regarding left- and right-brain functions, thomson speaks of tendencies. i would go one step further in relativising the biological dimension (which is far more complex than right- and left-brain) and state that "right- and left-brain" are metaphors which indicate a linear and holistic tendency of a specific function. and it's link to language. interpreting in this way takes away all the biological non-sense implied in the way she handles left- and right-brain.
Fair enough. I would tweak her theory a little and say that the dominant function can't be right or left brained (even according to this interpretation) because it is the source of the person's thought process. Next, I would have to say that the Inverse function of the dominant function is also neutral. For example, Ni users almost universally develop a strong use of Ne, and vice versa. For example in the INJ model, I would put Si into the 'left brain' Opposite.
From what I've seen of people's cognitive function test results, regardless of the test, I am starting to believe the model of the mind looks more like this (assuming the definitions of left and right hemisphere are descriptive and not literal)
View attachment 9429
where i don't agree with thomson - and this sheds some light on your remark, that there are infj-artist who use there "right-brain" intensively and extensively: why on earth should there be any logic in the way the functions are stacked (thomson's "lasagna")? what might the reasons be that a specific person is not a double intuitive, i.e. has as its primary and secondary functions Ni and Ne, or even Ni and Ti? why not double introverts and double extraverts etc. it's like with the enneagram: why should there be only wings or integration and desintegration points? why not say: she's is a e4-e1-e9?
Agreed. The model above would allow for these sorts of configurations. For example, some INFJs (or INTJs) might lean more on their 'right hemisphere' approaches, and therefore favor Se and Ti (or Fi), while others might favor their 'left hemisphere' and favor Fe (or Te) and Si. This slight tweak on the 'lasagna theory' would explain not only the range of cognitive function development in INFJs we've seen on this forum, but also the diversity of cognitive functions in other types.
and: in what way does thomson not understand Fe? measuring situation by group-standards (and its internalized corollary: role-expectation) seems quite adequate to me...
I think Thomson gets a lot of Fe right, and for a non-native, does a great job in fact, but she's only able to really grasp the expressed effects and not the core motivation. As an INTJ, Fe is perhaps the most alien and toxic of the functions (the opposite of the tertiary function, which is the play function and inner child), which means this is likely the most difficult for her to understand. The same is true of Te for INFJs. We will never be able to natively understand Te, and the best we can do is wrap our Ni, Ti, and Se around it to approximate it. Therefore, I don't fault her in any way. Considering the inherent bias, she does a great job.
Fe is just as much an F function as Fi. The distinction in these functions is simply introverted (micro scale) vs. extroverted (macro scale) perspective. Fe is essentially a function based on 'should', where Fi is a function based on "am". Both functions are value judgments. Fi applies them internally and personally. Fe applies them externally and globally. Thomson's model of Fe affability creates a situation where Fe would have difficulty surviving contact with people who felt differently, believed differently, or held differing expectations. That's not how Fe works. When Fe accommodates, it does so because it feels that it should because doing so creates the global environment that it values. Fe is just as able to refuse accommodating because it feels that doing so would be toxic to creating and maintaining a global environment that agrees with its values.
This is why Fe is prone to imposing itself on others, which Fi users pick up on much more clearly and Fe users generally accept as the way people express their feelings - only coming to an impasse when their values oppose one another's, and conflict when they directly oppose one another's. Meanwhile, Fi users can feel very put upon by Fe expectations, and Fe users can feel that Fi users are being needlessly (and even rudely) selfish and obstinate.
Emotional consensus is only a byproduct of Fe's need for expressing (and manifesting) its values globally. When everyone agrees, Fe's values are an outward reality. Without emotional consensus, the outward expression and manifestation of values is difficult and opposed. Just as Te seeks logical consensus, Fe seeks a consensus of values.
Depending on the importance of the value and the integrity of the person, this can take the form of asserting values, compromising, or temporarily surrendering some values in order to maintain the more important values. For example, if harmony is a more important value (as in the case of Enneagram 9s), then Fe will likely abstain from asserting values that are likely to disrupt harmony. An Fe e9 will still assert their values outwardly, and try to manifest them, but are more likely to be patient with them in the interest of harmony. Meanwhile, an Enneagram 8 is far more likely to assert their values because part of their value system includes the sense that they
should assert. An Fe e8 will still prefer harmony if possible, but more weight is given to asserting in most cases because the primary function of Fe is to apply values externally. In both cases, the function operates the same way (seeking emotional consensus), but with different values.
Here is a quote I like...
I've frequently seen people reference Lenore Thomson's definitions of Fe, and I feel that I need to clarify something (as Fe is want to do). Lenore Thomson is self assessed INTJ, and from what I've read of her work, I would agree. She's a brilliant INTJ with an amazing amount of insight about cognitive function theory. However, as an INTJ, she has no native understanding of Fe, and therefore can only understand it as an external concept through her observations, and furthermore her filters of Te and Fi. This leaves her in a position where her understanding of Fe comes only from observing Fe in others, usually SFJs, and therefore her descriptions of Fe are not entirely well defined and rather biased as an outsider.
Therefore, I feel compelled to clear up some misconceptions about Fe.
Fe is at its core a system of reasoning based on how it feels things should or should not be.
Let's analyze this statement. Fe is at its core a system of reasoning - meaning that it is in fact a process of analysis, deduction, and assertion. Based on how it feels - denoting an emotional, philosophical, and ideological bias. Things - external concepts, people, places, systems, etc. Should or should not be - denoting an expression and assertion of expectations.
Combine all of these factors, and you now understand Fe. Values and judgments applied to the outer world.
However, all of these factors create very common behaviors. Fe users often have a great deal of emotional investment in people, even strangers. Fe users often have a great deal of expectation in social arenas and emotional interaction. Fe users often engage in what could be called emotional currency. All of these behaviors are the result of Fe being applied to these situations, not Fe itself. This is such an important distinction to make for people who are not native Fe users. Fe is not the sum of its expressions because its expressions are half Fe half situation, and most importantly not all Fe users have the same expressions of Fe.
For example, a stereotypical Fe dominant would use their Fe to adapt to others and create harmony - because they feel that's how things should be. However, another Fe user could just as easily create conflict with others because they feel that the others are not doing things the way they should be done. This proves that Fe is not the 'get along' function so much as the assertion of values function. Fe users often prefer harmony, because they often feel that harmony should exist not because Fe inherently seeks harmony. Fe inherently seeks to exert the individual's values with respect to the external.
A classic example of this is how obnoxious some ENTPs and ESTPs can be because their inferior Fe feels things should be a certain way, as led by how their Ti understands things to work. I've known several ENTPs and ESTPs who very much felt that harmony was a waste of time. However, this is still a manifestation of Fe.
Therefore, as much as Fi is a function of one's internal values. Fe is a function of one's external values. This is evidenced by the fact that most Fe users know exactly how they feel about things, but are often unable to discern how they feel inside. Fe users have strong opinions, but are often a mystery to themselves - assuming they bother to question their own feelings (Fi) because Fe tells them how they should feel. An Fe user can convince themselves that they should feel things or in ways that they simply cannot, and this can cause a great deal of internal emotional conflict. On the other hand, an Fe user can convince themselves that they should feel something and thus be motivated to greatness. For example an ESTP who convinces themselves that they should be tough, fearless, etc. or an ESFJ who convinces themselves that they should be benevolent, kind, and patient. In both cases the individual is applying an external ideal to themselves, and is thus using Fe rather than Fi.
The idea that Fe is inherently based on how others feel is incorrect. Fe can be swayed by the opinions of others, but it is just as capable of bolstering itself against the opinions of others. What matters is whether or not the Fe user feels they should be swayed by the others in question. For example, a religious Fe user would likely feel that they should adapt their views to match their religion, but would not at all feel compelled to adapt their views to match another religion when around people of a different faith. This person may feel compelled to be polite and harmonious, and therefore respect the other faith's right to its traditions, but would feel strongly that they should not also practice while in the presence of it. However, an Fe user who feels antagonistic to another faith might well be disruptive if they felt this was what should be done. Fe is one of the biggest reasons for religious clashes. Clearly, Fe users in wars of ideology are not feeling compelled to be harmonious. In fact, some of the most heated arguments come from two Fe users who have differing views on how things should be.
Therefore, while Fe is usually motivated to be harmonious, and many other things attributed to it, because it is a function of external values, it must be noted that Fe is simply that - a function of external values, and as such it is much more diverse and applicable than most definitions give it credit.
I love it because she leaves some room for different development pathways within the type. Not all INFJ's choose the same outlets for their skills - art, for example. She sticks pretty closely to describing different ways that we can choose to use functions. This isn't nearly as colored by stereotypes, even if she doesn't give a fabulous explanation of Fe. The bottom line is that not everyone experiences it the same way.
Yes, I agree with all of this.
