[NF] Introverted Feeling vs. Extraverted Feeling

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It's been hypothesized that Ni-Fe can produce an Fi-like effect. At this point, with hearing how others see Fe in their lives and how they utilise it, I'm not entirely sure how much Fe I actually have. I do find myself agreeing with the sentiments of INFPs on this forum and others', but not so much other supposed Fi users' opinions.

hmmm. yeah, i have the common Fi thing with infps, but not much else. i really like them now, but they feel like a completely different phenomenon to me compared to myself.

i was just coming to edit my earlier post about Fe. fuck societal norms, etc., like all the literature states. i think my Fe comes out most because i genuinely care about people. and when i care about people and their feelings, i do things that utilize Fe. i think that societal norm stuff and Fe is antiquated or something. sounds more Te almost: like the most logical way of being successful and getting along with others in society, rather than any feelings motivation...............ya know?

input appreciated.

 

[Oaky]

I'm INFJ with secondary Ti. Not everyone's the same.

What you are doing now is contradicting every source that explains the profile of an INFJ.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I wonder if what you guys are calling Fi in NFJs isn't the products of Ti working on Fe materials.

If you were to characterise this Fi of yours, would it be like having an internal sense of the essential quality of "feeling", fine distinctions between feelings, having categories and sub categories of feeling, and ultimately knowing which ones are good and which ones are bad?

Telling the difference between this and Fi is very probably only available by being aware of what the feelings, in general, are about. Not what the conclusions are about, but what the feelings themselves are about.



Totally just guessing.

dunno man. when i use Ti i'm completely lethargic. haha. i rely so much on my husband's Ti, that i am totally inefficient using mine, and i hate inefficiency, so...........doubtful, but interesting hypothesis.

Fi for me is:

-values surrounding why i homeschool, why i have my babies at home, why i am a stay-at-home mom. these are things i have organized my life around, and they have much meaning behind them, and are the only way i can see to do things for myself.

-i have no prob upholding my values with others.

-i am very aware of my feelings.

-i don't try to pressure people into doing things, although i do have the ability to. i go out of my way to support others in maintaining their integrity.

-when i experience a strong emotion in a setting, i am aware that the other person is feeling the same emotion. i think i empathize well.

i do most all Fi stuff, but i stop short of crusading. i'm not sure why, because i feel deeply. i prefer to just be who i am. i think that's where Fi hits Fe. i don't want to annoy others or step on their toes too much.

 

[fill]

What you are doing now is contradicting every source that explains the profile of an INFJ.

Good. Fuck the norm.

Whoever said I had to fit profiles? Isn't the entire essence of INFJ contradicting them?

 

[Lauren Ashley]

hmmm. yeah, i have the common Fi thing with infps, but not much else. i really like them now, but they feel like a completely different phenomenon to me compared to myself.

There are some INFPs that don't see very much different from me at all. With them, it is easy to see why INFP and INFJ are confused so often. Then there are others that seem more like ISFPs, and thus I don't relate to them as much.

i was just coming to edit my earlier post about Fe. fuck societal norms, etc., like all the literature states. i think my Fe comes out most because i genuinely care about people. and when i care about people and their feelings, i do things that utilize Fe.

Exactly. I'm not fond of groups or society at large at all and certainly don't pay attention to their dictates of what one should value. Individuality is something that I hold dearly, and I need to come to my own conclusions. I do see Fe within myself when I reach out to others. But this has everything to do with sincerely caring about them and their well-being and nothing to do with what I think I should do, as conditioned by society.

i think that societal norm stuff and Fe is antiquated or something. sounds more Te almost: like the most logical way of being successful and getting along with others in society, rather than any feelings motivation...............ya know?

Definitely. From what's been written here and in other threads, the line between Te and Fe is precarious at best. At what point does it become actual, you know, feeling? It seems entirely overstudied; behaving in ways to produce the best results from others socially.

 

[Oaky]

Good. Fuck the norm.

Whoever said I had to fit profiles? Isn't the entire essence of INFJ contradicting them?

If that were the case than you as an INFJ would say that you weren't an INFJ because you contradict the profile.

 

[cascadeco]

Meh. I don't buy it. I think it's a matter of directionality, not temporality. My understanding in a nutshell is that Fe judges itself by societal (or at least peer group) norms, and Fi judges society by self-generated idiosyncratic norms

For example, I made a bad conservative when I thought I was one, since I was always disagreeing with inherited wisdom and social consensus. I'm full of original moral philosophies, which I've gradually realized isn't entirely normal. An ENFJ would probably be much better at conservatism than I was.

Eh...nope. I don't give a rip about social consensus most of the time, and I can't stand most of the aspects of the society/culture I live in. This isn't Fe in and of itself. It might be a piece of it, for some Fe-types, but this sort of definition is really shallow for Fe, just as Fi receives its share of shallow summaries.

In fact, I sometimes doubt Fe can really be described (in a meaningful, relevant way) in an isolated context. The nature of Fe, and its motivations, is going to play out quite differently depending on how heavily it is used as well as the other cognitive functions it supports. The focus/behaviors of Fe in an ESFJ (the motivation behind why the ESFJ is doing what he is doing) is going to be distinctly different from the focus of Fe in an INFJ. Fe in an INTP will be quite different from Fe in an ESTP.

I've decided Fi's aren't going to ever really 'get' Fe, from the Fe-users perspective, because the Fi user who wields Fe utilizes it for different reasons/motivations than the Fe user might. Just as Fi from my perspective is going to be highly different from Fi from an Fi-dom. And, on my end, I don't entirely 'get' Fi either, to be honest - and am to the point where I really don't care anymore. All I know is that I 'get' people who utilize Fe a lot more readily than I 'get' people who utilize Fi....in real life. On the internet, these differences aren't nearly as apparent. Fi, as it plays out in someones' real-life character, demeanor, decision-making, and behaviors, can be almost alien to me. I just don't get it at times. And it goes without saying that an Fi dom wouldn't naturally 'get' me.

On the internet, and reading cog. function descriptions, I have at times related much to Fi. But this fades away rapidly when I observe it playing out in real-life settings, and real-life conversations/interactions. It's hilarious to me that in the not-so-distant past I was contemplating myself as a possible INFP - I'm so not one, it's not even funny.

Reading cognitive function descriptions is ultimately worthless to me. (ha!) I can read about Fi and Fe, and read about all of the nice little supposed differences between Fi and Fe. I can read about what Fe is 'supposed' to be about, and I can laugh at how little I relate to half of the descriptions of Fe. But again, in real-life, I relate marvelously well to fellow INFJ's and Fe-users in general ---- and no, we don't all adhere to many of the lame stereotypes about Fe.

 

[fill]

If that were the case than you as an INFJ would say that you weren't an INFJ because you contradict the profile.

Exactly. I'm a giant contradiction.

 

[OrangeAppled]

But your use of the word "control" belies the fact that you do suppress/repress emotions in the presence of other people.

I never said that not making your emotions visible means that you're repressing them permanently (making them go away forever, never to feel them again). You're only repressing them temporarily so as not to make them visible to others. But there's still repression going on, even if you do visit your feelings again later in a safer, solitary environment. Don't tell me, as an INFP, that you've never cried to yourself before. Or felt the urge to paint or write or sing or dance your feelings away. Emotions demand expression, so when they're not expressed immediately (as in the case of an Fi user in the presence of others), it means that they're being repressed (held down, controlled).

The fact that you do repress emotions around others doesn't mean that you're the type of person who tucks your feelings away somewhere deep inside your subconscious never to visit them again. I know that's the common meaning that we get when someone says, "he represses his emotions." But when we look at the act of keeping your emotions hidden from others, it is clear that this involves repression to a certain degree. It seems like you are hung up on the negative connotation of the word "repress."

I think the below quote hits the nail on the head. My emotional reaction can be a like a pot of water set to boil. It takes time for it to go from cold to warm to simmering to a rolling boil. I am often not in the situation that upset me by the time I boil over, either by choice or circumstance. And yes, this is why an INFP may use other forms of expression, because after going through the whole process you're often not in a position to confront the situation directly anymore, or you just don't want to confront it because you hate confrontation. If someone makes me mad, I can be hit and stunned in the moment. Then I think and think about it, and I get more and more mad, and now it's hours or days later and to call someone up and chew them out over it seems petty. However, I am still at the point where I must express it, so I find some outlet.

This can also mean that by the time I reach boiling point, small things that are unrelated can set me off. I then appear irrational and ridiculous because I am seemingly upset over something small, but in reality, there was something else bubbling beneath the surface from an earlier time. This can make me appear inconsistent to people and they get that walking on egg shells feeling.

I don’t agree. To say someone ‘represses’ their emotion insinuates there’s some effort involved in holding the emotion back, as if on part of the super-ego or whatnot. I know from personal experience that it isn’t ‘repressed’ so much as it simply lingers inside a little bit longer. It needs more processing.

EDIT: In the fable 'the tortoise & the hare', is the turtle being 'repressed'? No. It's just slower to get to the finish line.

Thanks, this is a good explanation. "Control" is a misleading word, but I couldn't think of a way to describe it. Emotions often don't hit me in full force immediately, but they slowly unfold. I also don't feel like the appearance of being controlled is consciously made. In some ways, the emotion does control me, because it can paralyze me.

Calmly explaining your problem to a person while feeling like a raging ball of firey emotion on the inside IS controlling the emotion, even though you are still experiencing feelings on the inside. The emotion compels you to yell and scream and rage, yet there is something that you are doing to repress the yelling and screaming and raging. A part of the emotion is being placed under the house arrest of your judgment.

How do you know what an individual's emotion compels them to do? My negative emotions compel me to seek solitude, not to rage. I think part of the issue is assuming that everyone responds to an emotion in the same manner and expresses it the same way. This is a very Fe attitude, which makes it hard on Fi-doms when we don't meet the prescribed standards for emotion and behavior.

Maybe it is Fi judgment steering emotions, and in the best use it means we will think before we act/speak and find constructive outlets, but it's not really a repression, it's just a process that takes time. Maybe this is only a minor distinction to you, but I think it's an important one because Fi-dom are likely the types that are most in touch with their own emotion. Words like "repress" just miss the mark on describing my inner emotional process. I may only appear to repress, but that's not what is happening internally.

Reacting in the moment for me is like birthing a baby before it's done forming. It's not ready to come out yet, and it's going to be a lot uglier than if I let the process naturally play out.

It seems to me that is controlling your actions not your emotions.

Yes, thanks for making that distinction.

 

[Glycerine]

I ALWAYS thought social norms/conventions were more in the realm of Si. With the added Fe, it seems like a double whammy on that front. This is probably not always the case. If Fe is all about social norms and conventions, I am absolutely horrible at Fe. Social norms pretty much flew out the window for me long ago. I am supposedly a "very considerate" person but at the same time, pretty odd and unusual. FeSi (SiFe) seems really different than FeNi (NiFe). Comparing myself to my ESFJ dad, he is way more concerned with image than I am. But then again, he's 2w3 and I'm 9w1.

However, I will try to follow social rules like "avoid talking about sex, politics, religion until you have gotten to know the person", "say please and thank you" and "ask politely if you want someone's help". These are more out of decency than trying to create a good public persona though.

 

[Orangey]

How do you know what an individual's emotion compels them to do? My negative emotions compel me to seek solitude, not to rage. I think part of the issue is assuming that everyone responds to an emotion in the same manner and expresses it the same way. This is a very Fe attitude, which makes it hard on Fi-doms when we don't meet the prescribed standards for emotion and behavior.

Maybe it is Fi judgment steering emotions, and in the best use it means we will think before we act/speak and find constructive outlets, but it's not really a repression, it's just a process that takes time. Maybe this is only a minor distinction to you, but I think it's an important one because Fi-dom are likely the types that are most in touch with their own emotion. Words like "repress" just miss the mark on describing my inner emotional process. I may only appear to repress, but that's not what is happening internally.

Reacting in the moment for me is like birthing a baby before it's done forming. It's not ready to come out yet, and it's going to be a lot uglier than if I let the process naturally play out.

Well my example was not meant to be prescriptive (everyone feeling those things should feel like reacting that way). I was just saying that in the case that one felt that way during such a situation, yadda yadda yadda. Not that everyone should feel that way in that situation. I guess no INFPs have ever felt like hitting someone in the face and held back because of their better judgment.

I guess I really don't understand Fi.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I ALWAYS thought social norms/conventions were more in the realm of Si. With the added Fe, it seems like a double whammy on that front. This is probably not always the case. If Fe is all about social norms and conventions, I am absolutely horrible at Fe. Social norms pretty much flew out the window for me long ago. I am supposedly a "very considerate" person but at the same time, pretty odd and unusual. FeSi (SiFe) seems really different than FeNi (NiFe). Comparing myself to my ESFJ dad, he is way more concerned with image than I am. But then again, he's 2w3 and I'm 9w1.

However, I will try to follow social rules like "avoid talking about sex, politics, religion until you have gotten to know the person", "say please and thank you" and "ask politely if you want someone's help". These are more out of decency than trying to create a good public persona though.

Maybe it is Si. I'm not a Fe expert....it's foreign to me.

Well my example was not meant to be prescriptive (everyone feeling those things should feel like reacting that way). I was just saying that in the case that one felt that way during such a situation, yadda yadda yadda. Not that everyone should feel that way in that situation. I guess no INFPs have ever felt like hitting someone in the face and held back because of their better judgment.

I guess I really don't understand Fi.

Of course there are moments like this. People are inconsistent, so do Fi-doms have times where they consciously hold in a reaction because it violates their values? Of course. I would hope that everyone restrains their emotions at times. What chaos there would be not to...

That doesn't mean repressing is their main process of dealing with emotion though. I wish I was that in control, actually. There are times I would like to express, particularly positive emotion, but I am not ready to in the moment. It feels too awkward and contrived and I need to find my own authentic way.

I suppose the issue is trying to make sense of and analyze something which is too subjective and complex to define in simple terms like "repress". Fi is mysterious to those not possessing it, and for those of us who have it, it just IS.

 

[Kalach]

What's up with you guys saying social norms are the whole of Fe? If they were, there'd be no deep, personal relationships. But along the way toward depth, what is the path? What's the default position?

Me on the outside looking, well, out, Fe looks like formal concern for others. As in, to me, it looks like people following a form. This observation includes nothing whatsoever of the affective part of Fe, what the user actually feels. Purely as an observation, the affective part must be pretty big sometimes because some people I know can get really, really excited about these formal displays of concern. They really, really get into them on what must be a deep and personal level.

Personalising the formal, formalising the personal, who knows. If Fe is focused outward, what's its baseline? If you didn't have a baseline, then any expression of any feeling would be okay, and you wouldn't have any problem with Fi users. So you do have a baseline for what is and isn't good feeling. What's your baseline?

 

[SciVo]

hmmm. good thread but i agree with marmalade. where are the nts when you need them? haha. because they can be more objective about what Fi and Fe mean, whereas i get all mixed up sometimes because i am so intimate with them.

The NT version of this thread is right next door now. And a good thing too, since I was about ready to give up!

 

[Cybin]

I think it's important not to get too lost in what Fe/Fi do instead of what they are. The other functions and ultimately the individual affect behavior. Social norms are equated with Fe because Fe is adept at knowing how people interact. However, it's up to the individual if they see harmony coming from established rules or to go with the flow so to speak. I agree this is likely affected by whether the person is sfj or nfj.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Pulling apart the functions (when relating to behavior) is akin to trying to dissemble bread after you have mixed the ingredients and baked the loaf.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There are some INFPs that don't see very much different from me at all. With them, it is easy to see why INFP and INFJ are confused so often. Then there are others that seem more like ISFPs, and thus I don't relate to them as much.

Exactly. I'm not fond of groups or society at large at all and certainly don't pay attention to their dictates of what one should value. Individuality is something that I hold dearly, and I need to come to my own conclusions. I do see Fe within myself when I reach out to others. But this has everything to do with sincerely caring about them and their well-being and nothing to do with what I think I should do, as conditioned by society.


Definitely. From what's been written here and in other threads, the line between Te and Fe is precarious at best. At what point does it become actual, you know, feeling? It seems entirely overstudied; behaving in ways to produce the best results from others socially.

ah, corroboration and being understood. so simple yet so gratifying.

Eh...nope. I don't give a rip about social consensus most of the time, and I can't stand most of the aspects of the society/culture I live in. This isn't Fe in and of itself. It might be a piece of it, for some Fe-types, but this sort of definition is really shallow for Fe, just as Fi receives its share of shallow summaries.

In fact, I sometimes doubt Fe can really be described (in a meaningful, relevant way) in an isolated context. The nature of Fe, and its motivations, is going to play out quite differently depending on how heavily it is used as well as the other cognitive functions it supports. The focus/behaviors of Fe in an ESFJ (the motivation behind why the ESFJ is doing what he is doing) is going to be distinctly different from the focus of Fe in an INFJ. Fe in an INTP will be quite different from Fe in an ESTP.

I've decided Fi's aren't going to ever really 'get' Fe, from the Fe-users perspective, because the Fi user who wields Fe utilizes it for different reasons/motivations than the Fe user might. Just as Fi from my perspective is going to be highly different from Fi from an Fi-dom. And, on my end, I don't entirely 'get' Fi either, to be honest - and am to the point where I really don't care anymore. All I know is that I 'get' people who utilize Fe a lot more readily than I 'get' people who utilize Fi....in real life. On the internet, these differences aren't nearly as apparent. Fi, as it plays out in someones' real-life character, demeanor, decision-making, and behaviors, can be almost alien to me. I just don't get it at times. And it goes without saying that an Fi dom wouldn't naturally 'get' me.

On the internet, and reading cog. function descriptions, I have at times related much to Fi. But this fades away rapidly when I observe it playing out in real-life settings, and real-life conversations/interactions. It's hilarious to me that in the not-so-distant past I was contemplating myself as a possible INFP - I'm so not one, it's not even funny.

Reading cognitive function descriptions is ultimately worthless to me. (ha!) I can read about Fi and Fe, and read about all of the nice little supposed differences between Fi and Fe. I can read about what Fe is 'supposed' to be about, and I can laugh at how little I relate to half of the descriptions of Fe. But again, in real-life, I relate marvelously well to fellow INFJ's and Fe-users in general ---- and no, we don't all adhere to many of the lame stereotypes about Fe.

i love how you expressed all this. it made me think about my own interaction with Fi and Fe users especially.

Fi doms (infps): i get along fair to middlin with irl. i can share/hang with them on an occasional basis but i find communication difficult with them.

Fi auxs: really click with them. exfps are some of my best friends.

Fe doms: hmmm. i get on pretty good with them, but i don't think they like my funky perspective, or directive way of being too much--i am likely to be politically incorrect for the sake of a good joke, or out of upholding my Fi occasionally.

Fe auxs: ixfjs. get on good--some of my best hanging out friends. if they are funky like me we can be very good friends, not so much if they have stronger Fe and are very concerned with societal norms over people's real feelings.

i guess i could maybe quantify it like this regarding my girlfriends:

Fe aux (my infj friend falls in here)> Fi aux> Fe dom > Fi dom > Ts

What's up with you guys saying social norms are the whole of Fe? If they were, there'd be no deep, personal relationships. But along the way toward depth, what is the path? What's the default position?

Me on the outside looking, well, out, Fe looks like formal concern for others. As in, to me, it looks like people following a form. This observation includes nothing whatsoever of the affective part of Fe, what the user actually feels. Purely as an observation, the affective part must be pretty big sometimes because some people I know can get really, really excited about these formal displays of concern. They really, really get into them on what must be a deep and personal level.

well, the problem is that there isn't a whole lot (that i've seen) written about the affective side of Fe, is there? it's usually an objective, societal norm type of Fe, which at least the few aux Fe users here are saying doesn't feel like a good fit for us.

Personalising the formal, formalising the personal, who knows. If Fe is focused outward, what's its baseline? If you didn't have a baseline, then any expression of any feeling would be okay, and you wouldn't have any problem with Fi users. So you do have a baseline for what is and isn't good feeling. What's your baseline?

hmmm. very thought provoking for me. i guess my baseline is what my intuition tells me about the individual person i am Fe-ing. if i am dealing with a fundamental christian, i am going to use Fe within the parameters i know they would appreciate to help/care for them. if i am dealing with a rebellious teenager, i am going to use different Fe. my baseline changes depending on what my N tells me about that person's place in the scheme of things, not so much on what society says is appropriate, although that factors in too.

Pulling apart the functions (when relating to behavior) is akin to trying to dissemble bread after you have mixed the ingredients and baked the loaf.

it's just my analytical nature that when i am interested in something, i break it down, sift it through, find all the facts i can for myself and my situation, and build it back up again to find the purest truth in regards to myself. then apply it. maybe more like trying to challenge yourself to discern with your palate the ingredients, and their quantity, that went into making the loaf?

 

[cascadeco]

i love how you expressed all this. it made me think about my own interaction with Fi and Fe users especially.

Aww..thanks. Sometimes I go into quasi-rant-mode and end up sort of regretting it because I don't feel I added anything to the discussion. But I'm glad you got something out of it.

Fi doms (infps): i get along fair to middlin with irl. i can share/hang with them on an occasional basis but i find communication difficult with them.

Fi auxs: really click with them. exfps are some of my best friends.

Fe doms: hmmm. i get on pretty good with them, but i don't think they like my funky perspective, or directive way of being too much--i am likely to be politically incorrect for the sake of a good joke, or out of upholding my Fi occasionally.

Fe auxs: ixfjs. get on good--some of my best hanging out friends. if they are funky like me we can be very good friends, not so much if they have stronger Fe and are very concerned with societal norms over people's real feelings.

i guess i could maybe quantify it like this regarding my girlfriends:

Fe aux (my infj friend falls in here)> Fi aux> Fe dom > Fi dom > Ts

Interesting! I think I have some similarities, although since I don't have any ExFP's in my life currently, they wouldn't fall in my second tier (although in the past I've known a few ENFP's and I agree the interaction is great - the dom Ne and dom Ni really complement each other).

I have 'accumulated' (ha!) several INFJ friends over the years, so I am perhaps closest to them. But I also am super close to a couple of xNTJ's, and I guess based on my schooling/interests, I tend to have on average more NT's in my life than NF's. As for Fe dom's, I have only been acquainted with a few ENFJ's in real life - none currently - and have never been close to any ESFJ's.

So for me it would probably be Fe aux > T's > Fi aux > Fi dom = Fe dom.

The nature of that order is simply who it's most easily for me to spontaneously/naturally connect with (although Fe dom's at the tail end simply because I've only known a few irl.

hmmm. very thought provoking for me. i guess my baseline is what my intuition tells me about the individual person i am Fe-ing. if i am dealing with a fundamental christian, i am going to use Fe within the parameters i know they would appreciate to help/care for them. if i am dealing with a rebellious teenager, i am going to use different Fe. my baseline changes depending on what my N tells me about that person's place in the scheme of things, not so much on what society says is appropriate, although that factors in too.

Totally. I am the same way. I've posted about this before, in other threads a long time ago, but Fe for me tends to be about communicating with the person on their level. Intuiting who they are, what makes them click, what they're interested in, and not speaking about things I know doesn't jive with them. It is about forging some type of connection and therefore addressing commonalities/similarities, and highlighting those, rather than highlighting any differences I may have with them. This is most effective/practical/helpful on a casual/acquaintance basis, and quite effective in the working world (i.e. If I'm working closely with an INTJ, I know how the INTJ wants to be communicated to, and I will adjust my communication style as needed. If I'm working with an ESFJ, I'll again adjust. It's about knowing your audience. You're not going to go into techie talk when speaking with business people, and vice versa -- translate that to a general personality level and it's the same concept.)

Obviously if I have huge differences with them when it comes to my approach to life, etc, I'll never desire to get super close to them (or won't want them in my life at all, on any level), and it wouldn't mutually work anyway.

 

[Silence11]

Thank you everyone for your comments - this has helped a lot actually. This thread has exploded faster than I have been able to keep up, but I hope to read it over further and I may comment more later.

 

[PeaceBaby]

maybe more like trying to challenge yourself to discern with your palate the ingredients, and their quantity, that went into making the loaf?

True, but that's purely subjective and imprecise at best, and everyone in thread seems to want to pin it down much more specifically than that.

But a very nice response to my post.