The difference between Fi and Fe

[daffy]

What is it?

[Beautiful sky]

One is introverted subjective feelings derived from exposure to objects and people (Fi) the other is objective feelings derived from objects (Fe); Fi is empathy, morals, personal/subjective judgements; Fe is sympathy, feelings existing outside of oneself, reflection and contemplation of social norms and fore.

[Computer Loser]

I write a cool, deep blog. I put my heart and soul into writing it.

Days later I check my blog and see that 2 people have visited my site:

Fe-Girl, comments on my blog post: "ZOMG!! Awesome post!!! You are like SO COOL! LOLZ!!@11!"

Fi-Girl, I see has visited my site, but has not commented.

Fi-Girl, instead, smiled creepily in front of the computer in the dark, read the post, and left.

[Beautiful sky]

Fe types pull on your emotions, they shake you up to see your response and if it's truthful and honest. Fi types either trust you, because they already have a bond with you, or suspect it, but they, unless Fi is demonstrative function, will usually not try to tug at your emotions.

For the best example of Fe, you may watch Eat, Pray, Love starring IEI Julia Roberts, but remember, she demonstrates Fi too, so there's a lot of hint of empathy in this movie.

[Computer Loser]

Fe types pull on your emotions, they shake you up to see your response and if it's truthful and honest. Fi types either trust you, because they already have a bond with you, or suspect it, but they, unless Fi is demonstrative function, will usually not try to tug at your emotions.

Indeed

[Beautiful sky]

My sister is an FeSi and it's interesting how she can wield my innocent and unsuspecting brother-in-law around on her pinky finger, by using pure and unadulterated drama, faking crying and emotional pain associated by some cause, like my mom's condition, while out shopping for hours in an attempt to avoid him (he's LSI type); all she has to do, to lie to him, is to play miss "my emotions are hurt" game with him in a blatant show of emotions; I have morals, I don't have Fe as a demonstrative function. It hurts me (notice the subjective additive of "me" here associated with Fi) to lie and because of this I don't do it.

SEE types, because of Fe demo, even though they have Fi ego, can do what Fe ego types can also...kind of "manipulative".

I'm blunt. If it's a "no" then it is a "no"; there's no ambiguity with me, which my dual appreciates very much because they have a hard time telling people's motives, so require people to be open and unambiguous.

[Creepy-male]

Because functions totally equate to generally poor behaviour, yup

[jughead]

Functions aren't inherently manipulative in the bad sense, their ethical and logical usage is entirely dependent on the person. We all need to bitch about these people Maritsa but try and preface it with a disclaimer.

[woofwoofl]

One is introverted subjective feelings derived from exposure to objects and people (Fi) the other is objective feelings derived from objects (Fe); Fi is empathy, morals, personal/subjective judgements; Fe is sympathy, feelings existing outside of oneself, reflection and contemplation of social norms and fore.

Fe types pull on your emotions, they shake you up to see your response and if it's truthful and honest. Fi types either trust you, because they already have a bond with you, or suspect it, but they, unless Fi is demonstrative function, will usually not try to tug at your emotions.

For the best example of Fe, you may watch Eat, Pray, Love starring IEI Julia Roberts, but remember, she demonstrates Fi too, so there's a lot of hint of empathy in this movie.

Thanks this falls perfectly in line with what I was almost certain they were but couldn't find the right words to express, and cemented me even further, if such a thing is possible, as / valuing...

My sister is an FeSi and it's interesting how she can wield my innocent and unsuspecting brother-in-law around on her pinky finger, by using pure and unadulterated drama, faking crying and emotional pain associated by some cause, like my mom's condition, while out shopping for hours in an attempt to avoid him (he's LSI type); all she has to do, to lie to him, is to play miss "my emotions are hurt" game with him in a blatant show of emotions; I have morals, I don't have Fe as a demonstrative function. It hurts me (notice the subjective additive of "me" here associated with Fi) to lie and because of this I don't do it.

Usually when someone's going berzerk at me like that, I kinda go absolutely flat, and I try to give them comfort, questions, answers, and I will hold my ground when I'm right - all that yelling stuff seems like fluff to me, I don't care how big and loud they are, it's the size of their rationale that matters

SEE types, because of Fe demo, even though they have Fi ego, can do what Fe ego types can also...kind of "manipulative".

I'm blunt. If it's a "no" then it is a "no"; there's no ambiguity with me, which my dual appreciates very much because they have a hard time telling people's motives, so require people to be open and unambiguous.

I try to use my powers for good maybe to pump people up for a big bike ride, run, sporting event, game, or anything for that matter (I've consistently gotten abnormally massive burritos from Chipotle due to this, they almost always have to be double-wrapped)

[The Ineffable]

An example off the top of my head (Fe-Base judges by experience/objects, Fi-Base by relationships):
- Fe: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer A stays away from B;
- Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to stay away from person A.

[EyeSeeCold]

What is it?

Still think you're trolling.

[Galen]

Still think you're trolling.

well that explains it



It's kinda late for me, so I'll be brief about this. This is essentially what I've been saying about Fi for a while now. The way I see it working in me is a means of mass information consolidation into a single gestalt feeling of sorts. The emotions one feels isn't so much an entity that floats around in space that can be observed in its entirety by others, as much as it is the resulting network of all (relevant) information at any given moment that holds it all together and gives it meaning. That is to say, each exact situation possesses an inherently unique emotional construct different from any other, since each exact external situation is filled with a unique combination of parts and pieces. This is a difficult thing to explain in full, but if you want further explanation I'll try to expand on it.

As to how it differs from Fe, I would say that Fe sees one's emotional state as something that is meant to be explicitly seen and observable by others. I was talking to my ISFp mother about this sort of thing, and she explained that she has to be able to see for herself people's various states in order to know that the person even has emotions in the first place. One manifestation of this mindset is that sometimes when she sees me or my brother she'll say "show me a smile!" I see no reason for me to oblige, since demonstrating to others in a clearly, unmistakable way that I'm capable of happiness seems like a pointless exercise to me. Conversely, my ENTp brother eats that sort of thing up, which seems to happen in Fe HA a lot I find: they seem very eager to experience not just discrete, but particularly novel states of emotion and try to express those states in a way so that other people can know they're experiencing them.

This kinda went off on a tangent, but since I have no first-hand experience of how Fe works I can only give secondary accounts of how I see Fe working in others.

[munenori2]

This kinda went off on a tangent, but since I have no first-hand experience of how Fe works I can only give secondary accounts of how I see Fe working in others.

Minion!

[717495]

First off, let me say that I doubt is correlated to emotions, and I doubt that is not often related to emotions and sensing emotions.

to me personally has a lot to do with being aware of my inward emotional resonance with things or feeling of personal distance/judgment about things/people, usually stuff that I can't word or explain but that happens automatically in my mind, as a kind of subjective reasoning afterthought to my own biased feelings. I also agree with maritsa's first post (didn't really read the others,) but what she means by morals is not really so all-encompassing or judgmental often, rather it's a way of filtering everything through your subjective reactions or beliefs: things about primarily you that no one can take away.

seems based on a personal observation of the ethics of other people, and where they and others fit in, too much so to have real meaning to me (not because it's about 'other people,' but because it turns to an emotional focus at others, where as to me is already emotional in of itself.) I've contemplated endlessly on how types are great people for caring in that way, and why I'm not like that even though its logical to be and try to understand the angles on everyone and where and how they should fit in to the world of emotions, but it's just not how I operate. I'm not interested in an 'objective' approach to understanding this function. It becomes too analytical of other people and 'how they're are supposed to act in accordance with others' and divides from my own emotional path. Reread the delta quadra description about 'going your own path.'

Around types I get signs from them like I have to adjust, especially at first meeting. When you see types they don't really care how you're behaving as long as its not conflicting with their personal mission. The worst of us may chose to judge someone and come out with negative reactions, but for the most part its fairly internal, and most judgment is revolved around/about the self, and only casts reflections of our nature onto the outer world.

Also, you can flip this 180 when it comes to and of the same types. -valuers will manage what is externally emotional and amass emotional consensus, -valuers will manage what is externally logical and amass logical consensus. -valuers will manage what is personally emotional and divide and weave their own emotional path amidst, -valuers will manage what is personally logical and weave their own logical path amidst.

The idea is like filling a container full of two liquids. Gamma and Delta's logical liquid emerges at the top by nature, and emotional liquid under the surface, and Alpha and Beta's emotional liquid emerges at the top my nature, and logical liquid under the surface. Logical and emotional awareness are still there for anyone of any type, but manifest in different directions by a natural selection, A or B. It's the fundamental structure of intertype relations and how groups of people naturally get along, and I believe it to be so much more visible than the idea that some people more emotionally adept get along best, where others more sentimentally adept get along best. It really does not work that way in reality, much ever.

I find that the / quadra groups will have a sharper eye for logical consensus, making sure to structure and communicate to one another joint plans expressed in a pragmatic and logical fashion, while consuming under the surface, and emerging, various emotional viewpoints, inevitably valuing connection/empathy while being unable to sacrifice staying emotionally true to oneself. I find the / quadra groups converge more so with one another emotionally and make joint decisions and plans based on an ethical mindset, while consuming under the surface and emerging various logical viewpoints, valuing one's own personalized thought and sharing these ideas loosely rather than forming them externally. This is pretty much the crux of / vs / group behavior and makes type observations so much more apparent and meaningful.

is often not deep or personal enough to me (from my side of things), but it does trigger joy in my heart seeing them sympathize with others, when I find myself seeing a familiar aspect to them and their true feelings come out without being labeled. I'm sure its the same way for when they see me find a sense of , and by I don't mean emotional expression but when they find me meeting them in the middle to connect to an emotional force greater than themselves. I think creatives might not relate as much to my sense of because they're extroverted and the ones trying to implement it, but the overall feel of still applies 100%.

[Marie84]

Fi is subjective relations between objects. It filters the sentiments of repulsion and attraction in oneself and in others. When a person is questioning how much, say, they or someone else likes a person or if that person appears to like or dislike them, they're using Fi. It's typically linked as a relational element since it monitors the relational proximity between others, which allows for one to adapt to particular relations appropriately

Fe monitors the internal emotional processes that are taking place within an atmosphere or individual. It allows the ability to convey and identify the mood in oneself and others. When a person is identifying the emotional state of an individual or the general mood of the atmosphere they're within they're using Fe (i.e. "this person is sad/happy, warm/cold, grouchy/elated" etc) Fe can also enable someone to make attempts at inducing said moods in others

[The Ineffable]

I also agree with maritsa's first post (didn't really read the others,) but what she means by morals is not really so all-encompassing or judgmental often, rather it's a way of filtering everything through your subjective reactions or beliefs: things about primarily you that no one can take away.

Yeah, I agree. That is pretty easy to understand, the Fi is knowing in advance what's bad and good, what you relate to or not and so on, mostly based on that it gets enriched/refined, through new associations. Being either both strong or both weak, the ethics supplement each other, I think this should be told as well, because in alien situations Fi Egos do actually use Fe - immediate, gut feeling evaluation - to determine values to start off, pretty much how Ti uses Te empiricism to determine the root principles. The other way around hapens too, when one can't have a preference on something (neutral impression), so he/she needs to make an appeal to existing relationships (associations with others, familiarity, etc) to make his mind, whether he likes that or not.

Take the following situation: you have a new colleague. We assume this guy does reveal nothing about himself for a long time, either doesn't speak much or talks only generalities, he's dressed casually, decently. Fi types (or rather "using Fi, one ...") won't be able to make an opinion about him too easily, he breaks no rule, he has no evident problem. Through Fe however, he can be easily judged based only on what he shows, for example being "too silent" or "too dull" may be criteria for disliking someone, because this can make you feel uncomfortable - Fe-Base types in fact have this annoying habit to ask "why don't you talk?", or "don't you find this funny/stupid/good/bad?", or "tell me your opinion on this", which is so absurd for and despised by Fe-PoLRs, who are very neutral in their subjective preferences. To note that in the case of Fe, you don't have to dislike silent or dull people to dislike this guy, you may simply dislike that *in him*, if he makes you uncomfortable or spoils the atmosphere, it's all based on your immediate experience instead of a priori judgments.

[anndelise]

An example off the top of my head (Fe-Base judges by experience/objects, Fi-Base by relationships):
- Fe: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer A stays away from B;
- Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to stay away from person A.

Fi would be more like:
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to stay away from person B

or
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to hang with person A when person B's not around

[The Ineffable]

Fi would be more like:
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to stay away from person B

or
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to hang with person A when person B's not around

In that case, the relationship between A and B would be meaningless, thing which in fact is meaningful when Fi is involved. Also note that I cautiously restricted my case to F-Base, in the case of Extrovert Fi and Introvert Fe things change based on other factors, though processing the preference is still based on the specifics of the Ethical function.

The relationship between A and B is not necessarily casual, they may be brothers but they may be in agreement, the difference doesn't change much, but one can think of more palpable scenarios. If A agrees with B while B disagrees with your Fi-based principles, that is actually a problem. An extreme case which comes to my mind is when B is teaching everyone how to steal, thing you strongly oppose; in that case if you're Fe you just try to detach A from B because of this problem ("he's trying to teach you how to steal" - judgment based on objects), but if you're Fi, hanging out with B is inconsistent with your values - agreeing with B is unacceptable in advance (judgment based on relationships).

[ashlesha]

the idea of only associating yourself with people who only associate themselves with other people you approve of sounds horribly complicated and entirely too much work.

i'm pretty sure almost everyone does what anndelise outlined.

[anndelise]

the idea of only associating yourself with people who only associate themselves with other people you approve of sounds horribly complicated and entirely too much work.

i'm pretty sure almost everyone does what anndelise outlined.

Unfortunately, my experiences have shown me that it's about evenly distributed. Remember that grade school game some people played..."I don't like them so you can't be friends with them" or "I'll only hang out with you if you stop hanging out with them" or "*I* like this person, I don't understand what *your* problem is with them"?

Well, it seems that that's not really a game. Many people actually think and make decisions along that way.

[anndelise]

In that case, the relationship between A and B would be meaningless, ...[]....

Meaningless in a Ti way perhaps.

[The Ineffable]

Well, it seems that that's not really a game. Many people actually think and make decisions along that way.

... including laghlag who always disagrees with me, because of some things I said ages ago that deranged her. This is why I don't care and don't answer her, except for jokes. Case in point.

[Trevor]

Maritsa33 is pretty good with Merry/Serious distinction.

[krieger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary...ty_distinction
(the description isn't perfect)

Fe: secondary qualities (ontologically subjective qualitative distinction)
Fi: primary qualities (ontologically objective qualitative distinction)

F is about qualitative distinctions.

as always the i/e aspect is more hindrance than help and gets the subjective/objective qualifier completely wrong. no wonder people end up with such idiotic views on this issue.

[ashlesha]

@bolt i'm not sure that i always disagree with you. i do find myself often disagreeing with you about Fi because i think you tend to see it like a different form of Ti because of your polr. and you've made me feel sort of disgusted, but you've never "deranged" me, don't flatter yourself.

as for my view on the Fi/Fe difference - trying to describe it my brain is just echoing a lot of what poli said (i liked his post a lot). i'm a little thrown by the word "consensus" but i think its like - Fi valuers seeing the factual type stuff as stuff that can be influenced, debated, and worked around with and the emotional stuff being more set in stone and not open to coersion. and vice versa for Fe types. so consensus works but it doesn't have to be like in a group context.

um, obviously its not like Fe types never debate facts or Fi types never try to influence emotion. its just kind of a general feel or something.

[Absurd]

Consensus reminds me of quality and I do like what anndelise wrote.

[anndelise]

I had to go for a walk to help me work through why the following paragraph bothered me...

The relationship between A and B is not necessarily casual, they may be brothers but they may be in agreement, the difference doesn't change much, but one can think of more palpable scenarios. If A agrees with B while B disagrees with your Fi-based principles, that is actually a problem. An extreme case which comes to my mind is when B is teaching everyone how to steal, thing you strongly oppose; in that case if you're Fe you just try to detach A from B because of this problem ("he's trying to teach you how to steal" - judgment based on objects), but if you're Fi, hanging out with B is inconsistent with your values - agreeing with B is unacceptable in advance (judgment based on relationships).

The scenario given:
F = our Fi-based person and their Fi-based principles (as per the paragraph)

B disagrees with F.
A agrees with B's disagreement with F...leading us to believe that A disagrees with F.
A's disagreement with F puts A in conflict with F.
Regardless of A's relationship with B.

In the extreme case example...B is teaching A how to steal.
F disagrees with the act of stealing.
If A is stealing, then A is in conflict with F (and F is in conflict with A).
Regardless of any relationships to B.

If A is not stealing, then A is not in conflict with F.
Regardless of A's relationship with B.

If A supports the idea of stealing, but does not steal, then A is in partial conflict with F.
This conflict arises when A is supporting stealing around F.
A and F are not in conflict when neither is relating to the idea of stealing.
If A and F want to relate on other things, then their relationship is best served by avoiding discussing with each other the topic of stealing.

[The Ineffable]

B disagrees with F.
A agrees with B's disagreement with F...leading us to believe that A disagrees with F.
A's disagreement with F puts A in conflict with F.
Regardless of A's relationship with B.

No, that's correct only when A judges thought Fi. The type of A is none of our concern, he/she simply behaves that way (call him ignorant or hypocrite, if you want).

In the extreme case example...B is teaching A how to steal.
F disagrees with the act of stealing.
If A is stealing, then A is in conflict with F (and F is in conflict with A).
Regardless of any relationships to B.

Idem. A enters conflict with F only through the eyes of F. If A were Fe, for example, he/she would not be required to dislike either, unless one of them (the object) breaks his values, though not because of their association or conflict - precisely the other case I explained for F: Fe Ego.

If A is not stealing, then A is not in conflict with F.
Regardless of A's relationship with B.

Fi does, because of the inconsistency of their relationship. What you say here contradicts what you state in the first quote above ("leading us to believe that A disagrees with F"), too.

If A supports the idea of stealing, but does not steal, then A is in partial conflict with F.

That happens only in your Fi mind. Get over your bias and we may talk.

[thePirate]

My sister is an FeSi and it's interesting how she can wield my innocent and unsuspecting brother-in-law around on her pinky finger, by using pure and unadulterated drama, faking crying and emotional pain associated by some cause, like my mom's condition, while out shopping for hours in an attempt to avoid him (he's LSI type); all she has to do, to lie to him, is to play miss "my emotions are hurt" game with him in a blatant show of emotions; I have morals, I don't have Fe as a demonstrative function. It hurts me (notice the subjective additive of "me" here associated with Fi) to lie and because of this I don't do it.

I have seen Fi valuers do all of the above, as well as lie to bring people closer, and generally being very selfish with an egocentric focus on their own feelings - at the expense of others. Lying isn't related to Fe and Fi, to suggest so is disgusting.

I really dislike your posts maritsa, it's like you've learned nothing in the time you've been here.

[The Ineffable]

An example of Fe-Valuing versus Fi-Valuing, involving Alexander the Great (Fi-PoLR):

According to the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, Batis was killed by Alexander in imitation of Achilles' treatment of the fallen Hector. A rope was forced through Batis's ankles, probably between the ankle bone and the Achilles tendon, and Batis was dragged alive by chariot beneath the walls of the city. Alexander, who admired courage in his enemies and might have been inclined to show mercy to the brave Persian general, was infuriated at Batis's refusal to kneel and by the enemy commander's haughty silence and contemptuous manner.

Alexander shows that typical Beta (Aristocratic, J+ -> Fe+) trait of admiring his enemies and was infuriated by the defenders' contempt for him for just being "the enemy". Delta (Aristocratic, J+ -> Fi+) attitude of not wanting to deal with the enemy at all (it's their problem why) and to objectively recognize value alienates Beta and creates resentments, disgust, the feeling the enemy is inhuman and is worth nothing.

[anndelise]

No, that's correct only when A judges thought Fi. The type of A is none of our concern, he/she simply behaves that way (call him ignorant or hypocrite, if you want).

This response makes no sense in the context of the agrees/disagree scenario it references.

Idem. A enters conflict with F only through the eyes of F.

A and F are in conflict with each other.
A is stealing. F is against stealing.
In this scenario, this IS their conflict, regardless of who's eye's it's being viewed by.

If A were Fe, for example, he/she would not be required to dislike either, unless one of them (the object) breaks his values, though not because of their association or conflict - precisely the other case I explained for F: Fe Ego.

This part makes no sense. I never suggested that "he/she would be required to dislike either" or anything remotely similar.

Fi does, because of the inconsistency of their relationship. What you say here contradicts what you state in the first quote above ("leading us to believe that A disagrees with F"), too.

There is no contradiction, there were two different scenarios.

Scenario 1: B disagrees with F. A agrees with B.
Scenario 2b: B is trying to teach A how to steal. But A is not stealing. F is against stealing.

If A supports the idea of stealing, but does not steal, then A is in partial conflict with F.

That happens only in your Fi mind. Get over your bias and we may talk.

This response makes no sense unless you think it has to be all or nothing. Just because you want things to be all or nothing does not mean that Fi egos think in terms of all or nothing. So, uh, yeah..in the Fi mind...it's a partial conflict. And since we were talking about the Fi mind...

-------------
As for the attackful nature of your final two sentences...
You already know that I'm not interested in playing those games with you.
So if you want to continue to talk with me, stop with the attempted personal attacks.

[anndelise]

I have seen Fi valuers do all of the above, as well as lie to bring people closer, and generally being very selfish with an egocentric focus on their own feelings - at the expense of others. Lying isn't related to Fe and Fi, to suggest so is disgusting.

I agree.
Particularly with the disgusting part.

[The Ineffable]

So if you want to continue to talk with me, stop with the attempted personal attacks.

You project sentiments on A just because you would feel so towards F, that's your problem, it makes no part of the scenario - anyone of any type can behave like that if he/she doesn't care about stealing/not stealing. We don't know/we don't care what A values, neither whether A would accept the friendship of F or not. It's all about the reasoning of F, start from there.

What you just did was to shed even more light into the reasoning of Fi types, at least some. When you looked from F's perspective, A appears to you to dislike you just because A is in agreement with B, while B is in disagreement with you. An inner contradiction. That's actually an explicit case when F is Fi Ego, this alleged conflict which A initiates hapens in F's mind.

[lemon]

I write a cool, deep blog. I put my heart and soul into writing it.

Days later I check my blog and see that 2 people have visited my site:

Fe-Girl, comments on my blog post: "ZOMG!! Awesome post!!! You are like SO COOL! LOLZ!!@11!"

Fi-Girl, I see has visited my site, but has not commented.

Fi-Girl, instead, smiled creepily in front of the computer in the dark, read the post, and left.

ZOMG!! Awesome response!!! You are like SO COOL! LOLZ!!@11!

[anndelise]

You project sentiments on A just because you would feel so towards F, that's your problem, it makes no part of the scenario - anyone of any type can behave like that if he/she doesn't care about stealing/not stealing. We don't know/we don't care what A values, neither whether A would accept the friendship of F or not. It's all about the reasoning of F, start from there.

What you just did was to shed even more light into the reasoning of Fi types, at least some. When you looked from F's perspective, A appears to you to dislike you just because A is in agreement with B, while B is in disagreement with you. An inner contradiction. That's actually an explicit case when F is Fi Ego, this alleged conflict which A initiates hapens in F's mind.

What are you even talking about??

My post was referencing the scenarios you gave.

The relationship between A and B is not necessarily casual, they may be brothers but they may be in agreement, the difference doesn't change much, but one can think of more palpable scenarios. If A agrees with B while B disagrees with your Fi-based principles, that is actually a problem. An extreme case which comes to my mind is when B is teaching everyone how to steal, thing you strongly oppose; in that case if you're Fe you just try to detach A from B because of this problem ("he's trying to teach you how to steal" - judgment based on objects), but if you're Fi, hanging out with B is inconsistent with your values - agreeing with B is unacceptable in advance (judgment based on relationships).

The bolded portion gave scenario 1: B disagrees with F. A agrees with B.
I stated:

B disagrees with F.
A agrees with B's disagreement with F...leading us to believe that A disagrees with F.
A's disagreement with F puts A in conflict with F.
Regardless of A's relationship with B.

you:

No, that's correct only when A judges thought Fi. The type of A is none of our concern, he/she simply behaves that way (call him ignorant or hypocrite, if you want).

I never said anything about the type of A.
You're the one who is suggesting to call A ignorant or hypocrite. I don't even know what that's referring to.
And what did this have to do with A agreeing with B's disagreement with F?

You're the one, in this case, who's placing value judgments beyond there being a conflict of agreement. I didn't do that. I just stated that there was a conflict. Not the extent, not the level of weight given to that conflict, nothing more than stating the obvious..there's a conflict between them. And it has nothing to do with B, since your scenario said that A agrees with B who's disagreeing with F.

Now, maybe I made some kind of logical fallacy with this:
A agrees with B.
B disagrees with F.
Therefore A disagrees with F.

Except that I left it a little open for error in saying "leading us to believe that A disagrees with F".

By "us" I'm not referring to F's pov, A's pov, nor B's pov.
I'm referring to you, I, and the reader, looking at this particular scenario objectively.


---------
The orange part gave us the extreme scenario..scenario 2. Of which I gave three possible ways it could go (not saying that there's only three, I just listed three).

Your scenario:
B is teaching everyone (including A) how to steal.
F strongly opposes teaching everyone how to steal.

I said:

B is teaching A how to steal.
F disagrees with the act of stealing.
2a: If A is stealing, then A and F are in conflict.
2b: If A is not stealing, then A and F are not in conflict.
2c: If A supports the idea of stealing, but does not steal, then A is in partial conflict with F.

My mistake, perhaps, was in simplifying the phrase from "teaching to steal" to "stealing".

So I'll put it back into your original phrasing. (m = modified, as in not my original three possibilities, but based on them to better reflect your wording since the simplification process caused confusion)

B is teaching everyone (including A) how to steal.
F strongly opposes teaching everyone how to steal.
m2a: If A is learning to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then F isn't in conflict with A, F is in conflict with B..the one who's teaching A to steal.
m2b: If A is NOT learning to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then F isn't in conflict with A, F is still in conflict with B...the one who's teaching A to steal.
m2c: If A supports teaching to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then A and F are in conflict, regardless of B. This conflict, however, may never even play out between A and F...dependent upon what kind of support A gives towards teaching to steal.

-----
NOTHING in there projects sentiments onto A.
NOTHING tells what A's values are..only A's actions and agreement/disagreements with who/what.
I made no mention of accepting or not accepting friendships.
I made no mention of like/dislikes.

------
As for those last two sentences...
I didn't claim you liked/disliked me.
I didn't claim to like/dislike you.
I'm assuming you have me as F in that paragraph. And you as A. Who is B?
But regardless, what you wrote makes no sense when placed into the context of what was actually written. Or, perhaps you could be more clear as to what specifically you were referring to.

[woofwoofl]

I write a cool, deep blog. I put my heart and soul into writing it.

Days later I check my blog and see that 2 people have visited my site:

Fe-Girl, comments on my blog post: "ZOMG!! Awesome post!!! You are like SO COOL! LOLZ!!@11!"

Fi-Girl, I see has visited my site, but has not commented.

Fi-Girl, instead, smiled creepily in front of the computer in the dark, read the post, and left.

I do things like this all the time

I'll read something awesome, I won't know enough about the person to know the correct way to respond, I'll be nervous for a while, then I'll get distracted and wander off elsewhere mentally...

First off, let me say that I doubt is correlated to emotions, and I doubt that is not often related to emotions and sensing emotions.

to me personally has a lot to do with being aware of my inward emotional resonance with things or feeling of personal distance/judgment about things/people, usually stuff that I can't word or explain but that happens automatically in my mind, as a kind of subjective reasoning afterthought to my own biased feelings. I also agree with maritsa's first post (didn't really read the others,) but what she means by morals is not really so all-encompassing or judgmental often, rather it's a way of filtering everything through your subjective reactions or beliefs: things about primarily you that no one can take away.

seems based on a personal observation of the ethics of other people, and where they and others fit in, too much so to have real meaning to me (not because it's about 'other people,' but because it turns to an emotional focus at others, where as to me is already emotional in of itself.) I've contemplated endlessly on how types are great people for caring in that way, and why I'm not like that even though its logical to be and try to understand the angles on everyone and where and how they should fit in to the world of emotions, but it's just not how I operate. I'm not interested in an 'objective' approach to understanding this function. It becomes too analytical of other people and 'how they're are supposed to act in accordance with others' and divides from my own emotional path. Reread the delta quadra description about 'going your own path.'

Around types I get signs from them like I have to adjust, especially at first meeting. When you see types they don't really care how you're behaving as long as its not conflicting with their personal mission. The worst of us may chose to judge someone and come out with negative reactions, but for the most part its fairly internal, and most judgment is revolved around/about the self, and only casts reflections of our nature onto the outer world.

Also, you can flip this 180 when it comes to and of the same types. -valuers will manage what is externally emotional and amass emotional consensus, -valuers will manage what is externally logical and amass logical consensus. -valuers will manage what is personally emotional and divide and weave their own emotional path amidst, -valuers will manage what is personally logical and weave their own logical path amidst.

The idea is like filling a container full of two liquids. Gamma and Delta's logical liquid emerges at the top by nature, and emotional liquid under the surface, and Alpha and Beta's emotional liquid emerges at the top my nature, and logical liquid under the surface. Logical and emotional awareness are still there for anyone of any type, but manifest in different directions by a natural selection, A or B. It's the fundamental structure of intertype relations and how groups of people naturally get along, and I believe it to be so much more visible than the idea that some people more emotionally adept get along best, where others more sentimentally adept get along best. It really does not work that way in reality, much ever.

I find that the / quadra groups will have a sharper eye for logical consensus, making sure to structure and communicate to one another joint plans expressed in a pragmatic and logical fashion, while consuming under the surface, and emerging, various emotional viewpoints, inevitably valuing connection/empathy while being unable to sacrifice staying emotionally true to oneself. I find the / quadra groups converge more so with one another emotionally and make joint decisions and plans based on an ethical mindset, while consuming under the surface and emerging various logical viewpoints, valuing one's own personalized thought and sharing these ideas loosely rather than forming them externally. This is pretty much the crux of / vs / group behavior and makes type observations so much more apparent and meaningful.

is often not deep or personal enough to me (from my side of things), but it does trigger joy in my heart seeing them sympathize with others, when I find myself seeing a familiar aspect to them and their true feelings come out without being labeled. I'm sure its the same way for when they see me find a sense of , and by I don't mean emotional expression but when they find me meeting them in the middle to connect to an emotional force greater than themselves. I think creatives might not relate as much to my sense of because they're extroverted and the ones trying to implement it, but the overall feel of still applies 100%.

I love this post

I know what and are from a distance, and Ashton pointed out about how Jung referred to a certain symmetry existing between all four J functions:

is to , as is to
is to , as is to

I look at the way I think about things, casting my net far and wide with pieces of information and all, and I'm trying to imagine people doing that with outward emotional states to form a type of ethical judgment - I'm certain I've witnessed it many a time before, and it's been pointed at my direction a lot, and it's a bit mindblowing to me, reasoning in that manner (though it seems to work very well for lots of people)...

is going to be more difficult for me to get a feel for, as should be expected

I suppose I should smile more and all when surrounded by valuers? I'm pretty outwardly unemotive at times (which works great for deadpan humor, intentional or not)

[The Ineffable]

By "us" I'm not referring to F's pov, A's pov, nor B's pov.
I'm referring to you, I, and the reader, looking at this particular scenario objectively.

I understood what you meant, but that's the same thing, you assert that somehow this conflict between A and F is independent of F, independent of us, though it's not. If it's F or us, it's the same thing, someone imagines this conflict (read my last paragraph below).

NOTHING in there projects sentiments onto A.
NOTHING tells what A's values are..only A's actions and agreement/disagreements with who/what.
I made no mention of accepting or not accepting friendships.
I made no mention of like/dislikes.

"NOTHING" before reformulating or after? :| Before you did and I explained you why, you also did it for after in one place, here:

m2c: If A supports teaching to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then A and F are in conflict, regardless of B. This conflict, however, may never even play out between A and F...dependent upon what kind of support A gives towards teaching to steal.

So keep in mind that F is judging only A's association with B, if we deal with the values of A and A would support B against F (or the principles F is against), A would not differ from B: A and B would be two assholes and their association would make sense for anyone with opposite values since second zero.

B is teaching everyone (including A) how to steal.
F strongly opposes teaching everyone how to steal.
m2a: If A is learning to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then F isn't in conflict with A, F is in conflict with B..the one who's teaching A to steal.
m2b: If A is NOT learning to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then F isn't in conflict with A, F is still in conflict with B...the one who's teaching A to steal.

This looks to me like using Logic. I don't disagree, but I fail to see where Ethics is applied by F.

I'm assuming you have me as F in that paragraph. And you as A. Who is B?
But regardless, what you wrote makes no sense when placed into the context of what was actually written. Or, perhaps you could be more clear as to what specifically you were referring to.

B is Chewbacca . No, F, me and you are 3rd view on A and B. If you are F and conclude that A is against you for being associated with B, or if you're you and conclude that A is against F for being associated with B - it's the same thing. The same if I were judging. It's using Fi.

[Aiss]

ITT: Fi-PoLR.

PoLR is failing, absolutely and totally, at understanding some sort of information. Deduce the rest by yourselves.

[anndelise]

I understood what you meant, but that's the same thing, you assert that somehow this conflict between A and F is independent of F, independent of us, though it's not. If it's F or us, it's the same thing, someone imagines this conflict (read my last paragraph below).

I never asserted nor even suggested that the conflict between A and F was independent of F.
In fact, merely by stating A conflicts with F (or F conflicts with A), it implies that both parties are involved. It's their relationship!! The relationship cannot exist without at least two objects...A..and F.

"NOTHING" before reformulating or after? :| Before you did and I explained you why, you also did it for after in one place, here:

As I said, NOTHING. Neither before nor after the reformulation.
You, however, keep doing it and then claiming I'm the one doing it.

m2c: If A supports teaching to steal, but F is against teaching to steal, then A and F are in conflict, regardless of B. This conflict, however, may never even play out between A and F...dependent upon what kind of support A gives towards teaching to steal.

So keep in mind that F is judging only A's association with B, if we deal with the values of A and A would support B against F (or the principles F is against), A would not differ from B: A and B would be two assholes and their association would make sense for anyone with opposite values since second zero.

In m2c, F is against teaching to steal.
A supports teaching to steal.
The topic is "To teach to steal or not teach to steal."
F says DON'T teach it. A says DO teach it. Hence, they conflict on the matter of whether to teach to steal or not teach it.
This is a direct relationship between F and A. Noone else has to be involved. The conflict would be there whether B existed or not.

You're the one who keeps trying to throw in the 'guilt by association' card.

This looks to me like using Logic. I don't disagree, but I fail to see where Ethics is applied by F.

The ethics comes in when F is deciding whether or not to hang out with A.
The decision isn't made by how A and B relate.
The decision is made by the conflict between A and F.

This is also where the partial conflict thing comes in, and/or the kind of support that A gives to teaching to steal.
For example,
A and F can get along fine...as long as they avoid the topic of whether or not to teach to steal. If A brings it up...it causes conflict for F. If F brings it up, it causes conflict for A. If neither brings it up...no conflict showing.

However, if A and F are married, and A uses A's money to support B's School of Stealing instead of helping pay for household expenses, then that will likely create a conflict between them. But it's not the association with B that's creating the conflict...it's the spent money that F felt shoulda gone to help pay for household expenses.

But if A's support goes no further than a political vote to support B's School of Stealing..or F's anti-BSOS vote, then it would depend on the weight of the values of A and/or F as to how much conflict it would create between them. But again, it wouldn't matter if it was C's School of Stealing, or D's. B, C, and D have nothing to do with A's&F's relationship with each other.

B is Chewbacca . No, F, me and you are 3rd view on A and B. If you are F and conclude that A is against you for being associated with B, or if you're you and conclude that A is against F for being associated with B - it's the same thing. The same if I were judging. It's using Fi.

Except that I never concluded that "A is against F/me for being associated with B". You're the one who keeps projecting that onto me. I don't know how many times I've had to say that B has no effect on A's and F's relationship with each other.

Even my original response said:

Fi would be more like:
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to stay away from person B

or
-Fi: person A is OK but related to person B who I dislike, I prefer to hang with person A when person B's not around

In both, F thinks A is ok, but doesn't like B.
So F just stays away from B.
Which leaves F and A to develop their own relationship, independent of each's relationship with B.

All in all, my arguments have been there are three people, there are three different, independent relationships:

1. A + B
2. A + F
3. B + F

And this is why Fi focuses so much on people's relationships and values. By learning about all the different relationships and values, Fi builds up a complex web or network. Just like Ti can build up a complex model of whatever theory/thing...so does Fi build up a complex model of human relationships, values, psychology, and understanding.

If Fi were to just lump everyone together, like you've claimed they do. Fi would be left with an impoverished understanding of people and their relationships.


----
edited to add: the Chewbacca comment was funny..makes me wanna watch South Park now.

[The Ineffable]

I never asserted nor even suggested that the conflict between A and F was independent of F.
In fact, merely by stating A conflicts with F (or F conflicts with A), it implies that both parties are involved. It's their relationship!! The relationship cannot exist without at least two objects...A..and F.

Oh, I understand now what you mean... yeah I agree, both A and F are required.

In m2c, F is against teaching to steal.
A supports teaching to steal.
The topic is "To teach to steal or not teach to steal."
F says DON'T teach it. A says DO teach it. Hence, they conflict on the matter of whether to teach to steal or not teach it.
This is a direct relationship between F and A. Noone else has to be involved. The conflict would be there whether B existed or not.

You're the one who keeps trying to throw in the 'guilt by association' card.

But I was thinking that's Fi... :| Indeed, if that's not Fi-related I wouldn't say it's necessary to consider it, yeah.

The ethics comes in when F is deciding whether or not to hang out with A.
The decision isn't made by how A and B relate.
The decision is made by the conflict between A and F.

This is also where the partial conflict thing comes in, and/or the kind of support that A gives to teaching to steal.
For example,
A and F can get along fine...as long as they avoid the topic of whether or not to teach to steal. If A brings it up...it causes conflict for F. If F brings it up, it causes conflict for A. If neither brings it up...no conflict showing.

However, if A and F are married, and A uses A's money to support B's School of Stealing instead of helping pay for household expenses, then that will likely create a conflict between them. But it's not the association with B that's creating the conflict...it's the spent money that F felt shoulda gone to help pay for household expenses.

But if A's support goes no further than a political vote to support B's School of Stealing..or F's anti-BSOS vote, then it would depend on the weight of the values of A and/or F as to how much conflict it would create between them. But again, it wouldn't matter if it was C's School of Stealing, or D's. B, C, and D have nothing to do with A's&F's relationship with each other.

Maybe, I was just thinking that way it's ethics in the more general meaning, which can consist of Logic reasoning too. I can't make a certain opinion about it right now.

Except that I never concluded that "A is against F/me for being associated with B". You're the one who keeps projecting that onto me. I don't know how many times I've had to say that B has no effect on A's and F's relationship with each other.

Even my original response said:
In both, F thinks A is ok, but doesn't like B.
So F just stays away from B.
Which leaves F and A to develop their own relationship, independent of each's relationship with B.

All in all, my arguments have been there are three people, there are three different, independent relationships:

1. A + B
2. A + F
3. B + F

Ah, ok. No, my idea was that Fi makes that projection in general - about you it was just the fact you're a Fi type yourself, it was not necessary very relevant to the discussion, maybe just some real fortunate example. IMO you shouldn't have taken that so seriously.

And this is why Fi focuses so much on people's relationships and values. By learning about all the different relationships and values, Fi builds up a complex web or network. Just like Ti can build up a complex model of whatever theory/thing...so does Fi build up a complex model of human relationships, values, psychology, and understanding.

If Fi were to just lump everyone together, like you've claimed they do. Fi would be left with an impoverished understanding of people and their relationships.

In fact that is what I was trying to say too, but my example was intended to be a little sample of this whole, not that it covers everything - you just connect the dots afterwards. Yes, I agree those relationships form a web extrapolating far beyond a specific case.