Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Let's talk about this really.

I couldn't help but notice that on PerC, there is a distinct lack of Fe-dominant types. Heck, even Fe-aux types. With the exception of INFJs.

But INFJs have a cool factor in that they're supposedly really rare and they lead with Ni. (At least so the stereotypes go - and I'm not at all trying say everyone typed as an INFJ is only doing so because they want to be a special snowflake. Just pointing out that people tend to think favorably of the INFJ type.)

But I really feel like ESFJs, ISFJS, and to some extent even ENFJs get the shorter end of the stick.

And I think that's due to misconceptions about Fe. (Si, I think, is the second most misunderstood function.)

Here is a typical understanding of Fe vs Fi:

Fi vs Fe is all about where your values come from. If you use Fi, they primarily are internal and are influenced by your personal values, whereas if you use Fe they are external and are influenced more by people outside of you.

This is a misunderstanding of Fe (not to mention Fi) and makes it look distinctly unappealing especially to those of us who come from highly individualistic cultures.

Anyone reading a description like that would resonate more with Fi.

For some reason people think Fe = dominant traditional cultural values.

Moreover, if you have ever taken a visit to the ESFJ forum, you get a lot of people talking about their negative experiences with their mom, some ex-girlfriend, grandmother - some female friend/caregiver/female authority figure or whatever - in their lives. This is blamed on the dominant Fe.

So when people talk about Fe, often there's some negative comment masked by a "oh but they're so sweet and caring" like:

My mom/friend/whoever is a Fe-dom! She's super caring and stuff, but she can be overbearing sometimes.

I want someone to tell me where in Jung's description of Fe can you find "nurturing, warmth, caring". Or even "micromanaging, overbearing".

The real difference between Fe and Fi lies in what Jung meant by "objective" and "subjective":

Also, a note about Feeling:

For some reason, people think that Feeling in general says something about your moral values. It does not. It doesn't say anything about... any values. All it does is say you focus on value.

Type is how we think, not what we think. And Feeling is not simply someone attuned to thinking about things from a moral standpoint. Many people with a Thinking preference also do that. Someone who prefers Feeling, in a given situation, will just be weighing in their minds how beautiful, how meaningful, how significant things are.

A preference for Feeling means you focus more on the value of things than necessarily categorizing or defining it. You can't tell whether someone is a Fe-dom or Fi-dom by getting them to say what they value to you, even if what they value is more "traditional".

And Fe, according to Jung, is just Feeling that is oriented externally. It's objective. Meaning it's not influenced primarily by their personal feelings or how much something weighs on them. It's not about what feeling stuff gives them.

It's about objectively what is good, what is just, what is agreeable... Period. Someone who leads with Fe is objective in their value statements. Think of Esmeralda from the Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney movie).

Frollo: How dare you defy me?

Esmeralda: You mistreat this poor boy the same way you mistreat my people. You speak of justice, yet you are cruel to those most in need of your help!

Frollo: Silence!

Esmeralda: Justice!
There's not a lot of rumination or nuance throughout the whole film, just her observing and stating values, no pausing so she can self-reflect and give an explanation on how this weighs on her, personally... And she's good at getting people behind her. She's really good at championing her cause and I think this is a strength of Fe.

Barack Obama is, I believe, another great example of an Fe-dom. He observes and states what is good, what is valuable - period. Once again, none of that subjective flavor you get with Fi-types. But people don't look at Obama and think "nurturing, warm, caring, traditional" (those odd stereotypes about Fe).

Anyways, just my two cents.

I was getting tired of seeing what looked like to me stereotypes about Fe that just have little to zero basis.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,536 Posts
Ah well, we are used to being misunderstood, it's just that we don't have our entire personality revolve around it like so many other types do ;)

Great thread, and I really appreciate your take on this. In addition Feeling in general is misunderstood, it is pretty much either you have personal values (Fi) or you want social harmony (Fe), done with that, easiest thing in the world, but ALSO in that there rarely is any meaningful, detailed or rich discussion about feeling (values, undertones or attitudes) - it just seems that the community has a very half-assed approach on it altogether.

Will you be making a thread like this on Si as well?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,469 Posts
A very good explanation. I hope people can get some clarity from it.

I think part of the problem is the word "Feeling". I think it's just the wrong word for something that concerns values in the first place (of course, feelings are driven by values for a part, so there is definitely a connection).

As to the absence of Fe-dominants on the forums: I fear that EXFJ's are just a lot less likely to be active on internet forums. As they take their values and energy from direct interaction with people around them, they tend to talk to their peers instead of talking to strangers on the internet.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,536 Posts
As they take their values and energy from direct interaction with people around them, they tend to talk to their peers instead of talking to strangers on the internet.
Why not double the amount of energy gained from interacting with people and do both lol.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Let's talk about this really.

I couldn't help but notice that on PerC, there is a distinct lack of Fe-dominant types. Heck, even Fe-aux types. With the exception of INFJs.

But INFJs have a cool factor in that they're supposedly really rare and they lead with Ni. (At least so the stereotypes go - and I'm not at all trying say everyone typed as an INFJ is only doing so because they want to be a special snowflake. Just pointing out that people tend to think favorably of the INFJ type.)

But I really feel like ESFJs, ISFJS, and to some extent even ENFJs get the shorter end of the stick.

And I think that's due to misconceptions about Fe. (Si, I think, is the second most misunderstood function.)

Here is a typical understanding of Fe vs Fi:

Fi vs Fe is all about where your values come from. If you use Fi, they primarily are internal and are influenced by your personal values, whereas if you use Fe they are external and are influenced more by people outside of you.

This is a misunderstanding of Fe (not to mention Fi) and makes it look distinctly unappealing especially to those of us who come from highly individualistic cultures.

Anyone reading a description like that would resonate more with Fi.

For some reason people think Fe = dominant traditional cultural values.

Moreover, if you have ever taken a visit to the ESFJ forum, you get a lot of people talking about their negative experiences with their mom, some ex-girlfriend, grandmother - some female friend/caregiver/female authority figure or whatever - in their lives. This is blamed on the dominant Fe.

So when people talk about Fe, often there's some negative comment masked by a "oh but they're so sweet and caring" like:

My mom/friend/whoever is a Fe-dom! She's super caring and stuff, but she can be overbearing sometimes.

I want someone to tell me where in Jung's description of Fe can you find "nurturing, warmth, caring". Or even "micromanaging, overbearing".

The real difference between Fe and Fi lies in what Jung meant by "objective" and "subjective":

Also, a note about Feeling:

For some reason, people think that Feeling in general says something about your moral values. It does not. It doesn't say anything about... any values. All it does is say you focus on value.

Type is how we think, not what we think. And Feeling is not simply someone attuned to thinking about things from a moral standpoint. Many people with a Thinking preference also do that. Someone who prefers Feeling, in a given situation, will just be weighing in their minds how beautiful, how meaningful, how significant things are.

A preference for Feeling means you focus more on the value of things than necessarily categorizing or defining it. You can't tell whether someone is a Fe-dom or Fi-dom by getting them to say what they value to you, even if what they value is more "traditional".

And Fe, according to Jung, is just Feeling that is oriented externally. It's objective. Meaning it's not influenced primarily by their personal feelings or how much something weighs on them. It's not about what feeling stuff gives them.

It's about objectively what is good, what is just, what is agreeable... Period. Someone who leads with Fe is objective in their value statements. Think of Esmeralda from the Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney movie).



There's not a lot of rumination or nuance throughout the whole film, just her observing and stating values, no pausing so she can self-reflect and give an explanation on how this weighs on her, personally... And she's good at getting people behind her. She's really good at championing her cause and I think this is a strength of Fe.

Barack Obama is, I believe, another great example of an Fe-dom. He observes and states what is good, what is valuable - period. Once again, none of that subjective flavor you get with Fi-types. But people don't look at Obama and think "nurturing, warm, caring, traditional" (those odd stereotypes about Fe).

Anyways, just my two cents.

I was getting tired of seeing what looked like to me stereotypes about Fe that just have little to zero basis.
Well, that's a very positive look on Fe, isn't it? :smile:

I don't really understand your example of Frollo and Esmeralda. Frollo is the prime example of Fe, and Esmeralda is the prime example of Fi.

What Jung said, that Fe is objective and Fi is subjective,... that is correct, but you make the mistake of thinking that objective is good and that subjective is bad. Or at least, that's what a common mistake it.

The values that come from the Fi process, are turned into rules, internal rules. That's why Jung calls them subjective. As they are internal, they are an opinion made a long time ago. They´re not opinions based on the current situation. Fe ofcourse also has internal rules, but they are more focused on the people in the situation. That's why Fi makes statements like Esmeralda made and Fe can make mistakes like Frollo made.

Esmeralda says that Frollo is cruel, but from Frollo's point of view he is good to the people he cares about. Fi doesn't focus on the people they care about, they focus on the rules in their heads. And justice is a rule, a rule that needs to be applied to everybody, regardless of if you care about them or not.

Now, that doesn't mean that Fi values are always good. If you learned in life that you have to always prioritize your own people over others, Fi can end up with the same behaviour as Fe. And Fe can also end up caring more for all the people instead of just those he cares about. But that's the thing: Who do you think Obama cared about as president? All Americans and not just those that he knows personally. In Obama's mind he is president of all Americans and thus you see him focus on the good for all americans. He cares about all because he is an intelligent man that is perfectly capable of applying his Fe based logic on all americans.


What I mean to say is that the difference between Fe and Fi isn't by subjective vs objective. That's just the process. The real difference is in who or what these 2 functions focus on. They both can reach the same conclusion, but the way they get to that conclusion is different.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
@Peter, this is simply where you and I would disagree about what Jung meant when he uses the term "objective".

What I mean to say is that the difference between Fe and Fi isn't by subjective vs objective. That's just the process.
Yes, I do believe that the process, how the individual with a preference for either Fe or Fi thinks, is indeed the essential difference between the two. Type is how we think, not what.

If you learned in life that you have to always prioritize your own people over others, Fi can end up with the same behaviour as Fe.
This is an example of thinking type is what you think.

Your definition of Fe and Fi is precisely the definition I disagree with. Do you think that we could predict who uses Fe vs Fi based on what they value? If they have some kind of people group they identify with and stand for? I do not. And I would even say Jung wouldn't say that either. Objective vs subjective - attitude - WAS the main difference between Fe and Fi, just as it is for Te and Ti (Jung says so himself in Psychological Types).

And I think objective/subjective is not only a difference of process like you said, but is of focus but not in the way you would define it. Someone who is introverted will always be less focused on the object and more on his/her experience of it. What the object releases within him/her. To be focused objectively simply means your focus goes to the object - devoid of placing any of yourself upon it. That is what I think Jung means when he begins by defining Fe in this way:

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values.
Objective =/= values of other people outside you.

Just like to say Te is just believing whatever facts you can find in a textbook or that most people agree with instead of coming to some conclusion yourself would be ridiculous.

He's not saying "this person will take on the values of the people around them". Not only does it make Feeling about what you think, but it's not a good definition - it's vague and means you wouldn't be able to tell who uses Fe at all. If that's our definition, then whose values, pray tell, does Fe take on? The majority's? Who they spend the most time with? We'll spend our time going on and on in circles. Here's how a misunderstanding of Fe begins.

I do NOT think that objective should at all be equated with "what people generally think/value". This wouldn't make sense at all. We'd see the majority of Fe and Te users agreeing with one another so long as they had relatively similar upbringings and cultural values and in Te's case facts impressed upon them and this, I think, could not be further from the truth.

Also important to keep in mind while reading Jung is that his descriptions of all the types almost always sound neurotic, and that's because they're supposed to. He's describing pure type where the individual is solely using their dominant and everything else and the other attitude is completely repressed. But he himself acknowledges this. The descriptions are the extreme, but so we get a very clear idea of what he is trying to define. If we saw any of the types as he described them, well - haha. They'd look crazy to us. I'd be nowhere in life with my dominant Ne ^-^

I was only using Esmeralda as an example. It's all right if you don't believe she's an Fe-dom. I was just using her to show an example of someone who I saw as clearly focusing on the the value of things (just vs unjust). But missing from her throughout the whole film was this rumination you can see in Fi-doms. Even to some extent those who have Fi as their secondary function.

Fi users are defined by how they focus on the subjective. On how this weighs on me. So much that it can be hard for the Fi user to trace sometimes what it was about what they saw or the situation or whatever that even gave them that feeling. There's a lot of nuance often in how they articulate what something means to them or what is significant in their eyes. And they're less likely according to Jung to try to impress this on other people. (I'll quote him on that later in this post.)

And justice is a rule, a rule that needs to be applied to everybody, regardless of if you care about them or not.
This sort of lack of nuance and subjectivity is exactly the kind of objective value statement and process of weighing value that I would expect of an Fe-dom, not someone who uses Fi.

Fi is actually the function that Jung says is most likely to seem cold when at its extreme - when the object is completely repressed. Because all Fi focuses on is what the object gives the subject. AND the Fi type is less likely to to have the desire to change others. It is hard to tell what's going on in the mind of the Fi user. I'll quote Jung:

Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way.
Anyways. I think we just disagree in our interpretation.
 

· Boaz & Jachin
𝐄𝐓(𝐒) 𝐒𝐏/𝐒𝐎-𝟖𝟓𝟑 𝐒𝐋𝐄-𝐃𝐇𝐂𝐍 𝐕𝐋𝐅𝐄
Joined
·
16,176 Posts
Fe is the Most Misunderstood Function
Misunderstood in the sense that those who misunderstand it never learnt it in the first place, those who did learn about Fe do not misunderstand Fe.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I'm going to use a second post to reply to some of the other users who posted here. ^-^

@TalNFJ, thanks so much. Haha, it seems you just like me were tired of all the Fe-related posts. Not that I blame people. I think getting into the cognitive functions is really tough. Jung is freaking hard to read so most people don't start out reading his general description of the types, but the more MBTI interpretation of his functions is not exactly what he originally meant. You get a lot of people saying Si = details and focus on the past and other things that have strayed a bit from his definitions.

@DOGSOUP, whoa! I spy an ENFJ! :) Glad to get the approval of someone who feels they lead with Fe. And YEEES. Thank you. I don't like the watered down Fe = social harmony understanding. If you get people to try and actually apply that rule to see who leads with Fe, you end up once again going in circles.

And, haha. Maybe - when I feel like my understanding of Si is good enough. Which might never happen. The Introverted Perceiving functions are confusing to me. Very, very confusing. Si and Ni. I only know enough to know what they are not.

@Drecon, thanks! And I think we would see more Fe-doms the more people understood it. The less it was very unappealingly portrayed as just going along with what people around you value.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Well, that's a very positive look on Fe, isn't it? :smile:

I don't really understand your example of Frollo and Esmeralda. Frollo is the prime example of Fe, and Esmeralda is the prime example of Fi.

What Jung said, that Fe is objective and Fi is subjective,... that is correct, but you make the mistake of thinking that objective is good and that subjective is bad. Or at least, that's what a common mistake it.

The values that come from the Fi process, are turned into rules, internal rules. That's why Jung calls them subjective. As they are internal, they are an opinion made a long time ago. They´re not opinions based on the current situation. Fe ofcourse also has internal rules, but they are more focused on the people in the situation. That's why Fi makes statements like Esmeralda made and Fe can make mistakes like Frollo made.

Esmeralda says that Frollo is cruel, but from Frollo's point of view he is good to the people he cares about. Fi doesn't focus on the people they care about, they focus on the rules in their heads. And justice is a rule, a rule that needs to be applied to everybody, regardless of if you care about them or not.

Now, that doesn't mean that Fi values are always good. If you learned in life that you have to always prioritize your own people over others, Fi can end up with the same behaviour as Fe. And Fe can also end up caring more for all the people instead of just those he cares about. But that's the thing: Who do you think Obama cared about as president? All Americans and not just those that he knows personally. In Obama's mind he is president of all Americans and thus you see him focus on the good for all americans. He cares about all because he is an intelligent man that is perfectly capable of applying his Fe based logic on all americans.


What I mean to say is that the difference between Fe and Fi isn't by subjective vs objective. That's just the process. The real difference is in who or what these 2 functions focus on. They both can reach the same conclusion, but the way they get to that conclusion is different.
Re: parts in bold----What definitions and frame of reference are you using?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,536 Posts
Well, that's a very positive look on Fe, isn't it? :smile:

What Jung said, that Fe is objective and Fi is subjective,... that is correct, but you make the mistake of thinking that objective is good and that subjective is bad. Or at least, that's what a common mistake it.
Wow, you really do not like Fe, do you?

Where was the part about objective being good and subjective being bad btw?

The values that come from the Fi process, are turned into rules, internal rules. That's why Jung calls them subjective. As they are internal, they are an opinion made a long time ago. They´re not opinions based on the current situation.

Fi doesn't focus on the people they care about, they focus on the rules in their heads. And justice is a rule, a rule that needs to be applied to everybody, regardless of if you care about them or not.
Perhaps I have pointed out it before, but this reads as thinking, not feeling. You describe internalized rules. Which should be categorized as Ti if anything. Reducing ethics to a set of rules that have universal application. Feeling is more intangible, experience as much as it is evaluation. Jung's examples of introverted feeling values? Freedom and God. Ideas as much as feelings. Not really something you can intellectually define, because in doing so you lose sense of the feeling value itself.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
@Jewl Yes I was getting pretty frustrated, mostly with the Fe and Fi stereotypes. It's not the people's fault, it's the damn sites that give very general and shallow descriptions of the types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

· Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,677 Posts
I think contrary to one a specimen may see, the broad assertion that (X)-function of any sort, is the most misunderstood over any other function, is perhaps a bit hyperbolic, and likely not the actual case - but based off some correlation observed in (this forum) locality in particular, which does not necessarily imply (X)-function is the most misunderstood -- but I reckon we can at least agree, that the mechanisms - or systematics of the "functions," are easier (said) than known, (&) perhaps this is where you will find idle disagreement among other forum participants via (Post #1) - but based off this alone, it is more safe to say, that (X)-functions in general, are perhaps misunderstood in the abstract / essence (re: the overal 'mechanism' / functionalities) of (X)-functions, and the how - which is an important (knowledge-gap) that should be brought to light via Typology.

(Feeling) in general; is concerned with anatomic-states (re: psychological / psysiological / physical) disturbance of subjects - (re: "subject-fixation"), on well-being. While a (Fi)-user may be more personal in their values, this does not indicate any distinction with a difference when looking at (Fe)-users in the opposite,

All (feeling)-functions have a certain degree, if not complete fixation on subjectivity; in so far as they are fixated on (subjects); but not persons in general, making (Fe)-appear 'objective-like', so perhaps, (Fe) is more impersonal, but this does not necessarily entail less-subjective, thus, does not seem to be the case with deeper analysis of breaking down Jungian/MBTI dichtonomies:

I/E

T/F

S/N

_________________________

When discussing (Fe/Fi) - not simply feeling, I am somewhat skepticial to say (Fe)-is rooted in objectivity (re: 'fixated on objective - external data) anymore than (Fi) is, as Jung could surely have made mistakes in Psychology Types , and I am skeptical of how loose the wordplay around 'objective/subjective' are thrown about - for instance, and that feeling in general, is simply a function-fixated with subjectivity, but foces on (the anatomy of subjects) - more so than thinking ever does - and this can be actively observed/expressed in behaviors of the specimens in question.

I do not think it is necessarily [flawed] to say that (X)-types acquiring a certain disposition/attentiveness to state-of-affairs, thus their said behaviors can be patternized around such: ("feelers having tendencies to be more 'nurturing' by implication of subject-fixation") - being more subjective- in general. Noticing said effects, does not indicate that (F)-types are 'nurtures' or that feelers are nurtures, recognizably because 'nurturing' & warmth is some intrinsically embedded cause.

I think demonstrably, we can notice "overlap," between (Fe/Fi) users due to 'feeling' preferences, respectively; which is why something such as;

"Justice!"

"Silence!,"


Is a shaky example; regardless - which may be what Peter were hinting at; but did not infact quite articulate well - [for whatever reason], it is noticable that PerC is multi-lingual thus, language-barriers do exist, as well.

_________



To touch on (Fe/Fi) - not just "feeling,"

(Fi) - humanoids are utilizing (internalized-personal) states of anatomic psysiological / psychological / physical well-being to address other subjects anatomic states:

Ex; Unhealthy (Fi)

"I feel terrible; (other specimens must be feeling the same)"

Expounding on the 'must':

Depleting anatomical-states; or disturbances of personal-well being is affectatious to surrounding subject(s) regardless when dealing with other subjects;


In this regard, I suspect, upset Fi-users are more likely to impose on others; in the same way they express (subject)-apathy. When someone imposes on my values; for instance, I may become defensive; and controlling. Domineering, and indifferent to the anatomic-states of [subjects] surrounding, until my own anatomical-state / physical - pysiological health is restored. Which seems to run parallel to the most 'complained'-about types (re: domineering-traits), which does not surprising me when hearing ancedotal-account(s) via INFP-specimen(s) during childhood such specimen(s) had (familial)-problems when it came to understanding the (Fi)'s intentions, (&) reasons for behaving (X)-way.

A (Fi)-humanoid may also imposed justice-preferences [for their people]; but has a certain blind-spot to the anamotic-effects on said subjects as a whole [keen fixation on restoring the (personal-well being) of others], the same specimen neglects the depletion of it on the subjects.

Ex; Why do so many E(NF)P fixate on advocation/optimism/insight/optimization for "the people"?




INFP :: Every I was affected by, my family never understood it, but I was always sensitive, and overreacted to many things, it's sucks growing up an INFP in a non-INFP environment, because no one really understands you.

ENTJ / ESTJ

INTJ / ISTJ


(Fi)-using other counterparts follow respectively; a certain degree of noticable reactionarism (re: behaviors) absent in (Fe)-specimens (re: ISTP / INFJ / INTP / ENTP) at the same degrees (in spite of aquiring (T)-preferences);






[HR][/HR]


(Fe) - humanoids are utilizing (externalized-personal) states of anatomic pysiological / psychological / physical well-being to address the anatomical-states of themselves:

Ex; Unhealthy (Fe)

(Mandy is feeling down [everyone else see's it, too] - something must be done,"

Expounding on the 'must':

Depleting surrounding anatomic-states (re: well-being), depletes, or disturbs the anatomical-state of the (Fe)-user on personalized-degrees: In those regards, if someone imposed on an upset (Fe)-humanoid; such a specimen (may or may not) feel under anatomic duress / distress, unless the sourrounding anatomic-health of other(s) is also depleting - to which endangers the (Fe)-selves source of wellness.

How depletion of (pysiological-health) is addressed; is distinct from specimen to specimen; one humanoid may extend a helping-hand; the other may not utilize a "nurturing," approach at all - however, there is a predisposition of sorts, to attend to surrounding anatomic-states of subject(s) first.



__________________


A (Fe)-manifestation in 'enforced' care for the anatomical-well being / presevation and restortation of other subject-states to maintain his own psychological/pysiological-health:




For ex;

One might say - "Obama," could not rest (re: psychological / physical-well being depletion), until the anatomical-states (re: well-being) of his kin-(or surrounding humanoids) was appropriately addressed:

 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Wow, you really do not like Fe, do you?

Where was the part about objective being good and subjective being bad btw?


Perhaps I have pointed out it before, but this reads as thinking, not feeling. You describe internalized rules. Which should be categorized as Ti if anything. Reducing ethics to a set of rules that have universal application. Feeling is more intangible, experience as much as it is evaluation. Jung's examples of introverted feeling values? Freedom and God. Ideas as much as feelings. Not really something you can intellectually define, because in doing so you lose sense of the feeling value itself.
I don't dislike Fe, but I don't understand how easily Fe dominant people can not care about people if they don't know them personally.

I'm an INTJ, so my Feeling function is in the third position, and it's Fi. So not strange at all that I describe F in thinking terms. But I do understand what they are and what the difference between them is.

Also, I don't appreciate you pick some of my arguments to reply to and ignoring the other arguments. I don't think my post was all that negative about Fe. Perhaps read it again?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
@Peter, this is simply where you and I would disagree about what Jung meant when he uses the term "objective".



Yes, I do believe that the process, how the individual with a preference for either Fe or Fi thinks, is indeed the essential difference between the two. Type is how we think, not what.



This is an example of thinking type is what you think.

Your definition of Fe and Fi is precisely the definition I disagree with. Do you think that we could predict who uses Fe vs Fi based on what they value? If they have some kind of people group they identify with and stand for? I do not. And I would even say Jung wouldn't say that either. Objective vs subjective - attitude - WAS the main difference between Fe and Fi, just as it is for Te and Ti (Jung says so himself in Psychological Types).

And I think objective/subjective is not only a difference of process like you said, but is of focus but not in the way you would define it. Someone who is introverted will always be less focused on the object and more on his/her experience of it. What the object releases within him/her. To be focused objectively simply means your focus goes to the object - devoid of placing any of yourself upon it. That is what I think Jung means when he begins by defining Fe in this way:



Objective =/= values of other people outside you.

Just like to say Te is just believing whatever facts you can find in a textbook or that most people agree with instead of coming to some conclusion yourself would be ridiculous.

He's not saying "this person will take on the values of the people around them". Not only does it make Feeling about what you think, but it's not a good definition - it's vague and means you wouldn't be able to tell who uses Fe at all. If that's our definition, then whose values, pray tell, does Fe take on? The majority's? Who they spend the most time with? We'll spend our time going on and on in circles. Here's how a misunderstanding of Fe begins.

I do NOT think that objective should at all be equated with "what people generally think/value". This wouldn't make sense at all. We'd see the majority of Fe and Te users agreeing with one another so long as they had relatively similar upbringings and cultural values and in Te's case facts impressed upon them and this, I think, could not be further from the truth.

Also important to keep in mind while reading Jung is that his descriptions of all the types almost always sound neurotic, and that's because they're supposed to. He's describing pure type where the individual is solely using their dominant and everything else and the other attitude is completely repressed. But he himself acknowledges this. The descriptions are the extreme, but so we get a very clear idea of what he is trying to define. If we saw any of the types as he described them, well - haha. They'd look crazy to us. I'd be nowhere in life with my dominant Ne ^-^

I was only using Esmeralda as an example. It's all right if you don't believe she's an Fe-dom. I was just using her to show an example of someone who I saw as clearly focusing on the the value of things (just vs unjust). But missing from her throughout the whole film was this rumination you can see in Fi-doms. Even to some extent those who have Fi as their secondary function.

Fi users are defined by how they focus on the subjective. On how this weighs on me. So much that it can be hard for the Fi user to trace sometimes what it was about what they saw or the situation or whatever that even gave them that feeling. There's a lot of nuance often in how they articulate what something means to them or what is significant in their eyes. And they're less likely according to Jung to try to impress this on other people. (I'll quote him on that later in this post.)



This sort of lack of nuance and subjectivity is exactly the kind of objective value statement and process of weighing value that I would expect of an Fe-dom, not someone who uses Fi.

Fi is actually the function that Jung says is most likely to seem cold when at its extreme - when the object is completely repressed. Because all Fi focuses on is what the object gives the subject. AND the Fi type is less likely to to have the desire to change others. It is hard to tell what's going on in the mind of the Fi user. I'll quote Jung:



Anyways. I think we just disagree in our interpretation.
I actually agree with most of what you say. The difference between our views is more about how these functions are expressed. When Fi judges, it indeed doesn't have any desire to affect others. What matters is that a conflict arises in the person when a value is,..... broken (I can't think of a better way to describe it. When I talk about "internal rules" of Fi, it seems to be understood as me describing Ti. But what is wrong with calling a value a rule. It's pretty much the same thing.)

What I wrote about Obama I was hoping would be most clear. It explains clearly how Fe can care about people that they don't personally know. But always I see Fe dominant people so easily,... ignoring,... the feelings of people. Perhaps because this comes from personal experience in my case (Ni dominant, I know.) But can you explain to me why an ENFJ who I know well, is capable of pretending I don't exist when I meet him in a place where he is with people that are in another circle of people he knows? And it's not because he didn't see me,... because in later encounters he seems nicer than the usual, kind of trying to compensate which tells me he was fully aware I was there. I've seen similar things with other ENFJ's as well. Talking like a hard ass but when they have to apply the rules they want other managers to apply to their staff, all the sudden making exceptions for their own staff.

That's Fe to me. Not consistent, favoring some over others. This clashes hard with my Fi. (and probably also with my Te.)

But those are just some experiences and also reasons why I dove into understanding the cognitive functions better. Something that's often not considered much is the position of a function. Because we can talk all day long about specific atributes of a single function, but it is all relative because Fe in an ENFJ is quite different from Fe in an INFJ. Just like Te in an ENTJ is quite different from Te in an INTJ. It's all about priorities. How much bigger can the difference be between ENFP's and INFP's? It amazes me. ENFP's are like the happy type while INFP's are the misserable type. Ofcourse I'm exagerating a little here, but I hope you get the point that position is important.

In the end it what it boils down to is that a function is just a way of processing and you can't really predict what comes out unless you really know a person well and know what makes them tick. However, a whole type still tends to gravitate to certain types of behaviour. But that's only because the human experience is pretty similar for all people, unless they have some kind of psychological problems, but in that case, type can't be used to analyze people.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Re: parts in bold----What definitions and frame of reference are you using?
Just what was said in the quote from Frollo and Esmeralda. Frollo seems Fe dominant and Esmeralda seems Fi dominant.

There is this thing in this forum that people always think that the bad people in movies are INTJ. Like Darth Vader and others. But to me these characters are Fe characters, ENFJ's mostly. But there is this idea that Fe people are people's people. And they are,.. they really love to controll people and decide for them what's best for them. You'll never find an INTJ trying to decide what's best for other people. We prefer people to think for themselves. Me having to decide for others how to feel is like the most annoying thing I would have to do. ENFJ's love that stuff.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
But can you explain to me why an ENFJ who I know well, is capable of pretending I don't exist when I meet him in a place where he is with people that are in another circle of people he knows? And it's not because he didn't see me,... because in later encounters he seems nicer than the usual, kind of trying to compensate which tells me he was fully aware I was there. I've seen similar things with other ENFJ's as well. Talking like a hard ass but when they have to apply the rules they want other managers to apply to their staff, all the sudden making exceptions for their own staff.

That's Fe to me. Not consistent, favoring some over others. This clashes hard with my Fi. (and probably also with my Te.)
*shrug* I've had Fi users do a very similar thing to me. Doesn't seem like it's function-related.

That person was one of the following: unhappy with you, uncomfortable around you or just very busy with their friends. Did you know the people he was with? If not, he might like to compartmentalise his relationships and may have planned to say hi to you one-on-one at some point. This seems by far the most likely answer, and that extra niceness later would have been him trying to reassure you that he does, in fact, like you.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,730 Posts
My ESFJ inlaw is the quintessential of unhealthy Fe. My INTJ uncle and ESTJ uncle, as well as myself have had to corral for her for aggressive behavior towards us. We've considered the possibility of eliminating her from family meetings altogether.
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top