Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Help, please!

What I'm finding is that hardly anyone understands Fi who does not have Fi. I think it is causing big problems in the MBTI world, it basically gives everyone studying it who do not have Fi a big blind spot. Also, the spread of bad information can be damaging to us in the long-run, so please help.

I know some of us are better at describing our functions to others (usually by realizing the different world view of others and figuring out what key points are different and need explaining) and I know some of us don't care or haven't cared what others understood... I think our Fi is always so needed by any society and I think it and WE deserve to be actually understood, if we can try explaining.

I'm hoping we can find SOME consensus and agreement on maybe what the origins of our Fi are and maybe what ALL Fi users would agree on... even though Fi is very individualistic, I believe it is based on the same origins and describing those origins to others is what I'm after. I am pasting this on the ISFP, ESFP and ENFP and ISFP forums.
I know Fi with Ne and Fi with Se are going to be somewhat different and that dom and aux will be different but lets also explain those differences and get down to Fi at its core!

I'd like to propose the following things that I personally think are the origin of Fi. Hopefully people remember their world view before they learned that other people have a very different world view and experience through MBTI. Also, some of us might feel like we've burned our Fi down... yet still recognize the origins of what was built. The universal origins are what we are after. Please agree or disagree with each one of these points. Maybe I'll have to learn to make a pole:

1. Feelings have significance and value.

2. Anyone and anything capable of having feelings has significance and value. (Basically life is valuable. "Life is valuable" is hard-wired into us usually, even if we later learn there may be a hierarchy in feelings or the greater good (more people's feelings) at stake. Saying that someone doesn't have feelings is almost like saying they are inhuman, until we learned something else through MBTI.)

3. Any human who can feel or even has the potential to feel is equal in worth-- meaning each human being is equal in worth intrinsically and unalterably. This idea persists despite realizing that different humans and animals experience different levels of feeling and usually despite any wrongs that human has committed. Although they may be judged harshly and the greater good will be looked at in the decision making process of judging a human. Judging others likely has to do with the Fi-Te axis. But at the Fi core, a person or baby who I have never met has the same intrinsic and unalterable worth as I do.

4. I am usually highly aware of my feelings. They come from inside me in response to thoughts about external and internal stimuli.

5. Because valuable feelings come from inside of each person and are individual, rights of individuality (the group granting the right for the individual to be individual) need to be highly protected..

6. People cannot be forced to feel differently than they do and ideally people should be able to figure out what is right and wrong for themselves because their feelings and situation are independent of anyone elses' (unless we figure out this is not true for non Fi-users from the different world-view of people around us or from studying MBTI). The ability to make decisions that you believe will result in positive emotions (freedom) is extremely important and should be protected for me and for others.

7. Empathy/sympathy usually means that I put myself into another person's situation in my mind and feel what I would feel in that situation. I can see what the other person is expressing and I can feel my own feelings and I can see comparisons and differences. Usually when listening to others' stories I feel my own feelings stronger and can figure out what I think the right or wrong action is for the person.

8. Right and wrong has to do with what protects valuable positive feelings and protects life. And yes there is a right and a wrong (we might need to use the word morals in order for some to get it) and different actions can be judged to be different shades of right and wrong but the right and wrong is independent of my desires, although based on the value of feelings and the value of life. Just like there is a "most logical" thing to do and a "least logical" thing to do, there is also a "most moral" and a "least moral" thing to do. Sometimes there is neutral, but judging this all has to do with navigating right action. Right and wrong is not based on personal feelings or desires or whims or the personal feelings or desires or whims of anyone else or any group.

9. Right and wrong is independent of me or of any group and timeless. My understanding of right or wrong is how I judge myself and others. As I learn more about the "true" right and wrong in life (see #8), I have to make adjustments. This is sometimes a difficult learning process since I thought I knew the truth before.

10. Since right and wrong are independent of me, my own desires must be sometimes sacrificed to do the right thing. Sometimes other people's desires must be sacrificed, the important thing is to do the right thing which would be the thing that protects the most valuable feelings (greater good) and life.

11. My identity and my likes and dislikes are basically a bi-product of my understanding of the value of feelings, being highly aware of my own feelings, and my personal understanding of right and wrong.

12. High Fi thinks that people should think independently and autonomously do what they individually think is right and if people do what they think is right then we assume that things would work out for everyone. (Looking at it further, if people are mistaken about what is right or violate Fi values, usually the Te side of the axis will deal justice. Mostly Fi lives with a "live and let live" attitude. If we can. America is actually a Te-Fi based society, but there are other societies based on the other axis and I'm not exactly sure how that would affect the world view of all of this. But I digress, that's not origin stuff...)

Please explain if you highly agree or disagree with each one and what you think instead, please, if you don't agree. Or re-word it to fit what you think. What would you also add?
I'm really really hoping we can help others understand what we build our Fi on. I hope it ends up also helping others see people clearly and understand better.
THANK YOU SO MUCH IN ADVANCE!
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
I have some questions for clarification before I answer:
-what does 'unalaterable' imply/mean in no3?
-what does 'valuable feelings' mean, as opposed to (I guess) 'not valuable feelings'?
-what do you mean by "positive emotions (freedom)" on no6 and others
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
One of the key aspects of Fi that I only recently learned was it's critical role in self identity. Fe types lack self awareness as a default, and their ethics are unconcious expression of their upbringing. A stong Fi type on the otherhand views the world through the lens of an individual with emotions, and thus by default devolps a humanistic ethic.

Also I see Fi and Ti as being much closer in nature, than the extroverted J functions even if ethics and emotions are connected to Fe in Ti/Fe types. Fi/Ti provide a compass that guide decisions, while Fe/Te take action in the Ethical/objective economy. Basically Fi/Ti are consideration funtions while Fe/Te are take action funtions. (This is from cognitive typology theory, which is the first time I've seen functions described symmetrically which I like)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I have some questions for clarification before I answer:
-what does 'unalaterable' imply/mean in no3?
-what does 'valuable feelings' mean, as opposed to (I guess) 'not valuable feelings'?
-what do you mean by "positive emotions (freedom)" on no6 and others
Thank you for answering. Maybe I can change my original post because I think this does get us into a complexity that people with Fi could have a good long discussion over.

I see at this moment that the "unalterable worth" of a human being actually might be one of the things that we all with Fi would disagree on. I was driving at the beautiful worth of a baby and that through time that worth would never change and that adults should be worth that much too. I was also trying to convey that each human is equal to each other human no matter if they are someone I haven't met or someone I have met. But there is a lot of complexity on the idea that someone can't mess up their worth to the planet... I think we with Fi dislike that idea and so it is likely more to the heart of origins to think of each person being of human worth, but might have to look at it as we age. I think we could uphold the idea in an argument....maybe...that a philanthropist is intrinsically worth more than a criminal... But I can tell I kind of hate that idea. What about a king versus a slave? It would depend on their actions. High Fi is very comfortable judging people on their actions yet I don't know how much this touches what we feel is the worth of a human being and I think it could be argued and so I need to whittle this thought down to something we all can agree on. I'd love help on that, Panda!

Valuable feelings. Where ever I stated "valuable feelings" instead of just "feelings" then I did so talking about right action. I think we believe all feelings are significant and have purpose. But I think I differentiated in saying "valuable feelings" whenever I was thinking that we want laws and society and people to protect the right to strive for positive emotions and we don't want laws or people to be able to create negative emotions for others or for a group. I think you're right, Panda, I need to re-word. It's tough, though, because we can also see when people are going over-board with not balancing the worth of their own feelings against the worth of everyone's feelings.. that kind of thing. I think we think anger is valuable.... unless someone takes their own anger too seriously and judges it as more important than the emotional trauma they put people through around them. I think we would usually think that was undeveloped Fi... a lack of putting yourself into each others' shoes, (tbh a lack of development of Fi, usually).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,440 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
One of the key aspects of Fi that I only recently learned was it's critical role in self identity. Fe types lack self awareness as a default, and their ethics are unconcious expression of their upbringing. A stong Fi type on the otherhand views the world through the lens of an individual with emotions, and thus by default devolps a humanistic ethic.

Also I see Fi and Ti as being much closer in nature, than the extroverted J functions even if ethics and emotions are connected to Fe in Ti/Fe types. Fi/Ti provide a compass that guide decisions, while Fe/Te take action in the Ethical/objective economy. Basically Fi/Ti are consideration funtions while Fe/Te are take action funtions. (This is from cognitive typology theory, which is the first time I've seen functions described symmetrically which I like)
I wrote about building identity in my origins. Do you think I covered it sufficiently?
There are many overlaps with Ti like the sense that people should be able to make their own decisions.

One of the reasons I finally got to work with these posts...one of the "last straws" was actually watching a Objective Personality video where Dave and Shan (an INTJ and ENTJ) talked about Fi as only meaning your identity... only meaning an awareness of what you like and dislike. Fi is a lot more complex than just figuring out your identity, it is also highly about moral decisions. I know how very different that is from high Fe users because I have explored that with many INFJs through threads and friendships and also Dario Nardi's brain scans showing that when Fi people listen to other people speaking then an Fi person's identity center in the brain is highly activated. In other words, by comparing someone else's reaction to what ours would have been (we have that much sense of identity, yes, that we know how we would react that strongly) we basically learned more about who we are and develop more Fi by comparison. I know MORE about myself after talking to someone else meanwhile I also know more about them. We then look at what they did. In Dario Nardi's studies when someone with Fe was listening to someone else, the effect was the opposite. They "blended" with the other person. Their sense of identity (a well known area of the brain to neuroscientists) became LESS active. Actually when I think about it, it makes perfect sense how Fi users comfort each other by sharing similar experiences. That is the only way we don't feel completely alone is if we can recognize that another human being went through the same thing and we can see our likeness instead of our differences... this also teaches us more about ourselves. Nardi had a lot of info on high Fi and it's listening capabilities. Fi users show flow-state when listening to others and he didn't mention flow state in these two in any other situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
I wrote about building identity in my origins. Do you think I covered it sufficiently?
There are many overlaps with Ti like the sense that people should be able to make their own decisions.

One of the reasons I finally got to work with these posts...one of the "last straws" was actually watching a Objective Personality video where Dave and Shan (an INTJ and ENTJ) talked about Fi as only meaning your identity... only meaning an awareness of what you like and dislike. Fi is a lot more complex than just figuring out your identity, it is also highly about moral decisions. I know how very different that is from high Fe users because I have explored that with many INFJs through threads and friendships and also Dario Nardi's brain scans showing that when Fi people listen to other people speaking then an Fi person's identity center in the brain is highly activated. In other words, by comparing someone else's reaction to what ours would have been (we have that much sense of identity, yes, that we know how we would react that strongly) we basically learned more about who we are and develop more Fi by comparison. I know MORE about myself after talking to someone else meanwhile I also know more about them. We then look at what they did. In Dario Nardi's studies when someone with Fe was listening to someone else, the effect was the opposite. They "blended" with the other person. Their sense of identity (a well known area of the brain to neuroscientists) became LESS active. Actually when I think about it, it makes perfect sense how Fi users comfort each other by sharing similar experiences. That is the only way we don't feel completely alone is if we can recognize that another human being went through the same thing and we can see our likeness instead of our differences... this also teaches us more about ourselves. Nardi had a lot of info on high Fi and it's listening capabilities. Fi users show flow-state when listening to others and he didn't mention flow state in these two in any other situation.
Yes its important to realise that identity = knowledge of oneself. So picking up knowledge from others helps you understand yourself better. Fi is the only function that instinctively does this. Thats why development of Fi is important for all types, you cant really be balanced without a sense of self.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
OK here are my thoughts on this, will also include your responses to my qs. I'm quite fond of the new multi-quote system huehue


1. Feelings have significance and value.
sure, generally because they can teach us things or just cause it's nice to experience them
but ultimately they're reactions to the world, what we expect is gonna happen (interoceptive system)

2. Anyone and anything capable of having feelings has significance and value. (Basically life is valuable. "Life is valuable" is hard-wired into us usually, even if we later learn there may be a hierarchy in feelings or the greater good (more people's feelings) at stake. Saying that someone doesn't have feelings is almost like saying they are inhuman, until we learned something else through MBTI.)
Sort of. Life is valuable yes, but I'm not sure I base this on feelings at least not entirely. I see life as valuable because of all being part of the Universe. Life is wonderful but also brutal, so feeling can't be the foundation of valuing life.

3. Any human who can feel or even has the potential to feel is equal in worth-- meaning each human being is equal in worth intrinsically and unalterably. This idea persists despite realizing that different humans and animals experience different levels of feeling and usually despite any wrongs that human has committed. Although they may be judged harshly and the greater good will be looked at in the decision making process of judging a human. Judging others likely has to do with the Fi-Te axis. But at the Fi core, a person or baby who I have never met has the same intrinsic and unalterable worth as I do.
I see at this moment that the "unalterable worth" of a human being actually might be one of the things that we all with Fi would disagree on. I was driving at the beautiful worth of a baby and that through time that worth would never change and that adults should be worth that much too. I was also trying to convey that each human is equal to each other human no matter if they are someone I haven't met or someone I have met. But there is a lot of complexity on the idea that someone can't mess up their worth to the planet... I think we with Fi dislike that idea and so it is likely more to the heart of origins to think of each person being of human worth, but might have to look at it as we age. I think we could uphold the idea in an argument....maybe...that a philanthropist is intrinsically worth more than a criminal... But I can tell I kind of hate that idea. What about a king versus a slave? It would depend on their actions. High Fi is very comfortable judging people on their actions yet I don't know how much this touches what we feel is the worth of a human being and I think it could be argued and so I need to whittle this thought down to something we all can agree on. I'd love help on that, Panda!
I think more than believing in some unalterable worth it's believing in the potential of humanity. I don't exactly agree with this unalterable worth, I don't think a murderer or rapist deserve to be part of society but I'm not a fan of the idea of torturing or being cruel to them for vengeance either. But that's prob relating a lot to what that would mean for the rest of us. I can recognize what you're saying as some gut feeling tho, but I don't consider it right to solely depend on this for figuring out morality.


4. I am usually highly aware of my feelings. They come from inside me in response to thoughts about external and internal stimuli.
Yes I'm aware of my feelings quite a lot. That's what ALL feelings are.

5. Because valuable feelings come from inside of each person and are individual, rights of individuality (the group granting the right for the individual to be individual) need to be highly protected..
Yes but there needs to be a limitation or this rule would be self contradicted. Tolerance for its own sake is self-destructive and hence immoral.

6. People cannot be forced to feel differently than they do and ideally people should be able to figure out what is right and wrong for themselves because their feelings and situation are independent of anyone elses' (unless we figure out this is not true for non Fi-users from the different world-view of people around us or from studying MBTI). The ability to make decisions that you believe will result in positive emotions (freedom) is extremely important and should be protected for me and for others.
No, people many times need to be contradicted so they can grow a brain. It's how we teach kids to learn to share and that they don't own the world. If someone has morally retarded behavior (as all kids and many adults do) we ought to try and teach them either by example or punishment. Freedom to be oneself is important yes, but this still has to be limited or it will contradict moral behaviors because of people who are not behaving morally.

7. Empathy/sympathy usually means that I put myself into another person's situation in my mind and feel what I would feel in that situation. I can see what the other person is expressing and I can feel my own feelings and I can see comparisons and differences. Usually when listening to others' stories I feel my own feelings stronger and can figure out what I think the right or wrong action is for the person.
Well there's affective and cognitive empathy, when affective empathy is triggered it's usually a mirror response from an automated understanding of their body language and whatever. Cognitive empathy is more intellectual so it's gonna be more engaged when it's not about some overt emotional expression. Both occur but I engage with cognitive empathy more at the level of decision making. How emotionally engaged I'll be depends on more specifics in that situation but I'd say it's a mix of both. I know what my feelings are but doesn't mean they won't be affected.

8. Right and wrong has to do with what protects valuable positive feelings and protects life. And yes there is a right and a wrong (we might need to use the word morals in order for some to get it) and different actions can be judged to be different shades of right and wrong but the right and wrong is independent of my desires, although based on the value of feelings and the value of life. Just like there is a "most logical" thing to do and a "least logical" thing to do, there is also a "most moral" and a "least moral" thing to do. Sometimes there is neutral, but judging this all has to do with navigating right action. Right and wrong is not based on personal feelings or desires or whims or the personal feelings or desires or whims of anyone else or any group.
Valuable feelings. Where ever I stated "valuable feelings" instead of just "feelings" then I did so talking about right action. I think we believe all feelings are significant and have purpose. But I think I differentiated in saying "valuable feelings" whenever I was thinking that we want laws and society and people to protect the right to strive for positive emotions and we don't want laws or people to be able to create negative emotions for others or for a group. I think you're right, Panda, I need to re-word. It's tough, though, because we can also see when people are going over-board with not balancing the worth of their own feelings against the worth of everyone's feelings.. that kind of thing. I think we think anger is valuable.... unless someone takes their own anger too seriously and judges it as more important than the emotional trauma they put people through around them. I think we would usually think that was undeveloped Fi... a lack of putting yourself into each others' shoes, (tbh a lack of development of Fi, usually).
Morals are objective in the sense that they're about how we interact with each other in society, but people are prone to think it's about them and thus subjectify them mistakenly.
Feelings are valuable in that they can teach us things, they can help us grow, and even become more moral sometimes, but that will depend on how someone will intellectualize their feelings to understand something greater than themselves. I don't want laws to just protect people's feelings, because then we couldn't punish people who did bad things. Elevating feelings to something so valuable is not helping in finding moral principles.

9. Right and wrong is independent of me or of any group and timeless. My understanding of right or wrong is how I judge myself and others. As I learn more about the "true" right and wrong in life (see #8), I have to make adjustments. This is sometimes a difficult learning process since I thought I knew the truth before.
As said above, morals are about how we interact in society, so they're objective and to be discovered in a way, based on what's optimal for a fair social contract. I think true NE NFPs are concerned with aligning themselves with this reality and thus can't be introverted feelers. True Introverted Feelers in principle are concerned with how the world aligns with them . They need it to be an extension of themselves, to be blended essentially, so they can protect their feelings. FPs hurt when they can't align themselves with reality, FJs hurt when reality doesn't align with them, ruins their harmony, upsets their 'blending' and so on. I mention this because it's crucial for understanding why so many people are subjectifying reality, be it about morals or whatever. F is subjective in that its concerned with people but the idea you present here is objective in the extraversion sense.


10. Since right and wrong are independent of me, my own desires must be sometimes sacrificed to do the right thing. Sometimes other people's desires must be sacrificed, the important thing is to do the right thing which would be the thing that protects the most valuable feelings (greater good) and life.
I think I've addressed this in the two above.

11. My identity and my likes and dislikes are basically a bi-product of my understanding of the value of feelings, being highly aware of my own feelings, and my personal understanding of right and wrong.
I'd think this is something more suitable for a F dom. Sure feelings are an important part but reason and understanding of the world are at least equally so. What I mean by this is, who I am is also shaped by understanding that feelings are not always that valuable and acting despite them is sometimes more important.

12. High Fi thinks that people should think independently and autonomously do what they individually think is right and if people do what they think is right then we assume that things would work out for everyone. (Looking at it further, if people are mistaken about what is right or violate Fi values, usually the Te side of the axis will deal justice. Mostly Fi lives with a "live and let live" attitude. If we can. America is actually a Te-Fi based society, but there are other societies based on the other axis and I'm not exactly sure how that would affect the world view of all of this. But I digress, that's not origin stuff...)
What's so wrong with telling people they're acting badly? Obviously it depends on who that person is too, there are people who are the problem and think everyone else is, sure. But that's to be discerned in each situation. I'm a little confused what exactly your point is in this and question 6 which was similar, like what exactly do you have in mind when asking these? Cause I'm not sure I get it. I'm not inclined to just meddle and I'm not so intrusive as to force people to act the way I want, but sometimes it's necessary to speak.


Some thoughts: I don't think "Fi" (or FPness in other words) equals morality or concern with morality. It will depend on how one intellectualizes their F so I think it's more related to N vs S if anything. So I went looking and apparently there has been a study of morality and MBTI dimensions and true enough it was N-S that made the difference. Perhaps there are more, but couldn't find them.
The way a true Ne/Se FP behaves is to be concerned with aligning their F with what they perceive is objective reality. For the sensor that usually relates to concrete experiences and taking their sensory stimuli as factual, seeing the most strong connections/patterns between objects as the most important. The N doesnt do that, it seeks perhaps the least obvious, the underlying principle. So it makes sense that there are different priorities in moral behavior for these groups. F and T will also give different perspectives of what's important but they don't determine on their own how concerned one is with morality. In short, moral consideration is more about perception than judgment, because you can't judge something you can't perceive.
Might post some more thoughts later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,146 Posts
1. Feelings have significance and value.

* Yes I believe so

2. Anyone and anything capable of having feelings has significance and value. (Basically life is valuable. "Life is valuable" is hard-wired into us usually, even if we later learn there may be a hierarchy in feelings or the greater good (more people's feelings) at stake. Saying that someone doesn't have feelings is almost like saying they are inhuman, until we learned something else through MBTI.)


* I believe humans have feelings and emotions- whether the expression is positive or negative - through logic or emotions




3. Any human who can feel or even has the potential to feel is equal in worth-- meaning each human being is equal in worth intrinsically and unalterably. This idea persists despite realizing that different humans and animals experience different levels of feeling and usually despite any wrongs that human has committed. Although they may be judged harshly and the greater good will be looked at in the decision making process of judging a human. Judging others likely has to do with the Fi-Te axis. But at the Fi core, a person or baby who I have never met has the same intrinsic and unalterable worth as I do.

* everybody is an individual and we are all different - with that said I don’t find all human beings to be equal- it’s hard for me to see serial rapist/killers or facist as equal


4. I am usually highly aware of my feelings. They come from inside me in response to thoughts about external and internal stimuli.

* yes I understand my emotions thoroughly and know where it derives from


5. Because valuable feelings come from inside of each person and are individual, rights of individuality (the group granting the right for the individual to be individual) need to be highly protected..


* for the most part yes



6. People cannot be forced to feel differently than they do and ideally people should be able to figure out what is right and wrong for themselves because their feelings and situation are independent of anyone elses' (unless we figure out this is not true for non Fi-users from the different world-view of people around us or from studying MBTI). The ability to make decisions that you believe will result in positive emotions (freedom) is extremely important and should be protected for me and for others.


* strongly agree

7. Empathy/sympathy usually means that I put myself into another person's situation in my mind and feel what I would feel in that situation. I can see what the other person is expressing and I can feel my own feelings and I can see comparisons and differences. Usually when listening to others' stories I feel my own feelings stronger and can figure out what I think the right or wrong action is for the person.

* empathy /sympathy for me means to understand where the person is coming from and envision myself as them base on the knowledge that I have gathered from them and asks them questions to have better insight in what they’re describing and offering a listening ears without any advice unless asked . I cannot relate with feeling my feelings stronger when listening to someone’s story , unless the person is somebody I’m extremely close with - although empathetic my emotions and feelings are usually detached and separated when listening in on a problem . I do notice that if the topic touches base with something that I’ve experience , then my feelings bc stronger - for example documentaries or stories about losing a child pains me more now than it did before I had children - dont get me wrong it’s horrible - but back then I can look at it through a scientific lens and think how sad , now the emotional impact hits much harder

8. Right and wrong has to do with what protects valuable positive feelings and protects life. And yes there is a right and a wrong (we might need to use the word morals in order for some to get it) and different actions can be judged to be different shades of right and wrong but the right and wrong is independent of my desires, although based on the value of feelings and the value of life. Just like there is a "most logical" thing to do and a "least logical" thing to do, there is also a "most moral" and a "least moral" thing to do. Sometimes there is neutral, but judging this all has to do with navigating right action. Right and wrong is not based on personal feelings or desires or whims or the personal feelings or desires or whims of anyone else or any group.


I believe that my ethics comes from within - it is the standard of what knowing what is right and what is wrong deriving from what I value. Do my values have external influences? Yes and no- yes In the sense that I learn about it through experience and knowledge- no in the sense that my decision is created from within and there are many times where I argue against the common norm on what is considered right or wrong. As a child I often question folktales and fairytales on why revenge makes up a happy ending or why must a women happy ending ends in marriage - this curiously definitely stems from within more so than externally




9. Right and wrong is independent of me or of any group and timeless. My understanding of right or wrong is how I judge myself and others. As I learn more about the "true" right and wrong in life (see #8), I have to make adjustments. This is sometimes a difficult learning process since I thought I knew the truth before.

Yes


10. Since right and wrong are independent of me, my own desires must be sometimes sacrificed to do the right thing. Sometimes other people's desires must be sacrificed, the important thing is to do the right thing which would be the thing that protects the most valuable feelings (greater good) and life.


* doing the right thing stems from courage and education or the process of learning to be more precise . I may know what’s right vs wrong - but as I age I understand how to devote myself to making that difference/ I still have lots to learn but I’m definitely more useful to the world now than compared to my younger years

11. My identity and my likes and dislikes are basically a bi-product of my understanding of the value of feelings, being highly aware of my own feelings, and my personal understanding of right and wrong.

* my identity and like and dislike is a combination of many things - yes feelings is one of them since I do enjoy introspecting myself - however it also stems from what I’ve learned in life - what I’ve researched about and experiences. It’s not entirely base upon my feelings .

12. High Fi thinks that people should think independently and autonomously do what they individually think is right and if people do what they think is right then we assume that things would work out for everyone. (Looking at it further, if people are mistaken about what is right or violate Fi values, usually the Te side of the axis will deal justice. Mostly Fi lives with a "live and let live" attitude. If we can. America is actually a Te-Fi based society, but there are other societies based on the other axis and I'm not exactly sure how that would affect the world view of all of this. But I digress, that's not origin stuff...)


* I think fi in enfp is much different than fi in an fi dom -for example I pay less attention to my feelings compared to fi dom- although I am aware of how I feel - other things such as learning /experiencing and exploring captures my attention more. I can isolate my emotions easily when it comes to practical matters or even conversing with a friend . I don’t feel as intensely - despite the fact of being emotionally aware



Yes I agree for the most part that fi is misunderstood and it does annoy me when I hear other type ( who are not fi users ) describing it bc often time they’re wrong . Since it is a subjective function that derives from within I don’t think it could be described. And I agree with most of what you said about it :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Awesome project! I haven't seen a lot of people opine on Fi, more often people I see people skip over it lol. I will take a crack at it:

What is Fi for ENFP?

Fi is emotional reaction experienced inwardly. It's a very amorphous function, without words or images. It isn't internal dialogue or a "conscience" and it has no expression. In the ENFPs world, Fi is like the glue that attaches feelings to all of our experiences. Since our Intuition is pretty excellent at pulling us out of the moment and thinking about what's next, Fi is sort of in the background absorbing the experience to be processed later.

As our other functions are being stimulated in various ways, our Fi that's running in the background will eventually get "full", creating a need to withdraw and process that has the ability to seemingly shut off our other functions at will. In the experience of Fi, we are integrating everything we feel about what we have experienced.

Fi represents the need for harmony in the ENFPs life, and is the source of the introverted side of the "ambivert" ENFP. Achieving harmony through Fi is about taking that amorphous emotional experience and assigning meaning to it. In this manner, everything in the life of the ENFP has meaning.

The next step is finding language for the Fi, which is something like throwing the wet spaghetti at the wall to see if it will stick. The amorphous Fi doesn't have language on it's own so we start thinking of what it might mean, what it might be saying. Internally the ENFP can create a laundry list, and even feel good about what we have come up with, but we often have to say it out loud to see if it "sticks". This is the source of the need for external processing that ENFPs have.

Sometimes our internal thoughts stemming from Fi don't make a lot of sense and it isn't apparent until it's communicated that it's actually wrong. This is why ENFPs can make sometimes dramatic statements that they don't actually believe. Infact you can find an ENFP going back and forth arguing both sides of a position because they are trying to find out which one brings harmony. Sometimes ENFPs can come to the most ridiculous conclusions, they may know themselves it makes no sense, but if they don't say it, they can't put it into order.

Imagine trying to tell someone a story using random items you collected around the house and put into a sack. You sit down with them and start taking the items out and trying to organize them in a manner that makes sense and tell the story, but you take the items out of the sack in no particular order, and some of the items don't belong and need to be set aside. You sort of key off the reaction of the person your telling to story to and ask for their input to help put it all together. Once it's all put in order, it's often a very complex and meaningful story, but often one that doesn't have a lot of utility for others.

If something disrupt this progression of Experience>Withdraw>Feeling>Integration>Internal Processing>External Processing>Harmony, we can get "Stuck" or "Triggered". Stuck in Fi is something like a black hole, it's generally an unpleasant feeling of disharmony that is paralyzing. Being Stuck in Fi generally requires an outside influence to "kick start" the progression. It could be a startling experience, it could be a friend reaching out, anything. Eventually when enough time passes, we will find our way back into the progression if something else doesn't intervene, however we often will have to finally get around to finding harmony with whatever got us stuck to begin with. If Stuck or Triggered is Fight or Flight, then "Triggered Fi" is the fight. Triggered Fi is when a feeling of disharmony seemingly forces you into any or all of your other functions in search for harmony. This often involves use of weaker functions that, when undeveloped, bring about more problems than solutions. One of the more common causes for Triggered Fi is when the progression doesn't have time to play out, something was sprung on you that brought your emotions to level 10 instantaneously. This is usually when the ENFP is shouting things that make no sense, making rash decisions, etc.

[i cut out a long section here describing coping mechanisms commonly used by ENFPs to process Fi, I can post it later if interest but felt it got to far off topic]
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top