Fe vs. Fi

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

Ethics... white or black, they seem vague to a certain point. A lot of different descriptions of introverted and extroverted ethics focus on their different aspects and it can be tricky to really make sense of what they are. Now, I want to make sure that my understanding of what and is correct.

Fe - emotion, mood, atmosphere, unstable, changeable, empathy, impact
Fi - feeling, standard, morality, stable, deep, sympathy, connection

In other words extroverted ethics are not grounded by deep internal moral strandards, I imagine the introverted ethics to be chained to an iron ball of morality and ethical values that won't let them go much further than where the chain ends, or if the person wants to go further it's painful and hard. Or let's say Fi feels the gravity of ethics firmly and stays with both feet on the ground.
While Fe doesn't have anything to keep it from floating in an open space, which means it can change its position wherever it goes. That sense of morality and standards is not their iron ball so their feeling and mood is completly dependable on what is going on right now in the given situation, moment and atmosphere. In other words Fe and Fi people both feel strongly and deeply but Fe is more dependable on what is going on in the enivorment in the given situation and is far more flexible and adaptable in that sense.

Is this right? Yes? No? Discuss...

[Beautiful sky]

Hi Fay I wrote the difference in the S I thread

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

Hi Fay I wrote the difference in the S I thread

Could you please send me the link?

[Slade]

You know there are like 3 different threads on this topic on the first page of this sub-forum right? It's not even like you have to make a search for it, just scroll down.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

You know there are like 3 different threads on this topic on the first page of this sub-forum right? It's not even like you have to make a search for it, just scroll down.

I've read all of them. I wrote my own understanding of the functions because I want to make sure I understand it correctly... I'm simply interested in hearing, yes your understanding is right or no you should read it again because you missed this or that.

[LuckyOne]

Ethics... white or black, they seem vague to a certain point. A lot of different descriptions of introverted and extroverted ethics focus on their different aspects and it can be tricky to really make sense of what they are. Now, I want to make sure that my understanding of what and is correct.

Fe - emotion, mood, atmosphere, unstable, changeable, empathy, impact
Fi - feeling, standard, morality, stable, deep, sympathy, connection

In other words extroverted ethics are not grounded by deep internal moral strandards, I imagine the introverted ethics to be chained to an iron ball of morality and ethical values that won't let them go much further than where the chain ends, or if the person wants to go further it's painful and hard. Or let's say Fi feels the gravity of ethics firmly and stays with both feet on the ground.
While Fe doesn't have anything to keep it from floating in an open space, which means it can change its position wherever it goes. That sense of morality and standards is not their iron ball so their feeling and mood is completly dependable on what is going on right now in the given situation, moment and atmosphere. In other words Fe and Fi people both feel strongly and deeply but Fe is more dependable on what is going on in the enivorment in the given situation and is far more flexible and adaptable in that sense.

Is this right? Yes? No? Discuss...

That was the best description of the difference between them I ever read, I kid you not. Had I found it before I wouldn't have agonized between the two for ages.

[Stellafera]

Yeah, I think your OP is fairly accurate.

As someone with Fe creative and Fi demonstrative, it's sort of like the "show, don't tell" rule with writing. My Fe helps me create the necessary mental ambiance so that the shape of my internal mindscape becomes clear to other people. It's when you play the sad violin behind a swaggering blustery guy's speech in a movie to signify that he's actually depressed. Fe is the dimmed lights in the jazz club and the salt and pepper on a steak.

[Slade]

I've read all of them. I wrote my own understanding of the functions because I want to make sure I understand it correctly... I'm simply interested in hearing, yes your understanding is right or no you should read it again because you missed this or that.

It's a good description, to expound abit on the chains part - since Fe is oriented in the external world, and dynamic, it is subjected towards the changing whims of the emotional field - what causes, suffering, happiness, etc is 'good' or 'bad' not good or bad because I internally feel it, but good or bad based on the emotions I see as data. Fi is more based on principle, regardless of what implications that has on the emotional sphere. (For example, this is wrong, even if it makes X group of people suffer), due to it being static so it is anchored. It might be better to have put this in one of the other threads though, to flesh out ongoing discussions than making another thread for it which was what I was getting at. Good description, nonetheless.

[Beautiful sky]

Could you please send me the link?

sure...

so here's the explanation of the differences

Okay so Fe is governed more by external forces guiding a person's relations (these external forces may be societal pressures to have or make a family by a certain age let's say as an example) with others: the law, social customs, employers' rules ,and the like. While Fi is more based on a person's sense of internal justice (this person sense is developed from the bases of feelings for others in a An excluded situation) and what they feel is ethical and right in dealing with other people (those ethics come from some place too and they come from parents directly), regardless of legal or social ethical enforcement.

For example, think of the movie "Loving." By the dicates of Fe, Richard and Mildred Loving were horrible criminals, living in sin and in violation of both the laws of Virginia and (as they saw it) the dictates of God. But by the guidance of Fi, these people were noble and ethical, treating each other in a way consistent with how their internal selves taught them to treat one another.

Having Fe role for someone like an LSE would be "yes they should get arrested because that's the law that they broke" and Fi steps in and says "that maybe true but laws change and that law isn't right because it doesn't factor human circumstances like the need for someone's emotional and internal situations " this bringing individual circumstances to very objective situation

In a perfect Fi society people are not governed necessarily by rules or law but by common need to make sure others feelings are not hurt by the poorly thought of actions of others and that people recognize that we can all exist is a community much like the island of IKARIA in Greece all cooperative working and cooperative efforts. For myself I think Fi is much like a monistic community. But that too has some rules. So then the question is can there be just a society of only Fi maybe not. Maybe Fe types recognized the need for objectivity "I made this rule; you broke it and now I don't feel empathy you go to jail " maybe that saves the Fi types from trying to reason what became unreasonable people

and here's an example of what and how Fi makes their judgement on relational ethics from applejack's post

A) a cheater / flirt is just that, regardless of type. This person should be excused from the relationship because of that alone.

B) this is not characteristic of all mature, committed IEEs. I go so far as to remove myself from most male friendships because my marriage is that important and sacred to me, and I will not allow even a perception of flirting to endanger it.

C) all these issues aside, this vantage point seems one sided. Yes, IEE can be distracted and in the clouds, and we often prioritize our time towards helping individuals rather than more mundane tasks of cleaning. SLI compliment us here. But SLI have the reverse problem at times, in which they can seem so anti social, disconnected, or isolated because of their non verbal cues, and they benefit from the IEE understanding, helping, or explaining the underlying behavior to others. It's a beautiful compliment. Plus, when the IEE learns to tie a people oriented purpose to a mundane task (I.e. "I love this person, and this person values a clean home, therefore I'm now going to clean), we can be pretty awesome (AND capable) in relationships.

D) there may be times when one partner is pulling more than their share of the weight in a relationship, but with the right person, with commitment, with maturity, with perseverance, this should fluctuate. It has in our experience, and that's what being a team is about.

Not every type is mature or holds the same values, however. But this is my two cents.

Very nice Fi here "that person should be"

The Fi part is "This person should be excused from the relationship because of that alone. "

[Beautiful sky]

Fe is guided by external moral standards -the rights and wrongs as society has determined them
Fi is guided by internal moral standards -external may have conflicting moral standards and Fi will still push their own principals and standards because they are yes grounded by their internally determined standard of what is right and wrong.

When an Fi type says "he should not be in a relationship because he's a cheater" he's saying one's actions should be based on that. After all "should" is a verb. It's saying "I object to that action" but surely one who objects can't enforce another to do otherwise. They only determine what action is correct by that what action is moral (right and wrong). Fi types find themselves in confidence of their own correctness with regards to right and wrong because they make such judgements hence they are extremely judgmental.

I am too by the way. I have to be in a sense because I'm matched up with LSE.

Just the other day I had to help an LSE make an easy transition from one feeling state to another by my use of my Fi.

He was very worked up about the correct actions that he should take in addressing his coworker, leaving a job (his old bosses), and his new boss. So he has all these situations and all these people that he has to relate to in order to go from an old job to a new one and he can't make those transitions smoothly with very few severed bridges and improper actions.

So an Fi type has to determine quickly which action is moral or immoral from the other in even the minutest cases. Fi is constantly evaluating it instead of letting the external dictate them.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think would be more consistent generally, almost inert to rapid change. As an introverted and rational IM, I think it always has a point of reference - a fixed rock - that it will default to, and will not be prone to moving away from unless the individual has a total sea change in their outlook.

I think both and types will have situations where they seem like clear hypocrites when in actual fact they have numerous rules that are specifically justified towards the specific occasion or the individual (of course there are genuine instances of hypocrisy too!).

[Alomoes]

The above would be good if some of the words were not synonyms of each other, but it is hard. From my experience as an Fi preferred and Fe PoLR, assuming that is correct, I am incredibly stable. This might be because of other functions, but I was that kid in the class who did not speak at all, because it was against the rules to have a side chat.

However, I have had my moments where I'd break character due to something not going as I liked. Or feeling some kind of irrational euphoria that triggers laughter. I now know what triggers me, but before, I didn't. Either way, it is generally something out of my control.

But yeah, my morals can be changed quite easily, all I have to do is find a rational explanation for doing what I'm doing. Once I have that, I can do almost anything.

Good luck though, it is probably much too late for that.

But yeah, I generally believe I exemplify Fi much more than Fe, and thus can use it as an example.

As a note, I've figured out something about myself a long time ago. I tend to stare at living things to learn about them. When I don't want to bias myself with how they look, I don't look. Part of that also comes out when I try to look at what the subject is looking at. I assume I'm trying to understand what they are looking at, and how they are thinking. I argue that is Fi, in that I'm trying to generate an emotion that is equal to the other person's emotion so I can understand. I do not do this often at all.

[Chae]

is what's BETWEEN you and me. It is the type of relational bond. Two people feel that they like each other. What their expressed state is doesn't necessarily apply to it. It's different to assess in the people involved since they experience their own version of the bond.
is what's WITHIN you and me. It's the expressed states of two in an interaction. Two people feel joy inside and show it to each other, which can have nothing to do with their bond. It's objectively assessable what these states are: happy, sad, gloomy, wild, and so on.


I'm trying to show this with emojis:

Fi is two people relating like .
Fe - take the example. This is one emoji going from skeptical to happy .

[The Reality Denialist]

Fi is two people relating like .
Fe - take the example. This is one emoji going from skeptical to happy .

Funny. You must take time to ask: WHY? Then grab your notepad, scribble down some equations, bring on your calculator and finally look at the result. Additional steps: publish your result and find yourself being involved with a specific contract depending on your culture.

[Dalek Caan]

I think it's simply that Fi is internalized and thus subjective feeling, while Fe is externalized and thus objective feeling.

Fi is...basically, a mental process of internalizing and thus reconciling and evaluating different emotions about things. It reasons these emotions as an internalized pathos, so it is rational and also capable of being impartial, despite being so. But it is also completely unique to the subject as its internalization follows a unique formula only known to the subject.

Fe is not so concerned with this internalized pathos. It's more focused on actions and reactions and eliciting responses in the surrounding environment. So it's externally focused on observable qualities outside the self and it's rational as well because it seeks to understand how to produce certain pathos or feelings in others and to do so. It is essentially objective and can be observed by others and reproduced.

I think these two ways of being are fundamentally opposed to each other because valuing the internal nullifies the value in the external and vice versa; so Socionics values really just end up meaning "which one do you take seriously". Because conscious thought can't cogently operate while holding on to two nullifying thinking patterns, so it would reasonably follow that a healthy or sane or developed psyche would end up valuing one over the other for whatever reasons that may be.

[Adam Strange]

It was hot today at the football game. The men were wearing shorts and the women short shorts, because they only have four years to find a decent match.

Two very healthy Fi-valuing women were coming back from the stadium. They had on sheer tops and no bras.

The old fart Fe-valuer was headed towards the stadium and as he passed the women, he said loudly “Looks like it’s chilly out!”
”Fuck off, asshole!”, one of the women told him and kept walking.
”Hey, lighten up,” he said. “We’re just having fun.”
The woman looked at the surrounding people and kept walking. Over her shoulder she shouted “Fuck off!”
The old fart just stood there, shaking his head. His wife, who said nothing during this exchange and might have been used to her husband’s performance, just kept walking towards the stadium.

[Rebelondeck]

My perspective is very different from traditional Socionics because the difference is in processing configurations:

Both are value-based rationalization strategies where decisions, courses of action, or outcomes would have highest values.

Fe-types rationalize interactively with their environments, and feedback from the environment alters their thinking dynamically as they home in on resolutions; they think best out-loud and in groups on focused subjects – they narrow down topics so that quick closure is made possible. They need closure to quickly move on to the next aspect but the ensuing tunnel vision often blinds them to down-the-road issues. They are tactical thinkers that need to keep on top of certain things and all input is compared to their base of information for acceptability (a sort of pre-filter that narrows bandwidth).

Fi-types rationalize while detached from their environments (mentally isolated); immediate feedback really throws them off and will often irritate them. They analyse all collected data in parallel, at least, to the extent of their intelligence, and closure isn't as much of an imperative especially when they feel that they don't have all the information. Their thinking lacks immediacy which can be a handicap in dynamic environments or situations; they need to have a plan or be rehearsed. They are strategic thinkers that need time (often too much) but they usually cover a lot of bases and don't have the Fe's comparator process which can add bias to input.

a.k.a. I/O

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Fe =



Fi =