Differences between Fi and Fe: Your Interpretation

[Clumsy]

Um, well....I find that I'm just not good at explaining things, personally. I do tend to be very vague, and I get bored when people go on and on about the details of a situation when the general situation is what is important.
I may not be specific because I find that it's not important. I am only specific enough to describe the time in relation to other events...to give a general gist of the situation in how it affects other things that have happened since then, or something...and the actual situation. But I never get too detailed. I wish I could tell you why I am not specific though. :/

I do get sorta..bored..when people go on an on about the details if they are unimportant.
I don't mind being asked to clarify, but I will often not be sure what else to include...if that makes sense.

Thanks for the reply, fenryrr. So it's more about the general idea of the situation that you want to convey?

Maybe Fi/Ne types are just better at filling in these details on their own when others tell them stories (so they naturally don't feel the need to provide as much detail themselves)? Or perhaps the details really just do not matter in the grand scheme of the situation... what matters more is the way you feel (Fi) towards the situation and connect it to other things in time, as you said?

I've noticed IEI's will sometimes give a lot of detail when explaining things (at times to the point of being unnecessary), but they usually do this because they feel they need to include this amount of detail in the story in order for it to make sense to others. It's almost like they want to recreate the experience as honestly as possible, so that their listeners can see the full picture of it.

Anyone else have insights into this?

[krieger]

i think Fe is qualitative detail... but since qualitative distinctions are very subtle i think this tends to take on an even more "detail-ish" character.

Fi is sort of like a qualitative bottom-line or core statement, something that combines a lot of observables into one without explaining how exactly the epistemics of the process fold out. i.e. you state a qualitative fact without it's justification, as if saying "take my word on it".

qualitative means expressed in terms of adjectives. of any qualitative fact you can ask "how much so?" and get a quantitative fact as an answer.

for example:
qualitative - it is cold
how could is it?
quantitative - it is -10 degrees centigrade

F = qualitative
T = quantitative

[Beautiful sky]

Fe say that they are Christian; FeSi hedonistic - senses, going to parties etc.
Fi Live in a Christian manner (I'm not talking about flashing around your Christian card and hollier than art thou representations of Christianity; I'm talking about I don't walk around saying anything about my religion, I act in a Christian way -being warm, kind to people, being generous, caring, open hearted, giving, altruistic) ; FiNe non hedonistic

Major distinction between Fe and Fi is that Fi is not wrapped up in the beliefs of the group as Fe is because Fe is an Extraverted Ethical type; I have independent beliefs. Fe gets it's ethics, beliefs of values in terms of right and wrong, from it's society or group and sometimes struggles, has an internal conflict with that and isn't able to separate the feelings that they attach to what they want to be like from what the group wants them to be like, hence they need an independent thinker who is their dual, to tell them which things to have feelings for and not.

Take sex for FeSi; being headons, they love sex but if they are a devote Catholic, then they have an internal emotional struggle with what to do; do they stay true to their Catholic society which forbids them to have premarital sex or do they go with their hedonistic cravings? This is a question that only can sort out for them, but if it isn't sorted out, their internal thoughts with this will always be conflicted.

You might ask now, what would I do? My personal and subjective high morals are aside from my traditional Armenian Christian Orthodox religion, the same as the one dictated by the Catholic in the case of premarital sex, which is to refrain until you get married. However, sex is not an immoral thing unless it is done without an emotional component (I'm not a fan of casual sex because relationships are holy to me); my thought about what my society thinks are already sorted out, unlike that of Fe base types, and that is I COULD GIVE A DAMN WHAT THEY THINK.

Religion to me is to have love, family, to care for people. No amount of society's representation can take my personal subjective viewpoint away no matter how many members there are in a society because I'm not an extravert and my beliefs are not made on what others will think and feel about me.

[Saberstorm]

Maritsa is Armenian!!!

Cool, my best friend is Armenian. Where were you born? He was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. He then moved to Moscow as a war refugee and then to the USA.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa is Armenian!!!

Cool, my best friend is Armenian. Where were you born? He was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. He then moved to Moscow as a war refugee and then to the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armavir,_Armenia

[Saberstorm]

I go to a liberal mainline protestant church. Abortion is ok, gay sex ok, pastors can cheat on their wives. It is pretty much no-holds-barred. Except porn, they are anti-porn. Our church is huge - it is a mega church with 18,000 people. Officially, the opinion is "everything is shades of gray." The church is totally Beta. It is called the United Methodist Church.

I have to edit out my funny stuff, otherwise it will come back to haunt me.

[Saberstorm]

Now I understand Maritsa. You are Armenian. All Armenians argue like you. All this anti-Maritsa stuff can now end. She is Armenian! They are all identical to her. Really, Maritsa is very typical of Armenians!

She is not crazy, she is a foreigner!

[sarinana]

i believe thats

[Gilly]

Now I understand Maritsa. You are Armenian. All Armenians argue like you. All this anti-Maritsa stuff can now end. She is Armenian! They are all identical to her. Really, Maritsa is very typical of Armenians!

She is not crazy, she is a foreigner!

...No, I've known Armenians, and not all of them have sub-100 IQs.

[Beautiful sky]

Fe types look to doing what is right by their society because they are extraverts. Morality comes from without. Struggle when what they desire to do is against society's expectations.
Fi types look to doing what is good despite of society, because they want to be good and live up to their personal subjective moral standards. Morality comes from within. Struggle when what they want to do is against their own expectations of the "perfect" image of moral standard.

[Gilly]

Fe types look to doing what is right by their society because they are extraverts. Morality comes from without. Struggle when what they desire to do is against society's expectations.
Fi types look to doing what is good despite of society, because they want to be good and live up to their personal subjective moral standards. Morality comes from within. Struggle when what they want to do is against their own expectations of the "perfect" image of moral standard.

This is true in a way, Maritsa, but you need to understand the subtleties; if you did, you wouldn't word it like this.

Have you read Jung?

[Korpsy Knievel]

This is true in a way, Maritsa, but you need to understand the subtleties; if you did, you wouldn't word it like this.

Have you read Jung?

This is the closest she's ever come to adequately utilizing Jung's writing.

[krieger]

Fe seems to me to look at qualitative cause effect relations on a very shallow level of perception, i.e. when a certain action is performed, the person only looks at how it gets reacted to and doesn't contemplate deeply what reasons there are behind the reaction but simply keeps score of the reactions and evaluates the pragmatic expediency of action on that basis. that sort of thing does lead a person to adapt to the views of their environment a lot, but its a mistake to think that there is any identification with the views on the level of actual conviction.

[Gilly]

Fe seems to me to look at qualitative cause effect relations on a very shallow level of perception, i.e. when a certain action is performed, the person only looks at how it gets reacted to and doesn't contemplate deeply what reasons there are behind the reaction but simply keeps score of the reactions and evaluates the pragmatic expediency of action on that basis. that sort of thing does lead a person to adapt to the views of their environment a lot, but its a mistake to think that there is any identification with the views on the level of actual conviction.

This. I have a huge problem of judging people based on how they come across to me in a very immediate sense, and even when I try, I can't always shake my immediate judgment of a person, or even act in spite of it. I have a really strong "moral compass," in a way; if someone comes across to me as excessively selfish or unaware of others, there is a part of my brain that just blocks them out of my goodwill immediately. A lot of times I can get past it if I can have some exposure to the person, interact with them and kind of emotionally come up against them, feel them out more and see that they aren't "bad," or even just see something that's good or useful or promising about them. But it is a problem.

It's ironic, though; Fe PoLRs are rarely the main targets of my judgment. Typically it's Te or Fe dominants; they tend to send out the most stark "vibes" so I think it's usually more black or white with them.

[Creepy-]

I go to a liberal mainline protestant church. Abortion is ok, gay sex ok, pastors can cheat on their wives. It is pretty much no-holds-barred. Except porn, they are anti-porn. Our church is huge - it is a mega church with 18,000 people. Officially, the opinion is "everything is shades of gray." The church is totally Beta. It is called the United Methodist Church.

I have to edit out my funny stuff, otherwise it will come back to haunt me.

Contrast. "It's fine to be unfaithful in marriage, but porn and masturbation... just can't have that, can we?"

[Clumsy]

What is it like to be so in tune with those things that you like and dislike? I guess I'm just curious about what this feels like. Maybe this is a weird question to ask because I'm looking for someone to tell me what the experience is like, and Fi doesn't really operate that way.

Do you ever feel uncomfortable voicing your opinions/likes/dislikes despite it opposing with what others have said? Or... is it just the opposite? You feel very comfortable doing this?

[Creepy-female]

I would love it if we could keep this thread going. I still have so many questions about Fi.

What is it like to be so in tune with those things that you like and dislike? I guess I'm just curious about what this feels like. Maybe this is a weird question to ask because I'm looking for someone to tell me what the experience is like, and Fi doesn't really operate that way.

Do you ever feel uncomfortable voicing your opinions/likes/dislikes despite it opposing with what others have said? Or... is it just the opposite? You feel very comfortable doing this?

I want to answer your question. But every time I read it I get confused. I feel you're confused. In fact you're not so much asking a coherent question as simply putting your confusion out there. What do you want? Say it, straight up.

Your writing evokes a feeling in me. In that I understand it somewhat viscerally. I remember feeling my words were mixed up, that the question was down there somewhere, but I couldn't quite put it all together. So I would put my confusion out there. Except it's not really confusion. It's more looking for some kind of order. Or maybe a key. Like a catalyst.

But when you're looking for a catalyst, you're not necessarily leaving room for information in all its forms. If you truly want information, then sometimes you have to kind of stand back and give other people space in which to give it. I want to give you information, but every time I read your question I feel more scattered.

[Brilliand]

I think I'll try just answering what he said. Maybe that will help him to gather his thoughts...

What is it like to be so in tune with those things that you like and dislike? I guess I'm just curious about what this feels like. Maybe this is a weird question to ask because I'm looking for someone to tell me what the experience is like, and Fi doesn't really operate that way.

Do you ever feel uncomfortable voicing your opinions/likes/dislikes despite it opposing with what others have said? Or... is it just the opposite? You feel very comfortable doing this?

You know what it's like to dislike something, right? Maybe you dislike punching yourself in the face? Drinking mustard straight out of the jar? Standing on your head and singing the Barney song backwards while clicking your heels together? (You've gotta dislike one of those.) Similarly, I'm sure you can think of something that you like in the same simple way (Eating cake? Certain music?). Then you can think about those things really, really hard, and that should approximate being in tune with what you like and dislike.

I think whether you feel comfortable voicing your opinion depends mainly on whether you think they will be taken well, and whether you want to cause the people around you to think the way you do (both the likelihood of a favorable response and the desire to convince others would be reasons to make yourself heard).

[Clumsy]

I want to answer your question. But every time I read it I get confused. I feel you're confused. In fact you're not so much asking a coherent question as simply putting your confusion out there. What do you want? Say it, straight up.

Your writing evokes a feeling in me. In that I understand it somewhat viscerally. I remember feeling my words were mixed up, that the question was down there somewhere, but I couldn't quite put it all together. So I would put my confusion out there. Except it's not really confusion. It's more looking for some kind of order. Or maybe a key. Like a catalyst.

But when you're looking for a catalyst, you're not necessarily leaving room for information in all its forms. If you truly want information, then sometimes you have to kind of stand back and give other people space in which to give it. I want to give you information, but every time I read your question I feel more scattered.

Hmmm... I guess I just want to know what it's like to interpret/respond to something in the world like an Fi valuer does?

My interpretation of Fe is that it is a constant experience (and impressions being made on the Fe valuer and those that are given the Fe) through feelings. Everything evokes some kind of emotional reaction, even if it's not outwardly displayed. It's not really an objective like or dislike, so much as it is pure joy or enthusiasm or passion or whatever you end up feeling. Then, that Fe valuer's emotional responses become how the Fe valuer measures if they like or dislike (which I guess is more like Fi) something.

If they feel bored or emotionally numb for example when they listen to a song, they might think to themselves, "I don't like this", based off of that lack of feeling they get when they hear it (but maybe this is just how it is for everyone?). They cannot feel something emotionally from the music in some way, so they do not like it. Regardless of the style of the song, the first thing that Fe valuer would most likely notice is how the music makes them feel, the experience of that music. In this way I think they can sometimes appear fickle because their emotions may change towards something given time (either because they themselves for some reason feel differently towards it, or others around them have changed their mind in some way, thus causing them to feel differently). Is this how Fi also would interpret something like music?

If someone around the Fe valuer does not like something, such as a song that the Fe valuer enjoys, that Fe valuer may feel guilty or upset for having a desire to listen to that song. This is especially true if that person is close to the Fe valuer (that person's opinion is highly valued). Thus the Fe valuer may grow to actually feel less pleasure or joy or whatever they originally felt when listening to a song that they previously enjoyed, simply because of that other person's opinion. This has been my experience anyways. How would an Fi valuer react to the same situation?

When you listen to a song, what are the first things you notice about that song? What goes through your mind? How do you know whether or not you like it?

[ashlesha]

I don't think my experience is much different than yours and its weird trying to explain something so visceral but I'll try.

the first thing I notice when I hear a song is the level of emotional or mental excitement it causes in me. whether it catches my attention or not. like how firm is its grab. and there is a period where I kind of let go and just listen, not evaluating, just letting it soak. Often it just ends here.

if for whatever reason it grabs me and continues its hold I might notice what kind of feeling I get from it - happy, indignant, wistful, etc. and there's also a noticing of what the song is "meant" to convey and taking note of the difference between that and how I actually do feel. not to adjust or judge, just to take note. Once I stop viscerally experiencing and start thinking, various things might come to mind - thoughts of the person who recommended it and why they might have liked it, imagining myself performing it, wondering what they would be like live, working out what the lyrics could mean, other bands they remind me of, whatever. nothing especially specific.

How much I like it mostly depends on the initial grab and hold. the level of excitement of any color it arouses in me. Unless the feeling is "Christ, this is awful." lol

[Ver]

When I first hear a song or see something, the first thing I notice is if I like it or not. It's the impression that counts. I need to feel that it's hmmm "mine". Lets say clothes or other things to buy. Maybe my brain performs the analysis quicker than I do so I just get the "like" and "dislike". Probably it's a mix of colour, style, fabrics etc.
When I meet sb for the first time I also know from the very beginning if I like the person or not. Of course it sometimes changes but I'd say in general either there is a connection or there isn't. I usually have very strong opinions on people's behaviour, on relationships and their needs and I'm not afraid to state them at all although I don't always do that. In smaller groups, with people I know - I always say what I think but when in presence of people I don't know so well or I don't feel so close to, I'm rather quiet, listen and save my judgement to myself or discuss it later with my close ones.
This is what I've learned with time. I learned not to be so judicious but it doesn't always work. I know that when something goes against my moral code I feel... I don't know. E.g. Somebody got something (lets say money) not in a right way, in a very comformist style. (e.g. a girl who was just looking for a rich, old guy and found one) I'm disgusted and I say what I think. It's just so wrong, I also feel it's so shallow, it's like how can she be happy, or maybe she's just poor and somebody hurt her before, the world doesn't have any sense etc. Some people just don't understand why I give it so much thought. I just try to judge it and understand the person and analyze the problem from many perspectives (like maybe I'm wrong - I wish I was wrong).
However, I still believe that under some circumstances most people would break their code...for each person is just a question of how long they can stick to their humanity (and I also question if it really makes sense - Think about concentration camps and wars). I'm so much against wars and fighting and I believe most people are. But still they exist and they just make angels of some, make devils of the others. They question the importance of feelings and survival, the sense of everything...

[JWC3]

I'd probably be more likely to call an Fe-valuer I hate arrogant than self-centered

I'd probably be more likely to call an Fi-valuer I hate self-centered than arrogant.

[Creepy-female]

Hmmm... I guess I just want to know what it's like to interpret/respond to something in the world like an Fi valuer does?

My interpretation of Fe is that it is a constant experience (and impressions being made on the Fe valuer and those that are given the Fe) through feelings. Everything evokes some kind of emotional reaction, even if it's not outwardly displayed. It's not really an objective like or dislike, so much as it is pure joy or enthusiasm or passion or whatever you end up feeling. Then, that Fe valuer's emotional responses become how the Fe valuer measures if they like or dislike (which I guess is more like Fi) something.

If they feel bored or emotionally numb for example when they listen to a song, they might think to themselves, "I don't like this", based off of that lack of feeling they get when they hear it (but maybe this is just how it is for everyone?). They cannot feel something emotionally from the music in some way, so they do not like it. Regardless of the style of the song, the first thing that Fe valuer would most likely notice is how the music makes them feel, the experience of that music. In this way I think they can sometimes appear fickle because their emotions may change towards something given time (either because they themselves for some reason feel differently towards it, or others around them have changed their mind in some way, thus causing them to feel differently). Is this how Fi also would interpret something like music?

If someone around the Fe valuer does not like something, such as a song that the Fe valuer enjoys, that Fe valuer may feel guilty or upset for having a desire to listen to that song. This is especially true if that person is close to the Fe valuer (that person's opinion is highly valued). Thus the Fe valuer may grow to actually feel less pleasure or joy or whatever they originally felt when listening to a song that they previously enjoyed, simply because of that other person's opinion. This has been my experience anyways. How would an Fi valuer react to the same situation?

When you listen to a song, what are the first things you notice about that song? What goes through your mind? How do you know whether or not you like it?

Hmm, look like you got some better answers than mine. I'm still a little hung up on your writing style or something. It's like the third person is kind of messing things up. Are you describing what you experience when you listen to a song? Are you Fe?

I wrote something that might answer your question, though it may be a little dated. The entire thread is a pretty good read. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post683387

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'd probably be more likely to call an Fe-valuer I hate arrogant than self-centered

I'd probably be more likely to call an Fi-valuer I hate self-centered than arrogant.

I understand what you're going with this but you're oversimplifying things a bit. I'm an IEI. I'm good at both Fi and Fe. I value both actually, I just value Fe more. Fe is my creative function and Fi is my demonstrative function so I'm really good at both as those are both strong areas of the psyche. And so with me, I can be both too arrogant and too self-centered at times lol. Though if you really are my dual then you'd think of me as neither because my Fi demonstrative would cover up your Fi polr and my Fe creative would energize you. But that's really ideal and it's a lot more complicated that that with so many factors. An SLE and IEI wouldn't love each other at first sight unless they understand psychology so well that they bored out their own inner heart, which means they don't really understand it at all. Which means they would be forcing some concept of duality instead of feeling it with their own bodies. It's more of the appreciation that grows over time. I mean I highly doubt you came on this forum and instantly fell in love with my posts just because you're SLE and im IEI. If you did, please send me flowers and write romantic sonnets because I actually love that stuff.

IMO the only functions one doesn't really "value" are the Super Ego functions, in my case Te and Si.

[Ver]

IMO the only functions one doesn't really "value" are the Super Ego functions, in my case Te and Si.

Agree. I hate Se although Ti is no that bad - maybe because its my polr I somehow "enjoy" its good insight.

[JWC3]

That makes some amount of sense. Your concept of the super ego functions is interesting. I'm going to let it roll around my brain for a while.

[The Ineffable]

Example:
- Fi: "You hate me, Ti!"
- Ti: "No way, *you* piss me off!" (incorrectness)

- Fe: "I piss you off, Ti!"
- Ti: "That's right, Fe!" (correctness)

The ideea is that in Fe, the preference "stands" (subjectively) in the object, in Fi it stands in the subject. "Beautiful", for example, is apparently Fe information, however it's not that easy. When something is beautiful through Fe, the beauty is in itself, in the object, so it ought universally be liked by everyone (beauty determines consensus). But trough Fi, it's the other way around, something is beautiful only if everyone finds it beautiful (consensus determines beauty). This divergence in views on the beautiful or the good creates a lot of misunderstanding between Fe and Fi valuers.

Bottom line, Fi sucks but retards hate Fe!

[The Ineffable]

Okay, let me give you an example with Te.

Fe: "I piss you off, Te!"
Te: "So fucking what?" (obvious and useless fact)

Fi: "You hate me, Te!"
Te: "I technically do, Fi!" (new and useful fact)

[krieger]

why does that explanation make me laugh uncontrollably irl.

[ashlesha]

because its HILARIOUS.

[The Ineffable]

lungs, I intended no offense when I told you in the chat that you are ugly, I really meant it. That "14 inches to locks of love" didn't have an effect on me because I suffer from bullshit-sickness, my apologies.