Fe vs Fi 'Fakeness'
I've noticed that between the ethical types the individual perceives their opposite element to be 'fake'. The Fe user is perceived by the Fi as a social chameleon and the Fi user is perceived by the Fe user as a group think conformist. Why is this the case and is there any truth to either perception?
Yeah, I've heard this as well. I think it's bullshit. Although I don't know how Fi is fake, I've heard two-faced I guess. They are more clique-ish, exclusionary, inclined to favoritism. Fe types like to include everyone and create groups where everyone is involved. But are any of them really friends? doesn't matter, as long as it looks that way.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
This question pops up every once in a while.
Because ethics keys in on the sociology of being human, it can be difficult for those types to completely divorce their warmth from the situation. And since warmth isn't exactly "quantifiable", ethical types often get unfairly shot with darts for simply investigating matters of the heart.
IMO, disliking an opposing-type function (even if it's valued) likely means that person relies too heavily on their preferred functions to define their identity.
Cool and helpfulOriginally Posted by EIE
You mentioned using Fe for the sake of harmony. Have you ever experienced a situation where you promoted harmony in a certain instance only for it to bite you later?
Hm. Gammas and deltas can definitely be fake. They try to sell themselves too much. Especially if they’re 3 and/or soc. I never think Fe as fake because I really don’t dive into how others “truly” feel, rather how well they are doing the act. If an Fe user can fake things, usually there’s a degree of authenticity, a threshold of real/ness, that they won’t cross. While a gamma or a delta can really play things up too much sometimes that it makes me go :/ especially when they have a motivation for doing something (a job, getting secrets out of ppl)
take everything I say with a grain of salt though I’m extremely biased towards Fe
ترفرف كالأجنحة غير المنظورة حول رأسي
I think it's true because of how the functions naturally align with their dual logical counterparts. Fi *is* groupthink conformity because that is essentially what Te is really. Te is very much 'you have to do this because Karen society tells you to do it' type of function. It's not inherently negative all the time though it is what it is, as I've gotten older I have dealt with my Te polr better. I still clash with ultra Te government types because they don't accept uniqueness/individuality very well and just wanna live in a heterosexual courthouse where they make rules and laws all day. Te is like getting on a podium and saying 'We all need to do this because the data and facts support it and it's what an official expert said!' but not really take in account a person's unique situation.
Fe *is* social chameleon-ness imo because Ti categorizes and labels different things, so it naturally synergies with the changing of emotions. In order to better teach/get a point across the basic logic validity of something often requires doing that. Fe is also like.. highlighting something imo, and it better gives life to the Ti definition.
Valuing a function doesn't mean completing hating the opposite necessarily- it depends on the strength/placement. (I value Fe more than Fi but I like some Fi as long as it's not too Te-ish lol) That part of socionics might be taken to an unfair extreme. People tend to behave like assholes in their respective quadra the more like minded people of that quadra get together... you can still imo bond/get along with somebody from an opposing quadra okay-ish most of the time and there are definitely going to be Betas I don't like and vice-versa.
Interestingly, Te & Ti don't have as much of a dramatic reputation attached to them.
It seems the logical functions are more easily receptive to new factual information and, thus, adjust more sensibly within a logical framework
Shazaam makes a fair point in that in order to understand one function one must, first, comprehend it's compliment. Admittedly (at least for me), watching ethical types use their F function is kinda weird but the ethical members here have been a sort of breath of fresh air in explaining a perspective that's helpful
The Beta NFs are ridiculously biased and assuming and don't see things for what they are IMO. At least the IEI and EIE-Ni are that way... EIE-Fe are somewhat different and more in touch with reality.
Also, EII are USUALLY groupthinkers/conformists. SLI and especially LSE are not really group thinking conformists; they're pretty independent in their judgments. EIE-Ni are often groupthinkers and conformists (or at least very unoriginal), and they don't even realize it, in fact they think they're the opposite.
Every type has some of their own preferences and dislikes whether it's through Fi or Ti. Alpha SFs and Delta NFs SEEM TO ME to be the least questioning of regulations and laws though and the most willing to abide by them; Betas create them and understand them, and since they create them, they obviously also realize where laws and regulations could go wrong more than Gammas and Deltas do.
Last edited by Disturbed; 02-16-2022 at 12:27 PM.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
IMO Te is responsible for the fakeness. Do you know “if men are from Mars, women are from Venus”? “How to win friends and influence people”? Very logical approach to socializing. I don’t think Fi does this. Nor Fe.
Disclaimer though, not all Te. Definitely ones out there that don’t do this at all and are pretty genuine.
ترفرف كالأجنحة غير المنظورة حول رأسي
I agree with this. Ti and Fi decide the inner values, when Te and Fe decide what method to approach real life's problem. So what you feel "fake" is either Fe or Te.
Is it? That sounds to me like MBTI Fe. Socionics Fe I associate with emotional expression. Hardly to do with social standards. There is a reason Fe egos tend to be poets, artists, and other eccentrics.
Well @Shazaam says:
And this is precisely what I associate with 'social standards'. Of course the 'social standards' of a group will vary between each milieu, however the zeitgeist of the developed world (at least today) is being a Gamma Quadra go getter who brings home da ca$h. Perhaps the particular Fe user will be attentive to the standards within their own sub-group rather than the whole 'society'. I must ask, social standards in relation to what? I associate sub cultures with extraverted ethics, groups which create a 'loose' atmosphere where anything goes. An Fe user would not go around saying 'these are the rules and you must follow them!'
On being reactive to the object, it can react both in a positive or negative way. Acceptance or rejection. MBTI Fe is much more the 'upholder' of the standard, it experiences the world through relation in a similar way to socionics white ethics.
Please please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to muddy the waters. I consider myself an Fe user in socionics (creative function) but dominant Fi user in Jung. With my understanding of both theories and the basic definitions between them—as well as the archetypes of the functions of each system—it does not seem contradictory to me in the slightest.
Everyone can be fake and everyone is fake at least once in a while.
If a person doesn't admit this, it means they are faking or they blind to the fact that they fake.
Despite valued function, I think being too fake depends on individual factors. I have met both Fi and Fe bases that are too fake hence it isn't about spesific F function.
Ofcourse valued function might change the perception of people when fakeness is on average level.
Examples:
At one of ex workplaces, one toxic SEE coworker got a complaint that she was mobbing people who work in the same department and who had lower titles. Then LSE and I start to work. SEE tried to get close to us hence she would prove that she is fine and get along with people. I got a bit suspicious and remained indifferent, not distant, not close, LSE become her pupil. SEE faked closeness, Fi in this example.
Then another SEE and EIE out thrown her in a way but before that non toxic good SEE acted like she was fine with SEE, that was also fake but necessary I approve.
Again one EII and EIE mirrored me at same time in different ways, it wasn't about me, it was more like a competition thing between them. EII stated things I do and enjoy as she does it or values as well by forming sentences, EIE embodied it.
I’ve never heard an Fe valuer call me fake (even if they might have thought it), but I’ve had plenty call me selfish. Well, actually, I did have one SLE call me two-faced and another one act like they thought I was fake.
I don’t think of Fi users as being consciously fake - I feel like we often contradict our own opinions and appear inconsistent/hypocritical, but I don’t think we are usually aware we are doing it. I feel like Fe users are frequently very conscious of when they are being fake because they usually do it artfully, and it makes it feel more malicious. I don’t know if that is actually the case, but it seems that way to me as an Fi valuer. Any insight into this would be nice.
Last edited by PinKDiGiT18; 02-17-2022 at 02:34 AM.
You "almost" got it.is all about raw data much like
is. There is a key difference however.
to tell it where it all leads. A trillion points of data mean exactly nothing to anyone without the concept of a "line of best fit" or some other way of making all that info correlate into some form of accurate forecast. As for why
matters so much to it, well, your personal ideals mean exactly jack shit if you cannot actualize them within this reality.
Personal revelation: I cannot (perhaps by the grace of God) get demonic forces. I can from a rawperspective, but not from an
I plain and simply don't get it. Again, perhaps it is best I do not. Why fight against the almighty and eternal embodiment of beauty, justice, and truth?
I do await my "kindred" relation's response to this.
Other example:
EII and I was working on a case. The main supervisor of the case was overloading us some work and make it seem like it is nothing. I made some spesific remark to describe the guy, supervisor, I don't remember what I said, it was long before and not important.
Then I and EII went to eat dinner after work. EII's bf wanted to join. EII said that same sentence I did to describe the guy and her bf said wow, he turned me and said isn't this a wonderful remark, who would think that wow. Since I am the person who said it, I didn't say anything, I looked into EII's eyes, EII looked into mine, he asked me that question a few times, I didn't answer just smiled.
This was a very uncomfortable situation for me. Her bf exaggerated the situation a bit, since it was his style. EII has seen no problem getting compliments due to something I said, so it wasn't addressing her in reality. Since it was no important and since I have no desire for her bf to know that is mine, I didn't say anything.
After this, later in the week, EII again said something I said as she said it to me at workplace and I corrected her and she didn't do it again.
Moral of the story, ofcourse Fi egos, users lie and fake. If you are a Fi user and if you don't do such things, it is ok.
You are not your type, you are you at the end.
However, this Fe egos being fake and Fi egos being true story causes misconceptions. That's why lots of people think they are Te/Fi egos while they aren't.
Fe users or demo may feel more at ease by telling that they are being fake on certain situations because they know that it doesn't necessarily suggest character fault.
But no regular Fe or Fi user goes around and be proud that they have fake relationships and that they are fake, imposters and they are proud of this, cmon.
In my opinion, it's difficult for ethical types to find "absolute truth" within the concept of human relations. The most ethically astute person is still guessing when it comes to their ultimate conclusion. The social sciences, in general, aren't absolute and, thus, might create certain social etiquette that aren't necessarily accurate.
Logical types prefer to deal with things more mechanically, ignoring social etiquette in favor of what they believe to be immutable.
Each function can act in error but it's also my opinion that if ethical types weren't so warm the world would be a much colder place to experience
Last edited by Stray Cat; 02-17-2022 at 02:14 PM.
EIE, this is interesting, because I also remember reading that ENTJs and ESTJs have really high "emotional intelligence." I never thought mine was that great, but I will candidly say that I think I'm pretty good at reading emotions in people. Not so great at seeing them in a person's face, but rather, very good at understanding what they are feeling as the moments roll along.
I relate this to my tendency to do Ready-Fire-Aims in my judgements. I make a quick judgement based on incomplete information, then will make continuous updates to that judgement as more information comes in and my model of reality gets built up.
It's exactly like what happens to the scene in this video from 0:09 to 0:27 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DGPR7ocXos
Or in the scenes in this video, starting at 0:10 and at 0:29 : https://vimeo.com/219091391.
I think this is an example of Vortical-Synergetic cognition.
Well, thank you, @EIE.
My AI filter must be doing its job.
Sol
And his “homosexual disorders” LOL
I have come across the idea/story that Lucifer never really left paradise and that the ''fallenness'' lies in his wanting more of somethingPersonal revelation: I cannot (perhaps by the grace of God) get demonic forces. I can from a raw
Last edited by Kalinoche buenanoche; 02-17-2022 at 10:49 PM.
My thing with Fe is the absolute joy it can exude toward a particular person one second, then the next second talk how much they loath said person.
When Fe exudes that joy, it can encourage people whom they dislike to flock right to them. Fe can be convincing enough that a person could get the wrong idea of how the Fe user actually feels.
Yeah, it hurts to be on the receiving end of this ambivalence.
Thing is, Fe egos will act nice until something unsettles them, then they aren't that nice as if trying to fix their unsettled-ness by withdrawing, or being passive-aggressive or directly cruel for the worse of them sometimes, but as soon as it's gone, they're back to nice.
Idk how to deal with that, beside never speaking to them again.
I guess Fi valuers do similar in their own, it just doesn't bother me much.
This is unrelated, but it fits the thread:
There's this way I'm fake now that I'm thinking of it, trying to be nice if I must but getting the hell outta there asap because dealing with the sutiation is troublesome and not worth the time.
It's a bunch of bad feelings hanging in the air and running away.
Last edited by adage; 02-18-2022 at 03:37 AM. Reason: rephrased raw thought that came out confusing
I agree with this and I've had the same experience with Fe-leading types. When they're happy with you, they can act as if they hold you in high regard, giving very effusive compliments and displaying positive emotionality towards you ("Wooow you're the beeeest! You're sOooOOoOoo smart~~!!" etc. etc). Then if you piss them off or disappoint them or do something that negatively affects their mood/emotional flow, they can do a complete 180 and act as if they hate you. I actually think this is more related to Fi ignoring though -- consistency in interpersonal bonds aren't valued because the emotional state takes precedence.
I've learned not to take it personally, although I still find it unsettling just how quickly EXEs can go back and forth between loving and hating you.
I don't think they see each other as fake. Maybe as having different priorities. The way I think about it is this. An Fe ego would find it difficult to sustain a relationship with someone in the absence of free flowing emotional expression and an externally positive, engaging, and cooperative atmosphere. If they perceive a lack of Fe or too much of a neutral or negative/critical demeanor, they might start to doubt the relationship and wonder if there is something wrong it. On the other hand, and Fi ego can create and maintain a close bond with another person without the need to base it on—or continually assess it with—outward emotional expression, agreeableness, or group attitudes. In the presence of Fe, an Fi ego might incorrectly assume that there is a bond between the individuals involved, because why bother being nice, jovial, expressive, and cooperative, if you don't care about the other person. They might be less diplomatic and prone to think, "why would you be nice to someone you dislike and/or have been offended by?" finding it hard to do it as it conflicts with their subjective feelings.
In short, I think Fe egos generally think you need to be nice, emotionally expressive and engaging in order to form an interpersonal bond, while Fi egos think you need to have a bond (or intend to create one) in order to be nice, emotionally expressive and engaging with someone. And I think this extends to Fe vs. Fi valuing types in general.
To get back to the original question, while I don't think Fe and Fi types see each other as fake, I think they may perceive each other as different and/or think the other has their priorities messed up.
I would actually flip these around. In theory, Fi types should be more socially skilled and adept at mingling and creating bonds with different types of people. Fe types would tend to be more concerned about group dynamics, influencing, engaging and mobilizing people towards a certain cause, etc.
Last edited by Park; 02-18-2022 at 07:49 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I don't think I perceive Fi as "fake". It doesn't especially bother me as a valued element either, but I do find that the Fi-valuers I know seem to struggle getting along with some people over very unimportant issues, or just don't seem to know how to pick their battles. So many times I've seen Fi-users I know take a bad situation and make it worse because they felt the need to defend their moral position on something instead of just letting it go. I don't mean to say that Fi users are always getting into fights. They're usually pretty good at getting along with people in general. It's just that when they DO have a problem with someone they seem to struggle to extinguish the flames once they've been ignited - instead just throwing fuel on the fire and digging in
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell猫が生き甲斐
It is probably like this:Fe valuing logicals: Fi is fake. Fi valuing logicals: Fe is fake.
Fi types as I see them are ass kissers.
Fe types by Fi logicals are probably sen as having goals not corresponding with personal views.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Would you accept a quasi-identical's? If so, Jung's Answer to Job goes into this. I recommend it highly. If you have trouble finding a digital version, let me know and I'll send you a copy.Personal revelation: I cannot (perhaps by the grace of God) get demonic forces. I can from a raw
I plain and simply don't get it. Again, perhaps it is best I do not. Why fight against the almighty and eternal embodiment of beauty, justice, and truth?
I do await my "kindred" relation's response to this
Anyway, however you'd like to answer, you need to grapple with the question of why God would create a being he would know, in his omniscience, would eventually rebel, and why God hasn't taken action against Satan for so long. Why not simply erase him from existence as soon as he fell? Why does the eternal embodiment of beauty, justice, and truth permit ugliness, injustice, and falsehood? What could a superintelligent being like Satan hope to gain against an omnipotent power?
Healthy Fe I waver between perceiving as nice, but exaggerated, or as well-meant, yet temporary and thus empty words. Unhealthy Fe I experience as whimsically unreliable, overly dramatic, and at times hysterically self-absorbed.
people say the motivations behind them are different but i havent heard it explained how so far. both are concerned with influencing people a certain way. in my experience its easier to notice a disunion in Fi egos between what they say is fine and what is actually fine, while Fe egos are more vague with it. Fe egos seem to have less rigid border between what's about them vs what's about others. this disunion in Fi egos seems more likely to result in grudges bc they are repressing something in themselves to achieve something for someone else.
feelings can be seen as nonsensical vapid entlitlement by a logical type person.
Fi as a demonstrative is said to perceive relational bonds as dynamic rather than static but my confusion is that everything's both dynamic and static and depending on how u want to define things u can define it both as static or dynamic. e.g. alice hates igor but why should it be that alice always hates igor and everything about igor? thers factors that make alice the way she is, the relationship between her and him the way it is and how he is, which is both related to things in the past and the future.
if she changes her mind was it that her feeling before was fake? and if she doesnt change her mind when then when something shows to contradict the reason she hates him (that would be something about him is not inline with her values) mean she's hypocritical and still fake?
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
I'll take it. Send me a copy if you have one.
As for why God allowed Satan to exist I will answer your question with what Fulton Sheen had to say on the matter. God wanted to create a "moral" universe. Yes, God could have made a... very boring world. Oh yes, everything works out in the bestest way possible because the immortal and perfect deity has arranged the universe such that nothing anyone every wills or does is in any way negative or sub-optimal. We're all just playing a game that has no loss condition. Everyone's a winner! No choice is objectively wrong! Hurray!
Basically, a world/universe where you literally cannot make a "bad" choice is a terrible place. It's a hell. Plus it denies other possibilities. A bad choice made in one moment may lead to a wonderful possibility to not only correct the mistake but also attain an end that's even better than if you had never fucked up in the first place. Saint Paul killed many Christians before he had that moment on the road to Damascus. If he had become a member of the faithful upon first hearing the name Jesus his letters would not have been as piercing and he likely wouldn't have become quite as fanatical as he did. Plus I'd say it was his absolute penitence that led many a congregation towards accepting the doctrines of the faith.
I think most people type him as an LSE if I recall. Makes sense IMO.
And to finish my point, God specializes in creating something out of nothing. Evil, as understood by Catholics/Christains like myself, is a lack of the good. Evil cannot exist without Good for it is merely a lack of good. Good can and will always exist outside of evil. Evil, however, can only exist if "Good" exists as it is a parasite upon it.
Yet it is quite possible that although a great evil may occur, an even greater good may result from that. Case in point from my own POV: The Crucifixion.
In this example, Fi is not exactly hating the person. Fi would hate a thing the person does (e.g. killing animal) combined with the person's certain attitude (e.g. killing animal for self pleasure). If the person no longer does this thing or does this for a different Fi reason (e.g. killing animal to save them from suffering), Fi person may not hate this person anymore.
Roughly, Fi is more about "me V.S. things". Fe is more about "people V.S. people".
Everyone needs to have something internal that's constant, unchanging. For gamma and delta people it's Fi (how I value and feel about everything in the world). For alpha and beta people it's Ti (my organization of how everything relates to each other). Except this one thing, everything else is changeable.
@End, if we compare your reasoning to heat and cold, I think it marks an inconsistency. In physics, cold is truly the absence of heat. It's a lack of motion of the molecules, so no infrared energy, heat, is emitted, as they're not doing their little dance. If all molecules would always be dancing, we would no longer be aware of the lack of heat, also known as coldness. That's true. But by the same extent, if never a molecule ever danced, we would neither speak of heat.
Even more, the absence of variation in conditions will also cause the perishment of the awareness of the state that does remain. Id est an ever warm world will not be called warm, because there's no contrast of coldness to compare it with. Similarly, an ever cold environment will not be called cold, because people wouldn't be aware what coldness is, since this is the norm. You need heat to become aware of coldness, and coldness to become aware of heat. There is no awareness of ying without yang and no yang without ying.
Although I would like to argue for the possibility of a society in which everybody chooses to solely do good, it not only is irrealistic, it would thus also undermine our awareness of what good is in the first place. Humanity would have to read up on old history books on our warring past to remain aware of good and evil, if ever such a society would develop.
Then still one can argue if goodness is not virtuous in and of itself, regardless of one's awareness of it. As William Shakespeare aptly wrote: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Indeed, so instead of the hatred for a person being constant, it is our Fi-principles that remain constant. When people consistently change their behaviour in line with our morals, we start liking them more, whereas if they increasingly deviate from our morals, we start liking them less.
What I perceive to be Fe is that instead of individually held principles, it verifies if people follow the social decorum. When straying from the decorum frustration can be unleashed to bring the other person back in line. My beef with Fe, however, is that in my opinion it goes over the top, because it's not merely frustration that is showed, but rage, and it's not feeling a bit down that's displayed, but crying, and its not contentment, but elation that is expressed. Such expressions are so dramatized, extreme, and exaggerated, that it drains my energy.
To make things worse for me, when I then try to pull out, I do not conform to the group norms to even greater extent, and I am then frequently pushed by the Fe group norms to join back in, adapt my behaviour to their norms, and conform. This only alienates me further, because I feel nothing for group norms, but everything for consistently following my own, internally held principles.
That's another difference, consistence. Fi is all about finding patterns, either by making character attributions with Ne, or by perceiving patterns of behaviour via Se-Ni that can be deemed good or bad. This is why Fi can be so relentlessly unforgiving, while Fe considers if someone follows the group norms in the here and now. Of course, not all Fi-users will wake up every day actively mulling over everyone they bear a grudge against, nor will Fe users always forgive someone when they start following the group norm after too much harm has been done repeatedly. Yet as a general rule, it does seem to hold that Fi-users try to determine if a person is good or bad according to the Fi-user's morals, while Fe-users compare someone's behaviour in the here and now to the group norms.
Doesn't a game where the losers are tortured for eternity seem unfun to you? Doesn't it seem incongruous with the idea of a God who is supposedly literally "love" itself?
This point is often brought up. I think the reason God is pure love is because his dark side (Satan) is split off. So we have light and darkness but ultimately all is one. The individual is the unfortunate one who has to deal with this "split personality" of God. He has to operate between light and darkness, between progression and regression. So God depends on the individual for this work to be done so that God can be whole again. Obviously this can lead to failure and some individuals get stuck in God's shadow forever. Psychologically this could mean depression, drug abuse, a meaningless life, too much ideology etc.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It shows that they're all healthy and mature people.
I'm a Christian but I don't think its possible for humans to create laws which dictate absolute morality. Conventionally, people gather in rooms, discuss, vote and possibly ammend on their ultimate opinions if necessary. In dictatorships, that person will likely have an adviser to help make decisions. Those of us who believe in the deity, act accordingly in the name of our faith.
Mathematicians and scientists generally (not social scientists) prefer to employ, use or manipulate data independent of democracy, theological faith or dictatorship.
Your points are interesting. When it comes to morality, things can get messy. People either trust in a deity, believe it's possible that human beings can agree on a fair set of rules for society or there are societies that have dictatorships.
This conversation is interesting, indeed
I don't personally agree that Fe is fake, but I am able to understand why it seems to be. Put in the simplest way I know how to put it, it comes from the preference to express things that form a specific atmosphere instead of a preference for expressing that which is genuinely felt. It's kind of more "fake it til you make it," sometimes, also. I think Fe is true to its own objective...but I still can't do it without feeling fake as hell, not to mention exhausted and unfulfilled simultaneously.
I just realized...it's like eating a McDonald's burger. You eat a large portion and it's still totally unsatisfying, just makes you feel sick and lethargic. Empty calories. Better off eating cardboard, probably...probably is more edible.
I've never heard of Fi seeming fake.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
