Expressing Fi + Fe

[Morgain]

Exactly! And our Fi ancestors have done a pretty interesting job Imagine a society without Fi.... Just imagine it!In a sense Fi can be seen as the catalyst of change in mentality for humanity!

What's the origin of Fi anyways? People just "knowing" what's right and what's wrong... Where do they get these conclusions? How does this impact society? Or vica versa.... How does contemporary society impact Fi if it does at all... Maybe that's the question we should be asking

yep yep, very interesting questions!

 

[acd]

i'm not sure i agree. Fact is sometimes the group doesn't want to hear anything else but what it feels good about, so you just go along with it or you leave, which is not always an option. So, i'm not saying Fi is selfish; my point was that Fi usually conflicts with Fe. And so sometimes, if what Fi expresses is not acceptable to the group, even if it is right, it has to compromise and express Fe.

I may have an example of this..

In my small group class, we had to do an exercise with our groups where we read a story about these 'despicable' characters and then we have to individually rate which character is most to least despicable.. After doing that, we had to convene, compare results and then agree on a ranking as a group.

One of the characters was a woman who was dressed provacatively and was coerced into sex with a man who she could have avoided. My group agreed that the woman was highly despicable, whereas I didn't. The debate was pretty intense.. but finally I just had to say: "Ok fine. Put what you want." My professor said that in the past, people had stormed out of class during the exercise.. and while I felt like doing that because I was so disgusted with their decision, I also didn't want to cause a scene or create a rift in our group--since I have to work with them for the rest of the semester..

But in this instance, Fi and Fe were definitely in conflict. I have very strong personal opinions about what qualifies as rape--and at the same time, I didn't want to ruin the group harmony by insisting on my own standards.

(This was an entirely theoretical discussion, so I was willing to concede to my group. If I was ever involved in an actual situation being a juror on a rape case--I would stand firm in what I knew to be true--and not give in just to make consensus.)

 

[Oranguh]

I may have an example of this..

In my small group class, we had to do an exercise with our groups where we read a story about these 'despicable' characters and then we have to individually rate which character is most to least despicable.. After doing that, we had to convene, compare results and then agree on a ranking as a group.

One of the characters was a woman who was dressed provacatively and was coerced into sex with a man who she could have avoided. My group agreed that the woman was highly despicable, whereas I didn't. Things

Ooooh, I think I remember doing something like that one time as well...

You know what's an interesting question to ask... Would a different Fi user in your class be able to come to a complete different conclusion to what you had?

If it is (It probably is) what does that say about the integrity of Fi? Or is it merely a case where one Fi user "misses" some "values" that the other Fi is considering to the equation?

 

[Gaze]

I may have an example of this..

In my small group class, we had to do an exercise with our groups where we read a story about these 'despicable' characters and then we have to individually rate which character is most to least despicable.. After doing that, we had to convene, compare results and then agree on a ranking as a group.

One of the characters was a woman who was dressed provacatively and was coerced into sex with a man who she could have avoided. My group agreed that the woman was highly despicable, whereas I didn't. The debate was pretty intense.. but finally I just had to say: "Ok fine. Put what you want." My professor said that in the past, people had stormed out of class during the exercise.. and while I felt like doing that because I was so disgusted with their decision, I also didn't want to cause a scene or create a rift in our group--since I have to work with them for the rest of the semester..

But in this instance, Fi and Fe were definitely in conflict. I have very strong personal opinions about what qualifies as rape--and at the same time, I didn't want to ruin the group harmony by insisting on my own standards.

(This was an entirely theoretical discussion, so I was willing to concede to my group. If I was ever involved in an actual situation being a juror on a rape case--I would stand firm in what I knew to be true--and not give in just to make consensus.)

thx. yeah, this explains what i meant.

 

[Morgain]

Ooooh, I think I remember doing something like that one time as well...

You know what's an interesting question to ask... Would a different Fi user in your class be able to come to a complete different conclusion to what you had?

If it is (It probably is) what does that say about the integrity of Fi? Or is it merely a case where one Fi user "misses" some "values" that the other Fi is considering to the equation?

I think there are different levels of values.

there are values that are universal
and there are values molted into our system by our experiences in life

for me the first are untouchable, the second are open for discussion and re-evaluation

 

[acd]

Ooooh, I think I remember doing something like that one time as well...

You know what's an interesting question to ask... Would a different Fi user in your class be able to come to a complete different conclusion to what you had?

If it is (It probably is) what does that say about the integrity of Fi? Or is it merely a case where one Fi user "misses" some "values" that the other Fi is considering to the equation?

I'm not sure I understand the question...

People utilize Fi differently. You could say that my group members that were convinced the girl 'asked for it' were using Fi.

As for conceding my opinion and the integrity of Fi or Fe: I edited my post and spoke about that.

 

[Saru Inc]

can you explain how you use Fe and how it feels like? How do you make decisions?

How does it affect other people?


Example:

I am hungry. I want to go to Wendy's... But I just went there yesterday... What if the same person is there, I'd hate to come by when they're slow and make all that extra work for them. Hmm... I could go to Taco Bell, but that's probably the same situation there. Food Lion? Yea, that shouldn't be too bad. Well wait, what if I spill something... That could cause a lot of cleaning and stuff. Would hate to make them have to pull out all that stuff. Hmmm. Well, I guess I could just make a ham sandwhich. well wait, i don't want to use it all up so Tori won't have anything for lunch. meh. I'll just not eat.

[MENTION=1591]Morgain[/MENTION]

My enfp sister would say

"well who cares, they get paid to do it they wouldn't mind if I got a quick hamburger. I'm really hungry, and its an easy order and I'm polite so that will be no problem."


My ENFP sister has a habit of taking the last slice of pizza.



Disclaimer: I would like to say that honestly if you ask me a description of Fi, I'll probably give it negative meanings. Because due to me Aux Fe and like 6th Fi I see Fi as like a selfish, rampant function that wreaks havoc on a lot of what I try to do. I know this is not the case, and when Fi works well with Fe it is an amazing thing. (My ENFP sister says Fe is a compliant, passive aggressive, blame shifting valueless (and useless) function. haha)

 

[Oranguh]

I am hungry. I want to go to Wendy's... But I just went there yesterday... What if the same person is there, I'd hate to come by when they're slow and make all that extra work for them. Hmm... I could go to Taco Bell, but that's probably the same situation there. Food Lion? Yea, that shouldn't be too bad. Well wait, what if I spill something... That could cause a lot of cleaning and stuff. Would hate to make them have to pull out all that stuff. Hmmm. Well, I guess I could just make a ham sandwhich. well wait, i don't want to use it all up so Tori won't have anything for lunch. meh. I'll just not eat.

Oooh, I do this as well lol~

 

[aerosol]

My ENFP sister has a habit of taking the last slice of pizza.

I lol'd. Perfect Fi example.

 

[Oranguh]

I lol'd. Perfect Fi example.

That's odd, I never do that. But... I would never ask people if they want the last slice and then consequently take it if no-one else wants it. Asking such things... hmmmm~ why would you ask such things~ Maybe for social protocol? Maybe people think good of you then

I'm so good at at pretending to be bad at pretending to be naive.

 

[Morgain]

How does it affect other people?


Example:

I am hungry. I want to go to Wendy's... But I just went there yesterday... What if the same person is there, I'd hate to come by when they're slow and make all that extra work for them. Hmm... I could go to Taco Bell, but that's probably the same situation there. Food Lion? Yea, that shouldn't be too bad. Well wait, what if I spill something... That could cause a lot of cleaning and stuff. Would hate to make them have to pull out all that stuff. Hmmm. Well, I guess I could just make a ham sandwhich. well wait, i don't want to use it all up so Tori won't have anything for lunch. meh. I'll just not eat.
)

this is just sick ;-). It is good to concider others but you can overdue it. What if you just think that if you don't go to Wendy's they'll make less money so the staff will get less salary. In what way is that conciderate?

@Morgain

My enfp sister would say

"well who cares, they get paid to do it they wouldn't mind if I got a quick hamburger. I'm really hungry, and its an easy order and I'm polite so that will be no problem."


My ENFP sister has a habit of taking the last slice of pizza.)

I agree with your sister.
and someone needs to take the last slice of pizza. If nobody else wants it then ...? I would alwyas ask first if nobody else wants it.

Disclaimer: I would like to say that honestly if you ask me a description of Fi, I'll probably give it negative meanings. Because due to me Aux Fe and like 6th Fi I see Fi as like a selfish, rampant function that wreaks havoc on a lot of what I try to do. I know this is not the case, and when Fi works well with Fe it is an amazing thing. (My ENFP sister says Fe is a compliant, passive aggressive, blame shifting valueless (and useless) function. haha)

if I would describe Fe it would also be negative. It is an empty useless function. folowing social standard will take you so far but it is meaningless and empty. Concidering others is ok but the Fe way is shallow and empty. If you want to concider others it is better to talk with someone you notice to be in distress and listen and maybe give advice. But not going to a restaurant because you might give them extra work is just an extreme case of overassumption. How do you know you will bother them? It is an assumption...

 

[Morgain]

here is a good explenation for Fe from limits tread:

Fe, or extroverted Feeling is dominant for ExFJ, secondary for IxFJ, tertiary for ExTP and inferior for IxTP. It is an attitude that encourages adherence to the ethics of the cultural/social/familial groups we feel emotionally connected to. Fe leads you to derive your moral viewpoints from some sort of externalized consensus. This doesn't mean you automatically fall in line with whatever moral viewpoints happen to surround you, just that (unlike the accompanying Ti view on logic as something you don't need external input to understand) you don't see how ethics can be decided reasonably without some sort of external context. (Fe views ethics as dependent upon collective consensus in the same way Te views logic/impersonal ideas.)

Fe leads people to adjust, hide or set aside entirely their own emotions in favor of fitting the emotional needs of the broader groups that are important to them. This leads to a certain respect for the common consensus among those important groups regarding interpersonal behavior and treatment of others. If you were to criticize someone's behavior from an Fe standpoint, it would be from the standpoint of, "Your behavior is inconsistent with the group's standards--most people would consider it wrong or inappropriate." Fe appeals to the collective morality of the whole; the fact that "most people would agree" serves as externally objective evidence to support Fe's moral standpoints.

People with strong Fe are typically good at saying just the right thing that fits in with the moral expectations of the audience. For this reason Fe tends to make great politicans because strong Fe users often make outstanding, charismatic public speakers who can play off the emotions of others to rally groups toward the desired cause. They are excellent at organizing, leading and delegating tasks to others with an interpersonal style that gets the job done while still appearing socially appropriate and respecting the emotional needs of others (so long as those needs are reasonable within the group's objective framework of ethics.) They understand how to perform the social/cultural responsibilities expected of them and they expect others to do the same, and if you're not fulfilling these responsibilities they're very good at appealing to the crowd to deliberately make you look like an asshole in front of everyone. ("Look everyone, this guy doesn't fit with our collective moral ideals!")

Fe considers it paramount to show overt displays of loyalty to the people in the groups it feels connected to, which includes helping out friends/family whenever possible and receiving similar displays of loyalty in return. (If these displays are not reciprocated Fe may take this as a sign that the other person is not loyal.) Fe tends to see Fi users as selfish for refusing to adapt their feelings to the feelings of others in service of the good of the larger group, and for ignoring objective standards on ethics in favor of purely personal ones.

The whole idea behind Ms. Manners is very Fe--Fi would wonder why anyone cares about any external consensus on ethics, because to Fi ethics are purely subjective. Fe is concerned with adjusting to the ethical standards as established objectively by the groups it feels are important.

this explains again my dislike for Fe


I think that when Fi doesn't agree with the groups idea and has to yield. It is not that it is then suddenly expressing Fe. I think the motive to yield is derived from Te. Te says that it is at the moment more beneficial to shut up and go along then to stand on the barricades and fight. Your thoghts remain the same derived from Fi but you use Te now to make a decision.

For me whenever a group presses a certain standard I go with it to remain peace. this doesn't mean that I take over the standard. It means that I find it more beneficial to follow. As long as I have not a strong feeling against the standard, as long as they are not to far from my own values, Fi keeps quite. But when they are to far from my values, Fi will start screaming:becky:

 

[Limit]

[MENTION=1591]Morgain[/MENTION]

Right now he has written profiles on all the Introverted types and on ENTJ. You can check em out at the link in the sig.

They are pretty good. Let him know what you agree and don’t agree with.

 

[Morgain]

this is interesting too:

A mature Fi user is extremely in tune with the emotional needs of others and very supportive of and responsive to them. An immature Fi user is overly preoccupied with his own emotional needs and will act passive aggressively toward people who don't bend over backwards to cater to how he feels. Note that both Fe and Fi users often feel a strong sense of moral obligation to their loved ones; the difference is simply the source of this obligation. If it comes from an external/objective cultural standard, it's probably Fe--if it comes from a personal sense of moral responsibility that deliberately blocks out external influence, it's probably Fi.

http://www.personalitynation.com/jungian-cognitive-functions/486-introduction-cognitive-functions.html

 

[Trifoilum]

Apparently I have a Fi-boosting Fe, then. >_>;
*head hurts*

 

[Razare]

Fe for me is an externally focused interaction. You say or do something, and receive an immediate response. It's emotional expression through body language and tone of voice. It's socialization.

When I turn it off, I'm nothing more than Ti bouncing ideas around Ni with maybe a couple inputs from Se. Very little interaction with people in the external environment occurs without it. I turn it off regularly because my moods are often sour and so I do my best not to express that too overtly. Plus, I just don't share myself with everyone. If I had been raised differently, maybe I would.

 

[Morgain]

Fe for me is an externally focused interaction. You say or do something, and receive an immediate response. It's emotional expression through body language and tone of voice. It's socialization.

When I turn it off, I'm nothing more than Ti bouncing ideas around Ni with maybe a couple inputs from Se. Very little interaction with people in the external environment occurs without it. I turn it off regularly because my moods are often sour and so I do my best not to express that too overtly. Plus, I just don't share myself with everyone. If I had been raised differently, maybe I would.

[MENTION=2571]Razare[/MENTION]
so then for you it is either being overwelming social or totaly unsocial?

when you are social do you focus on finding a common ground despite your own thoughts and idea's?

 

[Razare]

@Razare
so then for you it is either being overwelming social or totaly unsocial?

when you are social do you focus on finding a common ground despite your own thoughts and idea's?

Fe is almost always an external interaction. If I were engaging with Fe without anyone around, then I am probably running through scenarios in my head on what could happen in a situation. Fe can act, so it can assume other personalities and perspectives when used in conjunction with Ni. I can try to anticipate what other people might do in a situation. I have a hunch this is primarily Ni and Ti though. Fe just gives those processes a social focus.

And yes, common ground is more important than personal views when using Fe. But Fe can also be used to convince people to your point of view. Whether I do that really comes down to how likely it is that I can convince the person.

As an INFJ, you pretty much have to accept, just like everyone else, that not everyone is going to conform to what you think. So Fe's primary role is staying on good terms with everyone and making sure your social situations aren't conflicted.

The INFJ that doesn't quell their beliefs to conform with society has to battle to have their ideals realized by others. This is why some INFJ's are like Ghandi or Hitler. Every INFJ has their button issues too, where they'll refuse to be quiet or conform. Mine are copyright law and perversion of democracy by corporations.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

This confused me for a while but the thing to remember is that we all use both. Everybody uses all eight cognitive functions, we're just much better at using some than others and we naturally lean towards these.

One way that I thought about this the other day is the way I judge something. While some of my friends might say "This makes me feel..." I might say "This feels..." It is almost as if I actually externalise emotions and moral judgements and see them as coming from the outside.

So let's say me and an Fi-using friend are doing something we feel uncomfortable with morally. My friend might say: "This makes me feel bad" and I might say "This feels wrong". It is the thing outside of me, whatever situation I'm in that I don't like, that feels wrong. My friend feels personally bad.

Now, that's a bit of a stab in the dark and really something that I'm not sure about, so here's some more concrete stuff:

Fe follows an external moral structure, which is rigid for the very reason that it is perceived as outside of themselves. They see morals as universal absolutes (even if we know these things do change over the centuries - to us they FEEL like absolutes) that we have neither the power nor the right to change. So cheating on your partner is never ok, unless there's some kind of circumstance in which an affair is for the greater good (for instance, a domestically abused wife meets someone who can help her out of her situation). This FOR THE GREATER GOOD is very important. Every decision must be for the greater good if it is to be moral. Fe seeks equality. This does not mean that Fe will not let anyone suffer. It means that some people may need to suffer a little bit if everybody is going to be as comfortable as one another - it levels the playing field.

Fi is more flexible. Like Fe, it has a strong moral value system but it could change on the circumstances. An Fi user that has believed cheating is wrong all of her life might change her mind if she were in a relationship and her partner cheated on her and showed genuine remorse. While Fe would not condem the cheater (i.e. intentions and motives are always the most important thing and a truly good person would not make the same moral error twice so mistakes are allowed!) it would not forgive the act. It is the act that is terrible, although the person is not always that terrible themselves. Fi may be able to forgive the act and move on. It may not hold grugdes. Fe loves a good grudge.

Fi's morals are flexible because they are internal. They are decided by the person anyway and are not seen as absolutes or a rigid structure or as being outside of themselves. Fi users may see Fe users as being prudish or intolerant. Fe users may see Fi users as selfish (if they are justifying their own immoral acts) or in danger of being walked all over (if they forgive the immoral acts of others).

It is similar in a way to Ti - Ti does not look at external seemingly objective data, partly because it does not necessarily hold trust in seemingly objective data because when it is mixed with Ni, it doesn't really believe in the concept of objectivity anyway! Ti is MY thoughts on something. My thoughts are not my identity - I can change them. If I have an opinion on something and someone tells me the opposing view and they're convincing, then I can change my opinion and feel no loss. That is not to say that Ti is fickle, only that it is flexible, but it always has integrity - it knows WHY it thinks what it does. Similarly, it does not care what others think. If someone else has another opinion, it does not have emotions about it (except if there is a moral dimension in which case an INFJs Fe kicks in).

Fi is MY feelings about something. Like Ti, Fi does not really care what other people's moral value systems are to the same extent as Fe. Fe is disappointed in a friend that acts immorally, Fi will not hold it so personally, seeing my feeling and morals and your feelings and morals as SEPARATE. Fe does not separate like this. And like Ti, Fi has integrity - it seems more fickle because it is more flexible, but it knows WHY it feels the way it does about something, where it's morals have come from.

Fe has one answer for every "but why is it wrong?" case - it causes harm to other people. I cannot for the life of me see my way around this because to me it is very obvious that if I could prevent harm by not doing something then I should forego that action. Otherwise, I would be being selfish. But many people don't see it this way, particularly if they can argue "but in this instance a person wasn't harmed". To me it is the principle that so and so act CAN harm others that makes it wrong. I am inflexible, believing it terrible that a person has the capacity to do something I see as wrong, and ignore evidence that everything actually turned out ok.

Erm...yeah. Hope that makes sense!