Scott N Denver
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,898
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
I want to get back to something posted earlier in this thread- I was taken out of commission for a few days. A *lot* of the stuff that’s being said in this thread (and probably actually more so in the sister thread “common ENFP issuesâ€, but I’m posting here because this is more about INFJs) about Fe seems to be at least loosely based on the premise that Fe is about mindless conformity and necessarily less authentic than Fi. I’m not sure exactly where this notion comes from, but it’s kind of like saying Te ‘users’ necessarily have less authentic thoughts because they adhere to external paradigms more than the self-made critical reflection of Ti; which is obviously bullshit.
Introverted function = depth
Extraverted function = breadth
Not
Introverted function = authentic
Extraverted function = fake
Having more Fe than Fi doesn’t mean I cling to mindless ‘formal’ social rules of etiquette; in fact, I loathe mindless social rules of etiquette and question them at every turn. I just recognize where people need them to feel respected, and my priority happens to be on making other people feel respected (that's where the 'breadth' comes in). People do the best they can. There are some relatively good people who just never felt the need to question ‘formal’ rules: I adhere to the rules around them and get away from them the first chance I get, because it’s exhausting to me.
Scott Denver brought up (in sister thread) the example of how- in some situations- the behaviors he deemed more trademark of Fi were actually more thoughtful to adhere to than typical societal rules of etiquette. My point here is that someone with more Fe than Fi is just as likely to pick that up (maybe even more so): because it’s about having one’s focus on the feelings of others in any particular environment. Sure, there are Fe ‘users’ who will judge such environments for not being ‘polite’: but they don’t do it because they are Fe ‘users’, they do it because they are close-minded individuals who don’t want to do the work of adapting.
About the bolded part, I'm pretty darned sure I said no such thing. I barely even mentioned Fi in that post from early this morning. I *may* have said such things in some much earlier post form long ago, but not from my recent one. The recent one was, more or less, about T-based values/attitudes taking precedence over Fe in certain specific cultures, and served to illustrate the idea that Fe is not always somehow the default or "best" social interaction function. I don't believe that anyone here ever claimed that Fe was always the best or default social interaction function however.
I follow Thompson's description of Fe, which btw I consider to be FAR more complimentary than anything from Jung or Myers. As I understand, and if this is wrong take it up with Thomson I guess, is that Fe understands and follows the accepted standard social mores of a given culture, and is highly proficient in using them. It is a "within the system" function so to speak. Fi is extremely individual, and instead of asking the question "what does my culture say the social norm is here?" instead asks "what is the universal value at play in this situation?" Fi is an "outside the system" function. It often leads to some of the most universal and humanitarian perspectives.
Whether the assessment is valid or fair, I think that the perception that Fi is deep and Fe is shallow comes from 1) Fi sees beyond the culture of which its owner is a part and seeks universal truths and values, while 2) Fe takes the current social values of its culture as being somehow "correct", or at least the collectively understood and accepted social starting point.