One has to be in it, dwell in it. I hesitate to say use it or apply it, because that suggests a trace of objectivity. And the more objective one becomes about Fe, the more one misses its true nature. When I see a person or animal suffering and I break into tears and want to help that victim, my Fe at that moment is unanalyzable. Fe seeks to merge and blend and harmonize with that being. This experience defies conceptuality.
The feelings of transport, elation and transcendance that accompany love defy conceptuality. As an INFJ I will not let Fe dominate my being (you see, I am being objective now), but I am grateful and reverent towards those whose very identity is Fe and have taught me how to use it. When Fe becomes a tertiary, the eternal child, the true experience of Fe diminishes further, and when it becomes the inferior/shadow/anima, Fe is virtually inaccessible or it becomes a
untrustworthy "concept".

 

[INTPness]

Every single one of you is "Feking the funk" and you know it.

As Saturned would say: "Yay! I winz ze thread!"



P.S. Just kidding. I love all of you and you're all invited to an MBTI party at my house tonight.

Directions:
If you are coming from the north:
Drive south until you get to my place.

Coming from the south:
Drive north until you get to my place.

Coming from the east:
Drive west until you get to my place.

Coming from the west:
Drive east until you get to my place.

We'll be discussing Fe into the wee hours of the night and we'll be serving lots of AppFetizers. BYOB.

 

[Resonance]

In the eight-function stack model (e.g. Berens'), I mean. Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi.

Which one is correct though?? D:

 

[Little_Sticks]

All functions are fake. They represent a tangle of projections.

 

[Resonance]

Fe-ers tend to have a sense of what's collectively "ideal". Speaking as an Fi dom, idealism is somewhat of a bad addiction for me, though I quietly scrutinize everything according to my own standards, which are often not even particularly defined. It seems that I have difficulty defining those ideals or even coming forth with them to others because they are so tightly woven to my own body of thought - my own giant web of what different shit makes an impression on me. Laying it all out would be as time consuming as dissecting a blue whale.

So I'm going to assume that it's easier for Fe-ers to vocalize those impressions because they are more relative to the world. So demonstrable. Do you dress nice? Are you of esteem to us? Is the show popular? Should a program be "good"? Are you a crack whore? Etc. etc.

So Fe-ers are more aware of those interpersonal doodads. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're taking advantage of them, being underhanded, or even coddling them.

Wight?

Okay, now that I've slept a bit: Yeah, I think so. It's much easier for me to lay out my ideals in terms of an actionable plan than it seems to be for most Fi-types. If people ask 'why?' it's usually easy for me to give a reason. It's not always easy to convince them of it though...

but like, it seems obvious to me when a plan is a bad idea because people aren't going to like it. lol. They're like, "Man, organization X should totally just do Y! it would solve all their problems with C!" "Yeah, that's a really good solution, but they'd never approve of it because it would require them to trust member L, which member M has made sure is not going to happen."

 

[INTPness]

All functions are fake. They represent a tangle of projections.

No! Fe is the best funkshunz ever invented. It can do no wrongz! BTW, happy 100th! Here's to many more.

 

[Resonance]

I disagree with Resonance's assertion that Fe should not be expected to be taken as an indication of one's internal state.

When one professes an opinion, are they not professing the content of their internal state?

What is Fe? It is the outward expression of an opinion (sweet talking, as in INTPNess's example, conveying he feels fine about people showing up late when he's really mad about them doing so, etc). I understand that Fe's purpose or intention/motivation/whatever is social harmony... but to say people should understand that what opinion they are professing is NOT HOW THEY ACTUALLY FEEL THEMSELVES, EVER [and can even run completely opposite(?!)]? Nonsense.

In this way, Fe, because it is NOT a reflection of one's inner state, -when it professes to be- (<- key), is fake.

But I'm not saying only Fe is fake. Any human can be fake. And being fake is furthermore just a fact of life, that is not always bad. Just defining the action of professing an opinion that you do not actually hold as "fakeness." I contend Fe is fake if you define Fe as "espousing an opinion [or stance] designed to promote social harmony even when your internal opinion [or stance] on something may be contradictory"... which is what seems to be what is being said (may be misunderstanding, disregard and sorry if so).

Disclaimer: I don't hate Fe. Also, my use of "is" and "can be" is a bit mixed in this post. I don't mean Fe is always fake, but I don't feel like figuring the proper wording to make "can be" work in the relevant sentences.

You're still missing that the semantic content of Fe is irrelevant. The truth value of the words doesn't matter. When I say 'no, I'm not mad at you,' it doesn't mean I'm literally not mad at you, it means I don't want you to feel like I'm mad at you. In the long-term, it's true - I'm not going to hold a grudge. In the moment, maybe I am mad at you, but that's meaningless to me. And it should be meaningless to you. That's what I'm communicating with Fe.

Yet another example. Let's say I give you this picture:

You say, "It's fake! Penguins don't have eyes that big, and how would you get it on a background like that? You should see some snow. Plus, the proportions are all wrong."

I say, "So what? You still get the impression of a penguin, and plus it's cute! Who cares if it's real or not, it's not like we're going to be eating it or selling it or something."

 

[Thalassa]

Which one is correct though?? D:

It's highly doubtful that the OP would make the statement I pointed out as a projection of Demon Fi.

Beebe actually describes what Demon Fi does. "IxTP's the personal factor in situations, or conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away."

That's not what's going on here at all. That statement seems like it would have come from an xxFP or an IxTJ.