Fe Fakeness

[Ginkgo]

If TJs and FPs only use Fi, and Fi invariably causes Fi users to assume that displays of emotion are fake, then are demonstrations of Fe fake?

 

[Glycerine]

Everyone displays emotion so then is everyone "fake"?

 

[onemoretime]

No, because Fe is not something you can demonstrate, it is a function preference, which means that you prefer to judge things as they relate to external social norms. That's all it is.

 

[Halla74]

Everyone displays emotion so then is everyone "fake"?

Nice one!
This is really funny to read over, because half the world thinks I'm a cold bastard, and now I learn if I do display my emotions that some will by default think of it as fake.
Well I guess there is just no winning about it then, LOL!
Whateverrrrrrrrrr...

Interestingly enough, some of the most extreme displays of emotion I have witnessed are by the TJ's and FP's I know.
And I am not saying this is bad at all, just that it is odd for those with a very "strong internal emotional barometer" to pass judgement on those who "display their feelings externally."

Oh well, seems like the cure to this dilemma is the same as for many, just be yourself and let shit sort itself out.

No, because Fe is not something you can demonstrate, it is a function preference, which means that you prefer to judge things as they relate to external social norms. That's all it is.

Case closed!
Thank you, Sir!!!

-

-Alex

 

[Glycerine]

Nice one!
This is really funny to read over, because half the world thinks I'm a cold bastard, and now I learn if I do display my emotions that some will by default think of it as fake.
Well I guess there is just no winning about it then, LOL!
Whateverrrrrrrrrr...

hahaha even "cold bastards" show emotion. I think ranting about morons, stupidity, chewing someone a new one= emotion (not saying you do that but more in general).

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

It could only be the thing that the person is valuing is "fake", because F means value. How much is an object worth and it seems impossible that all things could be equal to an introvert sense the very definition of introversion requires abstraction, thus pointing out what's important... Everyone introverts so at one point importance will be placed upon a certain aspect of the object in question.

 

[Riva]

No, because Fe is not something you can demonstrate, it is a function preference, which means that you prefer to judge things as they relate to external social norms. That's all it is.

+1

That's the answer for you.

 

[funkadelik]

It will appear to be fake to that Fi user - if they are under the assumption that displays of emotion are fake. But will it make it fake? Not necessarily yes and not necessarily no.

What is "more real"? The way a colourblind person views the colour red or the way a non-colourblind person views it? There can't be a definitive objective answer because it changes depending on who is doing the viewing.

 

[Amargith]

It will appear to be fake to that Fi user - if they are under the assumption that displays of emotion are fake. But will it make it fake? Not necessarily yes and not necessarily no.

What is "more real"? The way a colourblind person views the colour red or the way a non-colourblind person views it? There can't be a definitive objective answer because it changes depending on who is doing the viewing.

It *feels* fake to Fi as Fi is about the individual truth..and therefore authenticity to yourself and your emotional state, whereas Fe focuses on a goal, and doesn't prioritize their own emotions, but those of the collective in order to get somewhere. To Fi-users, that seems like denying your very soul to breathe, to put it in a flowery way. Since it's a priority and most peopel are unaware of their perspective bias, it seems like lying to yourself, and in the meanwhile, lying to others. Which, can be the case, if Fi disappears to the bottom of the priority pile, but it's not necessarily true. The other person may just deal with their own personal feelings regarding the situation they're in later on, when alone, and meanwhile keeps up a 'facade' or rather, keeps using Fe to accomplish the goal which is more important to them.

In short: it's just another misunderstanding.

Edit: I'm talking about when your own personal feelings do not correspond with those of others and you've still to figure them out at a later time, while meanwhile staying loyal to what others want and helping them execute that goal.

 

[Eric B]

Since Fe is a "shadow" to an Fi type, and shadows are projected, then the feeling of "fakeness" is a projection. That's how you feel when imagining yourself looking at the situation through an objective lens, when your ego thinks humane evaluation should be the realm of the subject.

 

[Giggly]

Since Fe is a "shadow" to an Fi type, and shadows are projected, then the feeling of "fakeness" is a projection. That's how you feel when imagining yourself looking at the situation through an objective lenss, when your ego thinks humane evaluation should be the real of the subject.

Yes. This is what I've determined.

 

[Totenkindly]

(In)authenticity is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[onemoretime]

Just because you don't prefer to judge something in a certain way doesn't mean you can't see the value in it.

 

[Zarathustra]

If TJs and FPs only use Fi, and Fi invariably causes Fi users to assume that displays of emotion are fake, then are demonstrations of Fe fake?

This construction is highly problematic from the get-go.

It's not anywhere close to accurate to say that "Fi invariably causes Fi users to assume that displays of emotion are fake".

When would any Fi user say that there is no such thing as an authentic display of emotion? That doesn't even sound close to the truth...

And how would Fi users simply assuming that demonstrations of emotion are fake actually cause demonstrations of Fe to be fake?

One's assumption about something doesn't cause that something to be a particular way (except in cases when the interpreting agent causes changes in the interpreted agent by virtue of his interpretation); the interpreted is whatever it is by virtue of what it is; the interpreter's assumption about its nature is completely secondary to its nature.

No, because Fe is not something you can demonstrate, it is a function preference, which means that you prefer to judge things as they relate to external social norms. That's all it is.

Meh.

Nice "proof".

Unfortunately, it's disconnected from reality.

Even using your method: why can't one's judgments as they relate to external social norms be demonstrated?

It seems like they would be a rather easy thing to demonstrate, really.

And such demonstrations would be called a demonstration of Fe.

You see them all the time (on this forum and irl).

It will appear to be fake to that Fi user - if they are under the assumption that displays of emotion are fake. But will it make it fake? Not necessarily yes and not necessarily no.

What is "more real"? The way a colourblind person views the colour red or the way a non-colourblind person views it? There can't be a definitive objective answer because it changes depending on who is doing the viewing.

This is spot on.

Since Fe is a "shadow" to an Fi type, and shadows are projected, then the feeling of "fakeness" is a projection. That's how you feel when imagining yourself looking at the situation through an objective lens, when your ego thinks humane evaluation should be the real of the subject.

This is also highly accurate, but it's general and vague enough of that there are some caveats I'd need to add to fully accept it.

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the last clause -- it doesn't really ring true to me. Kinda hollow. Might be because it's an Fe-user's attempt at describing Fi.

I also think that there's another way of looking at the fakeness of Fe that is not merely projection.

But that's a more complicated matter.

(In)authenticity is in the eye of the beholder.

This is about the most blatantly false thing I've read in a long time.

See allegorystory's post.

Just because you don't prefer to judge something in a certain way doesn't mean you can't see the value in it.

This, I actually agree with.

It's somewhat related to what EricB said...

You can still see that way of judging as inauthentic, though...

Value and inauthenticity are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is just about the most blatantly false thing I've read in a really long time.

Au contraire; it depends on how you took what I said and to what degree, since my comment was SO general.

(Which, ironically and satisfyingly, proves my point.)

Also bizarre: I agree with allegorystory, so I'm not sure what you're reading into this.

 

[Zarathustra]

(In)authenticity is in the eye of the beholder.

This is about the most blatantly false thing I've read in a long time.

See allegorystory's post.

Au contraire; it depends on how you took what I said and to what degree, since my comment was SO general.

(Which, ironically and satisfyingly, proves my point.)

Also bizarre: I agree with allegorystory, so I'm not sure what you're reading into this.

Likewise, I can't imagine what you think you're writing into it that makes it compatible with what allegorystory said.

Once again:

It will appear to be fake to that Fi user - if they are under the assumption that displays of emotion are fake. But will it make it fake? Not necessarily yes and not necessarily no.

Or, as I phrased it:

One's assumption about something doesn't cause that something to be a particular way (except in cases when the interpreting agent causes changes in the interpreted agent by virtue of his interpretation); the interpreted is whatever it is by virtue of what it is; the interpreter's assumption about its nature is completely secondary to its nature.

Or, per Silly's signature:

"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

"That that is, is. That that is not, is not."

***

After circling back to try to consider again how what you said might be true, this is what I came up with:

If you were to have said, "(In)authenticity is in the soul of the individual", then, yes, I would agree that this is true.

I think this is what you were trying to say... that your comment was about the motives of the individual in question, not about others' opinions of that person and their authenticity or inauthenticity (which was my original interpretation).

In that light, I can understand what you mean, but I think it's a horrible phrasing.

It's not nearly as accurate as "(In)authenticity is in the soul of the individual", and it leaves open far too much ambiguity as to whether you're talking about the individual in question or those other than the individual in question who are judging the individual.

The typical use of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" puts, in my opinion, the emphasis on the interpreting agent(s) looking in on the interpreted agent, and is more or less a way of saying "people have different tastes and opinions" about any particular interpreted agent (although, it can, admittedly, be used in the way I believe you intended your message, to speak to the individual being interpreted, as a sort of "your beauty is all about your opinion of yourself" kinda way).

Along with my possible misinterpretation of the above-described ambiguity, if I'm correct in understanding what you were trying to say, I'll, like I did with EricB, have to partially write this off to an Fe-user having difficulty talking about something more innate to an Fi-user (in Eric's case: Fi; in this case: authenticity).

 

[KDude]

I don't think they're fake.. but might have a harder time getting swallowed up by.. the umm.. expected expressions/emotions/demands/etc.. If someone were to keep some time and space for themselves though, they wouldn't let that happen.

Displaying emotion at all though is not Fe. This would mean that Fi is stoic. Which is not the case. I think?

 

[Totenkindly]

In that light, I can understand what you mean, but I think it's a horrible phrasing.

If I had known I was being graded by my English teacher, I wouldn't have bothered with a throwaway comment to be endlessly dissected. Geesh, dude. If you have this much energy to burn, maybe you'd like to wax my car for me? lol

Don't read too much into it.

 

[Zarathustra]

If I had known I was being graded by my English teacher, I wouldn't have bothered with a throwaway comment to be endlessly dissected. Geesh, dude. If you have this much energy to burn, maybe you'd like to wax my car for me? lol

Don't read too much into it.

Sorry, these impressions come rather automatically.

They need only be unpacked.

 

[Eric B]

This is also highly accurate, but it's general and vague enough of that there are some caveats I'd need to add to fully accept it.

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the last clause -- it doesn't really ring true to me. Kinda hollow. Might be because it's an Fe-user's attempt at describing Fi.

If someone prefers Fi, then by definition, their perspective is to orient humane evaluation inward, or to devalue the object and eliminate what's irrelevant, as we've been pointing out with some more of Jung's definition.
That's why Fe would seem fake. The person believes this should be internal, and when they see someone merging with the object in humane matters instead, it doesn't look genuine.
It's sort of like asking the question "why do you just adopt the morality of what others do?"