[MBTI General] Fe vs. Fi discussion

[Red Memories]

I'm constantly trying to decipher my actual true type, and the argument of Fe vs. Fi always comes up.

I know in the past about 90% of the user base considered me an Fe dominant of sorts, some still do. I find it almost humoring that the new user base seems to predominantly find me Fi-dominant. I had a friend here before during an argument though say my argument was "so Fi he could sneeze" so some users still saw it. XD

I think many see me as using both, and I can agree with that, but I think Fi and Fe is just more complex than people make it out. *deep breath* here I go on a typology explanation train. this is my five seconds to attempt to explain what I feel I have discovered about MBTI feeling functions.

For one, I remember on a surface level when I first began this typology journey, I felt F was more about feelings. I typed as ESFJ because if it is about being an emotional bomb I was definitely an Fe type. Not only that ESFJ sounded popular and loved so I jumped on it. That's hilarious considering how vehemently I fought to NOT be typed as ESFJ here. I didn't feel it fit anymore.

As I began studying, I realized F types are about ethics. Moral codes. Inner and outer harmony. I think an easy distinction between the two could be introverting and extraverting. Fe finds peace by harmonizing themselves with the whole, Fi finds peace by harmonizing others with themselves. I am aware most of you will find that backwards. I've been told time and time again here that Fe is the one that imposes values upon people and I will be the one to tell you after months and months, literal months, of studying these two functions alone to try and find their core difference, I strongly disagree. Not only that, I do think BOTH are capable of attempting to impose beliefs, but they do it in drastically different fashions. I'll try to make some examples to show that as well.

WHAT IS THE FEELING FUNCTION?
It is the ethical function, not emotional function. There is an inherent flaw in viewing feelers as automatically more emotional, in the fact emotions and emotional responses are not type related. However, why the person is choosing to respond could be type related in the strongest sense of the word. But the emotion itself has absolutely nothing to do with typology whatsoever.
Having a high F function means your personal moral code, objective and subjective moral codes, are seen as more or most important in your processing. You will choose to act based on your ethical values, and may choose to harmonize or not with a group based upon said functions. Both F types are capable.

INTRO TO THE AXIS
I do not often see axis discussions come up so for newbies I'd like to give a crash course before jumping into a discussion that is going to discuss an axis. The axis is how your functions work together. In this case, I am focusing on how the dominant and inferior functions coinhabit your mind. Inferior functions should rather be called the subconscious function. It works like a lens to your life. For instance, INFP will look at their values and beliefs systematically through Te. ESFP will see Se through the lens of Ni, working together to form an idea. Se sees "oh look, a button." then Ni goes on a journey of how you can take this button, put it on a shirt, and make a cool new design. Combining the present with possibilities. It is important to understand the inferior function is a filter and how that exhibits in types.

WHAT IS FE?
Extraverted feeling. It is shown in dominance in ESFJ and ENFJ. INFJ and ISFJ share an aux with it. Think of extraverted functions as the ones focused upon the collective. Where introverted functions go inside, extraverted functions look outside. I think the biggest mistake in many Fe descriptions, is using unhealthy Fe examples.
Fe occasionally is seen as a pushover type. They seek harmony with the whole so much they just align themselves to the most popular belief. FALSE.
Immature Fe may gain a poorly developed moral system if their family structure is bad, other times Fe can find a good structure if their environment is good. Most of their beliefs are decided from a young age, by the group which means the most to them. This is likely why many say SFJs and such are the most likely to be dedicated to church or religion, although it is not anymore or less common than another type. They are comfortable with what they grow with. Fe on occasion may also find friends or such to align with when their family is poor, or may even develop their own point of view. However, what makes Fe what it is, is how they CHOOSE to interact with the disagreement of views.
ESFJs have the filter of Ti. The Fe looks and objectively sees the whole. They examine the whole. Then Ti comes in to filter. It pushes for a logical way to work with the whole. This filter however also comes into play with interactions. If Fe-Ti sees a productive whole, they are less likely to object to the whole, even if they morally disagree. This is because Ti subconciously is defining this as a productive set of people, therefore there is no need to break the harmony. However, if something is causing disharmony to the harmony, they will speak up about the issue. Otherwise, Fe-Ti is the "bring cookies even if your an in the closet satanist at work" Fe. As long as you don't attack the whole for not being satanists. Then Fe will start calling you out of line.
ENFJ works a little different than ESFJ, since of course the functions do not work the same, but they both have the same rallying point: the whole.
Fe has a tendency towards something of a "rally cry". They do not bluntly rebuke you. Rather they work underneath, which is why many may find Fe "two-faced" or "deceptive." However, they already had the feeling, they are just great networkers. They slowly pull people toward their cause through charisma, empathy, and emotional response. "Oh Charlie there. What do you think of him? Oh well I saw him do this yesterday and..." and the next thing you know the entire group is trying to figure out if they should be at odds with Charlie. Say he is in the office a lot, then she'll get them going on how he is neglecting his home life. They may use personal things you spoken to them in the past to persuade you. Fe is a sales pitcher. They are persuading you to be sold on what they're saying. They work the hierarchy. They meet the right people with work with them in order to advance. While they do not lead the objective whole, they find ways to influence it, so the harmony that is there is a harmony that is centered around their code. They try to do it in a way confrontation is not necessary, but their people skills can lure people in easily.
Fe may also come off more open than Fi. To create the relationships and foundations that Fe wants to build, it requires a sharing of aspects of the self. So many find those who are "open books" to be Fe, although, I believe either type can do it, but they do it for entirely different reasons.

WHAT IS FI?
Introverted feeling. It is shown in dominance in INFP and ISFP. ENFP and ESFP share an aux with it. Where the extraverted function sees a whole, introverted functions see the interior. The mistake of Fi descriptions is they harp too much on social introversion itself. In my studies I've come to feel while they are correlated, it is important to realize introverted and extraverted function dominance does not inherently make a socially introverted or extraverted function. Ultimately, the best way to actually discover a type, is to see first hand how their decision making process goes or how they respond to serious events that require such a process. Hence I like questionaires that require the person to think about how they're going to do something rather than ones going how do you feel about so and so.
The idea that Fi is more reserved and never shares its ethics or point of view needs to be tossed out the nearest window. A matter of fact, Fi if trounced upon is MORE LIKELY to express itself than an Fe type. This may be surprising, but let's understand what makes an Fi type.
Fi may form their views somewhat from close knit groups, but also actually a bit like a "gut" feeling. Something inside them, INSIDE, going this is right or this is wrong. There may not even be a logical correlation to why this gut exist, but it does. This is their inner code, and with the introversion, their code is most valuable to them. Hence some find Fi self absorbed, or small minded, because it can be hard to relate to their cause or convince them to your way. This is actually where the core of an Fe vs. Fi conflict begins. I will discuss that further shortly.
Their inner peace is most important to them. Unlike Fe, however, who sees group dynamics as the way to do, Fi is not afraid to ruffle feathers because they may find it necessary. Unlike Ti, which wants to understand the system and how it functions, Fi subconciously turns to Te, which Te is known for facts and results, not cause and effect. Fi sees a problem, they sort through about 20 fixes, and if no one likes the change there may be a conflict. If Fi feels what your doing harms their inner peace, they are going to tell you that this is not okay. They believe in change, not hierarchies. They will fight for that change with or without you. However, due this affect, they may not always be the most enjoyed person of a group. While things may be productive and harmonious Mr. Fi over here is still trying to change what is going in our company fridge to save the pidgeons, if you get what I mean. With the in the closet satanist situation, Fi may act differently. At first their main goal is their harmony and they do not necessarily "seek" conflict, so they will merely choose not to talk to the person. However, if the person begins bringing in figurines, bibles to satanism on display, and talking to a coworker about it, the rising ill will of not facing the problem will begin to quite literally eat them alive. They may burst.
Fi also loves to form personal connections, but not in the way Fe might. Fe-Ti together sees the foundations of the whole and aiding it. Fi sees a need to tend to the fire. Everyone has a purpose and passion, they want to hear that in another person. They want connections, but not in the somewhat superficial way an Fe type might use them. Since Fi sees no need for connections to meet a goal or achieve necessarily, their interactions more involve finding people they can be open with, and share a passion for life with. This is where Fi may come off more reserved, in who they choose to form an actual relationship with. If this person causes disharmony, they may choose not to form the relationship. Fi is considered an "open-minded" feeling type, which at times can be true, if that is their code. An Fi users code may be there is no code of conduct. In that case, they may seem the most open minded individuals known to mankind. However, Fi descriptors often forget to tally the Fi users who actually have a very strong code of conduct, who choose very nitpickily who to form relations with in order to achieve maximum inner harmony. the "judgmental" Fi type. It may be shocking, but not every Fi type is actually open minded. It can involve their system, say, they firmly believe that not recycling is a serious problem. They may host classes to teach about it, but someone in their life doesn't recycle. They may begin by trying to demonstrate why it is important (Fi-Te coming together) but if nothing changes, depending on how much this means to them, they may snip the line which connects them at all. So Fi can also be "closed-minded".

WHY DO FE AND FI STRUGGLE TO GET ALONG?
They are the same but different. Here we go!
Fe and Fi actually tend to not get along. Fi will see Fe as shallow and valueless for going along with the mass for the sake of harmony and productivity. Fe will see Fi as self-absorbed, expecting everyone to follow their idea of passion and values. Fe will see Fi as causing conflict for no good reason, Fi will see Fe as spineless. Fi may find Fe shallow, while Fe may find Fi a hard nut to crack and wonder why they do not easily form surface level friendships. I feel a lot of the miscommunication of Fe and Fi is from actual Fe and Fi users arguing about who is the better feeler. Since they both have strong footholds in their own idea of ethical systems, they clash. It is common for common feelers to even clash, because they feel so strongly about their different value systems. This is why sometimes feelers feel very connected to T types, because objective logic can balance out some of their response. Here is some of the other stuff too.

ENFJ is the more outspoken Fe type, because of Ni. They see how something can affect the future more readily in their mind, so they are more likely to form a disharmony early on than an ESFJ. ESFJ uses Si, which is centered in the past, so they are more connected to tradition and rather keep things similar.

ISFP and INFP can both be outspoken, but in different ways. ISFP uses Se, which is in the moment. They may confront the situation immediately rather than waiting for a better time. INFPs at times struggle with confrontation moreso than the ISFP, so they try and calculate a good time since their tert Si may reflect on a previous time.

This discussion did not take in how enneagram too can affect type. I will say I disagree with the idea that some have that enneagram types can only be certain MBTI types. If you want to be an introverted feeler E1 go for it. Or an INTJ 2. Go for it.

That's all. I'm curious if anyone else has input or opinions. I feel we should discuss feelery stuff.

 

[Norrsken]

I'll never know what the heck I am, lmao. Great post, though.

 

[Zhaylin]

Superb post.
I’m definitely Fi then. I distance myself from people I clash with. It’s not a judgment thing (they’re evil/I’m good hogwash), it’s a comfort thing. I won’t push my views on others or even speak of them unless someone is abusing their position or such. Or if they ask my views.
I’m very much an open book though. That’s a self-protection thing however, and may not be MBTI related (accept me now/ don’t leave me later when you discover something unsavory- you knew the unsavory from the get go).

I am way too patient. I know how to bide my time. With my hubby, I wouldn’t talk about certain things on certain days, for instance, because I knew he wouldn’t be receptive due to work stress. I even read the moods of strangers to see if talking about certain subjects would be wise. But that’s an Fe thing, isn’t it? So, I guess I bounce between the two.

Fi is where I prefer to live. Reading everyone and adapting myself is too exhausting.

I do prefer “thinking” types. I struggle with T so they balance me out.
I have the hardest time with demonstrative and high energy emotional displays.

 

[Earl Grey]

I used to think I was Fe, but now I am sure I am not. A difference between Fe-users and I (Fi) is that I observe Fe-users much more attuned to what I call the 'emotional currency' of a situation. I have a Fe-friend I regularly come to for a 'Hey, these people got offended. What the heck happened?' rundown. A short summarization I found works for Fe and Fi in general that so far, has applied is that Fe are constantly conscious on how their words / a situation / etc emotionally affects others (note: be it positively or negatively), while Fi is much more conscious on how a situation would affect themselves. If you want to bring enneagram in, I've found that sp exacerbates that self-centricness of Fi, while soc/sx exacerbates that other-focusedness of Fe.

---

I do have questions / statements.

1) Your early paragraphs state that both Fe and Fi are harmony-seeking. What exactly does that mean? Is it an emotion? Is it the alignment of the individuals' values with the external world? Both?

2) It also implies that Fe and Fi both are very people-oriented and are primarily relationship-focused, if I am understanding this correctly, because they find their harmony through other people even if both in their own ways. That sounds counterintuitive, I am not sure how personal harmony is achieved from placing your goals and values in a way that its fulfillment is dependent on other people- and surely, there are Fs that are not quite as people-oriented in their search for 'harmony'. Can other Fs speak for this? Maybe there is something I am not understanding.

3) "ESFP will see Se through the lens of Ni, working together to form an idea. Se sees "oh look, a button." then Ni goes on a journey of how you can take this button, put it on a shirt, and make a cool new design. Combining the present with possibilities. It is important to understand the inferior function is a filter and how that exhibits in types." A decent example, albeit too loose because it also overlaps with Ne. Why exactly is this specifically Ni? It seems to be common knowledge that there is no consensus on the proper definition and scope of functions themselves, so these kinds of examples may have to be taken with a grain of salt, unless there is a specific theory of functions that you strictly subscribe to where this example falls neatly under Se-Ni without overlap (I doubt it, since behaviours overlap a lot with various types in various typology systems). In other words, axes do work in tandem, but be careful in individually using them to describe or explain certain behaviours.

4) "I think the biggest mistake in many Fe descriptions, is using unhealthy Fe examples [...]" a good observation, and I'd like to add that other examples of unhelathy Fe: controlling, cult-leader type behaviour, bullying and ostracizing, hiding behind a wall of collective norms to shun, judge, and oust people.

5) "ISFP and INFP can both be outspoken, but in different ways. ISFP uses Se, which is in the moment. They may confront the situation immediately rather than waiting for a better time. INFPs at times struggle with confrontation moreso than the ISFP, so they try and calculate a good time since their tert Si may reflect on a previous time." This is confusing. For the previous examples, you cite how the dom function works in tandem with the aux, and for INFP you make a comparison with its tert, which would generally not be the INFP user's default. Fi + Ne may also pushed for change because they can readily and quickly see all the ways things are not aligning with their value system (Ne), even if they do not know how to effectively, and quickly communicate and implement it (inferior Te), just feeling that 'something is wrong'. I would like to add that the -SFP may not even 'confront', but what they would indeed do is make a quick, more immediate decision based off immediately available information (Se)- be it conflict, leave, harmonize, mediate, et cetera.

 

[Zhaylin]

>.. Fe are constantly conscious on how their words / a situation / etc emotionally affects others (note: be it positively or negatively), while Fi is much more conscious on how a situation would affect themselves.” (1)

“... and surely, there are Fs that are not quite as people-oriented in their search for 'harmony'. Can other Fs speak for this?” (2)

Sorry for replying like this. I’m still not very comfortable with the iPad lol.
1) Now you’ve gone and confused me
I am constantly, and painfully, aware of my words, tone and body language. I read other people’s as well: that higher change in pitch can indicate they’re nervous, flirting, excited, playful; the lower pitch tends to indicate confidence, bravado, arrogance, authority. Are they stumbling over their words?- they could be tired, distracted, ill. All of that is processed by me on a mostly subconscious level. I’ll notice myself paying special attention to (or withdrawing from) something and when I ask myself why I can usually pinpoint the reason. I feel *something* first, through observation, then I analyze it and act on it (or ignore it). I know how to approach people or handle different situations because of that. I hold myself back then present myself in the most suitable fashion in word and body language.

2) I am ALL about harmony. My biggest enemy is chaos. Strong emotions = chaos. Bickering and worse = chaos.
Chaos makes me very uncomfortable because I have little hope of control. Too many variables. Too much information. I become very overwhelmed.
So, I prefer to keep people at a distance.
I liken myself to a hermit or shaman on a mountain top, living off the land. I have affection for the people in the valley. I often think of them, in passing, and hope they’re well. And, if they ever have a problem, I would hope they’d seek me out. I’m happy to be the mediator, counselor, spiritual advisor... then have them return to their valley.
My harmony comes from limited interaction with people. It’s too much chaos otherwise and chaos is my krytonite and makes me ill.

 

[Earl Grey]

Sorry for replying like this. I’m still not very comfortable with the iPad lol.
1) Now you’ve gone and confused me

Your post / formatting is perfectly fine.
Bolded- I hope not. Theories are not substitutes for real people, and your objections and contributions work towards the refinement of everyone's understanding.

I am constantly, and painfully, aware of my words, tone and body language. I read other people’s as well: that higher change in pitch can indicate they’re nervous, flirting, excited, playful; the lower pitch tends to indicate confidence, bravado, arrogance, authority. Are they stumbling over their words?- they could be tired, distracted, ill. All of that is processed by me on a mostly subconscious level. I’ll notice myself paying special attention to (or withdrawing from) something and when I ask myself why I can usually pinpoint the reason. I feel *something* first, through observation, then I analyze it and act on it (or ignore it). I know how to approach people or handle different situations because of that. I hold myself back then present myself in the most suitable fashion in word and body language.

Can other Fi-doms / Fi-users pitch in about this? I see Fs in general mention this, but without much distinction in how this works in both Fe/Fi, and if anything, I see this frequently attributed to Fe over Fi, and expanded discussion of this would fit into the thread's topic. To clarify the statement I made however, is that "Fe are constantly conscious on how their words / a situation / etc emotionally affects others (note: be it positively or negatively), while Fi is much more conscious on how a situation would affect themselves." is that both types will learn and implement skills and behaviours to default to each their preferred mode of function (and this is true for any type), with the Fi perhaps reading body language to gauge what the person may be thinking / trying to achieve, and if it is an alignment with what they feel, or want to feel, or value (so, the why, not the behaviour itself)- thus ultimately, a focus on the self- though this is rather broad. If you find yourself in certain habits or behaviours, ask yourself why and how you developed yourself in that way, and for what purpose?

2) I am ALL about harmony. My biggest enemy is chaos. Strong emotions = chaos. Bickering and worse = chaos.
Chaos makes me very uncomfortable because I have little hope of control. Too many variables. Too much information. I become very overwhelmed.
So, I prefer to keep people at a distance.
I liken myself to a hermit or shaman on a mountain top, living off the land. I have affection for the people in the valley. I often think of them, in passing, and hope they’re well. And, if they ever have a problem, I would hope they’d seek me out. I’m happy to be the mediator, counselor, spiritual advisor... then have them return to their valley.
My harmony comes from limited interaction with people. It’s too much chaos otherwise and chaos is my krytonite and makes me ill.

To be clear, my confusion lies in where the Fs derive harmony from. Your sentence here seems like a perfect example of exactly what I was pointing out: "and surely, there are Fs that are not quite as people-oriented in their search for 'harmony'. " wherein you state that your harmony comes from isolation and distance, and people are more often than not a source of chaos, unless they can approach you in a way that works in tandem with your preferences (values). Personally, I agree that such a state of existence is most 'harmonious'. I would be happy to hear more examples from others as well on how harmony manifests in their lives, as well as if they are Fi or Fe, and why. This will help us further illustrate differences, if any, between Fe and Fi on how they process, define, and achieve 'harmony'.

 

[Red Memories]

I used to think I was Fe, but now I am sure I am not. A difference between Fe-users and I (Fi) is that I observe Fe-users much more attuned to what I call the 'emotional currency' of a situation. I have a Fe-friend I regularly come to for a 'Hey, these people got offended. What the heck happened?' rundown. A short summarization I found works for Fe and Fi in general that so far, has applied is that Fe are constantly conscious on how their words / a situation / etc emotionally affects others (note: be it positively or negatively), while Fi is much more conscious on how a situation would affect themselves. If you want to bring enneagram in, I've found that sp exacerbates that self-centricness of Fi, while soc/sx exacerbates that other-focusedness of Fe.

---

I do have questions / statements.

1) Your early paragraphs state that both Fe and Fi are harmony-seeking. What exactly does that mean? Is it an emotion? Is it the alignment of the individuals' values with the external world? Both?

2) It also implies that Fe and Fi both are very people-oriented and are primarily relationship-focused, if I am understanding this correctly, because they find their harmony through other people even if both in their own ways. That sounds counterintuitive, I am not sure how personal harmony is achieved from placing your goals and values in a way that its fulfillment is dependent on other people- and surely, there are Fs that are not quite as people-oriented in their search for 'harmony'. Can other Fs speak for this? Maybe there is something I am not understanding.

3) "ESFP will see Se through the lens of Ni, working together to form an idea. Se sees "oh look, a button." then Ni goes on a journey of how you can take this button, put it on a shirt, and make a cool new design. Combining the present with possibilities. It is important to understand the inferior function is a filter and how that exhibits in types." A decent example, albeit too loose because it also overlaps with Ne. Why exactly is this specifically Ni? It seems to be common knowledge that there is no consensus on the proper definition and scope of functions themselves, so these kinds of examples may have to be taken with a grain of salt, unless there is a specific theory of functions that you strictly subscribe to where this example falls neatly under Se-Ni without overlap (I doubt it, since behaviours overlap a lot with various types in various typology systems)

4) "I think the biggest mistake in many Fe descriptions, is using unhealthy Fe examples [...]" a good observation, and I'd like to add that other examples of unhelathy Fe: controlling, cult-leader type behaviour, bullying and ostracizing, hiding behind a wall of collective norms to shun, judge, and oust people.

5) "ISFP and INFP can both be outspoken, but in different ways. ISFP uses Se, which is in the moment. They may confront the situation immediately rather than waiting for a better time. INFPs at times struggle with confrontation moreso than the ISFP, so they try and calculate a good time since their tert Si may reflect on a previous time." This is confusing. For the previous examples, you cite how the dom function works in tandem with the aux, and for INFP you make a comparison with its tert, which would generally not be the INFP user's default. Fi + Ne may also pushed for change because they can readily and quickly see all the ways things are not aligning with their value system (Ne), even if they do not know how to effectively, and quickly communicate and implement it (inferior Te), just feeling that 'something is wrong'. I would like to add that the -SFP may not even 'confront', but what they would indeed do is make a quick, more immediate decision based off immediately available information (Se)- be it conflict, leave, harmonize, mediate, et cetera.

1. Harmony is a sort of inner feeling in a way, a sense of peace in the atmosphere. Feelers are more interested in peace and atmospheres of such. It does also involve alignment, depending on the value system. Fe is more alignment oriented than Fi types. Fi doesn't care as much about a harmonious aligning whole. They just pick and choose what they surround themselves with more, so they do not face interior moral conflict. One is focused on inner peace, the other on the peace of the whole.

2. Of course. Descriptions of F types do sound people oriented mainly because the particular way to see their difference INVOLVE PEOPLE. Fi and Fe types alike may choose to be avoidant of people and seek values through themselves. It isn't entirely dependent on people, it is more about how they interact with like and different others. Does that make sense? The main idea of ethics functions is their values, whatever they are, are the center of the interaction and therefore affect how they then interact with those who think similarly or opposingly to their system.

3. The example is heavily correlated with where the functions lie within the axis. Ni adds possibilities, ideas, and future to the literalness of the Se living in the present. Where Se lives in the moment and sees things in a very descriptive context, Ni finds something to do WITH the said thing. Se sees a button, and it is just a button. With Ni, this button becomes something that can be used and become something than just a button. or have a use. I do think some things overlap as stated though. For instance, this sort of revision could be seen as a tert or inferior use of Ne. say an ISTJ looks at a button, and doesn't know what to do with it, Ne may suggest the button will fix that old shirt you like and they'll stitch it on.

4. I agree with that.

5. I based my example on my experience with SFP vs. NFPs. I do agree there are NFPs who jump the gun as well, but I have found as you stated, the Se in the SFP is more likely to make a quick decision on reaction where NFP may take more time to sit with it and decide what to do. I've found from NFP friends, they confront months later about something they felt months ago feeling "I finally decided I should talk about this issue with you". O.O I tend to be shoot the gun with my emotional responses so I always get flustered with this but yeah. XD

 

[Earl Grey]

1. Harmony is a sort of inner feeling in a way, a sense of peace in the atmosphere. Feelers are more interested in peace and atmospheres of such. It does also involve alignment, depending on the value system. Fe is more alignment oriented than Fi types. Fi doesn't care as much about a harmonious aligning whole. They just pick and choose what they surround themselves with more, so they do not face interior moral conflict. One is focused on inner peace, the other on the peace of the whole.

Thank you for the explanation. I must agree, and this also fits within my observations.

2. Of course. Descriptions of F types do sound people oriented mainly because the particular way to see their difference INVOLVE PEOPLE. Fi and Fe types alike may choose to be avoidant of people and seek values through themselves. It isn't entirely dependent on people, it is more about how they interact with like and different others. Does that make sense? The main idea of ethics functions is their values, whatever they are, are the center of the interaction and therefore affect how they then interact with those who think similarly or opposingly to their system.

Ah, that sounds much clearer. So it is an orientation related to people relative to their surroundings which may go positively or negatively, for or against, if I am understanding correctly? For example, a Fi moving away from society because the norms in their surroundings / environment / culture / etc are not in alignment with their ideals/beliefs, as you have stated in response to point #1 above.

I tend to be shoot the gun with my emotional responses so I always get flustered with this but yeah. XD

You are an extrovert, yes? At least, as per listed on your profile at this moment of posting. That may account for it.

 

[Red Memories]

Thank you for the explanation. I must agree, and this also fits within my observations.



Ah, that sounds much clearer. So it is an orientation related to people relative to their surroundings which may go positively or negatively, for or against, if I am understanding correctly? For example, a Fi moving away from society because the norms in their surroundings / environment / culture / etc are not in alignment with their ideals/beliefs, as you have stated in response to point #1 above.



You are an extrovert, yes? At least, as per listed on your profile at this moment of posting. That may account for it.

1. Yay

2. Yes. Exactly what I mean.

3. I do believe I am something of an extravert. I question that I might be an IxFP sometimes but in the end I always end up back at ENFP. So. Thanks for the observation too.

 

[Mind Maverick]

...First of all, I don't believe in the validity of functions in typology. Secondly...I seem to lack an F function. Third, I could choose to do either of those. It's very easy for anyone to be fluid in those things, if they are willing and understand how to reconstruct their minds. (On the other hand, I would have a difficult time making moral code my primary mode of processing in general).

I don't relate much to either of those, however. Here is how I form "values:" "If I do X it will result in Y; if I do B it will result in F. F is a better outcome, and thus B is better in this." My "values" are otherwise blank slates which are subject to adaptation. I lack any kind of visceral attachment to beliefs, morals, codes, values...and this is how I understand Fs to be: emotionally attached to beliefs, otherwise called values. I can't really comprehend how on earth they form things otherwise, and to me this is so fucking far from something that makes sense that I even oppose it on an emotional level, I feel very strongly about not doing things that way. This is very foreign to me and I am highly opposed to it, it's like processing life via an emotional bias filter. I don't "morally disagree" with anything because morals lack relevancy to the situations at hand in most cases as I see it. Things often wind up making no logical sense whatsoever, and yet the person will adhere to it firmly despite it conflicting with something more reasonable. While feelings may interfere with my judgment or overpower me at times, feelings are like a child (immature, juvenile) which should be kept in the back seat (not the forefront or head of the decision making process) buckled (controlled) securely and safely (lest they wreck the car like a 3 yr old child). Life doesn't care about how you feel about things: that is irrelevant to the outcomes...there is only consequence vs reward which translates into pro vs con. I don't have values, I have character from that which is weighed out and thus perceived as better or more rewarding; regardless of whether that reward is for myself or others. If I can zoom out, disconnect from feelings, and view all of the dynamics taking place, then make the best possible decision from there, then I am better off. I do exclude the feelings of both myself and others from the equation also. If it makes no difference and either outcome is fine, then I will generally fall back onto whatever others prefer to go with...so that would indicate that I am more Fe, but only as a secondary to what makes logical sense to me. Not all that surprising for an INTP. On the other hand, my ENTJ father (so another "Inferior Feeler") has stronger morals than most and attempts to push them onto others...and before anyone thinks I've mistyped him as a T, this is a man who would emotionally and psychologically abuse me for not wrapping the water hose in the most logical method and makes a fuss about the driving manual instructing people to make 3 point turns when reversing rather than going forward can result in a 1 point turn and is more efficient. It's an ENTJ 8 man who is oozing Te.

...Also, I made a similar post here:
Cognitive Function Descriptions / Definitions

In 2017-2018 I was depressed as fuck and very Fe, and definitely more Fe than Fi, but I am now back to challenging the conventional, traditional "because everyone else does or says so" horse shit. I don't have much patience for playing by the rules when those rules don't make sense, I perceive it as being a sheeple, a robot. I often feel as though I'm watching programs in the matrix made to look like people when I observe society. Despite the impressions I apparently give now (people are thinking I'm Fi/Te), I relate more to Ti than Te. I do however relate to Fi some now, whereas in 2018 I couldn't even grasp what it meant because it was so foreign to me.


Label all of that as you will, I will not be selecting a response. I have better things than typology to spend my time on anyways. I spent 6-7 years determining that I am an INTP and I spent most of my time typed this way, I'm not searching...but the only thing I really laugh at is when someone mistypes me as S instead of N. There's no fucking way I'm anything but N.

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

Well, you convinced me.

I definitely use Fe.

 

[Luminous]

In regards to F and harmony/ relationships, the wiki here says

A Feeling type (F) is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of "people" or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, which is basically what could be called “anthropic” (or “humane”), and ultimately deals with the “soul”, with its emotions and values. It's not the same thing we normally call "feelings", but, according to Jung, involves "sorting them out". This will usually lead to a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. (They will often mirror the other person’s inner state and adjust their behavior accordingly).
They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from the perspective of how we relate to them. This leads them to “think” in terms of “good” or “bad” (or "like/dislike", which will assume what is “correct/incorrect”).

And

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): assessment of “like/dislike” or “good” is stimulated by an environmental standard of the needs of people
(turn outward to evaluate proper relationship involving/between people)
—individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment

Introverted Feeling (Fi): assessment of “like/dislike” or “good” [for "people"] is stimulated by an individual standard
(turn inward to internal “blueprint” of proper relationship involving people)
—individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.

Perhaps the simplest descriptions that can be made:
...
Fe revealed good[ness]
Fi self-determined good[ness]...

Sociabilty (associated with Fe products; connecting with people via the environment)
The conscience (and affinities; associated with Fi products; our own human values used to relate to others).

I am strongly F. I relate to some of how Fe is described, but my primary concern is my own internal values and integrity, which are inherently personal to me. It just happens that sure of my values include being caring and empathetic toward others, especially special others.

Also from the wiki (I identify with the bolded):

Fi Characteristics
As compared to those that use Extraverted Feeling (Fe) , individuals that use the cognitive function of Introverted Feeling (Fi) tend towards the following:

seek to understand their own behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs
are ruled by their own subjective and personal values
express emotions they feel strongly about without as much intentionality and forethought about optimal effect
project their experience with feelings onto the other person to understand them
have an easier time confronting others; are more brash
seek harmony with self
are more idealistic; less willing to make compromises
focus on understanding how they feel, decides what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while maintaining their own sense of personal integrity
assess incongruities of behavior of individuals with self (i.e. are they authentic)
focus on how behaviors and motivations of others are the same or different than their own
focus on being true to who they are
focus on how decisions, actions or expressed opinions are going to be consistent with their own beliefs, values, and personal convictions

Fe Characteristics
As compared to those that use Introverted Feeling (Fi), individuals that use the cognitive function of Extraverted Feeling (Fe) tend towards the following:

seek to understand others behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs
are ruled by objective and more broadly accepted values
express emotion with intentionality and forethought for optimal effect
seek to objectively understand the feelings of others
have a harder time confronting others; are more diplomatic
seek harmony with others
are more practical; willing to make compromises
focus on understanding how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views, decides what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
assess consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
focus on observable patterns of behaviors and motivations that others seem have
are focused on the dynamics of how people relate to each other
focus on how decisions, actions, or expressed opinions are going to be reacted to, countered or felt by others and weighing benefits and costs of the course of action

In some ways, I've tried to use more Fe (I realize this looking at this list) by trying to think about how something will be responded to prior to my expression of it, and that sort of thing.

 

[Norexan]

Fi vs Fe


Romantic vs Altruistic

Fi - I love her.
Fe - But you are selfish.
Fi - *Try to explain how his feelings toward someone have to do with selfishness*.

Mature vs Childish
Fi - See that's the love. A poem for her. I'll do this for her.
Fe - Love is slapping her on her ass.
Fi - OMG you are such a child ha-ha

Grumpy vs Chill
Fe- You must support people who you love not ban them something if they love to do it!
Fi - And if the person wants to jump in the well so you will push her! Go KILL YOURSELF is your advice.
Fe- I didn't say that
Fi - But you are.

Fi - understanding how your emotions work and project them to other people - be yourself and fuck off everybody
Fe - understanding how others emotions inflict on you and the ones you care - be loved by others and successful.

 

[cascadeco]

I'm constantly trying to decipher my actual true type, and the argument of Fe vs. Fi always comes up.

I know in the past about 90% of the user base considered me an Fe dominant of sorts, some still do. I find it almost humoring that the new user base seems to predominantly find me Fi-dominant. I had a friend here before during an argument though say my argument was "so Fi he could sneeze" so some users still saw it. XD)

You know, I'm trying to figure out how this phenomena came about. I think some of it can be traced way back to the early years on this forum, when there were many Fe/Fi discussions and Fe users often felt misunderstood or just with weird intentions planted on them. Or, reading descriptions of Fe as well as what Fi users perceived of Fe-users (in particular NFJ's, who I think are a pretty different breed in some ways from SFJ's), Fe users began bristling whenever it was implied they didn't have values of their own and for whatever reason just sucked up only things around them. So I think that's where some of the transition on the forum began. I am kind of speculating too, but I have also noticed that in recent years ANY statement or behavior of actually having personal beliefs and standing up for them, even if it ruffles feathers, or having more solid 'selfish' boundaries, seems to be automatically lumped into the Fi category / is typed as Fi. I don't personally believe this is the case. I, for one, have become more 'hardened' with age and boundaries have become more evident in me as I have aged --- so I have gone through all of my more recent years on this forum commonly typed as an Fi person. Early on, everyone was 100% down with my being INFJ.

Also, Fe users are always going to relate on some level to Fi descriptions -- because who on this planet doesn't believe they have their own belief systems and values? We all do. Conversely, Fi users can and will care about accommodating others, whether to a minimal degree or a larger degree.

---------------------------------------------------------

I can only really comment thoroughly on Fe, since I think most of my friends are actually Fe folks. (I can't think of any Fi dom/aux good friend that I have? I for sure have a few TJ friends but they are of a different breed from FP). Also I am back to identifying as FJ -- due to dichotomy alone - though I think it could be said I have a fair amount of Fe (even if I can be counterphobic about it in a group/expectation setting - which tbh doesn't jive against nfj - many can be).

I would say a fair number of FJ's (I'm not going to say ALL - how would I know) wouldn't relate to things they read FP's cite about them - thus the next step is 'not relating' to what's lumped as Fe at all. (there are NFJ's on this forum who have said as much)

My FJ friends would find it bizarre in the least to be perceived as not seeking out and greatly desiring deep friendships with people they can truly connect with, or not having strong personal beliefs that might run contrary to 'the norm'/group or that they believe were crafted on their own.

My feeling like I think others have brought up before is that FJ / 'Fe' is 1)ultimately more about pragmatics in terms of getting sh*t done that needs to get done in the most people-attuned way as possible - taking into account every individuals' idiosyncrasies to try to maximize their talents and preferences --- knowing fair well that it's impossible to appease everyone 100% of the time with 100% of their preferences being met -- and 2)also reading group dynamics / relationships between one or more people, and being highly attuned to those dynamics at work, thus Fe user will be more attuned to knowing Peter and Paul will really clash and shouldn't be ideally placed to work on a task together, thus stick Peter with Jane and Paul can do this other thing because he likes doing that better anyway.

Regarding not speaking up in a setting where said FJ user is surrounded by people who are totally against whatever they may personally represent -- well speaking for myself, it's weighing pragmatics again -- let's say hypothetically I'm out to dinner with ten people and 8 of them I don't know and I personally think all 8 of these people suck and they're just saying the most outrageous things I don't agree with at all. Is there an ultimate 'point' in my saying I think opposite? What will be gained by my doing so? Am I in such a dire need of proclaiming my own views to them/the world that I must proclaim them even if that's all that is 'accomplished'? Me proclaiming them and then who cares anyway? otoh maybe I think it's wholly justified that I state what I think or correct some misinformation, even if ultimately I view it as pointless, because of x or y reason instead. I mean, I don't know. I just know that there are a crap load of situations where I feel no compulsion to say what I actually think or feel, because I think it'll be a fruitless effort that won't make any impact whatsoever. I think this is part of where FP/Fi 'reads' of FJ can be off -- in terms of actual motivation / intention ----> meaning, I think that what is viewed externally as 'just going along with the group' internally is quite another story with the FJ. Not saying that this isn't understood, but I think it's not often fleshed out very well.

Additionally, yes, at work I probably interact in different ways with different people; it's about knowing everyone is different and everyone speaks a 'different language', and not feeling HOW I speak or WHAT I speak about is inherently defining WHO I AM - because WHO I AM is outside of that, or rather, that's part of it, but I don't feel it 'defines' me in any critical way -- thus I'm not going to feel a need to speak in the same language with every single person if I know some people won't care or even listen, or other such things. I don't have a solo way of being, iow. In this sense I think FJ's can appear more flimsy and malleable -- and FP's can seem more sure and solid in their identity.

It has also been spoken before re FJ of different 'tiers' of relations --- thus the vast majority of folks are in fact not good friends of the FJ, nor does the FJ even necessarily act like they are. It's just that the FJ may still be diplomatic (for the sake of work and knowing they aren't going to get along or agree with everyone, but still need/want to treat everyone with respect), or wants to try to find some common ground with people, if they have to work with them anyway in some capacity. In terms of my FJ friends, I'd say for them it's that they don't actually need or even want to be friends with everyone -- but they still might interact or try to build some level of goodwill simply because.... pragmatically and from a human standpoint why not? Again I think it's tied to the accepted notion of knowing everyone is different and knowing even if they'll only be good friends or feel really close to say 1% of the population (or whatever), they still need to interact with the other 99% so those are 'relationships' too, even if just as a coworker -- so why not try to make them the best it's possible to make or to keep things so that work can actually get done. Stuff like that.

 

[skimpit]

I have nothing else to contribute to the discussion at the moment other than I'm debating between Fe and Fi for myself, and the more I read about it the more confused I get, even though it seems like a relatively simple concept to understand.

 

[cascadeco]

I have nothing else to contribute to the discussion at the moment other than I'm debating between Fe and Fi for myself, and the more I read about it the more confused I get, even though it seems like a relatively simple concept to understand.

fwiw I think almost everyone will relate to some elements of both, and I think that's normal/human. Remember these are just theoretical black and white lumpings and it's more about overall whether someone leans more one way than another.

Also I'm kinda like [MENTION=36353]Hexcoder[/MENTION] where I think cognitive functions are a lot of crap -- in the sense that while they are interesting and perhaps useful concepts, there's ZERO way to 'prove' one is one and not the other. That's why in my post I was emphasizing FJ's and FP's vs talking about functions. Fe/Fi discussion will also probably be less 'meaningful' to T's. There's nothing objective about how one goes about identifying with one or the other. Just something to keep in mind.

(At least with dichotomy there is objectivity -- now it will be a neverending argument as far as some people thinking dichotomy is just ridiculous and it's all about the functions, and then vice versa - that argument isn't going to end -- but you can't argue against the fact that J is defined as having pretty black and white traits, as is P, as is F and T and all of the others)

 

[Fidelia]

You know, I'm trying to figure out how this phenomena came about. I think some of it can be traced way back to the early years on this forum, when there were many Fe/Fi discussions and Fe users often felt misunderstood or just with weird intentions planted on them. Or, reading descriptions of Fe as well as what Fi users perceived of Fe-users (in particular NFJ's, who I think are a pretty different breed in some ways from SFJ's), Fe users began bristling whenever it was implied they didn't have values of their own and for whatever reason just sucked up only things around them. So I think that's where some of the transition on the forum began. I am kind of speculating too, but I have also noticed that in recent years ANY statement or behavior of actually having personal beliefs and standing up for them, even if it ruffles feathers, or having more solid 'selfish' boundaries, seems to be automatically lumped into the Fi category / is typed as Fi. I don't personally believe this is the case. I, for one, have become more 'hardened' with age and boundaries have become more evident in me as I have aged --- so I have gone through all of my more recent years on this forum commonly typed as an Fi person. Early on, everyone was 100% down with my being INFJ.

Also, Fe users are always going to relate on some level to Fi descriptions -- because who on this planet doesn't believe they have their own belief systems and values? We all do. Conversely, Fi users can and will care about accommodating others, whether to a minimal degree or a larger degree.

---------------------------------------------------------

I can only really comment thoroughly on Fe, since I think most of my friends are actually Fe folks. (I can't think of any Fi dom/aux good friend that I have? I for sure have a few TJ friends but they are of a different breed from FP). Also I am back to identifying as FJ -- due to dichotomy alone - though I think it could be said I have a fair amount of Fe (even if I can be counterphobic about it in a group/expectation setting - which tbh doesn't jive against nfj - many can be).

I would say a fair number of FJ's (I'm not going to say ALL - how would I know) wouldn't relate to things they read FP's cite about them - thus the next step is 'not relating' to what's lumped as Fe at all. (there are NFJ's on this forum who have said as much)

My FJ friends would find it bizarre in the least to be perceived as not seeking out and greatly desiring deep friendships with people they can truly connect with, or not having strong personal beliefs that might run contrary to 'the norm'/group or that they believe were crafted on their own.

My feeling like I think others have brought up before is that FJ / 'Fe' is 1)ultimately more about pragmatics in terms of getting sh*t done that needs to get done in the most people-attuned way as possible - taking into account every individuals' idiosyncrasies to try to maximize their talents and preferences --- knowing fair well that it's impossible to appease everyone 100% of the time with 100% of their preferences being met -- and 2)also reading group dynamics / relationships between one or more people, and being highly attuned to those dynamics at work, thus Fe user will be more attuned to knowing Peter and Paul will really clash and shouldn't be ideally placed to work on a task together, thus stick Peter with Jane and Paul can do this other thing because he likes doing that better anyway.

Regarding not speaking up in a setting where said FJ user is surrounded by people who are totally against whatever they may personally represent -- well speaking for myself, it's weighing pragmatics again -- let's say hypothetically I'm out to dinner with ten people and 8 of them I don't know and I personally think all 8 of these people suck and they're just saying the most outrageous things I don't agree with at all. Is there an ultimate 'point' in my saying I think opposite? What will be gained by my doing so? Am I in such a dire need of proclaiming my own views to them/the world that I must proclaim them even if that's all that is 'accomplished'? Me proclaiming them and then who cares anyway? otoh maybe I think it's wholly justified that I state what I think or correct some misinformation, even if ultimately I view it as pointless, because of x or y reason instead. I mean, I don't know. I just know that there are a crap load of situations where I feel no compulsion to say what I actually think or feel, because I think it'll be a fruitless effort that won't make any impact whatsoever. I think this is part of where FP/Fi 'reads' of FJ can be off -- in terms of actual motivation / intention ----> meaning, I think that what is viewed externally as 'just going along with the group' internally is quite another story with the FJ. Not saying that this isn't understood, but I think it's not often fleshed out very well.

Additionally, yes, at work I probably interact in different ways with different people; it's about knowing everyone is different and everyone speaks a 'different language', and not feeling HOW I speak or WHAT I speak about is inherently defining WHO I AM - because WHO I AM is outside of that, or rather, that's part of it, but I don't feel it 'defines' me in any critical way -- thus I'm not going to feel a need to speak in the same language with every single person if I know some people won't care or even listen, or other such things. I don't have a solo way of being, iow. In this sense I think FJ's can appear more flimsy and malleable -- and FP's can seem more sure and solid in their identity.

It has also been spoken before re FJ of different 'tiers' of relations --- thus the vast majority of folks are in fact not good friends of the FJ, nor does the FJ even necessarily act like they are. It's just that the FJ may still be diplomatic (for the sake of work and knowing they aren't going to get along or agree with everyone, but still need/want to treat everyone with respect), or wants to try to find some common ground with people, if they have to work with them anyway in some capacity. In terms of my FJ friends, I'd say for them it's that they don't actually need or even want to be friends with everyone -- but they still might interact or try to build some level of goodwill simply because.... pragmatically and from a human standpoint why not? Again I think it's tied to the accepted notion of knowing everyone is different and knowing even if they'll only be good friends or feel really close to say 1% of the population (or whatever), they still need to interact with the other 99% so those are 'relationships' too, even if just as a coworker -- so why not try to make them the best it's possible to make or to keep things so that work can actually get done. Stuff like that.

I very much identify with this. In my case at least, I find that I do look to sources outside myself to confirm that people are receiving the same message that I think I'm broadcasting. When they mirror back something totally different, it can be confusing. I also find that I am more dependent on talking through problems aloud to some sort of audience because it helps me clarify what I put the most weight on, what bubbles up within me to discuss, most salient points etc, which I can't seem to do in the same way on my own. I've noticed many of my Fi friends seem more adept at doing that by themselves and probably have a more nuanced understanding of the shades of their own feeling. I have in the past kind of seen some of my own feelings as transient, not a real part of me, or even inconviences to work around, more than a defining aspect of who I am, as my Fi friends do. As I've gotten older, it was a useful revelation to me to understand that our feelings are there for a practical purpose, to alert us to something that needs our attention and that they should move us to some kind of action. I'm sure that Fi users see feelings in a different way, but understanding that there was some useful outcome in allowing myself to pay attention to how I felt more (it inconveniences others less and is better for my own well being) was the main thing that motivated me to revisit my relationship with them.

I do think that Fe is sometimes viewed by some Fi users (not all) as being very rulesy, and requiring everyone to conform to a happy set of guidelines unquestioningly. I would argue that Fe tends to be pragmatic and look for the outcome that is workable to the most people and try to span the gaps between the disparity of the individuals. It's action oriented and so I know in my first few years on the forum, I was confused as to why people would want to bring up stuff that would stir things up, but that they had no actual intended change in mind to try to bring about.

I actually have noticed that depending on who a group is comprised of, I may arrive at varying solutions/decisions because my natural bent is to want to find common ground. That is good in some settings, but isn't always great on say a committee establishing guidelines for a larger group of people or for long into the future, because I can be influenced by who in is a particular gathering of people. I think one of the other downsides of Fe for me, particularly in earlier years is that I tended to want to emphasize the aspects of me that people responded positively to, or appreciated more, which meant that they sometimes were not aware of other parts of me that were equally representative of who I was. That's not to say that I was being dishonest at all. Just that it sometimes resulted in an incomplete picture of what I was actually like. Because I tended to observe before jumping in a lot and refrained from expressing my most controversial views or vehement opposition until I really trusted someone, I think a lot of people who knew me as an acquaintance could either have a blank enough canvas to fill in the blanks for whatever they wanted to see me as, others had more scope to manipulate how I was seen, or I was perceived as blander and sweeter than I actually am.

I definitely do that thing cascadeco was referring to about weighing the practical benefits vs drawbacks of opposing those around me. It's not a matter of having no values or being afraid of conflict. It's just deciding which ones require expression and where I think that the potential positive longterm outweighs the possible negatives short term. In an organization I have to work for where I know that I will not have enough solidarity to effect change, or my views are too disparate from the management's/coworkers' to work peacefully and authentically together, I am more likely to leave, than try to revolutionize things. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it is not.

In relating to people, I suspect that Fe users are more likely to start from points of commonality to establish rapport or goodwill and then point out where they diverge, instead of jumping right into disagreement.

Having said all that though, I tend to be acquainted more with NFJ and NTP versions of Fe, and NFP or TJ versions of Fi. Where Fe or Fi comes in the stacking and what role it plays, in addition to the person's own history, upbringing, stress levels etc, change very much how it manifests itself.

 

[GavinElster]

Well, I don't tend to go much with the 'collective' vs 'individual' interpretation of Fe vs Fi, just because it seems to me more of a personality difference than a 'how you think' difference.

I like something like the socionics take on this issue -- the idea there is Fe is the ethics of emotion (which is not the same as emotion itself -- it is the reasoning component; if we roughly see emotions as motivations and moods, the ethics of emotion is cognizant of what affects these... it is extraverted roughly in the sense that emotions are that component of our subjective response which basically just flare up -- they're not the parts we most directly cognitively can define of our values... when I think of the fact that sometimes, my response emotionally to something didn't seem appropriate, and there is some way I could influence it to change, obviously that isn't just emotion itself, it's a decision-making process about them.)

I see the Ti/Fe line as about this idea that no amount of logic influences one to act in and of itself independent of emotional factors.

Obviously there are different takes, and some of them fit into a more Te/Fi philosophy.

 

[Mind Maverick]

[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] Well said for most, but my question comes in where you say dichotomies are more objective. Howso?

 

[cascadeco]

[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] Well said for most, but my question comes in where you say dichotomies are more objective. Howso?

Objective in the sense that what each dichotomy represents in the mbti test is very black and white. J is defined as x, y, and z aspects, P is a different set of aspects, it is fairly unambiguous by the definitions themselves what each dichotomy IS.

Like I said, opinions will vary as to whether these attributes are 'accurate' or truly speak for J or P or whatnot, but if referring to how the majority of the world knows about mbti/type, it's by these very straightforward dichotomies and what traits are associated with each.

You highly prefer having direction/an established endpoint and don't have any issues completing something you start? OK, by definition that's J. etc.