Fi Involved With Self-Image?
Do you think Fi manages self-image?
IME, many people who value Fi have a light preoccupation with "fakeness" (ie. disingenuous behavior, action incongruent with morals, etc.). The notion of fakeness, then, seems predicated on someone's image. In other words, it's as if, according to Fi valuers, an image must be maintained.
But does Fi have a direct relationship with "image" or "self-image"?
All types want to maintain self-images and many of every type try to project false ones for various reasons. IXIs seem to be the types most interested in images for image sake followed by XIEs, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. All types are capable of the behaviours that you describe but these are more related to their upbringings, experiences and influences......
a.k.a. I/O
Fi is ethics of relations and whatever it involves. Ime yes, Fi types care for keeping certain image and acting certain way ie acting "ethically" in front of others. They care about how they will be perceived and don't want to cause a bad impression or project a negative image.
Edit. Fe is different imo, even when they do by default ethics of relations too (IEI has 4DFi), Fe seems more concerned by the emotional tone of relations and appropriate behavior in groups or keeping up with the group standard and thats the reason why Fe NFs care also for self image, but not particularly for acting ethically in relations but creating certain self image that will keep up within the standard.
Last edited by Hope; 09-26-2018 at 04:50 AM.
The distinction between public image and self-image isn't really clear to me from reading this thread. Is that on purpose? I guess ethical incongruity bleeds into public image insofar as someone is perceived by others to lack integrity but I don't really follow what you're saying wrt fakeness being an image. People are genuine and/or have integrity regardless of others perceptions or misperceptions.
I think Fi as a construct is mostly concerned with that linkage/match between self and ideal itself ("internal fields") and while image concerns might come into play for the individual for plenty of reasons they're not directly an Fi thing. My take is kind of biased towards jung, but as far as "the maintenance of relationships" aspect socionics brings in, I'd say recognizing feelings of harmoniousness versus feelings of dissonance falls into this realm and is related to the navigation of relationships. This suits me, this doesn't suit me, something about this feels off and creates a clanging sound emotionally...if that makes sense. I'm not sure if I've actually noticed Fi types accusing others of being fake more often but I'd say they're attuned to "feeling" fakeness in that way.
I think this is asking the wrong question.
The question that you could be asking is, "What would it look like had one is NOT involved with self-image? And what would it look like if one is?".
I'd say human beings are political by nature, and it's in nature for humans to "fake". Faking puts one in advantage over the others, by being ahead of them socially, through social games and politics. This is an obvious evolutionary advantage. Of course, TOO MUCH faking isn't also good, because that only leads to deception. So there is a criticism of "fakeness". So it seems like you'd need the right amount of "faking" to balance between trust and distrust. If you fake too much, then that would create distrust in others. But if you were too honest, then you'd risk social rejection and ostracism, which pretty much means a death sentence for human beings as humans are social creatures.
I mean, I get that the "persona", as Jung defined it, plays a pervasive role in the psychological lives of most people.
Additionally, some behaviors are unequivocally disingenuous, as proofed by contradictions between what's said and what's done.
What I want to get at, in terms of "fakeness", as it relates to sociotypes, is that I think different personalities find it difficult to understand each other, even through the powers of empathy. Consequently, different personalities may find others detestable, assigning pejoratives for the aspects of others they fail to understand. For instance, the Fi/Fe divide highlights differences between personalities that would rather contain and internalize value judgments, vs personalities that externalize value judgments in the form of expression. When such personalities come in contact, a disconnect frequently surfaces and you start hearing pejoratives like "fake" or "selfish", depending on which person fails to understand differences. In reality, Fi and Fe simply exist as different ways of processing information.
So, I want to explore viable explanations for why Fi personalities interpret some behaviors as "fake" in a way that's easily understood.
It was more or less on purpose; in the context of how a function processes "image", I'm not convinced that it's relevant whether the image is public or private.Originally Posted by ashlesha
If we make such a distinction, we tacitly admit that a disconnect exists between what we consider to be "public" and "private" images. At that point, we could argue that fakeness is even more pervasive than previously imagined. But would we really be giving Fi a fair shot that way? Ie. would the expectations set forth by Fi personalities be just too high and unrealistic by default? Do you think this is the case?
I think people have all kinds of reasons for wanting to preserve a sort of self image. For me personally I do so because I don't want people looking down on me, or seeing me as undesirable or whatever. But people have lots of reasons.
I must be Fi as hell then. I was told once (many times), that I'm like this to an overdramatic extent.
Maybe this is a derail, sorry, but I think I don't know what you mean by self-image. I took it to mean how you see yourself, which seems obviously different than the perception of you held by the general public? Everybody has like, a secret, private inner life and behaves at least a little differently when alone (I think..lol) and the idea that a discrepancy between public and private is fake is creepy to me, so I dunno. I'm having trouble connecting Fi to image in general. But "disingenuous behavior" and "action incongruent with morals" seem more like issues of honesty and integrity to me than fakeness. I'm not trying to talk past you on purpose but I guess I just think about this differently.
Rather than think about Fe vs Fi in terms of persona or image in the structural sense, I think of it in terms of dynamic practices and actions. I also think part of the disconnect between Fe and Fi may be temporal.
Anecdote:
A former Fi-ego in-law, when she met me, said, “Oh, you’re one of those people who does little voices.” And I was like whut. “You can do impressions with your voice. You’re the first person I’ve met who does that, and I always wondered what people who can do that are like.”
She didn’t mean any harm in observing this btw. But we did grow to dislike each other.
To me, it’s “right” to use my expression to have an effect on other people. To inform, to persuade, to entertain ... also to punish.
To me, it’s fair to other people if I show them I’m upset, in real time where possible. That lets them know where they stand, and they have a chance to change course, and I also have a chance to figure out whether my feelings and thoughts are based on a misunderstanding.
To this in-law, I think I seemed self-indulgent and dramatic, and I’m pretty sure it was fatiguing for her. It seemed like she needed more time to work with her emotions, and would work them out on her own so as not to burden others. She apparently needed similar restraint from me.
Meanwhile, I felt like I was walking in a minefield with her. Never knew where I was going to do wrong in her eyes, knew I would. I needed feedback from her during our interactions. There was none. So she became someone I wished to avoid.
She saw me as manipulative “in the moment.” I saw her as manipulative in the long term.
We both have personae, public and private images. How we implement them and construct them follows different patterns.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
All types have a mobilizing function, thus, all types are involved with self-image.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Well 4's tend to be Fi doms but most Fi doms are 9w1s.
Socionics and MBTI are 2 different concepts they are talking about socio Fi not cognitive functions Fi
I hope that clears everything up
"Many black Americans are SEE type."
I know you didn't say it @consentingadult but this is hilarious lol Grade A typing
You ain't seen nothing yet. I'm sure in time you'll run into more of Maritsa's (aka Beautiful Sky) posts and have a hilarious laugh.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I'm not sure how to answer your question yet, but the way I see it Fi valuers are more into morally chastising what they find to be inappropriate/immoral whereas Fe morality is based more on objectivity, not your internal field values. Fi valuers are too short-sighted and subjective to me, and it's scary/weird when they try to turn their personal feelings and views into objective serious laws everybody should follow, although I understand it in the sense their Fi is so strong that they kind of can't help but doing this. And to be fair, only very unhealthy Fi valuers do this and it's not all that common probably. And the way to get them to stop unfairly judging you based on their gut Fi feelings is to sort of build a connection with them if possible, instead of merely expressing my own pov. It's not like I would make excuses for a SLE that actually murdered somebody, but I'm just more the type that needs concrete proof rather than 'my internal emotional field vision is telling me this or that.' I understand many people are different, but this is how I am and why I value Fe and not Fi.
As for that fake superficial corny "Smile more!" or somebody sociopathically being too positive and "gay" when you need people to realize how important something is to you- see, I value Fe and I hate that shit too. ((and somebody genuinely wanting the atmosphere to be more compassionate and uplifting is different than that. Not all kindness is "fake.")) I think it's universally 'human' to hate that shit. Maybe unless you're Adam Strange, but that's why he's so weird. And I don't think that's Fe/Fi related but a misunderstanding that it is. I think you can be very Fi valuing and also behave that way... it's just NTR.
I probably didn't answer your question, but needed to express the above anyway.
I think that's a pretty limited view of ethics, Fi is more about individual bonds between people and Fe is more about groups and whats good for the most people. its related to Te which is grounded in Fi, it provides for a limited aim, whereas Ti is the "system" it tries to capture the general dynamics an incorporate what is logical with respect to everyone in an ethical sense
Nah. If that were true, I wouldn't value Te or Ti. I don't like systems either. Just need a better word than systems.
Fe is more responsible than Fi for managing your "image" in the sense of what you express about yourself publicly. Fi in itself has nothing to do with this, although image can also involve Se when it becomes about self-promotion and things like that.
This image can be more, or less, congruent with your actual motivations and internal, static qualities - internal, static qualities which are recognized by Fi.
So this is a point where Fi and Fe conflict - the manner of communication or even communication itself (roughly: "what you say") can be seen as a distraction or a downright lie by Fi which is trying to get at something "deeper" or "real" -- which is manifested in how your actions line up with your words, in what you do rather than what you say or how you say it.
Last edited by Exodus; 09-28-2018 at 09:07 PM.
well thats how you come across so..
What are the advantages of being "real"? There is likely none, as that would only get taken advantage of by the fakers and the manipulators. So that's why people who have a hard time "playing the game", like those who fall on the Asperger's spectrum, have a much harder time in society. Being "real" is not really a viable strategy if you want to survive in the long term.
And yet most people would think that being too fake is morally pernicious. That's why those are too fake and too manipulative would probably fall on the psycopathic spectrum.
The vast majority of population probably have a mix of both fakeness and realness. They know how to "play the game", and yet they're self-aware enough to know when to be real. They're also likely to be "grudgers", meaning that if they were to be manipulated, then they would manipulate back as an act of self-defense. There are likely two strategies to deal with the other manipulators. Either they can manipulate back and outwit them, or try to bulldoze them with the sheer force of "realness". The "realness" will also likely win the approval of the population at large, if they're skilled enough in showing the right kind of realness that would win the approval of others.
Being too "real" and naively honest is simply not a viable long-term strategy. People who are too honest and real are often hated and rejected by the group for their honesty. People that are loved are those who do not always tell them how they really feel.
Probably Fi valuers are more likely to accept being 'hated and rejected by the group for their honesty' as you say if that is what they believe is the right thing to do. I personally want to be honest above all with myself and strive to do that and for the most part I could not care less if it is a viable strategy, though of course when it comes down to it I need to survive. I have learnt to compromise a little for the sake of the group's feelings but it is still feels a little unnatural to me.
But yeah we all use both Fi and Fe so we all have some combination of both
Fi is static internal relations, whatever that means. It sounds to me like being able to see an image of how things are inside of you. "Static" is like "an image", a static snapshot.
Well I would say that even the so-called "Fi-valuers" aren't on the level of Aspergers', who are often mocked by the general population for their inability to "play the game" in social situations.
I should correct myself and say that there are obviously advantages to being "real". The advantage is that if you are "real", then other people could help you. They could help you if you're hurt, and they could help you become happier or whatever. But you'd only be "real" with the people that you could trust, like friends and families. And you'd be "fake" with people that you can't trust, like strangers. Some people are more trusting than others, they'd have no problem with being "real" with most strangers. But it's obvious that if you're mistrusting, then you'd have a harder time showing your "real" side.
So could real/fake have to do with trusting/mistrusting, strength/weakness, cunning/ineptitude, etc? Possibly.
if the "fakeness" to understand as acting against own wishes then it can be more related to Fi among all functions. but it seems as too rough
from types point mb better approach of values:
what people wish relates to valued functions. this "fakeness" would be acting without conscious fiting to own needs/views/ideals in those regions or without feeling of inner satisfaction (what also includes uncounscious factors). for weak functions as superid this may happen more often. the norms of unvalued regions are also important, but lesser
The personal "fakeness" is what neurotic attitude and behavior (of inner contradiction) is and what predisposes to clinical neuroses with the shifting of contradictions and negative feelings from them to the unconsciousness.
Maybe for FE valuers the socially appropriate format or 'the game' as you say is seen as more static just as Fi see their personal ethics as more static because I feel I see it as able to be influenced by me actually, I don't feel it as inevitable and unchanging but as something that I can, and maybe even should, influence, in a small way, by the way I engage with it. It's probably not fair to compare with asberger's, Fi valuing can read social cues but may feel (for me anyway) that they need to evaluate them against their own ethics first before following them or not.
this is a really strange association to me, not offensive just strange because I tend to associate "image" with Se and aristocracy
alphas seem the least concerned with creating or maintaining an image (assuming you mean an "image" consciously constructed for the public) while both aristocratic quadras seem hyper conscious of their image, just for vastly different reasons - power (beta) vs status (delta) - but I'd say it's more obvious in beta. extroverted betas seem the most concerned with maintaining a potentially inauthentic image (but that might just be because their image is more pliable than other sociotypes, like it's always at the mercy of the shifting social expectations of their surrounding environment) and delta irrationals kinda strike me as narcissists, which is probably offensive but I can't help but laugh whenever I read their duality description a la strat. IEE is like "pay attention to me!" while SLI is more like "why isn't anyone paying attention to me?!" (which are both relatable statements) but it's hard to say with gamma because I think the potential is definitely there (especially since the quadra contains Ni egos, and SEE) but how they rank among the other quadras I'm not exactly sure yet
I'd also probably distinguish between conscious image-manufacturing geared toward a specific end (proactive) and simply feeling uncomfortable being your natural self in an environment which may not be so accepting due to negative past experiences (reactive) and I always thought this article was interesting (specifically this section)
with that said, I've yet to meet an LII who gives a shit about any of this, and LSEs - although status conscious - don't seem overtly concerned with it either
Does it matter what you, or anybody else personally feel about it?
The answer is no.
You can say "Well I don't care about these games and images, so therefore I don't!", but then that would only be circular and tautological.
So it must instead be discussed by what is possible and what is not possible. The explanation must come from the outside of the subject, as it were.
Well what would it look, if one did not care to "play the game"? Then it would only mean that they would get taken advantage of by the others, as it would happen with people with Asperger's. They would even be mocked, and ostracized. It might even mean death, being framed, being scapegoated if they're not careful. The people that do "play the game" are simply more advantageous than those who do not. In the long run, there would be more people that play the game than those that do not.
So this is an evolutionary explanation. It explains from the evolutionary framework, that whomever, or whatever that survives, is what's more advantageous than the others in that specific environment.
Of course but sometimes it's worth death, for some people. Like those who worked in resistence in Nazi Germany/France etc. It's not always about being advantageous if you believe the system is wrong it might be more evolutionary to oppose it.
Yes. Fi is self awareness of how one impacts or comes across to others regardless of feelings. Gamma and Delta Fis are more naturally attuned to things like how social status affects communication than other types. It is self-concept. In esotericism Fi correlates with Leo, the Sun and the 5th house... the augmentation and influence of Self.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
When it comes to projecting an image I probably suck. Self branding and such...
Let's phrase it like this... I'm apparently genuine and not try-hard person. Interaction with people: a lot of them tend to register as fakes inside of my own mind.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
This is Delta NF in my personal research.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
This is more Gamma SF in my research. Although to be fair, the ESIs bad Ne makes it easy for them to misunderstand and take things others say and do out of context, and infer wrong thinking past present and future, which easily inflames conflicts and accusations.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
I just want to say this again in clearer terms:
Image has nothing to do with Fi. It's Fe and Se.
Fi egos are definitely image types in enneagram, so yes
Again, since some are contradicting yet I am sure on this my answer is:
Yes it does 100%. The inward concept of Self as Fi gets projected consciously by the self into Se material or Ne conceptual branding the most by Fi Ego types - Gamma and Delta.
Fi in Fe creative's as the 8th function is generally simple, uncomplicated in the same way Ti creative's perceive and prefer their Te (methods) - not overly complex. Fe creative's are thus the most emotionally intense yet genuine people without pretension that anyone could ever meet. This plays in part into why their Vulnerable 4th function Te as PoLR often feels exploited in life (too much work compared to compensatory credits given in return).
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Who gives a crap if it's Fi or Fe, it doesn't mean anything.
Ok, so you associate image with Fe. And so? Then what? What could you have possibly illuminated from that discovery? What possible new information am I getting from it?
Idk man, when r we gonna overthrow the government
Here's a better question: Why should or shouldn't someone care about image, and why?
One explanation is that perhaps evolutionarily speaking, it would be advantageous for human beings to care about image than those who don't, and hence those who care about image will be selected over those who don't.
Second explanation is that Fe valuers care about image.
So you have two rival explanations, and I would argue that the first evolutionary explanation is the better explanation. And you would argue, but why?
The reason is because what the Socionics explanation is merely saying is that "I have observed that there are people who care about image, and these people will always continue to care about image in the future". It's saying that a certain pattern will continue merely because that's what has been observed in the past.
The evolutionary explanation will say that that much is obvious, but why? Why should that pattern continue? What possible reason is there to assume such a thing? And the reason is because it has been evolutionarily selected over a long period of time. Sure this trend could change in the future, but not anytime soon. So there's a good reason to believe that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future.
What the Socionics explanation is saying is obvious enough, but the evolutionary explanation will say that, and then some.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote