The DDLI: An MBTI alternative with error checking

[stalemate]

Your whole paragraph about ethics and reason above is still based on your belief that feeling is an emotional irrational process. I don't see how saying ethics is based on reason means it is outside the realm of feeling.

I don't know how to answer your question about my experience with Fi. And it is even harder when we haven't even agreed on a definition of Fi. I am not sure what you are asking me for.

 

[Thalassa]

One of the small things I don't like about Socionics is its use of the word ethical in place of feeling. Although I know you're talking about MBTI here, you're making the same error. Fi and Fe are not about different ways of managing ethical values. Ethics is as much the domain of thinking as it is of feeling. Nor is ethics all about values; it is also about principles. Anyway, my experience with Fe has nothing to do with favoring societally-held values over personal values. It has more to do with what effects evoke emotional responses. My emotional responses normally arise from external stimuli, particularly expressions of emotion. I can be affected by music and drama to feel certain emotions, but I'm not nearly as inclined to have emotional responses to news stories. I think it takes some kind of well of Fi to start getting emotional over news stories. For example, I'm aware of people who started crying all day when the Twin Towers were knocked down on 9/11, but I had no particular emotional response to this myself. Of course, I understand that it was a morally wrong thing to do and that the consequences were tragic for many people. But my emotions did not get drawn into this. But I have sometimes felt sad when a fictional character I liked died on a TV show, because the drama of the show evoked emotional responses to the character. One of the reasons I rely on music and drama as much as I do is that I would have much less of an emotional life without them. I could not easily write about all the emotions Shakespeare does, but I have been susceptible to his descriptions of emotions. In general, it is easier for my emotions to come out when I can find something for them to mirror in the external world. I would describe Fe as working like an emotional mirror, and Fi as working like an emotional well. With respect to emotions, I am more of a mirror than a well. What is extraverted about this, is that it enables emotional sychronization with other people.

I think there might be some truth to this, but it's not the whole story.

This is more in line with my understanding of Fi and Fe than what you've attributed to MBTI, though I wouldn't say it is the whole picture.

Let me give an example of what I think may illustrate the difference between Fi and Fe. I love Girl's Generation, a Korean pop group also known as SNSD, because their music makes me feel good. But I can imagine that some Fi person might hate them for being trite and shallow, which happens to violate her personal values. I don't care so much about that. What matters to me is that their music is infectiously fun and happy.

To give an example at the opposite end, I hate Marilyn Manson, not because he violates my personal values, but because his music is dreadful. Yet I can imagine some Fi person who likes Marilyn Manson because there is something about him that resonates with his personal values.

I'm sorry, but this is totally wrong. People with Fi can like things which are shallow just for being fun and infectiously happy, and some people actually *do* like the way Marilyn Manson's music sounds, even if you don't.

Fe and Fi are about ethics. It's not just about the source of feelings.

 

[KDude]

Fi has "feeling"/ethics/values on almost anything imaginable (I mean, if they're completely at a loss on how to encounter some situations, they will rely on another function, but Fi goes beyond mere ethics and has rights and wrongs even about cereal or vacation ideas or choosing one dating prospect over another or whether they make a chord progression from G to C or G to A).

 

[Thalassa]

I would say that is very simplified. Having studied ethics while working on my Ph.D. in Philosophy, I can tell you that reason plays a large role in ethics. Some philosophers, such as Kant, believed that ethics was entirely about reason. I don't go that far, but I recognize the importance of consistency and universalizability in evaluating right and wrong. The Utilitarians believed we could know right from wrong through some kind of hedonic calculus. I don't agree with them, but I do recognize that understanding consequences can play an important role in telling right from wrong. In The Wrath of Kahn, for example, Spock sacrifices his own life because he logically recognizes that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. So I do not recognize the feeling function as being particularly about moral values. My own moral values are rooted in my sense that life, both mine and others, is worthwhile, and this is personal in the sense that it is deeply rooted in my experience of life. To put it another way, I do not value life simply because other people do; I value life because I recognize that it is good.

Of course there is a practical and rational basis for ethics. However, the fine details of ethical reason isn't pure logic. I'm going to echo stalemate in saying that you are mistaken if you believe that Fe and Fi are not rational ethical processes. A T can be every bit as emotional as an F. It's not only about being emotional.

Anyway, you have told me how you understand Fi and Fe, but you have not told me what your experience of Fi is like. Is your understanding of Fi grounded in your experience? What is it like for you when you are using Fi? Bear in mind that my questions in the DDLI have to work for people who have some basic experience of one or the other preference but who may not have any theoretical understanding of the distinction between the two preferences. So what would particularly help me come up with good questions is getting a better understanding of what the experience of my non-preferences is like.

I'll link here to a couple videos that help illustrate my understanding of Fi and Fe. These two videos show an incredible difference between the two. To avoid spoilers, I'll wait until another message to say more.

OMGZ I love that Gee video with the Asian chicks. That music is just catchy as hell. I don't think the music makes it Fe, but I would agree that the choreographed images in the video do.

 

[stalemate]

Fi has "feeling"/ethics/values on almost anything imaginable (I mean, if they're completely at a loss on how to encounter some situations, they will rely on another function, but Fi goes beyond mere ethics and has rights and wrongs even about cereal or vacation ideas or choosing one dating prospect over another or whether they make a chord progression from G to C or G to A).

So... If there is a right order in which to eat my meal, is that Fi or OCD?

 

[Thalassa]

So... If there is a right order in which to eat my meal, is that Fi or OCD?

I believe that would be Si.

 

[KDude]

Depends if you were consistently anal about it maybe. I have no idea.. I can only speak for myself. I eat in the order I feel like at the time. Fi is pretty mutable with minor things.. Food choices, I don't know. That's small potatoes (har).

 

[stalemate]

I believe that would be Si.

Really? Interesting. I have always done it that way. Eating one thing after another in the "right order" until they are all gone. It is only once in a while that I can do something bold like take a bite of my burger before I finish my fries. It just feels wrong. everyone says I am weird.

 

[KDude]

Btw, I could still be ISFP, so take how I relate FP-ness with a grain of salt.

Usually with food though, I *think* Si may kick off for people if it's too different. To get around it, their mind doesn't go "Se" and take in the appearance, or aroma of the food itself..some present circumstance related issue. They'd hint their way around in questions, wondering if it's OK.. who made it, what is it, etc.. As for the order in how you eat, maybe it could just be some personal quirk on your part. Or maybe Te

 

[Aleksei]

One of the small things I don't like about Socionics is its use of the word ethical in place of feeling. Although I know you're talking about MBTI here, you're making the same error. Fi and Fe are not about different ways of managing ethical values. Ethics is as much the domain of thinking as it is of feeling. Nor is ethics all about values; it is also about principles. Anyway, my experience with Fe has nothing to do with favoring societally-held values over personal values. It has more to do with what effects evoke emotional responses. My emotional responses normally arise from external stimuli, particularly expressions of emotion. I can be affected by music and drama to feel certain emotions, but I'm not nearly as inclined to have emotional responses to news stories. I think it takes some kind of well of Fi to start getting emotional over news stories. For example, I'm aware of people who started crying all day when the Twin Towers were knocked down on 9/11, but I had no particular emotional response to this myself. Of course, I understand that it was a morally wrong thing to do and that the consequences were tragic for many people. But my emotions did not get drawn into this. But I have sometimes felt sad when a fictional character I liked died on a TV show, because the drama of the show evoked emotional responses to the character. One of the reasons I rely on music and drama as much as I do is that I would have much less of an emotional life without them. I could not easily write about all the emotions Shakespeare does, but I have been susceptible to his descriptions of emotions. In general, it is easier for my emotions to come out when I can find something for them to mirror in the external world. I would describe Fe as working like an emotional mirror, and Fi as working like an emotional well. With respect to emotions, I am more of a mirror than a well. What is extraverted about this, is that it enables emotional sychronization with other people.

The problem is that you're letting yourself be guided by the very word "feeling" and making the common mistake of equating the function to emotions. It isn't. As Jung originally defined it, Feeling is rooted in values, rather than emotions. A Feeler type is not an emotional person -- T types can be emotional -- but rather a person who makes choices based on what they in their gut feel is right or wrong; on ideals.

This is more in line with my understanding of Fi and Fe than what you've attributed to MBTI, though I wouldn't say it is the whole picture.

That basically means your understanding of Fi and Fe is wrong. No offense. Here's the actual definition of Fi and Fe:

Introverted Feeling

It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.

Extraverted Feeling

The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

 

[stalemate]

I think I posted in this thread under the influence of beer last night. How close was I?

 

[Donna Cecilia]

To the extent that it bumps up the thread and continues to give my test exposure, it is helping. But I am not using the data posted here for anything. I am relying on algorithmic analysis of a database. If you would care to look at the results of my script's analysis, you will find it at http://duniho.heliohost.org/ddli/analyze.php

Thanks for posting that. Now I understand why I skipped the questions about the cognitive proccesses that I don't use.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/1313325-post158.html

That is my cognitive process profile, so you can understand what I mean.

What I liked the most about your test is that it allows you to skip the questions which don't apply to how you think. In that respect, your test has the major advantage that it won't force you to choose something that does not relate to you, and that gives you a more honest result.

 

[fduniho]

Aleksei,

The definitions you quoted, which were written by Berens and Dario ten years after I began working on the DDLI, still do not define Fi and Fe in terms of ethics, and they do not support the definitions of Fi and Fe you gave to me earlier. It is a strawman to suppose that I do not think that thinking types can be emotional. Since thinking types still use feeling, of course they can be emotional. Let me now quote from Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers in Gifts Differing. Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.

 

[skylights]

I can tell you that reason plays a large role in ethics.[...] So I do not recognize the feeling function as being particularly about moral values. My own moral values are rooted in my sense that life, both mine and others, is worthwhile, and this is personal in the sense that it is deeply rooted in my experience of life. To put it another way, I do not value life simply because other people do; I value life because I recognize that it is good.

look at what you've said here though - you recognize that it is "good". "good" is a rather Fi determination in and of itself. Ti can determine pleasant, or sensible, or best, but it cannot give you the value judgment of fundamental goodness. that is Fi.

we associate Fi with ethics and values because Fi deals with tricky things that are difficult to approach with logic, like the nature of the human soul (assuming we have such a thing), whether the life of one human who is important to you is worth more than the lives of several humans who are not important to you, how we will respond to the death of a loved one who passes unexpectedly, whether there is a God or gods or not.

Anyway, you have told me how you understand Fi and Fe, but you have not told me what your experience of Fi is like. Is your understanding of Fi grounded in your experience? What is it like for you when you are using Fi?

okay... Fi... it's judging things on a subjective, context-filled basis. it's talking with a person and noting that something is "off" - that their overall body language and what they're saying don't match up. it's entering a room and picking up on an overall atmosphere - tense or relaxed. it's knowing when someone has "crossed the line" between being ignorant and deliberately antagonistic. it's reading a thread of posts and picking up on the emotional undertones. i like bjork, but the lyrics to human behavior really are not a good description of Fi - at least, not of Fi as understood by a dom/aux... maybe it works for Fi from a shadow function perspective.

here's a really Fi song -- YouTube - Defying Gravity Tony Awards elphaba, the witch, is Fi - glinda, the blonde, is definitely Fe dom...

so Fi is not actually always about experiencing emotion yourself, but it is about the ability to read and converse in emotion, if that makes sense. because Fi dom/aux are attuned to emotion, we tend to be especially aware of our own emotions - and it is a mistake to think that humans ever have bouts of time where we are emotionless - but that doesn't mean we are mired in the experience of emotion all the time. it simply means we have a better than usual awareness of our emotional states. i think of emotion like a thermometer - it tells me important things about my internal state. it tips me off to things i might miss otherwise. i feel irritated. why? because someone is treating me poorly in comparison with how they are treating others. and that is important. i feel sad. what should i do about this? reevaluate what is important to me. i feel content. awesome. i should make special note of what i'm doing right now and what the circumstances are so i can create this pleasant state again in the future.

Of course there is a practical and rational basis for ethics. However, the fine details of ethical reason isn't pure logic. I'm going to echo stalemate in saying that you are mistaken if you believe that Fe and Fi are not rational ethical processes. A T can be every bit as emotional as an F. It's not only about being emotional.

Fi has its own internal consistency... it's not logical, but it is rational in the sense that it is consistent. in fact, that's really what Fi is about - assessing subjective internal consistency.

OMGZ I love that Gee video with the Asian chicks. That music is just catchy as hell.

seriously!

Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.

yes and no... the emphasis on emotion here is still way too strong. ideals and values can be overpowering when we are too attached to them and refuse to see outside their paradigm, just as Fe social principles can be overpowering when we refuse to see outside those paradigms. the key is so much that while Fi and Fe do involve emotion you can have a Fi or Fe decision that is not about emotion. for instance, me choosing whether i would rather wear a blue or red shirt today. well, maybe i feel the overall tone of being laid-back and fluid today, and i will probably go with blue.

so yes, that conjures all sorts of emotionally-tinged ideas like the association of blue and being calm and peaceful and relaxing and serene, and red of being fiery and passionate and angry and intense, but the decision itself did not involve me, personally, experiencing an overt emotional state. more like briefly shuffling through emotional associations to figure out what best matched my overall state of being. or maybe i'm just thinking about how i love the freedom of endless water and sky, and decide to go for blue. that's not really overtly emotional either, even though it does involve pleasant emotions. it's much more subtle. you cannot take emotion out of Fi or Fe, certainly, but the central idea of Fi and Fe is not emotion. it's more like a language Fi and Fe communicate with to establish internal (Fi) or external (Fe) subjective consistency.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Aleksei,

The definitions you quoted, which were written by Berens and Dario ten years after I began working on the DDLI, still do not define Fi and Fe in terms of ethics, and they do not support the definitions of Fi and Fe you gave to me earlier. It is a strawman to suppose that I do not think that thinking types can be emotional. Since thinking types still use feeling, of course they can be emotional. Let me now quote from Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers in Gifts Differing. Concerning Fi, they say, "Its goal is the fostering and protection of an intense inner emotional life, and so far as possible the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner ideal." Concerning Fe, they say, "Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people." In describing both Fi and Fe, they refer to emotions. They also contrast them by calling Fi "deep and passionate rather than extensive" and Fe "extensive rather than deep." It is our emotions that can be deep and passionate, not our ideals and moral values. They also refer to Fe as "establishing warm sympathy" and Fi as being "too overpowering to be expressed at all" and appearing "cold to the point of indifference." It is not ideals and values that can feel overpowering; it is emotions. As understood by both Myers and Myers, Fe and Fi are different ways of using and managing emotions. Fe's tend to feel emotion empathically, while Fi's tend to feel emotion from deep inside. Fe's tend to synchronize their emotions with each other, while Fi's tend to feel passionate about their ideals. Inasmuch as Fe or Fi do affect moral decision making, Fe's tend to be moved by empathy for others, and Fi's tend to be motivated by deeply-held moral values. But morality is not the sole domain of feeling, and it is not all that feeling concerns itself with.

Both the Feeling functions are rational, reasoning cognitive functions. Emotion is NOT cognition. To boil Feeling down to emotion shows a massive lack of understanding of the functions, IMO. It's pretty much insulting to Feelers also. What you've quoted from Gifts Differing has been taken out of context and interpreted to fit your understanding. In fact, some of what you say contradicts itself...

That is not to say that emotion does not have a greater role in influencing Feeling than Thinking. Emotions are signals of what is important to us - something like how hunger is a signal of a basic need to eat. Now, you can act on the signal without thinking and probably make some bad decisions, but if you stop to sort out what that signal means, then you'll probably make a better decision. Feelers pay attention to emotions because of the valuable insight they provide, but the emotion itself is not the reasoning process. Thinkers, in contrast, may pay less attention to emotion as it does not aid their preferred judgment process (it may even hinder it), which is why they sometimes seem disconnected from their own emotions; even if they have & feel them & manage them well, they often don't seem "in touch" with them the way Feelers do. Sometimes you have Feelers who seem much more rational than Thinkers, because they actually manage their emotions better.

I mean, really, do you think feelers just wallow in emotion all the time & act on it like an animal does instinct, without any reasoning? I, an INFP, spend most of my time THINKING, because that is what cognition is - THOUGHT PROCESSES.

 

[Charmed Justice]

Taken together, your scores indicate that you are an INFJ. There was either some slight conflict between related scores, or some of your scores were insufficient to fully confirm your preferences. Check below for details. Here are your more detailed results, preference by preference.

Introversion: 38 / 13
Extraversion: 5 / 13

Intuition: 51 / 15
Sensing: 6 / 15

Thinking: 11 / 11
Feeling: 32 / 11

Perceiving: 14 / 16
Judging: 36 / 16

Dominant Judger: 14 / 11
Dominant Perceiver: 24 / 11

Introverted Sensing: 17 / 6
Extraverted Sensing: 8 / 6

Introverted Intuition: 11 / 5
Extraverted Intuition: 9 / 5

Introverted Thinking: 12 / 5
Extraverted Thinking: 6 / 5

Introverted Feeling: 14 / 11
Extraverted Feeling: 21 / 11


Opposing preferences are paired together. The numeric scores give the raw score divided by the number of questions answered for each pair. The preferences you scored higher on are in boldface, and the preferences matching the type you scored as are underlined. Green bars indicate preferences in alignment with your estimated type. Red bars indicate non-preferences that do not match your estimated type. Blue bars indicate a conflict between your preferences and your estimated type. The length of each bar represents the relative strength of each preference.
--------------------

INFJ on the first and second taking. I was blue barred on Ni vs. Ne and Si vs. Se on the first go round. The second time I omitted questions that didn't resonate. There's no denying that my Si stronger than my Se, so I expected that.

 

[cfs1992]

Taken together, your scores indicate that you are an ENFP. There was either some slight conflict between related scores, or some of your scores were insufficient to fully confirm your preferences. Check below for details. Here are your more detailed results, preference by preference.
Introversion: 18 / 13
Extraversion: 35 / 13

Intuition: 57 / 17
Sensing: 11 / 17

Thinking: 6 / 19
Feeling: 64 / 19

Perceiving: 39 / 16
Judging: 19 / 16

Dominant Judger: 19 / 10
Dominant Perceiver: 19 / 10

Introverted Sensing: 18 / 6
Extraverted Sensing: 7 / 6

Introverted Intuition: 4 / 5
Extraverted Intuition: 17 / 5

Introverted Thinking: 12 / 5
Extraverted Thinking: 8 / 5

Introverted Feeling: 23 / 10
Extraverted Feeling: 17 / 10

 

[fduniho]

Your whole paragraph about ethics and reason above is still based on your belief that feeling is an emotional irrational process. I don't see how saying ethics is based on reason means it is outside the realm of feeling.

Okay, let me try to parse what you're saying here. First, I have not said that feeling is an irrational process. I have said that feeling is about emotions, and you are using the words "emotional" and "irrational" together as though they are related in meaning in your mind. There are two senses of rational and irrational we need to distinguish between. One is the Jungian sense of rational referring to judging functions and irrational referring to perceiving functions. In this sense, feeling is a rational function that grounds its decision making in emotions. But the Jungian sense of these words is not the everyday English sense of of these words. In English, not Jungian terminology, rational refers to the use of reason and logic, and irrational refers to the abandonment of reason and logic. Since you are taking emotions to be irrational in this sense, you are concluding that they cannot be rational in the Jungian sense, and so cannot be part of feeling, which is a rational function. But this is equivocation. The same word is being used with different meanings. Whether or not emotions are rational in the English sense has nothing to with whether they can be rational in a Jungian sense. I will also add that emotions are not necessarily irrational in the English sense. Emotion can be logical, such as I like her because she likes me, or I dislike her because she is such a sycophant. I think this kind of emotional judgment is more common than liking someone for treating you like dirt or disliking a nice, attractive person who genuinely likes you.

I don't know how to answer your question about my experience with Fi. And it is even harder when we haven't even agreed on a definition of Fi. I am not sure what you are asking me for.

Take your understanding of Fi, whatever that is, introspect on the times when you use it, and report what is going on or what you are experiencing when using Fi.

 

[fduniho]

In fact, some of what you say contradicts itself...

If I've said anything contradictory, please point it out.

 

[stalemate]

Okay, let me try to parse what you're saying here. First, I have not said that feeling is an irrational process. I have said that feeling is about emotions, and you are using the words "emotional" and "irrational" together as though they are related in meaning in your mind. .

I actually thought you were saying this. Here is how I got there. You are saying that ethics is about "reason" as your argument for it not being about feeling. Therefore you are separating reason from feeling as two different things. You have also said that feeling is about emotions. I understand "reason" to mean rational though, so I take it to mean that you are saying that any kind of ethics decision is not feeling because it is not rational thought.

Emotion can be logical, such as I like her because she likes me, or I dislike her because she is such a sycophant. I think this kind of emotional judgment is more common than liking someone for treating you like dirt or disliking a nice, attractive person who genuinely likes you.

Your example of emotion here makes me think we are arguing semantics. I don't think of "like" and "dislike" as emotions. To me emotions are things more like worried, afraid, happy, sad, etc. Like and dislike are the result of some kind of value judgment. Maybe we just have a terminology problem.

Take your understanding of Fi, whatever that is, introspect on the times when you use it, and report what is going on or what you are experiencing when using Fi.

This will seem like kind of a cop out I'm sure, but I have a really hard time observing the specifics of this going on within myself. I know it does but I have a hard time getting down to specifics and pinning it down.

I understand Fi to be more like this: Introverted Feeling

And I do feel like I get a gut reaction about how someone is or if they are a "good" or "bad" person (as defined by me in some nebulous way) quickly. I can't really nail down what is going on there though.