What would the world do without Fe?

[527468]

Pot would have to be legalized.

 

[uumlau]

The events of childhood shape us greatly, and what we experience can either deter or encourage the development of certain functions. I read an article in one of the monthly newsletters for Psychological Type where a coach was discussing people who went through unusual childhoods. For example, those who were raised in emotionally or physically abusive homes, alcoholic homes, drug addict homes etc. would have functions highly developed, that could/would be out of the expected norm, since the functional development occurred as a coping mechanism to "surive." This is why so many people don't fit into a perfect MBTI box. The functions simply do not line up, and they know it. But then as InsatiableCuriosity once posted from the MBTI practitioner's handbook, Not everyone is a type.

I would concur with this synopsis.

By the way, for the 3856th time, the FEELING function is not to be confused with physiological emotions or being "emo." I am going to print up T-shirts for all the forum members:

FEELING isn't emo!

But is emo feeling?

 

[uumlau]

I'm not sure. The closer I feel to someone, the more I might let them into my world, and the more open I will be w/ regards to various sides of my personality. If I don't feel as close to someone, they won't see as much. It doesn't really have to do with my not trusting them as an individual, sometimes it has more to do with my not sensing that the Relationship itself is mutually beneficial and healthy for both, and that we'll both gain something out of it and grow together. I may just not desire that level of closeness with the person - simple as that. Doesn't necessarily equate to my 'distrusting' them.

I think this is very enlightening. So it's more about your "sensing" where the "relationship" is ... the degree of the connection?

What does that "sensing" feel like to you? Does it feel objective or analytical? Does it feel more subjective, kind of like an estimate? Or is it simply an awareness that defies description?

(and btw, I never meant to imply that Fe 'started from a position of distrust'. I merely answered Peacebaby's inquiry w/ regards to myself. It may have been postulated after the fact, though. And, as should be obvious based on my previous posts, I'm not saying 'this is Fe', or the like. This is me.)

I think that all anyone can say is, "this is me," when talking about their psychological tendencies. We talk in terms of functions, because, well, that's the topic, but that doesn't imply causality. At most, I'm looking for tendencies, patterns, correlations. Figuring out which aspects represent which function is, as this thread demonstrates, fairly difficult.

 

[onemoretime]

But is emo feeling?

No, just terrible music.

 

[Qre:us]

I start people off with the benefit of the doubt. I'm curious about them and I will assume, as I don't know them, that they have their reasons for doing what they do. I will do recon however. As much as they will allow me to do. I'll read them, observe them, question why they do things, but unless they do something that violates my trust, and even *then*, I won't judge.

I relate to all that, and my preference for Fe > Fi, by a long shot.

Although I had influence from my INFP mother - I knew I truly grew into my "Fe"-preference, which was highly influential, from 18-24yrs, Uni, living away from parents for the first time, and all the best friends I lived with, InFJ, ESFJ, ENFJ [and a whack ESFP]. I was Fe-ed out, in a good way. It made me much more gregarious....NeFe. And more aware of others beyond self. I liked this development of me.

I really do think I have the least easy access to my Fi preference, as for a while, I have been questioning how one even answers, "What do I want?" [weirdly, that question is very absurd to me, and I know it's absurd that I find it absurd ]

I'm optimistic by nature (ENP). I am quite open to people, new people.

A peculiar thing about me, as a lot of my closest friends have commented, the more someone gets to know me, the more they realize exactly how truly distant I am.

So, the closer the other gets, the more distant I seem [I'm still figuring this one out, for my own self-reflection ].

While those that are starting to know me, it's unbounded openness.

I believe in no-holds barred, open curiosity fest, we-mean-each-other-no-harm interaction when I socialize with another. Esp. 1 on 1. And, even in groups. Just flow. No caution. No guard. Don't hinder the Ne, maaan.

Granted, for me, the question of "trust" doesn't even really come into play, esp. as others seem to be perceiving it (F-dom/aux majority).

Trust would mean that there has already been some exchange of tangible vulnerability/some feeling between the two.

And, for that yeah, maybe because I'm not F-dom or Aux, I don't really ever trust with my "heart", until it's a slow, solid build.

It sometimes takes me a while to get a clue into my own feelings, about what I want, how I truly, deeply feel. Let alone keeping it from others. I need to get a clue into it, first, myself.

However, I fully trust with an open mind, when I approach someone.

Until .....I vibe that something is off about them, something is not matching up with what has been presented, then...

...my mind is guarded, more Ti-focused, calculating, towards them.

I'll judge once I'm failry certain I've got their number. Once all puzzle pieces fall into place. *Then* I feel justified in judging them, as I know the judgement will be way more nuanced and infused with understanding of who they are, which is vital for me.

Exactly. I'm also pretty quick in picking out characters. Add to that, I don't like closing a door for potential outlet of curiosity [a person] just because....

It can also happen that they suddenly demonstrate a behavior that I find offensive. Once I figure out *why* they do it, I'll make the decision to keep them in my life and if so, in what capacity. The level of trust they get, at that point gets refined and cemented.

Yup.

But, unlike you, my Fe-preference is def greater than my Fi-preference.

And, like you (possibly on the "E"), I am ENP.

The only thing is, as I said earlier, you and I would understand this word "trust" differently, intrinsically, I believe.

I come from a position of trust, with my mind.......and, I can be quite warm, open and engaging to those I meet initially.

Until...you give me a reason to , then,

 

[Glycerine]

I got a new possibility. It's probably not trust vs. mistrust. I think it's levels of formality vs. familiarity (not Fe vs. Fi but more P vs. J).

 

[Zarathustra]

Reading this thread is making me start to feel like Jag...

 

[skylights]

How, or why, we trust is not the result of a single jungian function. I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.

why is it so hard for you to admit that people are impacted by their cognitive functioning?

i didn't say all trust is based off Fe or Fi. i'm saying the way in which and the reasons why we trust seems to be impacted by it.

i know people with Fe higher in their function order that are way more trusting, and people with Fi who are way less trusting. i think it has a lot to do with environment that you're raised in too. in my post, i also wrote that i think Fe entails a better awareness of trust. can't we all agree at the very least that Fi is slightly more oblivious?

why is it that any time anyone attempts to ascribe something to Fe or Fi it's automatically shot down? we do it with all the other functions. if we can ascribe depth to Ni and breadth to Ne why can't we do the same for Fi and Fe?

i'm not boxing anyone in, i'm not making definite universal statements, i'm not launching the spanish inquisition against "Fe users who don't trust."

i'm attempting to discuss typology, god forbid.

 

[Zarathustra]

Although, I also completely agree with this sentiment.

Rock on ENFP!

 

[Jaguar]

why is it so hard for you to admit that people are impacted by their cognitive functioning?

i didn't say all trust is based off Fe or Fi. i'm saying the way in which and the reasons why we trust seems to be impacted by it.

i know people with Fe higher in their function order that are way more trusting, and people with Fi who are way less trusting. i think it has a lot to do with environment that you're raised in too.

why is it that any time anyone attempts to ascribe something to Fe or Fi it's automatically shot down? we do it with all the other functions. if we can ascribe depth to Ni and breadth to Ne why can't we do the same for Fe and Fi?

i'm not boxing anyone in, i'm not making definite universal statements, i'm not launching the spanish inquisition against "Fe users who don't trust."

i'm attempting to discuss typology, god forbid.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, two days in row. If you want to rant like that, do it on someone who will put up with it.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm gunna try some inductive reasoning here:

1. lightly skimming this thread made me start to feel like Jag...
2. yet i tend to agree with what skylight said about Jag's constant (dis)missives...
3. perhaps Jag tends to feel the way he does because he's often just skimming threads...?

 

[skylights]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, two days in row. If you want to rant like that, do it on someone who will put up with it. I am not that person.

1. you can reject however much of that post you please, but you implied in response to my post that i was saying trust depended on Fi or Fe. sounds like you were putting words in my mouth. i'm attempting to clarify and expressing my frustration.

2. if you don't want to hear me responding to you, then don't respond to me. my emotional expression may be more intense than what you prefer, but i'm not acting inappropriately, as far as i understand.


edit - also note that in the beginning of my post i said this could be wrong and Fe-users let me know if it is.

 

[Glycerine]

I can see both sides... it's hard to side with just one.

 

[Zarathustra]

I can see both sides... it's hard to side with just one.

Well, that's obviously cuz you're an Fe-user.

 

[Zarathustra]

1. you can reject however much of that post you please, but you implied in response to my post that i was saying trust depended on Fi or Fe. sounds like you were putting words in my mouth. i'm attempting to clarify and expressing my frustration.

2. if you don't want to hear me responding to you, then don't respond to me. my emotional expression may be more intense than what you prefer, but i'm not acting inappropriately, as far as i understand.

You're not.

:footballreferee:

 

[Glycerine]

You...you...poooo butt.... you....are.... uhhh.... not.... nice..... yeah... that's.... right... I.... called.... you.... poo butt.... take that.... :steam:

 

[onemoretime]

why is it so hard for you to admit that people are impacted by their cognitive functioning?

i didn't say all trust is based off Fe or Fi. i'm saying the way in which and the reasons why we trust seems to be impacted by it.

i know people with Fe higher in their function order that are way more trusting, and people with Fi who are way less trusting. i think it has a lot to do with environment that you're raised in too. in my post, i also wrote that i think Fe entails a better awareness of trust. can't we all agree at the very least that Fi is slightly more oblivious?

why is it that any time anyone attempts to ascribe something to Fe or Fi it's automatically shot down? we do it with all the other functions. if we can ascribe depth to Ni and breadth to Ne why can't we do the same for Fi and Fe?

i'm not boxing anyone in, i'm not making definite universal statements, i'm not launching the spanish inquisition against "Fe users who don't trust."

i'm attempting to discuss typology, god forbid.

The problem is that no one can really agree on what exactly Fi or Fe is. We all agree that some of us have one, and others have the other. Meanwhile, we have no basis with which to make the distinction.

What if Fi/Fe were entirely determinative by life experience, and not something innate? Wouldn't that change the conversation entirely?

 

[Zarathustra]

You...you...poooo butt.... you....are.... uhhh.... not.... nice..... yeah... that's.... right... I.... called.... you.... poo butt.... take that.... :steam:

you're adorable...

 

[cascadeco]

*Sigh* A brief interlude folks, and then you can all carry on!!!

I think this is very enlightening. So it's more about your "sensing" where the "relationship" is ... the degree of the connection?

What does that "sensing" feel like to you? Does it feel objective or analytical? Does it feel more subjective, kind of like an estimate? Or is it simply an awareness that defies description?

Yes, degree of connection is important to me - on *both* sides. Again, the relationship being beneficial for BOTH parties is pretty critical to me; if I sense any imbalance, or one person thinking the nature of the relationship is one way and the other that it's another way, then I become intensely uncomfortable. I often post on here in relationship/friendship type threads that 'both people being on the same page' is incredibly important to me. To give you a specific example, it can be a reason I as a general rule am unable to really hold platonic male friendships, and also wouldn't really open up with a guy in the same way I do with women, because I fear that will cause the nature of the relationship to shift -- if I sense even remotely that the guy would prefer something more than I do, when I have no interest whatsoever in him, I can't just tralala my way through it, not caring that he'd prefer more and myself being cool with that mismatched dynamic/intention/motivation. I DO care. (and of course the roles could shift as well)

What does the 'sensing' feel like? I'm not entirely sure! haha. Perhaps what I wrote gives you an idea. Also, I myself already have a general idea of the types of relationships I desire and need, and the types I don't really want; and, based on what I learn of the other person, I then have an idea if our needs/desires/priorities/values line up, or if they don't, in the end.

-----

And I'm signing off for the night! Carry on! lol.

 

[proteanmix]

why is it so hard for you to admit that people are impacted by their cognitive functioning?

This is what I think the problem is. I admit this could be totally contained to me, but this is what I think.

Take the statement "Fe starts from a position of distrust." I automatically have this word map unfold in my mind. I hear the word "distrust" and this is what appears. A lack of faith or belief in something.

Contrast this to "Fi starts from a position of trust." Same thing appears in my mind. Belief in something as true, trustworthy.

I'm not joking, those are literally the images and associations that pop into my mind.

Do you see how it's already starting off on the wrong foot? There is no neutrality in descriptions. It's the same thing when people say "Fi is authentic." You're automatically setting up an oppositional force. If one thing is real then the other is fake. If one is, the other isn't. Do I believe that is the case? No, I don't. But many people do. And because it's hard to break out of either/or thinking. I fall into it too...I'm not absolving myself.

why is it that any time anyone attempts to ascribe something to Fe or Fi it's automatically shot down? we do it with all the other functions. if we can ascribe depth to Ni and breadth to Ne why can't we do the same for Fi and Fe?

I asked people to splice the Fe and Fi out of the mission statement I posted earlier. No one has tried. In my very first post in this thread I asked these questions. I said this before all the drama and no one responded to it.

So then you have it (if "it" is Fe...*shrug*) at work on different levels, not just at professionally, but casually as well between family, friends, and SOs. It's easier to point out Fe at work in those detached situations that you can exit after a you put in your eight hours. I think people believe Fe loses steam here, but I don't see that happening at all.

I've noticed the replies in this thread have tended to steer towards "society" and "civilization" and not examining Fe within the context of intimate relationships, one-on-one relationships, between friends and family. Does Fe just go poof and disappear like a vapor or something? Can people conceive of Fe working on more intimate levels because there is a serious lack of discussion about it. I can't really say it's Fe anymore myself because when I talk to other people about intimacy and the quality of their personal relationships and when I think about what I want for myself, I lose the distinction myself...it's all like "yeah, I've feel that too" and it doesn't matter what functions the other person is using. But it's not unnatural to me and it doesn't feel like I've got to do some huge cognitive switch to go into that mode either. I've always felt that I have at least two sets of tracks running, one public and one private and jumping between the two is something that's relatively easy so I've never really understood what people are saying about inauthenticity because they're both me and it's not disconcerting or odd to go between them...

I think the problem you're running into is you're trying to break processes down into places they can't go. They're inadequate to cover this. They don't stretch that far. It's not being resistant to categorizing functions, it's about understanding they have reached the end of their rope and outlived their usefulness. It's like a woman trying to put her ass into jeans that will not fit. Give it up, it's not happening! Once things are this granular (trust, love, intimacy, feeling understood, etc.) the distinctions are lost.