Fi?

[Beautiful sky]

Is holding emotions in until you are ready to speak about them related to Fi?

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Te is collecting information, organizing and executing tasks. Fe is about absorbing variety of emotions, organizing and adapting to get the effefct you want. i do believe both Fe and Fi can repress and express. in fact SLE likes IEI specifically because SLE cant handle Fi expression and IEI is surpressing it bc IEI is aware that people would react negative to it and this is why i believe duality is most often abusive. i had a SLE who witheld his emotions/insecurity about my loyalty to him until he faked a scandal to test me. i do believe EIIs withhold emotions/experiences and are very selective with who what they share. ESIs seem more obvious to me.

[necrosebud]

I instinctively think of self-preservation instinct (enneagram) when I read that... fwiw

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Is holding emotions in until you are ready to speak about them related to Fi?

No. Would need more details to know exactly what you're talking about, but if you mean what I think you probably mean, it's probably more so related to introversion. Introverts generally tend to need more time to process things before they speak about them.

[Popcorn]

Is holding emotions in until you are ready to speak about them related to Fi?

Is it? I don't think so, but maybe. I mean, I do that sometimes when I get mixed feelings about things, but I'm not really an Fi-valuer.

You know what, I don't know. Fi as a concept makes the least sense to me. It's basically being ruled by a subjective emotion, but your subjective idea of someone can be completely wrong and it's kind of assholery to do that. But some people are good at it, I guess. (edit: though I guess this sometimes applies to Ti as well)

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

You know what, I don't know. Fi as a concept makes the least sense to me. It's basically being ruled by a subjective emotion, but your subjective idea of someone can be completely wrong and it's kind of assholery to do that. But some people are good at it, I guess. (edit: though I guess this sometimes applies to Ti as well)

In nu-MBTI, yes, this is how Fi is described. According to Jung, not so much. It's more like being analytical in the emotional, personal, and relational realms, based on him. It's not being ruled by subjective emotions in Socionics, either. In Socionics, it's something akin to seeing compatibility dynamics and having the ability to go against the grain in the ethics department.

[Popcorn]

Yeah, but why couldn’t a Ti person do that? I guess what I’m wondering, is then what is it exactly? Sensitivity to other people and their psychology, leading to an understanding of relational dynamics? Or is it knowing how you feel about things? Or is it judging/evaluating people and relational dynamics based on values or how you feel about them? There seems to be a lot of crossover between a lot of things and I think, very generally, I’ve come to see Fi valuers as more knowing what they value and want and judging people based on that and seeking it out in others. But then other people have said, Te ego types, that they tend to adapt or accept Fi from other people. I don’t get it. How do people draw the line between valuing someone else’s Fi and evaluating based on their own? (I know I’m basically asking to logic something that isn’t logic, but I just don’t get it)

[Alonzo]

Yeah, but why couldn’t a Ti person do that? I guess what I’m wondering, is then what is it exactly? Sensitivity to other people and their psychology, leading to an understanding of relational dynamics? Or is it knowing how you feel about things? Or is it judging/evaluating people and relational dynamics based on values or how you feel about them? There seems to be a lot of crossover between a lot of things and I think, very generally, I’ve come to see Fi valuers as more knowing what they value and want and judging people based on that and seeking it out in others. But then other people have said, Te ego types, that they tend to adapt or accept Fi from other people. I don’t get it. How do people draw the line between valuing someone else’s Fi and evaluating based on their own? (I know I’m basically asking to logic something that isn’t logic, but I just don’t get it)

Fi encompasses every one of your inquiries. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that many type enthusiasts' understanding and preferred definitions of the functions are too limited/aren't dynamic enough. I think systems like Socionics and MBTI are essentially describing the same phenomena, but may hone in/focus on different aspects of the function.

Having said that, I think that this is a pretty holistic, comprehensive definition:

This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.


Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred (this more closely resembles MBTI's one-dimensional ass definition), the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absence of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical norms.


When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mold and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Introverted_ethics

The Latin quote “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto (translated: I am human, and think nothing human alien to me)” by the Roman slave turned playwright Terence/Terentius perfectly encapsulates a fundamental aspect of Fi, IMO. Terrence is essentially saying "because I know myself so well--the bottom most depths of my beliefs, feelings, wishes, desires, the beautiful/ugly and the good/bad about myself--I use this deep self-awareness as the template to model another person's static subjectivity (the nature of their ethical content), to place myself in their shoes, to understand their inner workings as a way to process/rationalize behavior. In other words, he's describing a dimension of cognitive empathy/perspective taking/theory of mind.

In psychology, theory of Mind encompasses the ability to "understand what another person is thinking and feeling based on rules for how one should think or feel. This theory suggests that humans can use cognitive thought processes to explain the mental state of others. By developing theories about human behavior, individuals can predict or explain others’ actions." I think both Ti and Fi are implicated in the "theory of mind" concept; for example, I pride myself on being able to know what someone else is thinking, to understand their subjective thought process (how they logically arrived at a certain premise or conclusion) but I'm pretty much never confident in determining their Fi subjective values/sentiments about something.

Theoretically, as someone with 1D Fi (PoLR), whose dual has 4D Fi (demonstrative/creative in Model G), their strong ability to discern/evaluate (at a high fidelity rate) the relational dynamics between people is what allows me to sidestep interpersonal errors/mistakes with others, i.e., partnering up or trusting those with bad intentions; I allow their far superior understanding of people's Fi "static subjectivity" to act as a benevolent surrogate for my own glaring deficit in that department.

Also, because I don't have very strong moral beliefs of my own (because it's hard for me to deeply care about anything, at all), I don't mind letting someone else's morals (whom I trust) stand in for mine. In a way, I allow myself to be "bulldozed" by that type of intelligence because it's hard to argue against something I inherently am inclined to not understand. This is, more or less, how it works for all 1D Fi and 4D Fi dual types.

[Beautiful sky]

“Privacy. Sensitive men and women are not quick to share their innermost thoughts and feelings with others, even those they know well.”

https://www.the16types.info/info/types/INFJ.htm

[Popcorn]

When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mold and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Introverted_ethics

Okay, this is an interesting definition. I've seen a lot of LSE that try to do this and fail and I can see why their dual would be helpful. And in this context, I can understand the relationship part of it now.

Gotta be honest, I didn't expect to get a good answer. Thanks lol.