Can Ni/Ne mimic feeling?

[uncivilized]

I'm starting to think that maybe one of the reasons some of us score so close together on the feeling/thinking dichotomy is maybe because Ni and/or Ne is capable of allowing a person to be empathetic in the sense that it allows you to imagine more easily being in another's shoes. Also, I think that function might cause you to assess how someone is going to react to something and try to take the best course of action based on that assessment. Such imagining could possibly mimic feeling as well and make it difficult to answer questions about feeling/thinking on tests.

[chemical]

Psychologists seem to suggest there are two components to empathizing, one being an affective one and another a perspective-taking one. I imagine the N's can be good with the latter (some S's are very good with it too) in ways that even offer some advantages over F.

However, you should go back to understand -- original Jungian typology construed feeling not in terms of mere empathizing but evaluating through feeling. I don't like to say just evaluating, as many evaluations are done more through the logic functions. Socionics breaks up the more interactive, dynamic elements of this (what moves you and how your interactions modify your state/others') from the more static, a priori sense of relatedness. I'd place the more basic experience of modification of feeling state and/or perception of an existing feeling state a little more in between... it could be relevant to F, but sometimes it's really just related to the irrational functions. For example, sometimes the observance of Ne potential is naturally accompanied by a certain feeling of interest that I'd say is insufficiently rational to qualify as F, and more signals the intensity of the potential seen than any kind of value-apprehension. Some of this is just instinctual feeling, as opposed to the F kind.

Being intelligent about people's workings is something any psychologically intelligent person (including a totally T detective) could do. In other words, I'd not discount a LSI or SLE being very good with this. Sure you're going to find more T types who are able to still function in their natural informational sphere without dealing with people-related topics, but it isn't to say by any means that understanding the human mind (for which some perspective-taking is necessary) is monopolized by the F types.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think rather one sided F valuing narrows it down interpersonally. Personally it is rather easy to function well with alphas.
Ne itself likes harmony but it ignores some things that are very essential for Ne devaluing types. Even when there is an insight it does not imply of capability of application.

[krieger]

probably the comprehension to an extent but not the expression. the problem is you understand the feeling after the moment but not IN it.

J.P. Sartre: We must act out passion before we can feel it.

[Moonbeaux Rainfox]

probably the comprehension to an extent but not the expression. the problem is you understand the feeling after the moment but not IN it.

“I can only note that the past is beautiful, because one never realises an emotion at the time. It expands later, and thus we don't have complete emotions about the present, only about the past.” - Virginia Woolf

[krieger]

i think hers is a very NF perspective on it and maybe Fi. that way of seeing it is not natural to me. i see emotion as something bound to a moment and fused with the activity you're engaging in, and reflection back on it at a future stage as something inherently more analytical. it has a wistful sort of feeling to it because the occasion is factually remembered but not the emotional rush of the experience.

its a very interesting difference of views that i think can be attributed to:
Fi vs Fe values
or
Democrat vs Aristocrat (SF or NF in one's quadra)

[chemical]

I tend to see the pure modification of feeling state as fused with sensation, which is what makes it very involved and in the moment.
The moment the state isn't just a state for you to analyze, but rather the feeling content conveys itself an attitude of the holder, that is when it strays away from the realm where you can just abstract what was going on with logic.

So from my standpoint some of this could be labster having S HA and a somewhat sensation-centric perspective.

With Fe I tend to see it as closer to the rational significance of the modification of state, seen through the eyes of the modification vs abstracted away from it (which is more the logical POV). This needn't however occur in the moment -- one can certainly envision through the eyes of a possible/forthcoming modification without actually experiencing it (and here I'd say it's more N at work), i.e. this might be more of a N-F way. Logic tends to try to frame the significance independent of this to the highest extent possible.
With Fi, there's less living interaction and it's more about the a priori sense of relatedness (the minimum criterion for there to be an ethical significance period).

[Sol]

Ne is responsible for understanding others by their nonverbal behavior.
F/T dichotomy is another theme.

[ConcreteButterfly]

Well in reinin's book it describes ILI's as being able to really 'become' someone else, take on their personality without losing themselves. Maybe Ni does this, and it looks like feeling because it is a kind of empathy, being able to tune into a person's energy and mirror it back. But there is no conscience involved, no discrimination, so it is not real feeling in the jungian sense. Like @chemical said, there is no evaluation of the information, which is characteristic of real feeling (a rational function).

[Moonbeaux Rainfox]

Maybe to underline this with an example. I type Will Graham from Hannibal as Ni Fe (so Ni leading). Here's the scene, where Hannibal talks about Will and his empathy.

[...] your values and decencies are present, yet shocked at your associations, appalled at your dreams. [...] What he has is pure empathy... he can assume your point of view, or mine and maybe some other points of view, that scare him... perception is a tool that’s pointed on both ends.

Graham had a lot of trouble with taste. Often his thoughts were not tasty. There were no effective partitions in his mind. What he saw and learned touched everything else he knew. Some of the combinations were hard to live with. But he could not anticipate them, could not block and repress. His learned values of decency and propriety tagged along, shocked at his associations, appalled at his dreams; sorry that in the bone arena of his skull there were no forts for what he loved. His associations came at the speed of light. His value judgments were at the pace of a responsive reading. They could never keep up and direct his thinking. He viewed his own mentality as grotesque but useful, like a chair made of antlers. There was nothing he could do about it.

[chemical]

A key to ConcreteButterfly's thing there is that they're taking the perspective of someone else without themselves subjectively relating to it.
So it's still very possible for them to give good advice from a more Te perspective/Ni-Se one, namely where you take the person's perspective, note where their nature fits into the tides, and find based on raw functionality where they fit into the picture so as to minimize corrosion.

New idea that kind of indirectly got spawned for me: unlike with Jung, socionics breaks the 4 functions into 8 information elements (for Jung the 4 acted in different attitudes, but this is not quite the same as defining information elements).
I wonder if a way to look at the distinction is that the individual elements Fe, Fi themselves do not constitute value-judgments, and that F itself, as a whole, is what produces them.

Because it actually strikes me that a lot of non-ego F types don't have the same ability to extract value from F processes because the ego is far enough away that it doesn't itself assume a definite, justifiable sense of attitude based on the F process.
Often they still exercise the HA and normalizing more or less on the basis of knowing those needs must be fulfilled, but because they don't put as much ego into it, it doesn't become an adopted subjective attitude, which is necessary for a F-valuation.

[Myst]

I tend to see the pure modification of feeling state as fused with sensation, which is what makes it very involved and in the moment.

Mine is not always fused with sensation, noo.

[chemical]

Sure, neither is mine, just to be clear, there I'm still talking about an instance of non-F feeling (i.e. where it isn't rational), as opposed to say Fe/Fi

[Myst]

Sure, neither is mine, just to be clear, there I'm still talking about an instance of non-F feeling (i.e. where it isn't rational), as opposed to say Fe/Fi

Sure I realize that and you had some very good points there.

[chemical]

I find the easiest way to sort out those situations is where you note that, even if T being less differentiated means it can operate while excluding F less, the irrational types' sense of judgment tends to be secondary enough that F takes quite a hit in the end in terms of operating in a truly rational way.

This is a topic to explore perhaps but basically in socionics the rational-irrational axis choice contributes to your most aware superego perspective, vs the most aware superid comes from the complement to your creative... the reason this seems to have some appeal goes back to pretty fundamental principles I think.
Namely, what is the significance of T-F in say a N-base? They are to supplement. Thus, they form the stronger valued functions -- valued because they are able to further the closest to absolute ego perspective (base).
On the other hand, T-F in a T-base? Well, as the theory goes, it's not that one selects something independently from T-F and S-N so much as, without a single principle of the ego, rational or irrational, there's no type formation really. So, the non-dual rational remaining guy ends up being thrust on the ego as superego. The dual one is more or less the back-side to the near-absolute one, so it doesn't wind up "thrust" on one at least consciously.
The difference is between things one can work into the main perspective vs things thrust on one, if the main one is to retain its integrity.

This is the funny intricate complication existing due to the fact that rational-irrational actually is both a dichotomy and a source of supplement.

[Beautiful sky]

I think that this could be true of EII. But often people don't care about other people enough to imagine being in their shoes. So maybe care and love of or for people comes first.