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

[MacGuffin]

What is a "feeling tone"?

 

[skylights]

I've always felt that at a high level, "feeling judgments" were kind of a mental shorthand, in which experience and understanding are recorded for future reference. It's not recorded in anything resembling a "logical manner", yet the judgments are no less true or accurate, thereby.

It's so much more than "feelings" or "values" or "subjectivity."

Indeed, at its best, it is "wisdom."

it's a type of knowledge, just like T is. it's just a different kind.

I can see my question isn't going to get answered.

not to be a jerk, but there have been a lot of questions in this thread that haven't been answered. it's the nature of such a fast-moving thread. instead of passive-aggressively stating that, why not just restate your question? i imagine most people would be happy to answer it, but not so happy to dig back through pages and posts to find it.

A feeling tone, for me, doesn't immediately generate a value judgment, though, and that may partly be because I have interrupted that process. I don't take it at face-value because I'm repulsed by certainty and taking one's gut feelings as gospel, partly because I've seen so much of what can happen when people do that and their guts are wrong. So it has to go through a testing prodecure (which, like you say, gets shortened with practice and other times takes longer if I haven't encountered that particular phenomenon yet).

well, my Te is pretty good, and i kind of see what you mean but i think that there is a value judgment inherent to Fi on some basis - and that we can use Te to reconsider how valid that value judgment is on its own. i don't think that anyone but a very immature Fi dom (maybe aux) would take their emotions to be gospel, but rather it's more likely that one's emotions are tainting their value judgments, because in one situation you might value a certain thing, but with change in emotion, other things become more important. i almost wonder if you're also using your Si in this case, to compare baselines - to tell if you're being thrown off from the usual or not.

 

[Ivy]

Could be. At this point I'm really just fed up with this thread. It's giving me unpleasant feeling tones.

 

[skylights]

Could be. At this point I'm really just fed up with this thread. It's giving me unpleasant feeling tones.

yeahhh

sorry if any of those came from me

 

[William K]

Could be. At this point I'm really just fed up with this thread. It's giving me unpleasant feeling tones.

Typical Fe-Fi Ho-Hum reaction...

 

[Salomé]

Wow, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But this:

I have a feeling (value assessment) about probably everything I do and see in my world.

From the moment I wake up until I go to bed, if I pay attention, I could relate to you a value assessment about every aspect of my day. Here on the forums was where I first realized this to be true, and became aware it was not true for most other people.

..sounds exhausting...

Fi is like the angel on my shoulder. Or sometimes a kick in the nuts.
I mostly associate it with the kind of empathy that I can't ignore. That's usually a negative feeling. Or with the kind of bliss associated with art that moves me deeply. Perhaps I'm not talking about Fi at all. Meh, who cares.


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.)
If Fe is tuned into the standards/feelings of others, how does it perceive these things? How can it strictly be a judging function?
And if we perceive stuff other than via the 4 perceiving functions, isn't the CF model flawed?

 

[Totenkindly]

I'll let others answer about their experiences, but theoretically aux Fe (for IFJ) supports the primary perception mechanism. In other words, it takes the internal vision for the world and enacts it in the external world -- it's a way of structuring external reality to mirror the inside. That's also how aux Te would work (for ITJ).

Judgement is in service to the perception. Things move from the internal outward. I think this is different than aux Pe, where data is being collected and zapped into the primary.

Introverts do theoretically have a three-part movement -- flow from inside to the external (to ping the external world), then back inside. I'm wondering if Ji+Pe and Pi+Je emphasize two different pairings within this three-part directional flow... or some other weird permutation.

And if we perceive stuff other than via the 4 perceiving functions, isn't the CF model flawed?

Yeah, CF gives complete data coverage from the "raw data (S)" + "ramifications of data (N)" perspective, but I'm not sure things can be broken down that way, realistically -- can we 100% truly separate the duties of the labeled Perceiving functions from the Judging functions? It's a convenience leaving things isolated so we can more easily talk about them.

 

[Salomé]

I'll let others answer about their experiences, but theoretically aux Fe (for IFJ) supports the primary perception mechanism. In other words, it takes the internal vision for the world and enacts it in the external world -- it's a way of structuring external reality to mirror the inside. That's also how aux Te would work (for ITJ).

If it's enacting an internal view as you say, then how does this correspond to Fe? Wouldn't this kind of Fe look very different from a Fe-dom's Fe?

If they are so different, why lump them together? If they are the same, what is the common mechanism?

It's a convenience leaving things isolated so we can more easily talk about them.

Is it convenient? I find it highly inconvenient if it has no correspondence to how things actually work. I want a model that improves my understanding of how this stuff actually works - how psychic energy flows and connects us to our environment - not one that just helps us to talk about stuff.
Don't you?

 

[Totenkindly]

If it's enacting an internal view as you say, then how does this correspond to Fe? Wouldn't this kind of Fe look very different from a Fe-dom's Fe?

Well, I am glad you thought of highlighting this... I think it would have to be. Maybe that explains some of the differences in experience being described here by people with functions in different positions. Fe dom has to look different than Fe aux, even if there are similarities. (Note how tertiary Ti looks in INFJs, for example, compared to primary INTPs.)

But I think this is inherent in the eight-role Beebe model that EricB and others have discussed; even if that system might seem a little contrived, at least it recognizes that functions in different positions serve different roles.

If they are so different, why lump them together? If they are the same, what is the common mechanism?

Good question.
Still thinking...

Is it convenient? I find it highly inconvenient if it has no correspondence to how things actually work. I want a model that improves my understanding of how this stuff actually works - how psychic energy flows and connects us to our environment - not one that just helps us to talk about stuff. Don't you?[/

Of course.

Spin it around in your head, Morgan: I think it's convenient when we are interested in examining tangible data vs perceived connections between data. It's not convenient if we want to look at other things.

For example (completely random example), sometimes it's convenient to separate bears up by fur color, or sometimes by eating habits, or sometimes by size, etc. It depends on what we are trying to learn about bears. It doesn't mean that just because we want to look at size differences in bears right now that viewing them through some other lens is always a lie.

No model is perfect. So we use an assortment of models, like tools in a tool belt, to solve the problem at hand. That way we can come at something from different angles and see what works.

To summarize, the way we decide to frame the discussion is driven by the problem we want to examine. Maybe CF isn't always a great framework to use, even if it's helpful to view things as "perspectives" vs the 16 MBTI types sometimes, for example.

 

[Salomé]

Well, I am glad you thought of highlighting this... I think it would have to be. Maybe that explains some of the differences in experience being described here by people with functions in different positions. Fe dom has to look different than Fe aux, even if there are similarities. (Note how tertiary Ti looks in INFJs, for example, compared to primary INTPs.)

I guess. It's a bit woolly though. The only way we can categorise functions is by behaviour - we don't understand the neuroscience part. So if the behaviour looks different...see where I'm going?

But I think this is inherent in the eight-role Beebe model that EricB and others have discussed; even if that system might seem a little contrived, at least it recognizes that functions in different positions serve different roles.

Contrived, definitely. Almost astrologically so.

No model is perfect. So we use an assortment of models, like tools in a tool belt, to solve the problem at hand. That way we can come at something from different angles and see what works.

Well yeah. But this one purports to explain something that it does not - function dynamics. That's my problem with it.

I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.

 

[Totenkindly]

I guess. It's a bit woolly though. The only way we can categorise functions is by behaviour - we don't understand the neuroscience part. So if the behaviour looks different...see where I'm going?

If the behavior differs, how we can assume it's the same function neurologically? Yes, that's a leap.

Contrived, definitely. Almost astrologically so.

No arguments there, I think I have said as much. The real thing I value about it is simply that it acknowledges that the function's position in the model impacts expression of the function.

I still don't know how he comes up with assigning one function to parent, one to child, etcetra... Astrology seems more sound sometimes. At least my sign LOOKS like an archer...

I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.

Pants, ick. I hope there's a pair of jeans in there somewhere...

 

[cascadeco]

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.)
If Fe is tuned into the standards/feelings of others, how does it perceive these things? How can it strictly be a judging function?
And if we perceive stuff other than via the 4 perceiving functions, isn't the CF model flawed?

Meh... I'll answer how I see myself using Fe and why I don't relate to Fe equalling norms and such. I also realize my answer probably isn't going to be what I'm 'supposed' to be saying according to theory (I've never felt a strong affinity to infj either, so there's that as well - sometimes I think I've 'acquired' Fe rather than it coming from me naturally...but, in the end, cog functions are simply labels for abstract processes, it's not like they're built in our genetic code as such).

I've written this before, but Fe for me is sort of a tool...maybe choice is a better word... it's how I choose to communicate with people and it's the fact that I factor in other peoples' needs. So yes, say I have all of these thoughts and ideas in my head. The words I use to convey all of this is highly catered to the individual at hand -- I'm always adjusting my communication style to what I think/sense the other person best responds to - to what I know their preferences are. Fe also means the vast majority of the time I in fact don't say a word about what's going on in my head. Example: if I know a person is a strong adherent to such and such religion, I know they're set in that, and I'm opposite, I won't say a word. There's no point. If I know the person could care less about one of my hobbies, I won't talk about it. I wouldn't WANT to talk about it - knowing that they're bored to tears or whatever would ruin any enjoyment I may have had out of sharing. I'm not out to ruffle feathers or debate, nor do I have a need to have others know who I am - especially if I know who I am is not compatible with who they are. So it's always focusing on commonalities and not seeing a point in bringing up differences -- in day to day life and when it comes to acquaintances and such. Deeper relationships, that stuff will become evident as time goes on.

So Fe in the end is simply a mechanism for me to communicate with others. Internal world - NiTi - is still where I am most of the time and it's my ideas and analyses and conclusions -- Fe is how I present and externalize this information - merely a vessel, if you will. (The feedback loop though? I suppose on the other side of the coin I AM in the end overly concerned and attuned with my interpersonal relationships and those are of utmost importance to me -- so much of my NiTi 'time'/thoughts are devoted to Fe-ish type subject matter -- relationship dynamics, groups, etc). Also, I did like uumlau's comparison/contrast between Te and Fe -- their similarities and differences and what each respectively 'hones in' on -- I think that was pretty accurate.

 

[Ivy]

I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.

To be frank, that's where I'm moving at this point as well. Especially since Fi seems to be experienced so uniquely by the individual as to be useless for any kind of outwardly valid analysis. The concept of "feeling tones" in particular- I haven't seen any two Fi-doms describe it the same way, whether during this conversation or any other I've read or had in the past five years I've been on these forums. It seems like we're all throwing piles of Jello at moving targets here, and sometimes inadvertently hitting each other in the face.

There have been some very useful bits in this thread, and the vocabulary of function theory has helped define SOME very rough differences between those of us with a preference for feeling. But when I step back and look at the thread as a whole I think we're trying to force the concept to explain differences that are too fine for it to detect. Expecting a reliable level of repeatability/falsifiability out of a concept that is pseudoscientific to begin with is folly.

 

[cascadeco]

To be frank, that's where I'm moving at this point as well. Especially since Fi seems to be experienced so uniquely by the individual as to be useless for any kind of outwardly valid analysis. The concept of "feeling tones" in particular- I haven't seen any two Fi-doms describe it the same way, whether during this conversation or any other I've read or had in the past five years I've been on these forums. It seems like we're all throwing piles of Jello at moving targets here, and sometimes inadvertently hitting each other in the face.

There have been some very useful bits in this thread, and the vocabulary of function theory has helped define SOME very rough differences between those of us with a preference for feeling. But when I step back and look at the thread as a whole I think we're trying to force the concept to explain differences that are too fine for it to detect. Expecting a reliable level of repeatability/falsifiability out of a concept that is pseudoscientific to begin with is folly.

Truth be told, it's why I've actually always preferred dichotomies!!! Very straightforward! J=closure/control, P=open-ended/go-with-the-flow... etc. (and I often think the dichotomy differences are more telling irl anyway) Pretty cut and dry!

 

[uumlau]

I'm rapidly moving towards the "function theory is a pile of pants" model.

I'm of a similar mind, in terms of using function theory to "explain" things. It's also why it might feel similar to astrology, insofar as it tries to give a "why" reason to answer questions about personality. I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.

It's a typology. A typology is a particular kind of theory that is about classifying "things." As long as you have a means of separating things into distinct buckets, it's a valid method of organization. That means of separating is the essential part of the typology.

Function theory helps me in terms of thinking about how I think about things. Yes, there is a lot of mix and match going on, with several different flavors of thinking joining together in various ways. But in specific instances, you can see the particular style of thinking, and from experience with that style of thinking (in oneself or in others) you can "get a handle" on dealing with whomever employs it.

In the basic example of Fe vs Fi, the problem isn't one of understanding why people favor one or the other, or understanding a function one doesn't share more deeply. The problem is that the differences are distinct and noticeable, and reliable: the same patterns happen between people over and over. Except it isn't even really a problem because if we can see the pattern, we then know how to deal with it. When I see Fe in play, I can use a pseudo-Fe style to communicate. E.g., review my recent long reply to Fidelia, in which I employ the same "this isn't personal" kind of caveats that I note as being typical of Fe - I knew it was likely she'd respond favorably and grasp my context. Similarly, when I see Fi in play, I can use my more native Te + Fi modes of communication.

The functions classify these things that I have never classified before, and classify them usefully. The problem with general rules for what is polite or correct is that different people regard different things as polite and correct, and the rules can become extremely detailed, with no real theory can comprehensively cover all of it. Yet, with function theory, I can easily adapt myself to others' communication styles, even though I've never been that skilled at doing so in the past.

So, I don't need to understand "why" Fe feels as it does in order to make a connection. Rather, I simply respect how Fe works, and work with it as needed. Perhaps understanding will come in time.

In the case of Fi, an individual's Fi is going to be rather unique to the individual. The trick isn't to figure out how Fi works, or how Fi thinks, but rather to just respect Fi, and resolve to learn how to interact smoothly with those using it. Usually it just means dropping a few Fe assumptions, and adapting to the more personal mode of sharing that Fi employs, at which point, communication happens, and you learn how the Fi individual "feels" much more easily than trying to use Fe to read it.

For me, MBTI, and later Jung's (and others') function theory has always been more about understanding the ways in which others are commonly different. It has helped me understand myself better to a degree, and done so in unexpected ways, but the real help has been from understanding others. The power of the typology is that you don't need to know the inner workings (how Fe or Fi "really thinks" for example) in order to understand that there are differences and learn simple ways to respect them.

 

[tkae.]

For the most part, I have very few "clashes" with Fe, mostly because I can feel the static when it seems like a clash is coming, at which point I immediately defer to my inner Artful Dodger and position myself to avoid the conflict.

But that's with INFJs. I rarely encounter (and for some reason never, even if I do encounter one, hang around) ENFJs in the real world. If I do, I don't know they're type. They're like Sensors in that way. They're all around, but I never see them, ya know?

But they are, in both the literal and metaphorical way, at the opposite corner of the NF quadrant. ENFJs can come across to me as just ESTJs who speak my language but say the same thing. I don't have the same immediate aggression as with the ESTJ, who lacks any knowledge of my customs (much like how an American doesn't know that pointing is rude in Asia), but I have the same mistrust of motive and disagreement with worldview of the ENFJ as with the ESTJ.

With INFJs, we both lean back on our introversion and keep our differences of opinion to ourselves. We know that we disagree, but we don't make it a topic of discussion. We look at each other, laugh, and change the subject. With ENFJs, there's a much higher probability of them bringing our disagreement into the realm of discussion.

Which usually follows a common plot line:

We discuss the point with which we're in disagreement.
We both try to explain our own argument.
We both allow room for the other being right, then go into rebuttal about why they might be wrong.

Then the problem sparks:

The ENFJ hangs on to their concept of being "right", while I (an INFP) demand that they define "right"ness.
The ENFJ refers to their Se and expects me to "know" what "right" is.
I refuse to be limited to a single moral coordinate and subconsciously begin to assume the INFP aggressive stance.
The ENFJ puts weight on their assertion that I define a single moral coordinate and give reason for why it's different from theirs.

[begin initiation sequence]

They realize that something's FUBAR, but their J-ness causes them to maintain their position.

And then I go

Usually we aren't together long enough for it to get to the latter stages of the exchange, but if I were locked in a room with one, it would inevitably boil down to this result.

So...

:blushing:

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm of a similar mind, in terms of using function theory to "explain" things. It's also why it might feel similar to astrology, insofar as it tries to give a "why" reason to answer questions about personality. I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.

Exactly. It helps with tracking patterns that point to general trends. But to explain behaviour, no, how could it?

People naturally are so much more than just "cognitive functions". And yet, interestingly, we do reduce to loosely defined definitions of each. Enough to just catch the edge of lending credence to the descriptions in the first place.

If more people shared their personal vantage points in thread, it would help identify the underlying patterns more readily, IMO.

 

[Salomé]

Meh... I'll answer how I see myself using Fe and why I don't relate to Fe equalling norms and such. I also realize my answer probably isn't going to be what I'm 'supposed' to be saying according to theory (I've never felt a strong affinity to infj either, so there's that as well - sometimes I think I've 'acquired' Fe rather than it coming from me naturally...but, in the end, cog functions are simply labels for abstract processes, it's not like they're built in our genetic code as such).

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.

I don't think functions explain anything. Rather, they describe.

It's a typology. A typology is a particular kind of theory that is about classifying "things." As long as you have a means of separating things into distinct buckets, it's a valid method of organization. That means of separating is the essential part of the typology.

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.

 

[cascadeco]

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.

What I meant by 'Fe' not being tied to genetic code was that I don't believe it's as simple as that. That 'Fe' is a descriptor for a category of cognition and more often used as an all-encompassing thing that ties to a set of behaviors, but it's a descriptor we've developed to classify this generic set of stuff. This 'stuff', of course, is tied to genetics, as is pretty much everything, but I don't think it's as simple as 'Ooh, I'm an INFJ, so I have an 'Fe' gene, and he's an INTJ, so he has a 'Te' gene'. Bottom line, typology's simply labeling and categorizing observable trends when it comes to people - putting a name to these differences. Doesn't mean it's the *right* name or the categories themselves are 'right'. It's just one way, after all. (As you start mentioning below).

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.

Probably a difference, yes. But to be honest I can't tell you whether I've 'learned' mine or not. Often I think I have. But then it could be argued that the very fact that I've 'chosen' Fe vs. Te (apparently? lol) is in fact evidence that it's 'natural'. That choice/leaning speaks to a tendency within myself. gah.

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.

I dunno. I haven't reconciled them, to be honest, which is why I scrapped paying much attention to function theory about 1.5-2 yrs ago...the anything to do with strict function order and other really specific things, that is) I don't see it as terribly applicable irl - at least in a predictable way. All there are are overall trends (or with some theory, perhaps even Extreme or Ideal examples of each category), but imo the bulk of people deviate from the trends in one way or another such that the theory isn't terribly applicable on the individual level (at least in terms of how the theory is outlined and how it's 'supposed' to work according to theorists) but remains of some use when describing groups - i.e. statistical purposes, tendencies, etc.

I just get into these discussions every now and then because it is after all a typology forum and typology's all about the theory anyway.

 

[uumlau]

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.

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). The "back story" came first, isn't made up post hoc, and is the inspiration for all of the rest.

There are those who take function theory much farther than I would deem appropriate, those who do want it to "mean something" who want to figure out which brain activities map to which function use, and so on. Such theories are misguided precisely because functions are typological in nature, not real, objective entities. They might be a starting point, but I would expect legitimate research along such lines to at least revise the functional definitions to much more precise statements, so that they can be mapped properly, and more likely drop the concept of Jungian functions overall and replace them with a new typology that describes the brain mapping (not unlike the "right-brained/left-brained" typing that is also popular).

I've read the paper by Beebe that introduces his concept of 8 functions, with 4 shadow functions: it's entirely subjective, personal experience, nothing to do with clinical studies or observation - little better than an amateur post on a typology forum. His ideas are interesting, and largely seem to make sense, but they have some glaring flaws, e.g., an arbitrary order and a tendency to regard the shadow functions as always being negative in nature. Jung argued that we're in a continuous process of bringing these other, subconscious functions into the conscious realm - that one differentiates and realizes new ways of looking at the world, even if some ways are antithetical to one's primary way (function).

As for "predictive power", I've been using functions in a useful, predictive way for quite a while, now. The predictions aren't that fancy, mostly along the lines of, "Oh, I need to say it this way in order to convey the idea to that person." Or, e.g., if I use Fe-style instead of Te-style with this person, they'll stop being such an @$$ to me ... and it works! It's generally faster than my prior method of just guessing what might best communicate a complex idea.