Fi Base

[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.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

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.

[roger557]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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.

[Tarnished]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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.

[Tarnished]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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).

[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.

[Tarnished]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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.

[Tarnished]

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.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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*).

[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?

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

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.

[DEAD]

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.