I don't believe the Fi user places more value on the self - I think this is a profound misunderstanding.
What if the Fi user's personal values revolve around group harmony or healing others - how would that look different from a Fe user's values?
right. just because Fi is introverted - self-directed - does not mean it is only self-focused.
Important point; yes, this is possible. Maybe pretty common?
i would imagine so, given the Fi dom/aux in my life. i think it's important to note that many NF Fi dom/aux/tert tend to consider helping humans in broad, giant philosophical terms like "peace" and "mercy", which is quite interesting in the way that your general Fi dom/aux goes about dealing with people - i think we tend to do it more individually - while NF Fe dom/aux are better at more tangible caring and spread that over a number of people. generally. i'm not attributing this to either Fe or Fi alone, but just in looking at people patterns. which simply says to me, if you're a Fi dom/aux and considering a Fe dom/aux, don't forget to look at their more tangible actions as a counterpart to your broad sweeping terms. i think this is where NF Fi people can accidentally mistake NF Fe people as not genuinely caring, and vice versa.
Your Good Samaritan example is a noble one, though. You could give a different example of an Fi-er who goes against 'Fe Norms' and has quite a horrific value system -- Fi wouldn't look quite as honorable or selfless in that light - but again it would be that Fi-'ers individualized conscience.
well yes, and certainly Fe gets a bad rap too sometimes... though given the recent tone that's been picked up along a few posts, i very much appreciated this example, and it's positive to see how Fi can be selfless in being selfish. i would appreciate a counterexample for Fe as well, if anyone can think of one. maybe like a social worker who uses all her contacts to make a better life for many children, working one child at a time. she's not always focused on the child's inner being, but she works to create the external conditions necessary for that child to be able to flourish. and through being selfless, she is personally satisfied. there is no mutual exclusion between selfless and selfish. they can go hand in hand, for better or for worse.
of course, not to godwin, but hitler was the extreme example - regardless of what type he was or what functions he used - of selflessness gone wrong. he thought he was creating a better world for everyone, but he was really just perpetuating his own little vision of what things should be. i think Fi gone wrong and Fe gone wrong both meet at this same place of enforcing something harmful on everyone, including yourself, because you think it's right. it's like a circle...
(apologies for the shitty arrows, and values/direction is fairly exchangeable. i think there's something more active about Fe, though)
it's the inevitable downfall of "evil" or the "bad guys" that we see in movies, because that vicious cycle necessarily contradicts itself. at a certain point, what's ideal for the evil individual and what's ideal for the evil group doesn't mesh anymore, and the group necessarily self-destructs, thereby weakening each individual's power. if you read harry potter you watch it really obviously with the death eaters, and peter pettigrew in particular, who falls into the sad trap of thinking that obeying moldy voldy is going to give him lasting personal security and power. and yet ultimately, he loses any power to achieve what is good for himself
or the group as a whole.
so, for the counterexample, how about a small group of people bonding together to fight something that's going wrong in the greater scheme? the order of the phoenix, lol. or a government legislating to enforce punishment for individual hate crimes.
that would seem to be Fe-Fi synergy. when you work towards some kind of change, and you realize that it has to happen both on group and individual levels. speak only to the group and everyone will go home and revert to what they were doing within a few days. speak only to the individual and there will be no drive to change things at the group level. i think that's how most social movements in the US - and probably in the globe - have tended to work. you have to put the two drives together.
(But disagree that Fe is wholly about norms. If that's the case, I might have to rethink my Fe-ness.
Just as I'd imagine Fi is much vaster than 'individual conscience' and has other components to it.)
yeah, absolutely. and it's hard to know to what extent they overlap... if Fe is a parallel process to Te, in the way i experience Te, then it's about finding something good that works in the real world, not about norms. it's about checking with your environment to ensure you're going to end up with something that works. sure, there is an ideal way to do it, and that should be taken into consideration, but there are a lot of other ways that are good, too, and that will be more practical. yes?
This is where any discussion gets muddy because some of my Fi values ARE about group harmony, caring about other people, helping others etc.
right. i actually probably care about what people think
too much, and on top of that one of my core values is to try not to harm anyone. it's a bizarre selfless kind of selfishness, because i'm personally invested in others. so, while obviously i fail at that sometimes and get caught up in my own stuff, it's like what i was saying before about Fi being self-directed but not self-focused. while it sounds like Fe takes a better neutral/outsider perspective, it can also be focused on making oneself the center of attention all the time, should one feel like it. both perspectives have ample opportunity to used either to the detriment or the benefit of others - and i think it'd be a fallacy to try to say that one must sacrifice themself for the group, or vice versa - i think there's a balance to strike. and you can come at that from either primarily Fi or primarily Fe, but somewhere they do meet and overlap.
And sometimes the group's values are about honoring the individual as well as they can. It can be a group value to respect individual differences and make room for them (such as the theory behind the Declaration of Independence and various US founding documents claiming to support diversity and respect the rights of individuals).
Unfortunately, I blame reality for the friction between group and individual. There's no way to avoid conflict due to the differing scopes, and the only hope that seems to remain sometimes is just striking balance. The group must honor the individuals and the individuals must honor the group if community means to be preserved.
Metaphorically, if the body ignores the needs of the individual cells within itself, the body will soon collapse when enough of those cells fail; but the cells that ignore the needs of the whole body in pursuit of their own growth end up being cancerous and kill themselves when the body eventually fails.
good points. i like the body example, and the declaration.
I guess the ultimate point is, I'd rather be the one to articulate my emotional state than someone else trying to "help" me address and articulate it for me. Oftentimes trying to articulate an emotional state can be premature, because I need time to very specifically pinpoint what I'm feeling and where that feeling is coming from, and whether it is going to resurge.
hehe hurricane affably
seriously though, i totally get this, how it could be intrusive and annoying... i think what i, and possibly others, pick up on, is undertones... certain words or phrases, certain types of diction, etc (or body language IRL) - that lead me to the impression that someone is feeling something. and telling you that i sense that isn't meant to be pinning you down, i think usually it's even just trying to be aware of the other person and understanding their points that might not be conveyed in exact words, but in the
way they word things. it's like the questions fidelia tends to ask, it's like checking in with you to see if what i understand is right. i think it messes up more often online because there are less clues, and obviously there's less social pressure - we can just be like HEY UR ANGRY LOLRZ without much lasting consequence - but IRL personally i'm pretty good with picking up someone's "tone" and running with it, which has really helped me in previous jobs - my (otherwise rather grouchy) boss would occasionally complement me on my reading of people, and it was because i tried so hard to feel out where they were at, so to speak. it wasn't to box them in; it was to show respect and interest, really. and to not misunderstand them and accidentally hurt them, because if they're in a good mood then i can use different, more direct language, and move faster in my work, while if someone is feeling sad or angry i can change how i act and speak to try to accommodate that emotion and make things more on par with their psychological state... and no offense, but i'd like to know if i should start taking a few precautions for a storm or not... being from the carolina coast, i know it can get a little rough!
i appreciate and completely agree with your points, they're important. it was a well-worded and informative broadcast.
]
lol. i think i'm finally beginning to reconcile the concepts of "good" and "evil". i have trouble seeing them as black-and-white moral commands, but i could begin to grasp them in the sense of what is ultimately healing and what is ultimately harmful.
