the definition of Fe

[glam]

fyi

Black (extraverted) ethics
Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.

[strrrng]

paste this shit in allie's thread

[Khola aka Bee]

Regardless of anything else, I am SO Fe.

[Lotus]

I AM NOT FE VALUING WILL EVERYONE PLEASE REALIZE THIS THANK YOU FE TYPES FOR SHOVING ME OUT YOUR QUADRAS eh

[strrrng]

+ 5.8273

I was expecting an extra 100th...

[Lotus]

I wasn't trying to argue about your type, really. I was motivated more by the erroneous statements I saw/have seen here about Fe.

That's what I thought, actually. And I'm glad you made this thread.

A real Fi valuer wouldnt say something like that. lol

jals;dkfjal;vh;fdlks;

[Lotus]

You're just making this too easy.

ay?

[Lotus]

Go home Fi-valuer... we don't want you anymore. There. Happy?

But the Fi-valuers don't want me either. I'm homeless

[Lotus]

I WANT YOU ALLIE

In fact, now that I think about it, everybody wants you. You're just cool that way.

;lkdjfa;sldkfj;asldkfja;sdlfkjasd;flkjl

semi colons r hawt

[munenori2]

I wonder why Fe seems to be so misunderstood? :-/

Because everyone seems to think it's all surfacey and lightweight.

[Ezra]

Ruth, if nothing else, just knowing you exist confirms that I am SLE.

Regardless of anything else, I am SO Fe.

Yes, yes you are.

I AM NOT FE VALUING WILL EVERYONE PLEASE REALIZE THIS THANK YOU FE TYPES FOR SHOVING ME OUT YOUR QUADRAS eh

A real Fi valuer wouldnt say something like that. lol

Pr0bz rYt lulz!!1

;lkdjfa;sldkfj;asldkfja;sdlfkjasd;flkjl

semi colons r hawt

See, even this response chimes Fe valuing. dolphin just used heavy Fe here, and you responded well to it.

I wonder why Fe seems to be so misunderstood? :-/

Because everyone seems to think it's all surfacey and lightweight.

BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING PRICKS

[Lotus]

Because everyone seems to think it's all surfacey and lightweight.

The things is Ezra, for me it is surfacey and lightweight means of entertainment. I think if I was Fe valuing I wouldn't be taking it as a joke.

[FDG]

Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods.

I think I might somewhat be able to do this, but only if I really try and focus on it. Usually I can catch which mood the other person is in, but I don't really feel like I know what to do to change it (if I think I want it to change).

This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

I'd like to think Iknow what excites people, but I generally am wrong when I try to apply this IRL, lol. I can actually become somewhat annoying when I'm in this type of mood.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions.

Eh, no way. I don't have very strong emotions, there's no way I could energize others with them.

He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

Mbah. If I see somebody that is feeling bad, and I care about the person, I might try to raise their mood, but really it's mostly up to the person to recognize this attempt because it's more of a "prodding", I feel like I am tringly blindly when I do this.

What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity.

Nope, not really. I think some people have said that on cam I appear "controlled" with my emotions, but it's not like that: they simply are not present! I have a lot of energy, but it's more mental/physical. Surely I like to laugh, though.

A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.

Well sometimes when I've had a very bad day I might snap at people and that definitely causes a bit of a release. But it doesn't happen often at all (maybe 3 times a year), and it's not conscious, and I don't even like it when it happens - it seems like I am using people for my own amusement...

[strrrng]

The things is Ezra, for me it is surfacey and lightweight means of entertainment. I think if I was Fe valuing I wouldn't be taking it as a joke.

Yes, thank you. Real Fe valuers do take it seriously. I know I've sort of viewed it as an arena for competition where each move you make is very significant (which is probably more beta Fe, but that only strengthens the case against IEI for you). This is kind of the idea about Fe's intentionality - deliberately caring to affect the atmosphere in some way (that benefits you). More recently, I have come to see that Allie's emotional displays are nothing more than misguided boredom and that she attaches virtually nothing to them.

[xyz]

Hrm, well, if this is Fe, then I can safely say I'm nowhere near it.

Eh, "knowing what makes people excited"? You mean, other than sex?

[aka-kitsune]

Black (extraverted) ethics

... It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

wtf does this mean? Ability or inability? Which is it? Or is this situational, maybe...?

As for myself, I can't really say I've developed any good conscious control of my emotional state. And I guess I do sometimes use it creatively to affect my environment... albeit often in a completely unfocused and unpredictable manner. Kinda like meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

I also don't like to think I might directly "manipulate" people or seek to control their emotional states -- this seems somewhat unethical, not to mention more likely to attract recrimination. Although perhaps I've just done this more indirectly, more in terms of acting as an influence rather than a direct motivator. ( creative rather than leading)

[aka-kitsune]

Eh, "knowing what makes people excited"? You mean, other than sex?

Heh.

Not really. I think it means more like knowing what their emotional "triggers" are and what they react to. I note these things rather instinctively. I'm interested in what people are passionate about. I'll make mental notes about what subjects they become interested and engaged in discussions. I'll also make use of my observations to buy them gifts or tell them things that I know will interest them.

Like last night -- a friend of a friend was having a birthday dinner. I don't know her real well, but I noted her excited reaction to "bendy straws" at another time, so I picked some up and gave them to her as a kinda gag type gift. She seemed perplexed that I'd have noticed smth so seemingly insignificant about her.

[strrrng]

wtf does this mean? Ability or inability? Which is it? Or is this situational, maybe...?

I think it has to do with a certain conscious control over your own energy and thus your ability to affect others' energy or the energy in the atmosphere.

[aestrivex]

Because everyone seems to think it's all surfacey and lightweight.

to Fi types, it is.

[strrrng]

to Fi types, it is.

No, actually it's not - or shouldn't be. A healthy individual should be able to appreciate non-quadra functions, even if they don't enjoy that type of atmosphere, because there is no better or worse. The fact that you have such a strong bias towards Fi (or what you deem Fi) and place Fe (or what you deem Fe) down in the gutter as something unworthy of your attention only demonstrates lack of understanding. And why would an INTp who supposedly understands the functions well be so dismissive of one function? Seems like an over-compensation to me.

[tereg]

Black (extraverted) ethics
Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.

I know I've mentioned this to some of you, but this is an analogy I use and the visual I see as what I see as in action edit: as it relates to how I see the description above (though significantly biased, I hope that you can see what I'm talking about)

[Aside: I've been looking all day to find the right clip to show what it is I see in my mind, but I'm going to have to show a few clips I'm afraid]

The point I'm trying to make here is focus on what the DJ or others on stage are doing (both musically and more directly i.e. "PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER") to get the crowd involved (which I believe to be the stage evoking an emotional response from the crowd).

Edit: I consider the emotional response in these instances that the stage is trying to evoke is the euphoric emotion.





http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=hGfVRvikb38

I hope this falls in line with what is.

[aestrivex]

No, actually it's not - or shouldn't be. A healthy individual should be able to appreciate non-quadra functions, even if they don't enjoy that type of atmosphere, because there is no better or worse. The fact that you have such a strong bias towards Fi (or what you deem Fi) and place Fe (or what you deem Fe) down in the gutter as something unworthy of your attention only demonstrates lack of understanding. And why would an INTp who supposedly understands the functions well be so dismissive of one function? Seems like an over-compensation to me.

oh, that's right. Fi types love Fe. i forgot about that. forgive my dogmatic stupidity.

[strrrng]

oh, that's right. Fi types love Fe. i forgot about that. forgive my dogmatic stupidity.

I didn't say that they love it. I merely pointed out that dismissing it as petty and superficial seemed like an over-compensatory attitude and suggested lack of understanding of the functions.

[aestrivex]

I didn't say that they love it. I merely pointed out that dismissing it as petty and superficial seemed like an over-compensatory attitude and suggested lack of understanding of the functions.

i didn't say it was petty and superficial (in this thread anyway), i said it appears petty and superficial to Fi types. and i stand by that.

Fi might appear bitchy or overly self-righteous to Fe types. i stand by that as well.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

wtf does this mean? Ability or inability? Which is it? Or is this situational, maybe...?

As for myself, I can't really say I've developed any good conscious control of my emotional state. And I guess I do sometimes use it creatively to affect my environment... albeit often in a completely unfocused and unpredictable manner. Kinda like meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

I also don't like to think I might directly "manipulate" people or seek to control their emotional states -- this seems somewhat unethical, not to mention more likely to attract recrimination. Although perhaps I've just done this more indirectly, more in terms of acting as an influence rather than a direct motivator. ( creative rather than leading)

My understanding is that ability implies base or creative; while inability implies PoLR. But on second thought, maybe it covers more than that.

I hear you completely; the repercussions aren't worth it. But it is entirely possible to provoke people to laughter, anger, etc, without manipulating on a large scale.

Heh.

Not really. I think it means more like knowing what their emotional "triggers" are and what they react to. I note these things rather instinctively. I'm interested in what people are passionate about. I'll make mental notes about what subjects they become interested and engaged in discussions. I'll also make use of my observations to buy them gifts or tell them things that I know will interest them.

Like last night -- a friend of a friend was having a birthday dinner. I don't know her real well, but I noted her excited reaction to "bendy straws" at another time, so I picked some up and gave them to her as a kinda gag type gift. She seemed perplexed that I'd have noticed smth so seemingly insignificant about her.

I did that to a Fe-PoLR once; I found a bookmark in a bookstore that thought he might like (since he identified strongly with the character on it), bought it, and presented it to him. He was very touched and quite surprised.

[aka-kitsune]

I did that to a Fe-PoLR once; I found a bookmark in a bookstore that thought he might like (since he identified strongly with the character on it), bought it, and presented it to him. He was very touched and quite surprised.

Yes. This works extremely well the more I'm "tuned in" to someone. Of course, I pay more attention when I want to affect someone; like I feel compelled to demonstrate my unique understanding of them with somewhat talismanic items of personal emotional significance.

Once, I had a friend who had a small collection of 1st edition books. Since he had gotten me to read Huxley's Brave New World, when I was in London, one of the things I brought him back was a 1st ed. copy.

Later, we saw The Maltese Falcon on the big screen (in special re-release) and I bought him the 1st ed. Hammett for his birthday.

[Robot]

i didn't say it was petty and superficial (in this thread anyway), i said it appears petty and superficial to Fi types. and i stand by that.

Fi might appear bitchy or overly self-righteous to Fe types. i stand by that as well.

My brother is 6 feet tall. When he's standing very far away he looks like a little ant. But he's not. He's always 6 feet tall regardless of how he appears.

you seem to have no interest in expressing your internal state most of the time, rather relying on superficial external expression. Fe.

You didn't word this right. The way you worded it here makes it seem like you think Fe is superficial external expression. Either that or you believed a misconception about Fe.

[aestrivex]

My brother is 6 feet tall. When he's standing very far away he looks like a little ant. But he's not. He's always 6 feet tall regardless of how he appears.

i'm not sure what the relevance of your point is.

You didn't word this right. The way you worded it here makes it seem like you think Fe is superficial external expression. Either that or you believed a misconception about Fe.

i do think Fe is largely superficial external expression. and i think many Fi types would acquiesce.

[Robot]

i'm not sure what the relevance of your point is.

To outsiders, it's looks like manipulability. Remember when we talked about how Betas look like they prefer group behaviour to outsiders? Same principle.

A turd covered with lime can also look like a chocolate fudge cake to outsiders.

But it's not.

Exactly.

.

i do think Fe is largely superficial external expression. and i think many Fi types would acquiesce.

It's not superficial. That's one of the central points of this thread.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Do you think that just because something's expressed outwardly, that makes it superficial? What if outward emotions express inward sentiments? Why would you think it's superficial just because someone chooses to show it? You don't just grab Fe out of the air. It has to come from somewhere.

Just because it's different from Fi, doesn't mean its superficial. I don't care if it looks that way to you, many Fi users on this board do not share the same sentiments.

I agree; be I Fi or Fe, I also say the external can come from the internal. It doesn't always happen (see ILEs), but that's not to say it never happens.

[aestrivex]

.





It's not superficial. That's one of the central points of this thread.

Do you think that just because something's expressed outwardly, that makes it superficial? What if outward emotions express inward sentiments? Why would you think it's superficial just because someone chooses to show it? You don't just grab Fe out of the air. It has to come from somewhere.

Just because it's different from Fi, doesn't mean its superficial. I don't care if it looks that way to you, many Fi users on this board do not share the same sentiments.

I agree; be I Fi or Fe, I also say the external can come from the internal. It doesn't always happen (see ILEs), but that's not to say it never happens.

If anything, I'd say that Fi can look really superficial to me sometimes. As in when someone tries to desperately hold on to expressing very strict and artificial sentiments (and bottles up emotions) in the face of an overwhelming need to express their real underlying feelings.

But I find it neither helpfull nor correct to use this sort of method for typing -- especially because this type of behaviour represents an abnormality or a disease of the soul.

all of you are merely proving my point.

[Brilliand]

all of you are merely proving my point.

I think the point, though (for both sides) is that while you're expressing your instincts, we want to discuss this from an unbiased perspective. You know that you're biased, now get your bias out of the picture.

[Robot]

Wait. Did I misunderstand? From what I read it seemed that a part of Fe was expressing what one is feeling. Ex.: A boy feels happy so he gives a wide grin and says,"I'm in a good mood today." Is that a part of what Fe is? Come to think of it that seems rather silly. Doesn't everyone express emotion? Or is there a whole group of people that never cry/smile/shout/etc. that I'm not aware of?

[marooned]

types are incapable of forming real or permanent bonds with other people. And even if they do, it's only a faint imitation of a real bond. They can't form the sorts of tight connections and relationships that types can because they're too superficial and transient in their feelings. Though these fleeting feelings are displayed in a really intense way, they cannot last. And so you're doomed to always forget those close to you, because they may have been close once, but will not be later. Bonds don't stick.

types are overwhelmingly loyal to those who matter to them. And those who matter to them are of impeccable character. Except then they do something wrong, some kind of betrayal, and then they must be judged very very harshly. Maybe if they were "in essence" of good character and later they start acting "badly" they are now seen as having been of "bad character" all along (only it was hidden). So really everything that came before will suddenly be replaced by this re-assessment of their "character" as though none of it happened. Or maybe they are still of "good character" except need to be "repaired."

(I'm not being serious...)

[aestrivex]

types are incapable of forming real or permanent bonds with other people. And even if they do, it's only a faint imitation of a real bond. They can't form the sorts of tight connections and relationships that types can because they're too superficial and transient in their feelings. Though these fleeting feelings are displayed in a really intense way, they cannot last. And so you're doomed to always forget those close to you, because they may have been close once, but will not be later. Bonds don't stick.

types are overwhelmingly loyal to those who matter to them. And those who matter to them are of impeccable character. Except then they do something wrong, some kind of betrayal, and then they must be judged very very harshly. Maybe if they were "in essence" of good character and later they start acting "badly" they are now seen as having been of "bad character" all along (only it was hidden). So really everything that came before will suddenly be replaced by this re-assessment of their "character" as though none of it happened. Or maybe they are still of "good character" except need to be "repaired."

(I'm not being serious...)

this is not remotely an accurate representation of what i'm saying here.

[aestrivex]

I think its clearly natural for every human being to express both emotional as well as superficial sentiments... that these aren't tied to the continuous expression of a single function. A function is more like a general attitude towards a large-scale event, but does not necessarily carry the same attitude towards every single stimulus that crosses its path.

You yourself engage in that sort of small-talk from time to time. You aren't necessarily excercising any one function when you do it. Just telling your lips to move.

sure. i don't see the problem with any of that and what i was saying. certainly, Fe and Fi make up an ethical spectrum of sorts that can be somewhat blurred. nonetheless, in a general sense, the outward, group-environment-focused Fe easily can appear superficial to Fi types. and the lack thereof similarly missing the point to Fe types.

all of your objections to this rather simple conclusion to me seem fairly ridiculous and all read like "OMG NIFFWEED IS TALKING SHIT ABOUT AGAIN LETS ALL TEAM UP ON HIM AND GET HIM TO TAKE IT BACK; IT MATTERS THAT PEOPLE RESPECT THAT IS AS GOOD AS " (this is how i interpret it anyway) -- which rather ironically is an Fe perspective by and large, and is completely missing the point. nothing i said is intended as a derogatory remark.

I'm still on the fence about Allie's type (between G-SF and INFp). But I think it's possible to consider that what you may be seeing in Allie as "Fe" could just be her lack of Te. Factors related to her age, upringing and other socioeconomic conditions, as well as finding a comfortable "information" niche within socionix could be why she doesn't appear to aggressively seek out and defend as much Te as other Gamma SFs.

no. take another look at what i've talked about allie. all of this information is largely irrelevant towards the overall nature of character/image that she presents here (ie age). the thing about finding a comfortable information niche in ashton/strrrng seems a rather direct manifestation of her type.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

sure. i don't see the problem with any of that and what i was saying. certainly, Fe and Fi make up an ethical spectrum of sorts that can be somewhat blurred. nonetheless, in a general sense, the outward, group-environment-focused Fe easily can appear superficial to Fi types. and the lack thereof similarly missing the point to Fe types.

all of your objections to this rather simple conclusion to me seem fairly ridiculous and all read like "OMG NIFFWEED IS TALKING SHIT ABOUT AGAIN LETS ALL TEAM UP ON HIM AND GET HIM TO TAKE IT BACK; IT MATTERS THAT PEOPLE RESPECT THAT IS AS GOOD AS " (this is how i interpret it anyway) -- which rather ironically is an Fe perspective by and large, and is completely missing the point. nothing i said is intended as a derogatory remark.

I obviously missed that in the beginning; my apologies. I didn't know you were presenting a side without endorsing it yourself. Actually, I haven't heard you blasting , because I haven't been around for a while. I can see how Fi and Fe-valuers would dismiss the other as having the wrong focus.

[aestrivex]

all of your objections to this rather simple conclusion to me seem fairly ridiculous and all read like "OMG NIFFWEED IS TALKING SHIT ABOUT AGAIN LETS ALL TEAM UP ON HIM AND GET HIM TO TAKE IT BACK; IT MATTERS THAT PEOPLE RESPECT THAT IS AS GOOD AS " (this is how i interpret it anyway) -- which rather ironically is an Fe perspective by and large, and is completely missing the point. nothing i said is intended as a derogatory remark.

also, it seems to me as though people like dolphin, glamourama, allie, loki, and starfall have consistently championed this view in the past as a sort of "counter-attack" against typings by gamma NTs which they incorrectly perceived as being derogatory towards beta by shunting "idiots" into the beta quadra.

this is hardly fair; for one thing, i think that betas and alphas largely predominate on this board. furthermore, not all "gammas" are nice people; i still think that both hoodrat and possibly cpig might be gammas, and both of them i consider assholes who i'd prefer never to speak to again. (in both cases though i'm sort of prevented from getting an accurate diagnosis of their types by my unwillingness to have anything to do with them)

i am perfectly willing to acknowledge it if beta NFs say things like "i think your understanding of Fe is wrong; here is why" (as in the definition of Fe thread glamourama posted recently). however, this often seems not to be the case, and the "OMG WHY DO YOU HATE BETAS" argument seems to take over.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

You're Gamma now, Nifweed? I had wondered, but I thought you were typed INTj.

[tereg]

Fe types: Is the analogy I drew above appropriate for a way to view ?

Edit: Or anyone for that matter.