Introverted Feeling: A Quick Reference Guide

[KDude]

I'd rather the world resonate true, instead of right or good, as I reject rightness or goodness as concepts. A cognitive dissonance within me as a Fi user.

It's just probably Te speaking. Only natural.

I would disagree that values are necessarily societal conditioning though. If anything, I think Te appropriates and organizes what's useful from Fi types (over vast periods of time, I mean) - and that part is societal conditioning. Where the original Fi values came from probably weren't. Everyone's kind of building upon revolutions, that were at one time opposed or even considered harmful to society (or so I think).

 

[rav3n]

It's just probably Te speaking. Only natural.

I would disagree that values are societal conditioning. If anything, I think Te appropriates and organizes what's useful from Fi types (over vast periods of time, I mean) - and that part is societal conditioning. Where the original Fi values came from probably weren't. Everyone's kind of building upon revolutions (or so I think).

We're not born with values. As an extreme example, if from babyhood, we're raised to believe that cannabalism is the way to attain the qualities we respect in our enemies, we'd all be doing so.

 

[KDude]

We're not born with values. As an extreme example, if from babyhood, we're raised to believe that cannabalism is the way to attain the qualities we respect in our enemies, we'd all be doing so.

True enough, but Fi types end up developing an inexplicable conviction in some things either way. In Te's case, they recognize values within society itself (which they can choose to find useful or not). Since you yourself approach it this way, this is how you're going to see values. As something you developed/borrowed from society. It's always going to difficult for you see where Fi is coming then. For whatever reason, stronger Fi types almost think they tap into a sort of "Platonic"/universalistic realm and look at values that way. It carries something beyond the pressure of society's weight - sometimes that even goes against or tries to redefine what society is telling them (and it's not merely individualistic btw).

Geez... not sure if I'm explaining it right. This could get very convoluted. FWIW, I'm kind of big fanboy of Lenore Thomson's theories (an INTJ herself). Yet she explains Fi better than I do. I'd just redirect anyone who wants an explanation of Fi to her book.

 

[rav3n]

True enough, but Fi types end up developing an inexplicable conviction in some things either way. In Te's case, they recognize values within society itself (which they can choose to find useful or not). Since you yourself approach it this way, this is how you're going to see values. As something you developed/borrowed from society. It's always going to difficult for you see where Fi is coming then. For whatever reason, stronger Fi types almost think they tap into a sort of "Platonic"/universalistic realm and look at values that way. It carries something beyond the pressure of society's weight - sometimes that even goes against or tries to redefine what society is telling them (and it's not merely individualistic btw).

Geez... not sure if I'm explaining it right. This could get very convoluted. FWIW, I'm kind of big fanboy of Lenore Thomson's theories (an INTJ herself). Yet she explains Fi better than I do. I'd just redirect anyone who wants an explanation of Fi to her book.

I can embrace that all human beings, living and non-living things are part of a larger picture of matter and energy interactions but the spirituality component will need to be embraced by stronger Fi types.

 

[OrangeAppled]

1) As Proteanmix noted in the other thread, the original descriptions were nine pages long for each function. Jaguar has condensed them to a little less than a page, and now we're arguing over just one section of that page, about 10 lines for each of the functions. So potentially there's a lot of context missing: Are we talking about how the functions are experienced by the individual, or how they are perceived by the outer world? Are we talking about perceptions of Fi-Dom and Fe-Dom, or perceptions of Fi-Aux and Fe-Aux? And so on.

I thought we were talking about the OP, which is a called a "quick guide". If it needs more context to be understood correctly, then it's obviously not an effective overview, IMO.

INFPs are always fighting inner battles of good vs. evil, and they lose as often as they win.

We're guided more by internal dictates than by a need to maintain peace and order. In a shoot-out, we'll happily chuck peace and order right out the window.

Thus, to me, the Fi-Dom "Decision-making List" is right on the mark. It's not a description of Eveready Bunnies of Hospitality and Goodwill. It's a description of tormented souls in the grip of existential debate ... or maybe it's just a description of drama queens teetering on the edge of hysterical outbursts. Call it what you want, but that's a lot closer to the real me than the "Decision-making List" for Fe-Doms.

I don't disagree with this at all; I think it's better than the OP for the very fact that it actually touches on the internal process, as opposed to an observable attitude, which is what my problem with the OP mainly was about. Reading through the Decision-making List - it's not wrong for how I may act, but it doesn't describe the actual thinking that goes on behind it. I mean, I don't see this as a process: "My personal space is very important to me. Please don't invade my physical and emotional space.". That's all well & true, but that's not how my mind works out a feeling; that is a finished feeling, an existing value. For comparison, this short description is better to me also, because I'm getting a sense of the mental atmosphere that is Fi, of what it does to evaluate, how it comes to conclusions, its philosophical nature.

In the bolded above, the phrases immediately resonated with me, by describing an internal debate, a weighing of matters, a constant questioning of what is important, but in a holistic passionate way. There's an inner struggle to determine significance described that I relate to, where the OP feels flat, showing the external, end result.

I don't relate to the Fe description in the slightest, except I still hold that a few of its listed strengths are strengths of Feeling types in general. If I didn't know any better, I might actually type myself Ni-dom from the guides posted so far. If Ti is posted, I could revise that opinion though.

I think mid-life-crisis-esque statements (er, questions) would suit Fi also:
Who am I?
What am I doing with my life?
What is the purpose of my life & of life in general?
What is necessary to avoid?
What is necessary to promote?
What is important, perfect, and meaningful in general?
What is important to me as an individual?

And no one tell me ISFPs don't think like that...I was raised by one; he's no shallow Keirsey SP.

 

[Seymour]

I do feel like PeaceBaby's insight above has value. The content of the values Fi-doms adopt play a big role in how they appear externally. Fi is not inherently that externally adaptive—it lacks the utilitarian nature of Fe and Te, for example. Therefore, the willingness to appear more Fe-ishly "other oriented" depends to a large degree in whether one's values demand it of you.

As I've said before, I think Fi-doms are clearly not entirely detached from their early social environment. We tend to adopt ideals that others may dismiss as unrealistic or unduly burdensome. This means that ideals such as "put others first" and "always act to make the world a better place" and "never hurt others if it can be avoided" may well be adopted as core values—especially if one is raised in a religious environment.

So, while it's true that Fi is a very internal process, the ideals it adopts do affect external behavior. Because we tend to continuously evaluate ourselves against our ideals, we tend to be hyper-aware of the areas where we fall short of those ideals. Therefore, it makes sense that someone who places a lot of value on community, working through issues, harmony with others and promoting a positive emotional environment is going to disagree with statements like "Rules have to feel right to me or I will ignore them." and "If someone affronts my values I will cut them off so quickly they will just be gone."

I also think Enneagram type plays a role here, too. An INFP 4 sp is going to have a very different relationship to social groups than an INFP 9 so.

So, I agree with PeaceBaby that for a section that claims to be "what it's like to make decisions through one's Introverted Feeling" the section feels very external and so may clash pretty violently with certain Fi-doms' values. I don't think it really captures "what it's like to make decisions" as an Fi-dom. It's more like "some examples of decisions that may pop out the far end of the decision making process."

 

[KDude]

I can embrace that all human beings, living and non-living things are part of a larger picture of matter and energy interactions but the spirituality component will need to be embraced by stronger Fi types.

That's cool. Sometimes I think I have a lot to learn there tbh, so I wouldn't presume an ENTJ is any weaker in their morals. It's just that they may be informed by the Te realm more than Fi doms.

Just to add though, Fi has an aesthetic, somewhat mundane component too. It's not all morals. It could play out in how one might cook something.. where they forgo any objective Te decision making, and just wing it on how they make a spaghetti sauce. Thomson never uses the word platonic, but that's basically where I'm seeing she's heading. Not to be dramatic, but lets say there's an ethereal, "quintessential" spaghetti sauce in the universal, platonic realm. Fi is either consciously or subconsciously tapping into it's ideal about it (in conjunction with other functions of course). No one ever gets close to actual perfection, but that may be how they're approaching it. It might enable them to have a new take on spaghetti sauce than another type (hopefully, a good one). It could show up in the difference on how an INFP writer chooses his words compared to an INTP or ENTJ. It could be the choice making involved in an ISFP's piano playing. I think it's this stuff that distinguishes them too.. possibly more than their morals sometimes.

 

[Rail Tracer]

For comparison,this short description is better to me also, because I'm getting a sense of the mental atmosphere that is Fi, of what it does to evaluate, how it comes to conclusions, it's philosophical nature.

I actually like that site, for both function and type descriptions. Probably the one I detest most is this and this one.

I think mid-life-crisis-esque statements (er, questions) would suit Fi also:
Who am I?
What am I doing with my life?
What is the purpose of my life & of life in general?
What is necessary to avoid?
What is necessary to promote?
What is important, perfect, and meaningful in general?
What is important to me as an individual?

And no one tell me ISFPs don't think like that...I was raised by one;

I do think like that actually. However, if I think I'm "overthinking things" (like people I know tend to say,) I stop myself from doing so.

he's no shallow Keirsey SP.

Of the sites I don't like/trust the descriptions, one of them has to be Keirsey's descriptions. In fact, I'm probably more than likely to go into deep thoughts, daydreaming, etc (except when I have to stay attentive.)

If you were to compare me to Jeffster... wow, I would love to have his enthusiasm. There probably is a big difference from his Fi to mine.

 

[KDude]

Jeffster's enthusiasm is annoying. I remember him telling purplechknz (sp?), when she was asking for some advice, that he didn't believe in bi-polar disorders or anything like that, and that she was just probably born that way - that whatever she's experiencing is her normal, healthy self. I swear. His enthusiasm has the downside of being completely thoughtless.

I would say what Fi enthusiasm really is is what I'm doing right now. Offering up my opinion and risking unpopularity about a popular member, without giving a damn.

 

[Hopelandic]

• Is a subjective decision-making process based on personal values. Too simplified
• Holds private and nonnegotiable core values deep within. non negotiable? wrong. Experience, reflection and more information aids in shaping "core values"
• Does not tolerate violations of its core beliefs. It depends.
• Relates to people one-on-one through a fine-tuned sensitivity to the inner life of others. What has this got to do with Fi?
• Seeks inner harmony. Seeks -INTEGRITY-

What's Going On?

• Is the most subjective of the four decison-making processes. Probably. The question of function subjectivity is a questionable one. One is only as rational and objective, as the premises that one bases their decisions on.
• Develops expertise in recognizing and cultivating inner harmony. Functions aren't skill sets.
• Has a focus on the individual, not the collective. Not always
• Is the only process with a truly nonnegotiable element. No.

When people are using their preferred Introverted Feeling:

• Their beliefs are personal and are not influenced by the established value systems of their culture. No, Fi is not completely separate from everything.
• They may view virtually anything as innately good or innately bad, as positive or negative. No. Many Fi types can see the shades of grey
• Nurturing and protecting their inner emotional life is their primary goal. Integrity is, rather.
• Internal harmony is more than desirable, it is critical to their well-being. Define internal harmony?
• They are adept at knowing when something is wrong or right with others. No. Shades of grey again, and also, I never hold a "blanket" right/wrong judgment to everything. I judge, but I also analyse the situation and context. Context is everything
• Bringing their inner system of values to fruition in the real world is usually not important to them. Wrong.
• Are outwardly tolerant of other people's values as long as they don't conflict with their own. Probably a fair point. Fi types seem to adopt a "live and let live" attitude
• Are often not aware of how they affect the world around them. I don't have an awareness of how I am percieved, but I do appreciate the effects of all my actions to the degree that is humanly possible
• May cut off a relationship because their value system has been threatened, without giving any indication that anything has changed. This is a personal thing imo. Not a function thing.
• Reveal clues to their core values through the level of passion in their voice when they speak about what's important to them. Depends on the person.
• They are very nonjudgmental as long as their private belief system is not violated. Depends on the person. Internal judgment still occurs, but many make the effort to be externally tolerant
• Until a value is violated, nothing brings out their effort or energy to be involved. more like, "until something deemed worthwhile is involved...."
• Have unquestioning faith in their own values. No. I am often plagued by self doubt. "Am I really right?"
• Assumes everyone's values are absolute so there is no sense in disputing them. I don't think in terms of absolutes
• Some of their values may be unrelated to the existing cultural norms, and may conflict with them. Sometimes. That's a fair point. Often it's not about being unrelated, but opposed.
• Will resist data that appears to conflict with their values. In such a situation they adapt very slowly, or not at all. No.
  

Paraphrased descriptions of what it's like to make decisions through one's Introverted Feeling:

• I can feel when people are with me or against me. No. I don't see things in black and white. I do look at motivations though
• I use humor and sarcasm as a way of keeping my values from becoming public. I need to deflect attention from this very personal place. Is this decision making?
• I could never work for someone whose values conflict with mine. It depends on the conflict in values.
• My personal space is very important to me. Please don't invade my physical and emotional space. Yes, but I can tolerate it.
• Rules have to feel right to me or I will ignore them. No, not exactly.
• What I need most from people is affirmation, acceptance, and my freedom. True in my case.
• If someone affronts my values I will cut them off so quickly they will just be gone. I will probably never initiate contact with that person again. Ugh, no. I am quite forgiving and can move on from things
• I could never do something just because someone wants me to do it if it doesn't feel right to me. Depends on what it is. I never say never.
• I have a sense of right and wrong that I cannot explain. I can explicate the process of where it came from, yes actually.
• It's very hard for me to take a stand publicly. I have to spend time trying it on to see whether it feels right. When I do take a stand, it comes out very passionately and I am not open to debating or discussing the issue. Of course i'm up for debating. I don't protect my values from the truth, I want to know the truth. If I was wrong, good. I adjust.

Overall, not a very insightful or accurate guide, really.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Just to add though, Fi has an aesthetic, somewhat mundane component too. It's not all morals. It could play out in how one might cook something.. where they forgo any objective Te decision making, and just wing it on how they make a spaghetti sauce. Thomson never uses the word platonic, but that's basically where I'm seeing she's heading. Not to be dramatic, but lets say there's an ethereal, "quintessential" spaghetti sauce in the universal, platonic realm. Fi is either consciously or subconsciously tapping into it's ideal about it (in conjunction with other functions of course). No one ever gets close to actual perfection, but that may be how they're approaching it. It might enable them to have a new take on spaghetti sauce than another type (hopefully, a good one). It could show up in the difference on how an INFP writer chooses his words compared to an INTP or ENTJ. It could be the choice making involved in an ISFP's piano playing. I think it's this stuff that distinguishes them too.. possibly more than their morals sometimes.

Yes, I agree with this. It's not necessarily all heavy stuff we're evaluating based on a premise of an inner ideal. Values seem like just one aspect of this inner ideal; they are more clearly defined concepts, branching from intense, preverbal feelings of the ideal ("the fathomless store of primordial images" - Jung). It's like: ideals in form of abstract feeling -> defined values -> adequate expression.

In other cases, there's no need to translate into a mental concept (which INFPs particularly like to do), but to let the feeling guide in a process, where even everyday mundane activities become creative in striving to meet this ideal. I think this is very evident in ISFPs. I watched my step-dad tape a box up to ship, and it had to be packed "perfectly"; he was really caught up in it. Maybe this is why some ISFPs don't relate to the word "values", as feeling often goes straight to form, where an INFP may be content to theorize.

The imagination helps define these feelings also - there are mental images to connect them to, to relate them to something definable. In this way, values are affected by the external, because they have to be given some context outside of the inner world to even be defined in a comprehensible way.

I remember in past threads other INFPs saying they have a shift in feeling tones nearly constantly, but it's so second nature that it's not really necessarily to analyze all the time. You can break it down if you want to, but that's only done to communicate it to others; I valued aesthetics long before I could put it in those words.

I can see in this cooking analogy how these Feeling ideals manifest in trivial matters (especially since I cook that way ). Of course, the IXFP's Se or Ne influences the manner of expression and how the external is perceived, both shaping how the Feelings manifest and how they are defined on the value level.

 

[Jaguar]

"Rules have to feel right to me or I will ignore them."

That was from an ISFP or INFP. It's from a section entitled: FROM THE INSIDE. That's how those particular people felt - on the inside.

sounds like it is spoken by an ignorant, uncaring, insensitive savage.

Just because you may not agree with that particular Fi Dom, doesn't mean they don't have the the right to express what is true of themselves. Fi is that subjective. A Dom Fi could be a terrorist bomber. You might not like that either, but it's who they are. That's their own personal belief system, not yours. And just because they differ from you, doesn't mean it's not Fi. Be careful about denying others their rights to express who they are - if you head down that slippery slope then you better be willing to give up your own right to do the same.

 

[Ginkgo]

• Is the only process with a truly nonnegotiable element. No.

 

[neptunesnet]

I do feel like PeaceBaby's insight above has value. The content of the values Fi-doms adopt play a big role in how they appear externally. Fi is not inherently that externally adaptive—it lacks the utilitarian nature of Fe and Te, for example. Therefore, the willingness to appear more Fe-ishly "other oriented" depends to a large degree in whether one's values demand it of you.

As I've said before, I think Fi-doms are clearly not entirely detached from their early social environment. We tend to adopt ideals that others may dismiss as unrealistic or unduly burdensome. This means that ideals such as "put others first" and "always act to make the world a better place" and "never hurt others if it can be avoided" may well be adopted as core values—especially if one is raised in a religious environment.

So, while it's true that Fi is a very internal process, the ideals it adopts do affect external behavior. Because we tend to continuously evaluate ourselves against our ideals, we tend to be hyper-aware of the areas where we fall short of those ideals. Therefore, it makes sense that someone who places a lot of value on community, working through issues, harmony with others and promoting a positive emotional environment is going to disagree with statements like "Rules have to feel right to me or I will ignore them." and "If someone affronts my values I will cut them off so quickly they will just be gone."

I also think Enneagram type plays a role here, too. An INFP 4 sp is going to have a very different relationship to social groups than an INFP 9 so.

So, I agree with PeaceBaby that for a section that claims to be "what it's like to make decisions through one's Introverted Feeling" the section feels very external and so may clash pretty violently with certain Fi-doms' values. I don't think it really captures "what it's like to make decisions" as an Fi-dom. It's more like "some examples of decisions that may pop out the far end of the decision making process."

I remember in past threads other INFPs saying they have a shift in feeling tones nearly constantly, but it's so second nature that it's not really necessarily to analyze all the time. You can break it down if you want to, but that's only done to communicate it to others; I valued aesthetics long before I could put it in those words.

I think this [the bloded] may be different for the 5 INFP. There exists a constant desire to understand these feeling tones as well as be able to readily comminucate them, if the need comes up. I know a problem I have in particular is that when I can't express my inner feelings/values in a tanglible way (this frustration typically coming from verbal communication) I feel as if they are somehow invalidated. The mind and heart conflict is so much more distinct in us, where heart forms the tones and ideals while the head tries to assess their meaning and sometimes their value just to avoid frivolity or meaninglessness.

Anyway, good post.

 

[RDF]

[...]Reading through the Decision-making List - it's not wrong for how I may act, but it doesn't describe the actual thinking that goes on behind it. I mean, I don't see this as a process: "My personal space is very important to me. Please don't invade my physical and emotional space.". That's all well & true, but that's not how my mind works out a feeling; that is a finished feeling, an existing value. [...]

Of course, in my latest post I was just responding to PeaceBaby's query. I was trying to establish that we Fi-doms use a completely different cognitive process (Decision-making List) from that used by Fe-doms. So we don't need to covet their List.

But I agree with you that the overall description of Fi in the OP is incomplete. The "Decision-making List" for Fi describes the point where Fi and the world come into contact. Behind that, I assume there's a deeper, more contemplative layer where we work out what we believe with respect to a given issue. Neither the OP nor the "Decision-making List" really seem to show how that contemplative layer works.

As you suggested elsewhere in your post, the description of Ti-Dom (yet to be posted) may provide some additional info on the contemplative, decision-making part of Fi-Dom. Or maybe people with Fi-Aux (ENFP and ESFP) can help out. Supposedly one's Auxiliary functions are more accessible (more conscious) than one's Dominant functions. So an Fi-Aux may have a better sense of how Fi works on the mundane, day-to-day level.

 

[RDF]

[...] As I've said before, I think Fi-doms are clearly not entirely detached from their early social environment. We tend to adopt ideals that others may dismiss as unrealistic or unduly burdensome. This means that ideals such as "put others first" and "always act to make the world a better place" and "never hurt others if it can be avoided" may well be adopted as core values—especially if one is raised in a religious environment. [...]

I basically agree. I mentioned a subset of INFPs "who see themselves as people-pleasers and who might be able to mimic Fe-Doms to some extent." I think that's what we're talking about here. If it's religious values being plugged into the Fi-Dom Decision-making List that specifically causes that, then so be it.

[...] So, I agree with PeaceBaby that for a section that claims to be "what it's like to make decisions through one's Introverted Feeling" the section feels very external and so may clash pretty violently with certain Fi-doms' values. I don't think it really captures "what it's like to make decisions" as an Fi-dom. It's more like "some examples of decisions that may pop out the far end of the decision making process."

As I said in my response to OrangeAppled, I agree that the description of Fi in the OP is incomplete. I agree that it focuses on "the far end of the decision making process" rather than the contemplative layer earlier along. The main point that I was trying to make is that we reach our individual destinations using our own Fi-Dom process; we don't need to appropriate the Fe-dom process from the Fe-Doms.

I do feel like PeaceBaby's insight above has value. The content of the values Fi-doms adopt play a big role in how they appear externally.

Having clarified the above points, I do agree with you that a discussion about the varieties of subsets of Fi-Doms brings up some interesting features of the Fi-Dom process versus the Fe-Dom process. Presumably you can plug very different sets of core values into the Decision-making List for Fe-Doms and you'll get roughly the same result: an Eveready Bunny of Hospitality and Goodwill. But if you plug different sets of core values into the Decision-making List for Fi-Doms, you'll get lots of different types and subsets of Fi-Doms.

Personally, I've always registered that there are many kinds of INFPs, from "fluffy bunnies" to peevish grumblers to raging anarchists. That huge range of subsets always makes it difficult to agree on one set of characteristics that covers all of us.

By comparison, I would be curious as to whether Fe-Doms register the same kind of broad variety of subsets in ENFJs and/or ESFJs. Frankly, I tend to register those types as pretty homogeneous.

Fi is not inherently that externally adaptive—it lacks the utilitarian nature of Fe and Te, for example. Therefore, the willingness to appear more Fe-ishly "other oriented" depends to a large degree in whether one's values demand it of you.

Good observation. Yeah, I think this is at the center of it. I'd be curious to see whether Ti-Doms and Te-Doms do the same thing: Show similarity in the end result for Te-Doms versus a wide variety of subsets for Ti-Doms.

 

[entropie]

Fi..Fi...Fiiiiiiiii....Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii....Fiiiiish bun ! Not to be confused with meat bun or fish bum !

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzjgBAaWZw"].[/YOUTUBE]

 

[skylights]

I don't think [the Fi section] really captures "what it's like to make decisions" as an Fi-dom. It's more like "some examples of decisions that may pop out the far end of the decision making process."

that's excellently expressed.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Just because you may not agree with that particular Fi Dom, doesn't mean they don't have the the right to express what is true of themselves. Fi is that subjective. A Dom Fi could be a terrorist bomber. You might not like that either, but it's who they are. That's their own personal belief system, not yours. And just because they differ from you, doesn't mean it's not Fi. Be careful about denying others their rights to express who they are - if you head down that slippery slope then you better be willing to give up your own right to do the same.

I accept their right to say it, and feel it, and live it, but I don't accept being personally defined by someone else's words.

 

[Jaguar]

I accept their right to say it, and feel it, and live it, but I don't accept being personally defined by someone else's words.

People don't have to accept being personally defined by your words, either.