Fe politics versus Fi politics

[Nocapszy]

I think you might agree that very much of society and the desires of its people are built around the avoidance of death. That's what security and sustenance are all about.

Definitely not. It's not all about that.

If it were solely about survival, no one would be fat, 'cause they'd take just as much as they needed, and stop there.

We wouldn't build guns and missiles, 'cause we'd have made alliances long ago. Surely, the survival instinct has got a pretty big stake on responsibility, but let's not get carried away with this self endowed nobility and say we're concerned security in the raw.

So we're working within the bounds of life alone. Society aims to create guarantees other then death. In fact, many people feel like society should guarantee them an escape from death, hence the debate about the "right to health-care" going on in this country right now.

Uhm... society expects society to keep society from dying?

I think you're referring to too many parties with the same word. I can't figure out what you're really saying.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Definitely not. It's not all about that.

If it were solely about survival, no one would be fat, 'cause they'd take just as much as they needed, and stop there.

We wouldn't build guns and missiles, 'cause we'd have made alliances long ago. Surely, the survival instinct has got a pretty big stake on responsibility, but let's not get carried away with this self endowed nobility and say we're concerned security in the raw.

Well, I actually said security and sustenance.
I think people get fat as a result of malfunctioning instinctual responses to over-processed and easily accessible food, but that's kind of a different matter.

Weapons definitely are created for security. Missiles exist because two nations tend to consider each other seperate, untrustworthy parties that need to be defended against.

Uhm... society expects society to keep society from dying?

I think you're referring to too many parties with the same word. I can't figure out what you're really saying.

People gather into societies and consent to their rules and limitations because people desire to live, and they can trust to live more in a society than in anarchy. So, theoretically, the aim of society, based on the reason it even maintains existence, is to preserve the life of its people (and if you succeed in that, a little prosperity is nice, too).
If there's an element here that could be considered different from security, then it might be ambition. It generally requires someone ambitious to become a bandit leader, and requires someone ambitious to go from being a roving bandit to a stationary bandit (which eventually becomes a despot and so on).
However, I think even ambition is a result of the drive for self-preservation.

 

[Nocapszy]

Well, I actually said security and sustenance.

The two can be combined in that they serve the same function. Survival.

I think people get fat as a result of malfunctioning instinctual responses to over-processed and easily accessible food, but that's kind of a different matter.

It absolutely is not. Unless of course you renege on your original point -- after all, you're the one who said society aims only to provide sustenance and security.

Weapons definitely are created for security. Missiles exist because two nations tend to consider each other seperate, untrustworthy parties that need to be defended against.

Er.. what about the NRA? What about hunting for sport? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

People gather into societies and consent to their rules and limitations because people desire to live, and they can trust to live more in a society than in anarchy.

Penguins live in society. They force the smaller ones and the weaker ones to the outside of the group, so predators will attack those first, and so they can shove those same members into the unsure waters to find out if the waters are safe. Humans are no different. Is it really about trust or is it about having a barrier? 'Cause... historically, that's what anthropologists have come up with, and recently psychology is yielding a lot of the same.

It makes sense. We don't naturally protect others instead of ourselves. Altruism is nearly impossible, for self sacrifice and newtons third law of motion are in constant conflict.

So, theoretically, the aim of society, based on the reason it even maintains existence, is to preserve the life of its people (and if you succeed in that, a little prosperity is nice, too).

Society is composed of individuals, all jockeying for their own good -- just like the penquins; capitalism. The ones on top, stay on top. Or in the middle. Let's drop the nobility. It's not real.

We're all protecting ourselves, which sometimes helps others, and sometimes hurts them.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Penguins live in society. They force the smaller ones and the weaker ones to the outside of the group, so predators will attack those first, and so they can shove those same members into the unsure waters to find out if the waters are safe. Humans are no different. Is it really about trust or is it about having a barrier? 'Cause... historically, that's what anthropologists have come up with, and recently psychology is yielding a lot of the same.

It makes sense. We don't naturally protect others instead of ourselves. Altruism is nearly impossible, for self sacrifice and newtons third law of motion are at constant odds.

Society is composed of individuals, all jockeying for their own good -- just like the penquins; capitalism. The ones on top, stay on top. Or in the middle. Let's drop the nobility. It's not real.

We're all protecting ourselves, which sometimes helps others, and sometimes hurts them.

I don't think I've said much about nobility. The point is, if you study the concept of collective action, you'll find that we as a social species serve ourselves better by participating in a society. Such advantages are the only reason a society exists. This is why the "purpose" of society is to provide(let's be broad now) benefits to the people who are a part of it.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Moved Consent posts to Pedophilia and Age of Consent.

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't think I've said much about nobility.

No, but you implied it.

The point is, if you study the concept of collective action, you'll find that we as a social species serve ourselves better by participating in a society.

Did ya read my post? Seriously... I said that myself. I even stated the reason.

Such advantages are the only reason a society exists. This is why the "purpose" of society is to provide(let's be broad now) benefits to the people who are a part of it.

Ugh...

Participation in society is to gain benefits from the group that are offered by collecting in numbers. Society does nothing. It's abstract. It's what the smaller components of society do, that gives the benefits.

Schools of fish. Penguins. Dens of lions. If there's concentration, then there's high likelihood that only some of them will get eaten, or killed, or will fall down a well, where with groups, (society is a group) the wild boar can't catch us all; the soldier can't kill us all; we won't all fall down into the same hole like lemmings.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

No, but you implied it.

You interpeted it.

Did ya read my post? Seriously... I said that myself. I even stated the reason.

Yes, I did, and you're right, we are on the same page.

Ugh...

Participation in society is to gain benefits from the group that are offered by collecting in numbers. Society does nothing. It's abstract. It's what the smaller components of society do, that gives the benefits.

Schools of fish. Penguins. Dens of lions. If there's concentration, then there's high likelihood that only some of them will get eaten, or killed, or will fall down a well, where with groups, (society is a group) the wild boar can't catch us all; the soldier can't kill us all; we won't all fall down into the same hole like lemmings.

Yes? I know this to be true.
What are you getting it? There seems to be an argument without a disagreance.

 

[CzeCze]

I've heard this argument before and it always drives me crazy. It comes from a mindset that assumes everyone votes based on selfish personal interest. "I don't have any money, so I should vote for the people who will take away rich people's money and give it to me". You're calling people chumps for voting according to what they think is in the best general interest instead of their own personal interest. If they don't have personal wealth and are still conservative, I call that being a person of conviction, not being a chump.

Would you have the same reaction to a rich person that voted liberal? No, you would say that they can see beyond themselves to the greater good. What's the difference?

People do vote out of personal interest! Hahaha, FM, I thought I was supposed to be the idealistic one!

Unless somehow it can be argued that it's in the best interest for everyone to vote for tax breaks for the wealthy? People totally vote for their own best interests when it comes to initiatives and laws when it actually affects them. When it doesn't, I'm sure people are more generous.

I don't even think that's a pessimistic view of people, to me it's just politics. And btw, while I never worked directly for an elected official, I have been trained in running campaigns, involved with lobbying efforts/NGOs/PACs, and just exposed to people/groups doing 'poltical work' (I mean, I lived in DC, it's hard to avoid) and consider myself politically active myself.

So partly I have a very hard time divorcing those engaged with the political process with 'average voters' (?) I mean...have you seen people who campaigned for Kerry in the last election? Some of them practically had break-downs when he lost. They worked so hard campaigning in city after city they forgot holidays and their own birthdays. Yes they did it for their ideals -- but they banked those ideals on a particular candidate and his party/platform and they were personally extremely invested. So you could argue by affiliating themselves directly with the campaign, they were working out of self-interest...?

I dunno, maybe I've just gotten used to rabid political interest/involvement (in DC it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on party affiliation/political preference! hahahaha)

Anywhoo, for me self-interest encompasses principles, attitudes, and group identification -- group self-interest.

That's how allegiances (psychic, social, and formal) are formed and it's what partisan political systems are built on. In many states you can't even vote outside your party as you have to register as Democrat or Republican (or Independent) period. It's assumed you'll stick that way till death. When it comes down to elections, people 97.89% vote along party lines, not necessarily along issues. Because it's assumed that your party (group self-interest) shares enough of your values/principles/views that it's a solid bet.

Constituents/voters identify with others similar to them and choose the party/candidate that that has their self-interest as a priority. And with the party system, if you don't support your group/party, then there's a good chance there'll be no one in office who supports your principles/views/ideals.

Generally speaking, the wealthy who identify with big business will vote pro-big business, anti-union, pro-tax cuts for wealthy.

And the wealthy who identify with hippies will vote pro-hippie.

Differences in voting pattersn amongst groups generally can be explained by looking at sub group identifications. Not all wealthy people have the same allegiances or belong to the same pyschodemographic groups, so they won't vote the same.

Maybe I interpret broadly, but generally what we assume to be 'best for everyone else' is based on our own self-interest and own particular POV.

Are you saying you think most people vote issue to issue irregardless of party identification and will vote opposite of their personal feelings? I guess maybe I'm not understanding your definition of 'self-interest'

 

[raincheckx3]

Fi vs Fe

i'm trying to figure out which one i identify with more
can someone please offer some guidance?

 

[Totenkindly]

If you do a search on site, you should pick up least a few threads regarding Fi vs Fe, it's been a prominent topic. If you have more questions after that, feel free to ask.

 

[dorareever]

Have you ever tried to take a functions test? It might show which one of them you use the most.

Fe is WAY easier to explain than Fi.

I like the way Lenore Thompson defines them:

Fe: Every need relates a person to part of the socially shared world, at a specific time and place. For example, "I need you to cook dinner tonight." A need makes you part of the world outside yourself rather than a self-contained entity. It gives you a stake in the social arena.

Everything that a person says or does expresses a choice about who he has common bonds with: where that person's life is embedded. "Life is with people."

A person declares his loyalties via arbitrary behaviors: behaviors that show that he is not merely pursuing his needs on his own, just efficient means to an end, but that his needs overlap with specific other people. Through arbitrary behaviors whose meaning derives from shared social convention, you cast your lot with others. Your fate is intrinsically bound to the fate of those for whom you have feelings.

Fi: A need exists entirely within the person. For example, "I need food" or "I need companionship". It can be met in an infinity of different ways. I might get food and companionship from having you cook dinner for me tonight, but I might get my needs met in other ways, too. A need and its conditions of fulfillment are completely different things.

Feeling

 

[cascadeco]

Hmm..I'm not sure of those definitions. But then I also don't see myself falling into either description completely - I take some of both.

I do agree though that there are several very good threads on the forum about Fi and Fe, and I find it is often more helpful to read what others write about their own view of the function, since they are the ones who embody that function and know what it's all about firsthand. For example, reading a dominant Fi write about their perspectives might give you a much richer, fuller understanding of what Fi actually entails, than a short description of it. Same for Fe.

I think I've come to a better understanding of type just by interacting on this board, and seeing who I tended to relate more to than others -- much more than I gained by reading a lot of material on the net and taking the tests - all of which tended to be contradictory (for me, at least .

 

[scantilyclad]

Introverted Feeling

that link might be helpful

 

[SolitaryWalker]

i'm trying to figure out which one i identify with more
can someone please offer some guidance?

Fi is primarily concerned with establishing values for the individual. Fe with the values for society. So, an Fi values what makes me or any other given individual a happier person and Fe what makes society better.

Fe compartmentalizes interpersonal activities. Seeks closure. Wants dealings with people to be well organized and for all parties to be clearly aware of all terms. Basically Fe is External terms of relations between people. Fe is primarily concerned with finding a well structured environment where all people adhere to the same set of values and ultimately where all others agree with their values.

Fi on the on the other hand tends not to be very expressive of values and terms of relations. Does not expect for people to accept their values or acknowledge them to any degree. Fi is primarily concerned with finding an environment where he can be left alone to pursue his own values.

Fi derives values from within. For example if an Fi were to see a motorcyclist fall and hit his head, he'd step aside and think about how this must have felt. Use his own emotions to give empathy to that person. Yet an Fe would immediately respond, OUCH, that must have hurt! How does an Fe know this, because he has been told by others that this is how it feels and this is an appropriate way to respond to the situation. If values in the community of an Fi were to change, the Fi would either withdraw and feel repressed, or express discontent immediately. As for Fe on the other hand 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do'.






You can think of Soren Kierkegaard as a representative of Fi, a quiet melancholy author, and Vladimir Lenin, a political iconoclast. as representative of Fe.

 

[htb]

1a. A positive expression of Fe.

1b. A positive expression of Fi.

2a. A negative expression of Fe.

2b. A negative expression of Fi.

 

[Jeffster]

What about Fo vs. Fum?

 

[Kiddo]

What about Fo vs. Fum?

Uhg...I've heard that joke way too many times on this forum.

 

[Jeffster]

Uhg...I've heard that joke way too many times on this forum.

Haha, sorry, I'm still new ya know.

 

["?"]

Jung examples says:

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined -- they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.

 

[Kiddo]

This is Fi out of control.

Fi example.

Notice how she acted despite how everyone else was acting. (subjective)

This is Fe out of control.

Fe example.

Notice how she provided reasons and explanations for why she felt the way she did. (objective)

Any questions?