Dear Fe User,

[highlander]

I agree that recognizing and confronting differences, and bridging that communication gap, is important and is also the main reason for mbti being useful in providing a framework for those differences.

I think what happens though, when trying to turn it into more than it is (i.e. using it to account for every difference between people), is the misapplication of functions. I think this is the main divide when it comes to these sorts of discussions. There are those who *appear* (note I'm saying 'appear', it might not in fact be what they're doing or proposing) to want to apply functions to every single human behavior as well as use them to explain all of the differences/communication gaps. Then there are those who argue against this - want to remove functions from the explanation of ALL differences, etc, and tend to see functions as somewhat limiting when it comes to explaining differences - at least, in real-world applications. I definitely see myself more in the second group.

I think the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[highlander]

In summary, a few key points I took out of this:

the more aware a person is of feeling (which by default means the higher feeling is in function order), the more likely they are to privilege exactly that, and subordinate other concerns to feeling per se. And since other people are a constant source of feeling validation and invalidation, the higher up the F, the more concern for other people just as people.
Fe people (not unlike TJ people) see other people as important items within a system, and Fi people see other people less as systematic items and more as relatively random (though often understandable) objects outside of them?

A person who prefers Fe is drawn to or focused on the following things:
- The group, its associated dynamics, culture and how it functions.
- Patterns of behaviors and motivations that others seem have in the group.
- Society more broadly and how you can give back or contribute to it
- The dynamics of how people relate to one another
- Understanding individual's behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs
- Understanding the nature of the relationship between you and this other person - with all of its nuances
- Assessing consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
- 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
- Using all angles of how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views and then deciding what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
- Given all of the above factors - how much of yourself do you invest in relating to them; also, how do you customize your interaction for the situation

Fe is less "judgy" than Fi users think. Maybe Fi is more judgy than Fe (but nobody said that)

Instead of using perception to navigate our external environment, we use Fe; much in the way- instead of using eyesight- a blind person uses memory. The more we rely on Pi and Je, the less we navigate using what’s directly there in front of us and rely on what we already know and how we expect things to work (and possibilities we've imagined about how things can work better)- which is why we build these big frameworks with the sticky notes to guide us, and why we’re careful about making sure the sticky notes are an accurate representation of our external environment. I think this is more true for IFJs than EFJs, and varies according to where Pe falls in one’s function order (and function order is rarely the stacking a type is ‘supposed’ to have on the individual level).

I wanted to respond to this too, but am not sure how much value it will provide since I'm Fi tert.

How would you describe the way you go about connecting with people one on one? To me it feels like Fi one on one connections are much more intense. Either you are in or you're out. If you're in, you're REALLY in. If not, you don't really know a whole lot about the inner person. Maybe it's why Fi sees Fe users as disingenuous or wearing a mask. I think we just have more gradual degrees of connection. Are there strong differences in Fi users connecting to other Fi users, vs Fi to Fe? What flips the switch for you guys in how you choose to connect with someone individually?

I’m more of a depth person and like having a smaller number of close relationships. It has a lot to do with my day to day satisfaction in life – to have these close relationships with a small number of people. I have only so much emotional bandwidth to extend in this fashion. What flips the switch? I am not sure but I think it relates to seeing something in the other person that I admire or respect. Generally, I tend to accept people's flaws (if you want to call them that). Trust is the most important thing though - it helps me to get past a lot of other things. I’m not sure if any of this has anything to do with type.

 

[Fidelia]

Highlander - I like your summary!

One thing I've been thinking about - I believe Fe and Te are functions that focus on practical applications to real life, meaning that you may have to make some compromises to accomplish the goal in the most optimum way. Fi and Ti are both functions that I believe serve as a check and balance. I think that the purpose and goals of extroverted and introverted functions are different and should not be confused. Trying to look at the effectiveness of one's methods while applying the goals or motives of the other will always make it seem ineffective. It is interesting to me though that every person gets a dose of one introverted function and one of the oppose extroverted function just to keep each person in balance. I believe Fi and Ti tend to question and to push people not to forget the ultimate underlying issues beneath the practical goals. Out of necessity, they are less consensus based and more individual. Similarly they are somewhat less practical simply because they have a different purpose. They are there to shape thinking on an issue maybe rather than to shape the immediate action taken. They impact how people collectively act and in some ways can have a larger scale effect, but take much more time to do so. Neither introverted or extroverted functions have a complete view or complete practical use without the input of the other. Both Ti and Te or Fe and Fi are necessary for any project to have a well-balanced outcome that considers all angles. Neither function is really completely effective in its own entirety without being part of a bigger picture. Well, that's my overview right now at least - just sort of considering it aloud.

 

[proteanmix]

In summary, a few key points I took out of this:


A person who prefers Fe is drawn to or focused on the following things:
- The group, its associated dynamics, culture and how it functions.
- Patterns of behaviors and motivations that others seem have in the group.
- Society more broadly and how you can give back or contribute to it
- The dynamics of how people relate to one another
- Understanding individual's behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs
- Understanding the nature of the relationship between you and this other person - with all of its nuances
- Assessing consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
- 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
- Using all angles of how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views and then deciding what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
- Given all of the above factors - how much of yourself do you invest in relating to them; also, how do you customize your interaction for the situation

Yes! This does not mean this is done perfectly, but these are largely aspects I'm attracted to.

 

[highlander]

Yes! This does not mean this is done perfectly, but these are largely aspects I'm attracted to.

So, if that's true and it's a reasonable but imperfect view of Fe, then I wonder how many of these things someone who prefers Fi (Fi dom or aux especially) would say resonate with them. The question is what is different?

 

[Sunny Ghost]

In summary, a few key points I took out of this:


A person who prefers Fe is drawn to or focused on the following things:
- The group, its associated dynamics, culture and how it functions.
- Patterns of behaviors and motivations that others seem have in the group.
- Society more broadly and how you can give back or contribute to it
- The dynamics of how people relate to one another
- Understanding individual's behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs
- Understanding the nature of the relationship between you and this other person - with all of its nuances
- Assessing consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
- 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
- Using all angles of how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views and then deciding what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
- Given all of the above factors - how much of yourself do you invest in relating to them; also, how do you customize your interaction for the situation

Fe is less "judgy" than Fi users think. Maybe Fi is more judgy than Fe (but nobody said that)




I wanted to respond to this too, but am not sure how much value it will provide since I'm Fi tert.


I’m more of a depth person and like having a smaller number of close relationships. It has a lot to do with my day to day satisfaction in life – to have these close relationships with a small number of people. I have only so much emotional bandwidth to extend in this fashion. What flips the switch? I am not sure but I think it relates to seeing something in the other person that I admire or respect. Generally, I tend to accept people's flaws (if you want to call them that). Trust is the most important thing though - it helps me to get past a lot of other things. I’m not sure if any of this has anything to do with type.

So, if that's true and it's a reasonable but imperfect view of Fe, then I wonder how many of these things someone who prefers Fi (Fi dom or aux especially) would say resonate with them. The question is what is different?

hmm... i'm trying to think of the best way to explain... ultimately, feelers, Fi-dom or Fe-dom associate with their own emotions and the emotions of others. this means values and the like as well. someone said earlier, you might see Fi-dom's and Fe-dom's acting in similar ways, however the reasoning behind it may often be different.

for example-Fi dom's may show a display of anger, sadness, or emotional outburst of some sort. often with the Fi-dom, it's either from lack of awareness (unknowingly showing their emotions in a public setting) or an inability to control emotions. with an Fe-dom, however... such a display is put forth more in a for-show type of fashion. what some may describe as manipulative behavior.

another difference-Fi-dom may submit to a social norm... however, not for the same reasons as Fe-dom, but perhaps because they don't personally want to stand out. it may be felt as embarrassing to stand out or be perceived as "weird."
their Fi would be hurt, otherwords.

in relation to a culture that may be different from one's own, Fi-dom may believe through their value system that it is a good thing to show respect towards anothers beliefs or differences, even if they aren't ones own. or out of respect for anothers feelings. Fi's don't like to hurt others feelings. so these appear as Fe behavior, but the root of the behavior is slightly different.

Highlander - I like your summary!

One thing I've been thinking about - I believe Fe and Te are functions that focus on practical applications to real life, meaning that you may have to make some compromises to accomplish the goal in the most optimum way. Fi and Ti are both functions that I believe serve as a check and balance. I think that the purpose and goals of extroverted and introverted functions are different and should not be confused. Trying to look at the effectiveness of one's methods while applying the goals or motives of the other will always make it seem ineffective. It is interesting to me though that every person gets a dose of one introverted function and one of the oppose extroverted function just to keep each person in balance. I believe Fi and Ti tend to question and to push people not to forget the ultimate underlying issues beneath the practical goals. Out of necessity, they are less consensus based and more individual. Similarly they are somewhat less practical simply because they have a different purpose. They are there to shape thinking on an issue maybe rather than to shape the immediate action taken. They impact how people collectively act and in some ways can have a larger scale effect, but take much more time to do so. Neither introverted or extroverted functions have a complete view or complete practical use without the input of the other. Both Ti and Te or Fe and Fi are necessary for any project to have a well-balanced outcome that considers all angles. Neither function is really completely effective in its own entirety without being part of a bigger picture. Well, that's my overview right now at least - just sort of considering it aloud.

checks and balances... what a great way to put it into perspective. and i agree completely with your statement.

 

[Fidelia]

Just was thinking about one point mentioned above - I think when I allow anger or frustration to show, it is either because I have weighed the consequences and decided that there is some merit in the possibly resulting conflict or else I genuinely think I've got it under control and misjudge at what point I ought to bring things up before they come out in less solution-oriented forms. Sometimes it doesn't seem like any one thing is significant enough to bring up, but collectively they form a larger picture that denotes an underlying issue. If I wait until I absolutely have a complete, annotated and irrefutable list of behaviours backing up my hypothesis and have ruled out other possible motives etc, usually I feel rather emotionally involved. If I don't wait until then, I feel that I may be being hasty and that my emotions may ebb and flow unreliably or that I am missing something important that would put the other person's behaviour in context. I am learning now though that it is probably better to speak a little sooner before my feelings towards the other person are affected and so that I can get their take on it, so that my information is more accurate. I've found this forum very helpful in realizing that conflict (as long as it is solution-oriented) can be very useful and isn't always to be avoided. I would naturally tend to withdraw from conflict if it didn't seem necessary for carrying on the level of relationship I enjoy with someone close to me or if it is not required to continue working effectively with someone or if it would threaten my relationship to someone. I'm finding though that sometimes conflict brings out divergence in perspective that was not apparent to me when speaking more casually. In nearly every case here, it has resulted in a better mutual understanding of each other, and I usually come away with something useful to take into my future interactions.

I guess the point I'm making is that even though Fe may more deliberately display emotion or cover it up than Fi does, it is not in an attempt to be manipulative. Again, it is with the end goal in mind for what is the most productive to achieve the desired outcome. I find it extremely embarrassing if I display unexpected negative emotions in front of someone that I am not very close to. I don't like to burden other people with something if I have not put some thought into what my purpose is in sharing it. I also don't like spilling emotion unexpectedly because at that moment I can't express what it is I need (but do not have the resources available to me) to help me better deal with the situation at hand. It seems to me like that is unfair and selfish of me if I just expect them to solve my problem without me thinking it out first and trying to look at it from a variety of perspectives.

 

[Poki]

hmm... i'm trying to think of the best way to explain... ultimately, feelers, Fi-dom or Fe-dom associate with their own emotions and the emotions of others. this means values and the like as well. someone said earlier, you might see Fi-dom's and Fe-dom's acting in similar ways, however the reasoning behind it may often be different.

for example-Fi dom's may show a display of anger, sadness, or emotional outburst of some sort. often with the Fi-dom, it's either from lack of awareness (unknowingly showing their emotions in a public setting) or an inability to control emotions. with an Fe-dom, however... such a display is put forth more in a for-show type of fashion. what some may describe as manipulative behavior.

another difference-Fi-dom may submit to a social norm... however, not for the same reasons as Fe-dom, but perhaps because they don't personally want to stand out. it may be felt as embarrassing to stand out or be perceived as "weird."
their Fi would be hurt, otherwords.

in relation to a culture that may be different from one's own, Fi-dom may believe through their value system that it is a good thing to show respect towards anothers beliefs or differences, even if they aren't ones own. or out of respect for anothers feelings. Fi's don't like to hurt others feelings. so these appear as Fe behavior, but the root of the behavior is slightly different.



checks and balances... what a great way to put it into perspective. and i agree completely with your statement.

I hurt in other ways then the standard "hurting my feelings". Things that normally hurt Fi feelings dont really bother me very much. It is actually to personal for me to go into things that cause me to hurt.

and yes for me a show of emotions is a decision.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

ooh, highlander, i meant to comment on your statement about Fe's being less judgy the Fi's.

i think there is some truth to that. but the use of the term judging or making a judgment is meant a bit different in MBTI terms. one's more organized and conclusive... the other a bit more sporadic and non-conclusive.

the interesting question is why? why are the judging functions of Fe's, Te's, Si's and Ni's more organized and conclusive than the perceiving functions of Ne's, Se's, Ti's and Fi's?

looking at each function alone wouldn't necessarily give us an answer. by that i mean, simply comparing Fi to Fe. but pair that with a type's other function... one can see how we get one that is called a perceiver and one that is called a judger.

however, i think each introverted function on it's own merit could easily be considered judging. every persons introverted function is weighing out and deciding the value of a person, idea, theory, consistency, etc.

 

[Fidelia]

By the way highlander, I like the question you pose and would be interested to hear various Fi user's input on that.

Also, the fact that different Fi users functions are in a different position in the hierarchy does not mean they have input that is not useful. I'm interested in knowing more about how that affects what comes through in the Fi-Te mix.

 

[Fidelia]

I'm also wondering how much the different expressions of Fe and Fi are influenced by enneagram social variants. For example, I am an so/sx, unlike many of the INFJs I know who are sp/sx or sp/so. I think that changes how many people perceive me and the way I relate. Some people have even wondered if I'm ENFJ for that reason, but I don't believe that I am. I also think that our own personal lens of exposure to other types, life experiences and experiences with specific types influences the way we relate as well.

 

[Southern Kross]

So, if that's true and it's a reasonable but imperfect view of Fe, then I wonder how many of these things someone who prefers Fi (Fi dom or aux especially) would say resonate with them. The question is what is different?

Out of the list, these resonate with me:

- The group, its associated dynamics, culture and how it functions.
- Patterns of behaviors and motivations that others seem have in the group.
- Society more broadly and how you can give back or contribute to it
- The dynamics of how people relate to one another
- Understanding individual's behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs (note: especially this one)
- Understanding the nature of the relationship between you and this other person - with all of its nuances
- Assessing consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
- 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
- Using all angles of how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views and then deciding what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
- Given all of the above factors - how much of yourself do you invest in relating to them; also, how do you customize your interaction for the situation

The thing is I'm interested in these (bolded) things but for some I think its FiNe imitating Fe style thinking: ie. everything relating to patterns of human behaviour.

Also some of these I somewhat relate to but what puts me off is that they are way too goal driven for me; and 'goal-driven' is something I remember someone in a previous thread hypothesised Fe as being. I'm interested in these dynamics just for the sake of it - I don't need it to have a purpose or an end.

 

[highlander]

Just was thinking about one point mentioned above - I think when I allow anger or frustration to show, it is either because I have weighed the consequences and decided that there is some merit in the possibly resulting conflict or else I genuinely think I've got it under control and misjudge at what point I ought to bring things up before they come out in less solution-oriented forms. Sometimes it doesn't seem like any one thing is significant enough to bring up, but collectively they form a larger picture that denotes an underlying issue. If I wait until I absolutely have a complete, annotated and irrefutable list of behaviours backing up my hypothesis and have ruled out other possible motives etc, usually I feel rather emotionally involved. If I don't wait until then, I feel that I may be being hasty and that my emotions may ebb and flow unreliably or that I am missing something important that would put the other person's behaviour in context. I am learning now though that it is probably better to speak a little sooner before my feelings towards the other person are affected and so that I can get their take on it, so that my information is more accurate. I've found this forum very helpful in realizing that conflict (as long as it is solution-oriented) can be very useful and isn't always to be avoided. I would naturally tend to withdraw from conflict if it didn't seem necessary for carrying on the level of relationship I enjoy with someone close to me or if it is not required to continue working effectively with someone or if it would threaten my relationship to someone. I'm finding though that sometimes conflict brings out divergence in perspective that was not apparent to me when speaking more casually. In nearly every case here, it has resulted in a better mutual understanding of each other, and I usually come away with something useful to take into my future interactions.

I guess the point I'm making is that even though Fe may more deliberately display emotion or cover it up than Fi does, it is not in an attempt to be manipulative. Again, it is with the end goal in mind for what is the most productive to achieve the desired outcome. I find it extremely embarrassing if I display unexpected negative emotions in front of someone that I am not very close to. I don't like to burden other people with something if I have not put some thought into what my purpose is in sharing it. I also don't like spilling emotion unexpectedly because at that moment I can't express what it is I need (but do not have the resources available to me) to help me better deal with the situation at hand. It seems to me like that is unfair and selfish of me if I just expect them to solve my problem without me thinking it out first and trying to look at it from a variety of perspectives.

One of the things that amazes me about all of this is just how sophisticated and nuanced the thought process is. It seems to be extremely analytical. I cannot even imagine in my wildest dreams going through such machinations. I don't mean it in a bad way. I'm somewhat in awe of the things you guys are describing. It makes me feel like a blundering idiot (interpersonally). Yet I don't think I'm terrible at interpersonal relationships. In particular, I think about how valuable these things could be in a leadership role.

 

[Glycerine]

Well, Fidelia, my enneagram is a 5 or 6 w/ a SP/SO variant so my Fe comes off more analytical and detached because I am slow to emotionally react to things. I react after the fact. An INTP described me as "circumspect". EDIT: I am not sure if that has any relevance to what you asked.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

One of the things that amazes me about all of this is just how sophisticated and nuanced the thought process is. It seems to be extremely analytical. I cannot even imagine in my wildest dreams going through such machinations. I don't mean it in a bad way. I'm somewhat in awe of the things you guys are describing. It makes me feel like a blundering idiot (interpersonally). Yet I don't think I'm terrible at interpersonal relationships. In particular, I think about how valuable these things could be in a leadership role.

it's really not that analytical in the moment, often times. each person, no matter the type, goes through a similar process. with mbti however, we're simply breaking down what one person does in a moments notice.

you, as an INTJ do a similar process, but with different functions and in a different way from a xxFJ. fidelia mentioned how she may choose to display an emotion to achieve a particular response that she has first weighed out. but using a very simple example of this behavior, it could be getting snooty with one's boyfriend to achieve a particular response from the boyfriend. introverted sensing or introverted intuition paired with extroverted feeling is capable of making these sorts of decisions very quickly and on a moments notice. introverted intuition paired with extroverted thinking may make a similar quick thinking analysis and response, in say... a quickly thought out executive order. it's deciding the best course of action. and for the naturally gifted users, it's really not something that often needs a lot of analysis and thought.

 

[highlander]

it's really not that analytical in the moment, often times. each person, no matter the type, goes through a similar process. with mbti however, we're simply breaking down what one person does in a moments notice.

you, as an INTJ do a similar process, but with different functions and in a different way from a xxFJ. fidelia mentioned how she may choose to display an emotion to achieve a particular response that she has first weighed out. but using a very simple example of this behavior, it could be getting snooty with one's boyfriend to achieve a particular response from the boyfriend. introverted sensing or introverted intuition paired with extroverted feeling is capable of making these sorts of decisions very quickly and on a moments notice. introverted intuition paired with extroverted thinking may make a similar quick thinking analysis and response, in say... a quickly thought out executive order. it's deciding the best course of action. and for the naturally gifted users, it's really not something that often needs a lot of analysis and thought.

Oh right. I was really meaning everything that's been talked about by the Fe users in the thread though. It is the complexity of all of these factors in combination that are being considered - it's highly impressive.

But you're right. We all do these things - just different preferences I suppose.

 

[Southern Kross]

I guess the point I'm making is that even though Fe may more deliberately display emotion or cover it up than Fi does, it is not in an attempt to be manipulative. Again, it is with the end goal in mind for what is the most productive to achieve the desired outcome. I find it extremely embarrassing if I display unexpected negative emotions in front of someone that I am not very close to. I don't like to burden other people with something if I have not put some thought into what my purpose is in sharing it. I also don't like spilling emotion unexpectedly because at that moment I can't express what it is I need (but do not have the resources available to me) to help me better deal with the situation at hand. It seems to me like that is unfair and selfish of me if I just expect them to solve my problem without me thinking it out first and trying to look at it from a variety of perspectives.

I am also deliberate in not displaying emotions but not for the purpose of directly influencing the reactions of others. It comes from a lot more of a self-involved place. My focus is on controlling the image of myself that I convey, not particularly how I want people respond to that image - in other words its mainly about self-preservation. Although there can be an element of concern for others because I also don't like to burden people with my emotional outbursts. But mostly my thought process is "People don't like to hear this sort of thing. They may find me irritating or think less of me if I express it. Therefore I must control myself and keep it from them".

Its interesting what you say about needing a purpose to express yourself openly. Purpose never figures into my thinking about such things. It comes down to whether I feel comfortable about being open or not, and nothing more.

 

[Fidelia]

I don't know - for me the purpose of expressing certain behaviours or emotions are not exactly to elicit a certain response from another person. I mean I may show a certain amount of emotion towards my boyfriend (positive or negative), but it's not to manipulate him into responding a certain way. Instead, it is that I am expressing or not expressing a certain percentage of what I'm feeling because I deem that it will be more useful than not to the practical solution of us interacting optimally together over the long term.

However, I think IAJ is right that over time, the process becomes second nature enough that some of those nuances are just taken in as part of the big picture (like looking at a scene and perceiving the colours in it) rather than each part being individually considered and analyzed necessarily. It's an overall picture of what you are seeing.

To me Te looks incredibly competent and complicated but I imagine that to you highlander, it is much more a part of your natural way of looking at the world. I admire your interest and tenacity in seeking out or verifying information, checking on facts, doing research, putting systems in place and so on. I find that difficult and overwhelming to do at times. I greatly dislike record keeping and get itchy just thinking about some of the things that I have forgotten to regularly keep track of. However, keeping track of information within a people system is not only easy for me, but is stimulating and pleasant because I'm better at that. It seems to me that you find Te tasks/outlooks not just something you see as necessary, but even enjoyable, because it is a strength of yours and a natural part of your general outlook.

It seems to me to be a mistake to assume that either of the extraverted functions are somehow more blind or superficial than their introverted function counterparts. I think both have great breadth and depth of information, but their purposes are for very different, although complementary ends.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ a font of knowledge if ever there was one.

 

[Thalassa]

Am I really the only person who will admit that making certain facial expressions or behaving in a certain manner is sometimes very much intended to elicit a particular response in other people?

Maybe I'm the only one with a background in theater. However, I'd honestly say I partially learned to do this from my grandfather's wife. I still can't say whether or not she's ESFJ or ESTJ...seems harsher, more ordered, more like ESTJ...

I have a hard time controlling some strong emotions at times, though, I'm completely overcome by them, and my tears are always genuine. I can't cry on command.