Originally Posted by
Meeeeeeeeeeee
Hmm.. I've thought quite a bit about this before actually. I think the way I see Fi in general is...it's almost like an accumulation of Fe states in a way...I'm trying to think of a way to compare it to Ti. I suppose in some ways, Ti is like a system that's built up of and built around pieces of Te information, which is then (eventually) refined into a complete To system. At least, I think that's how I understand it anyway. But either way I think it's a similar sort of concept with Fi. Just like Ti can go a long way with only small amounts of Te (because it becomes static as it were) I think Fi does the same. And so, it's like a balancing act...well, not a balancing act in that sense, but it's like a pair of scales. Imagine on one scale you have positive and on the other you have negative. And how you feel about someone is like an accumulation of the weights in either scale and whichever scale is the heaviest is the one that Fi leans towards, if you see what I mean. I think one stereotype of Fi, or at least how I perceive it, is that if you do the slightest thing to offend an Fi-ego, or Fi-valuer, they'll hate you for the rest of their life. Obviously it's an exaggeration, but you see where I'm getting at. But the way I see Fi working is that, if the positives still outweight the negatives, then the negatives will be forgiven. If, on the other hand, the negatives are severe enough to outweight the positives, that's when Fi starts to turn nasty. But it's not just a binary switch of nice or nasty, but rather a more continuous scale. If the negatives outweight the positives, but only slightly, then the object of the Fi-valuer's attention might be disliked a little bit. If, on the other hand, the negatives outweight the positives very severely, then the Fi-valuer would be much less likely to forgive the object in question and would have a much stronger dislike or even hatred for it. But I think people like Expat tend to over-emphasise the negative side of Fi. And the vindictiveness comes from having Se in the same block as Fi, but only when Fi is negative enough to warrant it. I think Se essentially boils down to taking action in this regard, and so if the Fi is negative, then the Se will need to take action to resolve it. Whether resolving means negotiating with the offending party or destroying them (so to speak) varies depending on the individual and the circumstances. I remember some time ago I was thinking about my tendency to hold grudges against people who have wronged me in some way (again, resulting in the negatives outweighing the positives) and why I seem to dwell on them so much. And it occurred to me that, with Fi and Se in the super-id, I can only let go of a grudge when there's been action taken to resolve it. The action could be anything from making amends to getting revenge. As long as the action is appropriate for the issue, then the grudge is resolved and forgotten about. So I suppose in conclusion, while there is indeed a vindictive aspect to Gamma Fi, it's only one of many aspects of it; albeit quite an extreme aspect. And it's possibly also why people didn't really refute the vindictive aspect of it, because it is a part of it, but not the whole picture. If a positive Fi bond is strong enough, it can even go to the extent of self-sacrificing in order to help someone rather than to harm them, if the individual Fi-valuer feels that that person "deserves it". Which really just means if their Fi criteria approve of it, then they can take the relevant Se action. And I think this is where the loyalty aspect comes into it. It doesn't mean to say that Fi-valuers are automatically loyal or that Ti-valuers aren't loyal, since that in itself can be down to individual personality traits. But I think for people who are loyal, who/what they are loyal to depends on which value system they align themselves with, i.e. Fi or Ti. If a Fi-valuer is loyal to something Ti-related, it's because their Fi allows it. If a Ti-valuer is loyal to something Fi-related, it's because their Ti allows it. Or at least that's how I understand it.