[MBTI General] Fe vs. Fi discussion

[Mind Maverick]

Objective in the sense that what each dichotomy represents in the mbti test is very black and white. J is defined as x, y, and z aspects, P is a different set of aspects, it is fairly unambiguous by the definitions themselves what each dichotomy IS.

Like I said, opinions will vary as to whether these attributes are 'accurate' or truly speak for J or P or whatnot, but if referring to how the majority of the world knows about mbti/type, it's by these very straightforward dichotomies and what traits are associated with each.

You highly prefer having direction/an established endpoint and don't have any issues completing something you start? OK, by definition that's J. etc.

Ah okay, I see, I see what you're saying now. Yeah, that is true, people are more synchronized with them. Unfortunately, that does not always imply that people will be clearly one or the other. I'm INP in dichotomies, one E Facet in Step II, borderline on that F/T, and with some J Facets on Step II, but still more T and P overall. I always throw myself off through because I'm definitely not your standard run of the mill INTP stereotype. I'm very emotionally intense (probably due to a bipolar/bpd though), I love emotionally expressing myself artistically and creatively to the point where it's involved in the work I do for a living, I have no problem talking about my feelings (though I don't like experiencing them), I'm an open book, I enjoy analyzing my emotions. I'm still a meme in the sense that I am blind as hell to and struggle to predict or foresee others' emotions, don't like dealing with emotions, etc. but at the end of the day I like exploring a lot of subjective symbolism, abstract symbolic expression, etc. as much as I enjoy researching science and empirical studies on psychology or whatever issues I have going on in my life which leads to personal growth. Online I wear my emotions externally...though that's very opposite of in person. I crave understanding people on a deeper, intimate core level, and I enjoy being understood in the same way. These are more INFP stereotypes...but then I do not base my decisions on peoples' feelings, I do not match the INFP descriptions of being the idealistic romantic, I do not primarily follow a code or value system (I struggle to form any values of my own at all to the point where that is actually something I am attempting to resolve via therapy), I do not understand people or their emotions very easily at all and my approach to doing so is generally more objective, analytical, and blind to their emotions, I prioritize what makes the most logical sense (which generally involves a lot of foresight, examination of trajectory, cause and effect) over everything (and am guilty of even invalidating the emotions of myself and others if they fail to make logical sense)...etc. etc. and I really fit (the more serious) ENTP stereotypes better: challenge the status quo, challenge norms, self-employed, headstrong, etc. So at the end of the day nothing is even a very strong fit in my case. The only thing 10000000000% unquestionable is IN--, and even with as I as I am I'd still sooner by E than S. I relate to N dominance but not the types that offer N Dominance as an option function wise, and on top of that I am fuid in both Ne and Ni but overall more Ne--the only thing available with that is ENTP and I am not an E and do not prioritize Ne over Ti...it's just that I'm more strongly N than T. Lmao. That's the other flaw I see in functions, they arrange things according to strengths, I'd be N Dom probably, while dichotomies allow you to be an INTP with stronger N than T instead of some super-duper T-Dom robot virgin nerd that walks around processing life in binary.

Also, where I see myself on the T/F spectrum varies, but when I read those type descriptions is where I nope out and go "there's no fucking way I'm an INFP" the most.

 

[FemMecha]

Excellent OP and this discussion seems productive.

I care about inner and outer harmony, but tend to use avoidance rather than conflict. I don't feel a need to connect with people in general, but value one most meaningful connection and then perhaps a handful of close friends. I've let go of every external system I was raised to value. I find it difficult to evaluate Fi and Fe in myself and others because I find people who seem to have a Fi perspective that is especially personalized and individual, and who don't tend to look at the broad system, that they tend to be more invested in acting on external systems to change other people which seems more extroverted to me. I have an almost complete lack of connection to group value systems (religion, politics, etc.). I do feel I can see the world from the perspective of other individuals, so my perspective is not as individual ego based on self as other people I know. I have discussions with one family member who relates every topic directly to her experience to the point that she sees my mother from the framework of her own mother, if I talk about my relationship values, she needs to argue until they are compatible with hers, etc. Yet, her inability to see it from my perspective implies a lack of that broader perspective. I see she has different values and I have zero desire to change her mind about her mother, her relationships, etc.

I have a very strong sense of the inner and outer boundary. There is an outer boundary that requires negotiation for people to live in society, so that we have to agree to not steal each other's belongings, or rape and maime each other. Then there is an inner boundary that has nothing to do with anyone else and that is sacred. Trying to control how a person feels about their sense of self, their sense of relationships, etc. seems like a gross violation to me. I will push back hard when people start crossing that boundary. If I'm too intimidated to push back then I get sick when around people like that (and yet most people do it to some degree). For example, I was at a sandwich shop and a couple that were from a different race/culture from the server asked for all the spices. Then when it was my turn I asked for some they had mentioned because it sounded good. The server said how he thought they had used too many spices. This is a perfect example of the absurdity of infringing on others. People get to fix their sandwich any damn way they choose because they are the only one eating it. It is irrelevant to my choice or the server's choice. I didn't say anything to him, but that is why I don't like being around people. They infringe like that so often. I have a mentor who won't call me by the name I use and she has no right to try to control my name or disparage my choice. She has too much power in my life to speak up, but this sort of thing upsets me a great deal about people. There is so much ego entitlement to infringe inside the inner boundary where no one has any business infringing, unless it affect them in some manner.

So, I tend to lack the ability to speak up, which may be interpreted as seeking harmony. It's true I don't like hassles from people and will analyze a lot before acting because I don't want to have to be harassed by someone by drawing their attention. I was in a dance class with an elderly instructor who had a couple of moments of confusion and direction. There was a snotty woman in the class that kept interrupting to correct the teacher in a way that seemed very disrespectful and made it impossible for me to see which way was what. I saw it as happening in the outer boundary that affects others and not a personal choice. I scolded the snotty woman saying, "that was very distracting!" and I wouldn't back down my glare. The teacher ended up asking me to not attend the Friday classes again when that woman was there. It was a rare moment because I don't usually speak up, but my hesitation is never because I care for people to like me, but it is because I care not to end up in a hassle with people. The snotty woman was a big shot in town, but I don't regret putting her in her place because probably no one ever does, but I've never gone back to that class on any day, and I hope I never see any of the people again.

Not sure if it relates to Fe or Fi because I think most of what I've said could be framed in either direction.

 

[cascadeco]

Ah okay, I see, I see what you're saying now. Yeah, that is true, people are more synchronized with them. Unfortunately, that does not always imply that people will be clearly one or the other. I'm INP in dichotomies, one E Facet in Step II, borderline on that F/T, and with some J Facets on Step II, but still more T and P overall. I always throw myself off through because I'm definitely not your standard run of the mill INTP stereotype. I'm very emotionally intense (probably due to a bipolar/bpd though), I love emotionally expressing myself artistically and creatively to the point where it's involved in the work I do for a living, I have no problem talking about my feelings (though I don't like experiencing them), I'm an open book, I enjoy analyzing my emotions. I'm still a meme in the sense that I am blind as hell to and struggle to predict or foresee others' emotions, don't like dealing with emotions, etc. but at the end of the day I like exploring a lot of subjective symbolism, abstract symbolic expression, etc. as much as I enjoy researching science and empirical studies on psychology or whatever issues I have going on in my life which leads to personal growth. Online I wear my emotions externally...though that's very opposite of in person. I crave understanding people on a deeper, intimate core level, and I enjoy being understood in the same way. These are more INFP stereotypes...but then I do not base my decisions on peoples' feelings, I do not match the INFP descriptions of being the idealistic romantic, I do not primarily follow a code or value system (I struggle to form any values of my own at all to the point where that is actually something I am attempting to resolve via therapy), I do not understand people or their emotions very easily at all and my approach to doing so is generally more objective and blind to their emotions...etc. etc. and I really fit (the more serious) ENTP stereotypes better: challenge the status quo, challenge norms, self-employed, headstrong, etc. So at the end of the day nothing is even a very strong fit in my case. The only thing 10000000000% unquestionable is IN--, and even with as I as I am I'd still sooner by E than S. I relate to N dominance but not the types that offer N Dominance as an option function wise. That's the other flaw I see in functions, they arrange things according to strengths, I'd be N Dom probably, while dichotomies allow you to be an INTP with stronger N than T instead of some super-duper T robot virgin nerd that walks around processing life in binary.

Well, the nifty thing about dichotomies is that they *should* be used as preferences. We all know of insanely strong P's who have like zero J aspects, and vice versa, and strong N's with zero S, strong S's with zero N, and the same with E/I and T/F. Many of us are probably acquainted with 'strong' versions of every one of the 16 types, such that they are almost a cliche of the description. And I think that is what most people who want to find a type or type others are inevitably trying to follow - but imo there are more 'moderates' out there in one or more aspect than strong. (also I don't know why it isn't emphasized more often that Jung was studying those who were more 'extreme' anyway). In my view too, it is far easier to quantify those I work with as 'super J', 'so S it hurts', 'so N it's painful', 'so P nothing is going to get done', etc. Then there are much more moderate or weak versions of each dichotomy as well - with this, you can have painfully rigid and no-dot-connecting ESFJ's or more flexible intuitive ESFJ's; you can have completely cerebral and almost delusional INJ's and INJ's who take into account reality; ridiculously flighty emo ExFP's or more grounded intellectual ones. IxTJ's who are more generally clueless about emotions or scoff at even factoring them in in the first place, or ones that find value in factoring them in. I think most complaints about various types usually tie to ones with more pronounced preferences.

I hear you though. I myself would say the only one I am really strong on is the I; then N, then J, then F/T - in terms of dichotomy strengths. (I mean, it's not a matter of my opinion on this; I originally tested as such. People agreeing/disagreeing is what falls to opinion on definitions, how a type is defined and how one goes about determining said type, and 'worth' of said metrics.)

 

[Mind Maverick]

Well, the nifty thing about dichotomies is that they *should* be used as preferences. We all know of insanely strong P's who have like zero J aspects, and vice versa, and strong N's with zero S, strong S's with zero N, and the same with E/I and T/F. Many of us are probably acquainted with 'strong' versions of every one of the 16 types, such that they are almost a cliche of the description. And I think that is what most people who want to find a type or type others are inevitably trying to follow - but imo there are more 'moderates' out there in one or more aspect than strong. (also I don't know why it isn't emphasized more often that Jung was studying those who were more 'extreme' anyway). In my view too, it is far easier to quantify those I work with as 'super J', 'so S it hurts', 'so N it's painful', 'so P nothing is going to get done', etc. Then there are much more moderate or weak versions of each dichotomy as well - with this, you can have painfully rigid and no-dot-connecting ESFJ's or more flexible intuitive ESFJ's; you can have completely cerebral and almost delusional INJ's and INJ's who take into account reality; ridiculously flighty emo ExFP's or more grounded intellectual ones. IxTJ's who are more generally clueless about emotions or scoff at even factoring them in in the first place, or ones that find value in factoring them in. I think most complaints about various types usually tie to ones with more pronounced preferences.

I hear you though. I myself would say the only one I am really strong on is the I; then N, then J, then F/T - in terms of dichotomy strengths.

Oh...sorry, I edit a lot and sometimes people have already started replying before I finish adding all the final additional thoughts that trickle in. I should really learn to wait longer prior to hitting the submit reply button. Oh well. Anyway...

Lmao @ So P nothing is going to get done...that's actually a stereotype, Ps in MBTI are described as Pressure Prompted. But I agree that there is more variance than stereotypes allow for.

 

[cascadeco]

Lmao @ So P nothing is going to get done...that's actually a stereotype, Ps in MBTI are described as Pressure Prompted. But I agree that there is more variance than stereotypes allow for.

Yeah, I was obviously stereotyping but you understood my point.

(And I continue editing posts for maybe 5 minutes too! Ha)

 

[Luminous]

I feel like a lot of the stuff being discussed could come down more to enneagram than cognitive function. For instance, valuing harmony. Withdrawing instead of engaging in conflict.

Really isn't the distinction whether one looks outward or inward first and/or primarily when using the F function? I think part of the problem in discussing this is that we search for examples where the behavior could be the result of either.

 

[Tilt]

I feel like a lot of the stuff being discussed could come down more to enneagram than cognitive function. For instance, valuing harmony. Withdrawing instead of engaging in conflict.

Really isn't the distinction whether one looks outward or inward first and/or primarily when using the F function? I think part of the problem in discussing this is that we search for examples where the behavior could be the result of either.

Agreed. I am Fe dom who prefers the "triple hidden" tritype (359) so if you were to look at my surface behavior, a lot of it doesn't look stereotypically Fe.

EDIT: Just from a superficial, dichotomous perspective, people often type me as an INTX type and I get compared to my INTJ co-worker the most in my company.

 

[Fidelia]

I don't know if other fe users identify with this, but one of the things I really like about certain people is that they allow me to experience myself differently than I could without them in the mix. It's not only how they mirror me back to myself, but also that some people are able to put me enough at ease to take more social risks, try new foods, or new experiences. It's not that the core of who I am changes, but there's something about the combination of being with other people and their effect on me that makes it pleasant (or unpleasant) to experience myself in a new way. I suppose that's also why I avoid some people.

Also, I find it interesting that most fe users do deal in social currency. There is an unspoken expectation of investment or of give and take. If they find themselves only giving, eventually they will become resentful, even though they wouldn't want to demand it. But they kind of expect both parties will try to keep things balanced a bit, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

They are careful about taking up social room with someone without being invited to do so.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Really isn't the distinction whether one looks outward or inward first and/or primarily when using the F function? I think part of the problem in discussing this is that we search for examples where the behavior could be the result of either.

How do you mean, exactly?

I'm going to go ahead and expound on my thoughts about it.

I would assume that "using the F function" basically means that the interpersonal world bears a sort of primordial priority in one's attention (regardless of whether it's happening on a conscious level or an unconscious level).

I have seen explanations for the difference between Fe and Fi as the difference between (respectively) having one's attention primarily on the interpersonal vs. having one's attention lean towards the intrapersonal. And I've read someone state that they think Fe focuses on the space 'between' people, whereas Fi focuses on the space inside oneself. The issue I take with these things is that I don't think it's an either/or issue (or - because both must exist in each person for that person for function amongst others - a matter of 'primarily' one or the other) so much as which direction these two forms of (F oriented) attention moves in a person. Though I do think what's often most visible to others is the direction of movement (i.e. Fe gets perceived as being a focus on the space 'between' people because that's where attention - inasmuch as a thing is 'visible' to others - consistently lands).

I have said before that I think, for FJs, attention starts in the space within oneself (introverted perception) and moves outward. I think a heightened awareness of the space between people is actually to systematically compensate for the fact that it's not where attention inherently goes. Unexpected happenings in the external interpersonal world are actually taxing to deal with, which is why we get so wound up about (relatively speaking) 'little' things that others are doing that throw a wrench in our day and why we need to know what to expect. Js just aren't very mercurial when it comes to interacting with the external world, because the attentional connection to the external world is actually more tenuous than it is for Ps.

I've blathered about this before. At length.

While I do think the rather hyperbolic emphasis that's put on these things has historically rubbed me (and many, many other FJs) the wrong way, so admittedly the whole Fe/Fi shtick is a prickly topic for me, I also know: (1) inasmuch as mbti is an even remotely accurate system to classify different human personality types, I am an INFJ; and (2) so, so many of the things that get said about Fe (don't even get me started about inculcating values from 'the group' ...) are either gross misunderstandings or just flat out not true.

tl;dr is that I think the catch-all 'interpersonal vs. intrapersonal' distinction for Fe/Fi isn't really a fair or effective illustration of the difference.

 

[cascadeco]

Agreed. I am Fe dom who prefers the "triple hidden" tritype (359) so if you were to look at my surface behavior, a lot of it doesn't look stereotypically Fe.

EDIT: Just from a superficial, dichotomous perspective, people often type me as an INTX type and I get compared to my INTJ co-worker the most in my company.

haha, this reminds me - an INTP acquaintance years ago just assumed I was his type.

So for me - 'playing up' on certain aspects of myself depending on who I am with or what role/environment I am in -- not in a disingenous way but with the purpose of trying to find common ground with people / 'connect' with people in whatever way I might be able to. Find things in common. He speaks more in this manner or about these sorts of things/philosophical musings? I can totally 'go there' because that's a part of my personality. etc.

(coworkers in my current job tend to lump me as IxTJ tbh - that's what people who knew about just bare-bones dichotomy came up with months ago when the subject arose)

 

[cascadeco]

I don't know if other fe users identify with this, but one of the things I really like about certain people is that they allow me to experience myself differently than I could without them in the mix. It's not only how they mirror me back to myself, but also that some people are able to put me enough at ease to take more social risks, try new foods, or new experiences. It's not that the core of who I am changes, but there's something about the combination of being with other people and their effect on me that makes it pleasant (or unpleasant) to experience myself in a new way. I suppose that's also why I avoid some people.

Also, I find it interesting that most fe users do deal in social currency. There is an unspoken expectation of investment or of give and take. If they find themselves only giving, eventually they will become resentful, even though they wouldn't want to demand it. But they kind of expect both parties will try to keep things balanced a bit, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

They are careful about taking up social room with someone without being invited to do so.

I can relate in the sense that I have always felt I have many different aspects to my personality (not saying I'm unique in this, just saying it's a feeling I have had), and different people bring out different sides or there is ground for growth/connection in one way or another. The positive of this is that yes, I can sometimes explore new aspects or aspects that rarely get kindled, or really 'connect' in that particular way; the negative is if said person comes to assume that's the only core element of who I am and then begins expecting that to be the case or placing me in a box of their own making. It could be said, though, that I 'should' show every aspect of myself with every person all of the time. How in the world is that possible? lol. Things come up when they come up/when the situation or person is such that it brings it to life. I realize this can be viewed as a negative/'flaw' - But, that's how it is with me. It might confuse people that I automatically connect with some people over some such thing and this other person has never even had the faintest idea that was part of me (because it never came up or we have no similarity/way to connect in that way in the first place). Things like that.

 

[Agent Washington]

I used to think that I had inferior Fe (due to INTP/ISTP typing). I'm not sure if that was the case, but yes, I can put on an Fe mask. One of my regrets is kind of a failure to connect with an ENFJ because of the Fe dom giving me a certain "vibe" that just didn't gel.

Connecting with high Fe users is usually a challenge. They navigate the social world in a completely different way, and dominate so much of social discourse that I just don't seem to stand a chance anyway.

 

[Fidelia]

I can relate in the sense that I have always felt I have many different aspects to my personality (not saying I'm unique in this, just saying it's a feeling I have had), and different people bring out different sides or there is ground for growth/connection in one way or another. The positive of this is that yes, I can sometimes explore new aspects or aspects that rarely get kindled, or really 'connect' in that particular way; the negative is if said person comes to assume that's the only core element of who I am and then begins expecting that to be the case or placing me in a box of their own making. It could be said, though, that I 'should' show every aspect of myself with every person all of the time. How in the world is that possible? lol. Things come up when they come up/when the situation or person is such that it brings it to life. I realize this can be viewed as a negative/'flaw' - But, that's how it is with me. It might confuse people that I automatically connect with some people over some such thing and this other person has never even had the faintest idea that was part of me (because it never came up or we have no similarity/way to connect in that way in the first place). Things like that.

Yes, I used to wonder why I felt a bit as if my worlds were colliding when groups of my friends that normally did not hang out got together. It doesn't happen that much now, but I think it was that I felt self conscious because they would expect me to relate in different ways, and the more people present, the harder I felt it was to ensure everyone felt comfortable and was having a decent time.

 

[cascadeco]

Yes, I used to wonder why I felt a bit as if my world's were colliding when groups of my friends that normally did not hang out got together. It doesn't happen that much now, but I think it was that I felt self conscious because they would expect me to relate in different ways, and the more people present, the harder I felt it was to ensure everyone felt comfortable and was having a decent time.

Fortunately I don't really have this problem , as I have such a small number of people in my life - only a few friends in town who I really get together with. The only thing that would be 'weird' perhaps -- though I can't see it ever happening since I never throw big get-togethers or anything, ha - is that a few of my coworkers who I play games with occasionally would have almost nothing to talk about / in common with my long-time closest friends.

But this is such the case with my good INFJ friend who is someone who has a wide social network: she knows I'm not crazy about one of her other good friends (and this other girl has nothing to talk about with me either ), my friend totally doesn't care that we don't really hit it off, yet my INFJ friend and she are close. Doesn't bother me - I mean, I *get* it -- but I think this speaks to her need to put thought into who she might invite to a big dinner party or not (ie -- she/ I would know who would hit it off (likely) with who, and so on).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I was going to edit to the earlier post to add this, but I may as well just put it in a new post.

For as long as I've been in this forum, the TPs and FPs here (not all, but enough for it to be a thing) have been paying relentless lip service to how 'pure' (or whatever) their logic is compared to their J counterparts, going on and on about how Js get their values/ideas from the 'group'. It's been stunning at times - because all it would take is shifting focus from Je/Ji to Pe/Pi to say the opposite is true (that Ps are primarily externally focused and rely more on 'group think' as their starting point). One of the most counterproductive things about this 'Fe is more focused on the space between, Fi is focused on the space within oneself' notion is that people who are FJs identify as something else because they genuinely can't relate to being so other-focused (and rightfully so, because they're not). What's true is that EFPs and EFJs have more attention directed towards the space 'between people ' than IFJs or IFPs, regardless of Fe/Fi. Until this is reflected in F type discussions, FJs will continue to either mistake their own type or they'll know they're FJ but they'll secretly judge exaggerated Fi aggrandizement as annoying turd-like behavior. (Or they'll vacillate between the two).

And it's worth adding: just because a person inherently has more of their attention directed at the space between people, that isn't to say they are less genuinely aware of their own feelings/emotions/values than any given introvert or that their feelings/emotions/values are dictated by 'the group'. The saying that extraverts are like more immediately competent versions of their introverted brethren rings true to me; there seems to be less overall distraction or emotional 'white noise' that surfaces as a result of interaction with the external world, like they aren't quite as bogged down processing incoming information. (And that 'extra work' *doesn't* necessarily result in more self-understanding, sometimes it actually takes an introvert further from genuine self-understanding).

 

[Tilt]

My ISTP boyfriend said that a driving lens for me seems to be the ethics/consequences of behavior. I would also say the "cause and effect of behavior", social pragmatism, and social context. From my POV, Fi just feels impulsive and erratic. That seems to be the main point of contention for me, if I were to be brutally honest.

 

[cacaia]

Wonderful thread....and I keep thinking fi vs fe is the thread that will never die LOL
I, too, get so confused about this. In my case, I use both fi and fe so relatively close to one another that I fin myself agreeing to bits of each description.
I consider myself to be more of an Fe user, though people have told me that surely I am more fi than fe...but, reading all the above comments, I can very much see myself leaning more toward fe, while also understanding a lot of fi.
The whole fi not getting along with fe also makes a lot of sense. It explains why I struggle so much (in my own head, anyway) to understand why some of my closest relatives do what they do (and the word "selfish" comes to mind each and every time). I love them all, but I just don't get some of their choices, because htey do not consider how others might be affected by those choices....
Anyway, interesting.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Good discussion.

Fe is directly connected to the external emotional environment and indirectly connected to one's internal emotional environment. Fi is directly connected to the internal emotional environment and indirectly connected to the external emotional environment. One former member, a INFP describe it as Fi users believing they are a island, while, Fe users see everyone connected by pennisulas and holding hands.

A lot of the confusion is that each person has a shadow and as we grow, we can develop the opposite function, if we are willing to fight tough the pain. We are uncomfortable with the unconscious areas of ourselves and this is our shadow. But we can develop our shadow.

A ENTJ that is mostly absent from the forum today explored this with me in depth. In traditional development theory, a mature ENTJ would start acting more like a ISFP as inf. Fi developed. But the inferior is subsumed into the dominant function and just part of the dominant function. instead, a Te dom will really start developing shadow Ti. They will go from having superior talents at manipulating objects and things and rules to developing their own logic and concepts.

The aversion to our shadow explains the conflict between types. A Fi user might feel extreme external pressure where a Fe dom might not vote it the same way. One Te user I used to have very VM and PM exchanges with would suddenly stop for awhile, citing headaches from dealing with Ti.

As a Fe dom, I feel the emotional level of a room as soon as I walk in. I measure emotional levels of individuals without effort. I interact with strangers as if I have known them for decades. People regularly say, "How do you understand me so well?"

At the same time, connecting to my internal emotional environment is painful. I don't have the depth of exploration that a INFP has. I have endeavored to sit and explore and listen the internal emotional space, but I often need to take a break.

So, can I harmonize with others well, be a good team mate or persuade them? Yes. Do I have strong personal values and can't be forced to change? Yes. But the best salesmen I know are ESTPs, who use tert Fe as a tool and don't get bothered by harmony or consequences.

FPs can be outwardly focused and work for the good of others, but only if it aligns with their desires, goals, ideals, etc. Otherwise, no. It is an inwardly directed path.

Also, most Fe descriptions are SFJ related. I know many SFJs. I love them and they are great people. But they are different than NFJs.

Likewise, SFPs are very different from NFPs, which makes it confusing.

A ENFP and ENFJ will likely assess a situation very differently, but arrive at the same destination. The is a reason most caregivers are SFs. They take care of others for very different reasons, but they do it.

Yes, the enneagram plays a huge role. One is based upon how we process information and make decisions while the other relates to life experience, especially childhood.

In any event, we use our Je function to communicate. A Fi dom will likely struggle to explain the depth of feelings they have, so often in the spoken word will express things poorly or contrary to feelings, as they use inf. Te. Words are inadequate to convey the depth of feeling of a Fi dom.

 

[Zhaylin]

This has been a terrific thread!
As an INFP, I guess, the short answer is I use Fe in service of Fi. I read the room, I feel the emotions, but it's all for selfish reasons (harmony/peace).

I don't have too much of a hard time voicing my emotions. When I stumble, in text, I use "... ???" to explain I'm having a hard time finding the right word. I'll do that for anything though, not just emotions and emotional states lol.
Now, asking me to EXPRESS said emotions is an entirely different matter. Expressing emotions leads to dis-harmony in others which disrupts my own. I could TELL you, "I'm so sad I could drink a bottle of bleach." but my expression will be neutral or I'll laugh and smile while saying it.

Lots and lots of food for thought here...

**EDIT**
Oh crud. Am I mistaking Fe for Ne?
I always say I feel the room by intuiting what others are thinking etc. And because I'm HSP, I really do FEEL the room (though not nearly to the extent others do- I don't get a stomachache if I see someone doubled over, for instance).
Back to the drawing board rofl

 

[Cellmold]

Something that always threw grit into the eye of my perception was that people tend to be more inclusive with known people and individuals, for obvious reasons. Everyone is more guarded and judgemental against the unknown, to a greater or lesser degree, though.
This is most likely where 'best-fit' comes into the picture.

However, I've seen so many interpretations of functional theory, it's difficult to correlate them into a whole pattern. Most seem far removed from Jung's psychological types and are often marred by personal prejudices and experiences.

For example, when someone says Fe, do they mean the Fe that lumbers about imposing it's collective brand of behaviour onto everyone else, invading other people's lives and personal space in order to tell them how to live and actively trying to manipulate anyone who doesn't fall into line? Or is it the Fe that is the caretaker of everyone, trying to resolve all the conflict with appeals to collective goals and social cohesion? Or is it the Fe that is so sensitive to upsetting others that it depersonalises the individual to the point of being unable to hold positions without the sway of the crowd?

Is it the Fi that selfishly turns everything into a personal affront, even when no evidence of such can be garnered? Is it the Fi that deeply understands the personal realm of subjective, emotional experience and appreciates the difference in others?

I mean there's millions more to add to that account. However on the surface of it, there is no reason one person cannot have all those characteristics in a paradox and matter-of-degrees sense. The problem is that there is an attempt to create distinctions and unless one is being intellectually dishonest, or is unaware of the myriad variations, it is hard to ignore the sheer amount of contradictory interpretations. If you are being distinct, then there must exist something to be distinct against, as in 'comparison to', but the only aspect here to be distinct against is other nebulous theoretical functions.

Then there is the flawed data on the matter, which relies upon people in certain kinds of jobs reporting certain types of personality. This is cart-before-the-horse in the purest sense.

Dario Nardi, when attempting to map out the areas of the brain and correlate them to functions, ended up having to create areas of activity that matched his interpretation of EEG scans in order to justify his own theory, in disregard of all neurological evidence. That's called a confirmation bias.

Now this may be a bit of a weak and unconvincing argument and I'm not putting in my normal effort, partly due to brevity. But I've never known anyone use the theory to better understand myself and I've been unable to see it's use in my own life, partly because people are much more complex and nuanced than we give them credit for.

I don't think Jung was entirely wrong, I just think he took a route that was flawed because it relied upon turning the heuristic into the factual and he was a victim of our pattern-seeking minds. I suppose, ultimately, we all are.