[Tridentus]

People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

Most Common Positives:
People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.

 

[cyamitide]

This is to add into negative stereotypes. Both Fe-types and Fi-types can take each other's display of emotions as fake, manipulative, or shallow. I think it is important for both sides to realize that how the other displays their feelings is simply what is most natural for the other person, so don't rush to judge them harshly for it.

 

[ardentauthor]

My Fe self agrees with this.

 

[LibertyPrime]

Hmm I find my self in a conflict often. I think it is between Fe and Fi.

The conflict is between what I feel is right in a situation and what is expected of me to feel is right in a situation. Basically what I want to do and what I should do.

If I go with my option then people will reject me and if I go with the expectation, then i will reject myself. Because of this I'm often stuck between 2 things.

It seems to be normal for type 6, but it is annoying me a lot. I also find it hard to decide what xNFx type I am -.-.

 

[Ubuntu]

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

-I don't think this is true at all.

-I think this can be true for both Fe and Fi.

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

-People who use Fi can also be aware of other people's feelings, especially if they can relate to their situation.

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

-From what I understand, Fe users tend to have a code of ethics that is externally based or that they feel needs to be externally validated, not necessarily by the 'group' or culture as a whole, this means they base their decisions on the reactions of other people. An Fe user might become a vegetarian because they think that cruelty toward non-human animals is wrong, despite the fact that it's (more or less) socially acceptable, they feel connected to the victims of factory farming, vivisection etc. and base their decision on what they think is in their best interests. I think an Fi user is more likely to become a vegetarian because it gives them a sense of inner peace to know that they aren't contributing to the suffering of others, it's in sync with the kind of person they want to be, but they're not as concerned (directly) with actually ending factory farming or cruelty toward animals, it's not about 'justice' or changing the world for them, their concern is with the internal and not the external, they're less likely to 'push' their ethics on to other people in the same way that Ti is less likely to push it's logic on to other people. If this is an unfair characterization of Fi (or Fe), I could be way, way off.

-I don't think Fe users are more likely to be bullies at all. I think that's completely off. I can see Fe being more vengeful against (perceived) wrong-doers but not bullying someone for dressing unusually or being socially awkward, I thought Fe was concerned with ethics and social harmony. Again, I could be wrong.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

I don't think Fe necessarily has anything to do with conformity and it is just as concerned with 'the individual' as Fi is, it's just concerned with *other* individuals. Feeling is the same function, whether it's introverted or extroverted, Fe is just concerned with the *external*. Even one other individual is external to you, I don't think that Fe should be associated with social conformity.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.

I don't think numbers has anything to do with it, Fe is just concerned (directly/consciously) with the external instead of the internal.

 

[renna]

I agree completely with everything you've listed.

For others to see, here are the definitions to these two process off of cognitiveprocesses.com

Fe - Extroverted Feeling
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. 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. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

Fi - Introverted Feeling
It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.

 

[CynicallyNaive]

People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

I came here open-mindedly, to try to learn more about cognitive functions, even though i put very little stock in them. Reading the first two sentences certainly doesn't encourage me that pressing onward is going to be a fruitful endeavor.

Oh, wait, i use Fe, so obviously i must be an INFJ! Except that, i'm not all that much like an INFJ. Oooh, then maybe i just have a well developed shadow function. Or maybe if we keep pulling letters out of a hat, a couple of them will fit.

No wonder the forums seem to be full of people who change their perception of their own type every week or two.

 

[bionic]

People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

Most Common Positives:
People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.

Actually, you are incredibly incorrect. I suggest reading these:

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

 

[renna]

I agree that I have seen quite a few users on here change their type multiple times. I think half of those users are teens because they took a test when they were not emotionally mature enough to do it. I've seen other types just have a limited amount of information to base their decisions on. I've seen quite a few people say, "Oh well all the cognitive processes sound like me." Well yes, of course they do because we ALL use them in various degrees every day. Then you have a small percentage of people who just don't want to be typed. Perhaps they want to be unique and cute or perhaps they are just that ignorant of what MBTI really is. Beats me why they stay as "unknown".

But the fact of the matter is, MBTI is real and it is stable. My father-in-law is a retired ENTJ military sergeant who taught MBTI for building teams. There are tons of businesses who use MBTI not only for team building but for increased communications, career counseling and relationship counseling. But you didn't ask whats the purpose of MBTI or question the fundamentals of MBTI. You are frustrated with the people who use MBTI assessments. You know what? I'm right there with you.

John Hackston, the sole European MBTI distributor, says extensive research proves the questionnaire is at least 75% accurate. What about the other 25%? If you focus on the percentages of validity, then you miss the whole point. Not one person is going to fit EXACTLY the descriptor of their types profile. For one, everyone is truly unique and secondly there are unhealthy types and healhty types. Which simply means, you could be an INFJ and I could be an INFJ but my shadow functions are stronger than yours making me "more healthy" and more developed. Hence, If an individual disagrees with the findings of their final typing then this should be discussed, and through this process, the results are refined for them. Thats what those kind of threads ON THIS SITE are for anyway.

Isabel Briggs Myers has a book titled "Gifts Differing", (which is very fitting for the purpose of why she took Jung's theory a step further) I'd like to highlight what it says on page 10.
Creation of "type" by exercise of the preference
Under this theory, people create their "type" through exercises of their individual preferences regarding perception and judgment. The interests, values, needs, and habits of mind that naturally result from any set of preferences tend to produce a recognizable set of traits and personalities.

Individuals can, therefore, be described in part by stating their four preferences, such as ENTP. Such a person can be expected to be different from others in ways characteristics of his or her type. To describe people as ENTPs does not infringe on their right to self-determination: they have already exercised this right by preferring E and N and T and P. Identifying and remembering people's types shows respect not only for their abstract right to develop along lines of their own choosing, but also for the concrete ways in which they are and prefer to be different from others."

Page 12: "Some people dislike the idea of a dominant process and prefer to think of themselves as using all four processes equally. However, Jung holds that such impartiality, where it actually exists, keeps all of the processes relatively underdeveloped and produces a "primitive mentality," because opposite ways of dong the same thing interfere with each other if neither has priority. If one perceptive process is to reach a high degree of development, it needs to undivided attention much of the time, which means that the other must be shut off frequently and will be less developed. If one judging process is to become highly developed, it must similarly have the right of way. One perceptive process and one judging process can develop side by side, provided on is used in the service of the other. But one process - sensing, intuition, thinking or feeling - must have clear sovereignty, with opportunity to reach its full development, if a person is to be really effective."


So its quite obvious that not everyone who is on this site is using their processes for top effectiveness. What those reasons are, who knows? Maybe they do not know how? Maybe they refuse. Maybe they are on this site not even taking MBTI seriously. But one thing is for certain - do not let others deter you from gaining all the accurate knowledge you can about MBTI. Do not let others stand in your way from developing your functions for top effectiveness.

 

[renna]

Actually, you are incredibly incorrect. I suggest reading these:

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

You are referring to Socionics as a reference point not Jung's or Myer Briggs. Also, anyone can edit that page that you linked us to which makes it not very creditable.

 

[bionic]

You are referring to Socionics as a reference point not Jung's or Myer Briggs. Also, anyone can edit that page that you linked us to which makes it not very creditable.

No I am not referring to Socionics but the information is on the wikisocion website. This is the vital part of Carl Jung's "Psychological Types" that is the core foundation which influenced the cognitive functions in MBTI AND Socionics. It's the same information supplied in the book and there are citations to provide validity.

Citations on the site:
Psychological Types C. G. Jung (1921) Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)
William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Semon, Mneme, translated by Louis Simon (London: Allen & Unwin)

 

[renna]

No I am not referring to Socionics but the information is on the wikisocion website. This is the vital part of Carl Jung's "Psychological Types" that is the core foundation which influenced the cognitive functions in MBTI AND Socionics. It's the same information supplied in the book and there are citations to provide validity.

Citations on the site:
Psychological Types C. G. Jung (1921) Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)
William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Semon, Mneme, translated by Louis Simon (London: Allen & Unwin)

Just what throws me off is when it says: If you are a new editor, you may want to visit the Help page." Not trying to be confrontational...just pointing out something that unsettles me.

 

[renna]

Also it says, "The free encyclopedia of Socionics"

 

[Ubuntu]

Beats me why they stay as "unknown".

Possibly because they don't know their type.. or maybe because they don't think the MBTI is very credible to begin with.

But the fact of the matter is, MBTI is real and it is stable

I'm not entirely convinced of this although I'm less skeptical than I was when I first started reading about it.

 

[Tridentus]

I came here open-mindedly, to try to learn more about cognitive functions, even though i put very little stock in them. Reading the first two sentences certainly doesn't encourage me that pressing onward is going to be a fruitful endeavor.

Oh, wait, i use Fe, so obviously i must be an INFJ! Except that, i'm not all that much like an INFJ. Oooh, then maybe i just have a well developed shadow function. Or maybe if we keep pulling letters out of a hat, a couple of them will fit.

No wonder the forums seem to be full of people who change their perception of their own type every week or two.

i'm sorry you're a doubter- i dislike seeing it just as much as i dislike seeing the people who you mentioned changing their type constantly or saying things like "am i ENTP or ENFP?" (since anyone who really knows their stuff knows the two types do not blur), but with respect i think you should actually make an effort to understand and research functions before you doubt them.

i've been on this forum for two years discussing this stuff- i was addicted, i wanted to be able to understand it perfectly, and went travelling for a year in which i would constantly be asking people questions about which functions they used.. and to me this stuff lines up perfectly; it didn't at first, and if you see my threads for the first 12 months or so i frequently make mistakes in my understanding of mbti.. but that's how long it takes to figure this stuff out so i got it right.

it's applying a logical framework to the complicated makeup of people, and that always takes a while to figure out. apologetically i'd say this to @Ubuntu also..
example: "People who use Fi can also be aware of other people's feelings, especially if they can relate to their situation."
yes you've described Fi perfectly, but you've failed to understand that the end result is not the be all of function process. the two functions are sensitive, but only because the Fi resonates with how that person feels- that proves my point. just because the two cross over occasionally doesn't mean the process of getting there is any less important.

also psychology is broad, and mbti is only about how people view and make judgements about their world- you need a far broader understanding of psychology in order just to recognise where mbti stops and environment starts.

for example- i met a woman on my travels who looked at me and said "you're a single child from a broken family aren't you?", surprised i said "yeah, how did you know?".. she could just tell. i later figured it out- it's in your behaviour, single children are often more likely to have an attitude of being used to getting what they want, and my vibe of trusting only myself is broken home. HOWEVER, 99% of people couldn't possibly have guessed that about me, i'm confident, humorous and seem well balanced on the outside, but she could.. she was a single child from a broken home- AND she was an ENFP with Fi, well equipped to relate to my emotional state as a person, she saw herself in me as an Fi type to psychic accuracy. so that's an example of how environment and mbti can mesh to make things more complicated to understand.

 

[bionic]

Just what throws me off is when it says: If you are a new editor, you may want to visit the Help page." Not trying to be confrontational...just pointing out something that unsettles me.

That's with any wiki page. Just because it is on the Socionics website doesn't mean it's Socionics. Like I said before... Carl Jung's Psychological Types is the foundation of Socionics AND MBTI. I've read the book numerous times and it's the same information provided. Go read the book if it's so "unsettling" for you.

Your own ignorance is your own issue.

 

[renna]

....And as with any wiki page, its known for not being as creditable. Don't get offended on Wiki's behalf. The proof is on the page when it says "Encyclopedia of Socionics." Even if Socionics uses partials of Jung's theory to form their theories why don't you use reference materials that are based entirely off of MBTI? Don't refer us to materials based on entirely different assessment....because everyone can agree that just because it has a partial common basis doesn't mean its the same.

Besides, if you are less ignorant than me, why don't you explain why @Tridentus is so wrong about his explanations rather than just providing links and saying "youre wrong". Chances are, you know everyone clicking on those links won't read the information anyway....so go ahead...show me my ignorance....or shall I say show all of us our ignorance.

Oh and btw, I'm married to ENTP and my best friend is an INTJ - you can't offend me with your smartass biting remarks. So you might as well save your time.

 

[CynicallyNaive]

@Tridentus: Thank you for your civil and intellectually honest reply. I realize that i'm questioning a theory in which you've clearly invested a good deal of time and thought, so i appreciate that you're willing to discuss the merits of your case.

Summary: I'm willing to be convinced of the validity of CFs, but nothing i've seen on this site, and particularly nothing on this thread, has convinced me that's it's anything more than a parlor game. I would like to be convinced otherwise, but more than that, i'd like to understand objective truth on the matter.
________

For all of the following, i will take it as a given that my MB personality type is INFP, as a marginal I. If you take I/E to be strictly dichotomous, with no gradations between a strong I and a marginal I, then your understanding of MB is too different from mine for this conversation to move forward.

My view is probably inconsistent with Jung's, but so what? Jung isn't the final arbiter of psychological reality, and i have yet to see the empircial backing for the idea that the types are strictly dichotomous. In fact, the reams of paper they give you when you take the MBTI Step II strongly suggest the opposite.

________

...[W]ith respect i think you should actually make an effort to understand and research functions before you doubt them.
...[T]o me this stuff lines up perfectly; it didn't at first, and if you see my threads for the first 12 months or so i frequently make mistakes in my understanding of mbti.. but that's how long it takes to figure this stuff out so i got it right.

That's fine, and i really am posting on threads in the hopes that someone can explain what i'm missing. It doesn't help that i asked for empirical evidence about type dynamics and got treated as though i'd made a ridiculous request, because obviously everyone knows that psychological theory isn't supposed to have empirical backing. So you might say CF and i got off on the wrong foot.

_________

Let's step back. Why do i care about MBTI? Because it has predictive and explanatory value. Some examples:

• I'm waiting in line (queue) somewhere. Someone cuts in line (jumps the queue). I get angry and want to make a scene. Then I recall that INFPs tend to lash out when something threatens our core values. Because i recognize this pattern in myself, and recognize that the injustice of cutting is fairly minor, i calm down and deal with the situation more productively.
• I have an INFJ friend whose actions toward me i don't understand. I talk to other INFJs; based on their explanations, her actions make more sense.
• Suppose i have to interact with an SJ at work. Because i know that SJs see the world differently, i can adapt my behavior to their predicted response and gain in influence.

That's why i like MBTI. If you take away the predictive and explanatory value -- in other words, if people are telling me INFPs act one way but taken as a whole i tend to act the opposite of how they say -- then it's not a very valuable theory.

________

I don't see much explanatory or predictive value to what you've written above. To be fair, it's a small sample.

People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

Upon reflection, i realize that i make moral judgments based on how things should be. Score: Fe 1, Fi 0

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

My primary moral compass is the Christian bible, but i'm willing to use my own views to modify my interpretation thereof. Let's be generous and call it a draw.

Fe 1.5, Fi 0.5

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

This dichotomy doesn't even make any sense. I'm hyper aware of both. If i have to choose one, i'll go with Fe, but the way you've phrased it calls the validity of your observations into question.

Fe 2.5, Fi 0.5

People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

This dichotomy makes no sense. I try to pursue both goals without a clear difference in intensity. If i have to choose one, i'll go with Fe.

Fe 3.5, Fi 0.5

People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

I strongly identify with the Fi description.

Final score: Fe 3.5, Fi 1.5

Sample size is too small to mean anything. Also, this assessment doesn't reflect intensity of feeling (except in the draw). I relate most strongly to the first and last items, one of which favors Fe, one of which favors Fi.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

In taken with the above, this should mean that my Fi preference is even stronger than the mean. Therefore, this note calls the validity of your approach into question even more.


________

Recently i asked an acquaintance on here who's a fan of CFs/type dynamics to answer this question:

Could you please give me an example of a situation or tendency explained by CFs, but not explained by MB types without CFs? E.g. "You might think that ESFPs would _____________, but instead their auxiliary of Fi causes them to __________."

I think that's a reasonable request. (Obviously, it doesn't have to be about ESFPs.) If CFs don't add any explanatory value above the basic MBTI taxonomy, then there's no reason to go beyond the taxonomy.

So do you have any examples?

__________________

Conclusion: I'm just one individual, and i would rather see empirical research based on adequate random samples rather than just going with what "feels" correct. I mostly go with the 4-dimension MB taxonomy because it feels correct; views expressed by other NFs resonate with me more than views expressed by other types. However, if CFs neither have empirical backing nor feel correct, they have no value to me.

Your OP hasn't done a thing to convince me of the validity of your views. I could just as well have read the morning horoscope. Based on the fact this is a front-page article, i would have hoped for something more convincing.

 

[Naama]

People who use Fe, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel things should be
People who use Fi, when making a moral judgement, ask themselves how they feel

People who use Fe often use the moral judgements of other people to justify an act or decision
People who use Fi often use their own previous moral judgements to justify an act or decision

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings
People who use Fi are hyper aware of how others make them feel
(this is the most confusing distinction, as they often lead to the same result)

Most Common Positives:
People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and making others feel good tends to be their goal
People who use Fi are always aware of how they would feel when treated a certain way. self actualisation tends to be their goal

Most Common Negatives:
People who use Fe tend to side with the majority, leading them to be the types more likely to act like sheep.
Fe users are sometimes bullies because they believe the moral code of the majority is the more important. It's harder for them to be subjective.

People who use Fi tend to side with the individual, or themselves, meaning they tend to resist efforts to conform in any way.
Fi users are sometimes selfish because they believe what they feel is the more important. It's harder for them to be objective.

note: the two functions are mutually exclusive (although the end conclusion is sometimes the same) and every F type faces a decision to go one way or the other in every moral decision/conclusion. 1st function types are more likely to go with one or the other from a young age and show a strong preference, 2nd function types are more likely to mix it up or remain neutral at a young age, but increasingly choose the route most natural to them as they get older.

2nd note: even when Fe types DO side against a majority- it will be because a greater majority (e.g. society at large) or a different majority (e.g. the feelings of friends from childhood, over those of people at a new job) is more important to them.

this isnt Fi vs Fe 101, this is FJ type vs FP type 101

 

[Tridentus]

@CynicallyNaive
thanks for you clear post and i can see how you would think that.

i think the problem is communication styles- i tend to just say things in a way that makes sense to me, and rely on others to fill in the gaps as far as context and meaning is concerned.

for example: i stated that Fe types follow the majority, Fi types resist conformity.. clearly i don't as an Fi type spend everyday fighting conformity- i conform in lots of ways because that's necessary for survival- it's important to know which decisions are the ones that make the difference, where personal choice rather than common choice is more prevalent. so i might feel something is just slightly off about a group i've just met, they invite me out to go to a bar, an Fe type is much more likely to accept such a request; i as an Fi type, if i feel badly enough about the group, will refuse even though i would never normally refuse an invitation to go out.

lines are going to be blurred, it's important to recognise where on the line is important and where isn't.