[Doctorjuice]

This is a video I did comparing and contrasting Fi and Fe.

Let me know if you think this video is accurate! Do you use Fi or Fe? What are some characteristics of it? What are some characteristics that you've noticed of other people who use Fi and Fe?

Feedback and critique are welcome!

Other videos:

Introverted vs Extraverts: Explained:

 

 

[Inguz]

Fi is described as unempathic and oblivious, which isn't true.

 

[Doctorjuice]

Fi is described as unemphatic and oblivious, which isn't true.

Oblivious? No. Unemphatic? No, but Fe is more emphatic. Sorry if that's how it came across.

EDIT: In this post I confused the word emphatic with empathetic. In other words, I meant to say Fe is more empathetic than Fi. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Arrow]

Fe is more emphatic. Sorry if that's how it came across.

That's not true, you could argue that Fe is more concentrated on others since it's an extroverted function and is more concerned about the external world. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Fe is more empathetic. We are talking about a function here. Functions themselves can't be sympathetic. Both Fi and Fe are capable of doing the same things, the only thing that is different about them is the way they get there. Both are capable of being just as empathetic as each other, it comes down to those who are using the functions in question. That's why whenever I hear these conceptions about Fi not being expressive, Fe smiling in photos and the Fe being more empathetic, it's all just personal conjecture. Fi can be all of those things as well.

 

[leadintea]

I once read that Fe is more sympathetic and Fi is more empathetic. Dunno how true it is, but I'm just putting it out there.

 

[Ace Face]

I once read that Fe is more sympathetic and Fi is more empathetic. Dunno how true it is, but I'm just putting it out there.

Say no to shitty stereotypes!

 

[Arrow]

I once read that Fe is more sympathetic and Fi is more empathetic. Dunno how true it is, but I'm just putting it out there.

Fe references outside emotional information and focuses on how that person is acting and then acts (the focus is on the other persons feelings because Fe doesn't feel comfortable referencing their internal emotions, thoughts, feelings and acting on them. They feel more comfortable in the external standard). Fi self-references the emotional information presented to them and focuses on how it would act in that same situation and checks it internal, subjective guidelines to see how to react (it has problems dealing with external rights/wrongs/norms in emotional-situational contexts because it is concerned about their own opinions and beliefs about the situation and context). Both have room for experiencing empathy or sympathy on their own terms and in their own ways which vary by the user. It would be ridiculous to say users of Fi and Fe could never experience both sympathy or empathy at some point in their lives.

 

[Doctorjuice]

That's not true, you could argue that Fe is more concentrated on others since it's an extroverted function and is more concerned about the external world. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Fe is more empathetic. We are talking about a function here. Functions themselves can't be sympathetic. Both Fi and Fe are capable of doing the same things, the only thing that is different about them is the way they get there. Both are capable of being just as empathetic as each other, it comes down to those who are using the functions in question. That's why whenever I hear these conceptions about Fi not being expressive, Fe smiling in photos and the Fe being more empathetic, it's all just personal conjecture. Fi can be all of those things as well.

Right, I agree that both are equally capable of being empathetic. And Fi is capable of being all those things as well, like you said. Generally speaking, however, Fe just lends itself more towards empathizing with the emotions of others. Fe almost experiences the emotions of others and is focused on others' emotions.

Take an ISFP and an ESFJ. Which type is more likely to show empathy? Which type is more likely to pay attention to the emotions of others? Not that an ISFP is incapable of doing these things or doing them well, but an ESFJ is more likely to do these things because they use Fe rather than Fi.

Fe references outside emotional information and focuses on how that person is acting and then acts (the focus is on the other persons feelings because Fe doesn't feel comfortable referencing their internal emotions, thoughts, feelings and acting on them. They feel more comfortable in the external standard). Fi self-references the emotional information presented to them and focuses on how it would act in that same situation and checks it internal, subjective guidelines to see how to react (it has problems dealing with external rights/wrongs/norms in emotional-situational contexts because it is concerned about their own opinions and beliefs about the situation and context). Both have room for experiencing empathy or sympathy on their own terms and in their own ways which vary by the user. It would be ridiculous to say users of Fi and Fe could never experience both sympathy or empathy at some point in their lives.

This is very accurate.

 

[Angelic Gardevoir]

Right, I agree that both are equally capable of being empathetic. And Fi is capable of being all those things as well, like you said. Generally speaking, however, Fe just lends itself more towards empathizing with the emotions of others. Fe almost experiences the emotions of others and is focused on others' emotions.

Take an ISFP and an ESFJ. Which type is more likely to show empathy? Which type is more likely to pay attention to the emotions of others? Not that an ISFP is incapable of doing these things or doing them well, but an ESFJ is more likely to do these things because they use Fe rather than Fi.

I think the only difference in that respect is the showing. An Fi user can feel empathy just as intensely, but it may come out in a more subtle way than Fe.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

I once read that Fe is more sympathetic and Fi is more empathetic. Dunno how true it is, but I'm just putting it out there.

I believe there is more truth in this than not . Fe is sympathetic , Fi empathetic. We need both in order to create a healthy society. I may not be very sympathetic, although there are times that people don't need sympathy, they need support. We can hurt the growth of people by providing sympathy if they need a wake up call, not pity. It depends on the situation, what the need is or what is realistic or not. I could sympathize deeply with someone close who has no control over circumstances that have caused then profound pain, the loss of a child etc. Unless it's profound, it remains empathetic Fi, not sympathetic Fe. We can experience both like the example i gave, although Fi will naturally want to feel empathetic rather than sympathetic. Fe will naturally want to feel sympathetic and stay in that realm as this function won't naturally turn internally while using their natural function , Fe.

I'll never understand why so many people are confused by this, sigh. Although examples and explanations with Fi are not made as clear intellectually with Fe, the data that is available is without a doubt enough to grasp the concept of the vast differences with these two functions. I suppose its easier to make the correlation with Fe, as this function is visible to society for everyone to see, where Fi is deep rooted for only the individual in question to see.

 

[Doctorjuice]

Let me clarify. Here is my argument:

Focusing on the emotions of others fosters empathy. Fe is focused on the emotions of others more than Fi. Therefore, Fe fosters empathy more than Fi.

Fostering empathy leads to being more natural at empathizing. Fe fosters empathy more, therefore Fe is more natural at empathizing.

Definition of empathy:
The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

I once again stress that Fe is only more natural at empathy than Fi is, Fi is certainly just as capable.

From the Fe vs Fi 101 article on this site:

"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)"

 

[Doctorjuice]

Also, I've realized I've made an extreme error in misusing the word "emphatic." In every case where I used the word "emphatic" I meant to use the word "empathetic." Sorry if that caused any confusion.

 

[Arrow]

Generally speaking, however, Fe just lends itself more towards empathizing with the emotions of others. Fe almost experiences the emotions of others

Not really. Fe can see the emotional state someone is in and it automatically knows the role that they must play in the scenario that has been given. This could mean to support the person due to the external standards that one is supposed to do in that situation but it could also just as easily be to ignore their dramatic outburst if the person responds unfavorably or wrongly in a certain situation.

A Fe user also doesn't necessarily feel the emotions that the person is experiencing, they are more or less just responding in a way that they know they are supposed to respond. If that is lending an ear, offering words of comfort, keeping the peace between two fighting family members they will do that. That is the way they believe they should respond in context to the situation. Fe is more concerned with adhering to the objective standard of emotional responses, it is not directly correlated with feeling directly what that person is feeling or even mirroring emotions although it can do this and can lead to feeling for the person, even with the person.

The notion or belief that Fe is automatically empathetic is incorrect, as is that same idea for Fi. The user has to feel those feelings in order to be sympathetic or empathetic which is a different ballgame. Fe and Fi are both judging functions at their base terms. Fe judges the criteria externally (is the person acting appropriately on the guidelines that I know about? Do they deserve my actions, What action will I take in regards to this current situation, How do I deal with them, etc.?) then it acts. Fi judges the critera internally (is what they are doing right according to my personal subjective view of the situation, what is my view on this situation and is it applicable, what would I do if I was in a similar position/what would I want done for me, etc.) and then it acts. Fi is a subjective clarification process and is refined and intune with the person own personally thoughts, values, ideas, etc.

Both Fi and Fe are simply judging the content outside or inside there is no direct hard wired emotional response off the bat. Both Fe and Fi could feel sympathy or empathy for others based on their judgments. Neither is more likely to be sympathetic or empathetic then the other one. Emotional responses are based purely on the individual person using those functions. Fe could be more expressive and could be more caring, but at the same time so could Fi. I have ENFJ, ESTx, ESFP cousins and all show affection in similar ways they use various forms of either Fi or Fe. All can be caring in their own ways.

Take an ISFP and an ESFJ. Which type is more likely to show empathy? Which type is more likely to pay attention to the emotions of others? Not that an ISFP is incapable of doing these things or doing them well, but an ESFJ is more likely to do these things because they use Fe rather than Fi.

This isn't 100% true. I have seen ESFJ's who blatantly do not care at all about someones personal beliefs because they believed they were right about a course of action even though they completely undercut the autonomy of another individual they loved. Fe can be just as unemotional and unsympathetic as Fi can be. There are dark sides to all functions. Fi is not inherently less capable of empathy then Fe is. Again it all comes down to the persons who are using these functions. It's ridiculous to say that a judging function makes one incapable of having sympathy or empathy for others. That's the own users personal emotions coming into the mix. Fe and Fi are not emotions. That being said you could say that Fe is more demonstrative and more likely to express their thoughts and enforce them in a group setting because they feel supported by the group -- the groups make their values. You could also say that Fi is less likely to openly express their judgements, values and principals because those are internal for them and subjective to them. The protect them extensively. Fi is internally focused and Fe is externally focused. But when it comes down to interpersonal interactions that's largely based on the person, context and situation. Not a judgement that just tells you if something is right or bad.

Focusing on the emotions of others fosters empathy.

How so? Fe is only judging the external persons behavior in order to make a decision, just like Fi is, the only difference between this judgement process is that Fe looks at external methods (how others are responding to the person, what the person should be doing/acknowledging, how the person should be acting, circulating judgement on what the objective right action during a situation would be, etc.) while Fi looks at subjective ones (Is this person doing what I would do, are they adhering to my person criteria of good actions, do they have viable motivations/reasoning's for doing what they did according to my personal systems, etc.). Nothing about Fi or Fe is emotional. Fi and Fe are rational processes based on what they "feel" is good or bad by their own systems. This can stem towards a persons "emotionality" for a lack of a better term but at their rawest cores Fe and Fi are simply judgement functions - empathy and sympathy are later factors based on the individual's own personality or temperment. Not something adherent to a cognitive function that helps make choices in judging the world around them.

Fostering empathy leads to being more natural at empathizing.

I don't see how one is inept at fostering empathy. There is nothing that states Fi can't foster empathy or can't focus on others. Fi inherently likes personal context, authentic relationships and one-on-one style communication, all of this in theory could breed intimacy and thus empathy/emotional connection. Empathy is simply put, putting yourself in someone elses place and feeling what you would imagine they would feel -- Fi can definitely do that. If you listen to a Fi-dom discuss these things that's in actuality the very way in which they come to care about people through the concept of treating other people they imagine they would want to be treated.

I once again stress that Fe is only more natural at empathy than Fi is, Fi is certainly just as capable.

It's not though, that's just a stereotype. Empathy is more about personal ability more then anything else. Feeling in Jung's terms is not emotions.

 

[Doctorjuice]

@Arrow

I once again quote: "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)"

Awareness and understanding of others' feelings is the very definition of empathy. Because Fe is usually more aware of others' feelings, it is usually more empathetic.

There are going to be ISFPs who are more empathetic than ESFJs, and there are going to be ESFJs that are jerks and aren't empathetic at all, of course. On average though, ESFJs are more empathetic than ISFPs and this is because ESFJs use Fe.

It's ridiculous to say that a judging function makes one incapable of having sympathy or empathy for others.

Of course it is, I never said anything like that (if that was what you were implying).

Nothing about Fi or Fe is emotional.

I disagree with this.

I don't see how one is inept at fostering empathy. There is nothing that states Fi can't foster empathy or can't focus on others.

Of course, I never said or meant anything like this.

Fi inherently likes personal context, authentic relationships and one-on-one style communication, all of this in theory could breed intimacy and thus empathy/emotional connection. Empathy is simply put, putting yourself in someone elses place and feeling what you would imagine they would feel -- Fi can definitely do that. If you listen to a Fi-dom discuss these things that's in actuality the very way in which they come to care about people through the concept of treating other people they imagine they would want to be treated.

Right, I agree with all of this.

 

[Worriedfunction]

I think you might struggle with this, as you might have noticed people tend to feel what their own personal spin on definitions of Fe and Fi are.

I dont even think there is a clear answer that will be satisfying to anyone anymore.

 

[Doctorjuice]

I think you might struggle with this, as you might have noticed people tend to feel what their own personal spin on definitions of Fe and Fi are.

I dont even think there is a clear answer that will be satisfying to anyone anymore.

It is certainly both a difficult and touchy matter. The main purpose of this topic, though, was to share video content that I hope people will learn from, not debate on empathy in relation to Fi and Fe.

 

[Inguz]

Also, I've realized I've made an extreme error in misusing the word "emphatic." In every case where I used the word "emphatic" I meant to use the word "empathetic." Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Good to know, because I didn't know there were two different. I meant the empathetic one, apparently unempathetic wasn't a word, until now!

It is certainly both a difficult and touchy matter. The main purpose of this topic, though, was to share video content that I hope people will learn from, not debate on empathy in relation to Fi and Fe.

You asked for critique and feedback, and I felt that Fi's definition in the video was far from satisfying. That is all.

 

[Worriedfunction]

It is certainly both a difficult and touchy matter. The main purpose of this topic, though, was to share video content that I hope people will learn from, not debate on empathy in relation to Fi and Fe.

That's fine I wasn't trying to detract from that. I also, (and this is to anyone who reads this), wasn't saying there was anything wrong with people's different opinions on function definitions as such, but it has become fairly difficult to define them, I remember another forum I frequent where a discussion on Ni brought up no less than 36 different descriptions by each person posting.

I think this might even stem from the nature of the functions themselve, especially the introverted ones. Si/Ni/Fi/Ti are ultimately all subjective to the person who possesses them. But such people will also share common factors with others of those functions, which is where it becomes nice and complicated.

 

[Doctorjuice]

You asked for critique and feedback, and I felt that Fi's definition in the video was far from satisfying. That is all.

Yes, what you said was fine, but then the topic diverged into a debate about empathy in relation to Fe and Fi. It wasn't anybody's fault, it just happened.

That's fine I wasn't trying to detract from that. I also, (and this is to anyone who reads this), wasn't saying there was anything wrong with people's different opinions on function definitions as such, but it has become fairly difficult to define them, I remember another forum I frequent where a discussion on Ni brought up no less than 36 different descriptions by each person posting.

I think this might even stem from the nature of the functions themselve, especially the introverted ones. Si/Ni/Fi/Ti are ultimately all subjective to the person who possesses them. But such people will also share common factors with others of those functions, which is where it becomes nice and complicated.

Yes MBTI is a bit of a pseudo-science is it not? Very messy, very hard to define, nigh-unverifiable. I still find it fascinating and believe that there's a lot of truth and usefulness you can get out of it. Delve too deeply into the theory and things get messy and difficult. Best to look at things empirically and observationally, when it comes to MBTI anyway.

 

[Inguz]

That's fine I wasn't trying to detract from that. I also, (and this is to anyone who reads this), wasn't saying there was anything wrong with people's different opinions on function definitions as such, but it has become fairly difficult to define them, I remember another forum I frequent where a discussion on Ni brought up no less than 36 different descriptions by each person posting.

I think this might even stem from the nature of the functions themselve, especially the introverted ones. Si/Ni/Fi/Ti are ultimately all subjective to the person who possesses them. But such people will also share common factors with others of those functions, which is where it becomes nice and complicated.

Yes, it's easier to say where the lines in the sand isn't drawn compared to where they should be. This seems to be a consequence of the use of the functions, you don't need to use your brain for math, but if you are going to do math you will use your brain, and when you do hopefully not the whole brain. It's tricky, specially for noobs like me.

Yes, what you said was fine, but then the topic diverged into a debate about empathy in relation to Fe and Fi. It wasn't anybody's fault, it just happened.

I don't know how much experience you have with forums in general, but when things doesn't go the way you like it simply "admit defeat" as I call it, or simply ignore it to prevent it from continuing taking the wrong direction.

Yes MBTI is a bit of a pseudo-science is it not? Very messy, very hard to define, nigh-unverifiable. I still find it fascinating and believe that there's a lot of truth and usefulness you can get out of it. Delve too deeply into the theory and things get messy and difficult. Best to look at things empirically and observationally, when it comes to MBTI anyway.

This is my highly personal opinion so keep that in mind, but yes, it's pseudo-science. That doesn't mean that it's useless, far from it. It can actually prove more useful to the individual as the MBTI to a much greater extent seems to acknowledge an individuals subjective perspective than what for example Big 5 does. Enneagram is also in the same category as MBTI I'd say, but it's the same thing there. Not only will it be hard to define the 8 functions in a simple way, but the simplified definitions also need to be very keen on making sure that everyone can fit in somewhere the 8 Jungian types/cognitive functions and in one of the 16 MBTI types at the same time. Big 5 for example doesn't have that problem -- it touches only the tangible and objective to get an estimated scale on each that leaves the individual outside of the picture, so from a scientific perspective it's often more interesting as it then makes itself quantifiable and comparatively fairly accurate on tests, compared to MBTI, which as the name suggests is a Type Indicator, nothing more. I was in charge to make personality test-stuff for employees I'd actually use Big 5 over MBTI, despite me personally enjoying MBTI much more.

The best shorted down definitions I've seen got to be these: ENFP Wiki