Distrustful of Fe?

[Mycroft]

What is the alternative to this? I guess people think of Fe as pop music, if it has broad appeal there's no way it can actually be any good.

I wouldn't say "alternative". It's just a matter of maturation. XNFJs in particular are clever, kind people who genuinely do want people to feel accepted and at ease. From what I've seen, as they get older they begin to realize that, to paraphrase Jennifer, one size does not, in fact, fit all, and they tailor their approach to be more inclusive. (Horrible pun unintended, I assure you.)

From the opposite end, we INTXs also mellow with age and learn that everyone is not, in fact, out to dupe us.

 

[proteanmix]

I suppose that fuller appreciation for Fe would be found in collectivistic people and cultures more likely than us mostly individualistic users of the Internet.

I believe that Jennifer got it right (although her description favours Fi and someone else could put it in a way that favours Fe).

Personally I can see good and bad in both Fi and Fe, although it seems to me that Fi is like a more developped version of Fe. I was going to explain this intuition of me just now, but it's difficult to put into words. Besides, Jennifer and BlueWing have already written things that I agree with.

Often I find fiction that focuses on primitive, unaware and very seriously-taken Fe fascinating. That is to say, fiction that focuses on social games from an insightful viewpoint.

Of course, Fi can also be used in bad, selfish ways (ie "I don't like that person and it doesn't feel right to be nice to him, so I don't have to be nice to him, even if he didn't do anything wrong and is devastated by my rudeness").

A child must be taught to take into consideration the wants and needs of others, it's not something that comes natural think two year olds. It's easier for people to be selfish than altruistic. If Fe is a primitive version of Fi then I think this would be switched around.

 

[Totenkindly]

I believe that Jennifer got it right (although her description favours Fi and someone else could put it in a way that favours Fe).

I'm sorry if it came across that way. That's not how I meant it at all; I think Fe has real value and is as valid a function as Fi. I think INTPs (having Fe as an inferior) end up suffering a lot more friction from Fe than some other types early on, so maybe some of that was coming out... I had to learn to value Fe, where at one time I found it oppressive.

Of course, Fi can also be used in bad, selfish ways (ie "I don't like that person and it doesn't feel right to be nice to him, so I don't have to be nice to him, even if he didn't do anything wrong and is devastated by my rudeness").

Exactly. I've seen that happen -- an INFP just takes poorly to someone right away, or someone does something that runs cross-current to one of their particular values, and they immediately have a very judgmental response, almost like a personal grudge, and they have to take some time to back off and consider WHY the other person might be doing what they're doing... and realize perhaps in this case their value was not as badly violated as they thought, or perhaps another important value was in conflict with theirs and so the action wasn't as bad.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

A child must be taught to take into consideration the wants and needs of others, it's not something that comes natural think two year olds. It's easier for people to be selfish than altruistic. If Fe is a primitive version of Fi then I think this would be switched around.

Fe needs instructions on how to figure out how others feel. Fe goes about how to extrapolate the feelings of others based on their actions, whilst Fi is able to do it more subtly. By being picking up the unconscious cues people yield. Fes need more guidance to learn how to genuinely care for others than Fis. To Fis it comes only as naturally as critical thinking for Tis. Tes will always be there to tell you what to do, but as for having substance..ehh not so much..solve superficial problems..any day..solve complex problems..leave that to the Tis...unless they've developed their Introverted function.

Fi children are naturally more concerned with figuring out people's feelings and doing what they need to do in order to take care of them, whilst the Fe will only have the external standard in mind. Only do what is necessary in order to win the approval of others, you dont actually have to feel authentic. Thats at least how it goes with the Fe children. INFJs have less of a problem with this because they are naturally more in tune with the introverted side.

The goal of F is to be sensitive, and be in tune with personal values, not just do good deeds. Fi first obtains sensitivity and a clear vision of their own values and then goes on to do good deeds, but only after sincerity of motives has been ensured of. Fe is less concerned with developing inner depth, and only concerned with finding just enough sensitivity to meet the external standard. Fi is the more 'advanced version' because it runs deeper.

Same as with Ti/Te. The goal of T is to solve problems. Ti is concerned with having things figured out internally. Whilst Te is only concerned with being just analytical enough to meet the external criteria. Ti runs deeper than Te.

 

[Sahara]

Of course, Fi can also be used in bad, selfish ways (ie "I don't like that person and it doesn't feel right to be nice to him, so I don't have to be nice to him, even if he didn't do anything wrong and is devastated by my rudeness").

True, but I usually find those instant reactions to be spot on, if I feel badly in my reaction to someone it is because my gut instinct is telling me to stay away, having ignored it before and done like jennifer said (back off evaluate and give another chance) I now know you ignore that gut feeling at your own peril as it is always right. The bad feeling ones always hurt you later in some way. It's a warning lol.

Ok sorry, back on proper topic.

 

[proteanmix]

Exactly. I've seen that happen -- an INFP just takes poorly to someone right away, or someone does something that runs cross-current to one of their particular values, and they immediately have a very judgmental response, almost like a personal grudge, and they have to take some time to back off and consider WHY the other person might be doing what they're doing... and realize perhaps in this case their value was not as badly violated as they thought, or perhaps another important value was in conflict with theirs and so the action wasn't as bad.

This is part of my point. Fi values are completely subjective and up to whim of that particular person. If they jive with larger cultural values then fine, but if not...? Their values aren't inherently any better, noble, or capable of creating connections than Fe.

Even if Fe is superficial (which it completely has the capability of being as do other functions) at least can be checked to a certain point, yes yes against the dreaded SOCIETY. If you don't like a person, you can't always act on that dislike. Fe, at it's most banal, keeps people civil with each other. That has to count for something. Fi I think would tell you to do as you please.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This is part of my point. Fi values are completely subjective and up to whim of that particular person. If they jive with larger cultural values then fine, but if not...? Their values aren't inherently any better, noble, or capable of creating connections than Fe.

Even if Fe is superficial (which it completely has the capability of being as do other functions) at least can be checked to a certain point, yes yes against the dreaded SOCIETY. If you don't like a person, you can't always act on that dislike. Fe, at it's most banal, keeps people civil with each other. That has to count for something. Fi I think would tell you to do as you please.

Fi wouldnt tell you to do as you please. Fi is very introspective and is in tune with human nature. If you have personal values that endorse, lying, backstabbing, manipulating, the Fi would soon rebuff them and keep searching for something superior. Fi never gets settled down, the search for better values is a perennial quest. Whilst Fe wants to do the opposite. Find a society with clearly enforced values to settle into and never question them again.

Just like a Te would want to have a worldview that does not need to be questioned later. Whilst Ti finds the process of questioning in itself to be of great satisfaction.

 

[proteanmix]

Fe needs instructions on how to figure out how others feel. Fe goes about how to extrapolate the feelings of others based on their actions, whilst Fi is able to do it more subtly. By being picking up the unconscious cues people yield. Fes need more guidance to learn how to genuinely care for others than Fis. To Fis it comes only as naturally as critical thinking for Tis. Tes will always be there to tell you what to do, but as for having substance..ehh not so much..solve superficial problems..any day..solve complex problems..leave that to the Tis...unless they've developed their Introverted function.

Fi children are naturally more concerned with figuring out people's feelings and doing what they need to do in order to take care of them, whilst the Fe will only have the external standard in mind. Only do what is necessary in order to win the approval of others, you dont actually have to feel authentic. Thats at least how it goes with the Fe children. INFJs have less of a problem with this because they are naturally more in tune with the introverted side.

The goal of F is to be sensitive, and be in tune with personal values, not just do good deeds. Fi first obtains sensitivity and a clear vision of their own values and then goes on to do good deeds, but only after sincerity of motives has been ensured of. Fe is less concerned with developing inner depth, and only concerned with finding just enough sensitivity to meet the external standard. Fi is the more 'advanced version' because it runs deeper.

Same as with Ti/Te. The goal of T is to solve problems. Ti is concerned with having things figured out internally. Whilst Te is only concerned with being just analytical enough to meet the external criteria. Ti runs deeper than Te.

You keep saying "good deeds" as if Fe isn't concerned at all about the individual that's receiving the deed, only the deed itself. This is why I don't bother to speak with you about this. Your mind is made up.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

My mind is never made up. I find the idea of closure abhorrent.

Fes with a well developed introverted side can have great concern for the individual..but untill their introverted side is developed..they will only see the roles that people play..and not the individuals behind them. They do good deeds only because their role prescribes such activities, for no other reason..and again..cant stress this any more intensely..this will only change after the Introverted Function has become stronger..NFJs have an edge on this over SFJs because Ni offers greater potential for depth.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is part of my point. Fi values are completely subjective and up to whim of that particular person. If they jive with larger cultural values then fine, but if not...? Their values aren't inherently any better, noble, or capable of creating connections than Fe.

Even if Fe is superficial (which it completely has the capability of being as do other functions) at least can be checked to a certain point, yes yes against the dreaded SOCIETY. If you don't like a person, you can't always act on that dislike. Fe, at it's most banal, keeps people civil with each other. That has to count for something. Fi I think would tell you to do as you please.

I don't think I've disagreed with this, nor have I used words like shallow or fake to describe Fe (although some others seem to be more negative towards Fe as a whole).

But I think you are not really comparing the style of interaction when someone uses Fe versus Fi. That's what I am trying to describe and pinpoint here -- the inherent NATURE of the interactions. They're very different.

Fe is more formalized; Fi is more personal. This is not a value judgment of any sort, it's simply descriptive of the interaction involved.

 

[RDF]

Just a quick note on this subject. As an official "middle-aged old guy" (and an Fi-dominant INFP), I'm going to side with proteanmix in favor of the importance of Fe and the slipperiness and subjectivity of Fi.

*******************

When I was young, I would have said the opposite. The rules of society seemed fickle and subjective. They changed from town to town and time to time. If you traveled from a small town to a big city, the rules of social intercourse were turned on their head. Social rules in leisure were different from social rules in the workplace. Social rules in the civilian world were different from social rules in the military. Thus, I would have said that Fe people (as the interpreters of social rules) worshipped a fiction, a mere shell. By contrast, my Fi seemed truth-seeking, betterment-oriented, geared toward finding universal truths, etc.

Now that I'm a bit older and wiser, I've pretty much reversed my opinion. For example, I've learned that social rules are Darwinian and have usually developed a certain way for important, objective reasons. (The rules for small towns are different from the rules for cities because the small town environment is different from the city environment; the rules reflect the environment.) By contrast, a youthful Fi is comprised of whatever bullshit, feelgood fictions and fairy-tales the Fi person imbibed in childhood. The ultimate test of Fi will ultimately be how well Fi functions in the real world. If social rules are Darwinian and an Fi person has no respect for social rules, than a young Fi person is probably going to become a candidate for a Darwin Award when he dies in some spectacularly stupid way.

Also, Fi is not nearly so solid as it may seem to outsiders. It's always going through slow transformation due to the betterment-seeking aspect. A rebuff or disappointment can cause it to spasm and whiplash in an opposite direction. If social rules are Darwinian and an Fi person has no respect for social rules, then rebuffs and disappointments are going to be frequent. I have seen and studied quite a few older INFPs. And from what I see, Fi can end up in quite a few wildly different places at the end. And some of them aren't very pretty at all.

Frankly, seeing what Fi can become at the end, I don't have much respect for the betterment-seeking and truthseeking qualities of Fi at all. I like Fe much more. Fe is connected to something objective (something outside the individual) and thus leads more reliably and consistently to a reasonable measure of wisdom, happiness, and ability to fit in with the community around oneself.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Let me just say this. I see Dante's "Divine Comedy" as analogy of how Fe and Fi interact. That is, Dante (the pilgrim, the seeker of truth, the talented but untutored poet) is Fi. Hell (the land to be traveled and interpreted) is life and society. Virgil (the guide, the mentor, the interpreter, the accomplished poet, the "Voice of Reason") is Fe.

FREE MonkeyNotes Study Guide Summary-The Divine Comedy:The Inferno by Dante Alighieri(Dante's Inferno)-CHARACTER ANALYSIS/DANTE THE PILGRIM/VIRGIL-Free Book Notes Online Study Guide Book Report Plot Synopsis Analysis

Fi has raw talent but doesn't know how to express itself and is fundamentally disconnected from the society around it. Fe people, as social adepts and interpreters, have a valuable function to play in terms of accommodating the individual and society to each other. The only variable is the value we place on society. If one considers social rules as important, then Fe people deserve great respect for their talents and their willingness to serve as guides and interpreters for those who are less adept.

In my old age, I would argue that social rules are very important, especially to an Fi:

1) for Darwinian reasons, at a minimum;

2) as the medium and the means through which an Fi accomplishes his dream of helping others (i.e., if you wish to save a drowning person, it's probably good to know how to swim); and

3) as the source of Fi values; initially childhood Fi values came from society (fairy tales, parents, siblings, etc.; they don't just appear out of a vacuum, after all), and in order to achieve real maturity the Fi person will at some point have to re-link them back to society (IMO). If he can't do so, frustration, rejection, bitterness, and loneliness tend to be the result. It may make for good art, but it's not a pretty sight in real life. (Edit: Fortunately, most INFPs manage to pull their heads out of their asses at some point in life and recognize the benefits of conforming to social expectations to some extent.)

Just my opinion and my two cents.

(Just a drive-by post; I have a busy week ahead and won't be able to respond further. )

 

[proteanmix]

I don't think I've disagreed with this, nor have I used words like shallow or fake to describe Fe (although some others seem to be more negative towards Fe as a whole).

But I think you are not really comparing the style of interaction when someone uses Fe versus Fi. That's what I am trying to describe and pinpoint here -- the inherent NATURE of the interactions. They're very different.

Fe is more formalized; Fi is more personal. This is not a value judgment of any sort, it's simply descriptive of the interaction involved.

Appease my S and please give me some examples of this? I'm not trying to be difficult (I understand that Fe and Fi are different functions and I know how I interact with an FJ is different than a FP), but the sincerity/personableness of the interactions aren't clear to me. I really don't think that an FP is more personal with someone than an FJ. It seems to me that people are saying that Fe (FJs) don't interact with people on an individual level which I maintain is completely untrue. Fe is actively concerned with the needs of others. In order to this, Fe must interact with people on an individual basis in order to glean what those needs are.

Example: an FJ and an FP want to buy cake for someone's birthday. Using this extremely simplified example, are you saying that an FJ would buy chocolate cake (because that's what everyone likes) whereas an FP would find out if the person even likes chocolate (because that individual may/may not want chocolate, or may not want a cake at all?) If I'm misunderstanding this, please tell me. I can see how the impersonality of buying the cake would be Fe, because they may go out and buy cake for everyone's birthday, while the FP may only buy a cake for the people they care about.

Fi and FPs tend to be primarily concerned with THEIR OWN VALUES and they excel at helping people recognize THEIR VALUES. Fe and FJs are primarily concerned with GROUP VALUES and excel at helping people VALUING WHAT OTHERS VALUE.

This really leads me to believe that either people (including myself: I may be being obtuse about the matter) don't know the difference between Fe and Fi other than textbook definitions or the differences between these two functions break down under close examination. If a Fe's Fi is concerned with others and a Fi's Fi (make sense?) is concerned with helping others then how do you make the distinction?

I'm going to stop now because I'm confusing myself.

 

[Totenkindly]

Appease my S and please give me some examples of this? I'm not trying to be difficult (I understand that Fe and Fi are different functions and I know how I interact with an FJ is different than a FP), but the sincerity/personableness of the interactions aren't clear to me.

Ah, okay. I'm sorry, I did not mean to abstract so much... I know I do that. Let me see if I can think of some concrete examples.

I really don't think that an FP is more personal with someone than an FJ. It seems to me that people are saying that Fe (FJs) don't interact with people on an individual level which I maintain is completely untrue. Fe is actively concerned with the needs of others. In order to this, Fe must interact with people on an individual basis in order to glean what those needs are.

<unsure of that> Let me look at your next example, though.

Example: an FJ and an FP want to buy cake for someone's birthday. Using this extremely simplified example, are you saying that an FJ would buy chocolate cake (because that's what everyone likes) whereas an FP would find out if the person even likes chocolate (because that individual may/may not want chocolate, or may not want a cake at all?) If I'm misunderstanding this, please tell me.

No, I don't think that at all. Either FP or FJ might try either solution.

But the act of buying a cake to celebrate someone's birthday is an Fe convention. If someone is not given a cake in our culture, it can *really* come across as "you don't care about me at all." And this is an arbitrary symbol, because there have been cultures where cakes are not used to celebrate birthdays, but OTHER symbols are used to suggest that one is an accepted member of the family or community and cared about.

An FJ is much more liable to buy/make the cake without thinking twice about it, and feel bad if they do not provide one even if the person tells them it's okay not to get one. An FP is probably more liable to find out whether the person even wants a birthday cake and more prone to be willing to substitute something different (ex: A trip to the bowling alley or some other favorite food in place of cake) *if* the person explicitly requests it. FJs can do this as well, but they don't tend to grasp it as well. (There can be exceptions, I am just describing the patterns I see.)

Does that make more sense?

I can see how the impersonality of buying the cake would be Fe, because they may go out and buy cake for everyone's birthday, while the FP may only buy a cake for the people they care about.

Fe sensitive people might be more prone to buying the cake for everyone, but an Fi could do it too if one of their values was never missing someone's birthday. Likewise, Fe people who feel no obligation to society and only relate to their family/community would ignore people outside their community but be very explicit to those they were committed to.

Fi and FPs tend to be primarily concerned with THEIR OWN VALUES and they excel at helping people recognize THEIR VALUES. Fe and FJs are primarily concerned with GROUP VALUES and excel at helping people VALUING WHAT OTHERS VALUE.

I do agree with that.

This really leads me to believe that either people (including myself: I may be being obtuse about the matter) don't know the difference between Fe and Fi other than textbook definitions or the differences between these two functions break down under close examination.

See, this is why no book can be written to tell someone how to be properly Fi (because it's based on the individual's values), while books can be written about Fe (because the society/community agrees as to what signifies relationship and what does not).

If a Fe's Fi is concerned with others and a Fi's Fi (make sense?) is concerned with helping others then how do you make the distinction?

This is why people usually only have "one" of these going for them until they get older. They tend to conflict. You either start by following your values, or following society's values. You can expand later. (That is how I see it.)

And I think I can hold very different values from my society, but I might still play my Fe-ordained role in the society if I want to show commitment to that society (i.e., my intentions are positive towards them)... or I can use Fe to discern what will show people I am not committed and in fact would like to upset them and violate every Fe rule known to the culture, on purpose. This is still use of Fe, as far as I grasp it. It can be used to signify commitment OR a lack of it.

I'm going to stop now because I'm confusing myself.

Uggh, yes, I know... I actually get that way myself, trying to hold the complexity of all this in my head straight.

Anyway, those are my ideas. I am still tweaking them, but it's how I understand things.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Just a quick note on this subject. As an official "middle-aged old guy" (and an Fi-dominant INFP), I'm going to side with proteanmix in favor of the importance of Fe and the slipperiness and subjectivity of Fi.

*******************

When I was young, I would have said the opposite. The rules of society seemed fickle and subjective. They changed from town to town and time to time. If you traveled from a small town to a big city, the rules of social intercourse were turned on their head. Social rules in leisure were different from social rules in the workplace. Social rules in the civilian world were different from social rules in the military. Thus, I would have said that Fe people (as the interpreters of social rules) worshipped a fiction, a mere shell. By contrast, my Fi seemed truth-seeking, betterment-oriented, geared toward finding universal truths, etc.

Now that I'm a bit older and wiser, I've pretty much reversed my opinion. For example, I've learned that social rules are Darwinian and have usually developed a certain way for important, objective reasons. (The rules for small towns are different from the rules for cities because the small town environment is different from the city environment; the rules reflect the environment.) By contrast, a youthful Fi is comprised of whatever bullshit, feelgood fictions and fairy-tales the Fi person imbibed in childhood. The ultimate test of Fi will ultimately be how well Fi functions in the real world. If social rules are Darwinian and an Fi person has no respect for social rules, than a young Fi person is probably going to become a candidate for a Darwin Award when he dies in some spectacularly stupid way.

Also, Fi is not nearly so solid as it may seem to outsiders. It's always going through slow transformation due to the betterment-seeking aspect. A rebuff or disappointment can cause it to spasm and whiplash in an opposite direction. If social rules are Darwinian and an Fi person has no respect for social rules, then rebuffs and disappointments are going to be frequent. I have seen and studied quite a few older INFPs. And from what I see, Fi can end up in quite a few wildly different places at the end. And some of them aren't very pretty at all.

Frankly, seeing what Fi can become at the end, I don't have much respect for the betterment-seeking and truthseeking qualities of Fi at all. I like Fe much more. Fe is connected to something objective (something outside the individual) and thus leads more reliably and consistently to a reasonable measure of wisdom, happiness, and ability to fit in with the community around oneself.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Let me just say this. I see Dante's "Divine Comedy" as analogy of how Fe and Fi interact. That is, Dante (the pilgrim, the seeker of truth, the talented but untutored poet) is Fi. Hell (the land to be traveled and interpreted) is life and society. Virgil (the guide, the mentor, the interpreter, the accomplished poet, the "Voice of Reason") is Fe.

FREE MonkeyNotes Study Guide Summary-The Divine Comedy:The Inferno by Dante Alighieri(Dante's Inferno)-CHARACTER ANALYSIS/DANTE THE PILGRIM/VIRGIL-Free Book Notes Online Study Guide Book Report Plot Synopsis Analysis

Fi has raw talent but doesn't know how to express itself and is fundamentally disconnected from the society around it. Fe people, as social adepts and interpreters, have a valuable function to play in terms of accommodating the individual and society to each other. The only variable is the value we place on society. If one considers social rules as important, then Fe people deserve great respect for their talents and their willingness to serve as guides and interpreters for those who are less adept.

In my old age, I would argue that social rules are very important, especially to an Fi:

1) for Darwinian reasons, at a minimum;

2) as the medium and the means through which an Fi accomplishes his dream of helping others (i.e., if you wish to save a drowning person, it's probably good to know how to swim); and

3) as the source of Fi values; initially childhood Fi values came from society (fairy tales, parents, siblings, etc.; they don't just appear out of a vacuum, after all), and in order to achieve real maturity the Fi person will at some point have to re-link them back to society (IMO). If he can't do so, frustration, rejection, bitterness, and loneliness tend to be the result. It may make for good art, but it's not a pretty sight in real life. (Edit: Fortunately, most INFPs manage to pull their heads out of their asses at some point in life and recognize the benefits of conforming to social expectations to some extent.)

Just my opinion and my two cents.

(Just a drive-by post; I have a busy week ahead and won't be able to respond further. )

I think a very easy answer to this is an than an INFP should learn not to conform to the social rules, but process them with an open-minded. Instead of just rejecting them only because they came from the outside. I think an INFP, with a sound I/E balance could well incorporate only the congenial social rules into his/her worldview and leave out the not so desirable. Then, slightly modify them through careful thinking.

Only an unhealthy/immature Introverted Judger rejects everything that comes from the outside, an mature/well-balanced INFP will design an original worldview/ethic that will make him/her sound both internally and externally.

Again the key here is not learning to conform, but learning to approach the external standards with an open-mind.

I wouldnt compare Dante to an Fi and Virgil to an Fe..FJs are certainly more experienced in the practical world..but for the true wisdom..the wisdom that Shakespeare..Socrates..Buddha..etc..sought...we ought to turn to the more internally focused individuals... I think though..an INFP does not need to develop extroverted Judgment in order to find world-wisdom..I dont even think that there is something out there for the INPs to discover..its only a matter of learnign to make their ideas practical..ENPs tend to be very good at making their internal thinking applicable to the external world...so an INFP..with a well developed Extroverted Intuition would likely do a good job of adapting to the external world in a way that they could get all that they want out of life externally whilst staying true to their inner principles...they will likely have an edge on the INFJs too because as NPs they have an easier time adapting..

Dante casted Virgil into the role of an ENFP..rather than an EFJ..Virgil had deep concern for Dante as an individual..he wasnt just following protocol..and he seemed to be fluid and adaptable..seemed to derive inner satisfaction from the depth of feeling alone..did not need external emotional affirmation as much as an EFJ would need..





Essentially, Fi is necessary for discovering the true internal meaning in life. Same as Ti. Te and Fe are only necessary to create an external society where you can practice your inner quest. Certainly Fi and Ti would become difficult to actualize without the stability and order Te and Fe creates. But lets be honest here..wouldnt the Te and Fe without introverted judgment be totally barren? Degenerate into complete phariseenism? Just rules that people follow in order to follow rules without an underlying purpose to them?

You mentioned you dont respect the Fi questor worldview..sure for practical reasons it may not be as of much utility as Te and Fe..but what about heroes like Shakespeare..Rousseau...Virgil...Kierkegaard.. Tolstoy..all Fi dominant besides the last one..he was a secondary Fi though..they were the ones who have shown us the true splendor of the human 'spirit'...

It is true that Te/Fe have more world-wisdom..yet for the kind of insights that Socrates..Shakespeare..Buddha..and so on were searching..we're best off turning to the more internally focused individuals..I think that an INP..after having developed the secondary function can find enough world-wisdom to survive and be successful if necessary by internal standards without compromising their inner world...by conforming..INPs are adaptable..if their Ne is strong and they are aware of the external environment keenly enough..they should be able to find a way to get what they need from the world without making rigid external commitments like the EJs do..ENPs do an excellent job of this..INPs also have natural potential to develop many of those skills that ENPs are fluent with..all they have to do is find the I/E balance..no need to turn to extroverted judgment.

 

[proteanmix]

But the act of buying a cake to celebrate someone's birthday is an Fe convention. If someone is not given a cake in our culture, it can *really* come across as "you don't care about me at all." And this is an arbitrary symbol, because there have been cultures where cakes are not used to celebrate birthdays, but OTHER symbols are used to suggest that one is an accepted member of the family or community and cared about.

OK, I think that celebrating the birthday is the true symbol. A card, a present, anything is a sign of the symbol. ENGLISH MAJOR ALERT! I barely remember that signified, signifier, stuff anymore but I think it's applicable. The birthday is the smallest unit that holds meaning. FJs have created a whole language based on that how to package the symbol.

An FJ is much more liable to buy/make the cake without thinking twice about it, and feel bad if they do not provide one even if the person tells them it's okay not to get one.

But you don't think an FJ would respect the person's wishes, even if they feel bad about it? If the person insists on giving someone something they don't want then they're just being a blockhead.

An FP is probably more liable to find out whether the person even wants a birthday cake and more prone to be willing to substitute something different (ex: A trip to the bowling alley or some other favorite food in place of cake) *if* the person explicitly requests it. FJs can do this as well, but they don't tend to grasp it as well. (There can be exceptions, I am just describing the patterns I see.)

Disagree. I go back to my original statement. Fe will acknowledge (or to slight someone, ignore) the birthday. The act of acknowledging is important to Fes because it's a sign of their feelings for the person (which can be incorrectly interpreted as being insincere because it's standardized). This is why FJs expect the same acknowledgment back and we're hurt when it's not reciprocated. Isn't this one of the reasons why FPs initially come across as less warm than FJs and they're more hesitant to reveal how they feel to people? Once FPs do show how they feel is it somehow more sincere (not that you said this) than an FJ just because the FJ more indiscriminate than an FP? Is it because the FJ appears "promiscuous" with their affections (given freely to everyone, i.e. birthdays) while the FP appears more "chaste"?

Fe sensitive people might be more prone to buying the cake for everyone, but an Fi could do it too if one of their values was never missing someone's birthday. Likewise, Fe people who feel no obligation to society and only relate to their family/community would ignore people outside their community but be very explicit to those they were committed to.

Agree.

And I think I can hold very different values from my society, but I might still play my Fe-ordained role in the society if I want to show commitment to that society (i.e., my intentions are positive towards them)... or I can use Fe to discern what will show people I am not committed and in fact would like to upset them and violate every Fe rule known to the culture, on purpose. This is still use of Fe, as far as I grasp it. It can be used to signify commitment OR a lack of it.

Agree.

 

[Varelse]

Let's see if I can come up with a decent example.

My mother wanted to make a big deal out of my high school graduation. Personally, such was not an event I thought should be valued, as I didn't have much of a choice about graduating high school. She wanted to go on with the plans, because the celebration is a social convention. Fe.

Now, is Fe bad? No. Many people do value the social conventions, and Fe seems much more effective than Fi in a group format. Thus, Fe is quite applicable to the majority of the population.

Fi seems to be applicable to more individual relations, and allows for additional specialization, but isn't as flexible for group dynamics. Thus, operating under Fi, someone might have skipped some of the aspects of the graduation stuff for me, and put more focus on some of my other accomplishments that I considered more important.

I'd think Fe gone bad would follow the group standards too tightly, to the detriment of individual members who weren't comfortable with or knowledgable of the group social rules-likely some of the IN types.

Fi gone bad could place too much emphasis on the person's beliefs, and could also have difficulty functioning in groups-it could also lead to discomfort amongst those who do enjoy the social conventions of interactions.

As usual, I hope I make sense.

 

[Totenkindly]

But you don't think an FJ would respect the person's wishes, even if they feel bad about it? If the person insists on giving someone something they don't want then they're just being a blockhead.

NFJ's do seem better about it, I was just making allowance for the tendency I see sometimes (more with SFJ's) where they are really stuck on the traditional symbol, or "What I was taught we wanted is what you should want too." They have trouble separating the symbol from what it represents.

Disagree. I go back to my original statement. Fe will acknowledge (or to slight someone, ignore) the birthday. The act of acknowledging is important to Fes because it's a sign of their feelings for the person (which can be incorrectly interpreted as being insincere because it's standardized). This is why FJs expect the same acknowledgment back and we're hurt when it's not reciprocated.

That makes sense.

Isn't this one of the reasons why FPs initially come across as less warm than FJs and they're more hesitant to reveal how they feel to people? Once FPs do show how they feel is it somehow more sincere (not that you said this) than an FJ just because the FJ more indiscriminate than an FP?

I personally do not feel that the FJ is being "less sincere" just because they are using a standardized language. I see some other people in this thread seem to suggest that it is, but I do not think it necessarily is at all, and it's unfair to say. I do think it's easier to abuse a standardized Fe lexicon, however. (Overt example: A presidential candidate who knows how to "turn on the schmooze." We've all seen it -- some of them are quite good.) And since a lexicon is being used, some people will focus more on carrying out the motions rather than the feeling behind them.

But that certainly does not say an FJ cannot feel just as much as an FP. They are just choosing a more formalized, socially endorsed way of expressing it.

(To say otherwise, to me, is as silly as saying feelers can't think and thinkers cannot feel.)

Is it because the FJ appears "promiscuous" with their affections (given freely to everyone, i.e. birthdays) while the FP appears more "chaste"?

Perhaps that could be part of it. I would not have thought of the word "promiscuous," but I am sure it could come across that way to the skeptical.

I cannot think of a better word than "personal" -- when I say an FP seems to use a personal "self" language (and thus can feel warm on the inside when you connect with them), whereas the Fe person tends to use a more impersonal language, the standardized lexicon -- but you didn't seem to like that because of some of the overtones? Can you think of a different word.

I will say that this standard applies to me as well. I know many times I use Fe and it feels more "superficial" to me, in a sense. Not "bad" superficial, just more "on the surface" than the sort of intimate engagement I really prefer. I don't have the ability to engage someone very directly on a very personal level until I know them or I see them trying to engage me that same way; and so I use the Fe conventions to approach them on a "cooler" and less complicated level, that doesn't force me to emote a lot of inner feelings. Again, I do not say this approach is bad, it is just as valid as any other.

 

[Park]

Why are people so distrustful of Fe?

YouTube - Ted Bundy Interview

 

[heart]

My mind is never made up. I find the idea of closure abhorrent.

Fes with a well developed introverted side can have great concern for the individual..but untill their introverted side is developed..they will only see the roles that people play..and not the individuals behind them. They do good deeds only because their role prescribes such activities, for no other reason..and again..cant stress this any more intensely..this will only change after the Introverted Function has become stronger..NFJs have an edge on this over SFJs because Ni offers greater potential for depth.

This is really great insight here. One of the most hurtful things about some people I know is their need to see the roles that people play rather than the people themselves behind the role. It is so hard to deal with and to get my own mind around about these people. I simply find it hard to believe that a person can be that way.

In the past when I was younger I saw it as being perhaps willful shutting off of their own cognitive depth because they didn't want to deal with the complexity of life and other people but now I come more to the realization that for these people, this is just the way their brain works.

 

[Varelse]

Speaking for myself, it has been the function I feel has been used against me more often. Fe has been used to confuse me by some very important people in my life. People can smile in your face all the while planning to hurt you.

That sounds about right. Fe is a weak spot of mine, and when it's used against me, it hurts. My mom has a tendency to use it against me, for one. It's an easy place for her to reach, but one that I have difficulty with.