Is Fi about emotions?

[xerx]

I read contradictions everywhere about this.
Filatova says Fi is extremely emotional with very deep, piercing emotions.
Other socionists (like Gulenko and Trekhov) say the Fi state is relatively detached and completely unemotional.

Granted the latter are both Alpha NTs, so that may have something to do with their perception of what emotions are.

[silverchris9]

Fi is more still waters run deep type emotion. Fi types will tend to keep emotional expression to a minimum, but will "feel" a lot. Fe types will express a lot...

Fe emotion is a lot like a show. Fe emotion is the kind of emotion you get when you're singing "Don't Rain on my Parade" and the tempo is accelerating. It's so instantaneous and so quick and it causes a moment-to-moment change. Fi emotion is not so quick. It's more like a nerve. If it's hurt, every time you lean on that nerve, it's going to hurt again. On the other hand if it feels especially good, every time you touch it, you'll get that good feeling again. Fi is more the nerve than the feeling if that makes sense. It's the internal node that results in the external expression. Fi emphasizes the internal node, Fe emphasizes the external expression. So, yes, to Fe types, Fi types might seem emotionless because they don't wear their feelings on their faces. An ESI, for instance, might never tell you that they love you. In fact, the ESI is the archetypal gruff husband who never verbally expresses his love, but then when his wife is in trouble or in need, he 100% comes to the rescue. He has a node of positive feeling, that goes very deep, and if you pressed him, you could probably get him to cry talking about his wife. But he doesn't feel the need to express it outwardly, so to an Fe type, even an ESI, who is Fi leading, may seem emotionless.

But by the same token, an Fe-ego might seem to not have any real feelings at all to an Fi type. They would see the Fe ego changing their emotions so constantly and always showing a different face etc., and they might be inclined to think that they don't really have any unchanging feelings towards people at all, just a bunch of shifting masks with nothing behind them.

If you don't know socionics, you tend to assume the ethics function you value is the only way to do ethics, and the IP function you value is the only way to take on an IP task, and so on. So an Fi ego will assume that all real feelings are like theirs: hard to change, not always expressed, but always felt, and felt strongly. For an Fe ego, to "feel strongly" is not to have this unchanging sentiment towards another person, but to feel that rush of internal change and energy. I think of all the aspectonics descriptions, Fe as internal dynamics of objects makes the most sense to me, because Fe is all about acting on people's internal dynamics, i.e., making people change, not their behavior (Te is about external dynamics), but their internal world. Fe is all about creating as much change as possible in the internal world, whereas Fi is all about limiting change as much as possible in the internal world.

So, what I'm saying is, the reason there are disagreements is because Fi egos are going to think one thing about what "emotions" are, and Fe egos are going to think another, and each one will seem to "lack" what the others consider emotion to really be.

[Aiss]

What others said. From a reversed perspective to yours, in a way - Fe-PoLR, Fi-HA - I must say Fe-egos seem to me very unreliable. It's not like I expect them running to my rescue or something, but being friends with some, I realize on their side friendship is largely dependent on mood and therefore cannot be trusted. More so with Alphas than with Betas; I could probably explain it in terms of -Fe and -Fi.

If I were to assign words to elements, I'd say Fi is feelings - such as sentiment, attachment etc. - and Fe is emotions. To a Fi-valuer, Fe without Fi is fake. To a Fe-valuer, Fi without Fe isn't real enough. Both appreciate both of them together - as in, an expression of real feelings - most, which is fairly obvious and yet often forgotten amidst arguments and accusation between merry and serious types.

[Gilly]

I like to think of Fi as corresponding more to "emotional boundaries," wherein feelings for others are experienced as a result of correspondence or overlap with each other's sort of emotional priorities or boundaries, whereas with Fe the experience of mutual emotion is more about resonance and a sort of stark vulnerability.

Something I've always found humorous is how both Fi and Fe valuers hurl the exact same epithets

Definitely true.

"maudlin drama whores,"

lol

[Mattie]

I've never been called a maudlin drama whore! Did someone actually say that? I wanna give them a high-five.

vs is always touchy. There's some personal attachment to it because it supposedly represents your emotions (I'd say emotions/feelings are just under their umbrella), and that can get personal very easily. I think the most obvious and direct use of vs in relationships is the interaction of feelings and expressions, but if we look at more abstract definitions they are more than just that.

I like to think of Fi as corresponding more to "emotional boundaries," wherein feelings for others are experienced as a result of correspondence or overlap with each other's sort of emotional priorities or boundaries, whereas with Fe the experience of mutual emotion is more about resonance and a sort of stark vulnerability.

Interesting, I would have used resonance for and I feel rather resistant to 'boundaries' as I don't feel it works that way purely on its own. I think you touch upon the other in both definitions.

[anndelise]

There's a couple of different ways of looking at 'emotions'.

One is by static vs dynamic. Static focuses on those emotions that are relatively consistent, that keep popping up under specific conditions. Yes, it's aware that emotions do change, but it prefers to process those emotions that don't keep changing, the ones that consistently show up. This is the type of emotional information that it prefers to utilize when processing information, or trying to help others process information.

Dynamic focuses on those emotions that pop up at any moment. Those emotions that are changing at the drop of a pin depending on what's going on in the person or in the environment. Yes, they are aware that certain emotions may pop up under certain conditions, but they prefer to process that information that is of the moment.

One could say that the Dynamic emotions are more here and now, while the Static emotions are across time, or past/future.

Another way of looking at emotions is: there's the emotion, the actual chemical and physiological changes that occur in the body, and then there's the link between the emotion and what ever induced it, that which creates an 'emotional orientation' (eg attracted to, repulsed from, etc).

Either way, the element is the actual process that's happening, not thinking about it. It's information that is attended to and/or utilized.

Yes, we all have emotions, but we don't all consider those emotions to be information that can be processed and/or utilized. The dimensions can help describe this.

D1 experience emotions, but they're not actually information to the D1 person. D1 may respond emotionally, but they may not be aware that they are, and/or may not be sure how to counter such responses, until they learn some basic 'rules' or 'norms' involving that emotion, response, or situation. (developing D2)

Then there are the norms or rules of the emotions, where the emotions take on a bit of black vs white mentality. D2 sees limited usage in the information that emotions provide, and they have little ability to conceive that emotions can provide far more information that 'good vs bad', 'like vs dislike', etc. (at least until they realize that they are D1 or D2 and recognize that others might be D3 or D4).

D3 utilizes the information that emotions give, but is more flexible on the "rules" depending on the context or situation at hand. The more experience D3 has with a variety of situations, the more flexible and adaptable they become. (developing D4)

D4 is capable of using the information that emotions provide, across a variety of contexts, a variety of situations. When placed in a new situation, it's able to easily process the information that emotions provide, as related to that context/situation. D4 may even be be able to process the development, or evolution of the emotion information.

Both D3 and D4 may also lead to learning how to use the emotions to process a type of situation, which might lead to the illusion of having used a different element...but only under that specific context. D4 having a better ability in a variety of contexts, than D3.

(note: the exact wording may be off, but the idea is what's being pointed at)

[Beautiful sky]

I read contradictions everywhere about this.
Filatova says Fi is extremely emotional with very deep, piercing emotions.
Other socionists (like Gulenko and Trekhov) say the Fi state is relatively detached and completely unemotional.

Granted the latter are both Alpha NTs, so that may have something to do with their perception of what emotions are.

Yes, Fi is about emotions and recognizing those in other people. Fe can also recognize emotions, but unlike Fi, Fe is not as concerned about working with people and instead just says, you know better about your own personal affairs and only you can help yourself with your relationship regards.Fi is more involved in the lives of others and preferes it. Where Fi would be more proactive Fe would prefer to let you forget about your actions because now what you've said or done is in the other person's court and has nothing to do with you. Fi is involved like locking bonds between people and Fe is univolved like detached bonds.

Fi is very trusting most of the time and give benefits of the doubt and most often does not pay attention to cues to determine if someone is trustworthy or not. Chooses a value that may be outside of norm/tradition of their culture.

Fe pays attention to cues to determine who is trustworthy and what to expect from their behavior based on hints of emotional and behavioral expressions. Chooses values in a path within norm/culture.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm gonna try to do this using the objective definition of functions on Rick's site:

subjective relationships between objects: feelings of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, need and antipathy; morals, subjective judgments. (Fields at rest)

internal activity of objects: internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content (Objects in motion)

Both functions are about emotions, how they differ is on how emotions are perceived. So Fe is an external function it's gauged using objective criteria. Fi isn't. When Starr people judged me using Fi and not enough objective external data, it was really bothersome.

Of course I have good Fi too, it's my demonstrative function, I just don't value it over Fe. Good: Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni. Poor: Se, Ti, Te, Si. It really depends on where Fi and Fe is in your psyche to come up with the answers you're looking for, on the specifics relationships. You have to look at a lot of factors. Because almost EVERYBODY craves a close relationship they really like, and introverts especially are sensitive to who they clash with and who they get along well with. It's not specific enough to be socionics related.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yes, Fi is about emotions and recognizing those in other people. Fe can also recognize emotions, but unlike Fi, Fe is not as concerned about working with people and instead just says, you know better about your own personal affairs and only you can help yourself with your relationship regards.Fi is more involved in the lives of others and preferes it. Where Fi would be more proactive Fe would prefer to let you forget about your actions because now what you've said or done is in the other person's court and has nothing to do with you. Fi is involved like locking bonds between people and Fe is univolved like detached bonds.

Fi is very trusting most of the time and give benefits of the doubt and most often does not pay attention to cues to determine if someone is trustworthy or not. Chooses a value that may be outside of norm/tradition of their culture.

Fe pays attention to cues to determine who is trustworthy and what to expect from their behavior based on hints of emotional and behavioral expressions. Chooses values in a path within norm/culture.

I have a few issues with this but I agree 95%. Especially the first paragraph, that was good. Fe-valuers are more 'hands off' in that particular way.

[krieger]

Not really "about" emotions, but likely to be the antecedent of these, imo.

[Beautiful sky]

I have a few issues with this but I agree 95%. Especially the first paragraph, that was good. Fe-valuers are more 'hands off' in that particular way.

but remember LSE have Fe in their third spot, which means they often will look like they use it too, in this regard they look like IEI, what differes them from IEI is that LSE don't like hateful competition.

LSE are just as capable of getting Fe feeds as Fe ego block holders. What LSE value is humanness/the human condition, that is not to sell their souls for certain causes/things.

If you are IEI, you show Fi in wanting an emotionally committed relationship and that's it; there are other aspects of Fi that they don't use, such as humanitarian nature of Fi and Te. They prefer Ti.

You're again showing to use Te over Ti in your post below.

[Galen]

Fi is more still waters run deep type emotion. Fi types will tend to keep emotional expression to a minimum, but will "feel" a lot. Fe types will express a lot...

Actually I've known a few EXFjs who fit your description of Fi. They feel weirdly emotionally inaccessible to me and come across as really bland.

[Existential Potato]

but remember LSE have Fe in their third spot, which means they often will look like they use it too, in this regard they look like IEI, what differes them from IEI is that LSE don't like hateful competition.

LSE are just as capable of getting Fe feeds as Fe ego block holders. What LSE value is humanness/the human condition, that is not to sell their souls for certain causes/things.

If you are IEI, you show Fi in wanting an emotionally committed relationship and that's it; there are other aspects of Fi that they don't use, such as humanitarian nature of Fi and Te. They prefer Ti.

You're again showing to use Te over Ti in your post below.

I fucking love hateful competition, goddamn, favorite way to pass the time right there

Brb, gonna go worship ****** w/ some Fe valuers

[Beautiful sky]

I have a few issues with this but I agree 95%. Especially the first paragraph, that was good. Fe-valuers are more 'hands off' in that particular way.

We need to pick words that make certain functions observable without a doubt so that we have consensus, that is the only way to make the theory "official". You pick a trait or a feature and everyone must agree that it is what it is, especially all Fe ego block holders.

This above sentance is Ti because I am defining perameters and deriving a law/rule for Socionics. I have Ti in my Third spot and can use it vary easily, but I don't see the same for you. I see Te. And remember, Ti creates rules/laws/perameters but does not maintain them with Te.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You're again showing to use Te over Ti in your post below.

If I do use Te, it's Gamma Te not Delta Te. INTp. Which would make me dual with Dolphin and that would make sense. But INFp just fits much, much better.

And then you contradict yourself because you said I used Ti and not Te. *lol*

[Beautiful sky]

If I do use Te, it's Gamma Te not Delta Te. INTp. Which would make me dual with Dolphin and that would make sense. But INFp just fits much, much better.

And then you contradict yourself because you said I used Ti and not Te. *lol*

You don't seem to understand what the brain of the person who has Ni is doing...

you show to be Ni PoLR.

I said that? I meant you have Te not Ti.

[717495]

Both types feel equally emotional to me, but I don't think Fe types would accept as much of the rationale I base that on. I think with Fi there is a higher level of connectivity, so more emotion seems to be received and understood.

[Jarno]

Both types feel equally emotional to me, but I don't think Fe types would accept as much of the rationale I base that on. I think with Fi there is a higher level of connectivity, so more emotion seems to be received and understood.

Hey, you are INFJ again? You change your type more often then I change my underwear.

[717495]

Hey, you are INFJ again? You change your type more often then I change my underwear.

I won't take that as a compliment, but I will feel happy about it.