Someone give me a clear difference between a Fi ego and Fe ego?

[Beautiful sky]

what do you mean "they love hungry"

sorry I hate typing on my phone. I meant to say "you should not leave people hungry" ESI would say "don't do those things, don't leave them hungry, it's not allowed" Fi sets rules within relationships. "one does not do this or that"

[anndelise]

sorry I hate typing on my phone. I meant to say "you should not leave people hungry" ESI would say "don't do those things, don't leave them hungry, it's not allowed" Fi sets rules within relationships. "one does not do this or that"

Fi is a type of information, not an action.
Yes, a person might use Fi info in considering what rules to set within a relationship, but those rules can stem from other types of information as well.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi is a type of information, not an action.
Yes, a person might use Fi info in considering what rules to set within a relationship, but those rules can stem from other types of information as well.

that was an example of use of Fi

[anndelise]

that was an example of use of Fi

I know.
I think my problem is in how it was worded. It's not just Fi that rules can be set from, and not all Fi ego types do it.
Though, on a personal note, I do have certain things I crave in a relationship, and certain things that I won't tolerate in it. For example, last night i was talking with a friend of mine who I'm worried about because she has so many health problems, works her butt off then comes home to take care of her disabled (but functioning) husband and her two kids, cooks and cleans and runs everyone to their appointments, etc. The husband has the ability to help around the house, and the children are old enough to do chores (10+yo). But the husband doesn't want the kids helping, refuses to help around the house (it's women's work), spends money on ornamental plants, and has recently told her that she needs to get a second job so they have more money. My gut reaction was "Hell No!"

Thankfully he's not my husband, or i'd have kicked him out a while back.

[Beautiful sky]

I know.
I think my problem is in how it was worded. It's not just Fi that rules can be set from, and not all Fi ego types do it.
Though, on a personal note, I do have certain things I crave in a relationship, and certain things that I won't tolerate in it. For example, last night i was talking with a friend of mine who I'm worried about because she has so many health problems, works her butt off then comes home to take care of her disabled husband and her two kids, cooks and cleans and runs everyone to their appointments, etc. The husband has the ability to help around the house, and the children are old enough to do chores (10+yo). But the husband doesn't want the kids helping, refuses to help around the house (it's women's work), spends money on ornamental plants, and has recently told her that she needs to get a second job so they have more money. My gut reaction was "Hell No!"

Thankfully he's not my husband, or i'd have kicked him out a while back.

The example was from dominant EII and ESI those are Fi base types. You are expressing Fi values "you shouldn't work too hard" thus you have a hard time with her working too hard. The above highlight is an expression of a reaction out of that value system. It's as good as saying "I worry about my friend and I don't think her husband should let her work too hard" That you observe him letting her makes you establish a rule. Now it goes back to you "If it were me" as in if the rule was applied to my relationship "it wouldn't fly well"

Therefore again an Fi rule "in a relationship one's husband shouldn't (this is strictly from Ne perspective) allow the wife to do x"

[anndelise]

The example was from dominant EII and ESI those are Fi base types. You are expressing Fi values "you shouldn't work too hard" thus you have a hard time with her working too hard. The above highlight is an expression of a reaction out of that value system

Now see, that phrasing didn't bother me. It's just that people can set Te based rules for a relationship, Fe based rules, Se based rules, etc. (of course their all based off of underlying value systems and hence related to Fi, but not necessarily the way it was phrased, and not necessarily Fi base types.)

I'm not attacking, just trying to refine, i guess. I'll shut up about it now. Sorry for the confusion.

[Beautiful sky]

Now see, that phrasing didn't bother me. It's just that people can set Te based rules for a relationship, Fe based rules, Se based rules, etc. (of course their all based off of underlying value systems and hence related to Fi, but not necessarily the way it was phrased, and not necessarily Fi base types.)

I'm not attacking, just trying to refine, i guess. I'll shut up about it now. Sorry for the confusion.

Those are not Te base rules though

Te is about logic of action. For instance "It's more efficient for the wife to go to work because she makes more money"

I'm not sure if Se sets rules, it's a perception function.

Try to calmly reread things Ann, I'm not invalidating you. I'm adding a perspective.