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

[Amargith]

@ Q: Will respond to this, promise, but sleep first

 

[OrangeAppled]

like if i'm stuck between red and green, suddenly it becomes a decision between mom's favorite color and dad's.

i fear making a decision that will devalue someone or something by not choosing it. and the bigger the decision, the harder it gets. and i fail to see a clear pattern of what i'm deciding based on as connected to how happy i end up with that decision. i really need to figure this out.

do any other Fi-ers (haha, fire) ever feel that way? possibly i am crazy

Much of this sounds like Ne. You're making some random connection to the issue at hand and ascribing value to it based on that unrelated issue. Instead of relating things to something else external, Fi-doms may relate it to their inner ideal, so the reason for putting off a decision involves more of being able to reach that ideal or not - that's what authenticity is implying, staying true to the inner image of the ideal.

I notice a lot in this thread people attributing too much to Fe/Fi, which are just one function that makes up an entire mindset. I especially notice that when Fe/Fe is in the aux position, the Fi/Fe user will confuse it with their perception in a way, because Fe/Fi is supporting their perception.

maybe it's that i'm e3, but i seek to affect and be affected. i do not want to put anyone on a course that is not true to themselves, though. that is what i have a problem with some people, usually Fe people, doing... i think sometimes they don't think about the desires of other people and just guide them where they think those people should be going for the overall good. i'm good at helping people get where they want to go, but i want to know where they want to go first, even if it's not in harmony with the overall pattern. of course i think the person in question should try to be smooth about what they want to do, but if they want to rebel, that's kind of okay with me. sometimes things need a good shaking up so the things underneath come to the surface.

Again, this is because you are Pe-dom and Fi is supporting your Ne. When I say Fi does not seek to be affected nor to affect, I mean it in a pure form. The further it gets from the dominant function, the less it looks like this pure form. In the aux function, it seems to motivate ENFPs to explore an ideal in reality, which can lead to them seeking to motivate others to explore their ideals. Fi-doms appear much more passive or indirect in this respect. It tends to be so subtle it is almost undetectable, or IS undetectable, especially to Fe.

Funny...maybe other Fi-users aren't going to agree with this, but...

I guess in a way, to me, Fi is about intimately connecting in the moment. Kinda like a one-night stand with a guy you really like and trust. Just..in the moment. It's intimate, intense, and soothing..but there are no other expectations after that night. There has to be trust as there's a great deal of vulnerability that comes into play. There's just that special moment you share. And perhaps, if things went really good and you both like the idea of it, you could make it a more regular thing. And from there on, it could turn into the full blown thing. But that expectation isn't there from the beginning. And neither is the expectation of maintenance. It's just sharing a really intense experience and gaining a new way of looking at things..It's enriching to both parties, but not binding in any way.

While this metaphor makes my skin crawl, if you are referring to the ability to empathize in the moment genuinely with a person, and then walk away virtually unaffected, then yes, I relate to it. I think this is where you see people attaching themselves to the NFP and the NFP is confused & doesn't return the attachment. For the NFP, it was not about connecting to that person, well, personally, so much as fulfilling an ideal. That person represented an ideal, and to dismiss them would be almost immoral in a way.

I don't know if it is because I am an sp/sx in the enneagram, but I find it easy to briefly connect one-on-one with someone in that INFP "healer mode" and then quickly detach to maintain my own internal equilibrium. I find it easy enough to detach that I am a lot less affected by emotional vibes than many FPs seem to claim. I can tune it out and be oblivious if I feel like it. I see ENFPs giving the wrong impression of a deeper interest in someone more than I do, but then they also come off MUCH warmer in general.

This goes back to my assertion that Fi in itself seeks neither to affect or be affected. As a Fi-dom, I pretty much just want to be left alone, unless that person manages to hit on a feeling and arouses some sympathy, passion or response that lets my guard down a bit. Then I feel compelled almost beyond my own will, but rarely am I affected beyond being able to return to my previous state or affected in a permanent manner. When someone affects me beyond a moment, it really shakes my internal world up and my perspective of the external world. That sort of effect is extremely rare for someone to achieve in me. I tend to have these responses in relation to something a close family member/friend has said/done or indirectly through some form of art (ie. music, literature, painting).

 

[Thalassa]

I'm asking you, Fi-doms/aux, to consider an issue that Fi may present:

Fi wanting people to be so "open and real" doesn't mean that that's what it therefore achieves. I.e., it may force the hand where what it wants, and what it achieves, are not in sync.

People can shy away from that outright pressure of Fi WANTING [almost bulldozing in its need] for "openness and realness".

I don't think Fi bulldozes anyone. INFPs are the least bulldozer-like people I can think of, which is why I can't buy into the suggestion that I am one...I'm simply not passive enough. If anything is bulldozing anyone it's the combination with Ne or Te or Se (most likely Te and Se are the culprits) so I'm thinking that Fi aux would be more guilty of this.

 

[Qre:us]

I don't think Fi bulldozes anyone. INFPs are the least bulldozer-like people I can think of, which is why I can't buy into the suggestion that I am one...I'm simply not passive enough. If anything is bulldozing anyone it's the combination with Ne or Te or Se (most likely Te and Se are the culprits) so I'm thinking that Fi aux would be more guilty of this.

Everyone can bulldoze, just in different ways. Bulldoze, therefore I was meaning, coming on too strong. I'm speaking to something specific here, not whether INFPs are generally the bulldozer or passive personality type.

Cross an Fi-based value of an INFP and you are asking for wrath to be brought upon you. There's nothing passive about them, then.

 

[Salomé]

I really like what Satine said. I actually really treasure those unexpected moments of going to an unplumbed depth with someone fairly new to me. It's not something I can do with just anyone- it is kind of a "planets aligning" thing. I had that experience most recently just this past weekend. A dear friend invited me and three other of her closest friends to have a bonfire and do some ghei exercise with writing down things we want to let go on beautiful paper and burning them in the fire. I only knew my friend, not her other friends. I ended up bonding pretty deeply in the moment with one of her other friends. It's never expected- we just mind melded pretty spontaneously. But I don't expect to ever see again, outside of other social events with our mutual friend. Now that Satine has described it I realize that I do this pretty often and then just never see those people again, and that's okay.

This, I get. (One night stands and hugging people in the street, not so much - my mental barriers are far more permeable than my physical ones).
Some of the most precious moments of my life have been these kind of random connections with near strangers. People I've met whilst travelling and with whom I've established instant rapport and deep understanding, then never seeing them again. It's all the more precious because it's fleeting and totally of the moment and never sullied by banal familiarity.
This idea of proceeding through various steps and stages towards intimacy? Like a checklist? Ugh. How stifling. How Victorian. Why would anyone impose that on themselves willingly?

 

[Esoteric Wench]

This, I get. (One night stands and hugging people in the street, not so much - my mental barriers are far more permeable than my physical ones).

I love this. One of the best one liners (OK, technically a two-liner, but you know what I mean) that I've read on this forum.

I'm completely the same way.

 

[Lauren]

haha.. yeah, I reacted similarly.

I think this is where my pragmatism in relationships comes out.... I'll be frank, I tend not to see the *point* of an in-the-moment intensity/sharing thing. And I'm not that interested. For me, I'm about building, maintaining, and investing in longterm relationships - relationships that I believe can last. Also, for me to want to share deeply with someone and be really open/vulnerable, or whatever, it means I'm already to a point where I want them in my life for the long run - I share *because* I value the relationship and am already emotionally or relationally involved with them, and therefore want to get closer, and hope for that to continue and intend on my end to invest in it. I am sort of an all or nothing person when it comes to relationships. And to be frank again, I *would* have expectations that things would continue on afterwards. Perhaps this is why I would be/ am quite distrustful of the more typically 'P' approach of.. ok, let's just enjoy the moment and maybe things will continue or maybe on the other hand it'll just be an intense-moment-thing and that's that.....

Basically I don't approach relationships/connections in any way remotely resembling what Satine describes.

I am very open-minded about a relationship that begins suddenly, much like Satine's description. But, I agree with you in that I share myself because I value the relationship and am emotionally involved with the person. But, I don't like or have expectations because in my experience I'll only suffer as a result. I don't have steps that a person has to walk. When I feel strongly about someone, I've already walked that flight of stairs. They may not have, though. I respect that, and am willing to go back to the bottom of the stairs and wait for them to climb with me.

 

[cafe]

This, I get. (One night stands and hugging people in the street, not so much - my mental barriers are far more permeable than my physical ones).
Some of the most precious moments of my life have been these kind of random connections with near strangers. People I've met whilst travelling and with whom I've established instant rapport and deep understanding, then never seeing them again. It's all the more precious because it's fleeting and totally of the moment and never sullied by banal familiarity.
This idea of proceeding through various steps and stages towards intimacy? Like a checklist? Ugh. How stifling. How Victorian. Why would anyone impose that on themselves willingly?

The same reason I don't hand out copies of my birth certificate, my bank info/PIN, SSN, home address, times I plan on being away from home, and where I hide a spare house key.

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, I see it more like that than putting people through a series of steps. I want to see how they act in various situations, whether they are trustworthy, how they treat others and what they do with information before I'm going to choose to connect with them in that way.

 

[KDude]

Maybe I'm not INFJ after all. While there are plenty of areas where I feel ambivalent about revealing to friends, etc., I don't equivocate it to giving out my SS number. And I sure don't snub strangers.. Sometimes I notice a beautiful coincidence, spark up at something they said, and feel like relating something personal.

Secondly, I can defend myself. I'm not so afraid of life that I have build up some gigantic tower of trustworthiness just to get anywhere with people. I'm disgusted at this! That and the "doorslamming" thing too.

 

[Fidelia]

I don't know. It's not that I wouldn't relate anything personal at all to strangers that I connect with. If I know for sure that I'll never see them again, it sometimes is even helpful to discuss some things, knowing that it really doesn't matter. I also would relate a lot of information that many other people might consider personal, but it's all stuff that I've worked through and am quite comfortable with. That kind of stuff may make some people feel like we've had a moment, when in fact I'd feel equally comfortable saying it to almost anyone. If it's a deep part of who I am, sensitive information (either my own or others' close to me), or it gives the person power to affect me that they could misuse, then those are the kinds of things I don't share.

 

[Qre:us]

I guess in a way, to me, Fi is about intimately connecting in the moment. [....]
But that expectation isn't there from the beginning. And neither is the expectation of maintenance. It's just sharing a really intense experience and gaining a new way of looking at things..It's enriching to both parties, but not binding in any way.

I can relate to this a lot, and my Fi is my weakest function. Maybe I'm utilizing Fi when I do it, but, I just think it's my curious nature to optimize a moment [I don't have a good concept of linear time, and am thus, very "in the moment"]. And, it's not limited to only people (humans).

I think I actually utilize Ne-Ti-Fe to allow for such a moment to take place.

It's a drive to understand through connecting.

 

[skylights]

*** i deleted a bunch here. sorry, it was just too... well, not Fi and Fe. i don't know. i feel like i'm - and maybe we're all - easily slipping in and out of Fi and not Fi, Fe and not Fi, F and T, and functions and something totally different...

i dunno. need to think more, talk less. sit back and listen a little bit more. thanks for all the comments to my posts though, i'm definitely reading and thinking about them even if i don't respond.

Oh and skylights, that was a great post. Lots of stuff to go back over and answer. I will do it sometime today, but am teaching for the evening. I don't want to lose any of those thoughts though! In answer to the one thing - no, it's not that I think I'm deep and complex or that others can't handle me. I just think that Fe honesty and Fi honesty are different. I don't want to go around hurting someone with my Fe honesty, yet I am unlikely to feel truly close to someone unless I can be 100% me, even at my most unvarnished, frustrated or harsh. I don't exercise that on people close to me often, but of the maybe 4 people or so I've ever done that with, getting through that successfully is what allowed them into the very most inner chambers of my heart.

thanks fidelia, that makes sense. i know my language was emotional there but i wanted to leave it so you could understand how upsetting it feels through my experience. i see what you mean... though at the same time, i think that if you reassure Fi in the right places, you can say a lot of things.

Here is where I really want to make an awful crack about someone being all "so-dom"-y.... but I won't.

No, it's not just you. The comparison of Fi connections to one night stands isn't quite ringing true to me, either.

yeahh i get the metaphor but it's a little less... i dunno. intimidating to me. one night stands pull up all sorts of "we're drunk, let's fuck!" associations in my mind, not to mention hangover and regret. that never happens when i spontaneously bond with someone. it's just deeply pleasant and comforting.

Satine, if I (God forbid) were to ever find myself crying in public, the last thing that would ease my pain would be someone I didn't know well hugging me. I'd be embarrassed enough to be crying in the first place, let alone in front of people I didn't know. How do you distinguish? Because quite honestly, I could see myself tearing a strip off someone if they did that right then (well, at least the INFJ version of tearing a strip off).

there's kind of a knowing about it. it's very N. but i will always err on the side of not infringing upon someone, if i'm not sure. sometimes if it's a really awkward situation, like suddenly i'm alone in a room with a stranger who's just burst out crying, i'll just ask them if they'd prefer some time alone or if they would like me to stay... i don't want to just leave them without saying anything because i know that can feel like utter abandonment. anyway, i've actually had it happen to me quite a few times at college and i've gotten varying responses to my question from a very composed "sorry, i just need a few minutes" to an angry "just go" to nothing (to which i just said hey well i'll be outside if you want someone to talk to, she later did come talk to me) to some chick throwing herself on me in a bear hug. though if anyone has better ideas for how i could word that, i would love to know.

This is one issue I have with Fi-users. For me, there's a selfish tinge to this, although it may appear, emphathetic.

"Be emotionally okay because that will make my emotional state okay."

It's a nice sentiment, but, it undermines the depth and complexity of my feeling when it seems like the worry is no longer about me working through those emotions for myself, but, working through my emotions for US BOTH. Especially when I'm feeling such raw emotions, the last thing I need is another worry added on top of that, which is managing how the Fi-user feels as well.

well, it's not a nice sentiment, really... i was just trying to be straightforward. at the same time, i can't see how Fe users can claim that Fi users should be more responsible for their external behavior, when you're voicing that you don't want to be responsible for what you're putting into the atmosphere either. i understand that you may not pay attention to emotional cues from others, but that doesn't mean they're intangible, and it shouldn't free anyone of responsibility any more than me not paying a ton of attention to how my actions affect others despite intention frees me from them. after all, it technically is selfish to desire others to mediate their actions, too, because you don't personally like the impact. at a very base level, i think people want harmony/connection/etc both because it helps others and because it helps themself.

to look at what Tallulah expressed for a second -

I don't think it bothers Fe users to be vented at, because we need to vent. But knowing the difference now, I will be careful not to vent willy-nilly with an Fi user, knowing it might make them feel like they've had a lot of negative energy dumped on them. That's a distinction I wouldn't have known to make.

well, and i don't actually mind being vented at either. i really don't need anyone to manage my feelings for me... i can handle really strong feelings... i'm around them all the time, after all. it's not the emotion that gets me, it's the discrepancy. i can handle someone yelling, crying, throwing things. i get that... but when they're talking curtly to me and giving me cold looks and yet saying "there's no emotion going on here," that is just as unfair as me intending well but accidentally hurting another through my actions.

I want to be able to have my emotions just be about ME [and NO ONE ELSE], without the other option being to keep the emotions to myself to achieve said state. It's restrictive to self-expression.

i understand that feeling, and i actually hesitate in the same way with my own mom, and she's ESFJ. she'll feel so bad about things i tell her sometimes, because she knows i was hurting. i don't think it's likely for an F in general to hear about pain and then not respond with their own pain on some level. but how can you say "i want my emotions to only be about me" but then also say "i want to communicate my emotions (but still keep them only about me)"? communication is sharing. two people. you can't keep it all about you if you're sharing... it sounds like all you're really asking is for the other person not to respond to them in an emotional way.

though i'm not trying to say you shouldn't be able to tell someone that you had a bad experience without them getting bent out of shape. i totally agree with that. what i'm trying to say is that my response to that necessarily involves feeling the bad feelings, because then i can see from that standpoint too. it might sound selfish, but, at the risk of sounding big-headed, i think it's fairly altruistic to offer to wade through pain to try as best as i can to see a situation through someone else's eyes.

I guess the difference is that I don't see it as "polluting" other people, as I see it as confiding in those I trust, and an expectation that they'll be able to be there for ME, without losing themselves, in the process.

yeah. and i think if you get a mature and/or confident Fi person, it's easier to have that. part of who we are includes our ability to lose ourself in another person, which is good in some ways and bad in others. some people can do this quickly - lose yourself then come back to yourself to be able to look objectively at the other person again. but it kind of depends on what the other person wants. if they want someone on the "outside" just to listen, then moving through emotion very quickly - just touching base, really - then coming back is ideal. if they want someone on the "inside" to help them by simply being there and understanding who they are at a core level, then it's valuable to be able to lose yourself.

Should then people keep emotional expressions to themselves, unless it's "positive emotions"? That seems highly restricting and superficial.

and that is exactly how i always used to see, before understanding them at a deeper level, Fe demands on my behavior.

And to be frank again, I *would* have expectations that things would continue on afterwards. Perhaps this is why I would be/ am quite distrustful of the more typically 'P' approach of.. ok, let's just enjoy the moment and maybe things will continue or maybe on the other hand it'll just be an intense-moment-thing and that's that.....

i understand this perspective... i mean, i'm not really there myself, but i get your logic. and i'm going to try to be more aware of it in the future too. thanks for explaining it like that. am i right in the idea that you showed that person too much that might be a way to hurt you and then since they have no commitment to you, they might use that knowledge in a way that hurts you?

but i also just want to point out real quick, that both Fi and Fe are selfish. they both look for certain things out of others because they benefit the self. and i don't think it's necessarily bad to be selfish. if we weren't selfish, we wouldn't be capable of being individuals. but it sounds like we have different ways of manifesting that and we end up seeing one another as stubborn and self-centered and unfair, because it's so easy to miss our own bias.

of course they're both altruistic in ways, too.

 

[cascadeco]

I am very open-minded about a relationship that begins suddenly, much like Satine's description. But, I agree with you in that I share myself because I value the relationship and am emotionally involved with the person. But, I don't like or have expectations because in my experience I'll only suffer as a result. I don't have steps that a person has to walk. When I feel strongly about someone, I've already walked that flight of stairs. They may not have, though. I respect that, and am willing to wait to go back to the bottom of the stairs and wait for them to climb with me.

I should clarify what I meant by the expectation bit. If I am to the point in a relationship where I am opening up and sharing of myself, I would only be doing so when I have a good sense that we both value the relationship. So I 'expect' that it is going to continue and it's not just an in-the-moment Moment that is just that and then we head our separate ways. It is one reason of many that I pace things slower, I suppose.. I just need to know and have that trust that the person is there to stay. Now of course no one can predict the future or whether eventually there will be a falling out or the relationship will end or evolve/shift, but I need to have good indication that the solidity is there -- and believe both look at the relationship in a similar light.

So it's not that I have a bullet point list of specific expectations/behaviors out of the other, it's that I need to know they value the relationship as much as I and have the same desire to build/maintain it -- in whatever way that gets nuanced based on the connection and our two personalities combined.

 

[cascadeco]

i understand this perspective... i mean, i'm not really there myself, but i get your logic. and i'm going to try to be more aware of it in the future too. thanks for explaining it like that. am i right in the idea that you showed that person too much that might be a way to hurt you and then since they have no commitment to you, they might use that knowledge in a way that hurts you?

To your question - No, I don't think being worried about the other using the information to hurt me is what's on my mind. It really just boils down to the fact that my sharing and 'going vulnerable' means I'm on the road to wanting to invest in the relationship, and I believe the other is too. So if they'd then back away or walk off, I'd be hurt or embarassed (for having misread the situation) because they apparently then didn't view the nature of the relationship in the way I did.

 

[Thalassa]

i probably come off sounding very infringing on the forum, because i reveal and question so much, but IRL, i am so reserved that i thought i was an I until i actually learned function theory. i really, really hate making other people uncomfortable. i want my presence to be a positive thing for them.

This is so, so much like me...the only time I come off as overbearing IRL, I think, is when I am under stress and in my shadow (aka NFP becomes foot-stomping baby STJ). But it's not my preferred, relaxed, or "normal" state. I thought was INFJ for a long long time, and sometimes tested INFP. I still do test as INFx more than any other type.

 

[William K]

This thread sure moves fast with so many subthreads within... And it's not like a derail of the OP, but more like it got into Grand Central Station and branched into multiple tracks

 

[Esoteric Wench]

This thread sure moves fast with so many subthreads within... And it's not like a derail of the OP, but more like it got into Grand Central Station and branched into multiple tracks

I feel like I've been watching a train wreck... or maybe a better description would be "a bunch of NF's unchecked by any Ss (or even the occasional NT)."

It takes longer for me to process these posts than it does for forum members to make 100 more.

 

[highlander]

highlander, I find this very interesting. Can you explain this a bit more?

We need for perception to be balanced with judgment to function effectively in the world. If you think about people you know who appear immature, they are likely to have a dominant perceiving or judging function without a well developed auxiliary. I'm generalizing but this is largely true. Think of the person who judges without adequate perception or information, or the person who perceives but does not decide what to do or to act. An INXJ without a developed auxiliary won't get out of their shell. An ENXP that doesn't develop their auxiliary won't finish things or gets easily discouraged.

Furthermore, a failure to develop the auxiliary may cause one to reach directly to the shadow functions when they may not be appropriate for the situation at hand, or directly from the dominant to the tertiary (dominant-tertiary loop). The auxiliary seems to be the "path" to leveraging the other functions effectively.

So, from what I can see, the auxiliary is the single most important function from a type development perspective. It is required to provide a level of balance against the dominant function and somehow facilitates productive interaction with and usage of other functions.

That's how I understand it anyway.

 

[KDude]

I don't know. It's not that I wouldn't relate anything personal at all to strangers that I connect with. If I know for sure that I'll never see them again, it sometimes is even helpful to discuss some things, knowing that it really doesn't matter. I also would relate a lot of information that many other people might consider personal, but it's all stuff that I've worked through and am quite comfortable with. That kind of stuff may make some people feel like we've had a moment, when in fact I'd feel equally comfortable saying it to almost anyone. If it's a deep part of who I am, sensitive information (either my own or others' close to me), or it gives the person power to affect me that they could misuse, then those are the kinds of things I don't share.

Sigh.. It just sounds like some people have limits that are extreme. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It's one thing to not be totally open like an ESFP, but to promote this shelled up behavior is literally painful to hear about. It does no good for anyone but yourselves. I see nothing ideal about it. I see nothing that you're improving about the world by snubbing people. I mentioned in another thread that even Jesus himself had some pretty bad disciples (until they learned).. He kept an open mind. He had Fe. Even Martin Luther King could detect the good in others, and even invited some Chicago gang members to work with him.. the list goes on with open minded INFJs, who reached out, who mobilized people, and inspired them. Not this. edit: BTW, I know these are outlandish examples, but it's kind of part of my point. If they could do it, even a lowly INFJ could open their heart a little more. They are not THAT MUCH BETTER than other people. Like I said, it's disgusting.