Fe and Fi

[Asa]

I don't know as much as some others on this forum about MBTI yet (which should be obvious sometimes. ; ) ) But I find one of the glaring differences in types to be Fe and Fi.
I'm wondering what your experiences and thoughts about Fe and Fi are.

I read recently that INFJ women are often seen as too 'forward' because society prefers women to have Fi.
In constrast, I read today that INTJ men have issues because society prefers men to have Fe.
Have any of you experienced this?

And, of course, a big difference between INFPs and INFJs is Fi and Fe.

-- Since there are so many INTJs and INFPs here, as well as other types, I'd like to learn about your experiences and perspectives on Fi and Fe.
I want to include everyone in this discussion, and not have it be "For INFJs only".

Fe doesn't feel like a very introverted trait to me, but it may contribute to why we are so good at helping others.

My SO uses Fi and has complained twice recently that I "overshare". If he is bothering to say it out loud, I know he thinks it more often than he says it, too. But I feel stifled and trapped if I cannot be open about my feelings.

A fellow INFJ friend is going through an emotional time and is being very open about it. It shocks people. Sometimes I'm even surprised by what she says publicly. I wonder if people react more strongly because she is a woman, or just because she is typically quiet, but this emotional state has brought extroverted feeling 'to the top'.

Does Fe, mixed with being introverted (and disliking confrontation) contribute to our most infamous behavior, the "INFJ Door Slam"?

Fe is my least favorite part of being an INFJ. Do others feel this way? Fe seems to rock the boat with the other facets of INFJism. It is our open door that contrasts with a more private, quiet self.

Here is a good article on coping with INFJ Fe:
http://infjramblings.com/2015/01/come-terms-extraverted-feeling-fe.html

 

[Wyote]

The article you shared is incredibly good!

I could talk so much just about Fe. When I've taken tests I generally score very high on both Fe and Fi so sometimes it is difficult for me to interpret which one is at play in certain circumstances.

I know that growing up, having mostly introverted friends and Fi user friends, I was very often misinterpreted as an extrovert. I would then confuse my friends by not wanting to engage in group social activities. I would very often be the instigator of get togethers, but then when they happened I'd just fade into the background of the event itself (which is what I wanted because the events themselves are taxing on me). I freakin love planning shit but I hate having to babysit the thing when it's running.

My gf is an Fi user. I think the fact that we were both interested in psychology and also MBTi almost from the beginning of our relationship really helped iron out some of those Fe/Fi clashing issues that can come up. She still gets sort of ansty when I'm waving my arms all about and progressively raising my voice as I get more and more into a topic haha but she also helps me tone it down so that I don't over exert myself. By the same token I help amp her up and express more passion outwardly than a typical INTJ might. I keep her from being a brick and she keeps me from being a loon.

My Dad is also an Fi user (INFP) and it's amazing to see his mind at work sometimes. Like, INFJs enjoy pretending to be creative but INFPs take it all the way with no apologies. I go deep in my mind with Fi and have a lot of fun but I feel like INFPs are in Psychedelic Wonderland and I'm in Sepia Oz.

 

[charlatan]

I usually think it's good to explain to those new to this stuff what I wished I knew when I started -- anyway, it's worth noting the choice to say your top two functions alternate with e/i is really just that: a choice. CG Jung, the inventor of functions theory, didn't go by this rule.
Please treat the choice of model as more "this is the most philosophically interesting" rather than "this is the one that describes empirical reality" -- the functions models are anything but empirical.

The most empirical personality theories I know neighbor the Big Five, which are based on the idea that a) the least researcher-specific bias will emerge if we start by analyzing all dictionary terms relevant to personality, b) we perform data-analysis to see if a common number of robust statistical variables emerge repeatedly. The result if the 5 factors. Note there is a challenging model called the HEXACO, which proposes 6 rather than 5, but they are similar to the extreme.

When I use the e/i alternate theories, I prefer socionics' model, but I don't really use socionists' ideas religiously beyond just the structure of their model -- my definitions of what the 8 are about are based on considering a lot of points of view and don't necessarily adhere to one theorist's.
For example I like to take a more Jungian slant than some of them do.

That said, a problem with Jung's theory that's hard to miss for those very familiar with it is that his version of extraversion-introversion is too broad. I do not think it makes it easy to identify how the different 4 functions mesh with the philosophies of introvert-extravert, and certainly don't think the traditional concepts of Fe as using "external standards" for feeling judgment make much sense, because ultimately, feeling judgment involves a subjective criterion for evaluation. Jung tries to portray Fe in terms of considering collective values and the like, but also tries to have it both ways by asserting a differentiated feeling function involves a distinctly individual slant on feeling.
I know what he was getting at, and there is a grain of truth, but here I have to say ultimately there's better ways of thinking of it.

Fortunately, Jung wrote a LOT about extraversion/introversion, and included a myriad of other remarks hinting what Fe is and isn't, and some of these are more sensible. As much as I reject a myriad of socionics things like VI and the Reinin dichotomies trait-portraits, over-emphasizing its ability to predict relationship dynamics and the like, I rather like their take on Fe vs Fi as about ethics of emotion vs ethics of relations. Note that ethics of emotion is NOT the experience of emotion, which Jung would say isn't a rational function -- speaking of the ethics of something puts it distinctly within the sphere of reasoning about values.

Now for those not familiar with this, it may take some getting used to, but it's actually a very natural idea. The gist is that Ti is the quintessential view of judgment as about logical relations, rather than about objects -- the all too traditional concept people have had from age-old about sensory objects and logical relations, with logic by itself having no content (think pure formal logic), and sensation by itself involving no relations, with the relations imposed by the subject (even causality may be placed on this category).
Where psychological types arise, though, is we realize this distinction is artificial: real cognition is an eclectic mix of subjective and objective factors, with it hard to neatly separate perception from judgment, and object from subjective factor ... hence we come up with these elaborate patterns which result from different perspectives on the issue.

Within this view, object-oriented logical judgment is what we might traditionally associate to empiricism: the idea that logic conveys not static relations, but rather facts. Our scientific experients rely not on static relations but on facts. The view that even supposed static logical relations, ie mathematics for instance, are subordinate to algorithms because ultimately, some computational process must execute to produce a proof of a logical statement is a good example of this. Te is this sphere, called algorithmic logic. Note this is very much jumping off of ideas Jung already had, but he seemed to have a more negative view of extraversion and tended to accuse it of concretism. Now one can observe that a similar distinction can be drawn between Fi and Fe, except with Fi, the relations observed aren't logical relations but ethical relations, and the *facts* one experiences aren't part of algorithms, they're rather the flux of emotional state, the subjective aspect. One could perhaps call Ti vs Fe as involving the idea that logical relations by themselves cannot move us to act, so at the extreme we must be moved -- and if Fe in this theory involves something, it is to ensure one does not remain unmoved. Hence ethics of emotions -- that which moves us. Just as Ti focuses on the constraints and frameworks under which we can formulate a logical statement, Fi is what gives our ethical relations to things definition and grounding.

The dichotomy of inwardly reflective vs collectively oriented that Jung is appealing to frequently is best covered in the FFM combined scales of Factor V and Factor I (+ the first, - the second with an emphasis on the former).

 

[charlatan]

By the way, for those who do want to know why there's a grain of truth in the idea that FJs look like a certain version of Fe (not the one I'm explaining), it's that J relates to Conscientiousnes, and generally Conscientiousness implies a certain greater willingness to adhere to externally defined standards (like getting a goal, like fulfilling duties), vs the more individualistically eccentric INP model.
That's really what's going on.

Beyond that, dichotomies J and P shouldn't have much to do with Ji vs Je.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Feminists think that men should have Fe (not society)

Anyhow, my "experience" of Fi is having intense, private, and meaningful principles, which I don't compromise for anyone. Connected to this, is the phenomenon of permanently closing out people who have both crossed my personal boundaries, and have profoundly disrespected/hurt my feelings/personal principles.

 

[Asa]

Feminists think that men should have Fe (not society)

I'm a feminist and I don't think this. :/

PS: Feminism is about human rights, equal rights, and individual rights. That's all.

 

[acd]

Feminists think that men should have Fe (not society)

Anyhow, my "experience" of Fi is having intense, private, and meaningful principles, which I don't compromise for anyone. Connected to this, is the phenomenon of permanently closing out people who have both crossed my personal boundaries, and have profoundly disrespected/hurt my feelings/personal principles.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that feminists expect men to use Fe. What do you mean? Or are you being a scamp?

Anyway, I do identify with your description of Fi.

 

[the]

Fo and Fum are two often over looked functions.

 

[Asa]

Fo and Fum are two often over looked functions.

Seriously almost wrote "Fe Fi Fo Fum" LOL. Corny humor rules.

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

Feminists think that men should have Fe (not society)

Anyhow, my "experience" of Fi is having intense, private, and meaningful principles, which I don't compromise for anyone. Connected to this, is the phenomenon of permanently closing out people who have both crossed my personal boundaries, and have profoundly disrespected/hurt my feelings/personal principles.

There is a dumb branch of feminism that is out to shame men for everything. They are looking for scoring easy points and attracting attention. It is a cult in my view.

Let us take a look at female leftists such as Naomi Klein and Elizabeth Warren. Klein calls herself a feminist, but she is not blaming men as far as I know. For her, economic and ecological issues are the main concern. Warren wants to reform the banking system to make it work for people. Both are reasonable in my view.

(I am pretty sure that Klein is an INFJ and Warren an INTP. Both have Fe.)

Good left-wing politics deals with the main issues that make sense to people and does not engage in a Kafkaesque sideshow where you lose track of things.

 

[Asa]

In Catholicism there is a term for the behavior and state of mind associated with new priests. This is a time where they feel most excited about their new way of life and want to change the world, enlighten everyone, and are most extreme about their views without being pragmatic, compassionate, or understanding the other's point of view. It is called "First Fervor".

I've seen first fervor occur in every situation where people "find" themselves. (Religion, veganism, feminism, NRA, both right and left politics, subcultures of all kinds, etc.) We can't really blame the entire group for the behavior of the militant few in any group.
A lot of women who are feminists, especially new feminists, have deep anger issues from being abused by men. It takes a lot of time and effort to heal, and people who have been abused are allowed to be angry about that abuse. I just hope they don't set up house there, permanently. (It isn't constructive for anyone, especially the recovering survivor.)
I think discussing feminism specifically is best in another thread, though it does relate to Fe. Hahaha. Not sure how others feel....
TBH, I'm not sure I would discuss feminism in its own thread because this board does tilt to the right.

 

[charlatan]

This is a time where they feel most excited about their new way of life and want to change the world, enlighten everyone, and are most extreme about their views without being pragmatic, compassionate, or understanding the other's point of view. It is called "First Fervor".

That's interesting this has an actual term for it. I think I generally have difficulties with this kind of behavior, mostly because I don't see any reason to let one's guard down with respect to being a reasonable person.
That includes when someone is very angry at something -- there's no use for anger which is kind of all over the place and doesn't know its true target.

 

[La Sagna]

My, admittedly subjective,experience of dealing with Fi users, based mainly on my ESFP mother, my ENFP son, but also on an ESFP man I dated, is that they appear to me quick to take offence about things that are not meant as an offence. All three of the people above I personally found to be "oversensitive". 

My mother would take personal offence if we accidentally broke something of hers and would bring it up years later as something we had purposely done to hurt her - we were kids and it was an accident so it seemed unfair and made me feel like I was a terrible person for something that was completely innocent and without malice. She would get upset at people for many things that I couldn't even understand why she was upset at them for and would hold grudges. I loved my mom dearly but I could never be open and honest with her because she would take offence too easily, so I had to keep things at a surface level with her.

My son used to get upset over so many things while growing up. Still today he can be very quick to get upset about silly little things that many people would barely notice. It almost seems to me that he takes personal offence when objects don't behave the way he would like them to. If something's not working right his reaction is almost like the object is somebody that has 'wronged' him in some way.

As for the ESFP I dated, he was kind of screwed up, but he was a very good person. He seemed completely overwhelmed with his own feelings and would also be hurt and offended at times by completely innocent comments.

I know this may seem harsh. All three of the people above are some of my favourite people of all time, and they all have wonderful qualities, but controlling their feelings has always seemed to be a challenge for them and something that could be difficult to deal with. When I started understanding the different functions I started thinking that perhaps Fi was the reason behind the behaviours mentioned above.



 

[Asa]

Interesting @LaSanga
I have two closer friends who are INFPs. I adore them and find them to be gentle, sweet, optimistic people (and in many ways I wish I was more like them) but sometimes I feel like I need to walk on eggshells with them. I've learned what I need to avoid saying to maintain harmony.
I feel like an elephant among swans with Fi users.

 

[knight in battle]

Interesting @LaSanga
I have two closer friends who are INFPs. I adore them and find them to be gentle, sweet, optimistic people (and in many ways I wish I was more like them) but sometimes I feel like I need to walk on eggshells with them. I've learned what I need to avoid saying to maintain harmony.
I feel like an elephant among swans with Fi users.

This is often true. Sometimes it's the opposite. Some Fi users can be quite crude in their expressions.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that feminists expect men to use Fe. What do you mean? Or are you being a scamp?

Anyway, I do identify with your description of Fi.

I'm ranting about feminists that announce themselves as feminists. They expect men's behavior to be different on account of how they (the feminists) feel.

Anyhow, I am curious about what life is like for a strong Fi user; my Fi has been mostly neglected for most of my adult life. Big issues will trigger intense feelings, but this is rare. For the most part, things trigger interested project-activity/planning in me.

Is your Fi always active? What kind of intensity of feelings are normal for you?

 

[aeon]

Chosen behaviors may be informed by Fi, but Fi judges between this and that,
and has no other function or expression in and of itself.

A given individual with high-level function of Fi may present in any number of ways, and
could be described in terms of other psychometrics, ego dystonics, emotional regulation,
values, mores, beliefs, scripts, cognitive distortions, and so on, and all of those things
might be informed by Fi, but are not to be mistaken for Fi itself.


Cheers,
Ian

 

[acd]

I'm ranting about feminists that announce themselves as feminists. They expect men's behavior to be different on account of how they (the feminists) feel.

Anyhow, I am curious about what life is like for a strong Fi user; my Fi has been mostly neglected for most of my adult life. Big issues will trigger intense feelings, but this is rare. For the most part, things trigger interested project-activity/planning in me.

Is your Fi always active? What kind of intensity of feelings are normal for you?

I am curious and want to ask more about your rant on feminists, but don't know where to begin.

In regards to Fi, I think I probably experienced it/relied on it much more when I was younger and trying to develop worldviews and figuring out who I was. Hard to explain. It felt like I was panning every experience/interaction for any nugget of profundity and how it related to my place in the world. And it was a very emotionally intense time. I was probably much more creative then just as a means to cope with all the feelings. I feel more settled or established and secure in my identity and beliefs, so I don't really seek out experiences and conversations that stir up intense feelings like I used to.

 

[charlatan]

In very simple terms, Te vs Ti being about logical facts vs logical relations is paralleled by Fe vs Fi as being about ethical facts vs ethical relations. The closest to an ethical "fact" is the coherency of emotive dispositions, which is what I regard as Fe.

 

[charlatan]

Just to once again state why I prefer this revision, I sense that the original theories of Fe, Fi, etc didn't recognize that different types of "inner" and "outer" go unequally well with T, F, S and N. For example, "object-oriented" in one sense has the connotation of fact-orientation, and realistically, Te fits this better than any of the other. From another standpoint, object-oriented has the standpoint of interacting directly with external reality, and Se has the best fit to this.

F, being about subjective criteria for evaluation, just can't be reduced to using "external criteria", because ultimately to some extent this places a damper on just how subjective it is -- I think the point of F vs T here is the all-famous philosophical fact-value distinction, and I think the entire point of Fe-Ti as a philosophical divide is that Ti represents the extreme of considering purely structural logic, which by itself is no impetus to really do anything, is content-less, and so on. Fe represents the other extreme: which says that there is no impetus for judgment with purely structural considerations, and that there is a rhyme and reason to when we are moved by something (that is, the *rational*/cognitive side of emotive dispositions -- not the unconscious side or the side pertaining mostly to the physical innervations accompanying an emotion -- this is the sophisticated version of the truism "feeling function=/=emotion or affect").