Jung and "Introverted Feeling"

[CILi]

-

[Azeroffs]

I can see how it could be interpreted as Fe, but I agree with aixelsyd.

He seems to describe that an expression is being looked for to communicate the inner feeling. So, it's not the expression for the sake of itself. It's more of a focus on Fi with Fe to serve it.

I think it's hard to separate elements from the same dichotomy. So you're going to see some Fi with Fe and Fe with Fi. It's about priorities or emphasis.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think Jung is trying to say that these types of people have this unexplainable feeling inside them that they try to convey perfectly, but fail. Yet the fact that humans are innately similar to some degree, the archetypal feeling is still conveyed and opens a gateway for another person to experience their own subjective manifestation of this feeling. I would say secondary .

[Azeroffs]

I would say secondary .

I could see that.

Fi is being looked at, but Fe is what is in focus.

That's a tricky mindset to get in (for me, anyway); but, really, you bringing it up is pretty helpful.

I kinda like my functions black-or-white, my dichotomies either-or, and my expressions 100%-0%.

Never seems to happen.

The way I understand it, xxFj types do tend to have more black/white feeling elements since their undervalued feeling element is mostly ignored, but the irrationals are a little more in the gray with their rational elements.

edit: Even with rationals it's not 0-100% though. There's no black and whites realistically.

[ashlesha]

i voted Fi because i thought we were being quizzed on jung.

i'm trying to decide and i'm thinking about it way too much. bah. if somebody were to write something similar to that and i had never heard of jung, i would probably label it Fe. the things that make me consider Fi are:

1. i simply like the idea of being able to go back to jung when explaining the elements because there's just a purity about the fact that it's the original source. which means nothing, really, i guess, except for what it means.
2. the way he describes the feeling as so internal and difficult to express and ultimately, like, archetypal or something. maybe it's just my undervaluing of Fe, though..but i tend to see Fe as emotions that are more spontaneous and right there and not as difficult to pull out of yourself. i guess what i'm getting at is that the description sounds to me like its describing something static and not dynamic. (but idk, it's described as an "it" but its also described as a "process," so its probably open to interpretation.)

[Marie84]

The second description sounds more Fe, the first is too vague, perhaps it's a mash-up of ethics in general

[Exodus]

Does the concept below directly correlate with Socionics' description of Fi?

Or is it better linked to Fe or some other info element?

Or is it psychobabble not really related to Socionics at all?

Hmm...in general types communicate using universal expressions that everyone can "tap into". On the other hand, types tend to communicate best and most with others that feel the same way as them. So I guess it's both? (or better, what marie said: use of ethics in general)

[Galen]

Here's how I translated it:

Fx valuers communicate via external means that are capable of adequately conveying the subjectivities of the speaker. These means must also adequately cause a specifically desired internal reaction in the listener. The trouble comes down to what is an adequate way of conveying these subjectivities, as such means are very difficult to find.

This could be a very basic way of thinking about Fi, but it does really seem a lot like general internal rational function patterns. I would imagine that Fe wouldn't need an "external form" in order to be expressed, rather it can just be expressed as is. I think the thing with Fi though is that without this sort of absorbing of subjectivities into external objects, those subjectivities will never be truly expressed lest the cohesiveness of their introverted/field nature be compromised.

[Creepy-female]

I think the thing with Fi though is that without this sort of absorbing of subjectivities into external objects, those subjectivities will never be truly expressed lest the cohesiveness of their introverted/field nature be compromised.

jaja

[ashlesha]

I would imagine that Fe wouldn't need an "external form" in order to be expressed, rather it can just be expressed as is. I think the thing with Fi though is that without this sort of absorbing of subjectivities into external objects, those subjectivities will never be truly expressed lest the cohesiveness of their introverted/field nature be compromised.

ooh ya, this. this is sort of what i wanted to get at in my post but i didnt know how to explain it and compromised by saying something not nearly as good. thank you!

the thing that trips me up is thinking how Fi and Fe are both internal. but its the field part that makes it so hard to express, right? i think i need to study up on this shit more, lol. but ya, what you said makes a lot of sense to me in terms of how i conceptualize the elements even if i struggle with the theoretics and exact whys.

[Words]

Does the concept below directly correlate with Socionics' description of Fi?

Or is it better linked to Fe or some other info element?

Or is it psychobabble not really related to Socionics at all?

I don't know to be honest. The thing that I can see is that it's a tiny part lifted from an overall description which Jung said is difficult to encapsulate. Perhaps this part has some meaning for you?

That's a tricky mindset to get in (for me, anyway); but, really, you bringing it up is pretty helpful.

I kinda like my functions black-or-white, my dichotomies either-or, and my expressions 100%-0%.

Well, i've only studied this topic up to a point, but imo the purest one can get to this is going by what Jung himself said overall. The thing with socionics is that, rightly or wrongly, it's been 'amended' to fit into Ashuras personal take on the matter, and so forth we get - even today - Si types do the cooking and all the 'good stuff' ie the brains and excitement go to Ne and Ti.

I don't doubt the power of Ne, Jung describes it as quite formidable, and it is in people I know, esp with it in the leading position, but the 'best' or shall we say the function best adapted to life and society as it stands is Te, Ti isn't that great a function to have, esp in the lead position - a lot of what Jung said about the problems Ti leading types have hold true imo, but in socionics Ti seems to be regarded as really cool.

Anyway, not quite what you were asking perhaps, sorry if I tangented, or even to others if I said something controversial, heh.

Oh yeah, I think that in socionics one of the reasons that for years after it's inception, people still debate about what is and isn't a function, or applied to it, could well come about from the sort of slight 'manipulation' by Ashura of what pertains to certain functions, I just find that Jung describes things from a psychic process that is far easier to understand and make sense of.

[krieger]

Fi

/thread

[Galen]

the thing that trips me up is thinking how Fi and Fe are both internal. but its the field part that makes it so hard to express, right? i think i need to study up on this shit more, lol. but ya, what you said makes a lot of sense to me in terms of how i conceptualize the elements even if i struggle with the theoretics and exact whys.

Yeah, it's actually kind of amazing to see people who don't value Fi/Te be shown something of an Fi nature and watch their reactions, especially with Fi PoLRs. It's like they don't understand what the subjective nature of the thing is because it's not explicitly stated, and all they see is the more physical means by which the assumed subjectivity is being conveyed. For example, I've shown the Suzanne Vega song Luka to a couple of ENTps, and they didn't get any real sense of emotionality from it.

[EyeSeeCold]

What makes more sense is Jung describing the receiving end of .

[Galen]

I gave Luka a whirl while typing all this and, at least similar to the ENTPs, in the back of my mind I questioned her emotionality.

The lyrics were very meaningful and heartful and all; but for her to be so physically, facially, and expressively disconnected from those feelings seemed odd. If "emotionality" is INSIDE, can it really be completely hidden on the OUTSIDE?

To be that internally moved, I'd assume a little more would (inevitably) leak out.

Not the case?

From my perspective, that seeming disconnect between the subject matter and the emotionality is what makes the song so emotionally powerful. It's almost as if the character is trying to distance himself from the feelings that are there, like trying to deny all the miserable hardships that happened to him. And again, these feelings are never explicitly stated; they're implied by the manner in which they're said. Specifically, the use of words and to some extent the harmonic progressions are the physical means by which this disconnect is conveyed. It's a very internally driven song, and for my money it's one of the more songs out there.

[Marie84]

Really?

I thought they were almost the exact same thing. (Or that Jung'd, at least, be less vague than me.)

Honestly, I thought they were both too vague to indicate any strong correlation to Socionic's IE's, but with the second quote about "expressions that both capture what they feel and make other people feel that same thing inside" sound a bit more how Fe works, or perhaps how Fe works after Fi (i.e. This is how I feel about you (sentiments-Fi), this is how it makes me feel (Fe-emotions) and this is how I'm going to show you (expression-Fe))

[717495]

Honestly, I thought they were both too vague to indicate any strong correlation to Socionic's IE's, but with the second quote about "expressions that both capture what they feel and make other people feel that same thing inside" sound a bit more how Fe works, or perhaps how Fe works after Fi (i.e. This is how I feel about you (sentiments-Fi), this is how it makes me feel (Fe-emotions) and this is how I'm going to show you (expression-Fe))

Yeah, exactly. The major difference between Jungian functions and Socionics ones is that Socionics ones deal directly with the subject, where as Jungian Fe is about one's attachment to the object, making them two different theories of what Fi and Fe are. There's still a lot of good material in Jung PT.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

jung was a child naively aware of himself and the world around him.

jung had this cowlick in one video and he was unaware of it. It reminds me of this most awkward thing: What if I gave the most heoric, uplifting gay rights speech in the world but my fly was unzipped. It would be so awkward and real, because you would hear the genuine-ness of my heart but then...it would be mixed with the social embarrassment of having a cowlick in your hair or having your fly unzipped.

that's how jung was he liked to give these speeches about 'humanity' all the while having bad breath or his hair out of place. It was so cringe worthy.

But this embarrassment has always fascinated me because everybody is doing everything they can to hide their embarrassment instead of facing it like a man. I wish we all were strong about being weak you know.

A drag queen said it best. "At least I know I'm a nut. The craziest people don't know how crazy they are." A fucking men. At least I know when I'm being evil and I'm being an asshole, and when my self-esteem is low. At least I'm high enough to admit when I'm low. At least I don't cover up my guilt with fake nice intentions.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, unfortunately we don't know how to express our emotions well and have to look in the external to find that form; I find that IEI's are a great model who pick the exact words that express our emotions. I have been saying for a long time, on the forum that our duals, LSE, are capable of interpreting these internal emotions because they use Te to reasonably expect the next thing, move, emotion and to verbalize these desires that we have a difficult time doing. No wonder why LSE (because of their Te) are also attracted to other Fi types and Fi demonstrators (like their conflictor, IEI).

The LSE is the perfect fit for the reception of these feelings, while the IEI uses the perfect words to describe them verbally.

An LSE told me once...."I see my feelings [being in the subconscious] in you."
I hope so because the only way I can communicate effectively is through them.