[Zamyatin]

A recurring theme I've noticed is people tend to assume Ones prefer Fi to Fe. In a way, this oversimplification seems understandable. In general, Fe use tends to be associated with a Sixish or Twoish preoccupation with the opinions of others and some degree of moral relativism, and Fi is generally seen as a far more internal, individualistic, and unwavering feeling preference. The difference between INTJs and INFJs, the preference for correctness versus the desire for interpersonal harmony, is frequently used as a reference point for the difference between Fi and Fe. Even the Enneagram Institute draws comparisons between Jung's extroverted thinking type and Ones.

According to the available data here, Fi-preferring types are about 43% more likely to be Ones than Fe users, though as the PerC user base is not a representative sample of either MBTI or Enneagram type distributions in the general population, caution should be taken in interpreting this data. Regardless, the assumption seems plausible; most of the stereotypes, both negative and positive, of Ones and Fe users are hard to reconcile. After all, a preachy moralist or an unwavering reformer doesn't have that much in common with a people-pleaser or a diplomat.

While I've given the relationship between my Fe and my seemingly contradictory Oneish tendency towards the moral absolute a lot of thought, I'm interested in seeing how other Fe users understand their relationship between extroverted feeling and this Enneatype. Do you feel there is friction between your cognitive functions and your Enneatype? If so, how does that tension manifest? If not, how do you feel they complement each other?

 

[illicit iridescence]

While I've given the relationship between my Fe and my seemingly contradictory Oneish tendency towards the moral absolute a lot of thought, I'm interested in seeing how other Fe users understand their relationship between extroverted feeling and this Enneatype. Do you feel there is friction between your cognitive functions and your Enneatype? If so, how does that tension manifest? If not, how do you feel they complement each other?

Nice question. Let's define things first, so we can get on the same page (http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/):

The psychological function that evaluates or judges what something or someone is worth. (Compare thinking.)A feeling is as indisputable a reality as the existence of an idea. ["The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 531.]
The feeling function is the basis for “fight or flight” decisions. As a subjective process, it may be quite independent of external stimuli. In Jung’s view it is a rational function, like thinking, in that it is decisively influenced not by perception (as are the functions of sensation and intuition) but by reflection. A person whose overall attitude is oriented by the feeling function is called a feeling type.
In everyday usage, feeling is often confused with emotion. The latter, more appropriately called affect, is the result of an activated complex. Feeling not contaminated by affect can be quite cold.
Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process. ["Definitions," CW 6, par. 725.]

Jung believed that introversion and extraversion were present in everyone, but that one attitude-type is invariably dominant. When external factors are the prime motivating force for judgments, perceptions, affects and actions, we have an extraverted attitude or type.
The extravert’s philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion.[ Ibid.]

So according to theory, my (and your) value judgments depend largely on external factors. When we reflect on situations to come to a value judgment, we then take into consideration those factors that are 'not our own'. Rather than drawing upon inner sources like Fi does, Fe draws from external reality. Public 'opinion' is one of those things. I would also factor in upbringing and culture as sources for value judgments.

I think that's why Fe-types are perceived as having wavering and relative morality compared to Fi-types. And therefore Fi-using type Ones tend to stand out of the crowd - it's easier to spot the 'odd' One out (pun semi-intended). I think most enneatype descriptions therefore tend to describe Ones with Fi rather than Fe in their cognitive stacking. It might also be easier to identify with enneatype One when one is a Fi-type rather than a Fe-type.

These are cognitive preferences though, I believe them to be apart from moral absolutism in the sense that one doesn't need to be a Fi-type to favor moral absolutism over moral relativism or consequentialism. You can be an INFJ and hold a morally absolute position like "murder is always wrong". As a Fe-type, to judge a certain situation, you can take that absolute position into consideration, but your judging preference will tempt you to take other external factors into account as well. Perhaps there are circumstances to consider, like accountability when the murderer is intellectually challenged due to a neurological disorder. You may then come to the conclusion that the subject was wrong to murder somebody, but would give a lower punishment or sentence whatsoever given the circumstances. I believe that the opposite is true as well, Fi-types needn't be 100% on moral absolutism.

Speaking from experience, I've yet to be told that I waver in my morals. And while I would say that experientially I am consistent in my judgments, I do think I can be swayed. There are some moral absolutes but given minor issues only, I would consider all that is relevant to judge the situation at hand, including opinions shared with me that I've never considered before.

I don't feel this is at odds with my enneatype. Rather, it is at odds with stereotype and superficial understanding of type One. Not all Ones are hardliners, so to speak. To be an enneatype One is simply to view and deal with the world through the lenses of Holy Perfection, serenity, resentment and anger.

Does that answer your question?

 

[wohonajax]

You might find this interesting. I definitely think 1 and Subjectivism can be complementary, but it results in a very different type of behavior than Naranjo describes, for example. I often find myself pressuring people to be more open and less set in stone when it comes to making judgments about people, issues, etc. (ironic, I know :tongue. Basically, as Apostrophe said above, it's more about interpreting any type of behavior through the core motivation of each enneatype. Behaviors in descriptions are only there to give us an idea of what those motivations entail.

 

[Zamyatin]

You might find this interesting. I definitely think 1 and Subjectivism can be complementary, but it results in a very different type of behavior than Naranjo describes, for example. I often find myself pressuring people to be more open and less set in stone when it comes to making judgments about people, issues, etc. (ironic, I know :tongue. Basically, as Apostrophe said above, it's more about interpreting any type of behavior through the core motivation of each enneatype. Behaviors in descriptions are only there to give us an idea of what those motivations entail.

That's the odd thing, though. I identify equally with both the Objectivist/Serious and the Subjectivist/Merry identities, yet neither is a great fit. For me, there is an ever-present sense that there is one ideal, correct way to do things, and everything besides that is lesser. While I'm happy to entertain the possibility that I'm unable to determine the correct course of action due to my limited understanding of things, that doesn't change that sense that there actually is one right way. I distrust my own judgement at some level as I understand perfectly well that judgement is both limited and arbitrary, but I'm more than happy to fall back on it when necessary, and when I have, I can become unwavering.

As for the question I asked and how it relates to me personally, I sense the Fe in my judgment in a number of ways. I never feel truly alone in my judgement. Everything has a sense of belonging to something bigger than I, something containing all people. For the most part, violations of other people's rights bother me more than slights against myself, though I react strongly when people slight me because it means they are violating my principles, as I am a person just like everybody else. Everything is connected to an outside law, something external to me that I simply serve as an advocate for. That we are "all in it together" is a feeling I've never been able to shake. It is that external sensation/source of value that I attribute to my Fe orientation. I recognize that I'm an individual, but I also don't feel as if I am truly separate from the rest of the world, and as such I, along with every other human being, have obligations to each other. My resentment is generally directed at people who shirk those obligations, especially those who do so for selfish, individual reasons. It seems odd to say it, but disrespect is the offense that bothers me the most, and most of the things I dislike I dislike because they are seen as disrespectful to the humanity of others, as if they think so highly of themselves they feel they have the right to withdraw themselves from humanity and to claim divinity.

That's how I understand the relationship between my Fe and my Enneatype.

 

[piscesfish]

I think my Fe works well with my E1, especially regarding strict adherence to social norms/"the right thing to do". For example, I disapprove of people who drink or do drugs not because it goes against a specific value of mine, but because society views (at least in theory) it to be wrong.

None of my ideals conflict with social order because my Fe sees that as disruptive and my 1w2 enneagram sees that as morally wrong. In my book, those two (disruptive to society and morally wrong) are interchangeable.

I like to think of Fe-using Enneagram Ones as the vigilantes of society

 

[Swordsman of Mana]

I like to think of Fe-using Enneagram Ones as the vigilantes of society

what you just described is the opposite of vigilante. vigilante is "society thinks this is acceptable, so if they won't do anything about it, I will" (think Batman, Wyatt Earp, Rorschach etc)

@OP
I think most of the FJs who type as 1s are more likely Social 6. 1s have more of an internal sense of what is right/wrong (they are, in that regard, less compliant than they are made out to be)

 

[KINGoftheAMAZONS]

I think my Fe works well with my E1, especially regarding strict adherence to social norms/"the right thing to do". None of my ideals conflict with social order because my Fe sees that as disruptive and my 1w2 enneagram sees that as morally wrong. In my book, those two (disruptive to society and morally wrong) are interchangeable.

I like to think of Fe-using Enneagram Ones as the vigilantes of society

My ISFJ mother is like this, though I'm not sure if she's a type 1 or 2. But either way, she has a very strong connection to type 1, and she holds fast to her traditional values like they are gospel (though technically most of them come from Christian gospel lol). I'm also a Fe user and a type 1, and my values have changed over time.

I used to be really traditional myself, but I've moved away from such restrictive ways of thinking in favor of something based more on rational-empathy, truth, and annihilating human suffering. But just as my mom clings to her Bible, I cling to the three principles I've mentioned above. And even though I'm a Fe user, my principles actually put me in opposition to society (and my mother) in most cases.

For example, I disapprove of people who drink or do drugs not because it goes against a specific value of mine, but because society views (at least in theory) it to be wrong.

I also loathe excessive drinking, drunkenness, and recreational drug behavior. Not because of what other people think, but because I hate the thought of people destroying themselves. I hate the side effects that come with drug/alcohol use. I hate the fact that many people are in so much emotional and or physical pain, that they feel the only way to escape their anguish is by drinking and smoking poison. Such desperation breaks my heart. If I could set fire to all alcohol and drugs that are meant for recreational/self-medicating purposes, I would.

I'm not sure what my post says about Type 1 Fe users, but feel free to analyze it and tell me what you think.

 

[Zamyatin]

what you just described is the opposite of vigilante. vigilante is "society thinks this is acceptable, so if they won't do anything about it, I will" (think Batman, Wyatt Earp, Rorschach etc)

@OP
I think most of the FJs who type as 1s are more likely Social 6. 1s have more of an internal sense of what is right/wrong (they are, in that regard, less compliant than they are made out to be)

I'm not sure I would agree.

These two types (1 and 6) are easy to distinguish, however, by noting the overall emotional tone of each type. Average Sixes are anxious, indecisive, ambivalent, and, above all, reactive. They find it difficult to relate to others with self-confidence as equals, tending either to become too dutiful and dependent or to go to the opposite extreme and become rebellious and defiant. Sometimes they get stuck in the middle and become ambivalent, indecisive, and vacillating.

These traits are almost completely absent in average Ones. Their overall emotional tone is one of self-controlled, impersonal efficiency, orderliness and propriety. Ones are emphatically not indecisive: they know their own minds and have opinions about everything, which they are more than willing to express to others. Ones are certain, and trying to convince others that they know the optimal way to do things. Sixes are uncertain, and rely on reassurance, back-up, familiar procedure, or the sanction of previously tested ideas and philosophies to help them come to decisions.

Average Ones are often so tightly self-controlled that they are able to keep their feelings at bay. They are frequently unaware of the degree of their tensions. Average Sixes struggle with more volatile feelings and have difficulty putting them aside–although they seldom express their feelings to others. Sixes carry considerable anxious tension and are more aware of it. Righteous anger, irritation, and moral indignation are the principal negative emotions in Ones, whereas fearfulness, suspicion, and anxiety are the principal negative feelings in Sixes. Moreover, while lower functioning Ones can be sarcastic and verbally abusive, they almost never let themselves get out of control and are seldom physically violent, whereas low functioning Sixes can more easily lose their tempers, sometimes erupting into hysterical reactions or even physical violence.

Few of the FJ Ones I've met online or in person are indecisive or ambivalent. I'm certainly not -- judgment comes naturally for me, so much so that I often have to force caution onto my decisions to avoid ignoring alternative opinions or approaches. It's only in extreme circumstances that you'll see the characteristic Sixish "committee of confidants" behavior in me, seeking out the advice of others (generally, when making extremely important decisions I can't afford to err on, and when I'm uncertain of the ethics of a situation). Even then, once I feel I've received enough information, which usually doesn't take very long, I stop asking questions from others and start trusting my own judgment again. I don't feel any strong sense of reliance on others for my decisions.

One of the best examples of an FJ One is an ENFJ so/sp I knew a couple of years ago. He was the lead organizer and campaigner for one of the PIRGs. Since at the time I was in an administrative position with the local Democratic Party and the PIRG was campaigning for several progressive causes in the area as well as pushing for voter registration among the young, we coordinated a lot of our efforts. He was very much an NF, and very much a One; there wasn't an ounce of the anxiety or fearfulness you find in most Sixes in him, though you DID see the exacting demands of others. If you agreed to do something for him, and you didn't do it, you could instantly see the flash of anger across his face before he managed to stifle it and to smile while basically telling you "don't ever let this happen again, do you understand me?". The guy lived by his day planner, working 12 hour days with each hour of that day neatly divided up among his various duties. Once, I asked him "what do you think the most important quality for an activist?". His answer? "Good time management." Every time he was leading a group work project, he would lay out clear goals and deadlines for that project. For example, he might tell his volunteers, a bunch of college kids from the local campus, something along the lines of "we have six volunteers and an hour and twenty minutes to make phone calls. I'm expecting the group to make about 75 calls and to get around 30 yes responses. We can stop early if we meet either of those goals."

I'm certainly not a Social Six. My social instinct is rather undeveloped, actually. I'm not an activist, nor do I attempt to make sweeping reforms of the world in accordance with some ideal or belief. While I've worked with a lot of activist types in the past, and I've certainly done work that could be classified as activism, they were generally career moves or because I felt they were something I needed to do because I needed to be less selfish for a while. I don't identify with causes or leaders. I'm simply concerned with not making mistakes and with doing the right thing by the people I'm close to. The description of the One temperament in the quote block above describes me pretty well, actually.

Most of the FJ Ones I've met don't match the Six so profile at all.

 

[piscesfish]

what you just described is the opposite of vigilante. vigilante is "society thinks this is acceptable, so if they won't do anything about it, I will" (think Batman, Wyatt Earp, Rorschach etc)

Exactly. Enforcing society's ideal norms in the face of real norms which have gone astray. I see no difference here

 

[Swordsman of Mana]

Exactly. Enforcing society's ideal norms in the face of real norms which have gone astray. I see no difference here

this ties in nicely to what I was about to say, but it still contradicts your earlier statement.

I think my Fe works well with my E1, especially regarding strict adherence to social norms/"the right thing to do". For example, I disapprove of people who drink or do drugs not because it goes against a specific value of mine, but because society views (at least in theory) it to be wrong.

Fe + 1 is not so much "we need to defend current social norms" as much as "we need to replace current social norms with the right social norms". Fi/Te 1 is more "this is evil and needs to be eradicated"
think Ghandi or Nelson Mandela

 

[piscesfish]

this ties in nicely to what I was about to say, but it still contradicts your earlier statement.

Fe + 1 is not so much "we need to defend current social norms" as much as "we need to replace current social norms with the right social norms". Fi/Te 1 is more "this is evil and needs to be eradicated"
think Ghandi or Nelson Mandela

I don't see how that conflicts with what I posted. It is an IDEAL norm in society not to do drugs/drink, yet the REAL norm is that it's common to do them. So when a Fe 1 condemns drugs, they are in essence trying to replace real norms with the ideal.

 

[themonocle]

That's a really good question. I think what it boils down to is that you have to master the extroverted world of people before you can be trusted to lead others. The perfectionism is a road that develops integrity of self that we deem as a moral imperative to offering a voice for the masses. Think grass roots advocate that must have good social relationships at the community level in order to work as a liaison for the people.

 

[ruskiix]

After all, a preachy moralist or an unwavering reformer doesn't have that much in common with a people-pleaser or a diplomat.

Couldn't disagree more. For me, it means the issues I can't budge on are issues that concern the wellbeing of other people. Fe keeps me constantly seeing how comfortable some people are while whining about political issues that have to do with the survival of people with the least (like people calling for cutting taxes on the rich while cutting spending on food stamp programs). A one with Fe is just more focused on humanitarian issues. There is no conflict.

I do lean a bit INTJ, but I think it's mostly learned behavior: most people don't have anywhere near enough empathy by my standards, and I find it easier to show that treating other people humanely is logical. I'm an INFJ on top of being sx/sp, I don't think I could be much less social. I couldn't care less about tradition. I don't think I get hung up on rigidly thinking some things are right and others wrong--the only issue like that is being against human suffering, and I have no tolerance for, well, intolerance. The ISTJ 1w2 I know is more and more harsh on others the more he pushes himself, thinking that if he can manage, so can they, even while knowing he goes to extremes. I'm the opposite--if I struggle at all, with my ridiculous focus on perfection, it isn't realistic to think everyone else can and will do the same, since I can't know their circumstances. To him, if people won't pick themselves up by their bootstraps, they don't deserve help. To me, if people aren't picking themselves up, I don't care what the reason is, I want to know how to keep them from falling in the first place and make sure they have plenty of help getting back up.

Sorry this is rambling, watching TV while typing. TL;DR: for me, Fe + 1 just makes me extremely focused on perfecting human systems to improve quality of life, especially in politics. Sx/sp means I'm not preachy often because it doesn't seem to achieve much. Fe does get a bit of a workout listening to someone I care about show just how little empathy they have, but, 9-wing keeps me civil often enough.

 

[Sequestrum]

I do lean a bit INTJ, but I think it's mostly learned behavior: most people don't have anywhere near enough empathy by my standards, and I find it easier to show that treating other people humanely is logical. I'm an INFJ on top of being sx/sp, I don't think I could be much less social. I couldn't care less about tradition. I don't think I get hung up on rigidly thinking some things are right and others wrong--the only issue like that is being against human suffering, and I have no tolerance for, well, intolerance. The ISTJ 1w2 I know is more and more harsh on others the more he pushes himself, thinking that if he can manage, so can they, even while knowing he goes to extremes. I'm the opposite--if I struggle at all, with my ridiculous focus on perfection, it isn't realistic to think everyone else can and will do the same, since I can't know their circumstances. To him, if people won't pick themselves up by their bootstraps, they don't deserve help. To me, if people aren't picking themselves up, I don't care what the reason is, I want to know how to keep them from falling in the first place and make sure they have plenty of help getting back up.

I very strongly agree with all of the parts in bold above.

I definitely attempt to turn my feelings of empathy into logical arguments.. because I feel as though I won't be taken seriously otherwise. A lot of my perceptions and judgements rely heavily on logical leaps though, and attempting to circle back and fill in those leaps with actual facts and reason can really help me refine those ideas... but a lot of the times this can also be paralysing when I can't fill in a blank, or there are so many variables that could fit that I just can't proceed beyond it.

As far as traditions go, I'll uphold the ones which seem to make sense, otherwise I will actively oppose them. I always have a thing for the underdogs of society in addition to that, so if a tradition seems to be beating down on people, I will certainly oppose it as well. At the same time, I've come to the conclusion that most people aren't trying to beat others down, and they deserve to be treated with respect as I attempt to reach consensus with them.. it doesn't really always work, but sometimes, even when I lose an argument, if I have managed to make the person a little less hostile or opposed to my viewpoint, I'll consider that as having been worthwhile use of my time.

I also agree that you can't expect anyone else to rationalize or value things the same way as ones self does. I rationalize this by acknowledging that I do not always understand things the same way others do, I don't always value the same things as others, and so it would be hypocritical of me to expect that from others.

The last bold statement, is one that I extremely heavily agree with. I'd also like to add that in addition to trying to prevent the fall of others, the phenomenon that occurs when people aren't picking themselves up is worth investigation as well. Breaking those loops is as important to me as preventing it in the first place. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ruskiix]

I very strongly agree with all of the parts in bold above.

I definitely attempt to turn my feelings of empathy into logical arguments.. because I feel as though I won't be taken seriously otherwise. A lot of my perceptions and judgements rely heavily on logical leaps though, and attempting to circle back and fill in those leaps with actual facts and reason can really help me refine those ideas... but a lot of the times this can also be paralysing when I can't fill in a blank, or there are so many variables that could fit that I just can't proceed beyond it.

As far as traditions go, I'll uphold the ones which seem to make sense, otherwise I will actively oppose them. I always have a thing for the underdogs of society in addition to that, so if a tradition seems to be beating down on people, I will certainly oppose it as well. At the same time, I've come to the conclusion that most people aren't trying to beat others down, and they deserve to be treated with respect as I attempt to reach consensus with them.. it doesn't really always work, but sometimes, even when I lose an argument, if I have managed to make the person a little less hostile or opposed to my viewpoint, I'll consider that as having been worthwhile use of my time.

I also agree that you can't expect anyone else to rationalize or value things the same way as ones self does. I rationalize this by acknowledging that I do not always understand things the same way others do, I don't always value the same things as others, and so it would be hypocritical of me to expect that from others.

The last bold statement, is one that I extremely heavily agree with. I'd also like to add that in addition to trying to prevent the fall of others, the phenomenon that occurs when people aren't picking themselves up is worth investigation as well. Breaking those loops is as important to me as preventing it in the first place. What are your thoughts on this?

If I understand the last bit correctly, I think that's probably the same thing I spend a ton of time thinking about. To me, if a person isn't doing something they obviously could to survive or live better, something is wrong somewhere in the situation. Medically, psychologically, or maybe just in their life circumstances. People resort to drugs in impoverished rural areas not because they're lazy but because, Jesus, have you tried living in the middle of nowhere with no money or prospects? Etc.

I have a particularly I unambitious ENFP friend who suffers from depression that seems VERY dopamine-related--which is where our experience of rewards and motivation comes from. When I struggled to get my life together when I was younger, it turned out I'd had a sleep disorder the whole time. When I later backslid, it turned out my thyroid had just given up at some point. When both of those problems were fixed, I was back to being ambitious and eager to work. I don't think anyone healthy wants to waste their life. Either our expectations are wrong (like thinking money and career are necessary for happiness, when they aren't for some people), or something in them isn't what it should be.

 

[Sequestrum]

If I understand the last bit correctly, I think that's probably the same thing I spend a ton of time thinking about. To me, if a person isn't doing something they obviously could to survive or live better, something is wrong somewhere in the situation. Medically, psychologically, or maybe just in their life circumstances. People resort to drugs in impoverished rural areas not because they're lazy but because, Jesus, have you tried living in the middle of nowhere with no money or prospects? Etc.

I have a particularly I unambitious ENFP friend who suffers from depression that seems VERY dopamine-related--which is where our experience of rewards and motivation comes from. When I struggled to get my life together when I was younger, it turned out I'd had a sleep disorder the whole time. When I later backslid, it turned out my thyroid had just given up at some point. When both of those problems were fixed, I was back to being ambitious and eager to work. I don't think anyone healthy wants to waste their life. Either our expectations are wrong (like thinking money and career are necessary for happiness, when they aren't for some people), or something in them isn't what it should be.

That was very well put; I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Those are exactly the same conclusions I have come to in regards to those exact same scenarios. I have also noticed that I tend to come to some quick judgements about others when I am tired, or stressed (mentally or physically). I've had to keep a closer eye on when my responses are influenced by such things.

Thank you for the response. =)

 

[ruskiix]

That was very well put; I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Those are exactly the same conclusions I have come to in regards to those exact same scenarios. I have also noticed that I tend to come to some quick judgements about others when I am tired, or stressed (mentally or physically). I've had to keep a closer eye on when my responses are influenced by such things.

Thank you for the response. =)

I think the 5 in my tritype helps some with it. The SFs in my family seem to have a lot more trouble with it but they also don't have even a smidge of 5 anywhere in there. Or the others in my family, for that matter (my ENFJ mom is always open to hearing this kind of thing, though).

I kind of wish I'd gone into something like neuropsychiatry. I absolutely geek out over that stuff. Especially things like studies showing a correlation between sizes of different areas of the brain and political beliefs. Really any intersection of Fe and human-related hard science I love.


My biggest weakness is when I'm tired or stressed (and don't want to try and pull out my Ti), I Fe bully people into going along with me or agreeing with me. My ISFJ cousin does the exact same thing in the exact same way (and she's an 8 so it happens a lot). So we have sort of passive aggressive peer pressure duels where we try to out-smug each other. We both just start sending strong social cues that it's inappropriate to disagree with us. My ENFJ mom finds it funny. I think it must be an auxiliary function thing because my ENFJ mom is more likely to try and bend her intuition to try and influence things in similar situations.

 

[Blazkovitz]

Let's start with the basics. I am supposed to be Fe-dominant according to MBTI.

The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure.

(from cognitiveprocesses.com)

I have a strong desire to connect with some people and disconnected from others. When I'm in a less healthy state, I crave solitude and contemplation. I guess my Fe feels offended and leaves, so Ni takes over.

The "social graces," such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling.

Again, these deteriorate in less healthy states.

[Thanks to Fe] we may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

That's not me. I have my own norms and values.

 

[Blazkovitz]

Sorry for flooding but I've forgot that I'm usually attracted to activities involving using Fe. Maybe due to my MBTI however.

 

[ruskiix]

Sorry for flooding but I've forgot that I'm usually attracted to activities involving using Fe. Maybe due to my MBTI however.

Like what?

Fe is my aux and I find that I like using it in very private ways, but I do prefer using it. I love playing MMOs and being involved in social groups (guilds or just groups that regularly work together), and stay in private messages keeping everything running smoothly. It's an Fe exercise for me, and I always play healers or utility roles to support other people, but I use it in a very introverted way. And get incredibly upset when I fail people or I think I'm not doing well. I think Fe+1 means we're incredibly harsh on our Fe, and it can easily become a source of stress.