the Fi bias

[Z Buck McFate]

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any comments about how Ne, Se or Te are more ‘shallow’ or inauthentic than Ni, Si or Ti- nor are there comments from Ni, Si, or Ti types going on and on about how they intuit/sense/think so much more deeply than Ne, Se or Te types (respectively, sticking to same N, S or T comparisons)- so why is this so common with Fe/Fi?

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

(I know this discussion is *kinda* going on in another thread, but I didn't want to further derail that thread.)

edit: also, I was hoping to steer clear of the empathy/sympathy debate, and focus on the E/I differences of deep/shallow vs. depth/breadth. I mean, no one ever refers to Ne as being shallow, I don't think there's any argument about it's 'breadth' being significant- so why is it so different for F?

 

[KDude]

I don't understand Fe enough to say it's shallow. I commented in that somatotype thread about INFJ earlier though, and I see their Fe as deep.. in that some could find a universal sort of spin on acceptable social behavior or wording that would transcend anything merely self-interested (like Fi could be, or SJ might). Fi types can be universal as well, and I think their causes are more worthwhile if they are in touch with things outside of their own interests. They won't always be that way though. In that case, they might be "genuine", but possibly not useful. So it's nothing to get offended about. Genuine is not necessarily good.

 

[Seymour]

Actually, I do hear complaints from people that Te is "too broad and shallow" compared to Ti. In particular, I have heard complaints from my Ti coworkers that the Te-oriented policies get in the way of fully understanding and optimizing for the specific situation. Or complaints about Te-preferring managers implementing policies without actually having an understanding of the existing situation and all the ramifications. Even the movie cliché of the ESTP troubleshooter who comes in and breaks all the rules to "get 'er done" reflects that. I also find the scheduling and marshaling resources aspect of Te also tend to ruffle feathers of those who prefer Ti a fair amount. Still, I would agree there is more more mutual respect between those who prefer Te and Ti.

Secondly, I don't personally think that Fe is inherently inauthentic or that those who prefer Fe don't genuinely care. I think Fi-doms tend to be obsessed with internal Feeling congruence, and therefore being "genuine" tends to be a major concern. Also, Fi values tend to be built up out of personal experience, so tend to be identified deeply with the self, which also tends to make one more defensive about them. Fe tends to be more concerned with mutuality and community... so from that perspective Fi can tend to come across as selfish and egocentric (and may well be, in many cases). I'm not sure bias is entirely one-sided.

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

What do you think?

 

[skylights]

i don't think Fe is any less deep.

i think Fe is very genuine for Fe users, just like Fi is very genuine for Fi users, and probably can seem odd to Fe users, just like Fe can sometimes seem baffling (as in, i'm impressed because i'm not as good at using it) to me.

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

it's not more genuine, it's more self-oriented. Fe is based off other people, it's more altruistic, in a way. i can't speak for everyone, but i don't exalt Fi - as a matter of fact it's kind of annoying socially sometimes, and i wish my Fe was better. i also think that while Fi seeks "deeper" connection, it's not a better connection. Fe users can connect very well with others and sometimes in a more meaningful way to others - even if Fi users connect in a way that is obviously meaningful to us.

one other thing - i've heard arguments that Ne is shallower than Ni. from INFJs, incidentally. and i would argue that Ne is not "deep" because that's not the point of Ne - Ne is looking for broadscale patterns and congruences, rather than following a single pattern very far. in the same way, i imagine, Fe seeks broadscale connection, while Fi seeks to go far in. hence why Fe users are generally so good at knowing what their position is in large groups / what large groups think of them - reading crowds, noticing people patterns, etc. Fi is much better at figuring out the nuances of a single person, be it someone else or myself.

 

[Southern Kross]

Yeah this is a bit of a problem, even if it is mostly unintentional insensitivity. I think its really because Fi doms don't really fully understand Fe (myself included). Some try to understand it by placing it in opposition to the positive attributes of Fi which results in Fe being assigned negative connotations.

I just wish there were better descriptions of Fe out there. Most encourage stereotype views or simple aren't 'Fi friendly'. Its even worse with the XNFJs, because Ni and Fe and the most incomprehensible functions to me. They turn everything I know and gauge the world on upside down. Its like trying to imagine a world where people walk on the ceiling.

 

[Udog]

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

[...]

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

Wow, this Fi/Fe depth/shallowness crap still goes on?

I think the issue is that F is the subjective function that most closely talks about how we relate to the cloudy gray area that is relating to other people and ourselves. Traits like "shallowness" and "genuine" then best appear to fall under the umbrella that is the Feeling function.

Ironically, since F is about personal perspective, people tend to lose perspective when they discuss it.

I've seen similar debates about Ti vs Te, where personal pride causes a bit of contention, but it still usually lacks the emotional attachment that the F axis receives.

Edit: What Seymour said.

 

[Kasper]

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

What do you think?

That. Fi and Fe are subjective and irrational, they're deeply personal. Subject matter that fits that criteria is often less likely to stop a person being defensive and look at an alternative pov if it lends even a sniff of offence to their preference. Basically Fi and Fe get butthurt.

 

[Thalassa]

Apparently you've missed the Fe bias where all Fi users are basically referred to as self-absorbed pretentious assholes.

Oh, also there's an INTP (Ti dom) who recently started a thread called "stupid Te" so you might want to peek around a little more.

 

[Quinlan]

Oh really I thought it was the S/N thing that was shallow/deep stuff.

 

[Thalassa]

I don't understand Fe enough to say it's shallow. I commented in that somatotype thread about INFJ earlier though, and I see their Fe as deep.. in that some could find a universal sort of spin on acceptable social behavior or wording that would transcend anything merely self-interested (like Fi could be, or SJ might). Fi types can be universal as well, and I think their causes are more worthwhile if they are in touch with things outside of their own interests. They won't always be that way though. In that case, they might be "genuine", but possibly not useful. So it's nothing to get offended about. Genuine is not necessarily good.

Yeah, I tried to point that out to proteanmix - that "genuine" can be inappropriate, immature, ridiculously over-reactive...I said that genuine wasn't always a good thing, and I never called Fe shallow. I actually was singing the praises of Fe throughout the thread.

But both types have their plusses and minuses. I sit and talk to an aux-Fe user pretty much ALL DAMN DAY LONG (this is an "S" as well!) and I don't think to myself "wow this person is so shallow."

People want to be butthurt about nothing, though. You can't stop them. You can't stop me either. Run after me as fast as you can, you can't catch me, I'm the ginger bread man...wait, what? where I am I? ...you can see how DONE I am with this topic.

 

[Kasper]

Oh really I thought it was the S/N thing that was shallow/deep stuff.

Sure but not Se v Si or Ne v Ni, at least nowhere near the Fi v Fe comments that seem to occur.

Jag put it well in another thread:

Jung gave a 1935 lecture to 200 doctors where he clearly stated the feeling function-regardless of attitude-has nothing to do with emotions. Nothing.
He defined emotions as physiological, something any type is capable of having, and emotions are not to be confused with the FEELING function as a mental process.

But people still insist on mixing Feeling functions with emotions and depth or breath of emotion. Which it just isn't. Therefore conversations that suggest one function has more ability to feel [insert any emotion here] will of course cause angst because the claim is ridiculous, insanely subjective and impossible to prove. Therefore: butthurt.

 

[onemoretime]

Yeah, I guess it's been about 4 months since the last time, right? Jersey Shore's even back on.

Llllllllleeeett's get ready to ruuuuumbllllllllllllllllllllllllle

 

[skylights]

additional ponderings --

just like Ni conclusions are very important to an individual's view of things, Fi conclusions are very important to my view of things. that means Fi ends up seeming rather self-contained and impenetrable, but that seems to be the nature of all introverted functions.

and just like the "stupid Te" thread, Ne and Fe can end up seeming like they don't have a deep rooting in things - because sometimes they don't. extraverted functions specialize in dealing with a lot of potentially-unfamiliar, uncontrolled information at once - like lots of random people, or lots of random ideas... and i think the proclivity to seem shallow becomes especially true when the extraverted function is not well balanced with an introverted function. i know if i let Ne fly without much Fi moderation, it gets scattered and kind of ignores morality - it really can become kind of shallow. so Fe when not anchored with Ni or Si probably can also seem more flightly or shallow to a Fi user, especially a Fi user not using much Ne or Se to understand the full situation.

also -- i don't know if F is like N like this, but i feel like Ni is more original than Ne. Ne would rather do variations on a theme, rather than come up with something new. it likes new things, but not really self-generated things. Fi, on the other hand, likes self-generated things. this all makes sense, Fi and Ni being introverted and Fe and Ne being extraverted. and so if Fe prefers variation on a theme like Ne, then again, it may seem more shallow than Fi, while Fi may seem more self-worshipping than Fe.

regardless of all of this my final point is Fi is great and Fe is great and the ideal would be to have both in grand quantities so any butthurt is silly.

 

[Glycerine]

The one thing I get frustrated with sometimes is how some people characterize Fe doms as an "overbearing social police that only care about social norms and appropriateness". I hate when people come off like that so I really do try not to be like that. Fe is much more than that. I strongly believe that I have a good understanding of Fi by considering what many XXFP users have said. Why is Fe hard to understand?

The way I understand Fi is that the user is centered around the individual so hence it usually values the uniqueness and individuality of him or herself and the others around him or herself. It's made up of the nuances of what the individual believes/values/thinks. Since Fi is so individually based and context based, it can be difficult to decipher what the person values even to that individual. Because of this, outsiders sometimes may be in for a surprise when someone encroaches on his or her values. With this individual-based view of the world, others may wrongfully deem the Fi user as selfish/ self absorbed when that might be the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Let's hope this thread ends right here.

No offense intended ZBuck for starting this thread, I know you are simply looking to understand. However, there are many, many threads on this site that critique each function from the opposite perspective, each accusing the other of a variety of "sins".

Let's all respect each other's reality instead, isn't that the nobler path? And the path that works best for us all, together?

 

[highlander]

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any comments about how Ne, Se or Te are more ‘shallow’ or inauthentic than Ni, Si or Ti- nor are there comments from Ni, Si, or Ti types going on and on about how they intuit/sense/think so much more deeply than Ne, Se or Te types (respectively, sticking to same N, S or T comparisons)- so why is this so common with Fe/Fi?

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

(I know this discussion is *kinda* going on in another thread, but I didn't want to further derail that thread.)

edit: also, I was hoping to steer clear of the empathy/sympathy debate, and focus on the E/I differences of deep/shallow vs. depth/breadth. I mean, no one ever refers to Ne as being shallow, I don't think there's any argument about it's 'breadth' being significant- so why is it so different for F?

Agree with others here.

IMO, all extroverted functions would generally seem to be associated with breadth and introverted ones with depth. It is probably human nature to be biased towards one's stronger functions (your way of seeing the world) and biased against the weaker ones (not your way). I think the biases might be more significant as it relates to opposing attitudes of the judging functions (T/F) vs. perceiving functions (S/N).

It's worse when people don't understand cognitive functions at all. As one example, I know several people who are dominant Te and though they have absolutely no idea they are doing it, are openly biased against and critical of others who aren't dominant Te. They think others think wrong. Those people aren't generally on forums like this though. So, another thing to potentially consider, if it seems like F is being singled out here, may be the makeup of the forum members and their respective preferences. I wouldn't imagine there is any less bias against Te than there is against Fe here.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think Fi-doms tend to be obsessed with internal Feeling congruence, and therefore being "genuine" tends to be a major concern. Also, Fi values tend to be built up out of personal experience, so tend to be identified deeply with the self, which also tends to make one more defensive about them. Fe tends to be more concerned with mutuality and community... so from that perspective Fi can tend across as selfish and egocentric (and may well be, in many cases). I'm not sure bias is entirely one-sided.

Well- about the one sidedness- it's just that there's a *strong* trend to focus on 'shallow' rather than 'wide', and to tag Fe as being 'fake' because of it. That's what I meant.

What you said makes sense, and does help make it understandable. I can *sort of* see this going on with me and Ti, I guess (for the reason you mentioned). And this is what I was looking for, to hear what it looked like from the Fi side of the fence. Thanks.

Even though there has been the one thread here (Stupid Te) I’ve seen, the need to Te-bash doesn’t seem as common. Or maybe it’s just more rational, so it isn’t as blatant.

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

And this^ explains why. I was thinking along those lines, I just wanted to see how others would phrase it.

Oh really I thought it was the S/N thing that was shallow/deep stuff.

I did bring up the S/N contention in the op. And it is one of the first things that occurred to me when I read a bunch of Fe-bashing comments.

 

[KDude]

The way I understand Fi is that the user is centered around the individual so hence it usually values the uniqueness and individuality of him or herself and the others around him or herself..

Nope Not necessarily. A person could very well be Christian or Buddhist or whatever and add that to their identity.. They could go about it in an individualistic way, but you would be able to understand it on some level. Not all Fi is a highly personal enigma.

 

[Glycerine]

Nope Not necessarily. A person could very well be Christian or Buddhist or whatever and add that to their identity.. They could go about it in an individualistic way, but you would be able to understand it on some level. Not all Fi is a highly personal enigma.

Thanks for your addition but I don't really see how your post refutes what I said. In my mind, we are pretty much saying the same thing. My mom is an INFP Christian but she still has a very individualist streak about letting others be who they want to be as long as her deepest values aren't violated.

I said "Since Fi is so individually based and context based, it can be difficult to decipher what the person values even to that individual."
Key phrase: can be.

 

[KDude]

For the most part I think you're probably right.. we are not that different. I guess I just wanted to clear that part up though. That there can be common social bonds, shared values, ways to interact, appreciate/criticize, etc..