Fi Base

Thoughts about 4D Fi, or Fi Base.

---

EDIT: Just to clarify that Socionics Fi is different than MBTI Cognitive Function Fi, and to clarify what Fi is...
https://i.gyazo.com/e59d465b36264bdc...fb35ffd9f6.png

Personal Note: “friend or enemy,” and “good will or ill will,” are not the same as “for or against” in the sense that people are either one way or another, black and white; such is an unhealthy way of thinking according to the professional field of psychology. That would be similar to narcissistic “splitting,” which is where they perceive people as one way or the other only, thus commencing with valuing/devaluing. Instead, this should be interpreted as an assessment of another's disposition toward themselves/others, and an assessment of whether they are a threat. “What is this person's character like? Is this person going to deceive me? Do they admit when they're wrong, thus taking their share of responsibility and engaging in a healthy 2-way-street relationship?” The existence of ethics such as these within another person are analyzed, assessed, based upon a person's general words and actions. It is through these that a person is able to trace behaviors back to unspoken core beliefs, attitudes, values, ethical standards, and dispositions of another individual. It's basically “reading between the lines” and psychologically evaluating others or “sizing them up,” thereby determining whether there is potential for a connection or an aversion to the individual they assess.

---

Clarification: This thread is intended to be about Fi in general, especially in 4D and valued (not demonstrative).
If it derails with other dimensionality a bit here and there, that's fine.

The way vulnerability ties in with Fi Base sometimes can be pretty weird, but interesting. If looking from the outside in, one may seem pretty trusting of others. Perhaps, in some cases, they are. Truth be told, I'm not so much trusting of others as much as I am trusting of my ability to size them up. In my life I have no toxic, unhealthy relationships, and those who are really don't even get half of a chance with me unless I'm only playing a therapist role to help them grow. I surround myself with healthy people, while allocating the time and resources I can spare to helping those who are well-meaning but unhealthy. (Obviously that entails maintaining the necessary boundaries.) Overall, I'm happy, and I enjoy the relationships in my life. Understanding the inner workings of humans is a form of self-protection. I tend to see the majority of people as naive — not based upon assumptions, which is evident by the fact that most people realize things through experience later.

Other Fi Bases — do you think you tend to see things coming sooner, and are able to avoid unhealthy relationships more often, than low D Fi types?

Maybe this is just too much life experience or being generally healthy rather than just Fi, I don't know. Healthier people don't tend to accept the toxic behaviors of other people into their lives. In order to attract healthy people, you have to be healthy yourself. Thus, why it's important to work on yourself before getting into relationships with others.

I think it is more like an alarm that is inside you or maybe a compass that tells you what your heart wants kind of like jacks compass. maybe that is the difference between isfp and infp where i make everything apart of my self including people and objects where I have a parasocial relation with my clothes and phone and have them inside me as well as on the outside

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

Other Fi Bases — do you think you tend to see things coming sooner, and are able to avoid unhealthy relationships more often, than low D Fi types?

---

I chronically assume the best in people/assume the least bad intentions, so I do have moments where it's like, huh, i feel a bit silly-- how did I not see that coming sooner? But I don't tend to have the realization too late along the course of things. Also, I'm able to totally mentally re-orient myself very quickly, making me quite flexible and adaptable in relational situations, so I don't really think it's a big deal that I assume the best.

As for the avoidance of unhealthy relationships -- I think this probably has more to do with nurture than nature.

I love the vulnerability of PoLR Fi, but obviously they don't, so they build up walls and barricades, but I'm in turn good at breaking them down, and I kind of love having that little ability =)

My Fi manifests as oversensitivity, being overly considerate of others, constantly feeling guilty about benign things and ruminating over how I’ve been wronged by someone but nonetheless putting up with it because I need the paycheck or think their rude behavior was justified on some level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaddling

I think it is more like an alarm that is inside you or maybe a compass that tells you what your heart wants kind of like jacks compass. maybe that is the difference between isfp and infp where i make everything apart of my self including people and objects where I have a parasocial relation with my clothes and phone and have them inside me as well as on the outside

---

This sounds more like Enneagram 4, which I don't relate to whatsoever. I don't relate to MBTI (Herald Grant) Cognitive Function Fi, either. Take a look at the OP, I have edited in an excerpt about Socionics Fi to clarify. How do you relate to this definition of Fi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averroes

My Fi manifests as oversensitivity, being overly considerate of others, constantly feeling guilty about benign things and ruminating over how I’ve been wronged by someone but nonetheless putting up with it because I need the paycheck or think their rude behavior was justified on some level

---

I'm not saying it doesn't, but how does this tie in with the OP definition I just now added?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chocolatte

As for the avoidance of unhealthy relationships -- I think this probably has more to do with nurture than nature.

---

I do agree with this, but seeing as how Fi entails a lot of focus on human dynamics, it should also mean Fi Base/4D Fi tends to end up less naive. At least, in theory.

Quote:

---

I love the vulnerability of PoLR Fi, but obviously they don't, so they build up walls and barricades, but I'm in turn good at breaking them down, and I kind of love having that little ability =)

---

Vulnerability? Hmm, that isn't quite how I have experienced interactions with Fi PoLR. They more or less appear elusive and walled up, difficult to truly communicate with on a more intimate and personal level. They tend to avoid discussing their personal feelings or more intimate thoughts, and try to maintain a sense of invulnerability. If conversations such as these are initiated by someone, the overall atmosphere of the interaction becomes either seems stale and awkward, or they deflect from it, etc. If they use deflection, it can sometimes be used at times that make them come off as "insensitive." For example, if you crossed a line into more intimate territory of talking about how you feel, some Fi PoLR individuals might deflect with humor, thus not appearing to care.

Can you elaborate on why/how you perceive Fi PoLR as vulnerability? Perhaps I'm merely seeing things from a different angle than you, or maybe things work differently with Fi PoLRs and IEIs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

I do agree with this, but seeing as how Fi entails a lot of focus on human dynamics, it should also mean Fi Base/4D Fi tends to end up less naive. At least, in theory.

---

I have to disagree, Fi polr's aren't more likely to end up in toxic relationships, being aware of your relationships between people or not doesn't change how people who are already comfortable in toxic relationships tend to stay there simply because it's easier for them to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baqer

I have to disagree, Fi polr's aren't more likely to end up in toxic relationships, being aware of your relationships between people or not doesn't change how people who are already comfortable in toxic relationships tend to stay there simply because it's easier for them to understand.

---

What?

I was talking about prevention, not cure. I guess that wasn't as clear as I thought it was. What are your thoughts on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

What?

I was talking about prevention, not cure. I guess that wasn't as clear as I thought it was. What are your thoughts on that?

---

Well I'd say the same thing for prevention. Being an Fi dom doesn't make you more resistant to being sucked into toxic relationships, other things do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baqer

Well I'd say the same thing for prevention. Being an Fi dom doesn't make you more resistant to being sucked into toxic relationships, other things do.

---

Why? Trying to understand your reasoning, as I have read sources that claim 1D Fi types can be bad at judging character but don't necessarily agree.

You'll see some Fi types being family therapists and such (crap ton of IEE's).
So, afaik there is this focus away from the self as it is should be when we talk about the ego. This should not be the point of self preservation which might align more with demonstrative.

Fi is a J function that judges external activities according to the person’s own moral compass. For example, my coworker broke up with a man who I judge to be terrible example of a father and husband because he is willing to jump from woman to woman in search of a sugar momma. He is not honest and doesn’t put the emotional security of his kids first. My morals are “do right by your kids first and by the person willing to stick their neck out to secure a stable family relationship “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

Why? Trying to understand your reasoning, as I have read sources that claim 1D Fi types can be bad at judging character but don't necessarily agree.

---

Judging people's characters doesn't seem to be unusually hard for me. It's associated with an awareness that I wouldn't put under Fi. I'd say what Fi polr really is is being uncomfortable while being aware and trying to figure out relationships between yourself and other people. All the complications that arise when trying to figure out your relationship with another person is a pain in the ass, the only thing that Fi polr's really can understand are the Te labels of relationships. Like "I am your friend, so I do this". But this doesn't make Fi polrs any more susceptible to toxic relationships, hell you could even claim that it'd make them more resistant to toxic relationships, since they try to stay away from actually building relationships with people since they like to consider the complex web of friendships and enemies that Fi deals with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoRandomBSGenerator

You'll see some Fi types being family therapists and such (crap ton of IEE's).
So, afaik there is this focus away from the self as it is should be when we talk about the ego. This should not be the point of self preservation which might align more with demonstrative.

---

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that self-preservation pertains more to demonstrative than base?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beautiful sky

Fi is a J function that judges external activities according to the person’s own moral compass. For example, my coworker broke up with a man who I judge to be terrible example of a father and husband because he is willing to jump from woman to woman in search of a sugar momma. He is not honest and doesn’t put the emotional security of his kids first. My morals are “do right by your kids first and by the person willing to stick their neck out to secure a stable family relationship “

---

I mean, isn't that just basic common sense and decency, and having your priorities in order? Why would it make any logical sense to do it any other way? Sure, it's 'selfish' to seek that sort of lifestyle rather than prioritizing your kids, so I understand why it can be seen in an ethical light. It's also just the most (objectively) logical mode of operation, though. In this context, what I mean by 'objective,' is that one 'zooms out' to see the overall big picture and detaches from one's own subjective preferences and desires, in order to understand what the best course of action is without regard for what one's biases cause them to wish to do. You could see the humans (including yourself — meaning, you do not regard your own subjective factors as anything higher than others') as no more than objects or chess pieces; still, you'd arrive to the same conclusion if your end goal is “the best possible course of action in this situation, according to what yields the healthiest results for everyone.” When you don't add personal emotions to the equation, you still come up with the same “ethical” result. The question in my mind is…if anything, is it not personal ethics based, and emotionally based, for them to make a choice other than that? It's based on what he values for himself, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baqer

Judging people's characters doesn't seem to be unusually hard for me. It's associated with an awareness that I wouldn't put under Fi. I'd say what Fi polr really is is being uncomfortable while being aware and trying to figure out relationships between yourself and other people. All the complications that arise when trying to figure out your relationship with another person is a pain in the ass, the only thing that Fi polr's really can understand are the Te labels of relationships. Like "I am your friend, so I do this". But this doesn't make Fi polrs any more susceptible to toxic relationships, hell you could even claim that it'd make them more resistant to toxic relationships, since they try to stay away from actually building relationships with people since they like to consider the complex web of friendships and enemies that Fi deals with.

---

Can you indulge me for a moment and respond to this? My reason for asking is related to this discussion. (I don't disagree with you, btw, I'm just trying to gather information to consider before I say something else)

FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE
Your significant other just ended your 2 year relationship quite suddenly and with no apparent explanation. Up until this point you had both been talking about marriage and last week you even went to look at rings together. Now he/she won't even return your phone calls or texts. After talking with his/her family you find out that he/she has just been diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer.


1) Describe how this scenario would make you feel as well as what sort of influences and motivations lie behind those feelings. Why do you feel the way you do?


2) In this scenario what would you honestly say the primary focus of your feelings would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

Can you indulge me for a moment and respond to this? My reason for asking is related to this discussion. (I don't disagree with you, btw, I'm just trying to gather information to consider before I say something else)

FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE
Your significant other just ended your 2 year relationship quite suddenly and with no apparent explanation. Up until this point you had both been talking about marriage and last week you even went to look at rings together. Now he/she won't even return your phone calls or texts. After talking with his/her family you find out that he/she has just been diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer.


1) Describe how this scenario would make you feel as well as what sort of influences and motivations lie behind those feelings. Why do you feel the way you do?


2) In this scenario what would you honestly say the primary focus of your feelings would be?

---

1. A feeling of "Ah fuck", a kind of disappointment with the whole ordeal. A disappointment arisen from having this thing that I've built suddenly broken up. I've managed to find someone who I enjoy being with, and now suddenly I'm back at stage one. Although I will not, I haven't been in a relationship yet, let alone one which I think I'd feel comfortable marrying the person on, so I really have no idea what feeling of connection and loss that I'd have, or how long it'd take to develop. Maybe, 2 years in and confident enough to marry the other person, there would be some love there that would end up feeling like I lost something. Or maybe not. I don't know.
2. Well, depends, if it were the same as all my friendships/other relations with people, then I'd be focused on trying to regain a lost asset and time waster. If not, then it'd depend on if the feeling of love/connection with the other person was strong enough to overpower it. As i've said before, idk just what extent I can feel proper love/connection with someone since I've never done it before. The farthest I've ever got is a close friendship with an IEI, farther than that I really can't tell you for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that self-preservation pertains more to demonstrative than base?

---

Afaik, SEI's seem to own Fi in that respect. Collection of relations [Ne support].
IEI's seem to be quite depended in their selected relations [Se support].

There is this draw towards suggestive.

FWIW EII v ESI base Fi are pretty different IRL. So are ILE and SLE Fi PoLR, so I'll comment

I haven't had this exact situation, but a few close

1) In these situations I feel resignation at first (2nd the "Ah Fuck"), then a mix of urgency, excitement (from the urgency), and vigilance. Its more of a reflex protector instinct than based on influences or motives. You might attribute influence/motive to the protector instinct itself though. Anyway, its the same response for everyone, just way more intense for someone who is "mine". For someone more distant, I might just feel resignation. If she is the type I understand well, then I feel determination to make her remaining time special. If I don't understand her well, then I feel uncertainty, lost, and futility.

2) My focus is on the other person's spirits. My own feeling is nothingness (emptiness, drained), finality. If the person has a good relationship with death, then I just feel acceptance and peace. My primary focus would not be my feelings, how I feel about it, or the relationship. Its not like a wasted investment, for me, its like absence of something that should be present. Like a half-moved out apartment with bare walls and too much empty space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoRandomBSGenerator

Afaik, SEI's seem to own Fi in that respect. Collection of relations [Ne support].
IEI's seem to be quite depended in their selected relations [Se support].

There is this draw towards suggestive.

---

Why wouldn't someone be drawn toward utilizing their base IE for self-preservation? Isn't that kind of like being right-handed but wielding a weapon with your left? Why wouldn't you use what you are best with and most comfortable with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Fire

I mean, isn't that just basic common sense and decency, and having your priorities in order? Why would it make any logical sense to do it any other way? Sure, it's 'selfish' to seek that sort of lifestyle rather than prioritizing your kids, so I understand why it can be seen in an ethical light. It's also just the most (objectively) logical mode of operation, though. In this context, what I mean by 'objective,' is that one 'zooms out' to see the overall big picture and detaches from one's own subjective preferences and desires, in order to understand what the best course of action is without regard for what one's biases cause them to wish to do. You could see the humans (including yourself — meaning, you do not regard your own subjective factors as anything higher than others') as no more than objects or chess pieces; still, you'd arrive to the same conclusion if your end goal is “the best possible course of action in this situation, according to what yields the healthiest results for everyone.” When you don't add personal emotions to the equation, you still come up with the same “ethical” result. The question in my mind is…if anything, is it not personal ethics based, and emotionally based, for them to make a choice other than that? It's based on what he values for himself, is it not?

---

To one who follows or sees the same morals what I said seems logical and natural. Maybe not to someone else who sees more moral aspects and reads into it further that they would raise issues with the character judgements I made

So, basically, Introverted Ethics deals with the relation of people in the realm of interpersonal relationship. When it's 4D if we were to follow the dimensionality aspect, it'd be Ex + Nr + St + T, in which means, they have a very dense opinion about what they consider as "good" or "bad" according to the certain relationship that they've faced while also understood that not every facet that people do have in a society reflect the actual facet of person in general, and that's how Fi + Fe decipher a person as a portrayal of attachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Why wouldn't someone be drawn toward utilizing their base IE for self-preservation? Isn't that kind of like being right-handed but wielding a weapon with your left? Why wouldn't you use what you are best with and most comfortable with?

---

Isn't it the tool for exploration? Being brave and stuff.

It's been said via that Expat article that Fe reads between the lines but I think Fi helps 'read between the lines' when thought of as connected to Te because Te in-a-vacuum is so goddamn awful about reading between the lines of anything- it is so hyperliteral and objective etc that Fi helps balance this weakness that Te has. So Fe/Ti still 'reads between the lines' better as a whole but Fi can help balance/smooth that out with Te. That's how I understood what you meant.

The first part of what you said- it's easy to say those things from the comfortable intellectual distance of one's own computer but in reality sometimes you meet somebody and just want to repeatedly punch them in the face because you dislike them so much. It's not really about right or wrong- but I think this is a Fi thing- you are just so repulsed by them so much you must annihiliate their existance because it cannot bind with your own - and you either care about it or it's so strong that you can't really ignore it - or both. Me and another IEI male talk about this a lot lol how sometimes you just meet somebody you want to punch in their face and you might not know why or explain it logically- that can be Fi.

That is all about one’s own attitude about people and their actions which is the essence of Fi, aka judgements; these judgements change with experience

Fe to me is more about having good relationship and putting aside ones attitudes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beautiful sky

Fe to me is more about having good relationship and putting aside ones attitudes

---

Yes, the attitude, or values comes from what's socially desirable. They have attitude, but it is a social attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shazaam

It's been said via that Expat article that Fe reads between the lines but I think Fi helps 'read between the lines' when thought of as connected to Te because Te in-a-vacuum is so goddamn awful about reading between the lines of anything- it is so hyperliteral and objective etc that Fi helps balance this weakness that Te has. So Fe/Ti still 'reads between the lines' better as a whole but Fi can help balance/smooth that out with Te. That's how I understood what you meant.

The first part of what you said- it's easy to say those things from the comfortable intellectual distance of one's own computer but in reality sometimes you meet somebody and just want to repeatedly punch them in the face because you dislike them so much. It's not really about right or wrong- but I think this is a Fi thing- you are just so repulsed by them so much you must annihiliate their existance because it cannot bind with your own - and you either care about it or it's so strong that you can't really ignore it - or both. Me and another IEI male talk about this a lot lol how sometimes you just meet somebody you want to punch in their face and you might not know why or explain it logically- that can be Fi.

---

That may be the case with your Fi. When I dislike someone I quickly Identify what I saw, or heard, or what they did, whether or not it's a habit, and how It relates to me. Emphasis on "how It relates to me" because at the end of the day that's the staple of Fi. If you can't pinpoint why the thing another person did is intolerable in your eyes, when it comes to your person, not external rules or other markers, then I struggle to see how that's Fi.

Of course you can't just go by what your emotions tell you the very second you meet someone In order to do that. First impressions don't really account for much with me, and me being Se base might have something to do with that. That being said a random emotive pang based upon first impression seems more like an Fe thing.

Quote:

---

Of course you can't just go by what your emotions tell you the very second you meet someone In order to do that.

---

Nah of course not- this type of thing also is something that happens naturally with time (Ni)

Anyway it fits the definition of Fi because it's about a strong repulsion so it's not really just 'my' Fi =p.

Quote:

---

If you can't pinpoint why the thing another person did is intolerable in your eyes, when it comes to your person, not external rules or other markers, then I struggle to see how that's Fi.

---

I can pin point it rather easily - but I don't really mentally masturbate over the reason like other people do probably because I don't value Fi and Fe naturally looks more for the common ground anyway. I pay more attention to the primal emotion. Paying extra attention to it is asking me to strain over something I don't really value anyway.

Well, you did say earlier that you sometimes don't know why you wanna punch someone upon first meeting them, and then you said that specifically could be Fi, which is why I made my point about your own Fi maybe not making the association between the repulsion and a reason right away, but Fi in a higher priority slot would.

All in all it sounds like we might be on the same page though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CptLandhawk

That may be the case with your Fi. When I dislike someone I quickly Identify what I saw, or heard, or what they did, whether or not it's a habit, and how It relates to me. Emphasis on "how It relates to me" because at the end of the day that's the staple of Fi. If you can't pinpoint why the thing another person did is intolerable in your eyes, when it comes to your person, not external rules or other markers, then I struggle to see how that's Fi.

---

It's actually the opposite imo. Fi just lets you know how you value something, but not why. The basis for Fi is the inner psychic framework, but the person himself is not aware of this. The feeling just develops deeper and gives a rock solid attitude (as a base function). You need an analytical T type to analyze why.

Introverted functions are not personal. This has been brought up before. They are linked to the unconscious psyche. For example Ni is not personal intuitions, but rather impersonal symbolic perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baqer

1. A feeling of "Ah fuck", a kind of disappointment with the whole ordeal. A disappointment arisen from having this thing that I've built suddenly broken up. I've managed to find someone who I enjoy being with, and now suddenly I'm back at stage one. Although I will not, I haven't been in a relationship yet, let alone one which I think I'd feel comfortable marrying the person on, so I really have no idea what feeling of connection and loss that I'd have, or how long it'd take to develop. Maybe, 2 years in and confident enough to marry the other person, there would be some love there that would end up feeling like I lost something. Or maybe not. I don't know.
2. Well, depends, if it were the same as all my friendships/other relations with people, then I'd be focused on trying to regain a lost asset and time waster. If not, then it'd depend on if the feeling of love/connection with the other person was strong enough to overpower it. As i've said before, idk just what extent I can feel proper love/connection with someone since I've never done it before. The farthest I've ever got is a close friendship with an IEI, farther than that I really can't tell you for sure.

---

I wasn't expecting you to respond that you don't have relationship experience, that sort of messed up what I was trying to go for. Uhhh...well, it'll be more difficult to explain now, but the TLDR version is that in theory, if someone sees into the relationship dynamics more easily, wouldn't they probably be able to pick up on things earlier on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baqer

Well I'd say the same thing for prevention. Being an Fi dom doesn't make you more resistant to being sucked into toxic relationships, other things do.

---

I'd say in some cases it can even increase your likelihood of getting sucked into toxic relationships

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PinKDiGiT18

I'd say in some cases it can even increase your likelihood of getting sucked into toxic relationships

---

Howso?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

I do agree with this, but seeing as how Fi entails a lot of focus on human dynamics, it should also mean Fi Base/4D Fi tends to end up less naive. At least, in theory.

---

In some ways yes, but i don't know.. based on experience, Fi bases tend be naive and vulnerable towards unhealthy relationships in their own ways.

Quote:

---

Vulnerability? Hmm, that isn't quite how I have experienced interactions with Fi PoLR. They more or less appear elusive and walled up, difficult to truly communicate with on a more intimate and personal level. They tend to avoid discussing their personal feelings or more intimate thoughts, and try to maintain a sense of invulnerability. If conversations such as these are initiated by someone, the overall atmosphere of the interaction becomes either seems stale and awkward, or they deflect from it, etc. If they use deflection, it can sometimes be used at times that make them come off as "insensitive." For example, if you crossed a line into more intimate territory of talking about how you feel, some Fi PoLR individuals might deflect with humor, thus not appearing to care.

Can you elaborate on why/how you perceive Fi PoLR as vulnerability? Perhaps I'm merely seeing things from a different angle than you, or maybe things work differently with Fi PoLRs and IEIs.

---

By definition, any PoLR is a vulnerability since it's weak and painful, a sore spot. suggestive is solely weak.
Well, I think that Fi demo is best oriented towards (& you could argue, designed for,) dealing with Fi PoLR, and it makes sense that as a Fi base you would have difficulty with communicating with them on a deeper level.
xEI relate with xLE through Fe not Fi, which doesn't hit their PoLR. Also, we understand things through Ti rather than Fi, which makes it so I don't care about the fact they're weak in it. Also, as BandD says, the PoLR is like a "sexy vulnerability" to the person holding the same IE in their demo. How do you view the Si PoLR of xIE? Do you find it attractive on some level?

Yes, the humor deflection is definitely real and kinda annoying. In those cases i tend to do something like give a face and be like, "bro stop deflecting," then insist in however way i think would make them feel most comfortable.
When they act insensitive towards me, unless it's actually pretty bad or it hits a nerve, I tend to just.. not care? I usually point it out, make fun of them, crack a joke about it, return the insensitivity etc.. but as you can see this is pretty clear Fe>Fi valuing. I don't really want to deal with Fi stuff either, really. This doesn't mean that we can't communicate deeply about emotional things, though. It's just not done via a Fi filter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chocolatte

In some ways yes, but i don't know.. based on experience, Fi bases tend be naive and vulnerable towards unhealthy relationships in their own ways.

---

Can you elaborate on this? Thus far, no one who has said this has provided an explanation of their thoughts/reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chocolatte

By definition, any PoLR is a vulnerability since it's weak and painful, a sore spot. suggestive is solely weak.

---

True. I guess what I was seeing was simply the defenses protecting the vulnerability...which would not even be there if not for there being a vulnerability present to begin with. Thanks, that helped clear that up.

Quote:

---

Well, I think that Fi demo is best oriented towards (& you could argue, designed for,) dealing with Fi PoLR, and it makes sense that as a Fi base you would have difficulty with communicating with them on a deeper level.

xEI relate with xLE through Fe not Fi, which doesn't hit their PoLR. Also, we understand things through Ti rather than Fi, which makes it so I don't care about the fact they're weak in it.

---

Re: the bolded — this is exactly what I had in mind, and I'm curious as to how an xEI would experience someone's Fi PoLR in contrast to the way that I experience their Fi PoLR. Being base Fi, I'm likely going to bump into it and experience them defending their vulnerability more, as I described. I want to know what it is like for someone who is not provoking such a reaction, and why it can even seem endearing to them (it definitely doesn't to me and I want to understand what it's like in someone else's shoes). Something beyond the formulaic description you gave below; more like an example of an actual situation that happened in daily life. I prefer starting with the more concrete details and deriving my own insights/perceptions from them (and determining whether I think the formula is consistent with those actions) myself.

Quote:

---

Also, as BandD says, the PoLR is like a "sexy vulnerability" to the person holding the same IE in their demo. How do you view the Si PoLR of xIE? Do you find it attractive on some level?

---

...I can't make a generalization, as I'm pretty sure my current partner this is the only LIE I've even been with. When I think of Si PoLR in him, I guess “sexy” isn't what I would call it, but I guess it's sort of endearing to some extent. “Lol, you big dork,” kind of reaction. I like to playfully tease him about it in some ways also, but in a warm/smiling, gentle, endearing way. I suppose I find it kind of funny, lol.

Hmm...I always want to make his ass sleep more, lol. I feel like my approach to getting him to do that is something along the lines of holding up shiny warm Fi affection distraction with one hand to make him relax, while he won't notice I've low-key got "NOW SLEEP, BITCH" in the other. Lmaooo. Like Jesus, you're a human being and you need sleep so you can function properly, lol why are you like this? Smh, dork.

@Comparticularly Mental
Don't you get upset about my Ne PoLR though?

Quote:

---

Yes, the humor deflection is definitely real and kinda annoying. In those cases i tend to do something like give a face and be like, "bro stop deflecting," then insist in however way i think would make them feel most comfortable.

---

Yesss, lmao...so it annoys someone who prefers Fe, too, not just me. Interesting. I once quit contacting a friend because of not having as clear of a picture of what was going on with that as I do now, not understanding that perhaps my approach just wasn't right for them. I just thought I was hitting a wall, so I got irritated and fed up, walked away from the (platonic) relationship because it seemed impossible, thus I finally reached a point where I was just...
https://c.tenor.com/ttrkiNQX_BQAAAAC...winchester.gifhttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/11...cd93c7553a.gif

I think now...I just don't get too upset about being unable to close the distance with that person. I'm more sympathetic and understanding toward them in that department.

Quote:

---

When they act insensitive towards me, unless it's actually pretty bad or it hits a nerve, I tend to just.. not care? I usually point it out, make fun of them, crack a joke about it, return the insensitivity etc.. but as you can see this is pretty clear Fe>Fi valuing. I don't really want to deal with Fi stuff either, really. This doesn't mean that we can't communicate deeply about emotional things, though. It's just not done via a Fi filter.

---

I wonder what you specifically mean by this. I don't really see myself as sensitive, but I also know that word can be interpreted in several ways; I'm open to the consideration that we are thinking of the word in different ways and perhaps whatever one you're thinking about may be accurate. Can you clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Can you elaborate on this? Thus far, no one who has said this has provided an explanation of their thoughts/reasoning.

---

Hm.. perhaps it's a mix of idealism about people and strong loyalty.
In my observation both EII and ESI can be pretty idealistic about people. EII has that trademark introverted NF idealism whereas certain ESIs, usually younger ones and ESI-Fi, can have a simultaneously pessimistic yet optimistic hopefulness about people? Not sure how to put my finger on it..
Fi bases are also very loyal! (or at least, very steady with Fi sentiments. not sure how to phrase this. contrast it with flexible/fickle Fi demo sentiments, do you get what i mean?)
and once they're in a relationship with someone, I can imagine that it can be quite hard to leave. For ESIs, I've also seen how Ne PoLR gives them a harder time seeing how things could (and should) be different, especially if this is their first relationship or they've never known a properly healthy relationship. To me, it comes across as slight naivety/vulnerability since a lot of the idealism can come from Fi base paired with Ni HA. But unlike with EIIs, Ni is only 2D which means Ne is 1D. This is where the strong Se reality assessment should kick in, but especially in the case with female ESIs, I think society can make them suppress their Se.

I agree, I've always contributed my lack of bad experiences to luck, seeing as I've been in many situations where I easily could have found myself in danger. But I've steered away from certain people using my intuition, and I usually warn others around me about people who's giving me a bad wibe. I see romantic relationships between people go sideways, but somehow I see a lot more potential in my own.. Lol

I don’t know if this belongs here, but there is something that I as an Fi base distinctly notice about most Fi PoLRs - and it is an almost compulsive need to “get even.” If they feel hurt or slighted, they will respond by trying to equalize forces or establish dominance over the situation, regardless of how they do it (making disparaging remarks and spreading rumors, interfering in affairs they had no previous interest in in order to affect the person who offended them). They will never directly address how a situation is making them feel, but will respond to it through maneuvering tactics (I’m guessing with the aim of readjusting the Ti-Fe social positioning?).

When I try to apologize to an Fi PoLR after noticing they are upset, they look at me like a bird just pooped on their head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PinKDiGiT18

I don’t know if this belongs here, but there is something that I as an Fi base distinctly notice about most Fi PoLRs - and it is an almost compulsive need to “get even.” If they feel hurt or slighted, they will respond by trying to equalize forces or establish dominance over the situation, regardless of how they do it (making disparaging remarks and spreading rumors, interfering in affairs they had no previous interest in in order to affect the person who offended them). They will never directly address how a situation is making them feel, but will respond to it through maneuvering tactics (I’m guessing with the aim of readjusting the Ti-Fe social positioning?).

---

I have noticed Fi PoLRs will be reluctant to personalize what's hurting them and keep using guise of "logic" to show that what hurt them is simply illogical or factually incorrect not emotionally hurtful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PinKDiGiT18

I don’t know if this belongs here, but there is something that I as an Fi base distinctly notice about most Fi PoLRs - and it is an almost compulsive need to “get even.” If they feel hurt or slighted, they will respond by trying to equalize forces or establish dominance over the situation, regardless of how they do it (making disparaging remarks and spreading rumors, interfering in affairs they had no previous interest in in order to affect the person who offended them). They will never directly address how a situation is making them feel, but will respond to it through maneuvering tactics (I’m guessing with the aim of readjusting the Ti-Fe social positioning?).

When I try to apologize to an Fi PoLR after noticing they are upset, they look at me like a bird just pooped on their head.

---

True of an ILE-Ne I know.

This thread is intended to be about Fi in general, especially in 4D (but if it's used for other dimensionality, that's fine), so I'm moving on from my first question.


I think it's interesting how Jung's version of Fi consisted of a risk of separation from connections, while Aushra's Fi consists of being pretty much revolving around relations.

Abridged from Jung:
Fi risks neglecting the outer world completely, at which point it might lose its potential for sympathy and deep personal connections. Its passion becomes morbidly egocentric and self-absorbed. It creates feelings and values for their own sake, with no bearing on reality and no capacity for expression.


It's hard not to see this as something more relevant to/overlapping with 4 than Socionics Fi.

---

EDIT:
So, basically, a highly emotionally expressive Fi user was weird, according to Jung. I can see where Aushra derived "Fe = emotive" from.

Throughout most of the MBTI community, those who aren't all that animated outwardly tend to be stereotyped as being T. I appreciate the fact that both Jung and Socionics allow room for a person to be both Feeler and placid outwardly outside of things such as art. Outwardly, Fi valuers don't tend to be noticeably emotional. I would say that at least this single aspect of Jung's definition of Fi does apply to me, and it also does overlap with Socionics. However, Jung's work explains that Fi is led by their feelings. This is not something Aushra must've fully agreed with, since Socionics strayed from said concept. Her version was that Ti is used in the rationalization behind Fi. This is why I do not relate to MBTI's Fi and became more interested in Socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eudaimonia

I have noticed Fi PoLRs will be reluctant to personalize what's hurting them and keep using guise of "logic" to show that what hurt them is simply illogical or factually incorrect not emotionally hurtful.

---

I'm not sure intellectualization (also known as 'isolation of affect') is type related. It may be in the sense that there is a higher statistical probability, I'm not sure...but I know it's not type exclusive.

Interestingly, in Big 5 it will actually relate to Openness, as there is a facet measuring willingness to experience emotions. Openness has the most correlation/overlap with N/S.

EDIT:
Of course, 9s are also rather unwilling to experience emotions, so it may be that these types are more likely to intellectualize as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

This thread is intended to be about Fi in general, especially in 4D (but if it's used for other dimensionality, that's fine), so I'm moving on from my first question.


I think it's interesting how Jung's version of Fi consisted of a risk of separation from connections, while Aushra's Fi consists of being pretty much revolving around relations.

Abridged from Jung:
Fi risks neglecting the outer world completely, at which point it might lose its potential for sympathy and deep personal connections. Its passion becomes morbidly egocentric and self-absorbed. It creates feelings and values for their own sake, with no bearing on reality and no capacity for expression.


It's hard not to see this as something more relevant to/overlapping with 4 than Socionics Fi.

---

Not that much different. You can only have good relationship with someone who share more same values with you. So Fi just remove unnecessary relationship that doesn't fit you. "a risk of separation from connections" is just Fe unvalued. Jung is Fe value so he may see that as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Not that much different. You can only have good relationship with someone who share more same values with you. So Fi just remove unnecessary relationship that doesn't fit you. "a risk of separation from connections" is just Fe unvalued. Jung is Fe value so he may see that as a bad thing.

---

That's actually not true. It's fine for others to be different. It makes it easier, not possible. Research it.

Besides, that doesn't pertain to what was being said by Jung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

That's actually not true. It's fine for others to be different. It makes it easier, not possible. Research it.

---

Ofcourse it fine with different, but you gonna hang around much with someone don't share any interests with you? Accept that you and someone are different and spending less time to piss each other off is good for relationship though, and it need the serious straightforward of Fi to make the boundary clear - which also risky than Fe. (from Fe pov Fi look serious)

"It creates feelings and values " - rational here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Ofcourse it fine with different, but you gonna hang around much with someone don't share any interests with you? Accept that you and someone are different and spending less time to piss each other off is good for relationship though, and it need the serious straightforward of Fi - which also risky than Fe. (from Fe pov Fi look serious)

"It creates feelings and values " - rational here.

---

I mean...the fact that having shared values makes it easier is true for literally all relationships, not Fi solely. It doesn't matter whether you are Fi Base, Fe Base, or Te Base, it still applies.

What Jung was saying was also that Fi runs the risk of becoming disconnected from reality and relationships due to a lack of expression (Fe) and being too internalized; basically, Fi being overused and imbalanced (imagine Fi & Fe as a dichotomy). That has nothing to do with sharing values with other people, lol. Jung was an advocate of balance in all of these things, it was his pattern. His ideal was for people to work toward such a balance (rather than looking to a dual for balance like Aushra had in mind).

Gamma Fi and Delta Fi seem really different. Delta seem care about the reason behind someone's action more. This could be a thing between Se - Ne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

I mean...the fact that having shared values makes it easier is true for literally all relationships, not Fi solely. It doesn't matter whether you are Fi Base, Fe Base, or Te Base, it still applies.

What Jung was saying was also that Fi runs the risk of becoming disconnected from reality and relationships due to a lack of expression (Fe) and being too internalized; basically, Fi being overused and imbalanced (imagine Fi & Fe as a dichotomy). That has nothing to do with sharing values with other people, lol. Jung was an advocate of balance in all of these things, it was his pattern. His ideal was for people to work toward such a balance (rather than looking to a dual for balance like Aushra had in mind).

---

Ok, I misunderstood lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarnished

Gamma Fi and Delta Fi seem really different. Delta seem care about the reason behind someone's action more. This could be a thing between Se - Ne.

---

Hmm, why do you think so?

Based on my own experiences, I have to say my current stance toward this is to disagree. If anything, I tend to do "math" with human behaviors, but can at times be too hasty to conclude without considering alternatives (especially if I feel emotional about the topic so that I do not remain quite as patient, receptive, and open-minded.) A concrete example: a partner breaks up with me over an incompatibility issue, but in my eyes they didn't put forth enough effort to resolve it. They did not "fight hard enough" for the relationship (according to my own standards). I perceive myself as having more willpower, determination, and force behind my efforts to maintain the relationship (Fi-Se). I love very passionately, and at times it can feel one-sided if I don't think my partner's passion is in a range that's similar to my own. Thus, the conclusion about the reason behind their actions would be, "You didn't actually love me. (If you did, you wouldn't have given up so easily.)" Later, would realize this is black and white thinking, and that there is some grey area: they loved, but perhaps just not as intensely as I wanted/needed/expected. I'm highly attuned to the reasons people do what they do.

With that said - change my mind, if you disagree. I am willing to listen and consider a view outside of my own. Maybe you were thinking of something else. Everything is relative to comparison, too, after all. Also, I'm one person, and people do deviate from the archetypes in various ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Hmm, why do you think so?

Based on my own experiences, I have to say my current stance toward this is to disagree. If anything, I tend to do "math" with human behaviors, but can at times be too hasty to conclude without considering alternatives (especially if I feel emotional about the topic so that I do not remain quite as patient, receptive, and open-minded.) A concrete example: a partner breaks up with me over an incompatibility issue, but in my eyes they didn't put forth enough effort to resolve it. They did not "fight hard enough" for the relationship (according to my own standards). I perceive myself as having more willpower, determination, and force behind my efforts to maintain the relationship (Fi-Se). I love very passionately, and at times it can feel one-sided if I don't think my partner's passion is in a range that's similar to my own. Thus, the conclusion about the reason behind their actions would be, "You didn't actually love me. (If you did, you wouldn't have given up so easily.)" Later, would realize this is black and white thinking, and that there is some grey area: they loved, but perhaps just not as intensely as I wanted/needed/expected. I'm highly attuned to the reasons people do what they do.

With that said - change my mind, if you disagree. I am willing to listen and consider a view outside of my own. Maybe you were thinking of something else. Everything is relative to comparison, too, after all. Also, I'm one person, and people do deviate from the archetypes in various ways.

---

I actually think about something else. Like: you cast a bad guy for whatever reason/ story, Gamma SF seem to make their mind very quick what to do with the guy/ make him pay for what he has done.... but the Delta NF may try to understand more about the guy's reason, backstory bla bla. And for the Gamma SF whatever reason won't change what the bad guy is....

Just my observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarnished

I actually think about something else. Like: you cast a bad guy for whatever reason/ story, Gamma SF seem to make their mind very quick what to do with the guy/ make him pay for what he has done.... but the Delta NF may try to understand more about the guy's reason, backstory bla bla. And for the Gamma SF whatever reason won't change what the bad guy is....

Just my observation.

---

I see. I guess that aligns with archetypal gamma values, if I recall correctly (less inclined to believe people change).

I'm not a writer, but I enjoy character creation. Since stereotyping and overgeneralizing conflicts with my values, I like to make very "outside of the box" characters that don't match tropes, yet still depict realistic personalities. For example, I might make a nerdy guy who doesn't wear glasses (what does poor eyesight have to do with intelligence?) and is generally attractive and desirable to potential partners, but rejects them because of his focus on work. I hate the objectification of women, so I might make my female characters less sexualized; I might even deliberately do some gender role reversal that would make guys "uncomfortable" just to drive a point home about objectification by placing the audience in those shoes they aren't usually in. (I'd then resolve this, though, I wouldn't leave it that way.)

I'm guessing it can sometimes be pretty difficult to type based on writing, when that writing contains a lot of personal values. The "outside of the box" character creation, for example, could be mistaken for Ne (exploring new possibilities) rather than Fi (values consisting of hating stereotypes). All you see in someone's writings is the "what" and you don't normally get to see the "why," which makes it challenging to understand why exactly what you're seeing is there (such as whether it's for the purpose of exploring new possibilities for the hell of it, or whether it's because of the author's values causing them to hate putting people into such narrow boxes/categories rather than recognizing the individual *coughgammacough*).

Alright, upon reading this thread I’m pretty sure that my Fi is 1D, or 2D at best.

The way that ExI and xEE have good control and depth within the Introverted Feeling function, and can analyse and possibly manipulate situations and have strong values is not how I function.

The higher the dimensions go up, the more detailed the function usage gets. It’s automatic.

When I have to use Fi, it’s not really conscious for me to be honest. I overthink it. It’s kinda stressful to think about relations and how to maintain them. On what to say to people and keep good relations.

On a surface level, I might “look” adept but I have no idea what I’m doing in relations. I usually end them in bad faith. Or something happens, and I have no clue what’s going on.

It’s kinda strange to me, and hard for me to understand how people can be so adept at the ethics of relations but I understand why and how it can be beneficial at times myself. It’s not really something I automatically use. It’s something that I have to make myself use as a last resort.

Sure, being friendly is one thing but actually having friends and maintaining them is another difficult matter you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEAD

Alright, upon reading this thread I’m pretty sure that my Fi is 1D, or 2D at best.

The way that ExI and xEE have good control and depth within the Introverted Feeling function, and can analyse and possibly manipulate situations and have strong values is not how I function.

The higher the dimensions go up, the more detailed the function usage gets. It’s automatic.

When I have to use Fi, it’s not really conscious for me to be honest. I overthink it. It’s kinda stressful to think about relations and how to maintain them. On what to say to people and keep good relations.

On a surface level, I might “look” adept but I have no idea what I’m doing in relations. I usually end them in bad faith. Or something happens, and I have no clue what’s going on.

It’s kinda strange to me, and hard for me to understand how people can be so adept at the ethics of relations but I understand why and how it can be beneficial at times myself. It’s not really something I automatically use. It’s something that I have to make myself use as a last resort.

Sure, being friendly is one thing but actually having friends and maintaining them is another difficult matter you know?

---

Extremes in this are sometimes caused by too much exposure to toxic people (parents, etc.)
Toxic behaviors, such as emotional abuse and manipulation, can become so normalized that one doesn't realize they're even doing it; or take it as seriously as they should, when they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Extremes in this are sometimes caused by too much exposure to toxic people (parents, etc.)
Toxic behaviors, such as emotional abuse and manipulation, can become so normalized that one doesn't realize they're even doing it; or take it as seriously as they should, when they do.

---

Yeah, true. Upbringing can play a role in it, a lot. My parents were alright, but they weren't really Fi types (strong Fi types, that is). It's never really been my territory. Instead, I try and rationalise and make sense of things. When toxicity becomes normalised, it becomes the new standard and people don't really know better until they are exposed to actual, real relations that are healthy. Their perception changes, but I've always been a bit wary of other people, getting close to them and having actual relations. I've always "analyse" them objectivly from afar, not intimately. Make judgements based on that, and not our relations and character traits. And how I relate to them. You know? It's hard to actually do that on an intimate, detailed level.