Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, this thread was made because @fresh and @Fimbrethil and I were all starting to hijack someone's typing thread to dialogue about Ellen's type. ^-^ But now others can feel free to join in the discussion.

Most people type her as an ENFP. I actually see more of a case for Fe-dom than anything else.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
@fresh I will respond to you here haha. ^_^

For what it's worth, I totally agree MLK is a Fe-dom. I also think Obama is too (you can probably see that just as easily). I read the mbti-notes you posted, and while I think I agree with some of it, I still think it somewhat narrowly understands both Fe and Fi as necessarily having to do with the social sphere, the whole paying attention to "ripple effects" thing... Although interestingly, even if we interpreted Fe like that, I think we could still make the case that Ellen uses Fe.

Anyways, here's a quote from Jung on Fe (and it's one that's misunderstood sometimes as "following the majority's values"):

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is likewise oriented by objective data, the object being the indispensable determinant of the quality of feeling (aka: evaluation)... I may feel moved, for instance, to say something is "beautiful" or "good" not because I find it "beautiful" or "good" from my own subjective feeling about it, but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling aka: evaluation situation.
Jung isn't trying to say here that the Fe-type will absolutely take on the majority's values. Rather, that they evaluate things objectively. This is something I see Ellen doing. She actually does say something is "beautiful/good/[insert evaluative judgement here] because it is fitting to do so. We should all be kind to each other? Why? Being kind is good. In that one interview I posted, it was, "Hey, I'm not a political person. It doesn't matter if you're republican, democrat, etc. CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG." Why? Because that's just good period. No rumination, no here is how this is significant to me (NOT the same thing as "this thing happened to me, I felt scared/ashamed/[insert emotion here]", that is just human), no nuance...

I actually expect Fe-users to be moved emotionally by something. It'll be like, I felt such-and-such, this moved me. And then you will hear the objective value statements. I felt ashamed. No one should feel ashamed. Everyone has the right to such-and-such! This is what is good. There is clearly a problem with society. Society isn't being accepting. People should be more tolerant of one another. We should respect each other's views. Being cruel is never justified. CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG.

When she discusses events that happened to her personally (like her fearing coming out), it's not type specific at all. She says she feels shame, she feels scared, she worries. The thing is - anyone would in that situation. That she is aware and expressing emotions she has does not mean she is evaluating things subjectively.

If someone is against convention, it is a major indication of type, but it's really important to sift through why they are against convention and how they proceed to tackle it, because most people will have specific gripes to a specific type of convention. Perhaps you're getting confused with this because you're attributing Ti to Fe when they're not the same, even if they work together.
It's a Fe stereotype that the Fe type will be all about convention. Is Te all about just getting your info straight from the textbook? Does the Te-type always believe the same things as the vast majority? No, certainly not. But it's still objective. The same principle holds for Fe. But you will find most people have this idea of what is good and bad, what is beautiful and not - there are universally held values. I think Fe seeks out objective criteria just like Te. But that does not necessarily make it conventional.

Haha I know none of that was directed towards me, but I thought I'd give my two cents. :tongue:

One thing that perhaps you're forgetting is that Ellen doesn't control every aspect of her show, none of these hosts do. They represent the show, they work the show, but the network has a lot of control, so do the producers/writers, etc. So any sort of consistency may also rely on data that the show must follow some sort of pattern, otherwise people will not watch the show, and thus they will not profit. This is especially true of American TV programs.
That may be true. I don't know about other Ne-doms, but I would find this kind of environment very stagnant, very difficult to work with. I'd want way more freedom to chase after possibility than that. *shrugs* That said, I'm sure Ellen herself does have at least some of a say in all this.

That being said, I don't think you're being fair to Ellen to say that there isn't "enough" new stuff...all of her new segments, the one's that go viral = new possibilities. It's a big part of why her show is so hard to get tickets to, and she's been doing this show for a good while now. I'd say that the bare bones of the show are consistent, but she has a lot of other things that are constantly shifting around, and you could likely say this of all TV host shows. If she was changing her mind all the time, then wouldn't that be too confusing for most of the population?
I know, the bare bones do remain consistent. That's a little funny to me. I do get she might have to keep it that way, but like I said - it's hard to see an Ne-dom being able to remain like that for an extended period of time without wanting to incorporate something new or change something in a way... Ne by definition pulls against stagnation and routine or anything getting in the way of new possibilities. I don't think having a video go viral = more possibilities. For Ne, the enthusiasm is all about the idea of something being enticing.

Here's a quote from Jung concerning Ne:

When it is the dominant function, every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life. In a very short time every existing situation becomes a prison for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. For a time objects appear to have an exaggerated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, deliverance, or lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they served their purpose as stepping-stones or bridges than they lose their value altogether and are discarded as burdensome appendages. Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing them and delivering the individual from their power. Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and t o which all else must be sacrificed.
Here Jung is talking about things just coming into existence, something where you can see within it a glimmer of future potential. Ne is always pushing things beyond what they are and what is there.

Her "new segments" don't feel very "new" to me, they kind of feel like she's still mainly about being playful, having fun, getting people to laugh. Maybe it'll be in a convenience store instead of somewhere else. Maybe the setting changes. But nothing substantial in my eyes.

Haha well I wasn't implying that if you're an Ne-dom = you're automatically good at improvising in the moment, but I think it's a skill she has gained based on her Ne...as much as Ne is focused on future possibilities, I think it's also "in the moment" because it is not processing things constantly like an introverted function would. Perhaps it's a stereotype that Ne-doms are playful, but so far I've found that to be true, in one way or another, Ne wants to play with ideas and "what ifs", which is the core of her comedy style.
Ne does like playing with "what ifs" but every type can play the "what if" game. Like you can imagine you're going on a trip or something. But for Ne, there's a particular reason you play "what if". And that is not that you're getting fun out of being ridiculous or hilarious. You have to be inspired or captivated by some concept or idea, or something in general outside of yourself that feels like it has some kind of future potential. It's like walking down a path that keeps bending and you have to keep following it to see more and more, because there could be something else and simply the chasing of that potential and seeing where it leads in and of itself is energizing and exciting.

But every type can play "dress up" or imagine different situations. Ne is a different ballgame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well, she's always being creative and silly, and the randomness just suggests Ne to me. I've got friends that are Ne-doms that have a similar sense of humor.
Well, I think Se has the capability to be quite random too. :) And I can't think of why a Fe-dom can't be creative, silly, or random. Creativity, silliness, and randomness doesn't necessarily point to Ne. I don't mean to shoot your point down, haha. Sorry. ^-^ I just think our terms here are kind of vague. Maybe you could go more in depth on what you mean when you say those things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
@fresh I will respond to you here haha. ^_^

For what it's worth, I totally agree MLK is a Fe-dom. I also think Obama is too (you can probably see that just as easily). I read the mbti-notes you posted, and while I think I agree with some of it, I still think it somewhat narrowly understands both Fe and Fi as necessarily having to do with the social sphere, the whole paying attention to "ripple effects" thing... Although interestingly, even if we interpreted Fe like that, I think we could still make the case that Ellen uses Fe.

Anyways, here's a quote from Jung on Fe (and it's one that's misunderstood sometimes as "following the majority's values"):

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is likewise oriented by objective data, the object being the indispensable determinant of the quality of feeling (aka: evaluation)... I may feel moved, for instance, to say something is "beautiful" or "good" not because I find it "beautiful" or "good" from my own subjective feeling about it, but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling aka: evaluation situation.


Jung isn't trying to say here that the Fe-type will absolutely take on the majority's values. Rather, that they evaluate things objectively. This is something I see Ellen doing. She actually does say something is "beautiful/good/[insert evaluative judgement here] because it is fitting to do so. We should all be kind to each other? Why? Being kind is good. In that one interview I posted, it was, "Hey, I'm not a political person. It doesn't matter if you're republican, democrat, etc. CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG." Why? Because that's just good period. No rumination, no here is how this is significant to me (NOT the same thing as "this thing happened to me, I felt scared/ashamed/[insert emotion here]", that is just human), no nuance...

I actually expect Fe-users to be moved emotionally by something. It'll be like, I felt such-and-such, this moved me. And then you will hear the objective value statements. I felt ashamed. No one should feel ashamed. Everyone has the right to such-and-such! This is what is good. There is clearly a problem with society. Society isn't being accepting. People should be more tolerant of one another. We should respect each other's views. Being cruel is never justified. CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG.


Firstly, good idea to move this discussion somewhere else, thank you for that :kitteh:

Yes, I agree, Obama most definitely uses Fe. I don't disagree that Fe obtains their values objectively, however, I wonder if maybe this interpretation of Jung's quote is being taken too literally...I mean, if this were true, then how would an Fi user form judgements of something that is beautiful? Would they even share it? How does this work? I also think the judgements you are making of Ellen's values are too shallow and quick...you are saying that they are objective, but how do you know that? Bringing back that Hillary-Ellen video you posted in the other thread:


Taking your example about not liking politics (starts at 2:40), she first (!) sets it up by saying she's not a political person, she doesn't like politics, and she doesn't understand politics. That's Fi giving a reason for what she says next about hating the "us" vs. "them" mentality, and about wanting things to be inclusive, and about wanting everybody to have individual rights. What she says here is very Fi. Sharing that blurb about herself first before continuing onwards to explain what she wants is important to note. The self is still there, even if her ultimate point is that she cares for harmony and less separation.

You're saying that Fe isn't always dependent on convention, which yes, I do think that is true, in the sense that Fe isn't going to blindly accept the status quo. If it chooses not to do so, it is still going to make that judgement primarily from an external POV, not necessarily a strong internal POV like Fi does.

When she discusses events that happened to her personally (like her fearing coming out), it's not type specific at all. She says she feels shame, she feels scared, she worries. The thing is - anyone would in that situation. That she is aware and expressing emotions she has does not mean she is evaluating things subjectively.
I disagree, I think it is type specific, because she is in-tune with her own emotions and is choosing to act on those, rather than on what her external environment is telling her to do. This is a big battle for high Fi users...to choose being their genuine selves instead of giving in to what is expected of them, which I think Fe users find more reason in doing in the moment. The fact that she came out at all, but especially the way she did it, handled it, and explains it, really signifies strong Fi with her.

I mean, in what way is anything in this video Fe? I posted this before, but here it is again:


It's a Fe stereotype that the Fe type will be all about convention. Is Te all about just getting your info straight from the textbook? Does the Te-type always believe the same things as the vast majority? No, certainly not. But it's still objective. The same principle holds for Fe. But you will find most people have this idea of what is good and bad, what is beautiful and not - there are universally held values. I think Fe seeks out objective criteria just like Te. But that does not necessarily make it conventional.

Haha I know none of that was directed towards me, but I thought I'd give my two cents. :tongue:
@mistakenforstranger made a really wonderful post about Fe and Fi in this thread...he is also pulling from Jung. I will quote what he says here about external/internal judgement making for Fe and Fi:

On the other hand, Fi-doms, or Fi as a function generally, doesn't really try to affect/influence your emotions in the way that Fe does, and that is part of the reason of their conflict. Fi tends to see themselves and others as self-contained universes (That is, introverted) when it comes to the experience of their emotions. Fi wants to feel what they feel, whatever that feeling is, and you won't be able to change how they feel/believe about something, as it is completely derived internally. The change of one's feeling/valuation of something for a Fi-user can only come from within, which is obviously frustrating to Fe (and to Fi, when Fe tries to change their feelings), or as Jung says, Fi does not adjust to the object:

Since it is conditioned subjectively and is only secondarily concerned with the object, it seldom appears on the surface and is generally misunderstood. It is a feeling which seems to devalue the object, and it therefore manifests itself for the most part negatively. The existence of positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly. Its aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate it in an unconscious effort to realize the underlying images.

One is distinctly aware then of the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, this happens only when the influence of the object is too strong. The feeling of harmony, therefore, lasts only so long as the object goes its own moderate way and makes no attempt to cross the other's path.
A Fi-user would never assume they know what's best for another person (unless perhaps a loved one, or close friend), as Tyra Banks does in the above video, because they believe it is up to the specific person, as it is for themselves, to decide. They will listen and empathize with your situation, but I don't think they will actively try to make you feel something different from what you are already feeling; in other words, they won't try to influence your emotions in the way that a Fe-user does. Jung again:

As they are mainly guided by their subjective feelings, their true motives generally remain hidden. Their outward demeanor is harmonious and inconspicuous, giving an impression of pleasing repose, or of sympathetic response, with no desire to affect others, to impress, influence, or change them in any way.
A Fe-user may be upset about something and show this, but unlike Fi, will be more cognitively open to people affecting their feelings, even if they try to resist at first because they are inherently shaped by the emotions/views/attitudes/etc of other people. Afterwards, the Fe person may feel they were being inauthentic (though, I doubt they would see it that way) because their feelings may have changed from what they originally felt, but at the time, they were merely responding to the external situation.

This also leads to the idea that Fe users are unaware of their feelings, (or, on the other hand, that Fi users always know what they're feeling; Correct me if I'm wrong here, as I'm going out on a limb), but I really don't think this is the case. It's rather that Fe tends to lose their emotional anchor (even if only temporarily) in the moment, the feelings of the current situation, because they tend to mold themselves to who they encounter, or to what they believe is expected in certain situations. This doesn't mean they'll always go along with the crowd, or not ever disagree with the group, but they tend to take on the feelings/views of other people as their own, sometimes without even realizing it, so that they can almost lose their sense of self in a way. Phew, for a minute there, I lost myself; Radiohead reference for the cool kids!


As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values.

Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious.
And what he says of Ellen as an example of Fi here:

With Fi, I don't think they really can lose their sense of self, as Fe users do, because they always know what is most important to themselves and must live their life in line with it. "This above all: to thine own self be true." At 2:25 - 2:45, you can see Ellen's Fi, and despite saying she's an introvert in this video, I believe she's an ENFP:

 

That may be true. I don't know about other Ne-doms, but I would find this kind of environment very stagnant, very difficult to work with. I'd want way more freedom to chase after possibility than that. *shrugs* That said, I'm sure Ellen herself does have at least some of a say in all this.

I know, the bare bones do remain consistent. That's a little funny to me. I do get she might have to keep it that way, but like I said - it's hard to see an Ne-dom being able to remain like that for an extended period of time without wanting to incorporate something new or change something in a way... Ne by definition pulls against stagnation and routine or anything getting in the way of new possibilities. I don't think having a video go viral = more possibilities. For Ne, the enthusiasm is all about the idea of something being enticing.

Here's a quote from Jung concerning Ne:

Here Jung is talking about things just coming into existence, something where you can see within it a glimmer of future potential. Ne is always pushing things beyond what they are and what is there.

Her "new segments" don't feel very "new" to me, they kind of feel like she's still mainly about being playful, having fun, getting people to laugh. Maybe it'll be in a convenience store instead of somewhere else. Maybe the setting changes. But nothing substantial in my eyes.
Here, I think you're making your own judgment of Ellen and using it as the reason that "she's not Ne-dom" because it's not what you would do given that situation. I understand that impulse (trust me! I do this also), but I do wonder if you're being objective here (lol). In her personal life, she might exhibit a lot more of that itch to change things then is seen in her show. An example of that is all of her moving (which is mentioned in the above video as well). She will buy a piece of land, make it her own and then sell it. Why? She likes creating and novelty, it's the area where she has control with her Ne. Here is a video where she and Portia discuss it at around 2:45:

 

Ne does like playing with "what ifs" but every type can play the "what if" game. Like you can imagine you're going on a trip or something. But for Ne, there's a particular reason you play "what if". And that is not that you're getting fun out of being ridiculous or hilarious. You have to be inspired or captivated by some concept or idea, or something in general outside of yourself that feels like it has some kind of future potential. It's like walking down a path that keeps bending and you have to keep following it to see more and more, because there could be something else and simply the chasing of that potential and seeing where it leads in and of itself is energizing and exciting.

But every type can play "dress up" or imagine different situations. Ne is a different ballgame.
Idk if that's necessarily true, I think the part that decides "the purpose" is the Ji functions in Ne-doms. Here she talks about the back story of why she enjoys making people laugh so much, and how it stems from her relationship with her mother, starting at 5:27. She also explains this in the video mistakenforstranger posted. Barbara uses a ton of Fi words to explain Ellen:

 
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
She gets automatically typed ENFP because she's a comedian, that's that.

But I actually do think there is a decent case for Fi with her. Other than the whole coming out thing (which is a huge deal for her) she tends to keep private matters, private. Her humor is basically silly everyday stories, which granted could suggest Si/Ne (ESFJ). But compared to Oprah, a clear Fe Dom I just don't see her subjecting us to every single thing she goes through and that happens in her life.
 

·
Registered
INFJ 4w5
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
Thanks for mentioning me and quoting that post, @fresh! I agree Ellen is ENFP, but I can see why others think she's Fe-dom. There used to be another user on this forum who no longer participates, who also made many of the same points @Jewl has made for why Ellen isn't a Ne-dom, and therefore typed her as ESFJ. Unfortunately, I wouldn't really know where to look for his arguments at this point for reference, but as someone who has seen much of her show over the years, I'll try to explain why I think she's more likely a Fi-user, and therefore, ENFP.

So, in light of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, she did this for her monologue, and I think the way she approaches it is very Fi:

"This is not a male thing, or a female thing. It is not a Hollywood thing, or a political thing. This is a human thing."

I thought it was really interesting that she approached it in this way, as a human thing (Fi), when I mostly heard from other TV programs how this was solely a male problem. Ellen has a way to make difficult subjects easier to process because she can switch into making jokes so easily using Ne, but also in a way that doesn't trivialize the issue, owing to her Fi. I really think it's quite a gift!

As you say @Jewl, this is very in line with Ellen's approach here:

No rumination, no here is how this is significant to me (NOT the same thing as "this thing happened to me, I felt scared/ashamed/[insert emotion here]", that is just human), no nuance...

I think if you compare how Laura Dern views it, who was on her show recently, seeing it as a "shared space" and a "tribe of women" as she says, speaks more to Fe, because it's focusing on a cohesive sense of group identity (Fe) rather than from a human perspective.


Another example of Fe recently was seen in how Oprah (ENFJ) (@fresh has also used Oprah and Ellen before to differentiate the two types, and I think it's one of the best approaches) was on her show and approached the Las Vegas shooting, and how much she universalizes the experience to apply to all of us. While Ellen does say in the above video, "We're all the same. We all want the same things. We want respect, and love, and kindness," it's different from how Oprah approaches it, because Oprah tends to speak on behalf of the group (as she literally says in the video with James Frey), and telling people what they should do: "You make everybody feel better...A friend called me crying, I said, 'Turn off the news. Turn on Ellen. You'll feel better' " as she turns to the crowd to say the same thing haha. Fe-doms can be pushy/preachy in this way, whereas I don't ever get this sense with Ellen. She speaks from her own heart, and universalizes the experience from that place (Fi). Of course, I don't mean to say that Oprah doesn't speak from her heart, because she does, but you can tell how her focus is a lot more outwards on the people around her and actively improving their emotional state (Fe).


Sorry for all these sad clips...Watching these again :crying:

To continue from the above, see how Oprah understands this situation, and you can see Fe and her tertiary Se :angry: come out too haha:

"I was defending my turf, and I was defending every single viewer who bought that book! I am standing here on behalf of the reader who's pissed off, that it wasn't what we thought it was..."

I mean, you can't get anymore Fe + Se than that haha! Fe can be very harsh in the name of, "It's for your own good!", which is also the sense I got from Oprah in this situation too, as if she needs to teach him a lesson. You also see her return to a healthier state of Fe/Ni at the end.


Now, Ellen has a very different approach to her viewers, which shows her Fi, starting at 1:10, for instead of speaking on behalf of others and her viewers, she says:

"I just want people to understand me, and to get me, and to know what my intentions are, and my intentions are to make people happy, and my intentions are to never hurt anybody, and my intentions are to have compassion and to hope I can spread that a little bit everyday."

Yes, she wants to make people happy, which can look like Fe ("Be kind to one another"), but the way she frames this in terms of wanting to be understood for her "intentions" is very Fi. I see this a lot in Fi-users that they want others to know the intentions behind their actions, and that they have good intentions, whereas I think for Fe-users, the action itself and what that shows/signifies is what is important to them, because Fe understands emotions in an objective sense. Again, look at how Oprah viewed the James Frey situation. It doesn't matter that he may have had good intentions (whether he did or not) in writing an autobiography based on lies, all that matters is he lied to us, and while we're at it, let me take it upon myself to show him why that's wrong! :laughing:


I think part of the confusion for seeing Ellen as a Fe-user is her Enneagram type, which I think is 9w1 so/sx. Social instinct types can mimic Fe, and I think this is true in Ellen's case, since I don't really see any actual Fe from Ellen. I know some people type her as 6w7 (and perhaps she's integrated), but her view of everybody needs to be kind to one another, and, as you say, "Can't we all get along?" is very Social Type 9. Riso-Hudson call the Social 9 subtype, One Happy Family, and I think this does sound like Ellen (and Ellen would be a very healthy 9). You see this idea very clearly expressed by her in the example @fresh gave with Hillary Clinton: "I want us all to be happy. I want happiness and I want peace." Type 9, The Peacemaker. :wink:

Social Nines: One Happy Family (Ichazo's "Participation")
Social Nines seek a sense of well being through social connection and friendship. People of this variant may often not seem like Nines because they are usually more outgoing, active, and involved in their world. There is more warmth and affection expressed by Nines of this variant. They tend to be idealistic and are often supportive of causes, acting as the "social glue" in many organizations and groups. But even in the midst of social activity, Social Nines remain strangely unaware of and unaffected by the problems of others. They are drawn to situations in which they feel they can belong, but they also internally hold themselves apart—usually by emotionally distancing themselves from others while maintaining an outward friendliness.


Since Social Nines tend to be affable and cheerful and enjoy having different experiences, they can resemble Sevens. They also tend to be more task-oriented: they enjoy working on projects and being involved in meaningful activities with others, so they can also resemble Threes. Unlike Threes, however, Social Nines have difficulty sustaining efforts on their own behalf. They do not easily pursue their own goals and tend to get sidetracked by social interactions and others' needs and agendas.

I understand the argument that ENFP's/Ne-doms are always in search of the new, as Jung says, and Ellen doesn't really fit this, having a talk-show that is the same thing every day, but she does meet new people on her show every day, has new segments, new silly games to play, new pranks to pull on her guests, so it's not like it's a stagnant work environment, and she's been changing it up for 15 seasons now! I also think a Type 7 would affect this quality of Ne's need in search of new possibilities in a more significant way than if that Ne-dom was a 9, as I believe Ellen is, which tends to be a more stable type (to the point where 9s can get stuck in ruts). Compare the format of Ellen's show to someone like Craig Ferguson, who I think is ENFP Type 7, who is a lot more wacky and zany. I think I remember she once tried to change up her show by removing the dancing after her monologue, but apparently people were upset with it, so she now has it as a permanent regular segment on the show, so I think some of the reason for keeping a consistency to her show is also to appeal to her viewers on a day-time talk show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
@fresh, I notice that still almost the entirety of your examples of Fe and Fi are concerned with what values someone holds, and not the process of evaluation. This is not at all Jung’s understanding of the Feeling function.

Introverted and Extroverted thinking are defined as a different process of coming to conclusions, rather than different conclusions themselves. Darwin (Te) comes to conclusions situationally, utilizing objective truth standards and compiling evidence to show that his conclusion is true to reality. Kant (Ti) comes to conclusions by building an internal framework, testing every fact against his framework for internal self-consistency, and not bothering to amass evidence except very little to support the framework- most of the backup is reductionist reasoning.

In the same way, the difference between Fe and Fi is in the process of evaluating things. The issue is not what things are assigned what values, but rather whether those values are assigned based on introspection and an attempt to realize an internal image, i.e. internal harmony; or whether the are assigned based on external justification which takes into account external harmony.

Here Jung discusses introverted feeling- it’s clear he is talking about a process, and not at all touching on the actual values held by an Fi-dom:

Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined -- they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.
If this seems weird, it isn’t because Jung was bad at writing about it, but simply because Fi is pretty wacky sometimes. It is definitely “seeking an image which has no existence in reality.” Anything which can be explained in external terms, such as compassion, usefulness, morals, are not themselves any part of the image that Fi is aiming at. For this reason, Fi is misunderstood a lot… often I see Fe-users make a distinction between Fe and Fi which really is only a distinction between Fe-doms with different personal values. In the process, the Fe-dom denies the existence of true Fi because it sounds so weird to them- They are concerned with things that are wrong, things that hurt people, things that hurt ME, but this is all Fe. Even when Fi is explained, it’s hard to get people who don’t use it to believe it even exists.

Fi in fact, has much more to do with Ti that Fe in many ways.

If someone is against convention, it is a major indication of type, but it's really important to sift through why they are against convention and how they proceed to tackle it, because most people will have specific gripes to a specific type of convention. Perhaps you're getting confused with this because you're attributing Ti to Fe when they're not the same, even if they work together.

This bolded statement you have about Ellen is the Fi way, Fi (especially Fi-Si) makes value judgements about their own unique experiences to enact change in the world. It does matter if the majority of her values are LGBTQ+, because she has had to struggle with those struggles specifically. This doesn't take away from an Fe user's ability to understand or care for these issues, this is just the way it is for Ellen.
If someone is against convention, or is “respecting individual human life and experience”, this just indicates the values that they hold. In order to figure out how they think, we do have to ask why. If someone disagrees with conventional values because they believe they are objectively wrong or hurt people, they likely use Fe. If someone goes against convention because they are largely indifferent to it and it doesn’t help them realize an internal image of harmony or meaning, they likely use Fi.

Jung mentions conventional values while he talks about Fe, but he doesn’t say Fe is more likely to accord with them, he only says Fe will view evaluation as ascribing values to things and expressing them. Again, the Fe-dom will probably have difficulty imagining valuation to be anything other than this, but an Fi-dom will evaluate by pondering the significance of something, and expressing those values will not be an example of Fi itself. Fi’s work is done after the meaning is dwelled on and appreciated and the Fi has tried to see beyond it into the unconscious image. Fe evaluates and progresses outward to apply them and express them. Fi evaluates and progresses inward to ponder and seek deeper and deeper internal meaning.

True, it doesn't tend to a conclusion at all, that is where the Ji function comes in, hence what I meant about Ellen protecting her values (Fi) which is also the reason why she waited so long to come out in the first place, to protect her true personalized values and pursue her dream of being a comedian.
The belief that the Fi-dom wants to protect her values and pursue her dreams, is again a stereotype because it assumes feeling is about the values you have and not the process of evaluation. Any type can have deeply held personal values, and a strong desire to pursue one’s personal dreams irrespective of convention.

You definitely are very good at picking up on Ellen's values themselves. I completely agree with your appraisals of what she values and believes. I just think that "what someone values" isn't the essence of their feeling function, just as "what someone thinks" isn't the essence of their thinking function.

So, this I think is our main disagreement. While Jung is definitely on the side of feeling as evaluation, mbti-notes (and many mbti resources) do tend towards your conception of feeling as values themselves. When these conflict, though, I would say Jung is the way to go, especially since I have seen Fe-doms hold all sorts of values, including ones that are internally formed, against convention, and deeply personal… but their evaluation is always straightforward objective evaluation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
After reading through My Point... And I do Have One a few times in my early teens, I can recall instance upon instance of Ne-Fi. That was the bulk of the humor and the bulk of the book. Bizarre Ne gag after bizarre Ne gag, from buying an entire shelter of dogs to ride with in a snowmobile through the Iditarod to having an argument with someone being interviewed in her book because they steal the bold lettering from her. I think that her books are a more pure form of her humor etc, because she isn't playing off of anyone else or her environment at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
@mistakenforstranger, thank you for chiming in, you're so good at explaining this stuff! I was just wondering if she was a 9, I agree that she seems like one, and I think that explains her tendency towards being more private and "introverted"-ish. I'm also really happy you shared that #metoo video, as I didn't know she talked about that!
I'm so happy she did. I love her :kitteh:

I like that James Frey-Oprah example as well, it explains how Fe can get caught up in the moment, which is harder for me to understand, even if I've been subject to it with my Fe-dom parent. I think Fi can do that as well, but I'd attribute it more to Te than Fi maybe...

@fresh , I notice that still almost the entirety of your examples of Fe and Fi are concerned with what values someone holds, and not the process of evaluation. This is not at all Jung’s understanding of the Feeling function.

Introverted and Extroverted thinking are defined as a different process of coming to conclusions, rather than different conclusions themselves. Darwin (Te) comes to conclusions situationally, utilizing objective truth standards and compiling evidence to show that his conclusion is true to reality. Kant (Ti) comes to conclusions by building an internal framework, testing every fact against his framework for internal self-consistency, and not bothering to amass evidence except very little to support the framework- most of the backup is reductionist reasoning.

In the same way, the difference between Fe and Fi is in the process of evaluating things. The issue is not what things are assigned what values, but rather whether those values are assigned based on introspection and an attempt to realize an internal image, i.e. internal harmony; or whether the are assigned based on external justification which takes into account external harmony.

Here Jung discusses introverted feeling- it’s clear he is talking about a process, and not at all touching on the actual values held by an Fi-dom:

Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate [p. 490] description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. (1) It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. (2) It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined -- they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.
If this seems weird, it isn’t because Jung was bad at writing about it, but simply because Fi is pretty wacky sometimes. It is definitely “seeking an image which has no existence in reality.” Anything which can be explained in external terms, such as compassion, usefulness, morals, are not themselves any part of the image that Fi is aiming at. For this reason, Fi is misunderstood a lot… often I see Fe-users make a distinction between Fe and Fi which really is only a distinction between Fe-doms with different personal values. In the process, the Fe-dom denies the existence of true Fi because it sounds so weird to them- They are concerned with things that are wrong, things that hurt people, things that hurt ME, but this is all Fe. Even when Fi is explained, it’s hard to get people who don’t use it to believe it even exists.

Fi in fact, has much more to do with Ti that Fe in many ways.
The reason why my examples are value-based are because Feeling and Thinking functions within MBTI are Judging functions, which we depend on to shape our values. Also: a. what is the point in having a theory if you cannot find evidence to connect to it? b. we are discussing this within the breadth of a person, Ellen DeGeneres, so the way she came to have her values can say a lot about her "process of evaluation", hence the focus on them.

Personally, I don't really see much difference in what you've just said here vs. what I said before...even if the conversation is within the scope of "values", it is still explaining how one tends to form those values, "a process of evaluation". The bolded statements are extractions that do connect to parts of my previous post:

1.
fresh said:
Fi; internal-based judgements: ... subjective <-- objective
Honestly, idk which direction the arrow should go, I keep flip-flopping and changing my mind, but the point is subjective before objective, or seeking for one's external world to comply with one's subjectively formed values.

2.
fresh said:
Fi <3 individuality, personal rules, internal harmony first.
I also agree that the end product of Fe and Fi don't differ, but the process does, that was what I was trying to say earlier as well with them both being subjective and objective processes if you really think about it. Fe can't be objective in every sense of the word, just like Fi can't be subjective in every sense of the word.

I'm curious how you'd explain the process of evaluation of Fi within your own words, and the ways in which Ellen does not have a Fi process of evaluation.

If someone is against convention, or is “respecting individual human life and experience”, this just indicates the values that they hold. In order to figure out how they think, we do have to ask why. If someone disagrees with conventional values because they believe they are objectively wrong or hurt people, they likely use Fe. If someone goes against convention because they are largely indifferent to it and it doesn’t help them realize an internal image of harmony or meaning, they likely use Fi.
True! No disagreement there.

Jung mentions conventional values while he talks about Fe, but he doesn’t say Fe is more likely to accord with them, he only says Fe will view evaluation as ascribing values to things and expressing them. Again, the Fe-dom will probably have difficulty imagining valuation to be anything other than this, but an Fi-dom will evaluate by pondering the significance of something, and expressing those values will not be an example of Fi itself. Fi’s work is done after the meaning is dwelled on and appreciated and the Fi has tried to see beyond it into the unconscious image. Fe evaluates and progresses outward to apply them and express them. Fi evaluates and progresses inward to ponder and seek deeper and deeper internal meaning.
So you're saying the values Fi has are not expressed through Fi? How are they expressed then? From Jung's POV. Would it be through the Pe or Je function?

The belief that the Fi-dom wants to protect her values and pursue her dreams, is again a stereotype because it assumes feeling is about the values you have and not the process of evaluation. Any type can have deeply held personal values, and a strong desire to pursue one’s personal dreams irrespective of convention.
Right, but we aren't talking about just anyone's deeply held personal values here, we're talking about Ellen's in a specific hypothetical scenario of her creation. How would you explain her grocery store story through Jung's explanations for Fe-Ni?

You definitely are very good at picking up on Ellen's values themselves. I completely agree with your appraisals of what she values and believes. I just think that "what someone values" isn't the essence of their feeling function, just as "what someone thinks" isn't the essence of their thinking function.
Okay I see what you're saying here...but I think this is one of the issues we're having is that by my "noticing" the values, I am also seeing where it comes from...and maybe I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it and putting it to words, but for me, it is very clear where the derivation for Ellen's values are...and by derivation, I mean process of evaluation, which I try to prove through examples, haha.

So, this I think is our main disagreement. While Jung is definitely on the side of feeling as evaluation, mbti-notes (and many mbti resources) do tend towards your conception of feeling as values themselves. When these conflict, though, I would say Jung is the way to go, especially since I have seen Fe-doms hold all sorts of values, including ones that are internally formed, against convention, and deeply personal… but their evaluation is always straightforward objective evaluation.
Yes, I suppose, because I'm not sure if I really like this interpretation of Jung if Fe is basically Fi, as you've more-or-less said in that last sentence. Although I do understand what you mean if you're factoring other functions working in conjunction with Fe, especially the Pi functions, in that sense, I do see Fe being intertwined with deeply personal "stuff". But Fe on it's own...no, I don't agree there. And I think that is what is missing from your argument with Fi, are the way the other functions express Fi. As it stands, all the Fi is contained and stays there. What good is that?

I definitely prefer a more amalgamated theory for MBTI, instead of it only deriving from one source, and of course I have my own personalized ideas of these. There's a part of me that wonders if we are more or less saying the same thing, except I'm using values and you're not. That being said, it seems like our ideas for what Fi and Fe do, in the end, differ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
@fresh, I know some of that post wasn't directed towards me, but I wanted to attempt addressing a few things anyways.

So you're saying the values Fi has are not expressed through Fi? How are they expressed then? From Jung's POV. Would it be through the Pe or Je function?
According to Jung, expression is difficult for the Fi-user. Fi, to Jung, "seldom appears on the surface and is generally misunderstood". It is always seeking after something internal which doesn't exist in reality. This is because their thoughts are directed inwards. Jung says it strives after inner intensity, which stuff outside the Fi-user serves as a stimulus. Jung said this would make the dominant Fi user "silent and difficult to access; it shrinks back like a violet from the brute nature of the object in order to fill the depths of the subject". In other words, VERY internally directed - it's hard to know what is going on in the mind of the Fi-type.

But here is how Jung mentioned the Fi-type may have to about expressing itself (and this isn't quite the same as expressing simply their "deeply held values" - everyone has those):

In order to communicate to others, it has to find an external form not only acceptable to itself, but capable also of arousing a parallel feeling in them. Thanks to the relatively great inner (as well as outer) uniformity of human beings, it is actually possible to do this, though the form acceptable to feeling is extraordinarily difficult to find so long as it is still mainly oriented to the fathomless store of "primordial images".
Whenever Jung starts talking about "primordial images" or images in general, he's usually referring to an idea or something that is more universal - he called it something that is archaic or has an archaic quality. It's old, it's been around, it is common to entire peoples.

The Fi "pure" type (all other functions very much repressed) Jung describes isn't necessarily one known for its amiability and can often appear "cold". However, he says that with these types, "still waters run deep". Their feelings are intensive rather than extensive. And Jung says that this type is balanced so long as feeling (NOT emotion but the process of subjective evaluation) is aware of something higher and mightier than the ego (aka: something outside of itself).

When it's auxiliary, I expect it to be very much in the service of the dominant. The dominant function should be obvious.

I think a hallmark of Fi when it's either dominant or auxiliary is this constant weighing of how significant something is to me. Instead of reflecting on some horrible event and talking about what happened and all the emotions involved and then expressing stuff like, "We should be kind, this was an act of senseless cruelty - it should not be this way, society is sick and it would be good if we all loved each other..." I expect instead of that kind of objective focus a focus inwards... having to resort to getting other people to get the same kind of image and intensity the Fi-type him/herself is getting in its expression. And it's hard to tell exactly what will weigh heavily on the Fi-user. There's a lot of this rumination in the things they say to try and express to others what it IS exactly that is significant to them because what they are focused on is what the external thing has given them - the subjective feeling. So it's hard to trace back...

I once stepped on a dying bird
It was a mercy killing
I couldn't sleep for a week
I kept feeling its breaking bones....

I'm not the killing type, I'm not -

But I would kill to make you feel
I'd kill to move your face an inch
I see you staring into space
I wanna stick my fist into your mouth
And twist your arctic heart

Yes, I would kill to make you feel
I don't mean kill someone for real
I couldn't do that, it is wrong
But I can say it in a song, song, song

... I'm not the killing type
This is a quote from an Amanda Palmer song. She is quite the ENFP. I don't know if I've heard anyone doubt that typing, but who knows. I think use of her Fi is clear in this song. Compare it to someone like Taylor Swift who is quite the Fe-dom. Now Amanda's Fi is used in service of her Ne and you can definitely see that in the way she talks (she has a TED talk you can watch about "the art of asking") and my personal favourite is her Ukulele Anthem. If you want to know what Ne+Fi is like, I think she's a great example. Note she makes a statement of value: "I couldn't kill, that would be wrong." That's a value she holds that pretty much all people hold. Does that make her a Fe-dom? Nope. Because her focus, the way she thinks about stuff and evaluates is subjective.

Which leads me to ask, who do you think is an example of an Fi-type? We've talked forever about Fe, but maybe you can give me an example of someone you think is an Fi type and we can compare them to Ellen. I think that would be very helpful... I want to understand your understanding of Fi and what it looks like in a person.

EDIT: Woops, I forgot to respond to some of the other things you mentioned, @fresh. Sorry. Anyways. Thanks for putting thought and effort into your posts. It's nice to discuss in depth Jung's theory and the application of it. Instead of replying to all of what you said regarding Fe vs. Fi, it would be nice for me first to get an idea of who you think is a good example of an Fi-dom. That would enable me to better understand your idea of Fi, I think.

Regarding Ne, though:

Here, I think you're making your own judgment of Ellen and using it as the reason that "she's not Ne-dom" because it's not what you would do given that situation. I understand that impulse (trust me! I do this also), but I do wonder if you're being objective here (lol). In her personal life, she might exhibit a lot more of that itch to change things then is seen in her show. An example of that is all of her moving (which is mentioned in the above video as well). She will buy a piece of land, make it her own and then sell it. Why? She likes creating and novelty, it's the area where she has control with her Ne.
Hm. You could be right, I wouldn't put it past me haha. But in this case, when I said, "That's a little funny to me," and other stuff, I meant considering what Jung says about Ne. So, I really do think it is hard to imagine a Ne-user given what Jung says of it remaining in such an environment. I did mention myself first ("I don't know about other Ne doms"), but it was only as an example. But if we take me out of it, I'd still stand by my words. Her new segments may be "new" in one sense, but Ne is concerned with the possibility, the idea, the glimmerings of potential on the horizon. I do think there could be argument if we looked at Se... I could see an Se-user getting stuff out of the new experiences, like you said. Meeting all the new people and whatnot. :)

The moving I don't see as Ne either, really. That she gets bored and likes selling houses doesn't mean Ne. I've known many an Se and even Si-types who would like to do the same. I know my parents would love to do something like that. Particularly my dad. He'd get a lot out of it.

Now if she sold her home and had to drop it so that she could be freed up to go someplace, kind of like Ariel dreaming about the human world despite knowing little about it... well, then perhaps. It seems like she just has genuine fun buying and selling new houses, likes the move from place to place. Nothing that suggests Ne to me, and given the lack of Ne I keep seeing in her other videos, it doesn't seem likely to me this is an Ne-related thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
@fresh , I know some of that post wasn't directed towards me, but I wanted to attempt addressing a few things anyways.


According to Jung, expression is difficult for the Fi-user. Fi, to Jung, "seldom appears on the surface and is generally misunderstood". It is always seeking after something internal which doesn't exist in reality. This is because their thoughts are directed inwards. Jung says it strives after inner intensity, which stuff outside the Fi-user serves as a stimulus. Jung said this would make the dominant Fi user "silent and difficult to access; it shrinks back like a violet from the brute nature of the object in order to fill the depths of the subject". In other words, VERY internally directed - it's hard to know what is going on in the mind of the Fi-type.

But here is how Jung mentioned the Fi-type may have to about expressing itself (and this isn't quite the same as expressing simply their "deeply held values" - everyone has those):

Whenever Jung starts talking about "primordial images" or images in general, he's usually referring to an idea or something that is more universal - he called it something that is archaic or has an archaic quality. It's old, it's been around, it is common to entire peoples.

The Fi "pure" type (all other functions very much repressed) Jung describes isn't necessarily one known for its amiability and can often appear "cold". However, he says that with these types, "still waters run deep". Their feelings are intensive rather than extensive. And Jung says that this type is balanced so long as feeling (NOT emotion but the process of subjective evaluation) is aware of something higher and mightier than the ego (aka: something outside of itself).

When it's auxiliary, I expect it to be very much in the service of the dominant. The dominant function should be obvious.

I think a hallmark of Fi when it's either dominant or auxiliary is this constant weighing of how significant something is to me. Instead of reflecting on some horrible event and talking about what happened and all the emotions involved and then expressing stuff like, "We should be kind, this was an act of senseless cruelty - it should not be this way, society is sick and it would be good if we all loved each other..." I expect instead of that kind of objective focus a focus inwards... having to resort to getting other people to get the same kind of image and intensity the Fi-type him/herself is getting in its expression. And it's hard to tell exactly what will weigh heavily on the Fi-user. There's a lot of this rumination in the things they say to try and express to others what it IS exactly that is significant to them because what they are focused on is what the external thing has given them - the subjective feeling. So it's hard to trace back...

This is a quote from an Amanda Palmer song. She is quite the ENFP. I don't know if I've heard anyone doubt that typing, but who knows. I think use of her Fi is clear in this song. Compare it to someone like Taylor Swift who is quite the Fe-dom. Now Amanda's Fi is used in service of her Ne and you can definitely see that in the way she talks (she has a TED talk you can watch about "the art of asking") and my personal favourite is her Ukulele Anthem. If you want to know what Ne+Fi is like, I think she's a great example. Note she makes a statement of value: "I couldn't kill, that would be wrong." That's a value she holds that pretty much all people hold. Does that make her a Fe-dom? Nope. Because her focus, the way she thinks about stuff and evaluates is subjective.

Which leads me to ask, who do you think is an example of an Fi-type? We've talked forever about Fe, but maybe you can give me an example of someone you think is an Fi type and we can compare them to Ellen. I think that would be very helpful... I want to understand your understanding of Fi and what it looks like in a person.
Did I ever suggest that only Fi types have deeply held values or something? I don't believe I said that or even implied that, so not sure why you both are repeating that other types have deeply held values because I'm well aware of that, trust.

Really my gripe is not with what Jung has written, but these strict interpretations that, to me, are too narrow and are missing the point when applied. It's taking things at face value instead of peeking around the corner to see where these things are coming from, especially when the person is directly telling you where, like Ellen does frequently. This is ridiculously important with Fi-doms, but really, this can be said when typing all people. It's important to look past the surface, even if it's just to confirm your suspicions.

To suggest that a dom or aux Fi user does not speak in universal language is ridiculous, IMO. High Fi types are drawn to issues that do not only involve themselves all the time, so are they only true Fi types if they don't share their thoughts with the world? Wouldn't this instead suggest that they are doing as Jung says, thinking beyond their own ego? This type of "strictly self-oriented" thinking regarding Fi is why there are so many stereotypes that are misguided, labeling Fi as people who are extremely self-centered and self-interested, when that is not always true, and is honestly only true when Fi is unhealthy. We often shape what we say based on ourselves and what we've been through, but it doesn't mean that we don't ruminate on issues with society, humanity, and a group of people...it also doesn't mean that we don't share our thoughts about these things.

The aspect of Fi that tends to stay hidden is the emotional depth, the stuff that most people do not care to dive into to the degree that Fi does. I think Fi tends to share their values quite often, especially when they are mature and have grown, like in Ellen's case, and most prominently when it it can help other people. I see it as something that seeps out, even if one tries to contain it, it will still be visible one way or another.

Idk who Amanda Palmer is so I can't really comment on that. A while ago, I posted how I see my own use of Fi as a Fi-dom INFP:

One thing that I think is often glazed over in common descriptions of Fi is how it tends to analyze emotions. All introverted functions have that analytical bent, it seems, but I don't think that is often the way Fi tends to be described. For me, I tend to see Fi's analysis of emotions as a web. It sees the underlying personal experience of an emotion at it's center, but it also sees layered, connecting emotions within that emotion, past experiences associated with that emotion (Si), and future possibilities for that emotion within various contexts (Ne). It also compares to values, desires, self-image, and the emotions/intentions of others involved.

So while Fi is about meaning, values, and authenticity, it also has this component. For INFPs, I think that's why we tend to "wallow" because we get so absorbed in figuring out our emotional experience by uncovering it all.

As for people who use Fi? Besides uh me, myself, and Ellen...I can name a whole ton, but I'll link examples of Fi-dom musicians that are modern and are not typed extensively so you've got to look for it in the song :p I have commented on what I think their types are before on this site, but it'll be interesting to see what you think from these examples alone (if you care to listen):

 

Note that she says "we" in the second verse.


 

 


As for people I think are ENFPs...the two that come to mind right away are Elizabeth Gilbert and Lena Dunham. Would you agree they're ENFP?

Hopefully all of this gives you an impression of how I see Fi.

EDIT: Woops, I forgot to respond to some of the other things you mentioned, @fresh . Sorry. Anyways. Thanks for putting thought and effort into your posts. It's nice to discuss in depth Jung's theory and the application of it. Instead of replying to all of what you said regarding Fe vs. Fi, it would be nice for me first to get an idea of who you think is a good example of an Fi-dom. That would enable me to better understand your idea of Fi, I think.

Regarding Ne, though:

Hm. You could be right, I wouldn't put it past me haha. But in this case, when I said, "That's a little funny to me," and other stuff, I meant considering what Jung says about Ne. So, I really do think it is hard to imagine a Ne-user given what Jung says of it remaining in such an environment. I did mention myself first ("I don't know about other Ne doms"), but it was only as an example. But if we take me out of it, I'd still stand by my words. Her new segments may be "new" in one sense, but Ne is concerned with the possibility, the idea, the glimmerings of potential on the horizon. I do think there could be argument if we looked at Se... I could see an Se-user getting stuff out of the new experiences, like you said. Meeting all the new people and whatnot. :)

The moving I don't see as Ne either, really. That she gets bored and likes selling houses doesn't mean Ne. I've known many an Se and even Si-types who would like to do the same. I know my parents would love to do something like that. Particularly my dad. He'd get a lot out of it.

Now if she sold her home and had to drop it so that she could be freed up to go someplace, kind of like Ariel dreaming about the human world despite knowing little about it... well, then perhaps. It seems like she just has genuine fun buying and selling new houses, likes the move from place to place. Nothing that suggests Ne to me, and given the lack of Ne I keep seeing in her other videos, it doesn't seem likely to me this is an Ne-related thing.
Yeah, but Ne can manifest in many different ways...it's a large part of why xNFPs can really differ from one another. If you think about the functions we have, it makes for inherently unique individuals through and through, and explains why we tend to value our uniqueness. I definitely think the moving thing is a huge sign of Ne-Si beautifully. She gets restless staying in one place, she loves creating with design and playing with different forms of architecture, and she used to move a lot in her childhood. On the contrary, I would think a Si-dom would move when they had to (for a job or dissatisfaction with current area or house) but would prefer stability, that is one of the strongholds of Si. Se-doms, sure, they'd probs be into moving for sure. That's interesting that you don't see this tendency as an opportunity for novelty, as I think boredom is a major issue for Ne-doms, especially in their environment. One could say that this is her version of traveling.

The way I see Ellen is someone whose love for possibility and meaning are held in the idea of making people feel good. Which I know seems like Fe, but I see this often in ENFPs...they care a lot about being liked, which is how they can get into trouble, but when they're not doing that, they really care to be understood and to be on a journey that is self-healing....they also really love sharing aspects of their journey with others. While her show is humorous first and foremost, it is also progressive, somewhat educational, and she uses it as a platform to talk about her values and what she cares about, as demonstrated with the #metoo video @mistakenforstranger shared. This is why she earned that metal of freedom award that Obama bestowed upon her. So to me, she is a wonderful example of an ENFP who has found their footing in life, balancing who they truly are with the things they aim to give the world from their own experiences.

How often do you watch her show btw? Have you seen much of her stand-up? Her HBO specials are on YT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Well, I think Se has the capability to be quite random too. :) And I can't think of why a Fe-dom can't be creative, silly, or random. Creativity, silliness, and randomness doesn't necessarily point to Ne. I don't mean to shoot your point down, haha. Sorry. ^-^ I just think our terms here are kind of vague. Maybe you could go more in depth on what you mean when you say those things.
Haha this is very true! I know my terminology is vague, and I wish I could explain it better, but it's just the vibe I get from her—maybe it's my Ni? Idk. I can't always explain how I pick up certain vibes, I just do. (I'm sorry, but that's the best I've got)! :blushed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Hey! @fresh, sorry for the late response.

Did I ever suggest that only Fi types have deeply held values or something? I don't believe I said that or even implied that, so not sure why you both are repeating that other types have deeply held values because I'm well aware of that, trust.
I know you don't, you have said as much. I was actually trying to differentiate that idea (having values vs. using Fi) more for explanation's sake. Didn't mean to suggest you in particular thought that.

Really my gripe is not with what Jung has written, but these strict interpretations that, to me, are too narrow and are missing the point when applied. It's taking things at face value instead of peeking around the corner to see where these things are coming from, especially when the person is directly telling you where, like Ellen does frequently. This is ridiculously important with Fi-doms, but really, this can be said when typing all people. It's important to look past the surface, even if it's just to confirm your suspicions.
Where you see a certain interpretation as strict, I think of as delightfully broad and like... finally, a theory of typology that isn't solely trait-based but gets into how we take in and sort out information, how we actually think. Like, I think Ellen is very cool and she talks about deep things. Addresses issues. Interviews people very well. She IS very true to herself. All the things you say about her are true. I just don't necessarily attribute them to Fi. When typing someone, I think it's important not to look at what exactly is said, but how it is said. To me, that is "peering behind the corner", looking beyond face value. But to you, that would probably be missing the point.

We're just coming at it from different angles. :)

To suggest that a dom or aux Fi user does not speak in universal language is ridiculous, IMO.
I agree with this, and so does Jung. I quoted him about that earlier:

In order to communicate to others, it has to find an external form not only acceptable to itself, but capable also of arousing a parallel feeling in them. Thanks to the relatively great inner (as well as outer) uniformity of human beings, it is actually possible to do this, though the form acceptable to feeling is extraordinarily difficult to find so long as it is still mainly oriented to the fathomless store of "primordial images".
And I don't think Jung is trying to say they are always silent and never expressing stuff. Just that in general, Fi-dominant types are more likely to be reserved, and it takes more time to ponder and articulate and express their subjective evaluations. Just like would be true for a Ti-dom. Being an Fi-user myself, I know it's not "self-centered". There's a big difference between subjective and self-centered.

The aspect of Fi that tends to stay hidden is the emotional depth, the stuff that most people do not care to dive into to the degree that Fi does.
Exactly.

You mentioned you see Amanda Palmer as a Ne-dom after looking into it a little. What struck you about her - what made you see the combo of Ne+Fi (even if it's just going by little stuff and vibes and whatnot)? As for Elizabeth Gilbert, do you see her as using Fi because she also is true to herself? She was really neat to look up btw. I listened to her TED talk and looked up stuff about her. :) Her TED talk was very well done. I don't know what type she is, but if I were to point to anything that might make me think Ne, I'd point to how she was focused on this idea of the "genius" being something outside of yourself. She did do some of that "could be" - but I wonder if she's really all about chasing after the next possibility and really to her this was more of a "this is a psychological technique so I can cope with the stress of writing" sort of thing. Anyways, if I were to point out Ne, that's where I'd start inquiring. What about you? Where do you see the Ne?

I definitely think the moving thing is a huge sign of Ne-Si beautifully. She gets restless staying in one place, she loves creating with design and playing with different forms of architecture, and she used to move a lot in her childhood. On the contrary, I would think a Si-dom would move when they had to (for a job or dissatisfaction with current area or house) but would prefer stability, that is one of the strongholds of Si. Se-doms, sure, they'd probs be into moving for sure. That's interesting that you don't see this tendency as an opportunity for novelty, as I think boredom is a major issue for Ne-doms, especially in their environment. One could say that this is her version of traveling.


Eh. On the contrary, Ne-doms often don't feel the need to gain new sensory experiences for the novelty. Some Ne-doms might travel, but it's never simply for the fun "new experiences" of it, but for the idea of something - or maybe just the idea of traveling itself. But you might see some Ne-doms content being where they are, so long as they have something new to wonder about. It's pretty divorced from sensory experience.

Also, a hallmark of inferior Si is not going for new sensory experiences - like trying new foods or doing some sensory thing a new way (unless, of course, they're doing something for the sake of an idea or possibility). Not feeling very competent in the area and just sticking with what's known to provide a nice experience is something Ne-doms will do. I think Si-doms are probably more willing to experiment on stuff like that than Ne-doms, really. Well actually that's a general Sensation vs. Intuition thing, now that I think about it.

That said, yeah, Ne-doms totally could and would move - I'm just saying, the novelty would have to come from something that wasn't just the moving and re-decorating in and of itself. Moving and redecorating, moving and re-whatever - there has to be some idea, otherwise it would just feel repetitive and boring all over again.

How often do you watch her show btw? Have you seen much of her stand-up? Her HBO specials are on YT.
Mostly I've just seen some of the stuff she's got on youtube. So no, I'm not a regular watcher of her shows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
Hey! @fresh , sorry for the late response.

I know you don't, you have said as much. I was actually trying to differentiate that idea (having values vs. using Fi) more for explanation's sake. Didn't mean to suggest you in particular thought that.
Sorry that came out so defensive haha, that's the Fi-monster coming out :p

Where you see a certain interpretation as strict, I think of as delightfully broad and like... finally, a theory of typology that isn't solely trait-based but gets into how we take in and sort out information, how we actually think. Like, I think Ellen is very cool and she talks about deep things. Addresses issues. Interviews people very well. She IS very true to herself. All the things you say about her are true. I just don't necessarily attribute them to Fi. When typing someone, I think it's important not to look at what exactly is said, but how it is said. To me, that is "peering behind the corner", looking beyond face value. But to you, that would probably be missing the point.

We're just coming at it from different angles. :)
It's interesting that you see it that way, and I can somewhat see what you mean...personally, I like MBTI explanations that can describe why the traits connect to the thought pattern, so sites like MBTI-notes really provide that, especially when they're taking Jung and trying to provide more depth, adapting it to be applicable to more people, pairing it with in-depth research. But I get that different things click for different people. For me, knowing the "why" is one of the most important things to hone in on...for me, it answers the "how". True, we are definitely coming at it from different angles!

And I don't think Jung is trying to say they are always silent and never expressing stuff. Just that in general, Fi-dominant types are more likely to be reserved, and it takes more time to ponder and articulate and express their subjective evaluations. Just like would be true for a Ti-dom. Being an Fi-user myself, I know it's not "self-centered". There's a big difference between subjective and self-centered.
Yeah, seems like there is no difference here then when compared to more generalized Fi-dom MBTI type descriptions.

You mentioned you see Amanda Palmer as a Ne-dom after looking into it a little. What struck you about her - what made you see the combo of Ne+Fi (even if it's just going by little stuff and vibes and whatnot)? As for Elizabeth Gilbert, do you see her as using Fi because she also is true to herself? She was really neat to look up btw. I listened to her TED talk and looked up stuff about her. :) Her TED talk was very well done. I don't know what type she is, but if I were to point to anything that might make me think Ne, I'd point to how she was focused on this idea of the "genius" being something outside of yourself. She did do some of that "could be" - but I wonder if she's really all about chasing after the next possibility and really to her this was more of a "this is a psychological technique so I can cope with the stress of writing" sort of thing. Anyways, if I were to point out Ne, that's where I'd start inquiring. What about you? Where do you see the Ne?
With Amanda, I watched snippets of her TED talk and she definitely has that "I'm weird and unconventional, and I don't care how you feel about it" vibe to her...especially in the way she dresses, the way she scrawls her eyebrows, the mis-match of the gloves with her casual outfit, etc., so that's not Se, since it's not about beauty or aesthetics. In terms of the content, I definitely could see an ENFP expressing the sentiment that it's okay to ask for stuff as a way to connect with people :p I wouldn't necessarily say that anything that I've seen so far sticks out to me as Ne-dom, but looking at that song you posted, it's clear that she's not Se-dom and has high Fi. Every ENFP I know probably hardcore relates to those lyrics. She reminds me a lot of Kat from "10 Things I Hate About You". I think I'd need to be more familiar with her work in order to give strict examples of Ne, but her Fi is definitely clear and obvious.

No, I don't see Elizabeth Gilbert as an ENFP because of that...it's evident when you read "Eat Pray Love", and even if you watch the movie. The way that she felt in her marriage (suffocated), and the fact that she ran away from convention because it was too stifling...the way that she resorted to traveling different countries that "coincidentally" started with I to escape from her reality and seek meaning in different forms of experiences, from sensory to spiritual...the way that she immediately fell in love with that guy in Bali even though she was supposed to be celibate. She's a true adventurer in every sense of the word, and an accidental rule breaker in that as well. She's also extremely self-aware, and at times her book was insufferable due to how unnecessarily self-absorbed it was (even to me!) BUT I do appreciate this about her because I get it. She didn't publish the book just to share her story, it was to make people who felt like she did in her marriage feel more normal, which I think is one of the most definitive qualities of Ne-Fi empathy. Her "Big Magic" podcast is pretty Ne, she consults her wide array of creative friends, talking about the issues they struggled with in their journeys, and then she takes a real-world person with a creative struggle and assigns them unconventional "tasks" to complete in order to overcome their creative blocks.

Lena's podcast has a similar set-up, minus the real-world person...personally I think Lena is the quintessential example of an ENFP, controversy and all.

Eh. On the contrary, Ne-doms often don't feel the need to gain new sensory experiences for the novelty. Some Ne-doms might travel, but it's never simply for the fun "new experiences" of it, but for the idea of something - or maybe just the idea of traveling itself. But you might see some Ne-doms content being where they are, so long as they have something new to wonder about. It's pretty divorced from sensory experience.
I do think novelty within one's environment is a big part of that search for meaning, because what kind of meaning can one obtain from staying in the same place all the time, doing the same ole things? I know all of my ENFP friends get stir crazy in routines and "routinely" find ways to shake that up...even if they can't afford to travel, they find a way to engage in a new thing in their environment someway, somehow, like making a new group of friends or trying out a new place to chill that they've heard is good (where they can meet new people haha). It's not to the extent that high Se users engage in this stuff, but they still seek out new opportunities, taking what they find and doing something with it.

This is what mbti-notes says on that:

People with this dominant function tend to have a head full of seemingly random ideas, willing to go wherever ideas go, eager to bring them to life as soon as possible. They seek continuous inspiration from the environment, finding interest in details that may at first seem mundane to the casual onlooker, looking beyond physical objects to instead visualize the abstract potential that they possess.
Also, a hallmark of inferior Si is not going for new sensory experiences - like trying new foods or doing some sensory thing a new way (unless, of course, they're doing something for the sake of an idea or possibility). Not feeling very competent in the area and just sticking with what's known to provide a nice experience is something Ne-doms will do. I think Si-doms are probably more willing to experiment on stuff like that than Ne-doms, really. Well actually that's a general Sensation vs. Intuition thing, now that I think about it.
Okay...then wouldn't this hallmark of inferior Si explain why the look of Ellen's show is so consistent, especially if it's been proven to be successful? In Ellen's case with her own houses, the moving is not just about the moving, it's likely about the possibilities that the house possess in terms of design. Plenty of Ne-users are artists and creatives in one way or another, which involves playing and engaging with their environment. I do see that tendency for favoring aspects of the familiar as well in Ne-doms, but I think it's too difficult to blanket all NPs or SJs as one way or another when it comes to the types of new experiences they engage in. Again, I think it's the why that matters the most when differentiating them, especially with Se-Ni users.

That said, yeah, Ne-doms totally could and would move - I'm just saying, the novelty would have to come from something that wasn't just the moving and re-decorating in and of itself. Moving and redecorating, moving and re-whatever - there has to be some idea, otherwise it would just feel repetitive and boring all over again.
To you, perhaps, but to other Ne-doms, that may not be true. I know for me, if I could move and redesign houses, there are 1,001 ways I could do it. I know this could be said of the Ne-users I know that are interested in design, also.

Mostly I've just seen some of the stuff she's got on youtube. So no, I'm not a regular watcher of her shows.
I definitely suggest watching her stand-up, I think it really says a lot about who she is as a person and the way that she thinks. Her stand-up specials all have an underlying message, which I think are pretty meaningful. This is a good one to start with!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Is there any post in this thread that's NOT of the ''tl:dr'' nature?
Well, it is hard to jump in because this actually all started on someone's Type Me thread. Feel free to weigh in on it if you like: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/1156066-im-curious.html

But here's the tl:dr summary, I suppose. @fresh, not to mention many others, think Ellen is an Fi-user, particularly an ENFP. Looking at her humor, her creativity... how she likes to move from house to house (she mentions this during an interview) points to that Ne pushback against stagnancy... She's random and very true to herself. She says stuff that she feels is important even if she gets flack for it. I won't be as good as summarizing this position, hoping I'm doing it some justice here.

In general, I've noticed people look at Ellen and see someone clearly extroverted and this not-caring carefree fun sort of humor that sometimes just feels hilariously random. Some of this is attributed to Ne. Her focus on value paired with the fact that she is true to herself is attributed to Fi.

And a smaller group of people, myself included, think Ellen actually might just be a Fe-dom. She is funny, yes, and random, yes, and creative, but that doesn't = Ne. There seems to me to be absent the chase after potential and possibility - she's like a silly version of Oprah who doesn't care what people think of her. She wants everyone to all get along, observes and states what's objectively good/bad/valuable. We should all be kind. It doesn't matter where you stand, I just want peace and for everyone to get along.

Anyways, feel free to weigh in even if you haven't read it all @Stevester, your opinion is welcome. :)
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top