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

So around here people usually associate goodwill and kindness with Fi and maintaining a positive atmosphere with Fe, but aren't those kind of the same thing? By being kind and good-natured aren't you contributing to the atmosphere of the group?

I was reading the Delta section in the clock of the socion article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

So around here people usually associate goodwill and kindness with Fi and maintaining a positive atmosphere with Fe, but aren't those kind of the same thing? By being kind and good-natured aren't you contributing to the atmosphere of the group?

---

They're not the same because :Fi: makes a person feel good about themselves while :Fe: makes people feel good about their surroundings which in turn makes a person feel better, because they have no default internal state. Internal and external is the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

I was reading the Delta section in the clock of the socion article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 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."

---

DarkAngelFireWolf69 sounds about right. Although you seem to be having a hard time understanding what he's saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

So is DarkAngelFireWolf69 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?

---

Yes and both. Most descriptions of :Fi: are weak and :Fe: along with :Se: as a whole are overvalued in Western Socionics.

Truthfully helping people and being selfless is not type related as any type helps or can in their own way.

Isn't ESE helping a neighbor by doing their groceries or checking up on their health?

An SLE entrepreneur who has a coffee business donates 5% of proceeds to some cause or another.

This isn't type related.

Why would I be thought of as kind or generous? Well, from growing up and having poor friends, I always had a job that paid well and I wanted to share in that joy of having a nice meal with people in my company at the very least. These were my friends and as such the value was to maintain the relationship. The feelings it produces in me to not share and manage breaks my heart, produces empathy for others. Empathy isn't always good. It can be destructive too. Essentially, I "loving on" my friends.

How does this extend outwards? As I do have Fi+ in the same manner, humility, civility, kindness that I established in values with my immediate family same should be given to all of mankind. It breaks my heart when people don't treat each other with the same care that is the driving force why EII would found an organization for a certain cause.


I don't want to live in a bunk by myself with no company. So it's in the love of having relationships and in order to do so you have to share and get along.

Socionics is not about the object (object here is giving money) it's about the intentions, the extended reasons behind the actions towards the object.

You don't need to listen to Maritsa if you don't want to; it's not like this is the Church in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterNi

You don't need to listen to Maritsa if you don't want to; it's not like this is the Church in Europe.

---

You forgot to say that Fi also strives to make others feel bad about themselves as you have done about. Except that comes from maturity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

You forgot to say that Fi also strives to make others feel bad about themselves as you have done about. Except that comes from maturity

---

Not many people like to talk about negativity in a consensual group setting. Do you think I like being "that guy" who brings up the potential downfalls to a supposed "brilliant!" idea? No, I don't, but I need to check my creativity and ideas with realism so we don't all fall off a cliff like defeated green girls.

Perhaps this adds something to your understanding of Fi and Fe:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ork-floor.html

Take a badly hurt EII in retrospect to me. This person can barely manage one or two relationship and gets very introverted and cold. Doesn't want to help anyone and snickeres at others right and left so much so that one can't even recognize that they are EII. Or a poor EII who can barely manage their own household. For these reasons not all have the means to be the social contributors. There for not every EII is going to be giving ect.

ESE that I know of give to causes to improve the external events too. Like giving to the zoo, natureconservancy,.

Maybe Fi is more human being tied. But then you have LSE who will fund Haiti disaster relief efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

But then you have LSE who will fund Haiti disaster relief efforts.

---

Somehow LSEs strike me more as one of the types that will conclude that sending money to Haiti is an expensive way to throw your money down the drain...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

Somehow LSEs strike me more as one of the types that will conclude that sending money to Haiti is an expensive way to throw your money down the drain...

---

True but Jung explained this humanitarian tendencies in Te types

I asked my ESE sister "would you give money to a family member for food and how does this make you feel?"

She said "always give money for food" again I asked how it made her feel and after thinking about it she gave a very Fe response which it "it always feels good to give"

My response would have been personal, like "I (the "I") felt good about myself when I gave"

I once was asked by a beggar for some money to buy food, he said he was hungry. I said no, but instead offered to go to the nearest bakery with him and buy some food for him. He wasn't happy about that and walked away.

I too felt very good about myself :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs

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.

I feel like Fi egos don't hesitate to let you know how they feel about you, when you hurt them or when you are annoying them whereas Fe egos won't say anything if they feel like it will have an undesired impact on their environment. Fi types will talk about their feelings for the only reason that they actually are their feelings. If they go to help people in Africa it's because they have that strong feeling inside that tell them that they truly want to do it. Fe types won't do something just because their heart tell them to. They will take into consideration what other people want, what they want for other people, the impact that their words/actions are going to have on the world (more true for beta NF i suppose) and on the mood of others (true for both alphas and betas feelers, even though betas may deeply want to actually have a negative impact on other people's mood if they feel like it's for the best).
It seems to me that Fi types don't think about all of that, or maybe they just don't give a fuck. It's also a consequence of the fact that Fe types value Ti and Fi types don't. However I don't think one can say that Fe types manipulate people bc there is no real calculation, it's still F, it's still a matter of what their guts tell them to do. Or if there is calculation it's unconscious. I know it's sounds weird and paradoxical but I really believe this to be true, maybe someone can explain it better than me.

In both cases empathy is very is strong. If you are a feeler then you are deeply impacted by other people's feelings and by your own as well. They difference lies in what you do with them.

When I was younger I used to laugh at people who talked about their feelings a lot, I found it to be stupid. On the other hand, I know for a fact that a lot Fi valuers who have been around me and my friends think that I'm mean and insensitive. They are not stupid and I'm far from being insensitive (not far enough at least).. My Ti is as weak as Fi doms' and my Fi is as strong as theirs. I wouldn't even say that Fi takes a bigger place in their life than it does in mine because it really doesn't, and I actually care about Fi just as much as they do. It's just that this function impact our lives differently.
It's like SFs from both sides are the same and NF from both sides are the same but that they were made to play different roles in society.

I realize this is not very clear but I don't know how to make it clearer. Tried.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YXPR

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.

I feel like Fi egos don't hesitate to let you know how they feel about you, when you hurt them or when you are annoying them whereas Fe egos won't say anything if they feel like it will have an undesired impact on their environment. Fi types will talk about their feelings for the only reason that they actually are their feelings. If they go to help people in Africa it's because they have that strong feeling inside that tell them that they truly want to do it. Fe types won't do something just because their heart tell them to. They will take into consideration what other people want, what they want for other people, the impact that their words/actions are going to have on the world (more true for beta NF i suppose) and on the mood of others (true for both alphas and betas feelers, even though betas may deeply want to actually have a negative impact on other people's mood if they feel like it's for the best).
It seems to me that Fi types don't think about all of that, or maybe they just don't give a fuck. It's also a consequence of the fact that Fe types value Ti and Fi types don't. However I don't think one can say that Fe types manipulate people bc there is no real calculation, it's still F, it's still a matter of what their guts tell them to do. Or if there is calculation it's unconscious. I know it's sounds weird and paradoxical but I really believe this to be true, maybe someone can explain it better than me.

In both cases empathy is very is strong. If you are a feeler then you are deeply impacted by other people's feelings and by your own as well. They difference lies in what you do with them.

When I was younger I used to laugh at people who talked about their feelings a lot, I found it to be stupid. On the other hand, I know for a fact that a lot Fi valuers who have been around me and my friends think that I'm mean and insensitive. They are not stupid and I'm far from being insensitive (not far enough at least).. My Ti is as weak as Fi doms' and my Fi is as strong as theirs. I wouldn't even say that Fi takes a bigger place in their life than it does in mine because it really doesn't, and I actually care about Fi just as much as they do. It's just that this function impact our lives differently.
It's like SFs from both sides are the same and NF from both sides are the same but that they were made to play different roles in society.

I realize this is not very clear but I don't know how to make it clearer. Tried.

---

i agree. This is really good. I think the supposed calculation in ethics is just a perception from the observer/one who is being acted upon because they can actively see that their mood or the environment/atmosphere is being manipulated. Naturally, they want to assume the person is doing it on purpose when in fact the action of the ethical type is just a function of how they 'feel'... but it does accomplish something they desire even if they aren't conscious of it. Maybe after the fact, the ethical type will assume they did it 'on purpose', but I think even logical types are guilty of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YXPR

I feel like Fi egos don't hesitate to let you know how they feel about you, when you hurt them or when you are annoying them whereas Fe egos won't say anything if they feel like it will have an undesired impact on their environment. Fi types will talk about their feelings for the only reason that they actually are their feelings. If they go to help people in Africa it's because they have that strong feeling inside that tell them that they truly want to do it. Fe types won't do something just because their heart tell them to. They will take into consideration what other people want, what they want for other people, the impact that their words/actions are going to have on the world (more true for beta NF i suppose) and on the mood of others (true for both alphas and betas feelers, even though betas may deeply want to actually have a negative impact on other people's mood if they feel like it's for the best).
It seems to me that Fi types don't think about all of that, or maybe they just don't give a fuck. It's also a consequence of the fact that Fe types value Ti and Fi types don't. However I don't think one can say that Fe types manipulate people bc there is no real calculation, it's still F, it's still a matter of what their guts tell them to do. Or if there is calculation it's unconscious. I know it's sounds weird and paradoxical but I really believe this to be true, maybe someone can explain it better than me.

---

Would you, then, agree that the following discussion is a good example of Fi vs Fe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4

“...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..."

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.

wouldn't both Fi lead and Fe lead "tend to do what their heart tells them to"?

if F isn't in the first position, then it's not what's calling most of the shots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inumbra

wouldn't both Fi lead and Fe lead "tend to do what their heart tells them to"?

---

It's just that their hearts tells them to do different things. :hello:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

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.

---

FWIW, the only person I ever observed screaming at the top of her lungs not caring who heard in public was my close EII friend. :biggrin: (I have the EIIs I know for sure divided up into 2 different subtype groups (not sure which is which) and she is in the other group from you.:) ) This EII is in a longtime Conflictor marraige that they are both committed to staying in, and boy have they had conflicts over the years. He typically deals with it by ignoring her a lot of the time and pretending the conflicts don't exist, and she does the same at times - I believe particularly to give him back what he gives her so he knows how it feels. Other times, she takes advantage of the fact that he really cares how he looks to complete strangers and also neighbors and would prefer she only show a positive face in public, and she takes offense that a stranger means more than her. So sometimes that's when she really rips at him and lets him have it, clearly letting all hear exactly what he is doing that is driving her nuts...This has been at a public beach park when my son and I were there with her family, and also at home in their own neighborhood - he walks out of the house in order to ignore her as conflict starts, and she is not having him decide the conversation is over and her words don't matter - no, she is following him outside letting the whole neighborhood know exactly why she is furious...

So as to that EII doing what is basically out of character for an EII -- its because her immediate family life is everything to her, and her husband completely ignoring her puts that in jeopardy, and she feels powerless (she was, in so many ways) and the extreme situation made her do what she had to do about her situation.

ESEs I know are good in public (and normal ESEs I know are good in public AND private). Even my Anger-management-client NPD ex who was ESE could control his anger in public, where he preferred to be seen as Mr.Nice Guy and slipped only very rarely in public, and when he did he surprised everyone who never dreamed he had that in him. I remember seeing looks of shock and confusion, and I'm thinking that they only witnessed a smallest fraction of his fury.. And I think he was expressing NPD anger, not ESE anger, frankly.

Also the non-NPD ESEs I know who are normal - I have NEVER seen them lose it in public, and there are some I have known long.

I want to say that this EII friend has been very hard at study and they have been getting along really well for some months, really over a year, and I am so glad, since I pray for them all the time. She prays too, and I think God gives them the graces they need to keep this commitment, and that is a LOT of grace they need...

So, I am just sharing these Fi Fe public anger expressions as examples of my own experience. I don't know if its helpful.

(P.S. SEEs aren't averse to public anger displays - and that comes from Fi.. so, maybe Fi anger is louder, more dramatic, than Fe anger? Because its from a personal offense, and comes from the heart?? :confused2:)

I got crazy upset with Ashton on cam but he was vicious.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

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 VI Jeffrey as SLE. This is the last time I'm typing a brutal killer thanks. I love you

This is not a face of an EII

http://instinctmagazine.com/sites/in...20dahmer-2.jpg

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1421...NGS-369833.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

Fi valuers are innately more sadistic and evil than Fe people.

And if anybody disagrees with me, they are wrong! Cuz I'm pretty confident that's how it is.

---

*disagrees*

Well, Mr. Rogers was a real life bad ass who had the public persona mask (ie: not real) of some soft goody goody. Kinda like Oprah. Also he sorta reminds me of Bill Gates, has this soft nerdy outside but inside he is a condescending asshole.

Morgan Freeman seems like genuinely soft/nice both inside and out though. The other guy I have no idea who he is, but he looks like a pervert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

True but Jung explained this humanitarian tendencies in Te types

I asked my ESE sister "would you give money to a family member for food and how does this make you feel?"

She said "always give money for food" again I asked how it made her feel and after thinking about it she gave a very Fe response which it "it always feels good to give"

My response would have been personal, like "I (the "I") felt good about myself when I gave"

---

When I give money to beggars, I don't think "it feels good to give", but more like "I hope I made their day better". Like literally "this beggar looks particularly sad, I have to do something to make him not sad anymore" lol.

Idc about beggars :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YXPR

I feel like Fi egos don't hesitate to let you know how they feel about you, when you hurt them or when you are annoying them whereas Fe egos won't say anything if they feel like it will have an undesired impact on their environment.

---

I do not quite agree with this. In general I think Fi egos will NOT verbally express their opinion about you (unless intermediate intervention is required), but an Fe ego such as yourself will obviously pick up the vibe anyway. Persons with weak Fi/Fe will typically NOT pick up the value judgement an Fi ego, ime. And obviously there are situations where Fi egos will speak their mind, such as Park showed in that video with Hutchins.

Perhaps situational circumstances also play a role and Fi/Fe egos feel safe expression their emotions when they're is a supportive (quadra) environment, and keep their feelings to themselves when they stand alone.

Some people have talked about people getting emotional at the top of their lungs. This is not type related. Any type can burst out in a narcissistic temper tantrum ;-)

I hear Fi ppl are all like/dislike but I never really can tell how they feel about me and armed with socionics and everything, I try to discern this and I can't. Not really. I rely on body language usually. So I want to know how Te people, who they are compatible with, read them? How do Fi people send cues for Te to pick up on to know the state of a feeling/relationship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakealittle

I hear Fi ppl are all like/dislike but I never really can tell how they feel about me and armed with socionics and everything, I try to discern this and I can't. Not really. I rely on body language usually. So I want to know how Te people, who they are compatible with, read them? How do Fi people send cues for Te to pick up on to know the state of a feeling/relationship?

---

I'm afraid you can't read them. I don't know about other types, but the only type I cannot read is SLI, and I'm IEE! This is also what we frequently read in the theory: that of all types, our duals are often the most difficult to read, as if they don't send out non-verbal signals. It is only through behavior, or explicit verbal expression, that sometimes things might become clear.

Nowadays, after ten years of experience with Socionics, I do know how to recognize SLIs, but not by seeing what is there, but by seeing what isn't. Took me a long time to master this, and even nowadays it's not easy, because there is always that feeling of being uncertain about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

When I give money to beggars, I don't think "it feels good to give", but more like "I hope I made their day better". Like literally "this beggar looks particularly sad, I have to do something to make him not sad anymore" lol.

---

Still doesn't explain your feelings :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

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.

---

what does worthy person mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msnobody

what does worthy person mean?

---

which good fits to social standards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

which good fits to social standards

---

isnt being pleasant fitting to social standards :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

True but Jung explained this humanitarian tendencies in Te types

I asked my ESE sister "would you give money to a family member for food and how does this make you feel?"

She said "always give money for food" again I asked how it made her feel and after thinking about it she gave a very Fe response which it "it always feels good to give"

My response would have been personal, like "I (the "I") felt good about myself when I gave"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

When I give money to beggars, I don't think "it feels good to give", but more like "I hope I made their day better". Like literally "this beggar looks particularly sad, I have to do something to make him not sad anymore" lol.

---

I feel more like Darya. I see the homeless and all I want to do is help them. I want to make their lives better in some small way. I don't really walk away from it feeling good about myself. I walk away from it feeling grateful for what I have and that I am able to give. I also hope that they feel like life gave them a little break from the struggle. I usually end up talking to them for a bit and taking their words to heart, whatever they may be. I still think about some homeless people I feel I bonded with years ago. I smile when I think about our interactions and how we seemed to always walk away from them feeling better about the world, in general.

When I give gifts to friends and family I do kind of feel good just by the act of giving but that is very different from the feelings I get from the homeless. I live a life that values some sort of karma, not as retribution or reward exactly. It's just that what you give always comes back to you in some form, whether good or bad. Energy is funny like that. The universe tends to balance the scales one way or another. :yup:

I should add that sometimes shopping gets me high. I feel very open and expansive when I buy stuff for my friends and family. It is like an energy exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakealittle

I hear Fi ppl are all like/dislike but I never really can tell how they feel about me and armed with socionics and everything, I try to discern this and I can't. Not really. I rely on body language usually. So I want to know how Te people who they are compatible with, read them? How do Fi people send cues for Te to pick up on to know the state of a feeling/relationship?

---

I just tell LSE that I love them.

Edit: you will know when an EII loves you they won't ignore you. They will want to be in your company. You can tell when she smiles softly and stands close. Then she wants to be touched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msnobody

isnt being pleasant fitting to social standards :D

---

it is. as was said above about a coin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Still doesn't explain your feelings :)

---

My feelings are that sadness in general and sad people/animals make me severely uncomfortable and sad in return, so I try to un-sad them :) it's really not anymore complicated than that - i don't consider myself a giving person in general, nor do i feel proud or good about myself when I give something, because honestly I'm not any sort of role model of goodness and i dont feel the need to be. I only give when I feel like it and then the other persons happyness is enough (i couldnt care less about gratitude) -it translates into my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

My feelings are that sadness in general and sad people/animals make me severely uncomfortable and sad in return, so I try to un-sad them :) it's really not anymore complicated than that - i don't consider myself a giving person in general, nor do i feel proud or good about myself when I give something, because honestly I'm not any sort of role model of goodness and i dont feel the need to be. I only give when I feel like it and then the other persons happyness is enough (i couldnt care less about gratitude) -it translates into my own.

---

That's the same with my EIE friend. She will never see the opportunity to help. But compared to me when I cat sat for her I saw how bare her couches were and I gave her two blue and cream colored pillows to accent them I told her "these will make your couch comfortable and warm." She thanked me, was very polite but not empathetic in the same manner as I am. When I told her I had to walk to her house in monsoon like rain for a week twice a day to care for her kitties she gave no response. No warmth and said nothing. I would have expected something like a hug and "Oh. I'm so sorry, Maritsa. I didn't know." But she is a nice person in her own way.

Later on she asked me if I wanted the pillows back. I thought that was so strange because I didn't give them with that intention, why would I or anyone do that. I gave them because it would make her, her husband, her home, her friends, family, company, inviting and comfortable.

Idle Delta NF are very sympathetic and expressive in the "it's not my problem" more like "I feel so bad for you"

@Starfall I would be interested in reading about your response and finding out if your sister is like me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylen

I feel more like Darya. I see the homeless and all I want to do is help them. I want to make their lives better in some small way. I don't really walk away from it feeling good about myself. I walk away from it feeling grateful for what I have and that I am able to give. I also hope that they feel like life gave them a little break from the struggle. I usually end up talking to them for a bit and taking their words to heart, whatever they may be. I still think about some homeless people I feel I bonded with years ago. I smile when I think about our interactions and how we seemed to always walk away from them feeling better about the world, in general.

When I give gifts to friends and family I do kind of feel good just by the act of giving but that is very different from the feelings I get from the homeless. I live a life that values some sort of karma, not as retribution or reward exactly. It's just that what you give always comes back to you in some form, whether good or bad. Energy is funny like that. The universe tends to balance the scales one way or another. :yup:

I should add that sometimes shopping gets me high. I feel very open and expansive when I buy stuff for my friends and family. It is like an energy exchange.

---

Even when Delta NF can not help we turn to each other and express our sympathies We say "I feel so bad about him. Look at his condition. What can be done?" I'm feeling so much pain from what I'm seeing." Because of values "no one human should be in that condition"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Even when Delta NF can not help we turn to each other and express our sympathies We say "I feel so bad about him. Look at his condition. What can be done?" I'm feeling so much pain from what I'm seeing." Because of values "no one human should be in that condition"

---

I feel it is very human to feel that way and not only NFs can feel it. I would probably express it differently if asked how I really feel. Most people can relate to, "I feel so bad about their situation". I can say that and be understood. If I say something like, "I feel this person is here to teach me something about compassion and how we are all connected in energy." some people will dismiss it as nonsense right away.

I might feel some sadness for the person but I do not pity them. I see them as another expression of energy manifest to experience itself in a human form. That does not go over well with everyone. It is a choice whether I help them or not. I do choose to help, in most cases, because I put myself in their place and remember the times someone reached out and helped me when I was in a "bad" place. A stranger who just walked up to me and gave me something that made a difference. They didn't know me so how did they know to give me "that". The boy who saved me when no one else noticed I was drowning in a pool filled with people. How he disappeared back into the water and didn't seek any recognition for saving my life.

All these things flood my mind when I see someone who I just know is in need of something that, in that moment, I can easily provide. I will not turn my back when I get a strong impulse to do something. Maybe it is intuition. Maybe it is something else but I cannot ignore the call to do it. The times I did ignore it, I had a sick feeling that I may have done the wrong thing. I am trying to pay attention to that inner voice that guides me. I spent too many years trying to find ways to turn it off. It is part of my conscience/consciousness and it will nag at me if I do not listen. It does not guilt me though. It is gentle. I can guilt myself enough and somehow it is the voice of reason when I am being too hard on myself. I am not even sure why I tried to drown it out for so long. Things go way more smoothly when I just listen to my intuition, like with my ionizer disaster. I should always be trusting it unless someone gives me good reason not to. Then I can get a better sense of what is based on intuition and what is just based on pure unfiltered feelings. I do not always trust my feelings to be the best judge in most situations. Feelings can be tricksters, in my experience. :content:

Oh, and I actually prefer it when this stuff happens with strangers sometimes. I get a sense of something greater than all its parts. It is an in the moment thing and I need to be more in the moment sometimes. It is harder than it looks, for me. That is why I am drawn to in the moment people. They act fast and with purpose. I look for meaning sometimes before acting which can make me miss the moment entirely.

Hillman, a once-Jungian, wrote something that is similar to a socionics assumption, namely that usually the Fe-type has a good Fi command and vice versa.

I agree a lot with defining Fe/Fi as ethics of emotion and ethics of relation, but I tend to share your OP's attitude towards the problems in how ethics of relation is often characterized, in that it is quite artificial often, since how does "maintaining good relations" or whatever really differ from "maintaining a good atmosphere" or whatever.

My view tends to be that, to the extent we are viewing them solely through the lens of ethics, the differences aren't going to show as much (duh, because ethical judgment is what they have in common, and strong ethical orientation, aka being an F type, is what forces one to be strong if the other is strong).
The more holistic we are, including things like the Te-Fi complementary nature, the static-ness of say, Ne+Fi, and so on, the more you get a picture for how Fi types look different.

One simple way of just reminding oneself of the difference is that F is involved and judgment-oriented, and because Fe is meant to stand in positive relation with objects, it is characterized as ethics of emotions (that is, emphasizing the evaluative valence associated to an object having capacity to affect/change emotive arousal, as opposed to an ethics of constraint on the ways/framework within which one can process such valence, which would be closer to "how I relate to things" and so on). Roughly Fi is responsible for defining the framework/coherency constraints for processing involvement in the same spirit Ti is outside the ethical sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

That's the same with my EIE friend. She will never see the opportunity to help. But compared to me when I cat sat for her I saw how bare her couches were and I gave her two blue and cream colored pillows to accent them I told her "these will make your couch comfortable and warm." She thanked me, was very polite but not empathetic in the same manner as I am. When I told her I had to walk to her house in monsoon like rain for a week twice a day to care for her kitties she gave no response. No warmth and said nothing. I would have expected something like a hug and "Oh. I'm so sorry, Maritsa. I didn't know." But she is a nice person in her own way.

Later on she asked me if I wanted the pillows back. I thought that was so strange because I didn't give them with that intention, why would I or anyone do that. I gave them because it would make her, her husband, her home, her friends, family, company, inviting and comfortable.

---

Too bad you don't live closer Mari, you would make a perfect babysitter for my cat this summer ; )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msnobody

isnt being pleasant fitting to social standards :D

---

Good remark, as the definitions by Sol are too simple to be meaningful. In fact, one could easy argue the orher way around, i.e. Fi = to be worthy and Fe= to be pleasant. It all depends on what it means to be pleasant or worthy. E.g. I've said in my own blog that Fe types judge emotions (pleasant?), whereas Fi types judge people (=worthy?).

I've been for a while now trying to reconcile the institutional aspects of Socionics with institutional theories of sociology, but so far have not arrived yet at something satisfactory. Fe and Fi should not be seen seperate from Ti and Te respectively, and I think that Fi/Te and Fe/Ti have important sociological implications for theories on institutions. If we are to understand the differences between Fi and Fe, we need to start thinking into that direction.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

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.

---

I think this is pretty much all true. However, I do think Fe egos make normative statements as well especially considering they value Ti. Many of them seem to have strong opinions as to what is and is not proper conduct in a situation e.g. "Don't say that because it will make the person feel bad". It does tend to center around how the person 'feels' in that moment though. The only reason i'm so confident of this is due to the few times i was chastised by at least one EIE in high school and before.

I have read through most of this thread and the record isn't getting any straighter. Most of the behaviors described, I have seen in many different types, while not even contradicting their types. I have been through this Fi vs Fe kind of thing before, in another thread. For me, it is kind of like, I know it when I see it. Describing it is a whole different matter. Maybe we need more Fi and Fe doms to share their perspective. :indifferent:

http://vinylgif.com/gifs/201411/spinning-blue-vinyl.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Contra

I think this is pretty much all true. However, I do think Fe egos make normative statements as well especially considering they value Ti. Many of them seem to have strong opinions as to what is and is not proper conduct in a situation e.g. "Don't say that because it will make the person feel bad". It does tend to center around how the person 'feels' in that moment though. The only reason i'm so confident of this is due to the few times i was chastised by at least one EIE in high school and before.

---

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.

My Fe EIE mother can appear VERY generous and charitable, but it's because she's trying to buy friends, impress people or appear wealthy. She's the type who only gives if there's a crowd. If she can't brag about helping, she's usually not interested. She has a selfish, personal motive. My Fi dom friend is charitable because she believes in helping those in need if you can help. She doesn't brag about her charity. However, these aren't really examples of Fe/Fi, but more enneagram.

Absurdly general examples of Fe vs Fi helped me distinguish the two, but I think it's because I'm a subconscious thinker. What I'm noticing about typology is sensors and intuitives need information explained differently. I've noticed a lot of sensors able to clearly pick up on nuance in dichotomies where intuitives need the dichotomies explained with less subtly and more black/white. This has become truly noticeable in type testing. All my sensor friends test correctly first try. All my intuitive friends test several times, mistype and struggle typing.

*Disclaimer I am speaking only to my observations from both real life and online encounters with people. What I notice is specific only to myself and is not intended as a universal truth*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

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.

My Fe EIE mother can appear VERY generous and charitable, but it's because she's trying to buy friends, impress people or appear wealthy. She's the type who only gives if there's a crowd. If she can't brag about helping, she's usually not interested. She has a selfish, personal motive. My Fi dom friend is charitable because she believes in helping those in need if you can help. She doesn't brag about her charity. However, these aren't really examples of Fe/Fi, but more enneagram.

---

Do you pick up on the universal ethics in my writing?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

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.

---

Fe "Motive" - FeNi, FeSi
External behavior or cues belie the inner disposition or motive.


Motive for Fe type would be to appear prestigious, belong to the group, they may give to a cause that they care about but as a reflection of the society of membership or membership to that society.


Fi "Relation" - FiNe, FiSe
Relations exist between people and things of differing bonds of attraction or repulsion
ethical interconnections changed between individuals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

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.

My Fe EIE mother can appear VERY generous and charitable, but it's because she's trying to buy friends, impress people or appear wealthy. She's the type who only gives if there's a crowd. If she can't brag about helping, she's usually not interested. She has a selfish, personal motive. My Fi dom friend is charitable because she believes in helping those in need if you can help. She doesn't brag about her charity. However, these aren't really examples of Fe/Fi, but more enneagram.

---

My relationship with other people may be personal. When I see someone suffer I see that person as a member of my team, my person, it's personal and not a part of a society.

I often argue with ESE that I care about people while they say they can live in a planet where there are 7 billion fewer people.

ESE: "I will donate to a cause or organization that has nothing to do with people."
Me: "but you are a person"
ESE: "I know. I'm ashamed of myself"


In my cat example with EIE; the simple interconnected rules are I take care of your cat and you show some appreciation. :) Otherwise I read that as ungratefulness.

I believe that :Fe:-types have higher levels of Agreeableness than :Fi:-types, and that :Fi:-types are more likely to show their affection or charity through consistent displays, and being "cold" rather than "hot" in terms of their action. They are more likely to pick their moment to act (and seemingly be choosy), and there will be a degree of energy conservation by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

True but Jung explained this humanitarian tendencies in Te types

I asked my ESE sister "would you give money to a family member for food and how does this make you feel?"

She said "always give money for food" again I asked how it made her feel and after thinking about it she gave a very Fe response which it "it always feels good to give"

My response would have been personal, like "I (the "I") felt good about myself when I gave"

---

I don't see why either of those responses would be more personal than the other: both refer to how the individual "feels". I think on the surface, "it always feels good to give" seems less self-centred than "I felt good about myself when I gave", although both are self-referential (I think it is a question of how abstract you see each example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

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.

---

I don't think this is true: The thing with Fe valuing types is that they try to synchronize their feelings in a process of group creation and maintenance. Think of Durkheim's concept of social currents. Within such an understanding of Fe, certain types of expression, including emotional expression, must be repressed. Look at today's social media, where persons with unwelcome opinions, are emotionally lynched by group formed indignation. An Fe type that wants to express a particular opinion on an emotional carrier-wave, will not do so if they expect mass resistance to their ideas, especially if this resistance comes from other Fe types or an Fe based group (yes, Fe valuing types do not always automatically like each other if they belong to different groups).

I've wrote about the social purpose of Fe in this blog:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...n-eie-lsi.html

Likewise, Fi types will voice their ethical judgements when they feel safe to do so.

Fe is more about creating relationships, it is more inclusive, whereas Fi is about selecting relationships, more aimed at the distinctive. A subtle but important difference. To put it differently: an Fe type forcing their emotions on you does so to make you toe the line, an Fi type who forces their emotions on you does so to make you feel bad and drive you away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

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.

---

Fwiw...I don't relate to the Fi description & I'm Fi lead.

I absolutely yell back if someone yells & I'm persistent with asking for follow-up should something I deem important not be answered.

Dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackburry

Fwiw...I don't relate to the Fi description & I'm Fi lead.

I absolutely yell back if someone yells & I'm persistent with asking for follow-up should something I deem important not be answered.

Dunno.

---

What you probably need to realize here is that this is how weirdleftovers perceives Fi in general. Just like how Fi types are inclined to interpret Fe from an Fi perspective. I don't see Fi they way weirdleftover does either, but I can certainly imagine that this is how it looks to her. Between the lines of her interpretation, I can see that the underlying facts actually make sense. (I hope this is not a PoLR hit ;-) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackburry

Fwiw...I don't relate to the Fi description & I'm Fi lead.

I absolutely yell back if someone yells & I'm persistent with asking for follow-up should something I deem important not be answered.

Dunno.

---

Yes, this is kind of what I was waiting for. More Fi (and Fe) doms. My experience with ESI, with their creative Se, is that they will meet you on your level, whatever it may be. Even the most "high minded" ESI will not let you insult them and get away with it, unless they are depressed or something else is going on and they can't be bothered to respond. An EII I know will as well, if she is in a particularly bad mood or you threaten her family. Otherwise she tries to maintain calm and use a soft voice at all times. She is a 9.

My ESI, ex roommate, (I was maybe 20 at the time) was once described as bull in a china shop if you made her angry. She was great to have around when I was being more diplomatic and playful (read intoxicated and silly) when trying to deal with obnoxious jerks in a club. She would basically step in and tell them to fuck off me. Pulling me away or even pushing them away if she had to. I was pretty relieved when she did. She never let people take advantage of me when we were young, even though she was a couple years younger than me. I was basically raising her. We actually worked well together before I got a bf who came between us. With some people she would tell me, "you handle this".

My ESI aunt would absolutely yell back and then continue to rant about the person for a long time after.

If someone yells at me when I am driving I will also match their energy, if I'm in a bad mood. I don't yell though. I get self conscious when I yell because my mom was a yeller when we were kids. I didn't like it when she did it so I try not to do it. I will respond to them with gestures, facial expressions and some driving maneuvers of my own.

I probably get a bit more stubborn and refuse to meet their request right away. I take my time. If I am in a good mood I make fun of them and make a bit of a a show laughing at them then shrugging my shoulders. Thing is, it is likely that they will ruin my mood if I am alone in the car. If someone else is with me, and they are a chill or upbeat person, I don't get so irritated and my Fi stays in check. I will maintain the energy in the car rather than let an idiot driver ruin it for those with me. I have also been the one to calm down someone in my car when I thought it would escalate while we were trapped in traffic or something. I didn't want my friends going to jail or getting shot over something stupid.

My IEI brother is a bit different than me. He will say something goofy like, "oh yeah, fuck you too buddy". I am more likely call the an idiot, if I actually have an opportunity to say something to them (windows already down).

An EIE-Ni I know is more likely to yell back but not exactly match the other person's energy. They can sort of dominate it. They do it with a flare that I can't. It has some force behind it too but they do it in a more playful way. Like asking the person "what's the matter, baby, you got a stick up your ass?" I don't have much experience with EIE-Fe.

My ESE sister is probably the one pissing off other drivers but not intentionally, usually. :shifty: It is the way she drives sometimes. She is pretty good at handling drunk people since she is a bartender and her Fe is very useful there.

So many different ways Fi and Fe can be expressed.

I found this yesterday and it seemed like it was a pretty good description of how Fi and Fe might manifest. It is not from an MBTI site. I am going to post their link and test in another thread.

Quote:

---

Feeling


Feeling is an affective, sentimental function. It involves judging the value of things or having an opinion about them on the basis of our likes and dislikes. Experiences are therefore evaluated in terms of good and bad, pleasant or unpleasant, acceptable or unacceptable.

The Extraverted Feeling Type

Extraverted feeling is based upon accepted or traditional social values and opinions. It involves a conforming, adjusting response to objective circumstances that strives for harmonious relations with the world. Because it depends so much on external stimuli rather than upon true subjective preferences, such feeling can sometimes seem cold, 'unfeeling', artificial or put on for effect.

The extraverted feeling type follows fashion and seeks to harmonize personal feelings with general social values. Thinking is always subordinate to feeling and is ignored or repressed if intellectual conclusions fail to confirm the convictions of the heart. When this type is extreme or neurotic, feeling may become gushing or extravagant and dependent upon momentary enthusiasms that may quickly turn about with changing circumstances. Such a person may therefore seem hysterical, fickle, moody or even to be suffering from multiple personality. Repressed thinking may also erupt in infantile, negative, obsessive ways. This can lead to the attribution of dreaded characteristics to the very objects or people that are most loved and valued.

The Introverted Feeling Type

Introverted feeling strives for an inner intensity that is unrelated to any external object. It devalues objective reality and is rarely displayed openly. When it does appear on the surface, it generally seems negative or indifferent. The focus of such feeling is upon inner processes and latent, primordial images. At its extreme, it may develop into mystical ecstasy.

The introverted feeling type is brooding and inaccessible, although may also hide behind a childish mask. Such a person aims to be inconspicuous, makes little attempt to impress and generally fails to respond to the feelings of others. The outer, surface appearance is often neutral, cold and dismissive. Inwardly, however, feelings are deep, passionately intense, and may accompany secret religious or poetic tendencies. The effect of all this on other people can be stifling and oppressive. When extreme or neurotic, this type may become domineering and vain. Negative repressed thinking may also be projected so that these persons may imagine they can know what others are thinking. This may develop into paranoia and into secret scheming rivalries.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackburry

Fwiw...I don't relate to the Fi description & I'm Fi lead.

I absolutely yell back if someone yells & I'm persistent with asking for follow-up should something I deem important not be answered.

Dunno.

---

I wouldn't yell back because I feel like someone yelling something is very concerned about something and really wants you to get mobilized and listen up. I'm more likely to listen more attentively and carefully to someone who yells abruptly and mobilize for action or take action than to freeze and do nothing. I know SEE who just freeze and are puzzled or taken aback by other's screaming at them.

But then yelling is not Se and response or no response to it doesn't indicate weak or devalued Se either.

Everyone can be brought to yell depending upon their mood, extenuating circumstances, their health and other factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

What you probably need to realize here is that this is how weirdleftovers perceives Fi in general. Just like how Fi types are inclined to interpret Fe from an Fi perspective. I don't see Fi they way weirdleftover does either, but I can certainly imagine that this is how it looks to her. Between the lines of her interpretation, I can see that the underlying facts actually make sense. (I hope this is not a PoLR hit ;-) )

---

This is probably true. My own view of Fi, for the longest, was that it was overly judgmental and not as accepting as Fe. I have also started noticing when I use my demonstrative function since joining this site. I didn't realize how judgy I could also be. I just voiced it differently or not at all. :indifferent:

I tend to use it just as predicted by socionics in the demonstrative way which is why I have not totally dismissed this theory and walked away.

Quote:

---

Fi as Demonstrative Function

The individual is quite adept at understanding the interactions in personal bonds between two individuals, even in the absence of an obvious external emotional expression; but he is inclined to regard them as of lesser importance, and less interesting, than the broader emotional interactions in the context of a larger group. Moreover, those personal bonds are perceived as situational and dynamic rather than static.

---

rather than:

Quote:

---

Fi as Leading Function

The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth. Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.

---

My perception of Fi is primarily based on my sister and my aunt, both seemed very judgemental and self righteous to me, in very different ways, even as a child. My sister was gentler about it or maybe more passive aggressive. When I first read about Fi doms (when I joined the forum) I was like, "whoah, that pretty much explains it". I started feeling more remorse for the times I dismissed their feelings, especially in my teens. I wanted to tell them about this. I did tell my sister many times I was sorry even before socionics and we had a great discussion of this when she was here last. I got to talk to my aunt about things before she died and we parted on very good terms. I just didn't have any socionics knowledge then. <-- [Edit: seems I didn't even need it.]

I have reminded myself of this every time I view my sister as being morally/ethically self righteous or preachy. She is actually getting better at it too, using whatever method or tools she is learning. I use socionics and she uses a lot of the methods suggested by the self help gurus. I did not hold the view that she was all self righteous and judgmental, all the time though. Only when she did things like stop eating meat and then guilting the rest of us when we didn't. Sending me articles on animal cruelty and whatnot. I feel like I understand her more now, than ever. I don't get the same twinges I used to get from Fi doms, when I first joined. I am way more understanding of them in those moments where I used to just feel twinges of annoyance. Not that I don't get them anymore because I still do but they are more fleeting than ever. I feel this is progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Person

Thank you Aylen. These definitions of Fi and Fe have already been described in psychology, whether it is Jung, Aushra or Reinin (which I posted here,) they are each meeting the similar phenomenon.

:Fi: the relation, the resonance and connection to things/people, the true attraction/repulsion. Aylen's description "This feeling (at the core) is actually unrelated to any external object. The focus of such feeling is on the inner processes and latent, primordial images. In other words, it externally appears to be focused on finding the ideal image or thing with which to connect, but in reality it is focused internally on them." Jung's real description and point: seeking a connection/relation with the authentic likes/dislikes of oneself, while devaluing most other externals, is the full realm of Fi. "It devalues objective reality and is rarely displayed openly." -Jung

:Fe: the gauging and connection to the emotions of others, their values and objective feeling values, the attention to the external realm of feeling. Aylen's description: "This feeling is based upon either accepted or traditional social values. It involves an adjusting response to objective circumstances that strives for harmonious relations with the world. It depends much on external stimuli rather than upon true subjective preferences." -Jung

---

Something has finally clicked for me and I can now express it in words. I went to bed thinking about this thread and woke up with some clarity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSPwexlyTo

I am not sure if it will last because just when I think I got it, life has a way of saying, "nope, not yet but you're closer". I have probably cycled through these same conclusions (in different terms) so many times but each time I learn a bit more. I think I arrogantly stated I knew my socionics a few months after joining this site. I didn't but I did get some insights.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

What you probably need to realize here is that this is how weirdleftovers perceives Fi in general. Just like how Fi types are inclined to interpret Fe from an Fi perspective. I don't see Fi they way weirdleftover does either, but I can certainly imagine that this is how it looks to her. Between the lines of her interpretation, I can see that the underlying facts actually make sense. (I hope this is not a PoLR hit ;-) )

---

"Underlying facts." Using the words "facts" loosely, I see.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/...1997-40683.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackburry

"Underlying facts." Using the words "facts" loosely, I see.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/...1997-40683.jpg

---

Obviously: we can all perceive 'facts', but they are meaningless without interpretation. And that's where all of us make serious mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackburry

Fwiw...I don't relate to the Fi description & I'm Fi lead.

I absolutely yell back if someone yells & I'm persistent with asking for follow-up should something I deem important not be answered.

Dunno.

---

I don't think you're suppose to relate to this example. This is specific to her and me. Not yelling and being rude is her universal truth regarding how one should respond to another. I don't have such reality. I respond to others on a situational, case by case basis. I'm showing Fi vs Fe only within the example as it pertains to the individuals in the example.

Gamma and Delta Fis are also different due to other valued functions. Delta's Fi and Ne work together and Gammas Fi works with Se. This particular EII is married to an ILI and their response to things is very interesting and causes constant bickering. He would and has met people's emotional level of aggression. Whenever he does this, though, she quickly tells him 'you shouldn't talk that way. that's not nice.' etc.

To me, Deltas have a policing nature whether they're telling others what to do in general (STs) or morally (NFs). Gammas are more focused on intelligence/status/money and become aggressive when those aspects are involved.

Also, when I speak of types, I am ONLY speaking about people I actually known and interact with. I'm generalizing and coming to conclusions about my personal experiences only. I don't expect others to fit into my construct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

In my cat example with EIE; the simple interconnected rules are I take care of your cat and you show some appreciation. :) Otherwise I read that as ungratefulness.

---

I had to find that post first. It seems to me that you and a few other EIIs I know recognize appreciation and gratefulness in verbal and physical forms. You want the person to verbally express how they feel about what you've done 'thank you so much for thinking of my well-being, it makes me feel loved'. Not sure if that's accurate?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

I had to find that post first. It seems to me that you and a few other EIIs I know recognize appreciation and gratefulness in verbal and physical forms. You want the person to verbally express how they feel about what you've done 'thank you so much for thinking of my well-being, it makes me feel loved'. Not sure if that's accurate?

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.

---

This is a very valuable post.

I was talking to an IEI the other day about her dating experiences (or lack thereof), and I told her that I thought she shouldn't have any trouble, since she is intelligent, talented, and has a good job. She thanked me for the compliment in a completely dismissive way, as if it meant nothing. I now see why she did that. Personally, being an Fi-valuer myself, I never say something if I don't believe it is true. But, apparently, Betas can do that and do.

I once asked my LII sister what she thought was the worst characteristic of our IEI cousin, and she said it was her lying. This puzzled me at the time, but I can now see how "Fe going along to get along" could sometimes be interpreted as lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I once asked my LII sister what she thought was the worst characteristic of our IEI cousin, and she said it was her lying. This puzzled me at the time, but I can now see how "Fe going along to get along" could sometimes be interpreted as lying.

---

IEIs and SEIs are, like any type, capable of lying, but more in general they are simply "lying the truth". AKA Mobilizing-Ti. Memory is not their strongest point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

IEIs and SEIs are, like any type, capable of lying, but more in general they are simply "lying the truth". AKA Mobilizing-Ti. Memory is not their strongest point.

---

This made me laugh.

This reminded me that know an EII and an SEI, who I often thought were on the border of pathological lying. Both have completely outgrown it. It was mostly teen girl stuff for the EII (who was going through some really rough times) and for the SEI, into her mid 20s.

Anyway, I can't count how many times I thought I did or said something that I promised to do but only to find out later that I only imagined it. In certain situations arguing my side of it and getting indignant, until I realized I was wrong. Then making a "space cadet" joke about myself to smooth it over. :doh:

Meaning: my imagination is pretty powerful and sometimes the line of what I thought I did or said is often blurred. It literally feels like it happened in an objective way and not just subjectively.

An example of this is, I might say I am going to send you some information. I am focused on the information. I might even read it over myself, again, to refresh my memory and see if it is really relevant. I get distracted by something else. Some time passes and the person asks, "hey did you forget you were sending me something?" I might say that I did send it. In my mind I sent it. I went through all the steps involved but only in my mind. This has happened mostly in times of stress or when I am really busy.

I didn't mean to break a promise or not follow through. The line was blurred. If they remind me again, I will make sure I follow through. Sometimes all it takes is one reminder for me to follow through on stuff like that. If they even suggest I am lying though, I will not follow through. People who know me already expect there might be times that this will happen and they are cool with it. They will just send me a text or something if they are still interested in whatever I said I was going to send. Any accusation that I am lying, when I sincerely believe I did it, will not be taken well.

I aim for truthfulness and consistency when it comes to my beliefs and actions, which is strongly connected to authentic expression. I don't particularly see it as a lie when you omit information that would intentionally hurt someone's feelings and nothing good would come of it. If my friend loves some inanimate object, and I hate it, I will probably just say something about it without actually saying I hate it. A work of art is not going to hurt them but me insulting their taste might.

I usually know when someone is lying to me and have learned to accept that that is where they are at in that timeframe, most likely due to fear. I already know the truth and probably did my research to confirm it, if I think it is something important and impacts me or my family directly. I don't want to accuse someone of lying without back up to support it. I might just let them have their lie, if it harms no one, or make fun of it and let them know it's ok, I won't be mad, if I think it is silly that they even think they have to lie to me about something so trivial. People do not have to lie to me to break plans. Just do it. I will probably be relieved.

I am not so accepting if it involves someone cheating on me though. That will not fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

IEIs and SEIs are, like any type, capable of lying, but more in general they are simply "lying the truth". AKA Mobilizing-Ti. Memory is not their strongest point.

---

I think what my sister meant when she said our IEI cousin sometimes lies is that our cousin would be with a group of friends and would get carried away with the atmosphere and tell some girl that she loved her hair, and would later tell my sister that she thought it looked like birds were nesting in it.

This is not forgetting, this is a case of telling little white lies to maintain the cohesion and mood of the social group. This is not a big deal in my book, but LII's like facts. Real, verifiable facts. So white lies might have offended my sister.

To be balanced, I have also heard my cousin say incredibly blunt and offensive things to people sometimes. So she's not always trying to be nice.

I think the whole "Fi is harshly judgmental/Fe not" is one of the things I've most tried to present cases for getting away from. That is, this essentially identifies e with accomodating and i with being less interested in accommodating (since hey, to be accommodating is to consider external parties in your decision-making right?)
To me, accommodating/not is more of an independent trait, related more to MBTI concepts of F than to the ethics/logic divide or the Fe/Fi one.

I think Fi's criterion for judgment is more inaccessible to external factors, more unmoved by them, but that's a separate story.

The very first thing to eject from MBTI's version of functions theory is the idea that Te and Fe are more conventionally inclined or whatever (too many accounts of Te make it sound like a boring fact-machine), and too many accounts of Fe make it sound like going-with-tradition/convention...the latter has been lessened in socionics presentations of Fe, and is mostly an MBTI-carry-on of Jung's original ideas, but the former kind of persists even in socionics descriptions.

ti and fi are both very "judgemental" to me... every quadra has one or the other

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

I don't think this is true: The thing with Fe valuing types is that they try to synchronize their feelings in a process of group creation and maintenance. Think of Durkheim's concept of social currents. Within such an understanding of Fe, certain types of expression, including emotional expression, must be repressed. Look at today's social media, where persons with unwelcome opinions, are emotionally lynched by group formed indignation. An Fe type that wants to express a particular opinion on an emotional carrier-wave, will not do so if they expect mass resistance to their ideas, especially if this resistance comes from other Fe types or an Fe based group (yes, Fe valuing types do not always automatically like each other if they belong to different groups).

I've wrote about the social purpose of Fe in this blog:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...n-eie-lsi.html

Likewise, Fi types will voice their ethical judgements when they feel safe to do so.

Fe is more about creating relationships, it is more inclusive, whereas Fi is about selecting relationships, more aimed at the distinctive. A subtle but important difference. To put it differently: an Fe type forcing their emotions on you does so to make you toe the line, an Fi type who forces their emotions on you does so to make you feel bad and drive you away.

---

The thing is I'm having problems seeing how I fit into either catergory. On one hand I'm a loner type with a strong disdain for social structures, especially towards the more bureaucratic ones, but I also try to be accommodating enough to get along with those in my immediate vicinity and I look down on the idea of using emotions to drive others away. I don't go out of my way to be friends with everyone but I also don't put people through some "filter" when deciding if I can be friends with them or not. I just take a passive approach where if someone wants to be friends they I'll be there friend and if not then not. It is not something I put effort into either way, which probably has something to do with my weak ethics.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

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.

---

The only thing better is having a functioning penis ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddytextures

The thing is I'm having problems seeing how I fit into either catergory. On one hand I'm a loner type with a strong disdain for social structures, especially towards the more bureaucratic ones, but I also try to be accommodating enough to get along with those in my immediate vicinity and I look down on the idea of using emotions to drive others away. I don't go out of my way to be friends with everyone but I also don't put people through some "filter" when deciding if I can be friends with them or not. I just take a passive approach where if someone wants to be friends they I'll be there friend and if not then not. It is not something I put effort into either way, which probably has something to do with my weak ethics.

---

The question here is: what is the problem you are actually trying to solve? In your original post you were giving a couple of examples, but it now seems like you are trying to get an answer for more personal reasons. If we know what is really troubling you, we might be more able to help out.

Going back to your OP, I van only say that Fi/Fe have nothing to do with such things helping starving people in Africa. It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. basically, all judging functions are about how we create institutional foundations. Not just relationships, but complete frameworks that guide our social behaviors. You seem to be stuck in your capacity to decide between Fi and Fe. This is not just because of your weak ethics (which hinders your capacity to detect these), but also of your inclination to view the problem from a modern, individualistic perspective, i.e. how you relate to other individual persons. Perhaps it would help you to transcend beyond the mere psychological level into the sociological and anthropological level, i.e. taking a bird's eye perspective at groups of people, look at the forest, not at the trees. The forest is not just a collection of individual trees, it is an entity in its own right. Start looking at people that way and you'll start seeing how the judging functions affect groups of people. Then it will be easier to decide where you fit in best, and work your way back to the individual level and start discovering the pattern that manifest themselves there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

Too bad you don't live closer Mari, you would make a perfect babysitter for my cat this summer ; )

---

I wouldn't mind Darya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylen

I feel more like Darya. I see the homeless and all I want to do is help them. I want to make their lives better in some small way. I don't really walk away from it feeling good about myself. I walk away from it feeling grateful for what I have and that I am able to give. I also hope that they feel like life gave them a little break from the struggle. I usually end up talking to them for a bit and taking their words to heart, whatever they may be. I still think about some homeless people I feel I bonded with years ago. I smile when I think about our interactions and how we seemed to always walk away from them feeling better about the world, in general.

When I give gifts to friends and family I do kind of feel good just by the act of giving but that is very different from the feelings I get from the homeless. I live a life that values some sort of karma, not as retribution or reward exactly. It's just that what you give always comes back to you in some form, whether good or bad. Energy is funny like that. The universe tends to balance the scales one way or another. :yup:

I should add that sometimes shopping gets me high. I feel very open and expansive when I buy stuff for my friends and family. It is like an energy exchange.

---

IDK if it means anything wrt my socionic preferences, but I'm sort of with @Jarno in that I hesitate to give money to panhandlers, but would instead be glad to give some in-kind tangible goods to them (e.g. food, clothing). My reason is that I have no way of knowing if they will be spending that money to buy drugs, and if so, i dont want to be supporting their drug habit, since that will continue to harm them and i dont want to play a part in their harming themselves. The fact that the guy jarno came across got upset about being offered a meal (as opposed to money), kind of suggests most strongly that he hoped to get money (for drugs or something). I've run into those kinds of reactions as well, and opposite reactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

To me, Deltas have a policing nature whether they're telling others what to do in general (STs) or morally (NFs). Gammas are more focused on intelligence/status/money and become aggressive when those aspects are involved.

---

yes

Also @lungs said something in the chat box this morning which reminded me of Fi and how Gamma Fi differed from Delta Fi

She said "He went to his families for father's day and they didn't set a place for him or tell him when it was ready. They're assholes"

@lungs what would be your Fi rule here that causes the determination that "they are assholes"? The action is wrong based on morals and ethics of conduct. The determination is therefore they are "assholes"

To me, it would be "they should have done this" It was the most proper action because that is what the universal "ONE" should do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdleftovers

I had to find that post first. It seems to me that you and a few other EIIs I know recognize appreciation and gratefulness in verbal and physical forms. You want the person to verbally express how they feel about what you've done 'thank you so much for thinking of my well-being, it makes me feel loved'. Not sure if that's accurate?

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.

---

I think verbal expression is important to me and other Delta NF. But I think Delta ST show things in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suz

IDK if it means anything wrt my socionic preferences, but I'm sort of with @Jarno in that I hesitate to give money to panhandlers, but would instead be glad to give some in-kind tangible goods to them (e.g. food, clothing). My reason is that I have no way of knowing if they will be spending that money to buy drugs, and if so, i dont want to be supporting their drug habit, since that will continue to harm them and i dont want to play a part in their harming themselves. The fact that the guy jarno came across got upset about being offered a meal (as opposed to money), kind of suggests most strongly that he hoped to get money (for drugs or something). I've run into those kinds of reactions as well, and opposite reactions.

---

First let me say I don't think any less of people who think like you or Jarno. You guys give according to your conscience, as I do. I don't think it has much to do with cognition. I think it has more to do with experience and being educated on the problem.

I have no problem giving them money and letting go of it. Once I give it is no longer mine. Same when I give someone a gift. I don't care if you throw it in the trash or give it away. I give whatever I feel the impulse to give in the moment. I may be a little hurt if I give someone a gift that was sentimental, for me, and they threw it away. I would rather they give it to someone who appreciates it.

I have given the homeless money for alcohol and probably drugs. Some were honest about it. I have also bought liquor for older homeless men before. The reason is that I have seen someone go into DTs and it was not pretty. They almost died. They were not close to me but it still made an impact. If a bottle of liquor or a 6 pack of beer keeps that person alive one more day then I feel fine about it. Maybe tomorrow someone else will come along and really change their life. I know my limitations. I can't walk the streets getting people treatment for whatever addiction they may have. I can provide them the one thing that gets them through another day. Buy them a little more time to find a way through.

I am not naive about this stuff and I have friends who laugh at me for doing it. I don't care. If they ever found themselves in a similar situation they would be hoping someone like me comes along rather than you or Jarno. :lol: Of course their response is, "I would never end up a bum". Famous last words of many homeless people. I know this because I have actually talked to many. You would be surprised at how low the mighty can fall just by making a few wrong choices.

Not all homeless people are addicts though. Many have mental illness that led to homelessness and for some addiction. It is self medicating. I have pulled out of the drive-thru of a restaurant and by the time I got to the end of the parking lot, had a homeless person ask me for money. I have handed them my food after assuring them I did nothing to poison them. Yes this is a big fear for the homeless especially when coupled with paranoia prone, mental illness. This is why many, without addictions, will refuse food, even if you go in the shop with them. The paranoia tells them that you are going to poison them or even worse taking them somewhere to kill them. That is how their minds work.

Anyway, I have given them food and they trusted me enough to be eating it by the time I got through the drive-thru again. I also give clothes, blankets, and other stuff. If I am in the right place at the right time, directly, if not, to a shelter. I prefer giving directly when I can because a lot of the same paranoid mentally ill will not go to shelters for the same reasons they won't take your food.

I am not saying you guys do anything wrong but I don't feel I am either. I can buy a bottle of liquor for a homeless person and my conscience is clear. Like I said I have spent a lot of time talking to them. Especially when I lived in NYC, which is where I got a real education on the homeless. I hate when people tell me I am gullible or a sucker for giving money to the homeless. I am not. I am aware of what they may use it for and I just don't care. Again, like I said, one more day to sort it out for themselves or find someone else who knows better than I how to really help. I will buy them some food too while I'm at it. You shouldn't drink on an empty stomach.

Quote:

---

Delirium tremens

This is a medical emergency. A hyperadrenergic state is present.
PatientPlus

• Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse - Management
• Alcohol-related Problems
• Benzodiazepine Dependence
• Assessment of Drug Dependence
• Read more articles

Clinical features

• Delirium tremens usually begins 24-72 hours after alcohol consumption has been reduced or stopped.[11]
• The symptoms/signs differ from usual withdrawal symptoms in that there are signs of altered mental status. These can include:[12]
  
  • Hallucinations (auditory, visual, or olfactory).
  • Confusion.
  • Delusions.
  • Severe agitation.
  
  
• Seizures can also occur.
• Examination may reveal signs of chronic alcohol abuse/stigmata of chronic liver disease. There may also be:
  
  • Tachycardia.
  • Hyperthermia and excessive sweating.
  • Hypertension.
  • Tachypnoea.
  • Tremor.
  • Mydriasis.
  • Ataxia.
  • Altered mental status.
  • Cardiovascular collapse.

Risk factors[6]

• Previous history of delirium tremens.
• Previous history of alcohol withdrawal seizures.
• Co-existing infection or medical problems including pancreatitis or hepatitis.
• Recent higher-than-normal levels of alcohol intake.
• Older age.
• Abnormal liver function.
• More severe withdrawal symptoms on presentation.

---

lewl "black people in africa". What a shitty sentence to put in there. I think he reference to genuine helpfulness when you help directly and not indirectly.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summerprincess

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.

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

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.

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).

Quote:

---

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. :p

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admiral Allahu Ackbar

I was reading the Delta section in the clock of the socion article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 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, DarkAngelFireWolf69'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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullets

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.

@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.

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.

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

@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

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity

@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 DarkAngelFireWolf69), 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, DarkAngelFireWolf69'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity

@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

Yeah. I never thought of Fe or Fi as explicitly good or bad.

Ðîäèòåëè è ìàëûøè