Dear Fe User,

[Fidelia]

I wrote a big thing about what Orobas was asking regarding how we make a cohesive system out of all the bits that we put together and then lost it! For me, I see it like a Christmas tree which I am adding decorations to. I may buy a box of decorations, but only some fit my needs for that particular tree. Even if the ornaments in the package may all be of a similar stye, perhaps the colour, shape or size of some fit better than others to make a cohesive whole. There is nothing wrong with tinsel or angels, or bells or lights or whatever kinds of ornaments there are. Not one in and of itself though is going to be sufficient to provide the variety and balance required for an aesthetically pleasing tree (which is one of the main purposes of the tree). When I decorate, all the ornaments and trimmings need to fit together in a balanced manner and they need to be adaptable to the needs of that particular tree (certain branches being sparse, assymetricallity, what kind of top there is for the angel to go on etc). The tree is what is most important, not the ornaments (elements of a system).

Therefore, I see some great things about MBTI, function theory, enneagram, but I also believe that all have limitations because each person of a certain category may exhibit some unique characteristics depending on their life experiences, interactions with other people and desire to accommodate. For example, because EJCC is an ESTJ who grew up with NT and NF parents, she has a different way of interacting with those types than an ESTJ who may have grown up only around SJs. An ENTP that decides there is value in having harmonious relationships with the people at work may make it a priority to understand how to work with NFPs instead of purposefully poking their buttons for their own amusement. Depending on the kind of earlier experiences someone has, they may be more closed or open, more secure or insecure. This of course will affect all of their interactions. Therefore, I see the systems as having useful elements for giving a shorthand to discuss differences as well as pointing me in the right general direction for deciding how to interact with a certain type, but I am very aware that it is only a general guide, not a definitive one.

Maybe it's a bit like a car that comes out of the factory as a standard model, but which can have a variety of different extra elements added. The basic framework is the same, but it may be a luxury model, an economy model, be more aesthetically pleasing, have a custom paintjob or tires, be more sporty, have certain amenities etc. It's still a car and understanding how that make and model of a car works is useful, but the extras are also important to differentiate between as well.

To continue the tree comparison, I believe this is why I am so reluctant to change my internal structure easily when handed new pieces of information that require a complete reworking. I'm willing if I'm convinced of the need, but it's like suggesting an entirely different colour scheme or style of decorating and everything that I've worked so hard on needs to be changed and new items procured which fit equally well. I want to be really convinced that that kind of work is actually necessary before starting in.

 

[Fidelia]

Oops! Sent too soon!

So how I decide what elements are useful are whether they fit into the patterns of my observation, whether they fill the gaps that I don't see explained by anything else, and whether they translate into practical action that makes interactions with other people easier and more effective.

 

[uumlau]

@bold: as the Fi-user, I feel like I am the one primarily burdened with this task. I think in another thread I said I feel like a universal translator IRL. Te and Fe both speak with such authority that one must enter that space; it's also why, when I try to talk Fi here and get pounced all over, it is so darn frustrating. Like, can't I talk the way I think anywhere? lol

Listen to the Fe side, PB. They feel like they're the ones bending over backwards to understand/translate.

I find it interesting, because I feel like I understand both sides (which is why I sense a strong Ne vs. Ni disconnect, entirely different from the Fe vs. Fi disconnect). Personally, I always try to accommodate the others' communication style. If they don't understand version A, maybe they'll get version B. Typology helps me out in terms of figuring out how to articulate A vs. B.

I think "talking Fi" might be like saying, "Can't I just play heavy metal music really loud and not have anyone complain?!" or "Can't I play Beethoven and not have anyone complain?" Everyone has their tastes. In order to accommodate all tastes, one either needs to express things neutrally (and rather uninterestingly), or state things in several different ways.

However I choose to express my ideas, it is always "me." I'm not sure why others have a difficulty changing modes of expression. Maybe because to me it just feels like different arbitrary protocols, not a requirement for me to change an integral part of myself.

 

[sculpting]

^^I'd argue that the more Te you have, the easier it is to remodel communication for those on this side of the Te/Fe fence. For me-to rephrase things into a way that I am certain will not offend Fe users-my brain is populated by a list of things I have to do...to be honest I cant keep it straight yet. It is exhausting because it is so different from my native communication style. Fi wants to please others abut Te cant keep the list of things to say in the correct order-i need to write it all down and study it for awhile, practice it a whole bunch to be honest. I need a cheat sheet-a list. Then I need to write down what I want to say, then rephrase into what needs to be said. Also-Fi values sincerity so it takes us quite awhile to doing the math-o-pudding about why we should not say what we would say-but say something else instead. There is some values weighed there...so sometimes we get whiney about it...

Look at the baby INTJ as an example-he already is mapping out how to talk to people. Not because he has a desire to please but because he is systemizing his interactions with others already to get what he wants.

I shall go start on my studies....

 

[Fidelia]

Just coming home in the car now, I was thinking. Is Ne sort of like dumping out a big box of different stuff and sorting it a bit at a time? Like if Ne sorted it all by shape first and said, "Here! I have now distinguished between the different types of objects that were in this box!" and Ni protested by saying, "What are you talking about? These are all different colours and sizes. You're oversimplifying!" and Ne argued that all those other factors make it too complicated. As Ne goes, it then does a second round for size and a third for colour etc and ends up arriving at the same conclusions? I'm not sure if that is even close, but I'm wondering. I have less experience looking at Ne/Ni differences.

 

[highlander]

Just coming home in the car now, I was thinking. Is Ne sort of like dumping out a big box of different stuff and sorting it a bit at a time? Like if Ne sorted it all by shape first and said, "Here! I have now distinguished between the different types of objects that were in this box!" and Ni protested by saying, "What are you talking about? These are all different colours and sizes. You're oversimplifying!" and Ne argued that all those other factors make it too complicated. As Ne goes, it then does a second round for size and a third for colour etc and ends up arriving at the same conclusions? I'm not sure if that is even close, but I'm wondering. I have less experience looking at Ne/Ni differences.

This is what I think some of the differences are:

Ne

Objective, reality oriented
Possibilities
Dispersed
Short term

Ni
Subjective, meaning oriented
Answers
Focused
Long term

As Uumlau said, I think the Ti vs Te preference is also a big part of this too.

Wait - but does this mean that much of the Fe/Fi debate isn't about those two functions at all? It's about other differences?

 

[Thalassa]

This is what I think some of the differences are:

Ne

Objective, reality oriented
Possibilities
Dispersed
Short term

Ni
Subjective, meaning oriented
Answers
Focused
Long term

As Uumlau said, I think the Ti vs Te preference is also a big part of this too.

Wait - but does this mean that much of the Fe/Fi debate isn't about those two functions at all? It's about other differences?

Here's what I think of Ne and Ni:

Ne: weaving together the common underlying thread in divergent situations/cultures/subjects, clarifying the ultimate underlying pattern, brainstorming random possibilities, making wacky humorous connections and silly imaginative nonsense

Ni: tenacious vision for long-term goals or the definitive future/end of a situation etc., examining a single situation or subject or behavior from every possible angle, grasping underlying meanings similar to Ne but rather picking out motive or "why" instead of "how they're all connected," conspiracies about Russian spies and space aliens

 

[Tallulah]

Listen to the Fe side, PB. They feel like they're the ones bending over backwards to understand/translate.

I find it interesting, because I feel like I understand both sides (which is why I sense a strong Ne vs. Ni disconnect, entirely different from the Fe vs. Fi disconnect). Personally, I always try to accommodate the others' communication style. If they don't understand version A, maybe they'll get version B. Typology helps me out in terms of figuring out how to articulate A vs. B.

I think "talking Fi" might be like saying, "Can't I just play heavy metal music really loud and not have anyone complain?!" or "Can't I play Beethoven and not have anyone complain?" Everyone has their tastes. In order to accommodate all tastes, one either needs to express things neutrally (and rather uninterestingly), or state things in several different ways.

However I choose to express my ideas, it is always "me." I'm not sure why others have a difficulty changing modes of expression. Maybe because to me it just feels like different arbitrary protocols, not a requirement for me to change an integral part of myself.

+1 When I'm in a Fe/Fi thread, I'm more prone to argue the Fe side. But IRL, I'm usually the one seeking to translate and be the peacemaker, too. It's impossible for me not to see where someone else is coming from, especially if I'm not the one they're arguing with.

 

[Thalassa]

I feel like I understand both sides

This.

"talking Fi" might be like saying, "Can't I just play heavy metal music really loud and not have anyone complain?!"

Yeah, I see this too. It annoys. I say that because my attitude is, well, at least I admit I can be a bitch, at least I admit at times I'm being inappropriate or annoying, and I don't expect everyone to like it.

 

[Thalassa]

@bold: as the Fi-user, I feel like I am the one primarily burdened with this task. I think in another thread I said I feel like a universal translator IRL. Te and Fe both speak with such authority that one must enter that space; it's also why, when I try to talk Fi here and get pounced all over, it is so darn frustrating. Like, can't I talk the way I think anywhere? lol

Just as an aside, I've paid attention to some of your posts and you appear to be somewhat surrounded by ExxJs, and as an IxxP you may feel drowned out. I simply wonder if this is really an Fi/Fe issue, or you just feel like you're not able to assert yourself the way you'd like to IRL.

 

[Kalach]

Gah..I feel like my head is going to explode. It's just the nature of some of these questions - I almost can't even comprehend them, so I don't even know how to answer them. I don't think I can give you a specific example as to how I solve a problem or whatnot. I am being totally honest in that I really don't find any of this complicated in real life - I mean, I don't. You can take away from that however you choose, but I don't think I have a surefire way of solving problems. It's dependent on the problem at hand and I go from there. My notion of a person or idea or situation adjusts as more data comes in. I'm not affixing a given System/theory to a given person or situation-- my idea and concept of any overarching system/idea changes as I gain new info from the 'real world'. And yes, I would ideally like to come to some surefire definitive answer when it comes to most things - I probably aim for that - but the nature of many complex problems (psychology, for example) is such that one definitive answer might not, well, exist.



I finetune my idea of mbti or whatever other internal concept/framework I've decided/concluded upon based on new incoming feedback/info. New people/situations/whatever add more data -- to either support existing ideas, or to make me realize I need to finetune existing ideas or re-work everything completely.

As for what I evaluate...honestly... gah. I don't know what the hell I evaluate. If based on mbti, I'm supposed to be evaluating something, then I'll let you decide what I'm evaluating. (This is kind of tongue in cheek... but really.. these sorts of discussions sometimes make me feel like I have to explain everything about myself in a way such as to agree with the prescribed mbti function order that I must have according to theory).

Damn you, Kalach! You beat me to this. I was wondering if this is something of a Ti/Te thing. Just as (as it’s been expressed in this thread) Fi likes to have states of being acknowledged, whereas Fe’ers have expressed they think whatever feeling they are having in the moment isn’t of much consequence- Ti sees a nuance in the construct being discussed that Ti’ers want to acknowledge, and Te’ers think it isn’t of enough consequence to make a big deal of? (That’s kind of what you were saying, right?)

I agree with everything cascadeco has written. I find mbti useful, but constantly notice that it isn’t all encompassing. I’ve noticed a trend in Ti-heavy INFJs more or less agreeing on this point**- which in itself is an example of how it’s consistencies can shed light on useful information about understanding people. It’s just that there are inconsistencies that are distracting, and I can understand application of the word ‘dangerous’- though I’m also having a hard time explaining why. For me, it has to do with the tendency in our society to mistake all the speculation we’ve accumulated thus far as indisputable ‘facts’ about the human mind.

**To be clear: not all Ti-heavy INFJs, but the people who regularly comment in this direction are often Tish INFJs.

The thing is, it sounds like values talk. It sounds like, if I may attempt a translation, "MBTI is all well and good, but there is something more important to be attended to." It sounds like an assertion that answers to important questions come first and foremost from people. People themselves are the fundamental measure of what people are, and you can't take that away from them, grrr!

And presumably, for the Fe team, "people themselves" means what people do whereas the Fi team will take "people themselves" to refer to something intrinsic, perhaps, as far as action is concerned, intention.




Personally I think Jungian typology does apply at some level. By default I assume it applies to all people. I assume also that almost no one understands "functions" well enough to know if or how they can explain all behavior, and few people have an adequate grasp on what it is to have a dynamic functional system be the basis of a consciousness. That second point is where my primary interest lies, I think, the impersonal mechanism of personal consciousness, people being interesting objects and my preference in judgment tending more toward applicable impersonal systems.

That people don't know the limits and true applicability of Jungian typology, and that it does seem to have some applicability... these are the two things that keep me interested in the topic. There are puzzles to solve, tools to gain, and gigantic overarching world encompassing visions to have.

And who knows, maybe a date once in a while.

 

[Poki]

The thing is, it sounds like values talk. It sounds like, if I may attempt a translation, "MBTI is all well and good, but there is something more important to be attended to." It sounds like an assertion that answers to important questions come first and foremost from people. People themselves are the fundamental measure of what people are, and you can't take that away from them, grrr!

And presumably, for the Fe team, "people themselves" means what people do whereas the Fi team will take "people themselves" to refer to something intrinsic, perhaps, as far as action is concerned, intention.




Personally I think Jungian typology does apply at some level. By default I assume it applies to all people. I assume also that almost no one understands "functions" well enough to know if or how they can explain all behavior, and few people have an adequate grasp on what it is to have a dynamic functional system be the basis of a consciousness. That second point is where my primary interest lies, I think, the impersonal mechanism of personal consciousness, people being interesting objects and my preference in judgment tending more toward applicable impersonal systems.

That people don't know the limits and true applicability of Jungian typology, and that it does seem to have some applicability... these are the two things that keep me interested in the topic. There are puzzles to solve, tools to gain, and gigantic overarching world encompassing visions to have.

And who knows, maybe a date once in a while.

But when you take Fi as being intrinsic how much of yourself do you automatically assign to these people? I wish I could explain better, but the best example I could use is Satine saying she has a mirror inside, that mirror is created internally, so everything that bounces off that mirror is in a way shaped by her intrinsic value system.

 

[highlander]

The following is a summary of what I think I have learned from this thread. I'm sure I have missed a bunch of stuff but there is a lot there.

1. The need for a common language - One of the things that occurs to me is that there are a lot of different terms thrown around that are related. Emotions, passions, values, feeling, feeling function, Fe, Fi, etc. It seems difficult to arrive at conclusions without a clear set of definitions and understanding of terminology. I think there might be a lot of confusion between sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking in general - with one being mistaken for the other. I look at my own language - I say "I feel", "I think", "I believe", "My sense is" etc. etc. I don't really differentiate between these things very well in my own communications. I use different words because I don't want to be repetitive vs. assigning precise meaning.

2. My feelings/your feelings vs. our feelings - It's been solidified in this thread but previously, I don't think I fully understood the Fe perspective. I used to think that we all individually had our own feelings. I'm not sure I understood the importance of the concept of "our feelings." I have come to understand that Fe types tend look at collective feelings - or "our feelings" - and that this is an important perspective to consider. Also, and I could be leaping to a conclusion but people who prefer Fi seem to understand their own feelings better than the feelings of others and people who prefer Fe seem to understand the feelings of other people better than their own.

3. Understanding dominant intuitives - I've come to understand a lot more about INFJs than I did before and the similarities that exist due to sharing the same dominant function. Both INTJs and INFJs seem like a "mastermind" type to me - just oriented in different directions. I've also learned something about my own sensitivities and theirs - what may cause us to be offended. Finally, I've learned that sometimes when we communicate a "perspective shift" that it may take time for others to absorb what we are saying. If we desire for our perspective to be understood, follow up two way communication is helpful to elaborate or expound upon the ideas and transform them into something that is concrete enough for the other person to assimilate and do something with.

4. The Fe/Fi conflict is not just about those two functions - What's at play in this ongoing set of discussions and debates involves much more than a difference in those two functions. If we were to compare an ISFP, ENFP, INFP and INFJ for example - there are enormous differences in function preferences and function order. Those differences can lead to misunderstandings or miscommunication.

5. But the conflicts/differences on Fe/Fi are quite real - These are the things I've heard:
- Fi users don't feel that Fe users (and perhaps Te users) allow them to communicate in a way they prefer to communicate.
- Fe types and Fi types both feel judged and unappreciated by the other at times - setting off sensitivities and projections
- Fi personal values are abstract to Fe types - they want Fi types to communicate their values in a more concrete way
- Fe types are frustrated with what they perceive as inflexibility of the Fi types to consider the perspectives of others
- Fi types feel threatened by Fe social dynamics (a game they don't want to play)
- (EDIT) Fi types feel that Fe type's orientation towards decisions that support group norms, consensus, or harmony can sometimes lead to problems not being confronted or addressed

6. How Fe is different than Fi - Well, the dialogue and results could be more conclusive but it does appear the two processes operate differently. In particular, what I struggle with is my perception that a lot of the articulated Fe perspectives seem to be Fe + Ni. Here is my shot at synthesizing what's been said or what I understand (without the Ni bias)

General comments:
- The higher in the function order is Fi, the less likely a person is to care about systematizing the outer human environment, and by default the less able they are to systematize that outer environment, while the higher the Fe, the more likely the person is to care about outer organization and engage in organizational activity.
- Fi and Fe may often result in the same behavioral pattern-for very different underlying motivations.
- Fi and Fe may often result in drastically different behavioral patterns-for very different underlying motivations.
- Fi and Fe may result in drastically different behavioral patterns-for very similar underlying motivations.

Interaction styles are important in understanding how Fe or Fi manifests itself:
http://www.interstrength.com/content/interaction_styles


Fe users
- 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

Fi users
- 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

 

[Zarathustra]

Fe users
- 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

Fi users
- 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

Weren't these the descriptions of Fe and Fi from those threads Jag started?

 

[highlander]

Weren't these the descriptions of Fe and Fi from those threads Jag started?

No. I'm afraid not. Why? Do they look similar?

Edit: I have the book he copied them from. I can look but not tonight.

Edit Edit: Well, I just looked. There are a lot of similar concepts. Different words. That book is a lot more detailed. Maybe there is a lot of stuff missing above. The book is "Building Blocks of Personality Type" by Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker. I actually recommend it for anyone who wants to get into more detail on this stuff.

 

[Kalach]

But when you take Fi as being intrinsic how much of yourself do you automatically assign to these people? I wish I could explain better, but the best example I could use is Satine saying she has a mirror inside, that mirror is created internally, so everything that bounces off that mirror is in a way shaped by her intrinsic value system.

Dunno. At least ideologically I'll always maintain that I'm being objective so when it comes to judging other people's feeling, what I consciously have available is not much more than "Oh, there's a fixed point in the decision landscape--it may change later but currently I'm supposed to incorporate that person's decision, it makes a difference to whether or not s/he's involved with what we're doing next.."

That's what's difficult about dealing with Fe people. You guys don't offer fixed point feeling. Ironically enough, the appearance is of feeling changing unexpectedly. The shifting consensus becomes the focus rather than what I'd prefer as the focus, impersonal determination. I can't do what I do best then. I'm always waiting on the arrival of an actual decision to commit, but it's forever changing!

 

[highlander]

That's what's difficult about dealing with Fe people. You guys don't offer fixed point feeling. Ironically enough, the appearance is of feeling changing unexpectedly. The shifting consensus becomes the focus rather than what I'd prefer as the focus, impersonal determination. I can't do what I do best then. I'm always waiting on the arrival of an actual decision to commit, but it's forever changing!

What type was Bill Clinton again?

 

[Kalach]

Dunno, I'm not American.

But you mean FPs are random, yeah? But that's the whole point! They're not random over time. There's a consistency that can (eventually) be relied on.

Presumably it's the same with Ti people. There's a consistency of thought over time that can be relied on for... whatever it is that FJs rely on Ti consistency for.




(And ps, nice summary up at #453. I too was struck by how we're closing in on descriptions that match the standard descriptions. But the discussion is making the descriptions real.


Te)

 

[highlander]

Dunno, I'm not American.

But you mean FPs are random, yeah? But that's the whole point! They're not random over time. There's a consistency that can (eventually) be relied on.

Presumably it's the same with Ti people. There's a consistency of thought over time that can be relied on for... whatever it is that FJs rely on Ti consistency for.

I thought he was ENFP but his position tended to shift with the polls which seems to align more with Fe. Hilary is an xNTJ I believe.

 

[cascadeco]

But you mean FPs are random, yeah? But that's the whole point! They're not random over time. There's a consistency that can (eventually) be relied on.

Presumably it's the same with Ti people. There's a consistency of thought over time that can be relied on for... whatever it is that FJs rely on Ti consistency for.

This is interesting to me. When you say FP's are not random over time, is it due to the more solid internal value framework that is applied consistently (in theory) to everything in their life (= to their decisions), and that, although it will be finetuned as needed, in general will remain solid?

For myself - as also mentioned in one of the bullet points in highlander's list - I'm very very consistent in my behaviors and such, and have a 'method' to decision-making. Does it make sense to me? Perhaps that's the Ti element in place of Fi. Fi in evaluating things might ask, 'Does it line up with who I am?', whereas I might go, 'Does it make sense? Does it make sense to do this in this given situation? Or does it make absolutely no sense at all? Is there a Point/purpose in this in the grand scheme of things as per my goals, relationships, what I want out of them, etc.'

That's what's difficult about dealing with Fe people. You guys don't offer fixed point feeling. Ironically enough, the appearance is of feeling changing unexpectedly. The shifting consensus becomes the focus rather than what I'd prefer as the focus, impersonal determination. I can't do what I do best then. I'm always waiting on the arrival of an actual decision to commit, but it's forever changing!

I don't really understand what you mean by waiting on the 'arrival of an actual decision to commit'. What sorts of decisions/situations are you referring to? (I am not understanding simply because I think once I make a decision, I'm very solid in that. I mean, I'm very closure-oriented and like things settled. FP's - by definition of their external function being a perceiving one - will be rather opposite, so from my perspective I feel the same way with them (or with TP's) - always waiting on the arrival of an actual decision. You know? Obviously though we're referring to completely different things.)