My Thoughts on the IEs

[silverchris9]

I want to tell everyone what I think about the IEs, so that people can tell me what I have wrong and then explain to me why I'm wrong so that I can be right(er). If you accept that the "internal dyanmics of fields" type descriptions are the very very core of the functions, I'm trying to tease those descriptions out a little bit further, so that we can see how these core attributes lead out towards the generally observable traits. So, I'm not focusing so much on how each element manifests itself. Also, you'll find similarities between each IE description. In general, I tried to define the functions somewhat in terms of each other, so there's similar terms used for both intuitive functions and both sensory functions, etc.

In each IE description, I bolded one or two things that I think are the core of my thought. The rest is really just explanation. Feel free to just read the bolded parts.

My thoughts on the judging functions:

I think that Fe is about how to express emotional states. The second step in Fe is to use those expressions to affect other people's emotional states, first others, then even possibly your own. Fe considers emotional expression and change to be a good in itself. This is why Fe appears to be about LOUD HAPPY SHINY SHINY LOOK THERE OH WAIT I'M SO SAD CRY WITH ME, OH WAIT NOW I'M HAPPY, LOUD LOUD SHINY SHINY LOOK! Of course, Fe is really about freedom of emotional expression and allowing oneself to feel and share that feeling with others. When Fe comes across a sad person, they will modulate their own emotional state in such a way as to ultimately cause the other person to modulate their emotional state (although a person with sophisticated Fe understands that this is not always by doing something exciting and fun; sometimes it's by feeling the way the other person is feeling).

I think that Fi is about how emotional states work in general. The second step in Fi is to formulate actions that take advantage of this knowledge, not via direct emotional expression, but through things like empathy, appearance and social custom. This is why Fi appears to be about behavioral rules and decorum and stuffy delta-ness. Of course, it's really about behaving in ways that will benefit everybody and make people happy. When Fi comes across a sad person, they will use their understanding of emotional situations to empathize and hear the other person out with surprising accuracy.

I think that Te is about how things change in space. The second step in Te is to optimize this movement/change.. Te considers efficiency and doing things in the best way possible to be a good in itself (or at least the most intelligent way to go about things). This is why Te appears to be about boring boring boring, do useless stuff, boring boring. Of course, it's really about how to maximize what you've got, because that's simply the smartest way to go about things. When a Te person encounters a problem, they will take in the facts, and, without coloring them in any way, take a specific action. Te is all about the undifferentiated facts/information, which I think is yucky. I don't understand why Te has an inherently normative character (affecting external states in the best way), but that's the only way I can make it work in my head.

I think that Ti is about how external states work in general. The second step in Ti is to create model of action and then fit actions into that model, as in physics creating laws of motion and then analyzing motion according to these unchanging laws about how things always move. This is why Ti appears to be about hierarchies and rigidity and rules, rules, rules. Of course, it's really about understanding how things work, clearly, precisely, and above all systematically. When a Ti person encounters a problem, they will try to understand the data by fitting it into a system. From the system, a correct action can be deduced, but it always helps to organize the data beforehand, so that one can come to a better understanding of what exactly is going on. (I love Ti. It is crazy helpful. It makes confusing swamps of muck, just information muck, into organized understandable sets of information).

I'm much more confused about the perceiving functions

Ne is internal statics of objects. That means Ne is what is always true about an object internally. I think that this is analogous to Aristotelian essential properties. Like Aristotle, Ne collapses these properties in time. So, for Ne, a seed has the essential properties of the tree it will grow into. This collapsed-in-time aspect is how we get the "possibilities" part of Ne; since Ne sees the acorn as the tree, as having, in potential, all the attributes of the tree, since the essential properties of the seed are the same as the essential properties of the tree, it sees all sorts of different possibilities for the acorn, all the possibilities of the tree: it could have branches, its branches could be thick or thin, it could be flowering, it could be non-flowering, fruit might grow on it, fruit might not grow on it, etc. Ne's focus is not on the actual properties of the completed tree (that's Se). Ne is about the relationship of a thing to its Form.

My favorite analogy for Ni is the one I posted in the what is Ni thread that's up now. If you have a bunch of car parts, Ni is what looks at the parts, comes up with a hypothetical relationship between them, and from that hypothetical relationship, predicts what other parts will be needed. However, the thing about Ni is that I think that it is most notable for the training it gives in abstract thought. Abstraction is the go-to mode for Ni-egos, which is why Ni, especially for betas, is associated with mysticism and the like. Gamma Ni is blocked with Te and thereby tied down to earth. But Beta Ni is blocked with Fe, another thing that requires a degree of abstraction (insofar as we cannot directly know what another person is feeling; we have to guess based on a sort of experience). This results in a function that is very much not tied down. Most of the noticeable head-in-the-clouds qualities IEIs (including Socrates) have result from the fact that our fundamental reality-processing engine is abstract, moreso than how that function actually works. Ni is about how the relationship of a thing to its form changes based on other influences. It can get complicated and think about how multiple relationships of objects to Forms/Ideas change and how these changes affect one another.

Se is external statics of objects. This one is particularly difficult to describe because it is the way of viewing things most opposite to my own (Ni; and if you don't believe me, ask Jung), and I really don't understand it. But it seems to be a way of seeing things that also collapses things down in time (I understand I'm using the language of "collapse" in time because I see things fundamentally from a dynamic perspective), but focuses on the tree, not how the acorn can become the tree. Se looks at a tree and knows what a tree is like, not in terms of its relation to another thing or how it will change over time, but simply in terms of the complete picture given by the senses, especially sight(which is a much more complete picture than it seems like it would be).

Se is like a super-power to me. When I look at something I inevitably do something to it, mentally: I break it down into it's component parts, I look at what is around it and how that affects it, I think about what system its a part of and how that system might work, I think about myself thinking about the object, I think about that myself thinking about the object relates to socionics, etc. But I think that at least part of Se (if not the core of it), is the ability to look at external objects individually, with strong attachment to the sense perception itself rather than anything the mind does to the object. Se types have less of a gap between subject and object because they disregard the gap and just trust the sense perception at a fundamental level, even though they may later intellectually recognize a form of subject-object separation. Se begins with excellence in sense perception, the external relationship of the subject to the object.

Just like many of the properties associated with Ni come not from how the actual process of Ni works but from how the level of abstraction that Ni works at affects an Ni-ego, so many of the properties associated with Se egos doesn't come so much from the actual process of Se as from the consequences of viewing the external world so concretely and certainly. They can make sharp, quick decisions because they live in a fairly certain world, which only becomes uncertain when it comes to guessing how people feel (Fi-polr) or guessing how systems work (Ti-polr). They can act strongly and powerfully because they live 100% in the world rather than in their heads. I wouldn't describe this as "in the moment" because of some of the connotations (acting-based and otherwise) of that phrase, but I would describe it as "in the physical space", firmly grounded in the external objects of sense, etc.

But this description could be 100% off. I really don't know.

Si is external dynamics of fields. Si is how tangible relationships change. Si is how sense perceptions (i.e., the relationship between the subject and object) change based on other influences. How the relation of my eye to the painting changes when another splash of color is added. How the relationsh of my eye to the room changes when a light is turned on. How the relation of my sense-of-touch (sorry, harder to locate in a specific body part than taste or sight) to my back changes when I sit down in this chair. How the relation of my tongue to a sauce changes as I add paprika. That's what Si is concerned with. This leads fairly obviously to understanding how to create something aesthetically pleasing. It can get more complex and consider how several different objects change in relation to several different subjects.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't think Te is facts or 'business logic.' Well business logic yes, "facts" no. That's a poor description. I think Te is simply how outside systems have a relationship with each other, so in that sense, Te-egos tend to just be business-savvy in a way I could never be, not based on raw intelligence or because they're more 'factual', but because of having a natural know-how of how outside, external systems communicate with one another.

Se is objective as well but it's not based on systems, more pure objects. So it relates to personal power and overcoming obstacles in external environment. (People or otherwise) It's not systematized or categorical or business-shaped as Te, however.

[Azeroffs]

Overall, I think you have a good grasp on the functions.

I think your Ji descriptions were a little vague and not entirely accurate, and I'm not sure what to think of your Ni description partly because I'm not entirely sure what you mean and because I still don't really have it fully grasped in my head.

At its base, Ji is about the generally unchanging relationships between objects. Ti are the quantifiable/explicit relationships. Fi the implicit/unquantifiable relationships.



Although the common understanding of Ne as potential and possibilities isn't wrong, I think it's a step removed from what Ne really is at it's base. Ne, in the same way Se focuses on explicit/sensual characteristics. Ne focuses on implicit characteristics. I think this means that Ne focuses on unquantifiable traits or skills. Ne types can easily tell that someone has potential because they see these inherent abilities. This is why Ne types often want to expand themselves as people because they are essentially accumulating Ne.

[Blaze]

Although the common understanding of Ne as potential and possibilities isn't wrong, I think it's a step removed from what Ne really is at it's base. Ne, in the same way Se focuses on explicit/sensual characteristics. Ne focuses on implicit characteristics. I think this means that Ne focuses on unquantifiable traits or skills. Ne types can easily tell that someone has potential because they see these inherent abilities. This is why Ne types often want to expand themselves as people because they are essentially accumulating Ne.

yes. with Ne anything can become almost anything. Ne dominants keep track of all these possibilities, each in a different state of development. we return to things once they become relevant, and use them then. things can be activated and developed. this is why other types could think we are wasting out time on things that don't go anywhere right now: we're saving them for later. and, even if we don't use them, they still add to our overall understanding and thought process.

[Azeroffs]

I don't think Te is facts or 'business logic.' Well business logic yes, "facts" no. That's a poor description. I think Te is simply how outside systems have a relationship with each other, so in that sense, Te-egos tend to just be business-savvy in a way I could never be, not based on raw intelligence or because they're more 'factual', but because of having a natural know-how of how outside, external systems communicate with one another.

As soon as you start talking about relationships, you are no longer talking about an extroverted element.

Admittedly Te is hard to understand. I think Te at it's base is action or motion. Te focus on how people are dong things. Te isn't really about facts or business logic(wth is business logic?). Te types will try to do things effectively and simply.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If you have a bunch of car parts, Ni is what looks at the parts, comes up with a hypothetical relationship between them, and from that hypothetical relationship, predicts what other parts will be needed.

I think you're getting too specific. I think that depends on where the Ni-block is in your psyche. Ni-ego is usually just very pure and strong and relates to things like vision, insight, being a good writer, having the right knack or notion or general idea about the totality of something, even if you fuck up a lot on the specifics/details. I would say that description makes sense for gamma Nis though, maybe but as a descriptor for pure Ni, it's too specific.

I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh, I think over all you did a good job, I just think you might be over-specifying.

[Blaze]

Si is external dynamics of fields. Si is how tangible relationships change. Si is how sense perceptions (i.e., the relationship between the subject and object) change based on other influences. How the relation of my eye to the painting changes when another splash of color is added. How the relationsh of my eye to the room changes when a light is turned on. How the relation of my sense-of-touch (sorry, harder to locate in a specific body part than taste or sight) to my back changes when I sit down in this chair. How the relation of my tongue to a sauce changes as I add paprika. That's what Si is concerned with. This leads fairly obviously to understanding how to create something aesthetically pleasing. It can get more complex and consider how several different objects change in relation to several different subjects.

this seems theoretically sound but somewhat limited. Si isn't just about the senses, it's also about what's practical right here and right now, what's actually important to specific people and groups.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Te types will try to do things effectively.

But that's a shitty description too because I'm not effective? I'm damn effective at what I do....so ehhhh maybe they mean efficient or multi-task, which again relates to running a very good business, having good oversight at all those different processes at once. Maybe that's what you mean by 'objects in motion.' I'm just too used to the supervision of ENTj's Te+Ni more than anything else.

So not inherently 'business logic' but it sure does manifest in that way, if that makes sense. (Like most people we all want to kinda understand the functions purely psychologically, but how they kinda take their own form is important too I think) Because 'external dynamics of fields' and shit like that just doesn't really exist in the real world. You can't conceptualize everything.

[Azeroffs]

But that's a shitty description too because I'm not effective? I'm damn effective at what I do....so ehhhh maybe they mean efficient or multi-task, which again relates to running a very good business, having good oversight at all those different processes at once. Maybe that's what you mean by 'objects in motion.' I'm just too used to the supervision of ENTj's Te+Ni more than anything else.

Well, it doesn't mean that Te-PoLRs are ineffective. Te types will just be very perceptive of how things are working and whether or not things are working effectively. Te-PoLRs just aren't focused on that. They aren't naturally inclined toward trying to make things work more effectively. They may or may not be effective, though they will likely be less perceptive about just how effective they are.

So not inherently 'business logic' but it sure does manifest in that way, if that makes sense. (Like most people we all want to kinda understand the functions purely psychologically, but how they kinda take their own form is important too I think) Because 'external dynamics of fields' and shit like that just doesn't really exist in the real world. You can't conceptualize everything.

I think I see what you mean now. Basically what I said above about making things run smoothly which is what you're calling 'business logic' right?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah, but umm I'd say 'whole systems' running smoothly, making sure the whole thing just doesn't collapse, and can get enough stuff done at once in the time allowed. IEIs just like, focus too deeply at one thing at a time (even when we're multi-tasking) to understand how systems interact like that. We're also too individualistic and personal. It all just looks like a bunch of useless white fuzz to me.

[Creepy-female]

Whooo, good effort, that's a crapload of text I was getting kind of overwhelmed by all the info so it helped to go back over and just internalize your bolded points, and I think overall I understood a fair amount of your view of the nature of the functions and how they exist.

Your description of Se, "strong attachment to the sense perception itself rather than anything the mind does to the object" really helped get a better image of it in my mind, cause it works...like the way it works with Ni, the seeming polarity between Ni and Se is what makes them work together optimally. Ni is seemingly cut off from reality in a way...like I get this picture of it just fermenting kind of chaotically...and adding static internalities like Ne would just make it combust or something...like adding the weight of objects that also have internal properties...it's like due to the nature of Ni, balancing the internal static nature of objects would be too much for it...because the lightness and apparent weightlessness of this function sequestered off in this mental realm is what gives Ni the fluidity it needs to be optimal...and the nature of Se is just really sharply clear and removed from that internal state..."rather than anything the mind does to the object". So it just basically protects it without imposing any insights that would weigh the Ni down.

I liked Ne too, and couldn't really make Si fit in my brain no matter how hard I tried. I need to think about them more. Thanks for writing though this is pretty decent stuff.

[Krig the Viking]

Overall I think the descriptions were pretty good, and your descriptions of Se and Ne were especially good. Se double especially.

However, your description of Fi is not really describing Fi at all -- it's still describing Fe. Anything to do with "states" is related to dynamic functions, not static functions like Fi. This is because a "state" is the current condition of a potentially changing continuum of conditions over time. Fi is more properly about like and dislike -- I like this person, I don't like that person, Jim likes Sally, etc. It's about the bond between people -- loyalty, etc. Fe is about emotional states -- I am happy, he is sad, etc. Empathy is an Fe thing. Fi doesn't care about emotional states, except insofar as they affect relationships. Fi cares about creating strong, healthy relationships between people, and avoiding or repelling bad relationships. However, unlike our F-valuing quadras, a "good relationship" is not defined as "a relationship that makes me happy", because that is Fe-valuing. A "good relationship" to an Fi-valuer is one which produces beneficial Te -- solid, practical benefits, not vague unreliable emotions (from their point of view).

Similarly, Ti is about the logical relationships between things. It's not so much about external states, but external connections: Thing A is connected to Thing B via Connection C. The "things" can be abstract, in the case of Alpha (Ti+Ne), or concrete, in the case of Beta (Ti+Se).

I thought I had a pretty good description of Fe and Fi and their differences here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/555696-post13.html

[silverchris9]

Overall, I think you have a good grasp on the functions.

Good. Thank you. That is honestly what I was hoping to hear, although I really was prepared to go back and scrap everything if I absolutely had to.

I think your Ji descriptions were a little vague and not entirely accurate, and I'm not sure what to think of your Ni description partly because I'm not entirely sure what you mean and because I still don't really have it fully grasped in my head. At its base, Ji is about the generally unchanging relationships between objects. Ti are the quantifiable/explicit relationships. Fi the implicit/unquantifiable relationships.

I can accept that. I don't think that's too different from how I think of Ti and Fi, although I understand that the wording might have been unclear.

Although the common understanding of Ne as potential and possibilities isn't wrong, I think it's a step removed from what Ne really is at it's base. Ne, in the same way Se focuses on explicit/sensual characteristics. Ne focuses on implicit characteristics. I think this means that Ne focuses on unquantifiable traits or skills. Ne types can easily tell that someone has potential because they see these inherent abilities. This is why Ne types often want to expand themselves as people because they are essentially accumulating Ne.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by implicit characteristics. I get the idea of Se as external characteristics, but I don't quite know what implicit characteristics would be. I loved the bit about Ne types expanding themselves because they are accumulating Ne. That's an interesting idea.

Admittedly Te is hard to understand. I think Te at it's base is action or motion. Te focus on how people are dong things. Te isn't really about facts or business logic(wth is business logic?). Te types will try to do things effectively and simply.

Hmmm... I love Te focuses on how people are doing things, although in my head I cut the word people and just made it Te focuses on how things are being done. That is actually very helpful (because I can relate it in my head to external dynamics of objects.)

I don't think Te is facts or 'business logic.' Well business logic yes, "facts" no. That's a poor description. I think Te is simply how outside systems have a relationship with each other, so in that sense, Te-egos tend to just be business-savvy in a way I could never be, not based on raw intelligence or because they're more 'factual', but because of having a natural know-how of how outside, external systems communicate with one another.

I get that that's right, but I can't put it into words that make sense in my head. I'll keep working on Te.

Se is objective as well but it's not based on systems, more pure objects. So it relates to personal power and overcoming obstacles in external environment. (People or otherwise) It's not systematized or categorical or business-shaped as Te, however.

Makes sense to me.

I think you're getting too specific. I think that depends on where the Ni-block is in your psyche. Ni-ego is usually just very pure and strong and relates to things like vision, insight, being a good writer, having the right knack or notion or general idea about the totality of something, even if you fuck up a lot on the specifics/details. I would say that description makes sense for gamma Nis though, maybe but as a descriptor for pure Ni, it's too specific.

You're probably right. I was just trying to give a more detailed account of Ni since I feel like I get it better than the other ones (since it's my base function). I tried to account for the other things like vision and insight and basically the fact that Ni-is-magic based on the fact that Ni is very subjective and removed from "the real world" and my thought was that this would make it easier to feel subconscious things, internal immaterial/nonphysical motion (which is, yes, like energy or vibration or something), etc. But a better description of Ni would probably include the whole feeling the abstract element more clearly.

I don't want to sound like I'm being too harsh, I think over all you did a good job, I just think you might be over-specifying.

Nah, you're not being harsh at all. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't way off, so if I'm off I want people to tell me. Also thanks for the good job.

Yeah, but umm I'd say 'whole systems' running smoothly, making sure the whole thing just doesn't collapse, and can get enough stuff done at once in the time allowed. IEIs just like, focus too deeply at one thing at a time (even when we're multi-tasking) to understand how systems interact like that. We're also too individualistic and personal. It all just looks like a bunch of useless white fuzz to me.

Yeah, that is what Te is like. Like that sea of paperwork actually has some sort of informational content to Te-egos. It just looks like stuff to me. Trying to perceive the immaterial aspects and motions and significances and meanings of things does get in the way of, I dunno, Te-ing, doesn't it?

Whooo, good effort, that's a crapload of text I was getting kind of overwhelmed by all the info so it helped to go back over and just internalize your bolded points, and I think overall I understood a fair amount of your view of the nature of the functions and how they exist.

Thanks! I actually tried to post this on three separate occasions and couldn't get the words the way I wanted them, and this is my best attempt so far, so I just had to go ahead and post it. Thanks for taking the time to try to make sense of it all.

Your description of Se, "strong attachment to the sense perception itself rather than anything the mind does to the object" really helped get a better image of it in my mind, cause it works...like the way it works with Ni, the seeming polarity between Ni and Se is what makes them work together optimally. Ni is seemingly cut off from reality in a way...like I get this picture of it just fermenting kind of chaotically...and adding static internalities like Ne would just make it combust or something...like adding the weight of objects that also have internal properties...it's like due to the nature of Ni, balancing the internal static nature of objects would be too much for it...because the lightness and apparent weightlessness of this function sequestered off in this mental realm is what gives Ni the fluidity it needs to be optimal...and the nature of Se is just really sharply clear and removed from that internal state..."rather than anything the mind does to the object". So it just basically protects it without imposing any insights that would weigh the Ni down.

Yay! I'm glad you liked the Se bit. That's the part I had to work the hardest on. I really like your idea of weight; it's a good way of saying what I've been thinking about subjectivity and objectivity and being tied down to earth without all the baggage those terms have.

I liked Ne too, and couldn't really make Si fit in my brain no matter how hard I tried. I need to think about them more. Thanks for writing though this is pretty decent stuff.

Gracias for the Ne bit. Sorry the Si isn't working for you. It didn't really work in my head either and I just concluded it's kinda boring and sorta worked backwards from the other functions somewhat or something.

Overall I think the descriptions were pretty good, and your descriptions of Se and Ne were especially good. Se double especially.

Gracias.

However, your description of Fi is not really describing Fi at all -- it's still describing Fe. Anything to do with "states" is related to dynamic functions, not static functions like Fi. This is because a "state" is the current condition of a potentially changing continuum of conditions over time. Fi is more properly about like and dislike -- I like this person, I don't like that person, Jim likes Sally, etc. It's about the bond between people -- loyalty, etc. Fe is about emotional states -- I am happy, he is sad, etc. Empathy is an Fe thing. Fi doesn't care about emotional states, except insofar as they affect relationships. Fi cares about creating strong, healthy relationships between people, and avoiding or repelling bad relationships. However, unlike our F-valuing quadras, a "good relationship" is not defined as "a relationship that makes me happy", because that is Fe-valuing. A "good relationship" to an Fi-valuer is one which produces beneficial Te -- solid, practical benefits, not vague unreliable emotions (from their point of view).

Yeah... I know, you said that in another thread... I suppose that you're right; the other way of stating things does make the differences more explicit. I might be trying to see a connection between Fe and Fi that isn't really there. Also that description of Fi makes me like it even less than I already did (although I'm not disputing its accuracy or inaccuracy). The point of a relationship is definitely not to just produce a bunch of practical benefits. I can get those on my own. Also, how can you possibly know what's a "good relationship" and what's a "bad relationship"? I mean, there's some extreme cases where it's obvious, but relationships are extremely complicated matters and it's very difficult to label them "overall positive" and "overall negative", much less with the ethical connotations of "good" and "bad". Can I be an Fi-polr? (kidding). I do like your explanation of Fi though. It makes sense.

Similarly, Ti is about the logical relationships between things. It's not so much about external states, but external connections: Thing A is connected to Thing B via Connection C. The "things" can be abstract, in the case of Alpha (Ti+Ne), or concrete, in the case of Beta (Ti+Se).

Again, you're probably right. I'll give some more thought to this. I think I want a certain kind of account/explanation, especially one that has to do with relationships between IMs, but I may be going about it the wrong way or something. We'll see.

[Krig the Viking]

Also, how can you possibly know what's a "good relationship" and what's a "bad relationship"? I mean, there's some extreme cases where it's obvious, but relationships are extremely complicated matters and it's very difficult to label them "overall positive" and "overall negative", much less with the ethical connotations of "good" and "bad".

Well, I think Fi-Egos would have a much more complex understanding of relationships than just "good" or "bad", though that would be a factor. As a Role Fi type myself, some of the subtleties of that kind of thing escape me.

Also that description of Fi makes me like it even less than I already did (although I'm not disputing its accuracy or inaccuracy). The point of a relationship is definitely not to just produce a bunch of practical benefits. I can get those on my own.

I may have misspoke. It's not so much that an Fi-valuer sees the point of relationships as a method of gaining practical benefits from people, but rather that they believe that a sign of a strong relationship should be the desire to do practical Te things for each other.

For an Fi-valuer, the point of a relationship is to have a good relationship, just like for Fe-valuers, the point of emotions is to have good emotions. A "good" relationship would include all the things people normally associate with that -- loyalty, trust, helpfulness, etc. A "bad" relationship, conversely, would include things like disloyalty, mistrust, hurtfulness, etc. All of these things contribute to whether the Fi relationship between two people is positive or negative, strong or weak, etc.

I think of it this way: Fe is like a fire of emotion that burns within the human soul; it can be cool or hot, it can burn with joy and happiness, or it can burn with anguish and anger. Fi, on the other hand, is like bonds that tie people together into relationships; the bonds can be strong or weak, unpleasant and painful, or secure and comforting. The Fe fire is often changing, the Fi bonds usually stay the same.

[Marie84]

Overall I think the descriptions were pretty good, and your descriptions of Se and Ne were especially good. Se double especially.

However, your description of Fi is not really describing Fi at all -- it's still describing Fe. Anything to do with "states" is related to dynamic functions, not static functions like Fi. This is because a "state" is the current condition of a potentially changing continuum of conditions over time. Fi is more properly about like and dislike -- I like this person, I don't like that person, Jim likes Sally, etc. It's about the bond between people -- loyalty, etc. Fe is about emotional states -- I am happy, he is sad, etc. Empathy is an Fe thing. Fi doesn't care about emotional states, except insofar as they affect relationships. Fi cares about creating strong, healthy relationships between people, and avoiding or repelling bad relationships. However, unlike our F-valuing quadras, a "good relationship" is not defined as "a relationship that makes me happy", because that is Fe-valuing. A "good relationship" to an Fi-valuer is one which produces beneficial Te -- solid, practical benefits, not vague unreliable emotions (from their point of view).

Similarly, Ti is about the logical relationships between things. It's not so much about external states, but external connections: Thing A is connected to Thing B via Connection C. The "things" can be abstract, in the case of Alpha (Ti+Ne), or concrete, in the case of Beta (Ti+Se).

I thought I had a pretty good description of Fe and Fi and their differences here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/555696-post13.html

Very good
I've seen some people equate Fi to Fe "light" such as less obvious emotions (i.e. excitement).
Both Ti and Te types need Fe and Fi, but only through their valued ethical function. Fe types are concerned with delivering positive emotions to create their bonds (Fi), whereas Fi is concerned with creating bonds than delivering positive emotions (Fe). It's just a matter of priority that sets them apart

The only part that I disagree with is the part about Empathy=Fe. Prior I had no opinion on the matter, but after seeing the "Empathy" thread and researching the meaning I find (although this is semantics) Fi=Empathy, Fe=Sympathy

Empathy denotes a deep emotional understanding of another's feelings or problems
Sympathy means the stimulation in a person of feelings that are similar in kind to those that affect another person; empathy means a mental or affective projection into the feelings or state of mind of another person

Fi is the IE used to identify a persons sentiments (are they offended/hurt, etc) and Fe is the IE used to identify a persons emotional state (are they happy/sad, etc)

[Krig the Viking]

Very good
I've seen some people equate Fi to Fe "light" such as less obvious emotions (i.e. excitement).
Both Ti and Te types need Fe and Fi, but only through their valued ethical function. Fe types are concerned with delivering positive emotions to create their bonds (Fi), whereas Fi is concerned with creating bonds than delivering positive emotions (Fe). It's just a matter of priority that sets them apart

I am glad to receive a positive review from a base-Fi type!

I would put it this way: Fe valuers try to create strong relationships because they think it will make them happy. In other words, Fe valuers see strong Fi bonds as a stable means of generating positive Fe. Fi valuers, on the other hand, try to make people happy because they want to strengthen their relationship. In other words, Fi valuers see generating positive Fe as a means of creating and maintaining strong Fi relationships.

The only part that I disagree with is the part about Empathy=Fe. Prior I had no opinion on the matter, but after seeing the "Empathy" thread and researching the meaning I find (although this is semantics) Fi=Empathy, Fe=Sympathy

Empathy denotes a deep emotional understanding of another's feelings or problems
Sympathy means the stimulation in a person of feelings that are similar in kind to those that affect another person; empathy means a mental or affective projection into the feelings or state of mind of another person

Fi is the IE used to identify a persons sentiments (are they offended/hurt, etc) and Fe is the IE used to identify a persons emotional state (are they happy/sad, etc)

In my opinion, both sympathy and empathy are related to Fe. Whether I understand Person A's feelings empathically, or feel them sympathetically, we're still dealing with the emotional state of Person A, not the relationships between Person A and other people.

That's not to say that Fi valuing types don't have empathy, though. Fi-ego types have strong Fe in their Id, and can use it when necessary.

A grossly simplified example:
Example 1
Person A: I am sad because Person B doesn't like me!
ESE: I feel your pain. I will help to cheer you up.

Example 2
Person A: I am sad because Person B doesn't like me!
ESI: Your relationship with Person B is a bad one. You should break it off.

In example 2, the ESI is clearly feeling some empathy or sympathy, or he wouldn't bother trying to help, but his focus is on Fi. The ESE in example 1, however, even though he is probably aware of the Fi component of the problem, is focused on Fe.

[silverchris9]

Very good
I've seen some people equate Fi to Fe "light" such as less obvious emotions (i.e. excitement).
Both Ti and Te types need Fe and Fi, but only through their valued ethical function. Fe types are concerned with delivering positive emotions to create their bonds (Fi), whereas Fi is concerned with creating bonds than delivering positive emotions (Fe). It's just a matter of priority that sets them apart

Fi is the IE used to identify a persons sentiments (are they offended/hurt, etc) and Fe is the IE used to identify a persons emotional state (are they happy/sad, etc)

I can understand the "creating bonds" part, but it seems to me that sentiments aren't very different from emotional state. Just two sides of the same coin, different emphases on the same phenomenon, etc. Like Fe is about just the pure emotion, and Fi is about the emotion as it relates to the relationship (hurt/offended/pleased/displeased, words like that, seem like they're related to... directional feelings, if that makes any sense. It's feelings as they make people in a relationship farther away or closer together).

Fi types can be very empathetic, and I can definitely see where Fi types would be great at "understanding the problem." I suppose if I refined the description to say that Fi has a generalized understanding of relationships rather than emotional states (or if I could draw a stronger connection between the two... but I've mostly accepted that that won't work), it would be better.

I may have misspoke. It's not so much that an Fi-valuer sees the point of relationships as a method of gaining practical benefits from people, but rather that they believe that a sign of a strong relationship should be the desire to do practical Te things for each other.

For an Fi-valuer, the point of a relationship is to have a good relationship, just like for Fe-valuers, the point of emotions is to have good emotions. A "good" relationship would include all the things people normally associate with that -- loyalty, trust, helpfulness, etc. A "bad" relationship, conversely, would include things like disloyalty, mistrust, hurtfulness, etc. All of these things contribute to whether the Fi relationship between two people is positive or negative, strong or weak, etc.

Yeah, the whole doing practical things for each other isn't working for me either, although that did help me differentiate it from something BnD talks about a lot about how duals help you live your life in the real world, be less neurotic, etc. I can see where I'd assume that a good relationship is one in which there are positive emotions rather than emphasizing the things that Fi might emphasize, although again I see it as two sides of the same coin, since generally bad emotions will produce things like mistrust and hurtfulness while things like mistrust and hurtfulness will produce bad emotions. I guess I can see what Marie84 is saying now about how everybody needs Fi and Fe. I guess Fi doesn't aim at a light emotional state so much as not aim at a high emotional state. Fi and Fe exhaust the possibilities as far as functions valued (either Fi or Fe), so everywhere where Fe is not valued is everywhere that Fi is valued. This is mitigated somewhat in the gamma quadra, because Se keeps everything moving, but then in the delta quadra there's not even Se so the calmer emotional state becomes the norm, I guess.

What do you guys think of the idea of Fi reading feelings (i.e., interior states), as they relate to relationships, rather than feelings in and of themselves? Or do they assess the state of the relationship without necessarily understanding the feelings of the two parties? I mean, even if they don't consciously think about it, don't you have to understand the feelings of the parties involved in order to make a judgment about the relationship? I do like the idea that Fi is about relationships rather than emotions though. Makes a lot of sense.

[Marie84]

In my opinion, both sympathy and empathy are related to Fe. Whether I understand Person A's feelings empathically, or feel them sympathetically, we're still dealing with the emotional state of Person A, not the relationships between Person A and other people.

That's not to say that Fi valuing types don't have empathy, though. Fi-ego types have strong Fe in their Id, and can use it when necessary.

To give an example, Fi PoLR's are known for saying and doing things that will seem extremely offensive/cruel to an Fi dominant but not so to an Fe, who will see it as a joke and not something to cause offense. Fi's are more concerned if what was said hurt someone than if it made others happy, in this sense, positive emotions are sacrificed to protect hurt feelings.

Rick explains this (better than I can) in one of his blog entries:

"It appears that individuals with strong extroverted and introverted ethics emphasize somewhat different aspects of this influence: the former are focused on external action as a way of changing the emotional atmosphere (saying or doing something), whereas the latter are focused on changes in the subject's emotional state and feelings as a result of this impact."

This is why I link Fi more to empathy and Fe to sympathy. The former is used to understand how others feel internally while the latter is used to identify emotional signals/reactions as well as influence them

A grossly simplified example:
Example 1
Person A: I am sad because Person B doesn't like me!
ESE: I feel your pain. I will help to cheer you up.

Example 2
Person A: I am sad because Person B doesn't like me!
ESI: Your relationship with Person B is a bad one. You should break it off.

In example 2, the ESI is clearly feeling some empathy or sympathy, or he wouldn't bother trying to help, but his focus is on Fi. The ESE in example 1, however, even though he is probably aware of the Fi component of the problem, is focused on Fe.

This seems more related to valued functions than anything. As a Ti, you will see the use of valued Fe as comforting and caring and Fi as cold, whereas a Te will likely see it in reverse.
Fe, to a Te, would likely be viewed as superficial, since it appears more concerned with dealing with the emotional atmosphere rather than dealing with the actual issue (the relationship, in that example).
I imagine, to a Ti, Fi would seem pointless if there isn't a positive emotional atmosphere in a relationship

In other words,
Te- why create a positive emotional atmosphere if they're underlying issues that need to be dealt with? Does this person understand me?
Ti- why continue working on a relationship if it doesn't produce positive emotions? Does this person make me happy?

Both examples would likely seem important to Te's and Ti's, but they prioritize them differently (feel free to have your say on my analysis Te/Ti's...)

[Marie84]

I can understand the "creating bonds" part, but it seems to me that sentiments aren't very different from emotional state. Just two sides of the same coin, different emphases on the same phenomenon, etc. Like Fe is about just the pure emotion, and Fi is about the emotion as it relates to the relationship (hurt/offended/pleased/displeased, words like that, seem like they're related to... directional feelings, if that makes any sense. It's feelings as they make people in a relationship farther away or closer together).

Yah I agree with this.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a sentiment can be expressed/shared with little emotion (in the Fe sense), whereas an emotion can be expressed/shared without a sentiment (in the Fi sense)...
So it goes back to me agreeing with you

Yeah, the whole doing practical things for each other isn't working for me either, although that did help me differentiate it from something BnD talks about a lot about how duals help you live your life in the real world, be less neurotic, etc. I can see where I'd assume that a good relationship is one in which there are positive emotions rather than emphasizing the things that Fi might emphasize, although again I see it as two sides of the same coin, since generally bad emotions will produce things like mistrust and hurtfulness while things like mistrust and hurtfulness will produce bad emotions. I guess I can see what Marie84 is saying now about how everybody needs Fi and Fe. I guess Fi doesn't aim at a light emotional state so much as not aim at a high emotional state. Fi and Fe exhaust the possibilities as far as functions valued (either Fi or Fe), so everywhere where Fe is not valued is everywhere that Fi is valued. This is mitigated somewhat in the gamma quadra, because Se keeps everything moving, but then in the delta quadra there's not even Se so the calmer emotional state becomes the norm, I guess.

What do you guys think of the idea of Fi reading feelings (i.e., interior states), as they relate to relationships, rather than feelings in and of themselves? Or do they assess the state of the relationship without necessarily understanding the feelings of the two parties? I mean, even if they don't consciously think about it, don't you have to understand the feelings of the parties involved in order to make a judgment about the relationship? I do like the idea that Fi is about relationships rather than emotions though. Makes a lot of sense.

Since Fe's are strong in Fi, and vice-versa, it would make sense that both types will understand and deal with Fe/Fi issues...but in their own valued way.
For an Fi- Fe through Fi
For an Fe- Fi through Fe