@spaceynyc, haha, well. This sort of idea about Fe vs. Fi is commonplace around the forum. I don't think it's particularly helpful in understanding what Fe and Fi are.
@Bhathaway, those are good questions.
Here is the key to keep in mind when trying to understand all these things: type is
how you think, not what you think.
What is it basing it's evaluations on?
Your question points out the main misunderstanding people have about Feeling - and actually the functions in general. Many think that Feeling is a bunch of evaluations about things. Kind of like having values. But there's a difference between
having values and preferring Feeling. (Remember, type is how you think, not what.)
Feeling doesn't base its evaluations on anything. Feeling
is evaluation. It is the process of evaluating in and of itself. Just like Thinking, too, is a process. The process of categorizing and defining things - not being divorced from your emotions or being good at using logic or having certain things that you think.
Think of the functions as cognitive processes. Think of the Perceiving functions (Intuition and Sensing) as taking in information around you. Whether you have a preference for one or the other is dependent on what sort of information you tend to focus on. Thinking of the Judging functions (or as Jung called them, the Rational functions) as how you prefer to sort the information you perceive.
Here's how Jung put it: In any situation, Sensing tells us what is, what exists via our five senses. Intuition tells us what could be, the possibilities. Feeling tells us what has value (focus goes to weighing what has worth - what is meaningful, significant, beautiful, good, etc), Thinking tells us what stuff is (focus does to defining and categorizing what you perceive). I say "tells us", but really the functions aren't the conclusions we come to (as in actually what we value, what we think), but are simply how we prefer to perceive and sort out information coming into our minds.
As far as what Jung meant when he talked about objective/subjective...
The big difference between Introverted functions and Extroverted functions to Jung was whether they were subjective or objective. The Introverted functions are always going to be subjective. That may sound confusing, but think of it this way:
You can look at a sunset. Both the object being perceived (the sunset) and the observer doing the observing (the subject) are present in the situation. Someone leading with an Introverted function is always more focused on something the object (whatever that may be) gives them.
Hence why Ti is
subjective while Te is objective. This isn't saying Te is "better" at getting to truth, or that any of the Extroverted functions have a better handle on reality. It is once again just a difference of focus. The Ti-doms I know are always trying to fit stuff into this constructed internal framework they have in their minds - something that feels consistent to them. Hence why Jung considered it to be subjective, unlike Te, which Jung said is directed towards objective facts and ideas (focused outwards). Jung said that Darwin was a good example of a Te-dom. He gathered evidence, which he thought was good criteria for figuring out what was true, and did that not just to convince people but for his own sake. Ti-doms - well. Jung used Kant as an example of a Ti-dom.
Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant. The one speaks with facts, the other relies on the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide field of objective reality. Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge. Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast. - Jung
Fi is subjective in the same sense as Ti, according to Jung. It is the process of evaluating. If someone deeply values being individualistic, that doesn't necessarily mean Fi. If they like "social harmony", that doesn't necessarily mean they use Fe. I like social harmony. If we're honest, who doesn't like to have peace with the people around them? A lot of people value that. And a lot of people value individualism.
But not everyone in given situations sorts what information they perceive by
evaluating it. Some people prefer that more than others. My husband, for example, most decidedly doesn't actively evaluate stuff near as much as he likes to categorize them. But he does have
values. And I have lots of beliefs that are hinged on reason and have to do with the truth of things. Doesn't mean I prefer Thinking over Feeling.
Anyways, Fi is just weighing stuff based on how significant is this
to me, how beautiful, how does this weigh on me? 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.
Feeling wasn't supposed to be as narrow as, "I am a person who has emotions." Being emotional.
@jetser -
Yet if you're too emotional everyone assumes that you're a Feeler. Who's wrong in that?
The person who says you prefer Feeling if you are "too emotional". Everyone has emotions. Everyone is emotional. Some people are better at regulating their emotions more than others. *shrugs*
