Fe & Fi
I started this thread in light of the obscurity of people's (including my own) understanding of these two functions.
Perhaps anyone well versed in socionics would like to explain the functions and misconceptions in detail, and explain how they manifest themselves in different situations (with examples). I think this would be of great benefit to a lot of people on here.
That's a case where I think that Jung's original descriptions remain useful - if you read them trying to understand the differences between Fe and Fi, not as "ultimate" descriptions of Fe or Fi types' behavior, which they are not. His descriptions, in the details, reflect the social position of women 100 years ago.
As for examples, I've invented this one which so far seems to work:
Fe>Fi: "sure he's an asshole, I wouldn't trust him with anything, but he's still fun to have a chat with, about nothing, over a beer"!
Fi>Fe: "why should I want to have a chat and a beer with an asshole, even if he's 'fun'?"
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Wait, isn't the second one how everybody in essence deals with people? You try to avoid those you don't like. And the first one is what happens when you can't avoid those you don't like, you engage them in chats over nothing, meaningless conversation. Or in other words, the first one doesn't contradict the second one. You can still not want to chat with another person because you consider them an asshole and consider the person fun to chat with.That's a case where I think that Jung's original descriptions remain useful - if you read them trying to understand the differences between Fe and Fi, not as "ultimate" descriptions of Fe or Fi types' behavior, which they are not. His descriptions, in the details, reflect the social position of women 100 years ago.
As for examples, I've invented this one which so far seems to work:
Fe>Fi: "sure he's an asshole, I wouldn't trust him with anything, but he's still fun to have a chat with, about nothing, over a beer
Fi>Fe: "why should I want to have a chat and a beer with an asshole, even if he's 'fun'
.
okay, i agree that these are good. my issue would be with this -- i talked to an ESE ex of mine who has never really forgiven his father for basically being a not-very-decent father. he says his father got in contact with his brother and that now he fears his father will get in touch with him eventually, etc etc etc. i ask him what he thinks he'll do if this happens. "i'll likely slam the door in his face," is his reply. i could almost see this as being interpreted as aThat's a case where I think that Jung's original descriptions remain useful - if you read them trying to understand the differences between Fe and Fi, not as "ultimate" descriptions of Fe or Fi types' behavior, which they are not. His descriptions, in the details, reflect the social position of women 100 years ago.
As for examples, I've invented this one which so far seems to work:
Fe>Fi: "sure he's an asshole, I wouldn't trust him with anything, but he's still fun to have a chat with, about nothing, over a beer
Fi>Fe: "why should I want to have a chat and a beer with an asshole, even if he's 'fun'response (e.g. "why would i want to see this asshole?") if i sat here and really tried to stretch the example well past its use. how would you make the difference in this case? i think i technically see the reasoning (father = source of negative emotions = someone who you slam the door on) but i couldn't really tell you why this is or how his response was entirely "non-Fi" and "very Fe" other than blocking out "issues" by just not thinking about them and removing them from your life/presence. i may have answered my own question there.
to use diana's example of someone you want to talk about real issues with, to some degree that is there but the general idea with this person is to attempt to distract me from real issues and keep conversation "lighthearted" although i do think he has his own positions on morals. not sure how seriously he takes them. at any rate, i deduce Fe>Fi.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
As I said to Diana recently,
If I properly understood Fe + Fi when I first started socionics, there is no way I would have typed myself LII. The more I learn about Fi, the more I realize it is something I prefer so much more than Fe. So, just as a warning to people - it can take a while to fully understand this area. Not necessarily theoretically, but in terms of how it plays out in your life, and how you realize your preference for one over the other.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I would advise people that it is not choosing Fi OR Fe, just which one you prefer, and need first, for the other to develop. For example, I know I need Fi's personal connection and 'intimacy' first before I can really get into a good, Fe booming atmosphere. Apparently merry types need it the other way around?
Or is that not accurate.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
me: definitely Fe>Fi.
i usually try to figure out what the conditions have to be for me to tolerate someone i don't like. in the right situation, you can get along with anybody.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I love situations where there are people I dislike so I can quarrel with them and make a huge big argument, even better if it ends up with fist fighting
I don't see why anybody should get along with people they dislike, nor I see why they should avoid them.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Fe is about more than emotional expression, obviously, but I think using it as an example can demonstrate an aspect of the difference between Fe and Fi. I'll speak from the perspective of Ti and Te. The following is just my preliminary thoughts on this matter. I'm not sure if it applies equally to irrational dual pairs.
a Ti type thinks: "Just saying how you see your relationship with me doesn't tell me how you're feeling right now. How can I know if you really feel a certain way unless you show me?"
a Te type thinks: "I don't care what kind of emotions you display because those can be insincere or may not be a clear representation of our overall relationship. I need to know how you see your relationship with me."
or something like that
i would simply not bother with the asshole, probably not even call him an asshole out loud. no parade. ever.
a former girl friend's behavior used to irritate me: she'd complain nonstop about some person (one after another) being "an asshole," but then still engage them in what seemed like flirty conversation. (i'm thinking this is the basis for the distinction being made rather than something like engaging co-workers in smalltalk for the sake of stable work relations,etc). her behavior always struck me as phony. listening to her complain was a waste of time, so i ignored her. she'd follow me, make me take my headphones off, etc. i would always say one thing: the solution is simple: if you don't like him, don't talk to him. in my case, i have certainly been in unhealthy relationships, and have conversed with many assholes, but have seldom faked liking a person for the sake of pleasantry.
it seems Fi>Fe ?
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Not necessarily. For example, for me, when I do something like that, it's a case of. I fake it because it's in my best interest in the long run.
I feel a need to inform you that this really, really doesn't work in my case. Might work for ego block Fe.That's a case where I think that Jung's original descriptions remain useful - if you read them trying to understand the differences between Fe and Fi, not as "ultimate" descriptions of Fe or Fi types' behavior, which they are not. His descriptions, in the details, reflect the social position of women 100 years ago.
As for examples, I've invented this one which so far seems to work:
Fe>Fi: "sure he's an asshole, I wouldn't trust him with anything, but he's still fun to have a chat with, about nothing, over a beer Smile "!
Fi>Fe: "why should I want to have a chat and a beer with an asshole, even if he's 'fun' Confused ?"
Honestly, I don't mind socializing with assholes, as long as they're manageable and as long as I know what to expect from them and can keep my distance.
keep in mind it's spoken from a Fi > Fe perspectiveto me the first is like the person evaluates the other person's Je from an F perspective, so it's Fi, but sort of ignores it over F Je with him or her, which could mean Fe valued.Fe>Fi: "sure he's an asshole, I wouldn't trust him with anything, but he's still fun to have a chat with, about nothing, over a beer
Fi>Fe: "why should I want to have a chat and a beer with an asshole, even if he's 'fun'
second seems to value Fi.
stop with the Je and Ji!
Fe>Fi for me. Fe must come first. I think that's why I'm sometimes put off by my INFj mom. She tends to want to jump right into sharing and discussing and trying to have that connection without the playfulness or fun. My dad provides the fun. Taken together, I love my parents.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Would any of the Ti or Te types here like to help me revise this?
Intriguing that people actually think this way at all. Isn't the answer obvious? Don't you just know? If the relationship is significant at all, I would expect myself to know the answer. If I couldn't figure it out on my own, something would be seriously wrong or screwed up. I mean, unless it was an unorthodox situation or something.i'm not sure if i'm a T type but it sounds correct.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Why?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
dunno...does it really need revision? i think you're on to something. i'd have to say i look for consistency between what people say, what they do, and how they express themselves. unrelenting inconsistency can generate distrust.Would any of the Ti or Te types here like to help me revise this?
actually the Ti one is better than the Te one. a Te type would prefer words over actions/emotions? how can the person develop trust then?
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Would any of the Ti or Te types here like to help me revise this?
I relate to that. I am now used to just asking people straight up that question basically - I need to know, so, please tell me. It bothered one Fe type, who said "should you know that by now"? I was like, no, I don't. My response had to do with the fact that things change over time, and (static Te) how was I to know, or guess, what things are like now? Her response still doesn't say anything. It was emotional, but not very clear and concise.
It was all over the place, and just a simple yes or no Fi sort of answer would have been much more appreciated.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
You know based on the overall behavior (not to be confused with emotional expression) of the person. Some people's words and promises are hollow. Some people's aren't. This is why trustworthiness is the most important thing to me in a partner/potential partner. Without that, there's absolutely nothing else that matters.
I think you're right to stress the difference is something turning on relationships. I don't think Expat's example gets at this, but could still be compatible. Seems like there is more emphasis on something like coalescence/matching with values, but I might be wrong. I don't see Fe as something relating to relationships in essence.
btw thank you mm for your recent explanation of Fe, I think I understand it much better now.
Everybody needs the same in a relationship in order to develop truest: words, actions and emotions, all in equal parts. Distinctions made on functional preferences in this matter are just silly ways of avoiding boredom.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The ESFps I've known have always had their own morals about them. They're not centred around their morals in the same way an ISFj might be (assuming I understand ISFjs correctly here.. I can imagine a slew of posts telling me I'm wrong now) but it doesn't mean they can't be trusted or anything like that. I think you're putting too much weight on J/P differences here; flexibility doesn't mean constant change.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
This is the part wear Fi-dual seeking really conincides with E6. The whole idea of constant reinsurance that the partner still loves them is a 6 scepticism thing. It could also be a 1 thing. I can't remember which variant it is, but one of them seems like a 6 in their possession of and obsession with keeping their partner.You know based on the overall behavior (not to be confused with emotional expression) of the person. Some people's words and promises are hollow. Some people's aren't. This is why trustworthiness is the most important thing to me in a partner/potential partner. Without that, there's absolutely nothing else that matters.
In essence, a Ti type: "so fuck me and show me you love me" and a Te type: "tell me that you love me". Fe (Ti) is about pure action, Fi (Te) is about words, and genuinity of those words.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
