Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 133

Thread: I need someone to set the record straight for me on Fe vs Fi

  1. #81

    Default

    I never find it that easy to tell. I also have no real distinctions. there are some good post (imo) here already. I just wanted to write sth. about Fi alone.

    I’m not really satsified with this. I think there can be many facets to a fxn. Many ways how they play out. I think it feels like not having grasped everything. Mb. people also disagree or they know it already? Nevermind...

    Fi

    Internal: internal immersion into a ‚feeling‘ stream, ‚feeling things out‘. Like experiencing, what you feel. Not thinking about what you feel. Idk.. I always think it’s more in the body (personally). At first a real time affect and then it spans out from that? An experiencing of an inner place, within yourself. You feel the emotion, you don’t label it or you start thinking/explaining it, because this would take sth. away in ‚feeling it‘ (to label is to restrict) like - you might miss out more nuanced shade of the feeling itself, you might cut off ‚the stream‘ to quickly, or you might try to divert by labeling, to escape experiencing what you truly ‚feel‘. I also think this state, the real feeling is naturally emerging within you (maybe here is where the term authencity is coming into play?). If you stay immersed in this natural ‚flow‘ you can start to follow it in all it’s entirety, experience/feel it and come to understand it in an ‚emotional intelligence‘ sense.

    Subjective: If you keep this experiencing in mind, then you might understand, how we cannot always possibly know, what’s going on in another person. You cannot always grasp the whole complexity of it, because there might be a lot of things playing into it. The experiencing it as a whole and the resulting ‚emotional sense‘ is tied to the person themselves. For example sb. is grieving. People do it differently. There is no ‚objective‘ manual handbook on how these things should go with a person. Like then and then you should reach this state. Like a clockwork. Or states are connecting ‚logically‘. I go from this to this. No. It can go in all kinds of directions. You need a ‚different‘ ‚intelligence‘ ‚sense‘ for it. Now everybody can try to make sense to cope with emotions/experiences, but this happens for everyone a bit differently. That makes it more personal, closer to yourself and what you have experienced?

    Rationality: I believe the term can be misleading in a sense, because this first step, the internal natural immersion and the surfacing ‚feelings‘ are not ‚rational‘. If you really let it happen it can be raw and unfiltered in it’s whole and experiencing it in it’s rawness can be unpleasent (but only if you stay immersed, you might catch everything in it’s entirety and not cut it off) and if you stay in the experience you can try to give it understanding (what’s going on) and that’s the rational process? I think it’s difficult to convey sometimes, when you are still stuck a bit in a certain state. (like you know how people use... this term of ‚emotional state‘ sb is in) and I think Fi maybe wants to get deeper and draw from the source so that in the end what they have is ‚real‘ ‚authentic‘ to get to an internal ‚rationality‘ sense, that can even be universal (universal understanding of feelings in all people). But deep inside – accusation of self absorption?

    Like Ti, Fi trying to build up a ‚internal‘ consistent ‚sense‘ ‚reasoning‘, but that takes time and it takes effort and internal ‚searching‘ ruminating, but with digging in the mud, you can also develop ‚emotional strength‘? because no matter what turbulent things you got yourself through, you come to understand it and deal with it and that makes you stronger emotionally?

    Like you see a connection about how things might have affected you internally and you kind of get an understanding ‚how you work emotionally‘? And not just you. Like let’s say sb. listening to someone else and making ‚sense‘ of whatever goes on inside or of a persons framework/inner landscape. Like immersing themselves into ‚their stream‘/their ‚inner landscape‘. A ‚sense‘ for the natural process, because you went through it yourself and so you taking yourself and your ‚sense‘ and seeing is this other person ‚real‘ ‚authentic‘, does it add up? Like ‚emotional intelligence‘, a sense for a more varied shade and nuance of internal emotional life? What forms it can take. Making sense even out of the most ‚irrational feelings‘ (or how people without this ‚sense‘ might experience it?). Like idk, you have someone looking at someone else and asking you don’t seem to be happy or asking ‚are you happy‘ like they get the sense for sth. and the other person might be oblivious and be like ‚what are you talking about, he? (like sb. that lacks this sense inside themselves?) and then be like irritated, but later after a time, when they have catched up, they might realize yeah maybe this person was on to something.

    And like if you factor in socionics and Fi and buzz word ‚relationships‘. Like with Fi and acknowlegdment of emotional complexity and nuance in people and no matter what kind of relationship you have. It’s 2 people, 2 different internal landscapes (consisting of experiences, values, views whatever sb. carries with them) and them applying this intelligence and trying ‚sense‘ the emotional texture of sb. else (or like different words: moral character, ethical rationale of somebody else, how this is affected by their inner emotional landscape) and a sense of resonance (closeness) like I can ‚understand‘ or repulsion/irritation. Also nobody likes sb. to dig around in their mud, so this is also where sensing emotional distance/psychological distance (which I also saw a buzz word for Fi) might come into play.

    And let’s say if there is like an understanding of sb. ‚rational‘ and like ‚real‘ understanding, it maybe also about forming this bond and maybe this is where static comes into play, because people change... a lot of things can happen in life, but Fi still tries to find the consistency?

    Fi and Te? Like Te as external dynamic and Fi internal static. Like for a bond you need like trust and kindness and ‚rules‘ to not violate sth. and whatever is changing in life, this (what has been worked out, the value rationality) remains ‚stable‘.

    Like ‚stable. Fi with it‘s inner intricate system, that evolves with life and experience (like you see it with Ti, like adding sth. to the system, trying to refine it etc.) they can ‚modulate‘ or put up ‚rules‘ so that this core (the universal value in the realtionship, like trust, or sth else) remains stable.

    Also maybe working together in this way, like when it gets too much inside, a perspective from the outside can draw you out, when you start to get to deep. Or for someone who starts to get to much away from something inside, it is like ‚getting back in touch‘ ‚feeling yourself‘ again?

    But there are some different things I also connect with it, but idk... it’s hard to put it all into words.

    Fi is also mb. something... where I'm not that good with.
    Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 07-20-2016 at 04:34 PM.

  2. #82
    summerprincess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    US
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    553
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    to be pleasant person - Fi
    to be "worthy" person - Fe

    There is vive versa dependency - people like (Fi) when you are "worthy" (Fe) and find you "worthy" when they like you. There is no Fe without Fi, as there is no Te without Ti. It's like sides of one coin. That's why types with Fe in ego also have strong Fi.
    The difference is what goes 1st for you as motivation, the other side works as background - you know about it, but think about your valued side mostly.
    With this standard I definitely use Fe more.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by summerprincess View Post
    With this standard I definitely use Fe more.
    People know the theory and may type themselves wrong, anyway.
    EII looks as more possible for you than IEI. But without video I can't be sure still.
    You may look in my examples either Te or Ti types (also Fe or Fi) you like more, wich give more friendly feelings and psychic comfort.

  4. #84
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,260
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think quadras are more useful when describing certain ethical outcomes.
    I like this and you like that. Therefore I'm better?

    I wouldn't fully support Beta views on their Fe use...
    I'm also quite sure that gammas and deltas think the same about their view on Fi.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  5. #85
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dont understand this "worthy" concept. Can someone please explain?

    Is it like an attitude of needing to be worthy of someone's attention? or needing to earn someone's respect? because that is what comes to mind when that descriptor is used, but not quite how I envision Fe (or Fi for that matter).
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  6. #86
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some have interpreted the word ‘emotion’ to mean e-motion, energy in motion. It is in actuality a pretty accurate description except to say that emotion is more often than not an outward movement. There are exceptions to this rule, very often we can turn anger in towards ourselves and this can be seen and felt in the human aura. As emotion is invariably a reaction to external events its expressions tends to remain external until such times as we allow ourselves to feel the underlying feelings. Let me give you an example.

    Say for example your friend is always late for appointments and one day you lose your temper:

    ‘You are always late, you keep me waiting, I get so irritated and angry with you, how dare you, this behaviour is not acceptable and I get angry with myself for tolerating it’

    At this point most of the energy has an outward movement towards the other, the word ‘you’ is used more often and there is an identification of both behaviour and emotional reaction. This is the outward movement which is invariably also expressed through body language and movement. Let’s now move onto feeling, the inward movement:

    ‘I feel so disrespected with your constant lateness, it feels as if I don’t matter or am invisible’

    This expression of feeling it is far more about the self than the other. It is a very important distinction to make and indeed a very important tool of awareness to develop. The ability to distinguish between feelings and emotions is important for anyone on a path or personal development, healing and spiritual discovery for as we uncover our feelings we will discover that they are not new. In fact, most of them have existed within us since early childhood. Once we’ve experience the distinction between feelings and emotions and have identified their origin our relationships start becoming much more authentic and less turbulent.

    The reason why feelings are so important is that they provide a doorway into our original wounding and they act as a compass leading us in the direction of finding a healing resolution. Emotions on the other hand, whilst not bad in and of themselves, can keep us locked in a state of reaction, projection and defence when we fail to recognise the underlying feelings. If our underlying feeling is one of abandonment, invisibility, rejection or those of lack or not being enough then we can have a strong tendency to see the world through the lens of our unexplored wounding and have emotional reactions that are not in proportion to external events.

    Over the years I’ve experience many different therapy modalities and some of them actively encourage cathartic processes that can not only overload our nervous system but also keep us locked in regurgitating the same emotions of rage, anger, grief, indignation etc. without ever dropping into either the underlying feelings or the original wound. However, very often our world of emotions can feel much safer than our world of feelings. Feelings can run deep and they do so owing to their longevity and with them we can feel very vulnerable and naked. Many of our feelings have been in place since very early childhood and as such we can feel lost as sea trying to navigate a world that frequently does not have the luxury of clear memory. In essence, with emotions we experience some semblance of control – we can access them, direct them, drive them, curtail them and stop them in their tracks. In short, we know how to navigate habitual anger, tears, tantrums and fear. The abode of feelings is a far deeper body of water, often obscure and still, sometimes resembling death itself which can be terrifying territory for us to navigate.

    The foundation of our world of feelings is love and it is always what is found once we have the courage to surrender habitual emotional responses and dive into the depths of the still waters that are our feelings. Our dread when it comes to feelings is that we fear them to be true. Meaning, if at our core we feel unloved then carry a deep fear that we are unlovable – discovering this would be a fate worse than death and therefore we can and do often cling onto what can become a hamster wheel of emotion in avoidance of our greatest fear – what we fear to be the truth of ourselves.

    As we get more comfortable with our feelings, allowing them to surface and express themselves then our relationship to self and others becomes much more authentic and we find ourselves reacting and projecting far less. As we allow our feelings to have the authentic space they need and we overcome our fear of vulnerability and any feelings of shame we have around being open and vulnerable the core of our wounding can rise up into the light of awareness and be healed. There is no healing without facing the truth of ourselves and for that to happen we must be willing to surrender habits and be vulnerable.
    I read this article this morning and it made me think of the dimensional strength of Fe and Fi, whether it is valued or not. There is a connection to this article but I am too tired to make it.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  7. #87
    Hot Scalding Gayser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The evolved form of Warm Soapy Water
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    14,906
    Mentioned
    661 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    God damnit you losers got me talking about this stuff like a no life nerd again.

    Fe people care about the mood of a place... the Fi people primarily care about their own attraction to something. Not that they can't be empathetic (they often are more so as I will explain in a bit), but their self-interest is gonna come first. They can value compassion.... but they are going to primarily see how it benefits themselves, not the whole. So hence they come across as snooty and contained. The Te balances the Fi though.... and the Ti balances the Fe. It's not in a vacuum but for the sake of understanding we have to view them this way for a moment.

    Fi people (often Fi valuing men but sometimes the girls too) will often say things like "why do I have to be a polite fag to that person, it's not how I really feel. I don't have to like them and I shouldn't have to like them, it's fake. And I know they don't really like me either so why are they sugar coating everything and being too gay. Ew. Disgusting." You might even have Fe valuers agree with this sentiment but if they do- the tone of it will be different.

    Then ppl go Fe is not being genuine. Well they are somewhat correct... it's refusing to Hannibal Lectorize the person and everything you hate about them, in order to keep the peace/mood/pleasant atmosphere. (but remember: the 'mood' can be edgy or negative too but I am a unicorn IEI so I like the softer nicer ones.)

    Yet people with lower valued Fe (I think in reality the 'value function' thing can be very complex and you can perhaps value Fi a bit more than Fe but still value Fe- the degree of this differs) will not care much about this in the first place- like the Si polr of the ENTj, fits in nicely with the rest of their function's toolkit. Being ironically "bothered by peace" is something that is foreign and weird to IEIs and SEIs but that is how they operate. Fes can harshly criticize you too but the tone always feels more "upbeat." Read: Gay. Which is often more sociopathic and annoying to people than the str8 male Fi version. It's a matter of preference. Do you wanna be cute faggy alliance or str8 bad ass horde? Being orientated to Fe/Fi or any other opposite is the same way. Are you left handed or right handed? Gay or straight? Male or female? Do you value logical debate or emotional expression? Are you a 'winter person' or a 'summer person.' Are you extroverted or introverted. YOU FUCKING GET IT ALREADY I KNOW.

    The ironic thing is, even though Fe people are superficially nicer and more Disney like- Fi people often have more real empathy. Because empathy is grounded and real, it's not shiny and bright. The sun is blinding after all. I mean, 'empathy' and being nice- isn't really smiling in your face when you are in pain- which is how too much Fe does actually come across. The Fe just wants to quickly snap you out of your sadness- not sit in there in a realistic and poetic str8 man way. Fe is kind of more troll-ish that way. At the same time, the inherent nature of Fi is more selfish- and so the more raw base Maritsa-like perception of Fi being "empathetic humanz" gets overshadowed by the natural complexity of the function. The Fe is stretching outwards more selflessly, the Fi is being contained inside. The Fe is more giving, but care less how you really feel. The Fi cares more how you really feel deep deep deep deep down inside, but is less giving. I often need a lot of insight help to even know what my Fi is... it's like lost. Though I know it's strong, I am not putting it on this pedestal as some important thing.

    And you add layers upon layers of complexity and variables and if ands/buts to a real breathing person and put it into perspective and volia- you will understand Fe vs. Fi. You need some basic framework to start though. You can't contradict basic underlying principals by going 'well I know Fe valuers who are really like how you say Fi are or vice versa' then you are just like arguing just to argue. It's like on a sunny day going 'what's the point! It's gonna rain eventually anyway!' Yeah well...

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    722
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    I can't agree with some of the points. For example I know ESE who will scream at the top of the lungs without care for the person and people around when they are arguing. They disrupt the environment. And I'm sure all of us restrain ourselves in public despite type.
    I know an ESE who does this also. Overall the ESE I know screams a lot and easily

  9. #89

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Allahu Ackbar View Post
    I was reading the Delta section in the clock of the socion article by Gulenko and he writes, quote, "Then comes EII, the Humanist, who brings general human values that have always been and will be: kindness, and not the kind where you help black people in Africa, but directly help you neighbor or your friend and keep quiet about it."

    So is Gulenko saying that the "helping black people in Africa" brand of ethics is Fe, while being a decent, kind, and pleasant person to be around is Fi? Other sources often attribute the care for the well-being of society with Fi and the immediate pleasantness of interaction with Fe. Which one is which?
    It just means that Fi is mainly concerned with your own attitudes toward others, while Fe is more concerned with the state of feelings in others.

    And yes, Gulenko's example is also how it's actually reflected in the real world.

    Fe: I have helped someone, I have made them happy and feel loved therefore I am good
    Fi: I have loved someone, I have been kind to them therefore I am good

    Fe: Of course I can be kind and love others, but that's not what's important
    Fi: Of course I can make others happy and feel loved, but that's not what's important

  10. #90
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like in the case of Fi v Fe, there is a unique paradox entailed in the idea that "Fe types are well-versed in Fi": namely, that what is Fi that you don't value? Or to put it another way: if you automatically elevate the interests of the group dynamic over individual concerns does that not place rather stringent constraints on Fi such that Fi is hardly Fi at that point, thus what does it mean to be well-versed in Fi at that point? Is it enough to empathize i.e. "mirror" emotional states in others in yourself, but subsequently ignore them in favor of the more objective atmosphere? When one automatically takes the stance of prioritizing group feeling is that not essentially passing over Fi in judgement--essentially limiting it to a very minor, if not non-existent role? Whereas it seems like Ti can work "for" Te and vice-versa, it seems to me that Fi can do very little for Fe that Fe hasn't already determined for itself how to prosecute its goals, right down to determining what the goal itself should be. It seems to me that Fe being strong Fi is almost a meaningless statement. It could be true, in some metaphysical sense, but it seems as a matter of Te analysis to be practically moot. I do tend to think that Fi can make good use of Fe, in the sense that understanding Fe people's emotions and why they are the way they are can feed into Fi in making its judgements about people's goodness and motives, etc.

    Obviously my understanding of both Fi and Fe is kind of limited so maybe I'm missing something, but it feels to me like people pay lip service to Fe being good at Fi but its mostly an empty statement that in actuality amounts to very little; and futher, I think this is a consequence of Fe entailing in itself its own set of priorities that basically encroaches entirely on Fi. Fe seems to basically work off of certain set principles that obviate the need for using Fi to reach principles, or even evaluate courses of action, almost completely, and in a way that is somewhat unique to the dynamic of the feeling function in general.

    Or maybe being good with Fi comes into play mostly when outside the presence of others, but it still seems like if you resolve to do something alone and then Fe exerts controls as soon as a group forms, it still, ultimately, renders Fi almost completely irrelevant.

  11. #91
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    843
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullets View Post
    Fe is kindness (but also manipulation- it is the idea that you catch more flies with honey than with shit), Fi is emotional honesty period. "I like that" or "I don't like that." Feelings of repulsion and dislike. Fi valuers are innately more sadistic and evil than Fe people. Jeffrey Dahmer was a Fi-ego serial killer. I think the 'humanitarian' label was like leftover MBTI junk or something. Te/Fi is often snobby, condescending and brutal. Fe/Ti gets criticized for being too soft and Disney like (which it is).

    I hope that helps. And if anybody disagrees with me, they are wrong! Cuz I'm pretty confident that's how it is.
    I agree, except for the part of one being more snobby or Disney like, or who is bad or evil. I don't know who is bad/evil, because I have not found any research telling me one way or another.

    Pretty much how what I do that I think could be considered as Fi is that I stick out my thumb, and then I rate whatever I see. Up means good, down means bad. In between is in between. The more up the more positive, the more down, the less positive. I was taught this in band class, but it is a good representation of how I think on the matter of judging things. Obviously, I can skip this, but the answer will end up being different, unless I actively take all of the steps mentally. I believe this coincides with the stereotypical version of Fi, but I don't know. Feel free to correct my analogy.

    I have been trying to create concise and concrete versions of all of these stereotypes for some time, but I'm having trouble comprehending some of them, such as Si. Fi is one of those cases where I have it down pat, because I am familiar with it, and it makes sense to me.

    Being an ILI, I am much more likely to use Fi than Fe. So I'd probably be more familiar with Fi than Fe. I've always found that my ability to make people feel a certain way is quite terrible, unless I do so with the content of what I'm saying.

    I assume that is Fe (or lack there of) vs Te, but as with everything that is just theory, and I've never bothered to test it. Anyways, this is most of what I know about Fi.

    Another perspective is that I tend to be more sentimental to certain things. I don't know if that is Fi or what, but when I make up some kind of "story" behind something, I tend to get attached. Also, I've theoretically only lost one friend ever, even though there weren't so many friends to lose in the first place. This might be true Fi, and the above about judging things was just something else that is related, but not the same.

    I could make a case that the thumb thing is the same as being sentimental to things. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.

    Note: I'm posting this after only reading part of the thread. I will post again when I finish reading the thread.

    Edit: I read more of the thread. I'll just edit this post Much of this mysticism is not comprehensible to me.

    For another example of my conception of Fi is when I started listening to music, it literally made me high. Still does, but not as much. As such, worthy vs pleasurable does kind of work if that is true. I'd prefer a better explanation, but I'm stealing it for my explanations to other people, even though I'd like a better answer.

    Oh yeah, final thing, it might be better to ask people who have the opposite function as their polr, as they'd probably know which one they like vs the one they don't like.
    Last edited by Alomoes; 02-16-2017 at 03:29 AM.

  12. #92

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Bertrand

    To simply put, I would explain it like this:

    Fe: You are always aware of what the other person is feeling. This takes precedence over everything.
    Fi: You are always aware of your own attitudes toward others. This takes precedence over everything.

    therefore

    Fe: "What a terrible person! He is so inconsiderate and disturbing my feelings!"
    Fi: "What a terrible person! He brings so much ire/disgust in me, and hence disturbing my feelings!"

    therefore

    Fe: I must remove all disturbing emotions from the atmosphere
    Fi: I must remove all undesirable characters from a person

    --

    I don't necessarily think that Fe is about favoring group over the individual, but it's just much easier to feel the emotions from many people at once, than have feelings toward many people at once, in fact that's not quite possible. You can only have and evaluate feelings toward someone 1 on 1, 1 at a time.

    It's like you can't "analyze" many things at once, things would be jumbled and there would be a lot of contradictions, you have to go through them 1 by 1, but you can know many facts at once.
    Last edited by Singu; 02-16-2017 at 01:12 PM.

  13. #93
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didn't read this thread in detail, mostly just the 3rd page of posts before this one, but I don't think y'all are getting at the core difference between Fi and Fe, just the superficial differences... This page has the best explanation of the IEs I've seen.

    In summary, Fi is about intuitively recognizing emotional distances between people, whether between two other people, or between one other person and oneself. E.g., I once instantly noticed that one of my male friends had a crush on one of my female friends, though he barely did anything out of the ordinary (from the perspective of others). Fi valuers value displays of close emotional distance, such as disclosure of secrets, or knowing personal things about another person. E.g., one of my EII friends loves to show off when she was the first to know something about me. When I surprised our group of friends with fancy notebooks, she proudly said that she helped picked them out. When my LSE romantic partner met my friends, he tried to show off how well he knew me by describing my eating habits (unfortunately incorrectly, but the intention was there...).

    Fe is about generating whatever emotion you want in other people. This involves things like knowing exactly what to say to make someone happy, sad, angry, jealous, etc. Fe mostly seems to be used to make others feel comfortable, especially by Fe egos, but it can also be used to rouse/stimulate crowds into political excitement/anger (e.g., Trump, MLK Jr). Fe valuers definitely see the value of causing emotions other than happiness, and they do so for their overarching goals (which may even be the other person's long-term happiness, but the Fe user thinks that they need to go through something else first to get there). Since Fe egos instinctively know how to generate certain emotions in others, they tend to think they know what's best for others and try to impose it on them if they care about them.

    I agree with @Singularity's description of Fe not necessarily being about favoring groups over individuals. It's just that Fe can manage a group easily because it can generate a single emotion in them. For Fi, when a group gets big, there are too many relationships to keep track of (not just between oneself and others, but also among the others), and it's just statistically unlikely that larger groups have close emotional distances. But in a sizable group among which everyone has close emotional distances (like maybe 10 people who are good friends), Fi gets along just fine.

  14. #94
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get all that, but, to illustrate my point, is there a Fe ego (not mere user) who does not value group harmony? Because it seems like the preceding two posts are implicitly referencing cases of Fi egos (also being good at Fe), i.e. Fi that's good at Fe, not Fe that's good at Fi

    Also the idea that Fe can make me feel anything is kind of gross and I reject that. It seems like Fe simply tries to identify your insecurities and then formulates the best lie it possibly can to assuage them (all the better if there is some nugget of truth to it, but it is still a calculated swindle--if it were objectively true, Te could identify it). If you see through that, Fe has no real power over you, except in cases where you want to be lied to, in which case, you already provided for them to means to have their way with you--but make no mistake, the power was always with you, you simply handed it over...

    Which is probably why Fe types promote such soft mindedness, because it allows them to extend their reach over the population inasmuch as they allow themselves to handled in such a way

  15. #95

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Economist I don't disagree with what you're saying... but I think what you're describing is creative-Fe, and hence you're probably a creative-Fe type...

    Fe is about focusing on the other person, other people and how they feel about you. Fi is about focusing on yourself and how you feel towards others. You seem to naturally have more focus on others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I get all that, but, to illustrate my point, is there a Fe ego (not mere user) who does not value group harmony? Because it seems like the preceding two posts are implicitly referencing cases of Fi egos (also being good at Fe), i.e. Fi that's good at Fe, not Fe that's good at Fi
    I'm not saying that Fe doesn't value group harmony, they do (btw, I think I'm more talking about Fe-creative). It's more that Fe gets... dissolved in a group, because there's so much Fe information being transmitted. But I don't think the basic principle of Fe gets changed in 1 on 1 or in a group. It's not as if how Fe works can suddenly "change". It seems ridiculous to think that there's something that somehow separates "1 on 1" and a "group", like Fe can tell somehow. So I see Fe as more like a module... There is 1 Fe, which is 1 person's Fe. But if there are many people, then more Fe's get stacked, and there are many Fe's... But the basic principle of Fe would be the same, which is that you make decisions based on the others' emotional states.

    It's like this... there are 10 people in a group. And Fe is reading all the emotional states of each persons individually. It's like "Oh, here's this person who got his feelings hurt, I'd better say or do something to make up for it" "Here is this person who is not feeling welcome, I'd better try to make him/her feel welcomed" "Here is this person feeling tired" "Here is this person who got offended by something Person A said" "Here is this person who is angry for some reason" etc etc. But the basic principle of how this work is no different whether it's 1 on 1 or in a group. It just means that there's more information flying around, so it becomes more complex.

    At 20 people, things become more complex, you can't keep up with all so you'd probably focus on just a few people. At 50, 100 people, it would become virtually impossible to focus on individual emotions, so you'd focus on "general feelings/direction of a group". At large numbers, people rarely act individualistically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Also the idea that Fe can make me feel anything is kind of gross and I reject that. It seems like Fe simply tries to identify your insecurities and then formulates the best lie it possibly can to assuage them (all the better if there is some nugget of truth to it, but it is still a calculated swindle--if it were objectively true, Te could identify it). If you see through that, Fe has no real power over you, except in cases where you want to be lied to, in which case, you already provided for them to means to have their way with you--but make no mistake, the power was always with you, you simply handed it over...
    I see it as more as achieving a kind of homeostasis... an emotional equilibrium. A Fe user is basically trying to optimize your emotions in some ways. Feeling sad? Here, be happy, because everybody wants to be happy. Fe is also trying to "awaken" emotions in you, because they see lack of emotions as disturbing, something abnormal so it's something that should be brought attention to and be awakened and shaken up.
    Last edited by Singu; 02-16-2017 at 06:24 PM.

  16. #96
    Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    658
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe is judgment of an image or message someone is attempting to convey. The Fe-valuing individual judges information based on how people feel, with the attempt to convey one's emotions as authentically as possible. The individual approaches situation with the attempt to provoke certain emotions the individual deems is right, according to the situation.

    Fi is judgment of personal sentiments. The Fi-valuing individual strives to create and maintain relationships with others, treating people according to the individual's sentimental disposition to the other individual, or object.

  17. #97
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    @Economist I don't disagree with what you're saying... but I think what you're describing is creative-Fe, and hence you're probably a creative-Fe type...

    Fe is about focusing on the other person, other people and how they feel about you. Fi is about focusing on yourself and how you feel towards others. You seem to naturally have more focus on others.
    I agree that on average, Fi egos focus more on oneself and how oneself feels toward others, but I do not think this is definitive of Fi egos. If you read various materials on the IEs and the better type descriptions (Stratiyevskaya and Gulenko), you will notice that the main difference between Fi and Fe is simply awareness of relations vs. ability to instigate emotions. They do not mention focusing on others vs. self.

    While I enjoy occasionally questioning whether I am EII or IEI, and while I would prefer to be IEI, I am quite certain that I am EII--on the basis of extensive study of Model A, the IEs, analysis of my PoLR vs. suggestive functions, type descriptions, Gulenko's cognitive styles, my instinctual stacking, etc.--albeit one that for some reason displays some external traits more typical of IEIs. I think that being social-first in instincts makes one focus more on others, which can make an Fi ego look more like an Fe ego.

  18. #98
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    @Economist I don't disagree with what you're saying... but I think what you're describing is creative-Fe, and hence you're probably a creative-Fe type...

    Fe is about focusing on the other person, other people and how they feel about you. Fi is about focusing on yourself and how you feel towards others. You seem to naturally have more focus on others.



    I'm not saying that Fe doesn't value group harmony, they do (btw, I think I'm more talking about Fe-creative). It's more that Fe gets... dissolved in a group, because there's so much Fe information being transmitted. But I don't think the basic principle of Fe gets changed in 1 on 1 or in a group. It's not as if how Fe works can suddenly "change". It seems ridiculous to think that there's something that somehow separates "1 on 1" and a "group", like Fe can tell somehow. So I see Fe as more like a module... There is 1 Fe, which is 1 person's Fe. But if there are many people, then more Fe's get stacked, and there are many Fe's... But the basic principle of Fe would be the same, which is that you make decisions based on the others' emotional states.

    It's like this... there are 10 people in a group. And Fe is reading all the emotional states of each persons individually. It's like "Oh, here's this person who got his feelings hurt, I'd better say or do something to make up for it" "Here is this person who is not feeling welcome, I'd better try to make him/her feel welcomed" "Here is this person feeling tired" "Here is this person who got offended by something Person A said" "Here is this person who is angry for some reason" etc etc. But the basic principle of how this work is no different whether it's 1 on 1 or in a group. It just means that there's more information flying around, so it becomes more complex.

    At 20 people, things become more complex, you can't keep up with all so you'd probably focus on just a few people. At 50, 100 people, it would become virtually impossible to focus on individual emotions, so you'd focus on "general feelings/direction of a group". At large numbers, people rarely act individualistically.



    I see it as more as achieving a kind of homeostasis... an emotional equilibrium. A Fe user is basically trying to optimize your emotions in some ways. Feeling sad? Here, be happy, because everybody wants to be happy. Fe is also trying to "awaken" emotions in you, because they see lack of emotions as disturbing, something abnormal so it's something that should be brought attention to and be awakened and shaken up.
    So if Fi is identifying emotions and Fe is making use of them, which function serves as the basis for what one actually values? Because I hear what you're saying in that there is no shift between 1 on 1 and groups, but your example immediately goes on to illustrate a commitment to group harmony when in a group context. I guess to make it clearer, is there an Fe ego that values something other than maximal positive emotions for the maximal amount of people? Because it seems like Fe ego entails an Fi commitment to exactly that, which obviates a need for Fi, except inasmuch as it helps facilitate that goal, but I think of Fi as tracing down one's own values--a role here that is basically skipped over...

    I'm also curious, if typical Fe methods resulted in counter productive results, would Fe change to adapt? In other words, Fe comes off in a stereotypical way, perhaps simply because most people respond best to those methods. Does Fe consider itself "wrong" to use those methods on someone if they don't work? Because it seems like they simply judge the person in that case as somehow morally inferior and cast them out. In other words, there seems to entail within Fe a radical relativism, but it rarely plays out that way in practice--rather simple numbers decide the best Fe approach and Fe tends to not look any further than what "should be" working, rather than looking inward, etc... Fe does not seem to actually function in the way people, in theory, seem to idealize it, rather it seems to simply be the voice of group sanction, without real regard for actual positive emotion. In other words, it seems like Fe functions in a hamfisted way aiming at positive emotion, but frequently runs counter to its own aims, but rather than shift course, its recourse tends to be to simply go on the offense. At no point does it seem to be self aware as to its own counter productive ways, and yet however still looks at itself as somehow "moral", whereas its morality seems to be a complete question begging. Part and parcel to that question begging is basically passing over Fi self critique in silence

  19. #99
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    843
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah. I never thought of Fe or Fi as explicitly good or bad.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

    An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.

    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko

  20. #100

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Marshall Islands
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ðîäèòåëè è ìàëûøè

  21. #101

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Marshall Islands
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ðîäèòåëè è ìàëûøè

  22. #102

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Marshall Islands
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ðîäèòåëè è ìàëûøè

  23. #103
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NEXT LEVEL
    TIM
    Who knows
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YXPR View Post
    Types who have strong Fe also have strong Fi so they tend to do both anyway and that's why it gets confusing. However I think that gammas and deltas tend to value the "reality" of their own feelings way more than betas and alphas; and that may be why Fi valuers can appear as selfish/douchy, when Fe valuers can appear to be hypocrites.
    Perfectly accurate

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Would you, then, agree that the following discussion is a good example of Fi vs Fe:



    “...Well, I don't care whether his family's feelings are hurt or not, but if they are, they can take comfort from the extraordinary piety and stupidity, and generally speaking, uniformity of the coverage of the man's death. It is after all said, was said by Jesus of Nazareth to his followers, that they must expect to be mocked for their beliefs, because their beliefs will appear to many people to be ridiculous, if not worse than that, and that they are to take it for granted that they will be ridiculed. That's true, I think, of the most devout and serious and thoughtful Christian, but for a vulgar fraud and crook like Reverend Falwell it's an obligation to say what one thinks about him, or be left off the air and have people like yourselves broadcasting only piety, and that won't do...”


    "...I'm not going to be conscripted into saying that it's my job when you invite me on to discuss this man, first to say how sorry I am for him and his family. That isn't what I feel. You, no doubt, as a Christian or whatever you are, require hypocrisy of people—I'm sorry, you're asking the wrong person..."
    The thing is a user might act exactly like Hitchens here, albeit for different reasons. In fact I have said "upsetting" things like this on several occasions. But unlike users who just can't help themselves and don't see why they shouldn't voice these thoughts, users do it with the intent of affecting people. The large majority of the time something so "shocking" is voiced it's because it's meant to cause a raise out of people.

    Hitchens problem is the fact he's so into himself being Ego that he has yet to realize his delivery does his agenda more harm than good. His refusal to adapt his style of communication (I'm not talking about sugarcoating things or going soft) is the reason why so many reject his stance on things. It's not what you say, it's how you say it that really sell things or in this case, ideas. A shame since I'm a huge fan and except for the Atheism, we think a lot alike.

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdleftovers View Post
    I've noticed that Fi valuing people are constantly going on about how you should and shouldn't treat people universally. Fi seems unwilling to meet the emotional energy where Fe will. If you yell at Fi (dom especially), they won't yell back but remain calm. Fe will yell right back i.e. meet your emotional energy. For example, I'm riding in the car with an EII and this older guy on a motorized bike is on the wrong side of the road coming towards us. She stops and he yells "go around me, get the fuck out of the way!". She says to me very calmly, "I'm pretty sure I'm on the right side of the road". My reply in that situation would've been me yelling out the window at him "you get out of the fucking way asshole. You're the dumbass on the wrong side of the road." I would've met his emotional energy whereas the EII would consciously feel an emotion or feeling about what he said and how he said it and make a universal moral statement 'you don't talk to people that way'.

    They, Fi, seem to take everything personally, which seems arrogant to me. Maybe Fe has a way of justifying and rationalizing emotionally charged behaviors. Another example with the same EII. She had emailed a woman in charge of a neurological group she was interested in attending. Nearly a year later, the woman still hadn't replied back. She says to me very calmly, "you don't treat people like that". Me, however, I'm thinking 'obviously this woman (in charge of the group) needs an assistant if it's taking this long to reply to emails. Either that or the email never made it to her.' Personally, I wouldn't have waited a year for a reply. I would've emailed her again or tried to find another contact method. I wouldn't take her not replying personal as I have no concrete way of knowing whether or not that's true. For all I know the woman could've died.
    Actually this can't be attributed to using or at all. Both types of users can engage in the same behaviours, I for one do.

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdleftovers View Post
    I agree. Fe/Ti seems to produce situational ethics (there is a personal motive behind it) with Fi/Te producing universal ethics (more altruistic). Given the right situation, both may come to the same conclusion for behavior but for different reasons, as you stated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Allahu Ackbar View Post
    So what I'm thinking at this point is that Fe types prefer an atmosphere where they can be outspoken about their opinions and judgments regardless of the impact they may have on others feelings, while Fi types prefer to suppress attitudes and judgments towards people that they think will be detrimental to their relationships with others. Make sense given how Fe is an extroverted elements and therefore the one's ethical judgments are pushed outwards toward the environment, while Fi is an introverted function and therefore ethical judgments are kept within.
    THIS.


    Quote Originally Posted by weirdleftovers View Post

    I and other Betas I know, we recognize appreciation by action since "you can make your mouth say anything". For example, if I organize 5yrs worth of a friend's bills and important documents, them saying "thank you so much" means nothing to me. However, if they maintain the organization I've started, I feel they are showing appreciation. To not do so is a slap in the face to me since to me it shows I wasted my time. Not sure if you've seen the show Hoarders, but it's similar to the crew who spends time, money and effort cleaning these people's homes only to return 6 months later to a new hoarding mess.

    With the EIE, I could see her feeling offended by you decorating her home without permission as it infers you thought her space wasn't adequate to begin since Fe/Ni are subconscious thinking and valuing people. Or, she could find your efforts over-reaching to decorate her home according to your tastes. It's not about the surface but all the implications. I recall a post of yours regarding giving an SLE a compliment and him not seeming to take it well. I can see that. It's like when my EII friend discovered that I could not only knit but taught myself in a few days, she said "wow, that's amazing! You're an incredible woman". I understood she was being kind, but to my ego, it's mildly inferring that she didn't already know I was incredible. Us betas are fairly to very arrogant in general, so to infer you're just now realizing how amazing we are (aristocracy: the rule of the best) is offensive even when it's not intended.
    Oh yeah, that's alright.

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    ti and fi are both very "judgemental" to me... every quadra has one or the other
    Very true.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    Not going to say anything about judgmental, but what I've noticed is that Fi egos on here seem to have a strange autoerotic relationship with their Fi.
    I thought I was the only one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post

    In summary, Fi is about intuitively recognizing emotional distances between people, whether between two other people, or between one other person and oneself. E.g., I once instantly noticed that one of my male friends had a crush on one of my female friends, though he barely did anything out of the ordinary (from the perspective of others). Fi valuers value displays of close emotional distance, such as disclosure of secrets, or knowing personal things about another person. E.g., one of my EII friends loves to show off when she was the first to know something about me. When I surprised our group of friends with fancy notebooks, she proudly said that she helped picked them out. When my LSE romantic partner met my friends, he tried to show off how well he knew me by describing my eating habits (unfortunately incorrectly, but the intention was there...).

    Fe is about generating whatever emotion you want in other people. This involves things like knowing exactly what to say to make someone happy, sad, angry, jealous, etc. Fe mostly seems to be used to make others feel comfortable, especially by Fe egos, but it can also be used to rouse/stimulate crowds into political excitement/anger (e.g., Trump, MLK Jr). Fe valuers definitely see the value of causing emotions other than happiness, and they do so for their overarching goals (which may even be the other person's long-term happiness, but the Fe user thinks that they need to go through something else first to get there). Since Fe egos instinctively know how to generate certain emotions in others, they tend to think they know what's best for others and try to impose it on them if they care about them.

    I agree with @Singularity's description of Fe not necessarily being about favoring groups over individuals. It's just that Fe can manage a group easily because it can generate a single emotion in them. For Fi, when a group gets big, there are too many relationships to keep track of (not just between oneself and others, but also among the others), and it's just statistically unlikely that larger groups have close emotional distances. But in a sizable group among which everyone has close emotional distances (like maybe 10 people who are good friends), Fi gets along just fine.
    Those are not exclusive things, but amen to the rest of this post

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    @Economist I don't disagree with what you're saying... but I think what you're describing is creative-Fe, and hence you're probably a creative-Fe type...

    Fe is about focusing on the other person, other people and how they feel about you. Fi is about focusing on yourself and how you feel towards others. You seem to naturally have more focus on others.


    It's like this... there are 10 people in a group. And Fe is reading all the emotional states of each persons individually. It's like "Oh, here's this person who got his feelings hurt, I'd better say or do something to make up for it" "Here is this person who is not feeling welcome, I'd better try to make him/her feel welcomed" "Here is this person feeling tired" "Here is this person who got offended by something Person A said" "Here is this person who is angry for some reason" etc etc. But the basic principle of how this work is no different whether it's 1 on 1 or in a group. It just means that there's more information flying around, so it becomes more complex.

    I see it as more as achieving a kind of homeostasis... an emotional equilibrium. A Fe user is basically trying to optimize your emotions in some ways. Feeling sad? Here, be happy, because everybody wants to be happy. Fe is also trying to "awaken" emotions in you, because they see lack of emotions as disturbing, something abnormal so it's something that should be brought attention to and be awakened and shaken up.
    My workings in post form

    Quote Originally Posted by tempest View Post
    Fe is judgment of an image or message someone is attempting to convey. The Fe-valuing individual judges information based on how people feel, with the attempt to convey one's emotions as authentically as possible. The individual approaches situation with the attempt to provoke certain emotions the individual deems is right, according to the situation.

    Fi is judgment of personal sentiments. The Fi-valuing individual strives to create and maintain relationships with others, treating people according to the individual's sentimental disposition to the other individual, or object.

    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post
    I agree that on average, Fi egos focus more on oneself and how oneself feels toward others, but I do not think this is definitive of Fi egos. If you read various materials on the IEs and the better type descriptions (Stratiyevskaya and Gulenko), you will notice that the main difference between Fi and Fe is simply awareness of relations vs. ability to instigate emotions. They do not mention focusing on others vs. self.

    While I enjoy occasionally questioning whether I am EII or IEI, and while I would prefer to be IEI, I am quite certain that I am EII--on the basis of extensive study of Model A, the IEs, analysis of my PoLR vs. suggestive functions, type descriptions, Gulenko's cognitive styles, my instinctual stacking, etc.--albeit one that for some reason displays some external traits more typical of IEIs. I think that being social-first in instincts makes one focus more on others, which can make an Fi ego look more like an Fe ego.
    Instinctual variants can really mix things up. As a gut type SX/SP I misidentified as many times.


    Best thread ever on vs , and I've been at it for almost 5 years

  24. #104
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,228
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Would you, then, agree that the following discussion is a good example of Fi vs Fe:



    “...Well, I don't care whether his family's feelings are hurt or not, but if they are, they can take comfort from the extraordinary piety and stupidity, and generally speaking, uniformity of the coverage of the man's death. It is after all said, was said by Jesus of Nazareth to his followers, that they must expect to be mocked for their beliefs, because their beliefs will appear to many people to be ridiculous, if not worse than that, and that they are to take it for granted that they will be ridiculed. That's true, I think, of the most devout and serious and thoughtful Christian, but for a vulgar fraud and crook like Reverend Falwell it's an obligation to say what one thinks about him, or be left off the air and have people like yourselves broadcasting only piety, and that won't do...”


    "...I'm not going to be conscripted into saying that it's my job when you invite me on to discuss this man, first to say how sorry I am for him and his family. That isn't what I feel. You, no doubt, as a Christian or whatever you are, require hypocrisy of people—I'm sorry, you're asking the wrong person..."
    Everyone in that video annoyed the crap out of me except Christopher Hitchens. Were you thinking that CH was Fi-valuing?

  25. #105

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't remember which post talked about how Fe isn't emotionally honest/is fake, not really, if you look at this:

    "The individual is always in tune to the emotional flow surrounding him, and responds to it spontaneously and directly. He seeks out and creates activities where people are totally engaged in what they are doing. Something's value is directly tied to how much it arouses his or another's passion.

    He is highly proactive about steering the emotional flow in the direction he himself considers ideal to a given situation. He may, for example, try to cheer people with jokes if he sees that they are too gloomy or, conversely, to get people to be serious and concentrated if they are too carefree during a crisis situation. Nevertheless, he believes emotions should be expressed as honestly as possible."


    Maybe "fake" from Fi standpoint because it's less personal compared to Fi.

  26. #106

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe, being the ethics of emotions, judges emotions. Fi, being the ethics of relations, judges relations. If a person has shitty emotional ethics, then Fe thinks that it deserves its ire. If a person has shitty relational ethics, then Fi thinks that it deserves its ire. Perhaps Positivism tend towards thinking positive ethics should be encouraged, while Negativism tend towards thinking negative ethics should be limited.

    If we were to say what emotions even really "are"... then we could say that they are nothing but our stimuli-responses to our environments...

    And I think the Christopher Hitchen's thing has more to do with T vs F, but some F types can emulate that behavior for whatever the reason, or they may genuinely not care about other's feelings.
    Last edited by Singu; 03-04-2017 at 09:43 AM.

  27. #107
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NEXT LEVEL
    TIM
    Who knows
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Fe, being the ethics of emotions, judges emotions. Fi, being the ethics of relations, judges relations. If a person has shitty emotional ethics, then Fe thinks that it deserves its ire. If a person has shitty relational ethics, then Fi thinks that it deserves its ire. Perhaps Positivism tend towards thinking positive ethics should be encouraged, while Negativism tend towards thinking negative ethics should be limited.

    If we were to say what emotions even really "are"... then we could say that they are nothing but our stimuli-responses to our environments...

    And I think the Christopher Hitchen's thing has more to do with T vs F, but some F types can emulate that behavior for whatever the reason, or they may genuinely not care about other's feelings.
    No because he's ESI. A lot of them can be very aggressive and come off as cold or "inhuman" when defending their values or denouncing something/someone they perceive as deeply wrong. It's an in the leading position backed up with thing, I'm a SLE and I'd ver say that on tv, and my isn't all that great. That's not how you get people to join your movement, by insulting them and everything they hold dear. But he has no skills.

  28. #108

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's wise to attribute that kind of behavior to ESIs alone, if that is the kind of ESI behavior at all. I'm not saying that he's a T type, because I don't know what type he is.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if he even has Se, Hitchens seems to come across as sloppy in physical appearance, and he seems physically weak (both are important for Se) :


  29. #109
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,710
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    Everyone in that video annoyed the crap out of me except Christopher Hitchens. Were you thinking that CH was Fi-valuing?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyOne View Post
    Hitchens problem is the fact he's so into himself being Ego that he has yet to realize his delivery does his agenda more harm than good. His refusal to adapt his style of communication (I'm not talking about sugarcoating things or going soft) is the reason why so many reject his stance on things. It's not what you say, it's how you say it that really sell things or in this case, ideas. A shame since I'm a huge fan and except for the Atheism, we think a lot alike.
    I disagree. He wasn't selling anything, just making it clear how what corporate media is trying to sell is dishonest, hypocritical bullshit that is very far from the truth and reality. No one could have done it better, as far as my opinion is concerned.

    And he would have totally been killing it if he was alive today.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  30. #110
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Many Fi egos have a very well-developed code of ethics, however in the ones who don't it's actually easier to see the Fi-based reasoning.

    For example, I've had experience with several Fi egos sharing things I told them in confidence with their significant other, breaking my trust. It comes down to what they think is a choice between becoming closer to someone they are intimate with vs (to them) the lesser issue of protecting the privacy of their friend. They want their significant other to feel close to them, and know they trust them, and they share things as a show of that trust. So, it's about what they want and how they can become closer to this other person. Again, this is in those without a true code of ethics, reasoning based purely on how they feel and what they want, though I don't think they'd see it quite like that.

    Nepotism is Fi-based ethics as well. Choosing those who you like and are close to regardless of their ability to perform the job at hand.

    Blind faith and believing in a person in spite of evidence against them can also be a weakness of Fi-based reasoning. In other words, if they like the person and they feel close to them, then that person is right and believable regardless of what anyone else says or thinks or even tangible proof in some cases (delta Fi rather than gamma bc Ne and lack of Se.)

    Somewhere it has been mentioned that Fi looks for a trustworthy source, whereas Fe looks for trustworthy information. This makes a lot of sense if you follow the Fi process of reasoning: I like this person, this person/source is trustworthy, what this person/source says is also trustworthy. I don't like this person/source, I don't think this person/source is reliable, nothing this person/source says can be believed.

    Whereas Fe can take good information even if it's from a "bad" source. For them, good information is good information whether your crazy neighbor told it to you (and you verified it to be true) or some reputable newspaper (though people interestingly enough tend to consider news sources more reliable if they support what the person already believes.) It's also why Fe egos can tend to be more consensus-seeking because for them, the more people who agree with something, the more reliable the information is likely to be, but for Fi, it's only reliable if their trusted source says it's true. There will obviously be some overlap and these are general trends rather than hard rules, but it's something that is often observable.

  31. #111
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NEXT LEVEL
    TIM
    Who knows
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Yes.



    I disagree. He wasn't selling anything, just making it clear how what corporate media is trying to sell is dishonest, hypocritical bullshit that is very far from the truth and reality. No one could have done it better, as far as my opinion is concerned.

    And he would have totally been killing it if he was alive today.
    Hitchens career was built on selling an idea, that's precisely what every opinion maker does: sell their ideas. No philosophical speaker of any kind speaks to the wind, they hope their words find a home in people's minds, to change things, therefore, they want people to buy what they are selling. He also got profit from books, public speaking appearances etc, so "selling" is a concept he was involved with in more than one way. Was the aforementioned video an example of his selling? No, but my analysis of him was not built upon one video, but on his body of work as a whole and how connected to his methods were.


    As for his hypothetical success nowadays, is a totally irrelevant matter to me. He's dead so what's the use of debating something unprovable and useless? I have no interest in "what if" scenarios, I'm interest in realities.

  32. #112

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Many Fi egos have a very well-developed code of ethics, however in the ones who don't it's actually easier to see the Fi-based reasoning.

    For example, I've had experience with several Fi egos sharing things I told them in confidence with their significant other, breaking my trust. It comes down to what they think is a choice between becoming closer to someone they are intimate with vs (to them) the lesser issue of protecting the privacy of their friend. They want their significant other to feel close to them, and know they trust them, and they share things as a show of that trust.
    Such comparisons and prioritizing can be done by Ti too. Just it's explicit reasoning instead of implicit feeling. And either Fi or Ti could create a "code of ethics" where these priorities work differently, for example, what my friend tells me is not about me so if the basic principle is only about sharing everything about me with my SO then I don't need to share this information about my friend with my SO yet this does not diminish the overall importance (as defined in some way if this reasoning is done by Ti) of my SO. I would hope Fi is capable of feeling priorities this way too even if it's not explicit reasoning?


    So, it's about what they want and how they can become closer to this other person. Again, this is in those without a true code of ethics, reasoning based purely on how they feel and what they want, though I don't think they'd see it quite like that.
    Whatever it is that qualifies as a "true code of ethics". I mean it depends on that.


    Nepotism is Fi-based ethics as well. Choosing those who you like and are close to regardless of their ability to perform the job at hand.
    Again I would hope not all Fi egos are like that - Te egos definitely are often not like this despite being Fi valuers. Again pretty unhealthy stuff for Fi.


    Blind faith and believing in a person in spite of evidence against them can also be a weakness of Fi-based reasoning. In other words, if they like the person and they feel close to them, then that person is right and believable regardless of what anyone else says or thinks or even tangible proof in some cases (delta Fi rather than gamma bc Ne and lack of Se.)
    I can see a lot of this coming from various additional non-socionics motivations. But the part about the focus on personally liking the person and ignoring any kind of logic would be unhealthily functioning Fi, yeah.


    Somewhere it has been mentioned that Fi looks for a trustworthy source, whereas Fe looks for trustworthy information. This makes a lot of sense if you follow the Fi process of reasoning: I like this person, this person/source is trustworthy, what this person/source says is also trustworthy. I don't like this person/source, I don't think this person/source is reliable, nothing this person/source says can be believed.

    Whereas Fe can take good information even if it's from a "bad" source. For them, good information is good information whether your crazy neighbor told it to you (and you verified it to be true) or some reputable newspaper (though people interestingly enough tend to consider news sources more reliable if they support what the person already believes.) It's also why Fe egos can tend to be more consensus-seeking because for them, the more people who agree with something, the more reliable the information is likely to be, but for Fi, it's only reliable if their trusted source says it's true. There will obviously be some overlap and these are general trends rather than hard rules, but it's something that is often observable.
    I think this is a good distinction, yes. It's also how they are compatible with Te vs Ti, respectively.

  33. #113
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,710
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyOne View Post
    As for his hypothetical success nowadays, is a totally irrelevant matter to me. He's dead so what's the use of debating something unprovable and useless? I have no interest in "what if" scenarios, I'm interest in realities.
    I don't give a shit. I love Hitchens and I miss his presence.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  34. #114
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,710
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Nepotism is Fi-based ethics as well. Choosing those who you like and are close to regardless of their ability to perform the job at hand.
    Hmm, this correlation irks me somewhat. I consider myself Fi valuing and I strongly oppose nepotism. Nepotism, to me, always boils down to selfishness and doing undeserved and/or unethical favors in order to gain undeserved and/or unethical favors. There have been times I have refused "offerings of help" which I haven't felt comfortable receiving due to a perceived lack of merit and/or righteousness. I want to earn what I acquire/accomplish and be rewarded for my hard work and competence, not my ties to certain groups or individuals. I think nepotism is about serving one's own interests in an unethical, morally objectionable way, and as such it is something I stand against.

    Also, look at Trump (a demented Fe child) and all the blatant nepotism and self-dealing he's doing. Can it get more extreme than that?

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Somewhere it has been mentioned that Fi looks for a trustworthy source, whereas Fe looks for trustworthy information. This makes a lot of sense if you follow the Fi process of reasoning: I like this person, this person/source is trustworthy, what this person/source says is also trustworthy. I don't like this person/source, I don't think this person/source is reliable, nothing this person/source says can be believed.

    Whereas Fe can take good information even if it's from a "bad" source. For them, good information is good information whether your crazy neighbor told it to you (and you verified it to be true) or some reputable newspaper (though people interestingly enough tend to consider news sources more reliable if they support what the person already believes.) It's also why Fe egos can tend to be more consensus-seeking because for them, the more people who agree with something, the more reliable the information is likely to be, but for Fi, it's only reliable if their trusted source says it's true. There will obviously be some overlap and these are general trends rather than hard rules, but it's something that is often observable.
    Well put. Fi valuing people also tend to be more naive and easier to deceive.
    Last edited by Park; 03-06-2017 at 12:59 AM.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  35. #115
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Hmm, this correlation irks me somewhat. I consider myself Fi valuing and I strongly oppose nepotism. Nepotism, to me, always boils down to selfishness and doing undeserved and/or unethical favors in order to gain undeserved and/or unethical favors. There have been times I have refused "offerings of help" which I haven't felt comfortable receiving due to a perceived lack of merit and/or righteousness. I want to earn what I acquire/accomplish and be rewarded for my hard work and competence, not my ties to certain groups or individuals. I think nepotism is about serving one's own interests in an unethical, morally objectionable way, and as such it is something I stand against.

    Also, look at Trump (a demented Fe child) and all the blatant nepotism and self-dealing he's doing. Can it get more extreme than that?
    Well it's a dark side of Fi, not a universal thing, just one of the possible pitfalls. I type Trump as SEE, so don't see him as a counter example to that.
    Last edited by squark; 03-06-2017 at 01:23 AM.

  36. #116
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Well it's a dark side of Fi, not a universal thing, just one of the possible pitfalls. I type Trump as SEE, so don't see him as a counter example to that.
    its the dark side of Fi when not balanced by Te, i.e.: in Fe valuers. in other words, you're projecting. Fi in a Te valuer is highly unlikely to develop the Fi attachment in such a way as to place them in a position above their ability in the first place, since the Fi valuation would have been shaded by Te to begin with (because why would you do that to someone you care about--only an Fe valuer can answer this with nepotism)

    you're literally, albeit inadvertently, commenting on Trump and demonstrating precisely how he's a beta

  37. #117
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its the dark side of Fi when not balanced by Te, i.e.: in Fe valuers. in other words, you're projecting. Fi in a Te valuer is highly unlikely to develop the Fi attachment in such a way as to place them in a position above their ability in the first place, since the Fi valuation would have been shaded by Te to begin with (because why would you do that to someone you care about--only an Fe valuer can answer this with nepotism)

    you're literally, albeit inadvertently, commenting on Trump and demonstrating precisely how he's a beta
    Try applying Occam's razor to what you just said. And before this devolves into another inane discussion about Trump, I'm out.

  38. #118
    Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Hmm, this correlation irks me somewhat. I consider myself Fi valuing and I strongly oppose nepotism. Nepotism, to me, always boils down to selfishness and doing undeserved and/or unethical favors in order to gain undeserved and/or unethical favors. There have been times I have refused "offerings of help" which I haven't felt comfortable receiving due to a perceived lack of merit and/or righteousness. I want to earn what I acquire/accomplish and be rewarded for my hard work and competence, not my ties to certain groups or individuals. I think nepotism is about serving one's own interests in an unethical, morally objectionable way, and as such it is something I stand against.
    Nepotism is related to Fi, but it's more slanted towards Gamma Fi. The idea of of someone being 'best fit for a job' is more of an aristocratic idea. Te types, also, are going to be much more concerned with competency so they will be more likely to reject this.
    Gamma SF's tend to operate extremely selfishly, within one's worldview without considering other's perspectives. If you just look at what Se and Fi evaluate (power and relational dynamics) it makes perfect sense as to why nepotism can be seen here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its the dark side of Fi when not balanced by Te, i.e.: in Fe valuers. in other words, you're projecting. Fi in a Te valuer is highly unlikely to develop the Fi attachment in such a way as to place them in a position above their ability in the first place, since the Fi valuation would have been shaded by Te to begin with (because why would you do that to someone you care about--only an Fe valuer can answer this with nepotism)

    you're literally, albeit inadvertently, commenting on Trump and demonstrating precisely how he's a beta
    I hate to be the one to burst your 'Beta is evil' bubble, but Betas are the least likely to engage in this sort of thing. Ti and Fe are both impersonal functions that focus on soundness of thought and ethical impartiality. Nepotism is the opposite of this.
    Also, Te 'balances' Fi in the sense of finding avenues for efficient and productive endeavors. It doesn't serve to 'stop' an attachment, it just directs it to somewhere profitable and it's not even always successful at doing that. Just to be clear, suitability for a job isn't the same as competency to do that job, which is where Te's concerns lie. Fi can absolutely establish attachments of this sort, whether or not there is Te there to 'do' anything about it. It is in Fi's nature to establish emotionally based attachments, and wanting a job that is above what you can do simply because you 'like' doing it falls under this.
    Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type

  39. #119
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    wanting a job that is above what you can do simply because you 'like' doing it falls under this.
    yeah but this isn't nepotism

  40. #120
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    NEXT LEVEL
    TIM
    Who knows
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    I don't give a shit. I love Hitchens and I miss his presence.
    We share the same sentiment, but what's the intent of this commentary? This is one of the things that helped me solidify the perception of me using : users always relate things back to themselves and seem incapable of separating their feelings from their intellect, this includes the Logical types as well. I can't relate to this at all, my personal feelings for something/someone don't compute in my analysis of it, so I guess that's why from a perspective, opinions are always subjective. Of course that from a perspective, it's that is too subjective. The irony

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •