Dear Fe User,

[Glycerine]

OH NO, YOU DIDN'T.........

 

[Jaguar]

Jag

I would never have said a single word to you had you not brought up my name.
Enough said.

 

[Southern Kross]

Not true, I just don't know how many times I have to say it. I am not a sacrificial lamb and I quite openly (as tactfully and diplomatically as I know how) disagree with people. Like you have mentioned, sometimes it's not worth fighting it but when it is you do.

Maybe I'm around abnormal Fe-users (particularly FJs) because that is simply not the case based on my personal experiences. FJs are I know are quite vocal when they disagree and will make the biggest scene you've ever had the pleasure to witness and will tear the place down if you try to stop them. I've made the scene before and will probably do so many times in my life. Not the best or most flattering Fe trait, but it exists.

I guess also when you say that, it makes Fe feel passive and feeble, but that's probably my spin on it. I also think this is another problem when people talk about Fe: Fi is allowed to be individually experienced--no two people experience it the same allegedly. Yet Fe is pretty blanketedly the same, no matter where you go, who you are, or what your background is. Fe will have the same reactions, reach the same conclusions, behave in the same way, feel the same way, think the same thing. Why rob Fe users of their unique expressions of Fe? If a Fe user says, this is not me, I feel like there's this assumption the Fe user is inaccurately gauging themselves.

Another thing, when a Fe user speaks about Fe, notice what aspect they emphasize. For example, I'm more into connections and relationships than harmony. Understand that each Fe users will hone on and identify with an aspect a Fe that strikes them. I admit that I feel good about my ability to analyze a relationship, but I'm not willing to STFU when I think something needs to be said. That has it's positives and negatives. Do you think IRL, FJs (I find it hard to lump TPs in with this) don't disagree with people and make it known? If I were a vegetarian and was given food with meat in it, I'd politely decline. I don't put myself out just to have harmony.

I certainly agree with this based on my experiences with Fe users. I can think of several Fe dom/aux that are close to me that are often very vocal in their opposition to social values that clash with their own principles. I don't think that complete mindless conformism to a social norm is by any means a fair definition of Fe.

When the statement "personal values" is thrown about I feel like there are people constantly walking around drawing lines in the sand, refusing to do because a personal value is on the brink of being violated. Maybe I don't have very many personal values, so I don't feel like there's a constant assault on them. If I have a strongly held value, I'm not going to break it just to have peace. What kind of person does that make me...that means I don't stand for anything.

This is what frustrates me about these Fe/Fi discussions, very often Fi users act like there's some moral vacuum with Fe. Not everything is a moral battleground. If my director asks me to print 10 copies of a report and I'm a fervent green activist, I've got a decision to make: my income or my value. First and foremost, I hope someone would be self-aware enough to not choose to be in an environment that would force them to constantly choose between their values and doing their job or living their life in a way they can be at peace with.

Another thing, while you may feel your personal value is the most important thing in the world, that does not mean it in fact is or that it should be a priority for anyone else. If someone makes a completely opposite decision or evaluation based on their personal value it does not mean there is an absence of values because it doesn't agree with yours. This concept of personal value is so abstract and I think people hide in the grandioseness of it, never needing to explain it because it sounds so beautiful and lofty so it must be good.

I don't know about other Fi Doms/aux (I mean in terms of when Fi is extremely central to decision making) but I have come to realise that I evaluate almost everything in a 'moral' sense - not necessarily in the conflict righteous/evil or good/bad but more right/wrong. Even though I don't think of most situations as involving an ethical decision, I unconsciously approach it that way nonetheless. I might not refuse to do something small that felt wrong (such as your example of wasting paper) but I would still feel rather uneasy and guilty for failing to do what my heart says is right. My conscience is beating me up about one thing or another, constantly and relentlessly. I care about everything; by that I mean, I have a value based reaction to almost everything. That is what the 'personal values' term represents to me. However, I am mostly harder on myself than others - being able to live with my own behaviour is my first and foremost concern. I don't constantly hold others to all of my values. It is usually only when people are being hurt (physically of emotionally) or being unfairly disadvantaged that I am unmovable and expect things of others. I have noticed that some Fe users confuse my high standards for my own behaviour with an expectation or judgement on them, which is not what I intend.

 

[Thalassa]

I, personally, will sacrifice happiness of the people in the short term in order to achieve long term happiness-and suffer the consequences of immediate anger and frustration on their part. NeTe can see a better future via change. The resultant long term happiness yields internal harmony-with myself.

I can relate to this, but I'm not sure if my behavior in this situation seems more FJ or Ne/Te...when I first moved to my mother's several years ago (and my sister was struggling with some serious personal issues) I was appalled at the way she was allowing my nephews to run wild. I immediately began to build more structure and order and discipline for them, and I didn't particularly care if my mother thought it was bitchy, or my nephews were inconvenienced, because all I saw is that they were being raised to be disrespectful and undisciplined, and that wouldn't do ANYONE any good in the long-term. I think my ESFP mother is way too lenient with children (so does my ENFJ sister, who laments the most about how she and my other two sisters were raised - I was with my SJ grandparents 99% of the time - and ENFJ sister was thankful for the presence of what I think was an SFJ aunt on her father's side) and it does both her and the children a disservice.

To me that is a case where I don't mind pissing people off in the immediate to achieve what I see as long-term good for everyone involved, the kids, the family, and me...not to mention society as a whole who will have to deal with those children when they become adults.

Fi/Fe is very confusing. It's why I've mostly abandoned it.

 

[highlander]

Does anyone think Fi tends to be more idealistic and Fe more practical? It seems like an impression I might be getting.

 

[Giggly]

The Fi/Fe battle just never ends.

 

[Glycerine]

^ we are just masochists, that's all.

 

[Giggly]

^ we are just masochists, that's all.

For real.

 

[Poki]

Does anyone think Fi tends to be more idealistic and Fe more practical? It seems like an impression I might be getting.

In the same sense that Te is more practical and Ti is more idealistic. But when you bring Ti and Te into the real world, Ti has alot more functional ideas then Te does because Te dismisses things as impractical because of limitations of the knowledge of that person. I can easily see this flipped from a Fe/Fi perspective.

"But when you bring Fi and Fe into the real world, Fi has alot more functional ideas then Fe does because Fe dismisses things as impractical because of limitations of the knowledge of that person(I am not talking inter-relationship, but the knowledge of the Fe person.)"

 

[Poki]

The Fi/Fe battle just never ends.

This reminds me of arguements with my son. He gets an idea in his head and when I explain things he tries to fit parts of what I said into his picture and comes up with a different conclusion then what I just said. I basically repeat the same thing over and over until I finally give up. Well this Fi and Fe battle is really no different.

2 options we have are taking what someone says as true or not true and find the holes no real conslusion are made, just knowledge gained. The other option is to piece it into something we know to come up with our own conclusion. Its why IXTJs can all be in a meeting and come to a conclusion of what to do and 15 minutes later are 99.9% positive that the conclusion was different then what it actually was. Like they hear only what they want to hear that fits into their picture. Everything else is ignored.

 

[proteanmix]

Well, I'm trying to describe something that I supposedly don't use very much and that I view from the outside. Maybe you can come up with a better description. I have known a lot of people who are strong Fe users (usually it is aux though) who very much are self sacrificing. They do things for others. They are concerned about the feelings of others. They make judgments about how others should behave and not behave. In general, they are simply highly others centric. I don't see this as feeble, weak or passive at all. In fact it seems highly action oriented.

Alright, the same way Fi users have the ability to focus on aspects of Fi that are personally relevant to them, is the way Fe users have the ability to focus on aspects of Fe that are personally relevant to them. So if a Fe users connects to the "service to others" aspect of Fe that does not mean all Fe users attach the same value to that particular aspect. So yes, while the Fe users (or FJs) you come into contact with may display that tendency, it isn't necessarily the definitive Fe feature. This is my own personal view of the functions but I tend to see them as a playbook that a person can choose which play within the [insert cognitive function] Playbook they're going to run and which ones are most comfortable for them to operate in.

Also, if you're in contact with mostly IxFJs I think taking into account Interaction Style may be of great help to you. That may account for some of what you experience and what you notice in your daily life. Two FJs are ExxJs, and for me I'm a pretty strong EJ, which means when if left unchecked, my style is to bulldoze and assert my will. When I'm being bad and get feedback it tends to be along the lines of "you can't have your way all the time," so this self-sacrificial stuff is foreign to me. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say there are a fair amount of other (E)FJs like me who will mow you down (this is not a good trait!) before they throw themselves on a funeral pyre for you.

Another thing is that if this if the only aspect of Fe you identify as Fe you may not be attuned to recognizing other facets as Fe. Your Fe markers are:

• Self-sacrificing
• Focus on others/what other people think
• Group identity
• Conventional

Would you recognize FJs who don't fit this pattern? Would they be something else entirely to you or they would be thought of as outliers and abnormalities rather than a legitimate "strain" of Fe users?

Interesting points. So if it is all about connections and relationships - how do you go about doing that?

I gave an example earlier in this post about a conversation with a friend of mine and the problems she was having with her mentor. I also wrote this post outlining a thought process of mine in the Fe Quick Reference thread. I also explained a real life conflict for me between my individual identity and my group identity.

Forgive me if I'm over-interpreting but the way I read your train of thought is: "I have personal values too - why do the Fi users think they are so special?"

No. I see it as I have personal values too, why would someone think I'd rollover backwards and disregard them or that mine are any less important to me when the chips are down?

"Who says their values are any better than anybody else's"

Yes.

"All these individual values lead to chaos"

Yes and no. There needs to be some consensus and agreement or you'll have everyone deciding what is right based on what they believe without any sort of check and balance. Someone could have a really whacked out value set. When there's a group of people like they're I believe they're called a cult. When that value set reaches critical mass then you have a culture of really bad stuff and that's no better.

"you're not explaining your grandiose values anyway, so I can't do anything with this".

Yes! Throw me a bone, what is it that you value, maybe we'll see they're not so different after all. If they're irreconcilable then we need to figure out what do do. If you don't communicate what's important to you how do you expect anyone else to know and why get frustrated with others for not magically knowing? And another thing if you can't articulate them then move out of the line of fire until you can (not you personally highlander) because you will be offended and view almost everything as a attack on your value system until you can tell others what they are so people will know what they're working with.

And if you do communicate your values and people don't agree or see it in the same way then such is life. That doesn't mean give up, it means find an alternate route. Find a special interest group that aligns with your worldview, find other like-minded individuals and make inroads.

You seem to be discounting the other perspective. Isn't it fine that there are two different perspectives and that they are equally valid? I've said it before and I will say it again - there is no reason to think that either function is better than the other. They are just different. It also doesn't mean that we don't use both of them. We just prefer one over the other.

I think I said exactly this earlier in the thread. I suppose this means we're in agreement?

I don't know about other Fi Doms/aux (I mean in terms of when Fi is extremely central to decision making) but I have come to realise that I evaluate almost everything in a 'moral' sense - not necessarily in the conflict righteous/evil or good/bad but more right/wrong. Even though I don't think of most situations as involving an ethical decision, I unconsciously approach it that way nonetheless. I might not refuse to do something small that felt wrong (such as your example of wasting paper) but I would still feel rather uneasy and guilty for failing to do what my heart says is right. My conscience is beating me up about one thing or another, constantly and relentlessly. I care about everything; by that I mean, I have a value based reaction to almost everything. That is what the 'personal values' term represents to me. However, I am mostly harder on myself than others - being able to live with my own behaviour is my first and foremost concern. I don't constantly hold others to all of my values. It is usually only when people are being hurt (physically of emotionally) or being unfairly disadvantaged that I am unmovable and expect things of others. I have noticed that some Fe users confuse my high standards for my own behaviour with an expectation or judgement on them, which is not what I intend.

OK, this is good to know. I don't have a value-based reaction to everything. I have a value-based reaction to some things and when there's a conflict I don't choose peace and harmony to the detriment of what I believe, which is how I've been interpreting some of the comments in this thread. For example, when I go the store and see items labeled "Fair Trade" I don't have a value attached to that. Sometimes I buy, sometimes I don't. I support it as an idea, but not always in action and I don't feel bad about it when I don't. But I will always take my reusable grocery bags because I feel like that is something within my control to contribute to and make a measurable difference.

Maybe that's where this conformist idea is coming from. If I don't have a value attached to something then yes I let the status quo handle it (uh-oh dangerous!). The corollary to this is people don't know what others have values attached to unless they say or act in a way that let's others know what they are. BTW, this does not mean that I wouldn't intercede to wrongdoing or violations to other human beings. People take that too far.

I'm wary of people that have a value attached to almost everything but I do realize people like this serve as collective conscience and I'm grateful for that. I'm wondering if a Fi user has VIP value attached to something and someone else doesn't, what do you think? I keep wondering what type most hardcore PETA activists are.

Does anyone think Fi tends to be more idealistic and Fe more practical? It seems like an impression I might be getting.

OMG, yes. I thought that feature that was widely known.

 

[Poki]

Alright, the same way Fi users have the ability to focus on aspects of Fi that are personally relevant to them, is the way Fe users have the ability to focus on aspects of Fe that are personally relevant to them. So if a Fe users connects to the "service to others" aspect of Fe that does not mean all Fe users attach the same value to that particular aspect. So yes, while the Fe users (or FJs) you come into contact with may display that tendency, it isn't necessarily the definitive Fe feature. This is my own personal view of the functions but I tend to see them as a playbook that a person can choose which play within the [insert cognitive function] Playbook they're going to run and which ones are most comfortable for them to operate in.

But, what function decides which play is best, lol I personally think that another function has to step in to override another functions comfort zone with J types. For me its normally other people that override my comfort zone.

 

[proteanmix]

But, what function decides which play is best, lol I personally think that another function has to step in to override another functions comfort zone with J types. For me its normally other people that override my comfort zone.

Agree. When my Fe is unchecked it's like No Wire Hangers.

When I can't see myself I rely on the feedback of my family and friends that tell me when I'm being a stank booty.

 

[highlander]

Your Fe markers are:

• Self-sacrificing
• Focus on others/what other people think
• Group identity
• Conventional

Would you recognize FJs who don't fit this pattern? Would they be something else entirely to you or they would be thought of as outliers and abnormalities rather than a legitimate "strain" of Fe users?

First, I am biased based on heavier exposure to ISFJs and I may not recognize EXFJs as well IRL. You're right about that. I guess I had different things that I mentioned in different places. I attempted to describe the characteristics of Fe as:

"Whose feelings?- It is centered on the feelings of others and creating an environment of harmony
What values? - It is concerned with objective generally accepted values and norms
At what cost? - It sacrifices personal values so as to not offend other people
Harmony with who?- It is about harmony with others

Also, Fe is inclined towards immediate, concrete and specific action. It wants to do things - affirm people, make them happy, establish harmony, etc. Fi is not so focused on this unless it is really riled up in which case, it can react very strongly."

I also said this: "I have known a lot of people who are strong Fe users (usually it is aux though) who very much are self sacrificing. They do things for others. They are concerned about the feelings of others. They make judgments about how others should behave and not behave. In general, they are simply highly others centric."

I believe the thing you reacted to most strongly is "At what cost". You also don't seem to like the allusion to "convention."

This is your dominant process. You should be the expert in it. I'm just attempting to comprehend it.

I also wrote this post outlining a thought process of mine in the Fe Quick Reference thread. I also explained a real life conflict for me between my individual identity and my group identity.

I'm not going to respond to anything else in your post for now - not because it isn't important but because what you wrote in that other thread is so good. It seems to be an incredible description of Fe in practice. Gaining clarity on the definition seems to be what is most important. Sparing you from a much longer analysis that I wrote up, these are the key things I'm taking out of that post. You are drawn to or focused on the following things, which you attribute to Fe:

- The group, it's 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 it's nuances
- 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 - how do you interact or respond

Did I get it right?

You also said this

Consciously, I tend to operate on these levels, no particular order of importance and I hope that people can see the distinction between these very similar outlooks:

• how I see me (looking at myself)
• how other people see me (other people looking at me)
• how I see other people seeing me (looking at someone looking at me)
• how I see myself towards other people (looking at me and another person together as a fly on the wall)

I flicker back and forth between these outlooks and how I act and react depends on which outlook I think is most relevant to that particular situation. As you can see, most of my outlooks tend to be outside of myself because that's the outlook I give the most validity and reliability.

Does what I wrote above capture all of the things you've said? I don't think so. At the very least, it seems incomplete. Then again I was trying to highlight the differences of Fi vs Fe vs. all of the characteristics of Fe.

Goes back to drawing board.

I must tell you that as an INTJ, this is fascinating to me because these things you focus on are somewhat of a "blind spot" for me. It isn't that I don't notice them at all or think of them. It's just that I would never think about these things so much and if I did, I don't know if I'd ever trust my perceptions the way you do. I wouldn't analyze the motivations and behaviors in such a way. If I wanted to understand a particular individual, I would try to put myself in their shoes - it is a form of projection I suppose. What would I do if I were them? I would leverage any data point I had to synthesize the perspective but generally speaking the focus would tend to be on one individual at a time as opposed to patterns in groups of individuals.

 

[Poki]

Also, Fe is inclined towards immediate, concrete and specific action. It wants to do things - affirm people, make them happy, establish harmony, etc. Fi is not so focused on this unless it is really riled up in which case, it can react very strongly."

Why do I get the impression that your understanding of Fi is heavily based on the fact that you are Fi AND J. Define Fi focus in an NON-J context. You just defined the extremes of Fi focus, now define the NON extreme. My guess is that this NON Fi extreme is so heavily intertwined with your Fe dfinition/understanding you cant do it.

edit: FWIW, I recognize Fi best by sight, sound, interaction, etc. not a definition.


Maybe my perception is skewed as I see alot of Fi people who have this as a focus and arent riled up or reacting strongly.

I think you miss the Fi reaching out in a P manner. A much more subtle manner that is focused on affirm people, make them happy, establish harmony.

 

[Glycerine]

Just to put out there, Highlander, I as an ENFJ operate much differently than most ISFJs I know (they actually seem pretty foreign to me). In many ways, (other than possibly the INFJ), I relate to the ENTJ the most.

 

[highlander]

Why do I get the impression that your understanding of Fi is heavily based on the fact that you are Fi AND J. Define Fi focus in an NON-J context. You just defined the extremes of Fi focus, now define the NON extreme. My guess is that this NON Fi extreme is so heavily intertwined with your Fe dfinition/understanding you cant do it.

edit: FWIW, I recognize Fi best by sight, sound, interaction, etc. not a definition.


Maybe my perception is skewed as I see alot of Fi people who have this as a focus and arent riled up or reacting strongly.

I think you miss the Fi reaching out in a P manner. A much more subtle manner that is focused on affirm people, make them happy, establish harmony.

OK - so maybe you can come up with something better. I'm trying to highlight differences between Fe and Fi. What do you think they are?

 

[highlander]

Just to put out there, Highlander, I as an ENFJ operate much differently than most ISFJs I know (they actually seem pretty foreign to me). In many ways, (other than possibly the INFJ), I relate to the ENTJ the most.

I believe it. That makes some sense.

Interestingly enough, I initially got into this stuff through interaction with an ENFJ. I simply couldn't understand where he was coming from. For a long time, I couldn't decide if he was an ENFJ or an ENTJ.

 

[Zarathustra]

Just to put out there, Highlander, I as an ENFJ operate much differently than most ISFJs I know (they actually seem pretty foreign to me). In many ways, (other than possibly the INFJ), I relate to the ENTJ the most.

You and Jag, both.

You. and. Jag. both.

 

[Glycerine]

Me and Jag, what? lol He doesn't like people typing him.