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

[OrangeAppled]

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

The thing is, Fe people seem to think that X action means Y good intention, and Fi is operating in its own way, not according to formula. Y good intention in Fi do not come out in the prescribed X way, so Fe wants to deny the existence of Fi's good intention. In this sense, Fe is more about what actually manifests on the surface, because as long as X is shown, then it's rather assumed that it's stemming from Y good intention (although other factors may prove it to be phony), and if X is not shown, then Y good intention is questioned. This is frustrating for the Fi person.

 

[Random Ness]

^^^^

Concrete examples plz?

 

[OrangeAppled]

Oh...I'm no good at concrete examples....I'll get back to you if I ever think of one (they always seem too specific....).

 

[skylights]

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.

babysitting? i think this is a fair Fe-Fi dividing line. Fe users tend to see universal behavior standards - so you can conceptualize "babysitting" as being a good thing, probably with rules that anyone could enforce, but to me that term seems rather insulting, as if you think you're better than everyone else because you know how we all should act and have the right to direct everyone to act your way. personally, i would prefer that you'd only babysit if it was an event you were hosting. i understand it in that case (i've hosted enough events to know ), but if it were someone else's event - or nobody's event - i would feel that babysitting would be disrespectful to the host and to other people, in that it's an implication that people don't know how to conduct themselves in a way that is good for them, and also that they shouldn't be allowed to act otherwise.

 

[Affably Evil]

The thing is, Fe people seem to think that X action means Y good intention, and Fi is operating in its own way, not according to formula. Y good intention in Fi do not come out in the prescribed X way, so Fe wants to deny the existence of Fi's good intention. In this sense, Fe is more about what actually manifests on the surface, because as long as X is shown, then it's rather assumed that it's stemming from Y good intention (although other factors may prove it to be phony), and if X is not shown, then Y good intention is questioned. This is frustrating for the Fi person.

I don't know if Fe cares that much about intentions. I mean, intentions are a factor, but the ultimate reality is the F extraverted reality, e.g. the execution and result of the intent-to-act, rather than the introverted reality of the source of the intent-to-act. Even if someone has a good intention that ends up hurting someone (or on a much more trivial level, is an irritant, acts as an obstacle, and so on), then that good intention is subordinated to its effect on the external (ideally "good" "principled" or "values-driven") reality. In that sense yes, good intention is "denied" by being subjugated more to the result.

Though because everyone's position on what that external ideal reality ought to be is distinctly constructed from a multitude of perspectives, nobody is going to exactly agree as to what it properly constitutes. So you'll get that frustrating variation where the rules change depending on where you are. Despite the supposed existence of previously agreed-upon "Fe" guidelines, even adept Fe users will have to adapt to/learn them as they move between any cultural, societal, or personal groups to perform those signs.

I agree with you that Fe prioritizes what is externally manifested, and tends to trample the unarticulated Fi good intention under when that good intention seems to be causing disturbances that are perceived at the time to not eventually lead to group or larger benefits. However, oftentimes Fe has made oversights or has muted sources of hurt or dissent that Fi picks up like alarm bells.

You're right: because Fe understands intentions as manifested through "good" or "beneficial" actions, it becomes difficult for an Fe user to trust the Fi user's presence of good intentions if they haven't been putting capital into the social bank of socially established signs of good intention as manifested through "good" results of action.

So my question is how might we bridge this gap?

 

[skylights]

^ my problem with that setup - and therefore perhaps a place that we can begin to bridge - is that, in addition to overseeing good intention, a results-only paradigm overlooks accounting for chaos. sometimes random variables are going to throw off results through no fault of the person acting.

for example, a kid trying to get to school on time but missing the bus because the bus driver forgot to go down that kid's street. in that case, the results don't match up with the intention, but they don't match up with the external effort the kid made to wake up, shower, eat breakfast, brush his teeth, get his things together, and get out to the bus stop, either. really, he did everything right. should that kid be punished for being late?

i think it breaks down here especially in terms of Pe (Ne, Se) and Je (Fe, Te) because Pe tends to act on the fly whereas Je tends to plan ahead. Je dom/aux create contingency plans, whereas Pe dom/aux just make do with what we have at the moment. for Pe dom/aux, it's kind of an underlying assumption that the bus will arrive on time, since it's a variable that you're not personally responsible for controlling. and an assumption that if the bus doesn't arrive on time, the things caused by that aren't your problem. Js are more likely to see that the external structure may be less than ideal, and see the ways to account for that.

personally, i've grown up with a Fe dom mother and have a Fe dom best friend, and especially from interacting with and learning from them, i think that it's really important for all of us just to show a mixture of both. because really, good results don't mean anything if they don't have good intention behind them - without the good intention, they're just a lucky accident, and the good that they produce can't reasonably be attributed to the person - but intentions equally don't mean anything if they never come to fruition. so as an answer to the question i posed before of whether the kid missing the bus should be let off, yes and no. he should learn from the mistake that he needs to have a backup plan, and he should get in touch with the bus driver so that the same thing doesn't happen again. but he shouldn't be chided for making an honest effort, either, otherwise he'll feel like his effort means nothing - which isn't true.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Introverted intuition...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...

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 ) 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.

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.

Affably Evil, this was very, very helpful to me. Thank you for posting. I really like what you said here and I think you shed some new light on the whole Ni-Fe thing for me.

In particular, I like the way you articulated the differences between those who have a chaotic outer world (chaotic here referring to a perceiving function, viz. S or N) and apply order (with a judging function, viz. T or F) to it in their inner world, versus those who have a chaotic inner world and apply order to it in their outer world.

And, I think you're dead on right about how sometimes there is a mess of over-generalization with Ni-Fe. At least that's how it feels to me.

 

[cafe]

The generalization is, to a degree, about efficiency. I'm one person. There is only so much time. Only so much energy. I will make a reasonable effort to please and I will trouble-shoot inter-personal problems to a point, but I have to have a reasonable rate of return on investment or I get frustrated. I'm really very happy at home alone playing on my computer or reading books -- the return on investment rate on those things is extremely high for me -- interactions with people take a lot more effort and the return is a big crap shoot.

Even with my family, I will, say, make a meal and I will keep things on hand for people who don't like what I cook, but I'm not cooking several things. I try to make stuff that most people like, but if they don't like it, they are going to have to fend for themselves. I don't enjoy cooking -- I'm not doing it as a hobby, but because we need to eat and we're on a budget.

Now if somebody is sick, I will go out of my way to make sure they have something that will make them feel better -- that's reasonable. If somebody is just picky I'm not bending over backwards unless it's their birthday or something.

I don't host things if I can avoid doing so. I really don't get much pleasure from doing it because by the time the preparation is done, I'm too exhausted to enjoy the resulting interaction -- and half the time there are issues with people that cause distress if they are not worked around because people can't keep a lid on their issues long enough to get through a frigging meal or child's birthday party. Bleh.

Life is just too short to mess with all that crap.

 

[Totenkindly]

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 skimmed this whole post, and maybe it's something to avoid when discussing either side to start mixing selfish parts of a particular function perspective.

Selfish Fe will say things like, "why are you... undermining my efforts?" In that case, the experience has become about validating the Fe'ers sense of self-worth... but that is not inherently part of Fe. (Typical anecdote: The ESFJ party hostess who dominates a gathering or plans some big social event.) You do this a few times in your post, where you associate some aspect of selfishness with the function itself.

Meanwhile, I note that your Fi descriptions seem void of such things and paint it in a far better light... but frankly, there are selfish expressions of both function perspectives that people routinely fall into. Maybe you could add a few to your Fi description, to even things out?

If the explanation you are offering is intended to remain neutral, you should either be criticizing both or neither. And this isn't about supporting Fe, really; it's about presenting an accurate and fair picture of both, otherwise the meanings become distorted.

.... 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.

Good overall criticisms/clarifications... including viewing the Shadow as redemptive rather than necessarily negative in nature. (Which is how Jung referred to it.) I think I've made the Beebe criticism before.

Pretty much the last paragraph mirrors how I use MBTI in a practical sense. It's an overall, general strategy shift rather than some detailed and specific plan that fits every scenario -- for example, realizing I'm being far too broad and abstract when I need to be more specific and detailed, or that I'm trying to provide a rational argument for a position that the other person is holding because they value something that I wasn't aware of, so I need to go more through the heart than the head.

The guiding influence is, of course, the person you are trying to communicate with in the moment.

 

[Adasta]

Meanwhile, I note that your Fi descriptions seem void of such things and paint it in a far better light... but frankly, there are selfish expressions of both function perspectives that people routinely fall into. Maybe you could add a few to your Fi description, to even things out?

Easily done:

Selfish Fi lashes out by taking away elements that others would enjoy simply because Selfish Fi doesn't feel good/isn't having a good time. A good example of this is a group of children playing football (soccer) where one of them gets upset with the game (s/he is losing, for example) and then says "It's my ball and I'm going home!", promptly taking the ball away and ruining the game for everyone else. In the context of a party, it could be willful non-engagement with other guests, passive-aggressively undermining the whole concept of the party ("party's are worthless anyway; they're full of superficial posers blah blah blah"), or being caustic during "party conversation".

Alternatively, there could be moments where Selfish Fi doesn't believe his/her needs are being met and therefore becomes resentful. Continuing with the party theme, if the host/ess does not lavish enough time/attention/praise on Selfish Fi, or, at least, not enough attention as Selfish Fi sees it, then resent can build against the main figure at the party rather than at the party itself. This could cause bitchy comments to be formulated against the host/ess for the perceived "cold shoulder" received by selfish Fi in comparison with all the others.

 

[Fidelia]

Not sure if this is what Random Ness meant or not, but when I think of babysitting at a party, I wouldn't mean making sure that everyone behaves appropriately, so much as making sure that people aren't being left out, making conversation with someone so they are having a good time etc. I think I tend to extrapolate how I would feel if I was on the edges of things and even if it's not my first inclination, feel compelled a little to try to make people feel happy and included. Especially if I were a friend of the host, I would see this not as usurping their role, but rather supporting them in it because there is too much going on for them to attend to everything: food, dealing with emergencies, greeting people as they arrive, taking coats, making sure people have what they need, making everyone feel welcome.

 

[skylights]

^ ah. that take on it is why i love Fe dom/aux

though i think there can be a dark side of it that can come off as abandoning to Fi users, in addition to being slightly controlling. growing up, i had to learn that my mom would never attend to me at parties she hosted because she felt the need to attend to everyone. sometimes that made me wonder if she cared about me any more than the other people at the party, even though i was supposed to be, as her daughter, special to her. that was a hard thing for my little Fi-self to come to terms with.

and even 15 years later, it's still hard. at a long (several days) visitation recently for a close relative who passed away, i didn't really know a lot of people, and it was far from home, and i was worn out and emotionally exhausted (lots of people crying, dead body on display, totally unexpected death, we were taking care the practical stuff and taking care of the deceased's inner family, kinda rough in general) - and i wish my mom (ESFJ) would have just hung with me in private for maybe 15 minutes or so while we were hosting the visitation. i asked if she would. but she never did... at least, not during the visitation itself. there were always more people who needed to be talked to... i ended up spending my time alternating between socializing/hosting and taking short sanity-preserving breaks on the phone (with a Fe dom, lol). i would really have just appreciated the warmth and familiarity and security and camaraderie of my mom, though, even for a short time, and she was right there... and yet never there. she sat with me eventually once it was all over, but by that time i didn't really need her support anymore.

of course, she was the one who made things easier for everyone in general, and made everyone feel welcome, but there's a certain give-and-take to it... when you try to attend to everyone you end up leaving some people behind. including yourself! this is more true for SFJs, i feel like, but sometimes it seems like they're so busy caring for others that they forget their simple presence is more appreciated than whatever they're attending to. once my mom left our family table at a crowded restaurant to get ketchup for my brother... 15 minutes later she returned with it, and we were pretty much done. she was upset when we said we just wish she would have stayed. she thought she was making things better, but she wasn't. she just excluded herself from being a participant, and everyone missed her. it happens with my Fe dom (ENFJ) best friend too. she's ditched plans on very short notice on me a few times before to attend to one of her neighbors who has borderline pd and has occasional tantrums. on one hand, i totally understand and i respect her even more for being willing to help her neighbor like that... but on the other hand, i've been kind of hurt, because it has seemed like she didn't care enough about me to bother asking if i minded (which of course i don't, and i know she knows that, but i would have appreciated an indication that me, and our plans, are still important to her).

i just feel like there's a certain prioritization that occurs in my mind that doesn't seem to occur to the Fe dom/aux i know as much - or, at least, doesn't manifest in the same way. sometimes it's just like they get so busy attending to everyone that they overlook the heart of the matter. like, the point of eating out with my family isn't eating, it's with my family. i know mom meant to be a caretaker, but she missed what really mattered to us. she was trying to show her love through works, but we really wanted her to just be. haha, wow, that almost sounds zen or something. but also if my best friend or mom wants me, it doesn't really matter who else i'm talking to, or how everyone else around me is faring (provided no one is getting really hurt physically or psychologically, of course, obviously emergencies always come first). but bar any emergencies, i'm going to attend to my best friends and family preferentially. Ne doms are sometimes accused of going after what's shiny and new, but i have to point out that Fe dom/aux seem to do the same thing with people... it's not always a bad thing. it's often good. it just has a dark side, too.

so it all kind of ties into what cafe said about there not being enough of her to go around. i feel like i would spread myself thin if i tried to take care of everyone, but i know i can do a very good job with a small amount of people. so i feel like i have an inner circle i take care of, and certain other people will "light up" on my radar and become an ad-hoc part of my inner circle if they're especially ignored or hurt or left out (that whole "taking care of the underdog" thing). and back to the party situation, a lot of people - usually Js and ExxPs - do just fine at events on their own. they don't really need, and moreover may not even really want, my extra attention.

so, yeah. just wanted to share why/how the hosting thing Fe dom/aux do, even though it's usually awesome in terms of whole-group stuff, could also be a frustrating POV for an NFP to deal with. and i do see how just taking care of a select group can have its dark side, too. i just happened to be born Fi, lol.

i'm still a proponent of Fe and Fi working best together.

 

[Fidelia]

I agree with you - there definitely needs to be balance! I think as I've gotten older I'm getting better at realizing that I can spread myself so thin that I don't really end up helping anyone. I also used to tend to prioritize according to who was most urgently demanding my attention, which was not fair to the other people who had been waiting. I'm getting better at promising less and delivering more.

To your mum, the need for making someone happy by bringing them something they wanted for their meal usurped the overarching value - spending time together. I think that's something that Fe people have to constantly keep remembering, even for their own selves - what is the most important thing here.

One of my tendancies is also to feel frustrated and unsupported when I am forced to take on something that I cannot do alone, but there are not enough people to help. When those things happen to people close to me, I see myself as an extension of them and try to be there to make it work. However, with my close Fi people, I realized they don't see that as part of being loyal or supportive. It's a whole separate issue and they don't understand why I'm feeling mad at them for not helping with something that isn't their job. I've learned to ask more often when I need help and also to accept it without becoming angry if they decide not to, even if they aren't busy at that time.

I think it was good that you at least asked your mum for some time. Sometimes I've found that it helps to even ask the Fe person to schedule it in, because then it feels more urgent (like they would be letting you down) and it is more likely to happen.

 

[Random Ness]

Yes fidelia, you captured what I meant about "babysitting".

 

[Random Ness]

So caring about intentions, if not Fe, would that be Ni?

 

[CzeCze]

Thanks Skylights for sharing your story. The parallel that came to mind is how horrible Fi doms - INFPs can be at boundaries and pouring all their time and effort into the first person who demands the attention. Having dated some INFPs I found this very frustrating. The differences between Fe vs Fi, or more accurately FP vs FJ in regards to giving "too much" or losing sight of loved ones is as follows:

1) Fe will look to help greateset good and put themselves out there, Fe is more proactive, initiating, and take responsibility for the larger group. It can seem 'indiscriminate' because the user is casting such a wide net or trying to fulfill a role for a number of people that people and projects can fall through the netting.

2) Fi is more receptive and gets very focused on the person immediately in front of them who is demanding their attention. They can seem indiscriminate because they got so caught up with whoever happens to be there at the moment to the detriment of other people and other responsibilities. It almost seems like it's something that just happens to them more than something that they actively seek out, someone who needs attention keeps demanding more and more from the Fi and the Fi obliges.

I feel like in my exprience it's more about if it's 'J' or 'P' that makes a big difference in how the situation resolves when you think a loved one is being neglectful or being pulled away from your relationship. I trust a J a lot more than a P in my experience to take what you tell them to heart and make a concerted and successful effort to change. I feel if you just tell an Fe user how you value them and how their behavior is affectng you that you can go from there. I basically trust that a 'J' has more control than a 'P'.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I feel like in my exprience it's more about if it's 'J' or 'P' that makes a big difference in how the situation resolves when you think a loved one is being neglectful or being pulled away from your relationship. I trust a J a lot more than a P in my experience to take what you tell them to heart and make a concerted and successful effort to change. I feel if you just tell an Fe user how you value them and how their behavior is affectng you that you can go from there. I basically trust that a 'J' has more control than a 'P'.

I don't disagree with the first part of your post, but I disagree with this part (or how I am understanding it). I very much take what people tell me to heart & make concerted efforts to change if its needed, efforts which I think are successful. What you may not get from a Fi-dom is a concession in the moment; this is because it needs to be digested internally & alone. Since Fe seems to sort out feelings well with others, they often make some resolution in the moment. I have found many Fe-ers eager to make the resolution, but then fall back quickly into old habits. With a Fi-dom, you may see a gradual change, but one which may be more permanent. There's also the issue of behavior changing based on specific points or on general principles. Fi-doms will adjust to meet a principle, but maybe not according to the prescribed method.

 

[Hopelandic]

I don't disagree with the first part of your post, but I disagree with this part (or how I am understanding it). I very much take what people tell me to heart & make concerted efforts to change if its needed, efforts which I think are successful. What you may not get from a Fi-dom is a concession in the moment; this is because it needs to be digested internally & alone. Since Fe seems to sort out feelings well with others, they often make some resolution in the moment. I have found many Fe-ers eager to make the resolution, but then fall back quickly into old habits. With a Fi-dom, you may see a gradual change, but one which may be more permanent. There's also the issue of behavior changing based on specific points or on general principles. Fi-doms will adjust to meet a principle, but maybe not according to the prescribed method.

I noticed this with my esfj mother. I have to remind her continuously how I don't like something she does. She applies general principals/guidelines and assumes one way generally works with everyone. This might work ok with people who operate similar to her, or what she's familiar with, but anyone with individual needs.. is a real shock to the system. She adapts the rules to the person. Whereas, I never assume anything about a person and I create 'rules' to suit the individual person or individual situation very carefully, after analysis and observation. I take any feedback to heart really. It hits me immediately, and sometimes takes a while to process...

 

[Random Ness]

So caring about intentions, if not Fe, would that be Ni?

*ahem*

 

[cafe]

It's not that I don't care about intentions at all, it's just that even if I believe a person doesn't have bad intentions if they keep doing things that cause problems for others it begins to overshadow their intentions. At some point you've got to (wo)man up and take responsibility for the outcomes.

OTOH, if someone is doing the right things, but doesn't have good intentions I'm going to be cautious because sooner or later whatever is motivating them is either not going to be there or it's not going to be enough motivation to keep them doing the right thing.

And the thing about intentions is that you can only guess about those while actions are pretty obvious.