The Fi/Fe Switch

[Igxfl]

A lot is made of the supposed J/P switch between socionics and MBTI, but it also seems there may be something of an Fi/Fe switch.

Socionics Fi deals a lot with personal relationships, morality, loyalty, etc., which dont appear in MBTI Fi but seem to be a major focus of MBTI Fe.

On the other hand, Socionics Fe concentrates on more unfiltered, emotive feeling-responses that don't seem to facilitate or value the more permanent socially-oriented ties and convictions of MBTI Fe. On the other hand, Socionics Fe seems to share some ground with the subjective evaluation and emotion-tracking of MBTI Fi, although the latter definitely does more expression. (Maybe this is why Fe types are considered Subjectivists. (...or maybe I'm just tripping over a semantic coincidence...))

Perhaps Isabel Meyers, apparently being INFP (maybe not, this claim is unverified) under her own system, stacked the deck to make her type look better by trading around some traits.

As a side note, the Si/Se thing seems even more messed up. They seem totally unrelated to the socionic versions and seem to translate mainly into "neophobia" and "impulsivity."

A lot of this probably doesn't line up at all due to structural differences between the two systems, but I was looking deeper into MBTI recently and was trying to get it to make sense. So far, I am not necessarily successful.

[717495]

The Fi description sounds pretty Fi to me.

Extraverted Feeling in MBTI
The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

A lot of that sounds pretty Fe to me. I agree that Jung's interpretation seems to be the most in accordance with Socionics. MBTI only does it part-way.

All you need is Jung.

[silke]

Where are you getting your descriptions from? Wikisocion?

Imo Fe in MBTI is same as Fe in socionics and same goes for Fi. The descriptions don't match up 100% but even if you read and compare descriptions of Fe between several socionics sources (or several MBTI sources) neither do they match up word for word. If you're using Wikisocion description of Fe, then that description imho is crap. And not only imho but I've read other posters on here state that Wikisocion description of Fe sounds biased because apparently it was written by an ILI who has Fe PoLR. Wikisocion's Fi description indeed sounds much warmer.

Compare for example:

Fi - "Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others."

vs

Fe - "They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. ... they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged"

So it sounds like Fi is this personally warm function all about keeping with your friends and family and sharing deep innermost feelings to create closeness, while Fe sounds plain crude in comparison. According to the author of the above, Fe enables people to say whatever, even if it is offensive, and makes people speak in "embellishments and exaggerations". The anti-Fe bias is pretty apparent. If the dude who wrote this was indeed ILI then both feeling functions and sensing functions would be his super-id/super-ego block ones, in other words he personally would not have very good natural understanding of them and this is possibly why his descriptions of these functions are so messed up.

[stray]

So it sounds like Fi is this personally warm function all about keeping with your friends and family and sharing deep innermost feelings to create closeness, while Fe sounds plain crude in comparison.

Crude is only one way of looking at it. It need not be abrasive. What if the group WAS a close family, simply having fun and joking with each other at a dinner table? What if there was a type there who was sensitive (or projecting their sensitivity on someone who was being joked about)? They might be the sourpuss who was dampening everyone's mood in that case. Or better, what if they were an ISTp, Fe PoLR.. who's open to Fi, but otherwise is There are many ways of looking at it. Nothing's wrong or right or less or more crude. That depends on specifics.

[silke]

Crude is only one way of looking at it. It need not be abrasive. What if the group WAS a close family, simply having fun and joking with each other at a dinner table? What if there was a type there who was sensitive (or projecting their sensitivity on someone who was being joked about)? They might be the sourpuss who was dampening everyone's mood in that case. Or better, what if they were an ISTp, Fe PoLR.. who's open to Fi, but otherwise is There are many ways of looking at it. Nothing's wrong or right or less or more crude. That depends on specifics.

Yes, may be those people were close family members. May be they cell inmates. May be they were stranded together on MIR space station with nothing to do. Point is that majority of people coming into socionics will conclude that this description is generic and applies to most or all situations in their lives, not just dinner table with your closest family members (and even then, you don't just say anything you want without regard for how offensive it might be to your family, do you?). Then they will think "well no, I am more sensitive to other people's feelings than to promote an atmosphere where anybody can say whatever not taking care if its offensive" and start looking into Fi, which will can lead them to mis-type themselves in the end.

Excessive familiarity is how I've been trying to put it across for people deciding between Fi and Fe, but the author hasn't gone into this himself. If it indeed depends on specifics like you say, then why hasn't he mentioned this and at least given some examples? It is a meaning we have to infer from what he has written and some people won't infer it, but instead look at Fi and go "ooo! this one is about friends and family, emotional sensitivity and closeness - that sounds just like me!".

[Creepy-male]

Not to challenge your typing or anything, but, I don't necessarily see what's wrong with the Fe description. It certainly doesn't contradict anything about me. OTOH, the Fi description does. I don't "strive" to close interpersonal gaps, or cultivate my relationships.

Considering that, if you find Fe to contradict yourself, and find yourself more agreeing with Fi, perhaps your self-typing is worth re-examining? Or maybe your frame of reference is just temporarily skewed due to some sort of cognitive bias.

[silke]

Not to challenge your typing or anything, but, I don't necessarily see what's wrong with the Fe description. It certainly doesn't contradict anything about me. OTOH, the Fi description does. I don't "strive" to close interpersonal gaps, or cultivate my relationships.

Considering that, if you find Fe to contradict yourself, and find yourself more agreeing with Fi, perhaps your self-typing is worth re-examining? Or maybe your frame of reference is just temporarily skewed due to some sort of cognitive bias.

How many close friends do you have in real life? And do you not put any of your time or effort forth to keep the friendship going i.e. "cultivate" your friendships with them?

[stray]

If it indeed depends on specifics like you say, then why hasn't he mentioned this and at least given some examples?

Well, it's more dynamic and descriptive than the part you quoted. I think there's more room to read between the lines on the general benign nature of it, if you quote the whole thing. Also, I think that quadras change how it's conveyed as well.

is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

[silke]

Well, it's more dynamic and descriptive than the part you quoted. I think there's more room to read between the lines on the general benign nature of it, if you quote the whole thing. Also, I think that quadras change how it's conveyed as well.

is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

In addition it is contradictory. Fe-types apparently don't really watch if something offensive has been said but at the same time they are mindful of how thing said are being is received. I mean wut? He is actually picking up on trace of Ti and putting it into Fe description so the description is effectively impure. It shouldn't require you to read extensively between the lines but instead give a clear and accurate description. And if quadras have influence the author should have made some notes about it. The socionics.us definitions are better imho though they are much more vague.

[Creepy-male]

How many close friends do you have in real life? And do you not put any of your time or effort forth to keep the friendship going i.e. "cultivate" your friendships with them?

Two or three? Not talking to people or not attempting to "create" closeness isn't a stalled or stopped or failed friendship, it's a normal one. Closeness comes naturally when people I'm in regular contact with need me to be a good friend. I'll sometimes touch base with people I care about of my own accord, but not often.

[krieger]

jung's description of Fe is terrible, imo. jung generally focussed too much on his faulty interpretation of object/subject and objectivity/subjectivity which confuses epistemic and ontological objectivity.

[silke]

Two or three? Not talking to people or not attempting to "create" closeness isn't a stalled or stopped or failed friendship, it's a normal one. Closeness comes naturally when people I'm in regular contact with need me to be a good friend. I'll sometimes touch base with people I care about of my own accord, but not often.

Well then there you go. You have "closed interpersonal gaps" with two-three people and touching base is really just cultivating these friendships.

[stray]

How was it faulty?

I'm curious because Bolt went on a minor warpath for awhile about Jung supposedly having a 'faulty interpretation of object/subject too lol.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. It's equivalent to, say, embracing Neo-Platonism, but saying Plato himself was faulty. What's the point of investigating any of this if the foundation is cracked (cracked enough to ignore to this extent, that is. I'm not saying that Jung was infallible). It seems like an excuse to give oneself free reign and develop entirely new theories yet using the very concepts and terms Jung himself was responsible for.

[The Ineffable]

How was it faulty?

I'm curious because Bolt went on a minor warpath for awhile about Jung supposedly having a 'faulty interpretation of object/subject too lol.

It's making the difference between subjective type of information and subject-orientation. Subject-orientation is when it involves the the concept of "me" and "myself", but Fields and even subjective information in its general sense does not mandate it, as it's required by Jung, who does not even address information processing, but I/E attitudes, where Introversion is focus on the libido extracted from the object.
Conditions ("if ... then ...") are an example of subjective information which contains no subject but in particular cases.

This is what original Socionics works state and it was never "refuted" but only ignored by several latter authors: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...848#post725848. You may ignore it too, of course, if you believe that it's the case.
As we read in the last paragraph, there's a reason which explains why (and forecasts that) we rarely argue about the difference between Bodies and Objects, but almost exclusively between Fields and Subjects.
---

I never claimed that Jung's interpretation is "faulty", as that's what his psychological types theory is built upon. I just claimed that Socionics' understanding of I/E is different, it does not include a dichotomy of Object/Subject in the first place. You may say whatever you like about the dichotomies, but please stop putting words in my mouth - preferably never mention me again as I won't bother you further.

[Sir Knight]

I know; I just felt like rattling some cages. Though its worth bearing in mind that he's depicting in the neurotic extreme, not the normal condition.

So, to give an unjustifiably brief summation, in terms of contextualizing the constant bombardment of information one is assaulted with each day, Fi, much like Ti, prefers to pick out the constancies that do not change in day-to-day life and forms a subjective skeleton of "rules" about life and references those "rules" whenever an ethical decision must be made while Fe prefers to simply pick out dynamic external clues "on the fly" and mold one's external behavior and internal reactions based on that?

And what precisely sucks about Jung's definition? I'm curious.