How is Fi dominance compatible with an IJ temperament?

[some chair]

IJs are both static and rational, so they see reality as mostly not changing and when it does, it's in abrupt "leaps" from one state to another. An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will "settle down" one way or the other soon enough.

I believe that relationships are inherently dynamic things that must be developed, and change over time as the components change themselves. I find it puzzling that people's sentiments, interrelationships, character, and needs could be seen as being "mostly not changing", and constituting "a stable reality".

Could people share their opinions and experiences on how this works out?

[chemical]

Well, what is stable? Everyone dies eventually. Stability is all relative. Stable just means that the emphasis of a cognition is not on the evolution of something (whether objective or emotive activity, or some kind of abstract perception) through time.

Indeed, there are a lot of character judgments which are relatively stable, and inform one of how much for instance it makes sense to put two particular kinds of people in the same room: what needs of each other will they satisfy?

You could draw an analogy to Ti and Te: do relatively impersonal, non-people-oriented parameters not also constantly change? Yes and no: there are certain "fields" constantly influencing any dynamic motion, and while they themselves may be changing, relative to the motion, they are quite stable, meaning within a particular system of motion in time, a certain fixed field may be at the heart of the activity.

Fi notes such fields in the realm of ethical content, particularly relational ethical content between people.

Your sentiments could also partly be influenced by your EIE label, as you may see the dynamic aspects of the ethical interplay as more naturally representative of what is occurring.

[Beautiful sky]

Well you take someone for who they are and that taking establishes the relation. The relationship may change if onebof the parties dishonors or betrays the other. Then yes that relation will change but that doesn't happen with all relations. I am statically my sister's sister and my brother's keeper. What they do in my bond won't change that bond hoqever with relations that are not so close as in lower level just starting off friendships I'm inclined to evaluate that bond based on the qualities of interation

[ashlesha]

its possible that your lover today could become your enemy tommorrow or that you will spontaneously start hating your favorite band. but generally these things have some consistency. i might get burnt out on hanging out with my best friend and want some space or i might get pissed at her for some reason but even during these periods i would still consider her my best friend. people who operate differently and consider a relationship over because they happen to be mad in that moment of time are unpredictable and scary.

[silverchris9]

Hm. I think that this results in part from the confusion of seeing Fi not only generally from an Fe perspective, but in a culture and language that has a history of associating the word "feeling" with mutability. This is why "ethics" might be a more useful word for Fi. In any case, Fi is internal statics of fields, those implicit things about relationships that are stable through time. So Fi is interested less in how emotions change from moment to moment, but more in the sort of feelings that don't change... the bond between parent and child, husband and wife, between two friends. But also, less exaltedly, the gut reaction of loving or hating a person, idea, image, etc. The feeling of "rightness" or "wrongness" (especially as paired with Si-valuing), which is also a feeling that is stable over time. You can compare it to Ni. Fi and Ni can both be seen as pertaining to the internal images, the web of associations that exists in our minds (arguably literally on a physical scale, insofar as the "meaning" of each neuron is the number and strength of all of its connections to other neurons). Ni is concerned with how those images can be manipulated and changed, and what effect that produces ("If I think of my father as 'the one who is the arbiter of masculinity' what changes if I take away that role and give it to someone else, to my peer group, to myself? What does he mean now? What does masculinity mean now?") Fi is concerned with what does not change about those relationships ("My father is the arbiter of masculinity. How I feel about masculinity is tied to how I feel about my father. When I think of masculinity I get a burst of golden brown happiness, like I felt when my dad came home from work; or, when I think of masculinity I get a sick feeling of fear in the pit of my stomach, like I felt when my dad was angry and frightening.") Of course, neither of those are conscious thoughts (the Ni thought might be more conscious than the Fi one, since I know Ni better 'cause I live it). But that reflects how Fi and Ni process information.

I imagine Fi as a sort of immediate (sometimes overwhelming) access to the web of associations that exists between whatever it is that you are focusing your attention on now and everything that thing is connected to, not in external reality, but in your experiences, in your mind. Obviously, you can't distinguish all the fine gradations of feelings you have about that object, you can't experience every single connection independently. What you experience is a sort of gestalt: Desperately sad, with notes of pity and regret; Eager affirmation with just a twinge of nervous excitement; Explosive frustration with a wish to totally cancel that thing out from existence, or at least from your experience.


In practical terms, this suggests that an EXI would see an argument as a temporary disturbance in a generally positive relationship--it would take a great deal of arguing (a great deal of new associations connected to that person) to make the gestalt feeling towards the person change. But if it did change, it would probably change significantly and abruptly---I keep thinking of a person blurting out "I don't love you anymore" or "I love you" and suddenly realizing that it's true, that the feeling that emerges from the web of associations is different now than in the past. They might be shocked or confused if all of a sudden a person claims to need something different emotionally than they have needed heretofore, where an Fe-valuer might be more likely to see a mid-life crisis, for example, as a valuable opportunity to make a fundamental and radical change, or just roll with it as a new need to satisfy in a new way. Or the Fi-valuer might handwave it with a "oh, it'll pass, that's just a temporary thing and once she gets it out of her system she'll be fine," fine there meaning "back to normal," or more specifically "your feelings about me will be the same as they were before." I don't know about "character"---for me, character is little more than a prediction about how a person will behave based on a sort of picture or guess of another person's mind (Ni/Fe, y'all). But I suppose an Fi-valuer might see character in terms of how they feel about that individual, i.e., "Oh, he'll pick you up from the airport, he's a good guy," where that statement "he's a good guy" contains the idea "I feel warmly about him, with associations of honor and responsibility and dependability."


Now, to circle back around and look at it from a more Fe perspective, this seems like an odd combination of absurd, obvious, and irrelevant. I mean, yes, obviously you hope you have the kind of relationship that can survive a little argument, but it's about how you feel now, in the moment. If I feel "I am so fucking in love with you" right now, then I'll probably a) stare besottedly, or b) violently make out. If I feel "dear god I have never detested a person more than you" well I mean, I would probably leave the space and go write about it, but an Fe-leading type would be more likely to rage and express that anger at that person in whatever way is socially acceptable in the moment (or is not socially acceptable, for that matter). My body, my subconscious takes care of compiling all those instances of feelings into whatever general thing I think about you, whether I think you're worth my time or not, whether I think I should invest my energy in you or not. That's a feeling that's just there without me looking at it. If I need to look at our relationship, I'll analyze it logically: Well, she did x, and y, and z; she also did m and l... which one outweighs which? If she does b will that put her in a different category than where she is now? Ugh but when she did p I was just SO MAD, and it ruined my productivity for a week and like, I can't go through that again, so I guess... for an Fe-valuer, the inner life is all about the moment-to-moment changes that happen inside of me (especially betas, whose two internal/implicit functions are both dynamics). But for an Fi-valuer, the inner life is all about that gestalt that arises from the web of associations. Both types would use the word "feelings" to refer to their respective notions of what constitutes the emotive aspect of the inner life. But they use the word to refer to relatively different things.

[consentingadult]

Could people share their opinions and experiences on how this works out?

Yes: you see someone and you (usually) instantly decide if they are a nice person or a moron. Then you put a big period behind it, to make it final.

Works quite well actually ;-)

[Ainfigur]

A person is a static mass of contradictions to me and different external conditions bring out different aspects. Choice is involved though and that's where the ethical judgement comes in.

[darya]

@silverchris9, I would like to thank you for the most understandable and clear explanation of Fi and Fe I've read so far. This leaves no doubt that I'm a strong Fe valuer. It's otherwise very difficult to grasp the difference when both types describe their inner life with emotion this, feelling that and you can't see into the other person's mind to actually see what this feelings he's talking about look like.

[strangeling]

It's strange. It doesn't seem clear, especially given that there is a duality at play with the types, where a type is both irrational and rational, but has a stronger focus toward one or the other.

And I could say what it is that I identify with in introverted feeling; maybe that will mean something better than straight-up theory.
For me it has to do with a desire for harmony with other people. It motivates me to understand a person's character so that I can better know their qualia and try to fulfil their needs. This reinforces a positive relationship where their needs are, more or less, as important as my own. That said, I'm not very judgemental (when not on here anyway), but usually pretty accepting; so if I cut someone off it's because I've learned that their character is incompatible with the harmony I seek with other people. I could also choose to spend more time with people that are more compatible. The problems come about when the people I harmonize with don't harmonize well together, sometimes making me ambivalent towards them or choose actions that seek to stop the conflict. Sometimes this can mean I end up looking "sensitive" or "moral", but that's more of an effect of my seeking harmony than a deliberate goal. I'm not inherently moral, it just kind of happens because of what I seek, whether that's good or bad, I don't really care to be honest.

So in some ways IJ is compatible for me, considering the seemingly ethical decisions I make, but in others not so much, in relation to my desire to harmonize and understand (socionics saying IPs are harmonizers). I don't know which one I am or if there is really much of a distinction between them.

Good question?

[Saberstorm]

A good example of an Fi dom is Obama and another is Nixon. Static ethics is inflexible, accusing, moralizing ... it is not warm, genuine Fe.

Fi does not glow. It is regal.

[JWC3]

A good example of an Fi dom is Obama and another is Nixon. Static ethics is inflexible, accusing, moralizing ... it is not warm, genuine Fe.

Fi does not glow. It is regal.

The best example of an Fi dom is Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, or Rene Descartes

[Saberstorm]

The best example of an Fi dom is Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, or Rene Descartes

Those are Ne doms...

[JWC3]

Those are Ne doms...

Hey, look at you! Getting close. So adorable.

[Persephone]

René Descartes was LII as far as I understood... Einstein ILE.

[The Martrix]

And Churchill was Ti-ESTp.