Introverted Ethics

[DirectorAbbie]

"• I agree with Jung's and Van der Hoop's descriptions
• The Feeling function relates to feeling inclination predominantly. Only questionably it may relate to people, ethics, relationships or emotions. A relationship is more of an introverted angle in general
• Fi is a very selective process. The stark difference to Fe is the amount of personal selectivity Fi types have about their feelings, where one Fe adheres to a breadth of possible feeling judgments, Fi holds very particular feelings about very particular things
• I never felt that Fe is very selective in its focus, though this has nothing to do with whether their ideals and expectations are selective or not, but rather the aspects or vents of reality they choose to feel about things are rather open in scope and indefinite
• This is what Jung means by Fi searching for a particular vision, ideal or image, why, as Jung notes, the introverted function has more ignoring tendencies towards various stimuli
• Selection of valid stimuli in the introverted type becomes quite particular to the subject, his experience and values, where as experience to the extroverted function is only an after-thought to alluding unbiased validity
• In other words, subjective experience in the filter of an extroverted function is only an after-thought to achieving objectivity, though still tints the psychology of all functions, where as at the heart of an introverted function is a particular selective bias, because this subjective bias is the introverted function's only sense of comprehensible empiricism
• This thus prompts in Fi such an overarching angle of predetermined selective feeling responses that could never be imagined or perceived by Fe types"

-polikujm

[SlavaPHP]

I used to think that Fi and Fe people could see socionics naturally.... but then I realized that they just use value evaluation based on peoples likes and dislikes... which in the end might yield the personality system based on like and dislike.

[Amber]

I used to think that Fi and Fe people could see socionics naturally.... but then I realized that they just use value evaluation based on peoples likes and dislikes... which in the end might yield the personality system based on like and dislike.

[SlavaPHP]

brain2.jpg

[Amber]

brain2.jpg

Thanks for your brilliant contributions to this thread (and on the forum so far) which obviously eclipse all others. If you don't have anything else to say, please don't lower the value of your (claimed) ILE type so much in my thread.

[IBTL]

"This thus prompts in Fi such an overarching angle of predetermined selective feeling responses that could never be imagined or perceived by Fe types" -polikujm

Fi is overarching but not overarching at the same time, so I think this quote is too narrow in scope and bias towards Fi due to its illusive nature. Fe is just as selective as Fi, but since most people accept that Fe is better understood, Fi then becomes more selective somehow since it is less understood. I firmly believe that for every introverted function their is an equal and opposite extroverted function capable of similar levels of discernment.

I think Fe is much more discerning, albeit initially, than Fi. Fe will use a sort of weeding in or weeding out process to cast out those who don't make their cut. Fe will have a hard bottom line or benchmark while Fi will have ethical qualifications that need to be met in order to check off their list. (If you make the Fe cut, you're in. If you make the Fi list, you're in.)

Fi will be able to love or not love through good times and bad times as their subjective, introverted feelings about someone solidify and become unwavering, and it is this attribute combined with historical introverted intuition that denotes ESIs as loyalists. However, ESIs can be exploited through Se, as it can be an insatiable function, so the easiest way to win over an ESI is through a consistent supply of quality Se - ESIs are like LSIs in this way. Same goes for winning over an ILI, but quality is much more important than quantity at this point in the functional cascade (FiSeNiTe vs NiTeFiSe). Thus, LIEs are like ILIs but with a slightly greater emphasis on quantity (TeNiSeFi) rather than quality.

Fi



Fe

[mu4]

In socionics, there are 16 different manifestations of Fi, each somewhat unique to the type. 4 cognitive styles and 4 dimensions.

1D and 4D functions share the function dichotomies of Evaluatory and Inert.

These are firm judgement and stable core of the conscious psyche and the debilitating phobias and pain points. In this manner, 1D and 4D functions are setting standards against the environment for improving the self as well as walls for protecting one's vulnerabilities.

For example 1D Cause Deterministic Cognition in ILE can make them very actively disengaging in relations, often storming out, yet if there is something true in the relation they will return and if reconciled act as if nothing happened.

However 4D Holographic cognition can often result in very different expression where all negative possibilities are manifested before dissolution of a relation

For example as noted by Jung.

Whereupon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel 'what others think'. Naturally, others are thinking, all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours, he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card. Such a development must lead to exhaustion.

These are just two examples I've observed in my life, although I've the first one I've seen a recurring trait in a few individuals.

Van der Hoop description is ok but it's important to realize that the manifestation of functions in socionics is different across every type and even more varied by individual development and environmental variability. The essence of information elements is almost impossible to describe explicitly in words.

[Suz]

On further thought, with the emotional contagion, maybe the response to it is the part that's indicative of Fe or Fi. When I cry with someone, I feel embarrassed and try to hide it. I think an Fe-base person sees it more as a validating thing and a point of connection. I actually remember my sister quizzing me once about whether this movie made me cry, or that movie made me cry, etc. I think I tried to be evasive with my responses, whereas she was very proud of the fact that she cried, as if that proved some point about what a good person she was.

A movie isn't good unless it makes me cry.

[IBTL]

These are just two examples I've observed in my life, although I've the first one I've seen a recurring trait in a few individuals.

Van der Hoop description is ok but it's important to realize that the manifestation of functions in socionics is different across every type and even more varied by individual development and environmental variability. The essence of information elements is almost impossible to describe explicitly in words.

Take a go at it. Describe it. Give us more than regurgitation with a singular twist of subjective satisfaction or dissatisfaction. You think Van der Hoop is "ok", but so what?! I think coffee is "ok". I could take it or leave it...

[mu4]

Take a go at it. Describe it. Give us more than regurgitation with a singular twist of subjective satisfaction or dissatisfaction. You think Van der Hoop is "ok", but so what?! I think coffee is "ok". I could take it or leave it...

Not my game. maybe @chemical

[IBTL]

Not my game. maybe @chemical

I didn't ask for chemical's explanation.

[Simon Ssmall]

I've come to the definitive conclusion Fi is only a pain in the ass. A citadel that keeps you confined in what you identify with and what you feel. Also it can lead to severe disappointment when people don't match your ideals about them or the way you envision a relationship.

Funny, I never had this problem. In general the other people are envisioning something while I have to constantly make sure they do not.

[IBTL]

One example of Fi from my perspective is that I can usually see many different perspectives or empathize on a level where I pity a person instead of demonizing them. For example, some people are really quick to judge villains, or criminals. But I don't think, "He did that so therefore he is a bad person." I think instead, "What led this person to do this (crime)? What was their family life like? Do they have a mental illness? Would another person put in this position act the same way? Was this a product of their environment? Could I have turned out like that?". I like thinking about these things in depth. I mean, I still think they should be put in jail for the crimes they committed but I'm just not going to be as quick to criticize. I like thinking about things from others perspectives to see the situation more clearly.

I could imagine an Ne ego processing their Holographic Panoramic Fi evaluations in this way. It's as though you're getting to know the person through the projection you create on them, because you want to relate to them. You're asking, "How are we similar?" (rather than dissimilar) or "How would I feel if ____?"

I'm really starting to think that p types attempt to know how things work and j types want to know why things work...

[anndelise]

I could imagine an Ne ego processing their Holographic Panoramic Fi evaluations in this way. It's as though you're getting to know the person through the projection you create on them, because you want to relate to them. You're asking, "How are we similar?" (rather than dissimilar)

I'm really starting to think that p types attempt to know how things work and j types want to know why things work...

NeFi want to know what pieces of the puzzle they are missing about the person, to create a fuller image of the person. What the other person will respond to, if its towards/away from, and why they might have that orientation to it.

Unfortunately, they are also often attuned to differences, opposites, (-ne)

[chemical]

Well as fighter doesn't seem to have something specific to ask, I'll say I'm happy to clarify/explain how I see any of these things and await anything that comes up.

The one thing I did want to mention is that I tend to agree (at least this is my recent leaning after a lot of struggle with this) a little more with socionics' adjustment than with Jung's original presentation on one thing, which is the position/order of information metabolism - socionics would have you go irrational-rational-irrational-rational, whereas Jung has you go irrational-rational-rational-irrational (in terms of "strength")...socionics seems to rightfully relegate the second half of the Jungian model to the "unconscious"/vital psyche rather than the informational psyche.
Now in my flexible world they are perhaps both possible in that I think how people empirically look is different from the theoretical blueprint that makes the most sense, but the blueprint of socionics thus far has started making more sense to me..not sure if that is accidental, but to be sure, it isn't without tremendous skepticism/criticism that I arrived where I am.

But personally I find it simply truer to both experience and concept that ethics and logic being simply different in nature but both forms of reasoning, that it's a little more meaningful (if you want to separate the two out at all, which of course you must if you purport to use the dichotomy in typology) to put them closer to side by side as the strongest in the ego/superego than to really pit them against one another and put them at opposite ends - at least in terms of information metabolism.
The main difference between these two types of reasoning comes down to the fact that ethical judgment must proceed through a consideration of the internal/subjective psyche - that is, appeal to an extent directly to the subject of all the cognitive apprehensions, rather than merely characterize the process by which the apprehensions take place and are processed.

[IBTL]

NeFi want to know what pieces of the puzzle they are missing about the person, to create a fuller image of the person. What the other person will respond to, if its towards/away from, and why they might have that orientation to it.

Unfortunately, they are also often attuned to differences, opposites, (-ne)

How would an IEE acquire that information?

[Amber]

Funny, I never had this problem. In general the other people are envisioning something while I have to constantly make sure they do not.

well as some people have probably realized, this was basically an observation arising from specific disappointment. It happens when the "model" I measure a relationship against is more appealing and interesting than the actual interaction with a person. I'd like a person to be something else, but then it's not super-fair and I should probably just look for something more suitable.

[anndelise]

How would an IEE acquire that information?

Ask the person questions so those answers can fill in the blanks.

They have the hidden agenda "to know". It's the HP form of "to know", not the CD form. CD form wants to know what to do, how to do it, what lead to what in a linear causal-deterministic way. But HP form wants to build up a database for the image they are conceptually putting together.

[IBTL]

Ask the person questions so those answers can fill in the blanks.

They have the hidden agenda "to know". It's the HP form of "to know", not the CD form. CD form wants to know what to do, how to do it, what lead to what in a linear causal-deterministic way. But HP form wants to build up a database for the image they are conceptually putting together.

So then do you ask a person question upon question upon question to fill in the puzzle pieces? (This makes sense initially but not after the introductory period is over.)

[anndelise]

So then do you ask a person question upon question upon question to fill in the puzzle pieces? (This makes sense initially but not after the introductory period is over.)

pretty much. After a few questions I inform them that i am pretty damned nosey, and they could just say they are done answering. But it's not just a bunch of questions thrown at them. There's adding in things like "a friend of mine is a dancer too, she does xyz, do you?" And then they can clarify.

[IBTL]

pretty much. After a few questions I inform them that i am pretty damned nosey, and they could just say they are done answering. But it's not just a bunch of questions thrown at them. There's adding in things like "a friend of mine is a dancer too, she does xyz, do you?" And then they can clarify.

At what point do you stop asking questions? When are you comfortable with your assessment of a person to then make an inferred judgment about them?

[anndelise]

At what point do you stop asking questions? When are you comfortable with your assessment of a person to then make an inferred judgment about them?

That depends on what I am building a conceptual model of.

A person can take a lifetime...I'm still getting to know R, who rarely talks and doesn't analyze himself. So observation and interaction is my only option.

If a person talks a lot about themself, I get a general idea about them, and then move on to something more puzzle like. The best puzzles are the one's where you don't know what the final picture is supposed to look like. The goal of NeFi isn't to judge, but to perceive.

But say that I'm building a conceptual image of what it might be like to work with them,
then I ask/observe until I get a general picture of what it might be like to work with them. But that image is open, it can be easily changed as we actually work together. How do I know what it might be like to work with them? As they answer I get a sense of what they prefer to do, how they prefer to do it, maybe even why that or that way, and then I compare it with what I prefer to do and how.
Are we compatible work-wise? Then positive feelings about working with them.
Will we likely get into each other's way? Not so positive feelings about it.
Will we likely wind up competing over ideas, area, or methods? Probably negative or hesitant feelings about working with them.
And it could be that I feel good about compatible areas, but the methods might conflict and so also feel negative. It's not all black and white.

[IBTL]

What if you saw a person and knew within minutes what their personality type was? And then the only thing that you could do after that point was to reengineer your knowledge of them? How would that affect you?

[anndelise]

What if you saw a person and knew within minutes what their personality type was? And then the only thing that you could do after that point was to reengineer your knowledge of them? How would that affect you?

How would you know the person within minutes? How many years has that person lived that you think you know them after a short chit-chat?

What personality type? The Ti theory of socionics? I'm not a Ti ego type, why would I initially resort to Ti to do what I've been doing for 40 years?

The only way you can "know within minutes what their personality type was" is if either a) they are superobvious and fit the stereotype, or b) you've projected stuff onto them. The real question is, do you do confirmation bias, or do you check for other options? If you do confirmation bias, then you'll always feel you're right, because you'll be deliberately looking for support of your original thought and ignoring that which doesn't fit it. Your confidence doesn't make you right. (And you'll always have a limited database to draw from when you meet other people. Meaning you'll have impoverished NeFi.)

Do you check for other options? Are open to alternatives? Think in terms of possibilities and not necessarilies? Then you already have the habit of NOT jumping to conclusions or accepting the first thought based on limited info.


At most I might be able to say things like: this person reminds me of my dad. Or this person makes me uncomfortable. Or this person seems like she might be good with kids, etc. But these are MY emotions/thoughts, and so may not accurately reflect the person themself. At best, these are merely 3 of many possibilities about the person. And is just one aspect of the entire HP concept building.

[anndelise]

Try thinking of it this way. Neurons that fire together wire together. Each person represents their own set of 'wired together' clumps of info. When you first meet a person, neuron clumps will be rapidly firing off each time you experience something about/from the person. You see a female, so a bunch of clumps related to females you've built HP images of fires off. She says she's a dancer. So now clumps involving dancers and dancing fires off...males and females. She says it's professional scottish line dancing, that narrows down how many dancing neural clumps flash, but adds "professional" clumps. She says she's also a parent. Now you have "parent" clumps firing as well. So now the brightest flashes are those that are a combination of "female" "professional" "dancing" "scottish line" "parent" oh, and she just said she's single, so add in "single parent" too. There are some things you've experienced or heard about regarding professional females, you won't know which of those might apply to her until she says/does something related to that. You've also seen a show that had scottish line dancing in it. Does any of that apply to her? You recently read an article about the life of professional dancers. How much of that applies to her? Professional parents? Dancers who are parents? Single females as parents? The database you have about these things helps you gain a possible understanding of the woman. But not all of it is going to apply to her. So you might try to narrow it down, by asking questions or observing her. In the process of doing so, new neural clumps light up, others dim down since they don't apply. Until finally you reach a fairly clean set of clumps that consistently represent her.

A person with limited database to draw from can reach that point quickly. But that limited database means that they are ignorant of many things, and so are much less likely to be accurate than a person with a broader database. NeFi deliberately build up their databases.

[IBTL]

Well, what I found interesting was a comment one of my LII coworkers said. He said that another one of our coworkers was probably capable of doing a dosing calculation in his sleep, because he does them so often. So then my question for you is, how is personality typing any different?

[anndelise]

Well, what I found interesting was a comment one of my LII coworkers said. He said that another one of our coworkers was probably capable of doing a dosing calculation in his sleep, because he does them so often. So then my question for you is, how is personality typing any different?

At best a typing is one set of clumps. But the same database 'laws' apply.
Socionics is a Ti system. Why would I revert to a Ti system to do what I've been doing for all my life?

[Iris]

Take it easy. Fi-function is a creating, maintaining and changing relations. Fi-types (Napoleon, Dreiser, Dostoyevsky and Huxley) can do it as desired. Other types can't.

Disagree

[IBTL]

At best a typing is one set of clumps. But the same database 'laws' apply.
Socionics is a Ti system. Why would I revert to a Ti system to do what I've been doing for all my life?

What is your system?

I'll be the first to admit that I use a bastardized form of Socionics, but with that being said, I don't need to cheat like other people by having someone take a personality test. If I could relate it to anything, it's like knowing how to speak a language but not knowing how to read or write in that language. And if a person doesn't know how to read or write, does it make them any less capable of understanding grammar or sentence structure? No. I mean, it would be great if I could explain how a particular man who looks rather stiff, is hard to please, and prone to the occasional outburst of anger is an LSI. Or I could just as easily say he's a j type who utilizes the complain game, and he expresses his Se ego by provoking fear in others during tirades.

How do you know how to spot something? How do you know a duck is a duck? Eventually after seeing enough ducks, you'll know another duck whenever you see it.

Perhaps 16 different personality types is of sufficient enough quantity to provide humans with enough variation to evolve in a spontaneous manner? And off the top of my head, I can not think of another species with as much depth in phenotype variation.

[IBTL]

^I'm using "phenotype" loosely here to describe observable variation from within a species.

If a light went off in Darwin's head without the availabilty of DNA to underpin his theory, how is personality typing of strangers any different? In essence, what qualities qualify as being type related and what qualities don't?

[Amber]

Fi is overarching but not overarching at the same time, so I think this quote is too narrow in scope and bias towards Fi due to its illusive nature. Fe is just as selective as Fi, but since most people accept that Fe is better understood, Fi then becomes more selective somehow since it is less understood. I firmly believe that for every introverted function their is an equal and opposite extroverted function capable of similar levels of discernment.

I think Fe is much more discerning, albeit initially, than Fi. Fe will use a sort of weeding in or weeding out process to cast out those who don't make their cut. Fe will have a hard bottom line or benchmark while Fi will have ethical qualifications that need to be met in order to check off their list. (If you make the Fe cut, you're in. If you make the Fi list, you're in.)

Fi will be able to love or not love through good times and bad times as their subjective, introverted feelings about someone solidify and become unwavering, and it is this attribute combined with historical introverted intuition that denotes ESIs as loyalists. However, ESIs can be exploited through Se, as it can be an insatiable function, so the easiest way to win over an ESI is through a consistent supply of quality Se - ESIs are like LSIs in this way. Same goes for winning over an ILI, but quality is much more important than quantity at this point in the functional cascade (FiSeNiTe vs NiTeFiSe). Thus, LIEs are like ILIs but with a slightly greater emphasis on quantity (TeNiSeFi) rather than quality.

Fi



Fe

Fe bullshit.

You are judging only by random external manifestations and making lame Ti distinctions with those songs.

[Amber]

One example of Fi from my perspective is that I can usually see many different perspectives or empathize on a level where I pity a person instead of demonizing them. For example, some people are really quick to judge villains, or criminals. But I don't think, "He did that so therefore he is a bad person." I think instead, "What led this person to do this (crime)? What was their family life like? Do they have a mental illness? Would another person put in this position act the same way? Was this a product of their environment? Could I have turned out like that?". I like thinking about these things in depth. I mean, I still think they should be put in jail for the crimes they committed but I'm just not going to be as quick to criticize. I like thinking about things from others perspectives to see the situation more clearly.

I think this is a distinctive FiNe orientation. And often I've seen it in a theoretical way rather than as concrete sympathy in Delta NFs ..in the sense that they speculate a lot and they have a well-developed idea of a person's background and possible (less obvious) motivations, but this does not have to translate in any acts. I've always thought they'd do great writing books about such things, as they have an ability to penetrate the human psyche which is probably second to none. As far as I'm concerned the degree of understanding of the reasons why someone may have engaged in an act I deem "not right" doesn't mean I automatically feel or show sympathy. They are unrelated. It's usually only with very, very close people in my life (read blood relatives, SOs, "soulmate-friends") that I almost instinctively get into empathy mode.

[Skepsis]

Originally Posted by Nessie
One example of Fi from my perspective is that I can usually see many different perspectives or empathize on a level where I pity a person instead of demonizing them. For example, some people are really quick to judge villains, or criminals. But I don't think, "He did that so therefore he is a bad person." I think instead, "What led this person to do this (crime)? What was their family life like? Do they have a mental illness? Would another person put in this position act the same way? Was this a product of their environment? Could I have turned out like that?". I like thinking about these things in depth. I mean, I still think they should be put in jail for the crimes they committed but I'm just not going to be as quick to criticize. I like thinking about things from others perspectives to see the situation more clearly.

I think this is a distinctive FiNe orientation. And often I've seen it in a theoretical way rather than as concrete sympathy in Delta NFs ..in the sense that they speculate a lot and they have a well-developed idea of a person's background and possible (less obvious) motivations, but this does not have to translate in any acts. I've always thought they'd do great writing books about such things, as they have an ability to penetrate the human psyche which is probably second to none

I think it could be attributed to the lack of Se as the presence of Ne. To even vocalize a judgment about someone opens up the possibility you are wrong, but it also invites conflict whether it's verbal or physical. That is the mystery of Fi. It is internal, hence not easily seen. The judgement is mostly not extroverted except under circumstances where the person can either no longer contain their feelings and it comes up, sometimes with a lot of intensity.

I think introverted ethics is mostly invisible. That is why I don't really understand the negative perception of Fi users, because while they judge, it is contained. A person that is always reactive in writing or in conversation would seem to me to be using extroverted thinking or feeling. Introverted feelers learn at an early age to not wear their emotions on their sleeves and what others may see is either some extroverted feeling leaking out, giving the impression that something is wrong, or nothing at all. I find the "cold" face to be present when they may be experiencing negative emotions and are withdrawing, otherwise it more phlegmatic and non reactive. Cold is more of a thinker vibe. I think Fe users look more visibly affected by things that bother them, hence a more reactive or neurotic appearance as they ooze emotion.

I speculate that between FiSe and FiNe, that FiSe would appear more reactive and have more of a presence or force and may appear more judgemental than FiNe, in general.

[Beautiful sky]

I've come to the definitive conclusion Fi is only a pain in the ass. A citadel that keeps you confined in what you identify with and what you feel. Also it can lead to severe disappointment when people don't match your ideals about them or the way you envision a relationship.

Yes but I've found out that there are self aware people who will come along and love you and even awareness comes to those who weren't previously

[silverchris9]

Fi's not about the emotions themselves, but about the field of influences related to the emotions. As in what triggered it.
And remember, Fi and Te work together.

So we see Jane crying her heart out on the couch, but we need to know why. She tells us she thinks her and her boyfriend are breaking up. What lead her to think this? What did he say or do that made her think they were going to break up? What were the circumstances surrounding that incidence? She tells us he raised his voice at her and walked out of the room when she asked him to change the lightbulb. What was he doing when she asked him? He'd been working on her car and washing blood and grease off his hand cuz he had nicked himself. Oh he was probably just agitated and in some pain. No, no, he hates me. Why do you think he hates you? Because he yelled at me and wouldn't change the lightbulb.

But the Fe person would more likely be helping Jane with the emotions themselves, not the situation that led to the emotions. You're hurt and sad that he yelled at you, and you're scared about what it means. It's ok to cry, it's ok to feel this way. Here, let me hug you while you let it out, while unfeeling Applejacks gets you a tissue and some water. *pointed look at Applejacks telling her that now is NOT the time to be so unsensitive to Jane's emotions, and to go get the water and tissues."


Edited to add: i am sure i could find faults in my example, lol.

I like this a lot. I like the basic example too. If i know my friend is freaking out for a lame reason, well, if I'm in front of her right now anyway, I have no choice but to attempt to offer some measure of comfort or emotional support or whatever (obviously, this is dependent on experience as well---if it's a situation where I have no experience whatsoever, I might freeze up. But usually I'd provide some form of emotional support). The only thing I might do is evaluate as to the validity of said friend's emotional response, and use that info to help make a decision as to whether or not I will engage this person at all. Like, if, say, the friend texted to ask if we could hang out (which I know actually means I comfort you while you freak out), then I would go into the emotional calculus of how bad friend is in need, and how legitimate friend's greivance is, and how much energy I will have to expend on this, etc. But like I said, yeah, if I'm in front of a human that is breaking down and crying and this is a person I know and have some measure of interpersonal obligation to, yeah of course I have to get in there and do what I can. But if it happens over and over again for no reason, I'm not gonna be in a hurry to show up every time she calls.

Also someone said earlier that it seems like Fe people feel what others are feeling when we're trying to comfort them, and like... ugh maybe that's a little tiny bit true, but mostly I don't mirror, and I certainly don't uncontrollably mirror others' emotions. Instead I respond to their emotional state by affecting whatever emotional state I think will get results. This doesn't necessarily mean that I feel whatever emotions I'm projecting. I might be thinking "oh my god if Suzy ever cries on my shoulder again I am literally never hanging out with her again" even as I pat Suzy on the back and give her a big hug and all that jazz. Also maybe the uncontrollable empathy is more of an F base thing, i.e., EXI and EXE, more than XEE or XEI.

[darya]

Also someone said earlier that it seems like Fe people feel what others are feeling when we're trying to comfort them, and like... ugh maybe that's a little tiny bit true, but mostly I don't mirror, and I certainly don't uncontrollably mirror others' emotions. Instead I respond to their emotional state by affecting whatever emotional state I think will get results. This doesn't necessarily mean that I feel whatever emotions I'm projecting. I might be thinking "oh my god if Suzy ever cries on my shoulder again I am literally never hanging out with her again" even as I pat Suzy on the back and give her a big hug and all that jazz. Also maybe the uncontrollable empathy is more of an F base thing, i.e., EXI and EXE, more than XEE or XEI.

For me it's like I in an instant take all the emotions that the other is feeling inside me…I start feeling them too. So if someone starts crying, even if I don't even like this person at all, I will start crying (well not sobbing, but my eyes will water) imidiatelly and feel extremely bad for them in that moment. It upsets me tremendously to see others hurt or cry or bullied or whatever. if I even see someone is slightly uncomfortable (that it shows on their face ) I feel this need to make this person happy again or let them know that everything is going to be ok. But these are not deeply felt or long-term emotions, after 5 minutes I can laugh again and feel completely at peace (unless something really bad happened to said person ofc).

I have the same reactions even in bizzare cases, for example if Kim Kardashian is on the verge of crying on TV because her kitty pooped on the floor…I will get watery eyes imidiatelly and take all her emotions in. Or if someone even just writes something bad that has happened to him here on forum. I sometimes feel like a giant antenna for all possible emotions lol.

[applejacks]

if I'm in front of a human that is breaking down and crying and this is a person I know and have some measure of interpersonal obligation to, yeah of course I have to get in there and do what I can. But if it happens over and over again for no reason, I'm not gonna be in a hurry to show up every time she calls.

Yes. This. I look for patterns and deduce what is considered the norm for an individual. If I'm around someone who cries regularly, I try to understand if it's a phase or a result of a season of life. If not, I consider the possibility that this is their norm. If so, I store that knowledge away, provide momentary aid if possible, and carry on while keeping signals open for a true sense of urgency.

I think the major key, though, is the sense of whether or not it's a norm or a season. I've witnessed very close family cry for days and nights without ceasing, and I knew it was a season of life- a result of terrible tragedy. This is never taken lightly, and it was with heart-wrenching pain and heartache that I gave my all to aid that individual, to the point of all-out sobbing with them.

But there is a difference between this and someone who cries at the drop of a hat (or as @darya mentioned, the drop of a kitty poop). At the same time, I always try to sense urgency by asking questions- "are they really crying about the kitty poop, or are they crying about the 87 other problems they've had today and this is just the final straw?" Once I figure that out, then I can provide the appropriate aid ......or more likely, step away and let Fe deal with it.

[ashlesha]

i often just feel awkward when people cry >.>

if im close to them i usually just hug them and/or continue the interaction like nothing happened, maybe with a softer voice.

ethics ftw.

a couple times ive cried when im surrounded by an entire group of people crying, like at a funeral. thats more overwhelming.

[suedehead]

I don't know. Murder and genocide is often committed by people who lack empathy, so I don't feel it for them. Something in that vain is probably my reaction to most things. Although I don't think it has to be rigid like ex-con = bad person, or homeless person = 'whatever, you brought it on yourself'.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

So what's it like to be Fi base. Do you really see through people and grasp their potential for good or evil as in "X ray", as socionics profiles go ? (at least for FiSe ... some of them seem to endow this function with superhuman powers).

Yes, actually, although I admit it probably does sound like some magic superpower voodoo bullshit. Most others take longer to see what I do. It takes more manifestation of their shitty character for a lot of others to realize the same things I see in people. People think of Fi as this subjective value based thing, as though Fi base revolves around how it feels about moral subjects. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: it's more like doing math with human behaviors. When you see A + B, you know you are going to get C. It's like...you don't look at a recipe for a soup and then expect to get a salad. Same thing with human behaviors. For a long time I thought Fi base was laughable for me because I didn't relate to how subjective value based it seems to be. In my mind, I was seeing all of that as what simply makes logical sense. I still do, but my point in saying this is to explain that Ti is involved in this. There's a lot of logical evaluation going on, and it's possible to gain insight that way because of logical deduction. Thus, it's really not that superhuman. It's more like logic with a human/relationship focus.

EDIT: Good and evil aren't the words I would use, however. Neither is the word 'potential.' It's just an assessment based on whatever factors are currently present. It's not as though people can't change, thus altering those variables and the results they produce.

Fi in mbti is less about reading people's character and more about personal values which can be hard to put exactly into words, but are sometimes defended very stubbornly because they shape people's sense of self. How do you experience it, isn't Fi mainly about personal ideals of feeling and hiding inner depth from "intruders", as Jung's description goes?

I hate MBTI Fi and don't relate whatsoever. I think MBTI is a terrible construct in general and discarded it, but ISTP was my closest fit. Not only do I not relate to the MBTI version of Fi, but I don't relate to F period.