Poll on the Nature of Fe vs Fi

[Krig the Viking]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on the nature of Fe and Fi, as recently highlighted by this thread. So I thought I'd do a survey of the community, to see what the current lay of the theoretical land is.

If neither option accurately describes your opinion on Fe and Fi, please try to sum up your description in a line or two below and I'll add it to the poll.

[Sir Knight]

Fe = All that is good and just in this world.

Fi = Fakey fake fakity fake fake




Ok, in all seriousness though, from what admittedly little I understand of them, Fe is essentially just noticing the inner dynamics of objects or, when applied to people, their current emotional state: how they're feeling, what made them feel that way, how and in what way those feelings may be modified, and how to bring those emotions to the surface. If Fe senses that you feel a certain way about something, it will try to prod you and figure out how to get you to exclaim how you feel. In a similar way that Te is stereotyped with looking at the "efficiency" of an object, so too does Fe look at the "efficiency" of a person's emotional state, figuring out how to minimize unnecessary or redundant emotions and how to improve or bring forth more desirable emotions.

Fi... eh. I won't do Fi justice. I may not even have done Fe justice. Whatever.

Edit: btw, I'd say the consensus poll approach probably isn't going to win you many favors. The options also seem a bit too limiting.

[Bluenoir]

I see Fi as not so much about relationships per se, but rather the feelings people have towards one another that is not expressed as direct emotions so to speak. In other words I see Fi as the ability to pick up the emotional atmosphere/tension within a "relationship", while Fe is about the expression and manipulation of emotions.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'm starting a poll on the number of polls it takes to conclusively answer a silly question.

[Aiss]

My biased impression of Fe and Fi is that they're like having fun vs being happy. Fe seems fake because it shows emotions rather than feelings, changing as soon as mood does. I know a lot of people claim if you "feel like that in the moment", it's genuine enough, but that seems about impossible to me. Eh, you know how I self-type anyway, so whatever.

As to the nature of Fe and Fi, information aspects and Jung pretty much cover it. Internal dynamics of objects refers to how object implicitly acts (but not necessarily implicit progress - compare Si and Ni). Information about human emotionality is almost purely of this kind, hence common association. Same with information about relations between humans - they're static, implicit relations, and fit Fi better than other aspects.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Fe-valuers understand better how to treat people emotionally (subjective morality),

Whereas Fi-valuers understand better how to treat people ethically. (objective morality)

It's really that simple, and that's what it boils down to. For a Fe-valuer, the emotions and the ethics are the same thing, and then you have a Fi valuer like Aiss saying 'Life is a tragedy if you feel' which I personally find as bullshit of course. But that is exactly something that a Fi-valuer would say.

Take Ashton, Aiss and Galen for example. I mean this as no offense, but it's obvious they are quite condescending to other people's feelings in a way that is off putting to anybody that's a Fe-valuer. I'm sort of blind when ESFps do this, only because yeah they're Fi-valuers, but they're also my semi-duals and I personally like them a lot. So what I say is rawly true, but then again nothing exists in a vacuum.

Subt is also a Fi-valuer and he does the same thing.

In other words I see Fi as the ability to pick up the emotional atmosphere/tension within a "relationship", while Fe is about the expression and manipulation of emotions.

It's actually the opposite... Fe-valuers are more empathetic whereas Fi valuers express personal feelings more easily and think that other people shouldn't be so sensitive to what they're expressing. Remember it's a valued function of the INTps, ENTjs and ESTjs...

[Aiss]

^ I don't think you get the Walpole's quote in my avatar, but otherwise, probably yeah.

Also, for a post about socionics without gay rant.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Btw if you ever go on tinychat and there is a situation where there's a lot of Fi valuers and one Fe valuer (or vice-versa) the Fe/Fi valuer that's in the minority will seriously want to kill themselves no matter what is being talked about.

And they'll probably just leave.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I wonder sometimes what it would be like if I was in a room with 15,000 ESTjs?

Like if bam. I was just put in a situation where it was just me and 15,000 estjs????

Would my brain just explode and I would die???

I dont' really wanna test this experiment but I'm curious because psychological energy exchange is really potent.

And yes I'm being a typical IEI victim, but I know it's the blows that I can take, not the blows that I dish out.

[krieger]

poll is rigged. the answer is neither.

[EyeSeeCold]

I wonder sometimes what it would be like if I was in a room with 15,000 ESTjs?

Like if bam. I was just put in a situation where it was just me and 15,000 estjs????

Would my brain just explode and I would die???

I dont' really wanna test this experiment but I'm curious because psychological energy exchange is really potent.

And yes I'm being a typical IEI victim, but I know it's the blows that I can take, not the blows that I dish out.

lol 1500 ESTjs. 1500 of any type.

[Krig the Viking]

I'm starting a poll on the number of polls it takes to conclusively answer a silly question.

I'm not trying to convince people or resolve the question either way; I'm just curious about where people stand on the issue.

poll is rigged. the answer is neither.

I realize that obviously some people have alternate views, but since I'm less familiar with those I didn't want to try describing them myself. That's why I asked people to submit their own poll options if their views aren't close to either of the ones listed, which I will then edit the poll to include.

So if you can sum up your views in a line or two, I'll add it to the poll and you can vote for that one. I'm trying to get a reasonably accurate overview of the community's opinions on the matter, so "rigging" the poll to exclude possible opinions would be counter-productive.

[krieger]

i really don't see a point in assisting you in this propaganda effort.

[Krig the Viking]

i really don't see a point in assisting you in this propaganda effort.

[Edit: Removed unnecessary indignant response to honest inquiry being characterized as "propaganda effort".]

[Not A Communist Shill]

the use of "relationships" is defined in the poll, but it might be better to focus on an emphasis of interrelationships vs. intrarelationships?

[Azeroffs]

It's actually the opposite... Fe-valuers are more empathetic whereas Fi valuers express personal feelings more easily and think that other people shouldn't be so sensitive to what they're expressing. Remember it's a valued function of the INTps, ENTjs and ESTjs...

I think there's truth to this.

[Krig the Viking]

the use of "relationships" is defined in the poll, but it might be better to focus on an emphasis of interrelationships vs. intrarelationships?

I'm not sure what you mean by the bold part. Could you elaborate?

[Galen]

um, neither?

[jessica129]

How can it be neither? Wth is it then?

[ashlesha]

maybe its considered by many to not be "real socionics" but i like the difference as described by Jung and the aspects that aiss talked about here.

also i'm too lazy to look up that post tha made about the simplified descriptors but i remember thinking they weren't too bad.

the issue i take with the current options is:
#1 implies Fe valuers don't have real internal feelings
#2 implies Fi doesn't deal directly with emotional content or is limited in its application

so i couldn't vote as it is.

[Galen]

How can it be neither? Wth is it then?

Well I mean, do you have emotions? Have you ever expressed them before?

[Slacker]

Pepole with Fi polr have relationships, and people with Fe polr have emotions. I don't know what to say.

[Galen]

Pepole with Fi polr have relationships, and people with Fe polr have emotions. I don't know what to say.

^ This ^

All the things listed in the poll options are basic human faculties that all (mentally healthy) people understand. To say that the presence of emotions precludes the ability to have relationships (Fi PoLR) or vice versa (Fe PoLR) is intellectually irresponsible. They are simply different lenses through which the world is viewed and understood, nothing more.

[krieger]

Jung was a noob. i have made his work obsolete.

[Slacker]

I kind of think of myself as following classical socionics. It seems like these Fi is not completely unrelated to relationships, but it isn't defined as relationships. I like the attraction/repulsion part of the description in the OP the best.

[Park]

Both descriptions are close to my understandings, the 2nd one more than the 1st one.

[Park]

i really don't see a point in assisting you in this propaganda effort.

Don't be a jerk.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'm not trying to convince people or resolve the question either way; I'm just curious about where people stand on the issue.

Instead of throwing the same rocks at the same hornet's nest all over again, tabulate the opinions in the thousands of other Fe/Fi threads and divide the results into quadra and type. That's more or less the informal method I employ to collect data here that's largely inapplicable to anything but the satiation of curiosity.

[stanprollyright]

I like the second one more than the first one, but I don't think either is really a good definition.

[Sir Knight]

My biased impression of Fe and Fi is that they're like having fun vs being happy. Fe seems fake because it shows emotions rather than feelings, changing as soon as mood does. I know a lot of people claim if you "feel like that in the moment", it's genuine enough, but that seems about impossible to me. Eh, you know how I self-type anyway, so whatever.

As to the nature of Fe and Fi, information aspects and Jung pretty much cover it. Internal dynamics of objects refers to how object implicitly acts (but not necessarily implicit progress - compare Si and Ni). Information about human emotionality is almost purely of this kind, hence common association. Same with information about relations between humans - they're static, implicit relations, and fit Fi better than other aspects.

This makes sense and jives with my understanding of Fe. Supposedly Fe-types have more permeable ego boundaries and so are more easily caught in the moods of the moment. Moreover, with regards to myself, I simply can't express something I don't actually feel. I can't make myself smile or cry or laugh unless there's an external reason to do so.

[Suz]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on the nature of Fe and Fi, as recently highlighted by this thread. So I thought I'd do a survey of the community, to see what the current lay of the theoretical land is.

If neither option accurately describes your opinion on Fe and Fi, please try to sum up your description in a line or two below and I'll add it to the poll.

I actually think all the IMs are multifaceted, and I think the difference between Fe and Fi involves BOTH options you listed. So I didn't vote.

[Suz]

um, neither?

LOL i just said both. way to disagree!

[Suz]

Pepole with Fi polr have relationships, and people with Fe polr have emotions. I don't know what to say.

True true, but Fi POLRs' relationship are based in "in the moment" expressions of emotions without any recognition whatsoever to any sort of static bond between people (the way I understand it anyway). And Fe POLRs' emotions are based on internal feelings and static relationships/bonds between people.

I liked how in one of the old threads attempting to describe the IMs in 1-2 words, Fi was described as "essence". I think that sort of gets at the idea more than "relationships" does.

[Beautiful sky]

I like the second one more than the first one, but I don't think either is really a good definition.

This

[silverchris9]

Neither of those really fit my concept of it.

I like to focus on static vs. dynamic:



Fi-Maximizing stasis: unchanging "internal ethics," as little change to relationships as possible at a core level. Designed to hold things still: as in holding to a(n implicit) standard of behavior.

Fe-Maximizing movement: constantly changing internal state, a relationship is not worthwhile if it does not inspire emotional change. Designed to make things move: as in making a splashy entrance into a room in order to "shake things up"


Fi-When you see the one you love you should "get a good feeling," as in like good vibes with your general moral compass.

Fe-When you see the one you love you should get an emotional frizzon, your emotional state should change either to nervousness or to increased happiness or joy or thankfulness or something.

[717495]

Neither of these options are really good enough to vote. They're both off and too strict categorically.

[woofwoofl]

I like them both, but I like the second one a lot more

It's tough to get these concepts to fit into words - I'm pretty confident people here know what the two are, more or less... it's just that the matter of defining them verbally in a manner both accurate and concise is a bit tricky, to say the least...

[Filambee]

Fe= objective values
Fi= subjective values

This is what Jung thought and I agree. I understand that a lot has been discovered since his time, though. I am very open to hearing different views based on articles written by notable socionists. To everyone, instead of just jotting down what you know from a general understanding, please cite quotes that agree with your analysis so we can agree on a concise and clear definition of functions. I honestly believe that these vague conclusions of functions has lead to multiple misunderstandings and confusions on this forum and by clearing this up, it can strengthen this weakened link.

[717495]

What then does Fe have to do with Ti, or Fi with Te, if they're being defined so strictly? Valuing emotions means not valuing relationships or Te? and valuing Ti is simply the other end of valuing emotions? It doesn't make sense or apply to the majority of people, just a pile of theoretical scraps.

But T and F are indeed polar functions or a polar dichotomy, so when you have one type of judgment striving for objectivity, you always have the other striving for a subjective state, else there are conflicting mediums from both angles.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Fe= objective values
Fi= subjective values

This is what Jung thought and I agree. I understand that a lot has been discovered since his time, though. I am very open to hearing different views based on articles written by notable socionists. To everyone, instead of just jotting down what you know from a general understanding, please cite quotes that agree with your analysis so we can agree on a concise and clear definition of functions. I honestly believe that these vague conclusions of functions has lead to multiple misunderstandings and confusions on this forum and by clearing this up, it can strengthen this weakened link.

Jung makes it clear that all functions are subjective since they instantiate within individuals, even if they're outward-looking. Thus it could be said that:

• is a subjective ethical disposition originating from and authenticated by the objective sentiments of a given milieu.
• is a subjective ethical disposition that may have objectively-derived aspects, but the source of its authenticity ultimately begins and ends with a given subject's idiosyncratic sentiments.