[INFP] INFP and their feelings

[Population: 1]

How did you develop those values? What are they based on?
And if I may ask; everyone does have values, moral guidelines. What do you think differs in the way the INFP processes their values?
I ask because I wonder why it's important enough to be an identifier for someone using Fi/is an I-FP, when everyone does have values.

How did I develop these values?

That’s the thing isn’t it? How do they form? I can only say I think they’re a combination of my parents actions and something inexplicably inherent in my being. I say this because my parents were very moral people, not in a holier than thou way but in a very down to earth way. They were real. Honest to a fault almost but solid respectable people. You can’t help but have that be ingrained in your personality. This behavior and this code they had could just be learned traits in me, a habitual conditioning. Yet they’re more than a set of instructions to me. There’s real passion there when I feel someone or some situation is dishonest. So where does that fire come from? Perhaps it’s from my parents as well. My dad when faced with dishonesty would be quietly disappointed in the person or situation. My mom would become fired up and made her displeasure known. So maybe my feelings are directly inherited too. Or maybe I have my own fire from the way I’m wired. lol I’m probably creating more questions than definitive answers.

As to why these values seem so integral to an INFPs way of viewing life? Perhaps it’s the passion I mentioned. At least for me, when examples of my values are violated, I can’t not become incensed. Other types have values too but some will approach a situation with a detached practicality. X has occurred so I will respond with Y. It’s a very logical and dry process. My degree of feeling depends on the value and the severity of it’s violation. Some things I can shrug off and others will leave me so angered I cannot let their actions go unchallenged. I just can’t.

Idk. I’m no expert on the functions so someone else can definitely dissect this in a more succinct manner I’m sure.

 

[notmyapples]

How did you develop those values? What are they based on?
And if I may ask; everyone does have values, moral guidelines. What do you think differs in the way the INFP processes their values?
I ask because I wonder why it's important enough to be an identifier for someone using Fi/is an I-FP, when everyone does have values.

It's like constantly developing and applying those values to everything you do, most of the time not even noticing that you do it. Everybody has values but Fi consistently knows where it stands on issues because it's always asking itself what it values about this or that, it has moral guidelines like everyone else but it's constantly pondering inside those moral guidelines and expanding with every new unique situation it comes across. That is one of the easiest ways to identify between high or low order Fi, high order Fi wants to look at every moral dilemma individually so it's unlikely to use the ultimatums or sweeping ethical generalizations that low order Fi uses that X is bad, Y is good and good people choose Y. Fi sees the complexity of morality and grey zone of those decisions, what may be morally correct for one person or situation isn't so much so for another and Fi wants to place itself intimately into each of those decisions, like it's actually making them even if they are only reaching that conclusion for themselves.

 

[Hiraeth]

I see, thank you so much for your replies. I don't see much of such a deep level of introspection and drive to keep moving forward and changing often, even in other I-FPs. You're of a different flavour than the common ones I know of (it's that really strong w5 in you, from what I see). Generally speaking it's not that easy to truly detach from the ego and practice humility. Even if this not apply to the broader range of people of even the same type, the way you described the processing and motives themselves gave me more insight to what Fi is and how it can work. You explained things very well, I at least can understand what you're saying. Thank you again.

Thanks. I'm not sure it happens as often as I'd like, but I try, and at least keep it in mind (laziness and escapism get the best of me at times, unfortunately).

How do you weigh the pros and cons? What are the criteria?
And if you know other Fi doms or Fi auxes, do you think you differ from them in how you process and weigh things? You definitely are a special one.

By level of practicality versus how meaningful it is to me. Deciding whether practicality is more important and/or efficient in a given situation than the latter. Thinking how it would impact me in the future. Maybe trying to find balance, if possible.

Yeah. My mother and sister are both xSFPs, one an “E” and the other also an “I”, but different enneagram types. I'm definitely different from what I've seen of them, especially with ESFP types. They are often way more practical and better adapted to the real world than I am. They usually think most of what I'm into is hokey and weird. The main thing we share is a love for aesthetics, though I usually need some kind of meaning and/or symbolic content behind something for me to really identify with it. Just how I used to have a specific favorite color when I was young, most everything else I had interest in a concrete format needed to incorporate that color in some form for me to really feel connected with it. Fi-dom 4s in particular with the 5 wing are major aficionados of symbolism compared to other types. Everything I do (mostly in terms of it being permanent rather than fleeting), like coming up with names for things or making artwork in general needs to have some kind of symbolic content behind it that I'd relate to on an almost esoteric level. Most SFPs are okay with something as long as it pertains to their five senses. Many times that isn't enough for me, though admittedly it is of major importance too.

Don't mention it. That part is my lifetime hobby.

Heh, same. I'm just not as good at coming up with such questions in depth. 👍

 

[mgbradsh]

I thought of something this morning that might put some of the questions into context.

When I’m driving I usually have the radio tuned to a top-40, new music type station. I was thinking about why I choose those stations, the music is okay, not amazing, overall it’s kind of meh.

It’s kind of what I need when I’m starting off my day or heading home. For me, a lot of music is tied up to things that have happened in the past, be it events, people, whatever. When I listen to an oldies station, or classic rock, or hip hop, whatever, it’s going to elicit an emotional response at some point that I just don’t need to have. So I’ve been subconsciously avoiding certain stations to avoid colouring my day with some random memory that is attached to a song that was randomly played by a DJ ultimately trying to attract advertisers to their station.

It’s just easier to listen to something I have no emotional attachment to unless a time comes around when I’m ready to sit down and feel the emotions a certain song will bring.

 

[Earl Grey]

It's like constantly developing and applying those values to everything you do, most of the time not even noticing that you do it. Everybody has values but Fi consistently knows where it stands on issues because it's always asking itself what it values about this or that, it has moral guidelines like everyone else but it's constantly pondering inside those moral guidelines and expanding with every new unique situation it comes across. That is one of the easiest ways to identify between high or low order Fi,
1) high order Fi wants to look at every moral dilemma individually so it's unlikely to use the ultimatums or sweeping ethical generalizations that low order Fi uses that X is bad, Y is good and good people choose Y. Fi sees the complexity of morality and grey zone of those decisions, what may be morally correct for one person or situation isn't so much so for another and
2) Fi wants to place itself intimately into each of those decisions, like it's actually making them even if they are only reaching that conclusion for themselves.

Bolded #1: Would you say Fi is more morally grey in general, or could be more morally grey? It's strange because a lot of the Fi I've met have had very strong reactions, or very strong emotional reactions to injustices, etc. What if the Fi-user happens to decide that a certain thing is not necessarily 'bad'? For example, what if kindness is not one of their values? If Fi works on purely values, then there are both 'good' and 'bad' values, no?

Bolded #2: Do they need to emotionally feel the impact to be able to develop a personal value based off it, or can it be off something they learn? For example, more to cognitive empathy than a more emotional one? What do you think, and what do you do in terms of judging whether or not something is of value to you?

 

[Earl Grey]

That’s the thing isn’t it? How do they form? I can only say I think they’re a combination of my parents actions and something inexplicably inherent in my being. I say this because my parents were very moral people, not in a holier than thou way but in a very down to earth way. They were real. Honest to a fault almost but solid respectable people. You can’t help but have that be ingrained in your personality. This behavior and this code they had could just be learned traits in me, a habitual conditioning. Yet they’re more than a set of instructions to me. There’s real passion there when I feel someone or some situation is dishonest. So where does that fire come from? Perhaps it’s from my parents as well. My dad when faced with dishonesty would be quietly disappointed in the person or situation. My mom would become fired up and made her displeasure known. So maybe my feelings are directly inherited too. Or maybe I have my own fire from the way I’m wired. lol I’m probably creating more questions than definitive answers.

So more or less, what is 'authentic' is what is you value, and becomes your value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot tell which comes first to you, the values or the person, in other words, whether the values stem from the person's experiences VS from how they 'authentically' are? Can the values also be something more external, something a person decides is good and want to become, or do you give more weight to experiences & nature/nurture? Is that 'ingrained passion' how you figure that your parents' 'instructions' were more than just instructions, but also something you inherently value deep down, or did you also test them out to see if they work for you? On a similar line of thought, can negative experiences twist someone to uphold negative values? (After all, Fi does not necessarily equate to "good person").

As to why these values seem so integral to an INFPs way of viewing life? Perhaps it’s the passion I mentioned. At least for me, when examples of my values are violated, I can’t not become incensed. Other types have values too but some will approach a situation with a detached practicality. X has occurred so I will respond with Y. It’s a very logical and dry process. My degree of feeling depends on the value and the severity of it’s violation. Some things I can shrug off and others will leave me so angered I cannot let their actions go unchallenged. I just can’t.

Would you say you, or INFPs in general, are less able to approach things with a detached practicality? What if approaching things with a detached practicality is something they value? If so, how does that separate an INFP from a more 'naturally' detached practical type, say an INTJ? (Just your opinions, doesn't matter if it's not from function theory. If I was looking for something from pure theory I'd go to Google and read books instead of ask questions).

Idk. I’m no expert on the functions so someone else can definitely dissect this in a more succinct manner I’m sure.

Don't worry. I don't want to just read it from the book, I want to ask the people. The theory comes from the person, not the person for the theory.

 

[Population: 1]

So more or less, what is 'authentic' is what is you value, and becomes your value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot tell which comes first to you, the values or the person, in other words, whether the values stem from the person's experiences VS from how they 'authentically' are? Can the values also be something more external, something a person decides is good and want to become, or do you give more weight to experiences & nature/nurture? Is that 'ingrained passion' how you figure that your parents' 'instructions' were more than just instructions, but also something you inherently value deep down, or did you also test them out to see if they work for you? On a similar line of thought, can negative experiences twist someone to uphold negative values? (After all, Fi does not necessarily equate to "good person").




Would you say you, or INFPs in general, are less able to approach things with a detached practicality? What if approaching things with a detached practicality is something they value? If so, how does that separate an INFP from a more 'naturally' detached practical type, say an INTJ? (Just your opinions, doesn't matter if it's not from function theory. If I was looking for something from pure theory I'd go to Google and read books instead of ask questions).




Don't worry. I don't want to just read it from the book, I want to ask the people. The theory comes from the person, not the person for the theory.

The thing about not checking off Remember Me (I accidentally forgot) when you log in is it kicks you after a certain span of inactivity. Which for some fucking reason includes being in response mode. I take a long time usually constructing my answers to detailed questions. By the time I was ready to post it considered me to have been inactive and thus my response was only partially autosaved. Sorry but fuck that- I’m not retyping all that. Interesting thread nonetheless. I hope the rest proves more fruitful than that colossal waste of time I just engaged in.

 

[notmyapples]

Bolded #1: Would you say Fi is more morally grey in general, or could be more morally grey? It's strange because a lot of the Fi I've met have had very strong reactions, or very strong emotional reactions to injustices, etc. What if the Fi-user happens to decide that a certain thing is not necessarily 'bad'? For example, what if kindness is not one of their values? If Fi works on purely values, then there are both 'good' and 'bad' values, no?

Fi is morally grey in general, but that doesn't mean all people who use high-order Fi are going to be especially healthy individuals just like any other type. When I talk about Fi I am speaking with the assumption that the user has a normal grasp on the function in whatever position it is, as the dominant function a person will normally have the strongest grasp on Fi but that isn't always true.

And it's important not to confuse passion with black-and-white thinking. Fi will view each moral decision individually, it does not apply the same moral code to everything which is why Fi is so morally grey, but once it has come to a moral judgement on that individual subject then it is very passionate in it's feelings about it because it's gone through that entire process of deciding whether or not they agree with it. Fi is very opinionated but unlikely to immediately speak it's opinion like a Je function may because it needs to take the time for that process. With an Fi dom, you could mention to them a controversial issue and they'll largely be silent or seem lukewarm about it, but then the next time you try and talk to them about it they could have an entirely nuanced and passionate opinion about it. That's because the Fi user has taken the time to ponder the issue and decide their stance on it. Of course, if they've already heard of the issue and decided their opinion before you started speaking about it then they'll already have that passionate opinion ready, but the process behind how they reach that opinion is different. It is not an immediate external judgement or reaction, it is a cultivated one as Fi is a Ji function. Whether or not that opinion is based in actual good values is irrelevant to this functioning.

Bolded #2: Do they need to emotionally feel the impact to be able to develop a personal value based off it, or can it be off something they learn? For example, more to cognitive empathy than a more emotional one? What do you think, and what do you do in terms of judging whether or not something is of value to you?

Fi is usually less connected to emotions than Fe because Fe is a function that is reacting to the environment around it, it is taking in people's immediate emotions to form it's value judgements which makes Fe users far more empathetic in the literal definition of feeling other's pain. An Fe user sees someone sad and will also feel sad because Fe is tuned into the environment naturally.

Fi is a function that forms it's own internal judgements, it is not connected to the external emotional sphere in order to function. An Fi user may see someone sad and want them to stop feeling sad, but this will either be because they related it to their own experiences ('I've felt sad before and it sucked, so it must not feel good to be that person right now') or because they morally feel like that individual person doesn't deserve to feel sad. This is still a version of empathy, but it a cognitive empathy whereas Fe is usually emotional. Sometimes one can experience the other, if the Fi user is very emotionally invested in a person then they could simply hate seeing the other person sad because they care about them so much and it makes them sad, but that is a specific circumstance and in general not how Fi functions. Fi is more strongly connected to it's own feelings than Fe is, but Fe is more strongly connected to feelings in general.

Fi does not need to feel any immediate emotions to create a value judgement about something and usually doesn't anyway, Fi doesn't need to do so to create a result. That is more Fe.