Personality Cafe banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Are F (Fi and Fe) only about moral vales or they represent all the values one can have ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
It's a bit more than that, from my understanding. They are both about values and they way you feel emotions. My immediate family consists of Fi-users only so I've also only recently come to understand the differences as well. I suspect I may have been influenced in the way I perceive my Fe by their Fi.

So what does it mean?

Fe
- will tend to compromise their own comfort by making other comfortable. I've read somewhere that Fe feels uncomfortable when others do and making others happy will make themselves happy. I find this to be true for me in most cases.
- can even take on and feel the exact same emotions as people around them (in the moment when it's happening); however, I'm not sure if this is all Fe-users inclusive or an INFJ thing.
- tends to need to talk out their feelings in order to fully understand what and why they feel the way they do
about their values: these will be more or less influenced by their environment etc. Fe-values tend to be less absolute than Fi's. Fe view morality as a grey area, e.g. a tendency of mercy over justice.That's not to say that Fe doesn't have fixed values; there will probably simply be less of them or be less aware of their existence.

Fi
- will tend to favour own comfort over others -> preserving their inner peace
- is fully aware of how and what they're feeling most of the time; is said to always be able to pinpoint exactly what they feel when asked (as opposed to Fe who tends to have to think about it before answering, but this could again be an INFJ thing and not appliclable to all Fe-users. This made it hard for me to know since I don't seem to be as unaware of my own feelings as apparently other INFJs tend to be)
- process emotions and feelings internally which means they won't necessarily feel the need to talk out their feelings (which doesn't mean they don't talk about them at all, though they may tend to be more private about them)
about their values: these can't be changed, they're fixed. Young Fi-users may seem to view the world and its morals as black/white (this is good, this is bad) . Fi is a strong moral compass as what's perceived as good and bad is deeply ingrained in them, e.g. a tendency of justice over mercy.

Keep in mind that both Fe and Fi care about people at their best. At their worst, Fe tends to be co-dependent and Fi tends to be selfish. Also, I'm still learning, so I apologise if what I say sounds wrong or isn't clear.

I hope this helped :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
I can't speak for Fe, however Fi isn't only about the value of things/people, its also about how authentic or real the object.( in this case let's call things and people objects. )...for example Fe will take most things at face value. In group settings if everyone is getting along and agreeable, they don't question whether or not everyone is authentic in their stances. Where Fi would be looking for signs of those who are not authentic with how they feel, or what they believe in. Are they just saying these things to please everyone around them? Does there body language match their words.? This derives from personal judgements, and often our observations are correct. Fi doesn't give signs or let on this is happening. It isn't like we choose to go through this process, it just happens. Fi is always working, churning and processing, it never stops.

I dont' think this answered the question, lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nephilibata

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
The feeling functions are focused on all values one has:

21. FEELING. 46 I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions (q.v.). I am unable to support the psychological school that considers feeling a secondary phenomenon dependent on “representations” or sensations, but in company with Höffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Külpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function sui generis.” 47

[724] Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego (q.v.) and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (“ like” or “dislike”). The process can also appear isolated, as it were, in the form of a “mood,” regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.

[725] Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. 48 Even an “indifferent” sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be.***** When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect (q.v.), i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.
Also just for note: Feeling functions are focused and directed by feelings (as defined above), not emotions. Emotions are a separate concept that are the sum of the combination of feelings and physical innervations. This is what Jung called an "affect", which is separated from the feeling function, as in not a sole product of feeling:

.2. AFFECT. By the term affect I mean a state of feeling characterized by marked physical innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other. 5 I use emotion as synonymous with affect. I distinguish— in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity)— feeling (q.v.) from affect, in spite of the fact that the dividing line is fluid, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. For practical reasons, however, it is advisable to distinguish affect from feeling, since feeling can be a voluntarily disposable function, whereas affect is usually not. Similarly, affect is clearly distinguished from feeling by quite perceptible physical innervations, while feeling for the most part lacks them, or else their intensity is so slight that they can be demonstrated only by the most delicate instruments, as in the case of psychogalvanic phenomena. 6 Affect becomes cumulative through the sensation of the physical innervations released by it. This observation gave rise to the James-Lange theory of affect, which derives affect causally from physical innervations. As against this extreme view, I regard affect on the one hand as a psychic feeling-state and on the other as a physiological innervation-state, each of which has a cumulative, reciprocal effect on the other. That is to say, a component of sensation allies itself with the intensified feeling, so that the affect is approximated more to sensation (q.v.) and essentially differentiated from the feeling-state. Pronounced affects, i.e., affects accompanied by violent physical innervations, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to that of the sensation function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Are F (Fi and Fe) only about moral vales or they represent all the values one can have ?
Contrary to popular belief, each of the four MBTI dimensions can have a significant influence on what someone "values" if you use that term broadly.

Not even Jung restricted valuing (in the broad sense) to the Feeling function. He said that each of the eight functions effectively constituted what he called a Weltanschauung, which means "world view." He said that "the conscious attitude is always in the nature of a Weltanschauung, if it is not explicitly a religion."

Here are two paragraphs where Jung talks about what a dramatic impact he thought E/I had on the kinds of values someone would be inclined to subscribe to.

[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​

And the view that S and N are just about passive "perception" is one that's occasionally encountered on internet forums but rarely in respectable sources, and it wasn't really Jung's view. Although Jung characterized the essence of S and N as modes of perception, his descriptions make it clear that he didn't limit them to an information gathering role. On the contrary, he said that Ne, for example, had "its own characteristic morality," and described Ne-doms choosing among various possibilities based purely on their N function — while noting that not bringing either of their "judging" functions to bear could sometimes lead to bad results. As Jung explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out."

To sort the S's from the N's, the official MBTI asks questions like, "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses, or courses involving theory?" and "Would you rather be considered a practical person, or an ingenious person?" And if anybody says those items aren't tapping into what I value, I'd say they must be using "values" in a sufficiently narrow sense that it's sure to miss out on quite a few of the things that a typical INTJ (for example) values.

When it comes to F and values, the first thing to note is that Jung's writings are hardly a model of clarity on that issue. But more importantly, I don't think there's any question that there's been something of an evolution (since Jung) on what an F preference involves, and that F is better viewed as a preference that tends to be associated with a particular set of (largely) people/relationship-oriented values than as some kind of overall "valuing" function. And I've put some recycled reckful on that issue in the spoiler.

 
In 1931 Jung said, "I freely admit that this problem of feeling has been one that has caused me much brain-racking" — which isn't likely to come as a shock to anyone who's read Psychological Types, since his characterizations of the feeling "function" aren't exactly a model of consistency. On the one hand, he characterized feeling as a "rational function," and wrote that both thinking and feeling "function most perfectly when they are in the fullest possible accord with the laws of reason."

Buuut, on the other hand... in the same 1931 article where he confessed to all the "brain-racking," Jung also summarized the difference between thinkers and feelers in these terms:

Jung said:
I was struck by the fact that many people habitually do more thinking than others, and accordingly give more weight to thought when making important decisions. They also use their thinking in order to understand the world and adapt to it, and whatever happens to them is subjected to consideration and reflection or at least subordinated to some principle sanctioned by thought. Other people conspicuously neglect thinking in favour of emotional factors, that is, of feeling. They invariably follow a policy dictated by feeling, and it takes an extraordinary situation to make them reflect. They form an unmistakable contrast to the other type, and the difference is most striking when the two are business partners or are married to each other.
In any case, whatever Jung thought, it's fair to say there's been something of an evolution over the years (since Jung) about what the T/F dimension is really about, from a more Jungian perspective — T's making decisions based on principles/logic and F's based on values/emotions — to viewing the essence of T/F more in terms of the F's people/relationship orientation. And I think that evolution has been a good thing, but I think it's at least part of the reason that there's arguably more inconsistency among different sources concerning what T/F is about than any of the other three MBTI dimensions. Modern MBTI sources always retain the "Thinking" and "Feeling" labels, and generally pay at least some lip service to the notion that T's are somehow more "logical" about their decision-making while F's make greater use of "feeling" (as some kind of alternative rational process) and/or "values" and/or "emotions." But if you look at the actual examples they give of T's and F's making decisions, the differences tend to hinge on the F's people orientation. The relevant "emotions" coming into play for the F (that make the difference) are generally emotions that involve people/relationships and/or concerns for other people's emotions and, similarly, the "values" that play the greater role for the F than the T are generally values relating to people/relationships.

As one example, Lenore Thomson is an MBTI theorist whose work is focused more on the cognitive functions than the MBTI dichotomies — making her more Jungian (at least in some people's eyes) — but Personality Type: An Owner's Manual includes half a chapter on Thinking vs. Feeling. Not surprisingly, Thomson's discussion of how the Feeling preference develops starts out with a Jungian-sounding paragraph or two about a child exploring her world and, in addition to exercising logic and learning to put things in impersonal categories (her T side), developing her capacity to decide what's good and bad, and what's important (her F side). But, lo and behold, by the time we get to the table where Thomson sums up the qualities that tend to characterize an adult with an F preference, it turns out that an orientation toward people and relationships is really the heart (no pun intended) of the F preference. Here's the F side of Thomson's table, in its entirety:

Feeling gives us:
the ability to make decisions personally, based on shared values and relationships
an interest in how people feel
a reliance on consensus, morality, mercy and loyalty
a commitment to social obligation, empathy, and responsibility to others
the ability to anticipate people's needs and reactions
an interest in human relationships and the values they illustrate
a good sense of body language and vocal intonation — how something useful was said and why

David Keirsey also emphasizes the people/relationship aspect of an F preference, and here's part of his description of the difference between NTs and NFs:

As with the NT, the NF is future-oriented and focused on what might be. But, rather than thinking about the possibilities of principles as does the NT, the NF thinks about the possibilities of people, "actualizing the potential" of others and of himself. As with his perception of himself, so it is with the NF's perception of others: Whatever is, is never quite sufficient. The thought that the visible is all there is is untenable for an NF. ... [NFs'] hunger is not centered on things but people. They are not content with abstractions; they seek relationships. Their need does not ground in action; it vibrates with interaction.​
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
I can't speak for Fe, however Fi isn't only about the value of things/people, its also about how authentic or real the object.( in this case let's call things and people objects. )...for example Fe will take most things at face value. In group settings if everyone is getting along and agreeable, they don't question whether or not everyone is authentic in their stances. Where Fi would be looking for signs of those who are not authentic with how they feel, or what they believe in. Are they just saying these things to please everyone around them? Does there body language match their words.? This derives from personal judgements, and often our observations are correct. Fi doesn't give signs or let on this is happening. It isn't like we choose to go through this process, it just happens. Fi is always working, churning and processing, it never stops.
Thanks, I'm always looking to understand the functions as well as I can :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
It's a bit more than that, from my understanding. They are both about values and they way you feel emotions. My immediate family consists of Fi-users only so I've also only recently come to understand the differences as well. I suspect I may have been influenced in the way I perceive my Fe by their Fi.

So what does it mean?

Fe
- will tend to compromise their own comfort by making other comfortable. I've read somewhere that Fe feels uncomfortable when others do and making others happy will make themselves happy. I find this to be true for me in most cases.
- can even take on and feel the exact same emotions as people around them (in the moment when it's happening); however, I'm not sure if this is all Fe-users inclusive or an INFJ thing.
- tends to need to talk out their feelings in order to fully understand what and why they feel the way they do
about their values: these will be more or less influenced by their environment etc. Fe-values tend to be less absolute than Fi's. Fe view morality as a grey area, e.g. a tendency of mercy over justice.That's not to say that Fe doesn't have fixed values; there will probably simply be less of them or be less aware of their existence.

Fi
- will tend to favour own comfort over others -> preserving their inner peace
- is fully aware of how and what they're feeling most of the time; is said to always be able to pinpoint exactly what they feel when asked (as opposed to Fe who tends to have to think about it before answering, but this could again be an INFJ thing and not appliclable to all Fe-users. This made it hard for me to know since I don't seem to be as unaware of my own feelings as apparently other INFJs tend to be)
- process emotions and feelings internally which means they won't necessarily feel the need to talk out their feelings (which doesn't mean they don't talk about them at all, though they may tend to be more private about them)
about their values: these can't be changed, they're fixed. Young Fi-users may seem to view the world and its morals as black/white (this is good, this is bad) . Fi is a strong moral compass as what's perceived as good and bad is deeply ingrained in them, e.g. a tendency of justice over mercy.

Keep in mind that both Fe and Fi care about people at their best. At their worst, Fe tends to be co-dependent and Fi tends to be selfish. Also, I'm still learning, so I apologise if what I say sounds wrong or isn't clear.

I hope this helped :)
I think rather than "justice over mercy," you're picking up on a tendency of Fi doms toward rigidity, due to our inferior Te (so for example Fi aux may not show this tendency). Individual Fi users (or Fe users) might value justice more or value mercy more. The thing is, with Fi (or with me at least) once the value is adopted it's hard to stop DOING it. Our structure-imposing tends to be significantly less elegant than Te dom's and Te aux's, because it is not our preferred mode. But that is why we need to let our aux Ne or Se open us up so we can factor in other perspectives/experiences and learn to be less rigid.

If you want to see a rigid enforcing of mercy over justice, just strike up a conversation sometime with me about the church's role in private morality! :laughing: :crying:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
I think rather than "justice over mercy," you're picking up on a tendency of Fi doms toward rigidity, due to our inferior Te (so for example Fi aux may not show this tendency). Individual Fi users (or Fe users) might value justice more or value mercy more. The thing is, with Fi (or with me at least) once the value is adopted it's hard to stop DOING it. Our structure-imposing tends to be significantly less elegant than Te dom's and Te aux's, because it is not our preferred mode. But that is why we need to let our aux Ne or Se open us up so we can factor in other perspectives/experiences and learn to be less rigid.

If you want to see a rigid enforcing of mercy over justice, just strike up a conversation sometime with me about the church's role in private morality! :laughing: :crying:
No, you're completely right. I just wasn't sure how to phrase it properly since I'm not sure how to describe a function I don't fully understand. It's why I wrote 'tend' a lot because I didn't want to sound like it had to be that. Thanks for adding this though, that way it's better understood what Fi is :)
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​
This is so hardcore me. Thanks for posting it. (what is the source of this, by the way? I want to read the full text)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: aendern
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top