What the hell is Fe after all?

[Airman]

I've read so many things about this IE... Fe = Extroverted Feeling.
Okay and people tend to interpret this, I've seen, as like in acting all 'pumped up mood', 'cheerful mood', 'being upbeat', and things like that in social interaction. It does not strike me that people make such assumptions based on the name Fe, Extraverted Feeling, because in typical Western societies one is able to express what in terms of feelings in a group setting? Excitement, cheerfulness, etc. But I think and I've read it, that this is a wrong view of what Fe really is. So what IS actually Fe? Other than these mistakenly narrow assumptions of it.

[niffer]

I feel similarly about trying to understand "what" Fi is. An IE will mean something a little different in each IM position, and it is but a concept, and a super distant one at that if it's your PoLr, when you try to look at it as an entity outside of people using it.

I view Fi as, "everything I'm totally out of control of, bundled into one thing". Fe you may find fills the same role in your life.

I view Fe as "the feelings of everyone as visibly expressed", or "socially normative emoting". Fe is not always happy, cheerful, and upbeat, although Fe leads and creatives often do take on the role in groups of being the ones to personify and facilitate such upbeat emotional atmospheres.

If you sometimes find yourself bursting into laughter or smiling at random just because your friend or coworker is laughing or saying something funny to you, or you are unexpectedly nice to someone or conversely randomly decide to bully someone in spite of your personal relationship towards them, then that's Fe (your Fe PoLR, more specifically) working its magic.

[Airman]

Some would say that the last beahviours you described are Fi-related, though...
I think Fe is more about getting the atmosphere or the 'vibe' of a person or of a group. People with Fe have a sort of feeling for this vibe or emotional energy from another person, Fe-PoLR would mean not being able to get the vibe or feeling it very hardly- as in non-pleasant, invasive, towards you... Feeling like everything should have a totally rational 'vibe' since it's Te-creative... just some thoughts. Though I can feel people's emotional energy all too well, they just seem most of the time terribly bad or annoying or invasive to me, so I also consider LSE for me as a possible type.
edit: yes I do some sort of crazy things all of a sudden like for example asking the girl who was just in front of me and a friend to give him her phone number, in a very serious manner, it happens quite often and I often find it funny while others do not. The girl was cursing me calling me crazy and my friend was embarassed. I was laughing because this is fun after all or is it not?

[niffer]

Some would say that the last beahviours you described are Fi-related, though...
I think Fe is more about getting the atmosphere or the 'vibe' of a person or of a group. People with Fe have a sort of feeling for this vibe or emotional energy from another person, Fe-PoLR would mean not being able to get the vibe or feeling it very hardly- as in non-pleasant, invasive, towards you... Feeling like everything should have a totally rational 'vibe' since it's Te-creative... just some thoughts. Though I can feel people's emotional energy all too well, they just seem most of the time terribly bad or annoying or invasive to me, so I also consider LSE for me as a possible type.
edit: yes I do some sort of crazy things all of a sudden like for example asking the girl who was just in front of me and a friend to give him her phone number, in a very serious manner, it happens quite often and I often find it funny while others do not. The girl was cursing me calling me crazy and my friend was embarassed. I was laughing because this is fun after all or is it not?

Sure. It's something like both noticing, and personally being in tune with and reproducing, the general emotional atmosphere, and also expressing one's own emotions or desiring to express them in ways that are in line with socially recognized markers of expression.

In other words, Fe is like the "Se" of emoting and ethics, while Fi is like the "Si" of emoting and ethics.

That last bit I said in my previous post was in regards to the rare moments of an Fe PoLR going against their Fi and expressing themselves using objective ethics.

[Exodus]

Hopefully this should make things clear: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

To summarize: Fe expands the flow of emotional energy, whereas Fi limits the flow of emotional energy based on feelings of attraction and repulsion.

[1981slater]

= share ideas with people, even with strangers
= ideas stay within your head, or you explain sth to someone in private
= share data with people
= you explain sth to someone
= orgy, even with strangers
= bang your loved one
= you try to lower the psychological distance with people, even with strangers
= you stay behind an emotional wall

[nondescript]

= share ideas with people, even with strangers
= ideas stay within your head, or you explain sth to someone in private
= share data with people
= you explain sth to someone
= orgy, even with strangers
= bang your loved one
= you try to lower the psychological distance with people, even with strangers
= you stay behind an emotional wall

Really such nice stereotypes. Especially the Se one. Look, I'm an SEE that's as chaste as it can be(haven't even hugged a girl in ages). Plus I prefer lifelong commitments to one person. Explain that, hm?

And yes, Fi is a must for me, either 1st or 2nd(especially under THAT stereotype!). And I've said multiple times that SiFi suits me the best. Not SeFi, not FiSe, not SiFe, not FeSi, not SeFe. SiFi. Or FiSi whatever. I need to read all those Jung books. Asuryan help me!

[chemical]

Let's go into overall what is Fe and Fi. First of all, socionics translates Jung's theory of introversion/extroversion into terms that might not be obvious to link back up. The idea here is that each IE is some type of consciousness -- not just of information, but of its psychological relevancy.
And the point is the introvert's consciousness tends not to direct itself directly upon objects. Instead of going the Jungian route, which says that instead, the introvert notes the archetypal reflection of the object, socionics keeps to somewhat less mystical a bent and says the introvert notes relations. Now it's very important not to take this too naively in my experience, because otherwise at a point you have to ask, what's the difference between paying attention to an object and relations? You really need somewhere to see how the introvert is psychologically depreciating the object.

I just explained this in another thread, namely about Te in a ILE vs in LII. The LII is if anything more logic oriented than the ILE, and the reason they reject Te is specifically that fixating on an isolated logical fact provides too much libido to an object; instead, it is depreciated for the structural framework into which it fits.. that's the informational explanation; the energetic one might be e.g. to focus on someone more interested in pedantry/noting inconsistencies than in the sheer fact that one can produce something with the fact at hand. With the ILE, this is no concern -- while they do not value Te, an accumulation of scattered logical facts might even serve indirectly to provide fodder for more greatly seeing into the potential of the idea at hand, which they desire to do in entirety, due to the direct focus on objects.

Similarly, Fi depreciates the feelings-state of the given individual and instead focuses on state-invariant relations.
So to understand Fe, you want to understand the direct focus it has on the emotive state of someone. A way to understand Fi if you like is that it represents in some sense the ethical relations "forced" upon oneself by one's nature -- the part of one's nature that exists invariant of one's current state.
Concretely of course you could say Fe is more interactive -- more focused on the dynamics of exchange between two people. Fi would focus more on the state-invariant relations between them that would've prompted such an exchange in the first place.

[anndelise]

Fi= the attraction/repulsion between two objects, in particular if the objects are emotional creatures. Think of "orientation towards/away from", like/dislike.
Fe= the brain's mirroring of environmentally enduced emotions.

Seeing someone frowning, crying, in pain, smiling, laughing, etc triggers the same neurons in the brain as when one's self is frowning, crying, in pain, smiling, laughing, etc. This triggered emotional state provides information about one's environment. It's a signal as to what may be going on 'out there' and/or 'inside another'. If you know what the emotional signals are, then you have a pretty good idea of what they are feeling at that moment. If you have difficulty understanding these signals, then it helps to be around others who can influence the environment in such a way as to induce those feelings into you.

But what is the other person frowning about? Crying about? Laughing about? Etc. If Person A breaks up with Person B, will Person B feel pain? Or will they be relieved? If you vote in a law that takes away someone's ability to marry their lover, how will that person be emotionally impacted? Will they be attracted to that law or repulsed by it? To what degree? What about those voting it in...what are they finding attractive about the law? What are they trying to avoid? Is this law moral/ethical? All of these questions are using a person's orientation towards/away from to help understand something about themselves, another person, and/or about one's environment.


Edited to add: while this information deals with emotions/feelings, the objects don't have to be humans/animals. For example, rain can be interpreted as 'weeping skies', and flat tires can be a sign that my car hates me.

Edited further to add:
The hidden power of smiling:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ron_gutman...ng?language=en

Infectious laughter:

[strrrng]

a good example of the Fe/Fi divide imo was when I was talking with my Ni-LIE friend (he's also an 8, which partly influenced it), and he basically asked me if I would pick up if he called me early in the morning... I said, "of course, it's business," to which he replied, "just for future reference, I don't want our relationship to be based on business." I tried to explain to him that the business element wasn't incompatible with the interpersonal element, but he persisted in his position. what he missed, was that Fe types need to objectify emotions and interpersonal dynamics, because it's the only way to gauge relevancy; and I suppose what I missed, was that if you're doing this, some inner substance will be implicitly sacrificed. not exactly sure how it plays out in every quadra but I think the general idea is accurate.

[Computer Loser]

Fi-Do what is best to harmonize the inner world, even if sacrificing the harmony of the outer world; and rationalize it to self.

Fe- Do what is best to harmonize the outer world, even if sacrificing the harmony of the inner world; and rationalize it to others.

Also, from a poetic, infp:

Fe is the lava that boils out.
Fi is the fire inside that started it all.

Fe sings.
Fi composes.

Fe asserts itself.
Fi just IS.

Fe is the bird.
Fi is the song.

Fe is contagious.
Fi is seductive.

Fe feels for others.
Fi feels for self.

Fe resounds.
Fi resonates.

Fe is the smile that leads to the kiss.
Fi is the butterfly in your chest that led to the smile.

Fe makes decisions based on values.
Fi makes decisions based on PERSONAL values.

Fe reaches out.
Fi pulls in.

[golden]

Airman, I said a long time ago 'round here that from my point of view, Fe is kind of like using a kind of Silly Putty that's constantly in flux in order to take an impression of the environment -- its human elements, I guess -- and send out a response to it, pretty much just that. The image came up because I was remembering the many times I performed onstage when I was younger, and how I would have a constant kind of communication with the audience, could tell where they were in a given moment and mold my own output to that. I'd call that a very pure use of Fe because the issues people bring up about sincerity and whatnot are pretty well irrelevant in a theatrical context, where nothing could be more sincere imo than in meeting the audience exactly where they are and sending the emotional impact of your performance to that precise place. That's the whole point.

The best actor I've ever had the pleasure of watching, btw, is Nathan Lane, who I think is ESE. I had no opinion about his type until I sat through a performance and it was immediately clear to me that he was Fe dominant and doing some version of what I described here. His energy filled all the space in the theater and kind of wrapped right around everyone, totally immediate, no distance. There was not an actor onstage besides him who came even close to doing that. The other actors left something empty between themselves and you. And I think I wouldn't have noticed if Nathan Lane hadn't been there, doing something so different.

(No, I'm not saying you have to be Fe to be a good actor, or that good actors are Fe. Just that I have found skillful live performance by someone who is Fe-strong to be pretty awesome.)

[glam]

Airman, I said a long time ago 'round here that from my point of view, Fe is kind of like using a kind of Silly Putty that's constantly in flux in order to take an impression of the environment -- its human elements, I guess -- and send out a response to it, pretty much just that. The image came up because I was remembering the many times I performed onstage when I was younger, and how I would have a constant kind of communication with the audience, could tell where they were in a given moment and mold my own output to that. I'd call that a very pure use of Fe because the issues people bring up about sincerity and whatnot are pretty well irrelevant in a theatrical context, where nothing could be more sincere imo than in meeting the audience exactly where they are and sending the emotional impact of your performance to that precise place. That's the whole point.

The best actor I've ever had the pleasure of watching, btw, is Nathan Lane, who I think is ESE. I had no opinion about his type until I sat through a performance and it was immediately clear to me that he was Fe dominant and doing some version of what I described here. His energy filled all the space in the theater and kind of wrapped right around everyone, totally immediate, no distance. There was not an actor onstage besides him who came even close to doing that. The other actors left something empty between themselves and you. And I think I wouldn't have noticed if Nathan Lane hadn't been there, doing something so different.

(No, I'm not saying you have to be Fe to be a good actor, or that good actors are Fe. Just that I have found skillful live performance by someone who is Fe-strong to be pretty awesome.)

i think this is a really good description, particularly of Fe as the leading function (in EIE/ESE).

[Beautiful sky]

being an extraverted ethical function, fe derives it's shape and ethics from society reflected back to society in observing how their own individual society acts. for instance, and armenian ESE woman will want to marry an armenian man if her society strictly states that she's to marry one while an armenian EII woman will not necessarily marry an armenian man if she falls in love with a man of another race/culture/etc basing love beyond that of social requirements of the time.

[niffer]

being an extraverted ethical function, fe derives it's shape and ethics from society reflected back to society in observing how their own individual society acts. for instance, and armenian ESE woman will want to marry an armenian man if her society strictly states that she's to marry one while an armenian EII woman will not necessarily marry an armenian man if she falls in love with a man of another race/culture/etc basing love beyond that of social requirements of the time.

ESEs have Ne hidden agenda and EII have Si hidden agenda though, so in my opinion, this may not be the best example.

[1981slater]

Fi-Do what is best to harmonize the inner world, even if sacrificing the harmony of the outer world; and rationalize it to self.

Fe- Do what is best to harmonize the outer world, even if sacrificing the harmony of the inner world; and rationalize it to others.

Great!

[silverchris9]

Yeah, I agree with what Golden said. Fe provides an intuitive understanding of how to change what is going on inside of other people. Yes, it often finds expression in the creation of cheeriness, because that is socially useful and everybody likes being happy (well, most people), but it has a much broader range of application.

There's a great quote that comes from classical Indian dance that is something like "where the hand goes, the eye follows. Where the eye goes, the mind follows. Where the mind goes the bhava follows. Where the bhava goes, the rasa is released." And the bhava here is the emotional energy as embodied by the performer, whereas the rasa is emotion-content received by the audience. I like this quote because it makes it clear that there is a connection that goes from the external, perceptible actions of the performer to the internal, impalpable state that is aroused in the spectator. I think that there's a lot of confusion because in English we have the same word for emotion-as-communicated and emotion-as-received or aroused. I use the word "aroused" intentionally, as the most immediate comparison we can all understand is sex. There are certain actions that, while not directly sexual themselves (I mean they're not involved in any way with mimicking or representing any particular sexual act) arouse a sexy feeling in the observer. And you see this all the time with Fe people. Like, a person makes a bunch of other people fall into gales of laughter by dramatically expressing anger. A person makes another person feel sympathy by expressing confusion. And that word "expressing" really should be "embodying," because the way it works is that you assume a certain physical state (a certain state of the hands, the eyes, the lips, the posture, the tone/pitch/volume/timbre of voice, a certain way of touching a person) and that state embodies a bhava (or emotion-as-expressed) which arouses a rasa (or emotion-as-recieved) in the "target audience." And because Fe is a judging function, this isn't experienced as knowledge about how the Fe valuer is arranging his/her face or specifically what emotion the other person is feeling. It's just experienced as an immediate sort of knowledge of what to do to achieve the conscious or unconscious goal. I would argue that if anything, Fe thinks in terms of bhava, of what emotion to express in order to arouse the right response in the observer. And then the knowledge of what face to make, what tone of voice to have, etc., etc., takes care of itself, as the sort of automatic knowledge that Fe consists of.

In other words, Fe is about the relationship between perceptible/sensory causes and emotional/internal effects. And that doesn't limit Fe to making people feel a certain way. Any time anthropomorphism is used as a tool of cognition, that is often Fe in action. For instance, when a computer is frozen for a while because it's doing some sort of computation or whatever, we say the computer is "confused," which is a kind of Fe knowledge: I took action y, it produced internal state z. Certain intuitive ways of dealing with machines or animals or whatever can be seen as manifestations of the Fe ability to understand immediately what action will result in what emotional state. And the more of a "brain" the object has the more effective Fe is, whereas for more mechanical things, often the Te approach is the more common one, although we can see how the one can act in the other's domain. And they really are mirrors of each other; think of mechanics that know intuitively what action will cause the desired result in the car, or electricians, plumbers, etc. We don't think about it a lot, but those are all, by nature, Te: the intuitive understanding of what external action will produce what functional/external result. And in the same way that Fe can have some success applying its approach to things that have less of a "brain" than humans do (from animals to computers to machines), so Te can have some success applying its approach to things that have more of a brain.

So yeah, that's what I think Fe is: a way of relating "internal state of expresser" and "physical modes of expression" and "internal state of observer" and "physical signs of observer's emotions," which can be generalized/metaphorized to other intuitive relationships between external action and internal state.

[silverchris9]

Also I think it's a thing that's specific to western culture that we think in terms of emotion to emotion. That is, we are conscious of the emotional state of the expresser, and we are conscious of the emotional state of the receiver, but the forms by which those states are expressed and analyzed are almost entirely unconscious. We think: I'm going to act sad so he is sympathetic, not I'm going to make a puppy dog face so he will soften his eyes, you know? Whereas it seems that in classical Indian dance, there is more of an Fe-Ti synthesis going on where the hand and the eye (literally) are trained in particular ways of embodying bhava. So the external emotional embodiments receive as much focus as the internal emotional states (and scientifically speaking, we don't really know that one comes first and the other comes second---that is sort of an arbitrary cultural choice that we privilege the internal emotional state as the cause of the perceptible physical embodiment.) Wouldn't it be interesting if we were more conscious of the external physical actions that communicate a given internal state. Like, if we had words for facial expressions rather than words for emotions? Obviously the emotions would still be there, we just wouldn't be directly conscious of them. I think that would be more of an FeSi outlook as opposed to the FeNi outlook that I think is dominant in how we conceptualize affective interaction in the West.

[anndelise]

Yeah, I agree with what Golden said. Fe provides an intuitive understanding of how to change what is going on inside of other people. Yes, it often finds expression in the creation of cheeriness, because that is socially useful and everybody likes being happy (well, most people), but it has a much broader range of application.

There's a great quote that comes from classical Indian dance that is something like "where the hand goes, the eye follows. Where the eye goes, the mind follows. Where the mind goes the bhava follows. Where the bhava goes, the rasa is released." And the bhava here is the emotional energy as embodied by the performer, whereas the rasa is emotion-content received by the audience. I like this quote because it makes it clear that there is a connection that goes from the external, perceptible actions of the performer to the internal, impalpable state that is aroused in the spectator. I think that there's a lot of confusion because in English we have the same word for emotion-as-communicated and emotion-as-received or aroused. I use the word "aroused" intentionally, as the most immediate comparison we can all understand is sex. There are certain actions that, while not directly sexual themselves (I mean they're not involved in any way with mimicking or representing any particular sexual act) arouse a sexy feeling in the observer. And you see this all the time with Fe people. Like, a person makes a bunch of other people fall into gales of laughter by dramatically expressing anger. A person makes another person feel sympathy by expressing confusion. And that word "expressing" really should be "embodying," because the way it works is that you assume a certain physical state (a certain state of the hands, the eyes, the lips, the posture, the tone/pitch/volume/timbre of voice, a certain way of touching a person) and that state embodies a bhava (or emotion-as-expressed) which arouses a rasa (or emotion-as-recieved) in the "target audience." And because Fe is a judging function, this isn't experienced as knowledge about how the Fe valuer is arranging his/her face or specifically what emotion the other person is feeling. It's just experienced as an immediate sort of knowledge of what to do to achieve the conscious or unconscious goal. I would argue that if anything, Fe thinks in terms of bhava, of what emotion to express in order to arouse the right response in the observer. And then the knowledge of what face to make, what tone of voice to have, etc., etc., takes care of itself, as the sort of automatic knowledge that Fe consists of.

In other words, Fe is about the relationship between perceptible/sensory causes and emotional/internal effects. And that doesn't limit Fe to making people feel a certain way. Any time anthropomorphism is used as a tool of cognition, that is often Fe in action. For instance, when a computer is frozen for a while because it's doing some sort of computation or whatever, we say the computer is "confused," which is a kind of Fe knowledge: I took action y, it produced internal state z. Certain intuitive ways of dealing with machines or animals or whatever can be seen as manifestations of the Fe ability to understand immediately what action will result in what emotional state. And the more of a "brain" the object has the more effective Fe is, whereas for more mechanical things, often the Te approach is the more common one, although we can see how the one can act in the other's domain. And they really are mirrors of each other; think of mechanics that know intuitively what action will cause the desired result in the car, or electricians, plumbers, etc. We don't think about it a lot, but those are all, by nature, Te: the intuitive understanding of what external action will produce what functional/external result. And in the same way that Fe can have some success applying its approach to things that have less of a "brain" than humans do (from animals to computers to machines), so Te can have some success applying its approach to things that have more of a brain.

So yeah, that's what I think Fe is: a way of relating "internal state of expresser" and "physical modes of expression" and "internal state of observer" and "physical signs of observer's emotions," which can be generalized/metaphorized to other intuitive relationships between external action and internal state.

That was awesome. I've used the word "induced", but I think "aroused" is a much better term.
What you and @GOLDEN wrote is the kind of thing I've been trying to point at.

When my IEI bro and i used to talk about socionics and Fe, he kept talking about the timing of signals. Such as hesitations in speech, changes in eye focus/direction, and other attention modulators. As we would talk he would speak faster, or slightly louder, trying to arouse more emotive signals from me. I believe to help us sync up more.

Also, yeah, talking about it and analyzing it to talk about is different from the actual process, which is...well...as any internal element, more 'intuitive'. More like 'feeling your way through the interaction'.

[Airman]

This was all, all of the posts, were somehow useful. At least for me. And I do state again that everyone uses all of the 8 IEs, it is just more in-your-face if they're on Ego (or Id sometimes) blocks, and less easy to see them being used if they're in any other position. I do use Fe even if that is my PoLR, that's a fact from every post I've read here describing Fe plus the things I've read from other sources. So, it is a point that it may be very hard to type someone in Socionics exactly unless you have familiarity with the person and even some intimacy. And the = orgy even with strangers ... lol @ that. I understand the relation between Se and sexual desire or 'lust' or whatever you want to call it. But orgy is exaggerating... or is it not? Based on Se-leading types I tend to agree they repress less their sexual desire than Si-leading or Te-Ti -leadings. But then again, Will has to do with sex, on a very animal level of ourselves, Se is Will and as such is Instinctual, so the relation btw. Se-leading and having sex a lot seems to make sense to me. Ah I forgot to mention...N types seem to be very very unsexual. Unsexual meaning that they seem not to need or not to enjoy or not to pursue sex as often. Except for Beta NFs ime.

[bolong]

I came across this description in a novel I'm reading, and felt that it was referring to Fe.

"Why," Morgaine said, tuning her voice to the broad jesting Uriens liked, "I have left you purposely alone, thinking that in your old age you had taken a taste for handsome young men... If you do not want him, husband, does that mean I can have him?"

Uriens chuckled. "You are making the por man blush," he said, smiling with broad good nature. But if you leave me alone all day, why, what am I to do but moon and make sheep's eyes at him, or the dog."

[Beautiful sky]

ESEs have Ne hidden agenda and EII have Si hidden agenda though, so in my opinion, this may not be the best example.

Ne is still an extraverted function

[Myst]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we were more conscious of the external physical actions that communicate a given internal state. Like, if we had words for facial expressions rather than words for emotions? Obviously the emotions would still be there, we just wouldn't be directly conscious of them.

I'm actually like this. I'm usually more conscious of the external part. (Se>Fe?)

[golden]

I'm actually like this. I'm usually more conscious of the external part. (Se>Fe?)

Makes sense. I've been around a lot of Se types who can read that physical-action information adeptly, with a high level of conscious awareness, and with the ability to express verbally what they perceive.

Over the years I also have gotten pretty good at doing this, though not as good as Se egos. I'm very into things like Paul Ekman's work.

[Sol]

wannabe objective emotional motivation

[Aylen]

wannabe objective emotional motivation

https://www.boundless.com/management...vior-233-7047/

You are pretty clueless for an "intuitive" LSE.

[Aylen]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we were more conscious of the external physical actions that communicate a given internal state. Like, if we had words for facial expressions rather than words for emotions? Obviously the emotions would still be there, we just wouldn't be directly conscious of them. I think that would be more of an FeSi outlook as opposed to the FeNi outlook that I think is dominant in how we conceptualize affective interaction in the West.

Not sure if I am following you here. We do have words for facial expressions and those expressions evoke certain feelings in others. If I recognize a smirk, smile, scowl, eye roll, etc... I am automatically going to assign an emotion to it based on the energy that is projected with it. It might be my emotion and not necessarily what the other is emoting or wishing to project but it is usually pretty close, if not exact. Facial expressions are how we get by in this world until we learn to talk. Spend any time with a baby and you will know exactly what they are feeling. Those creatures are pretty telepathic. At least to me...

[Myst]

Can't say I completely agree with most posts here, although there is some truth to Fi having more emphasis on personal relations with objects, people or images, and Fe about external mimickry of personal appropriateness, although I don't think these things are too type related. Instead, Fe in its fundamental definition is the objective mindset of feeling.

Have you ever considered that you see it only as a difference in emphasis is because strong Fi will also have strong Fe in the background supporting it and vice versa?

What does objectivity of feeling mean if not something that readily lends itself to be expressed via means such as the mimicry you mention for an example?

[Satan]

Shit, when the hell are you people going to get real.

[Myst]

Shit, when the hell are you people going to get real.

I like the entp typing for you more, at least now only one letter is off

[Satan]

I like the entp typing for you more, at least now only one letter is off

what the fuck has my typing got to do with fe.

[Beautiful sky]

To the EIE life is filled with meaning when it contains emotional heat and dramatic experiences. He guesses which idea will take the imaginations if people and shape their feelings in the correct manner.

ESE emotionally moves people in all of their behaviours – emotion; the greatest value – positive emotions, including people in a life of happiness and convenience, avoiding everything that’s unpleasant.

looks for external cues of internal disposition. Like very obvious emoticons will indicate obvious emotions. "I'm happy!" "I'm excited" They look for it in others and external material. How does this differ from Fi? Fi feelings come from situations that strike the person not so that the person can make an impression or read that impression from others. Or they will try to swing other's emotions by acting alarmed and panicky to change everyone else's emotions to reflect the bad situation. This will involve extensively long emotional states while I calm down and get rational.

An unpleasant event happens to a father of an ESE and the ESE will say "Dad is sick" this is a fact but if dad starts crying will say "dad is sad"

I would say "dad is crying it makes me feel so bad for him" …but you might ask why should I feel bad it's my dad that's feeling bad not me. So the situation will depress me and I will get sadder and more depressed and stressed while someone like ESE will offer sympathy and cheer them up because ultimately it's unpleasant to them that someone's gloomy.

I've called my sister up on multiple occasions saying "I'm so sad for dad" she'll say "I know it's sad" as in what he's going through is a sad situation.

[golden]

I know plenty of types more focused on their personal relations with people and things than they are external expression, and visa versa for , nor do I personally relate to this faux definition of myself..

I am an Fe type and I am more focused on my personal relations with people and things than I am purely with expression. I think that's normal. A given. Therefore, I did not bother to state it. It would be pretty weird to be deliberately wrapped up with your expression all the time at the expense of relationships. And I say this as someone who has studied and practiced many forms of expression (such as music performance and writing) in-depth for years. Relationships are a need, and expression is more a means of getting that need and other needs met.

I don't know that I see this thread as having created a stark definition of Fe, nor is this thread ime about Fe versus Fi. I gave the example I did because I could describe an instance where I have been able to experience Fe in a context where it can work very freely and purely, in a "laboratory" of sorts. In my everyday life, Fe is far more complicated because life outside the limits of the artificial theater experience is itself more complex, and there (1) I tend to "apply" Fe to everything, even things that might be more easily digested with other information elements, and am far less aware of it because it colors everything in a way that seems natural, and (2) Fe is more blended with other IEs and subservient to the situation at hand.

[wacey]

@GOLDEN, I was very impressed by Eckman's work years ago, and am very keen on reading his books whenever they cross my path. I was thrilled to see someone bring him up in this conversation, because his research and subject matter is very relevent for the discussion of what excactly is Fe.

[golden]

@GOLDEN, I was very impressed by Eckman's work years ago, and am very keen on reading his books whenever they cross my path. I was thrilled to see someone bring him up in this conversation, because his research and subject matter is very relevent for the discussion of what excactly is Fe.

Cool! Did you watch the short-lived TV show "Lie to Me," based on his work? The pilot was terrible, but the later episodes were okay.

[wacey]

Cool! Did you watch the short-lived TV show "Lie to Me," based on his work? The pilot was terrible, but the later episodes were okay.

Oh yes I watched all three seasons. The "gimmicks" were cool in the first few episodes, but what was really neat to watch was Dr Lightman himself smile and sneer and emote in such a subtle yet conscious way in later episodes. Once you knew the game it was (and is) somewhat more .... I dont know the word.... Sorry if that makes nonsense.... Humbling to watch how one can manipulate as well as demonstrate remarkable discernment in regards to what people are saying with their bodies and faces. Great stuff- especially liked the interplay between him and his daughter- one of the few people who could see him through his acts and he knew it too!

Anyway, if you have a chance to read his books on emotional intelligence and communication, because the subject matter goes far beyond the scope of just simple lie detection, micro-expressions ext, then go for it. Our thoughts, feelings, and the subsequent emotions that pool, bubble, simmer, explode through our bodies in instinctive and ancient gestures are all tied together and Eckman is an exquisite author who elucidates these connections in a systematic and illuminating way.

I also enjoyed Lie to Me as a bit of edutainment!

[anndelise]

I was sad when that show ended. The mind needed to catch all that detail...consciously?? Impressive!

Intimidating, too.

[Kim]

Just some observations that are related to Fe.

In a relationship with an SLI, I am not expected to change his emotional state. Ideally I listen to the problem and offer possible scenarios as to why it's there and how it can be solved. That also means I want to know what exactly the problem is. It's all about problem solving and bringing things back to a comfortable normal. SLI is not at all comforted by attempts to lighten the mood. At best it's a distraction from the issue. At worst they feel it minimizes the problem at hand and feel disrespected (Fe PoLR).

In a relationship with an SLE I am expected to make the present moment in which he is troubled about a problem less bad (Fe). He likes it when I distract him, make him feel better through "manipulating" the emotional atmosphere. My role is not about problem solving, it's about making him feel better in the moment through Fe (and, if necessary, providing a vision of how things will progress because he is not great at assessing the most effective timeline of action - Ni).

I have to think about what might work best and it's trial and error sometimes. Fe-dominants just know how to influence people's emotions. It's astonishing to see how my ESE friend can make the most diverse group feel comfortable and happy.

[wacey]

I was sad when that show ended. The mind needed to catch all that detail...consciously?? Impressive!

Intimidating, too.

He was essentially lying all the time. Literally most of what he said was a lie to other people. This made it intriguing to see how the other characters, specifically the other leading characters, get along with him, with varying degrees of thier level if understanding him. His daughter was at the highest, followed by the other Doctor, and Loker being the leat able to read Lightman.

[Myst]

what the fuck has my typing got to do with fe.

Nothing but I noted you changed your profile. Fits your posts better than EII, including the one I responded to.