To the INFPs out there confused if you are INFPs because you don't feel all the "one man is better than the next" stuff - don't be. One important thing about the Te/Fi axis is that Fi is indeed individuating and wants everyone to be who they really want to be and to be able to express themselves freely. But I think Michael accidentally put a bit of Te into his Fi description - the Te/Fi axis' tendency for hierarchy, belief in inequality and a certain dogged drive for excellence is born from Te's desire to measure, organize and optimize the outside world. To put this into display, here are some rather blunt quotes from INTJs (Ni Te Fi Se), who prefer Te over Fi, but consciously have both: Nietzsche: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness." Nietzsche: "Active, successful natures shun the dictum 'know thyself' and follow the commandment: 'Will thyself.'" Nietzsche: "Not all men ought to be free. There are many who threw off their final worth when they threw off their bondage." Fischer: "Most people are sheep, and they need the support of others." Nash: "Don't ... depend on current fashion or ... popular opinion." Nash: "[One] could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman. ... But without his 'madness' [he would] have been only another of the ... billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten." Asimov: "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." Heraclitus: "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary." Heraclitus: "Most men have sated themselves like cattle. ... Greater men are allotted greater destinies." With a less abrasive tone: Hegel: "[I] want to restore the human race to its full totality." Paracelsus: "If you have been given a talent, exercise it freely and happily like the sun: give everyone from your splendour." Power: "Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in." The INTJs have a tendency to believe that some people are indeed superior to others, but exhort everyone to be the best they can be. A life of mediocrity is not a worthwhile one. Find yourself, realize yourself, lift yourself to greatness to set a path for others to follow. Now, contrast with the INFPs who repress the hierarchical, optimizing, ordering conqueror/bulldozer out of the conscious mind and are left with the idealistic, individualistic, romantic Fi ruling their psyche: Kierkegaard: "To pace about, looking to obtain status, looking to attain 'importance' - I can think of nothing more ridiculous." Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." Camus: "To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others." Orwell: "What I have most wanted to do ... is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice." Tolkien: "I [am] a mere individual ... with intense feelings more than ideas." Tolkien: "The most improper job of any man ... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." C. S. Lewis: "[There is] in me ... a distaste for all that is public, all that belongs to the collective." Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure." George R. R. Martin: "My own heroes are the dreamers, those ... who tried to make the world a better place. ... Some failed ... but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it." Saint-Exupery: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." Kafka: "[People are] quite different. What grips me need hardly touch you at all. ... What is innocence in you may be guilt in me. ... What has no consequences for you may be the last nail in my coffin." Augustine: "The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but - what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices." Wright: "'Natural' is the last thing [people] would let you be if they could prevent it. ... That's why they ... make all these senseless rules [and] foolish regulations." Hans Fritzsche (Head of radio propaganda in Nazi Germany): Fritzsche: "Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people - even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office." So shush, be yourselves. The best yourselves you can be ^__^
Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure." As an INFP this is how I make friends.
Good video, but I don't necessarly agree with Fi thinking in terms of "the one vs. the many" or Fe in terms of "everyone is equal"; altough these views are frequent with these functions, it's simplified. First, I don't really think Fe choses the group because of the "everybody is equal" mentality, but rather because Fe is Group oriented in the first place. And Fi is not so much about the "one vs. the many" as much as it sees the Individual as the only real truth, and society as essentialy something auxiliary to the individual. Because, Fe thinks: the Individual is nothing without the Group; Fi thinks:the Group is nothing without the Individual. A person with either function can agree with both statements as valid (as I think any mature individual would) but still, a statement will hold priority over the other depending on the preffered function. The reason I don't think Fe always thinks in terms of "everybody is equal" it's because implied that a Fe user couldn't be a narcisist or very arrogant, which is wrong, they can be narcisistic (or very humble, it depends) because Fe users care about social status and social hierarchy. Also, there's the infamous examples of deranged Fe users in history who tought certain individuals were quilty from the begining and should be eliminated for the better of the community, which wouldn't make any sense if they started from the "everybody is equal" premise. Rather, Fe is group oriented and will accept or deny that statement depending one wether they percieve it as a healthy belief or a dangerous belief for the better of the group. If a Fe user thinks that "everybody is equal" is something that ensues the right relationships between the members of the group they will accept it; if they think it's destructive to some holy principles that maintain the strength of that group, they will reject it. Like CT says, one shouldn't confuse content with function; so one shouldn't attribute clear statements such as "everybody is equal" to Fe or "morality is subjective" to Fi, but rather why they hold such beliefs. To simplify, Fe is: Community->Individual->Community, they can like indiduality but the community is the starting pointing and the end goal; while Fi is: Individual->Community->Individual, they can enjoy comon feelings but the individual is the starting point and the end goal. The basis of this is probably not some value judgement tough, rather is the affective component; and value judgements are build on these affective foundations. Fe more naturally alings itself with the common feelings and common values, because they are more naturally aware of them and better at taking them in themselves than those with Fi so they hold more truth and substance than personal feelings and values; while Fi are more loyal to their personal feelings and values because they're more naturally aware of them than Fe users and as such emphatize with the individual because they see a danger in the possibility that such personal feelings and values can be diluated, cheapened or even nulified by some common principles which lack substance and truth.
+nicolae madalin Boboc This is an excellent comment -- you've hit on a number of points that I've been struggling with between Fe and Fi. I especially like your reminder that its about form, not content, and then tied things back to the very basic processes going on (Fe is more aware of and aligns with common feelings, while Fi is more aware of its personal feelings). Thank you -- this is very useful for me.
Really great comment! I'm Fi and found myself thinking this as the video was going on. I was thinking, I don't put the many over the few all the time, but it's not cos I don't see everyone as equal, in terms of being human. It's cos the many can be wrong (I mean, I'm sure at one point the "needs" of the many dictated that they "needed" to throw criminals into lion dens or draw and quarter people), or the few can have legitimate needs that might not be addressed by focusing on the needs of the many. I guess you could say that it's because I value people (as individuals in the way the video describes), that I don't think the group outweighs the individual. Also, I don't believe that morality is subjective, and it kind of irritates me that I keep hearing this. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in videos like this, in forums, etc.
when talking to my friend about the difference between Fe and Fi in musicians, i used this model: lets say an Fe musician and an Fi musician has 10000 fans. an Fe musician will focus on affecting ONE community. as a whole. ONE group of 10000 fans. the masses. the crowd. an Fi musician will focus on affecting the individual. by using knowledge of the internal emotional state. he will focus on affecting and internally inspiring an INDIVIDUAL....multiplied by 10000. an Fe musician will see his fans as a big bubble of 10000 people, and affecting it. while an Fi musician would see it as 10000 bubbles, and try to inspire each single bubble simultaneously. i know i didnt add anything new, but its another example of the difference. hope it helps. and thanks, mr. michael pierce for the awesome video :D
Now this is such an interesting topic because I feel like it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain an Fi-type of mindset in today's society. For example, I'm very much an individualistic person. Army service is mandatory in my country. I've never felt more depressed my entire life than during that nine months. My identity was stripped away and i just couldn't feel "free" somehow. Then again, I have a job where I feel like harmony and unity are essential, so while I always thrive to create harmony and think of others, I try to do it in a natural way, where we have no 'etiquette'. Social conditioning is strong growing up today, but keep fighting my fellow INFPs! Sorry if my English was a bit sloppy. Thanks for the video.
Yeah,that's why i hate the idea of being forced to do military service.i've always thought,you do what you want to do.I think the states have a bad mentality because of this.But,that's an Fe-Fi conflict,i guess.
This is very intriging! We humans are fascinated and at the same time tormented by these questions. I relate to that Fi view (that does not mean I don't ask other's opinions about whatever I am thinking). On the other hand, I am aware that (from my prespective) I have met people that look more insecure about having or exploring their own preferences or values. BUT at the same time it looks impossible to me that the process of defining a value/preference would happen outside of the person. It has to happen inside of the person!!! This makes me wonder that Fe is simply trying to get away from social rejection and trying to be accepted and Fi is more prepared or familiar with social rejection. Very good video by the way
I still have no idea which I use or supress. It's second nature for me to believe all people hold an intrinsic existential value, but I don't care for the totalitarian bend Fe has to it, in fact, I'm most suspicious of anything that tries to bring unity by eliminating differences.
It's there now! Also, I apologize, but the Te vs. Ti video will need to wait until tomorrow. I will be running through the comments here as soon as I can, as there's been a lot of concern about my use of philosophical examples, so I'll be addressing those: I think they are very good questions and concerns. Thanks for the support!
Michael Pierce Brandon Taylor I second Brandon. Corrections to make good stuff better can always be made afterwards, and this is a hobby. Part of the fun in learning and theorizing is refining one's own understanding, not getting it down 100% the first time.
Here are a few ramblings for you on Fe vs. Fi after discussing some of the concepts in this video, and of the video discussing the Fe-Ti axis vs the Fi-Te axis in the "How to Type Someone" series, with my wife. (Context: I'm ENTP and she's INTJ, so we differ on this axis. We discussed the topic, but I'm writing the comment so, as an Fe user, so I will cite Fe more as I understand it more fully.) Also, I've only read a few of the comments so I apologize if any of this is redundant. I think you can Pierce (haha) to a deeper layer of truth if you frame your thinking differently. You effectively begin by stating that Fe makes judgements about a thing's objective value whereas Fi forms judgements about a thing's subjective value. Firstly, Fi and Fe are judging functions. The language in the phrase "making judgements about a thing's value" seems to me to blend in the role of a perceiving function. With Feeling, we're talking about decision making; how you use the information you've gathered from your environment. For example, an Fe dominant type deciding to be late for a meeting because helping an old lady cross the street is "the right thing to do", or deciding not to help the old lady because "everyone is counting on me to be there." (I'll leave it to an Fi type to draw a corollary example). Making the decision requires him to assign value to things, like coworkers, his job, and old ladies, but the Feeling function is primarily driving the decision itself rather than the valuation of the components. Secondly, the subjective vs. objective value distinction seems to me to apply more accurately to the difference between Feeling and Thinking functions rather than to the direction of the Feeling function. I know the pile of gold was a simple, exaggerated, funny example, but I think it conveys the wrong idea. The example my wife brought up was to consider the value of a life. Does an Fe type only believe a life has value because he is prompted to believe it does by his constituents? Does an Fi user believe a life has value only when an individual chooses to assign value to it? Take the old lady example again; why are two decisions possible in one constant scenario? Because the Fe user's decision is based on a subjective moral code. Even though that morality is formed partially, or even largely, based on environmental stimuli, it is still a subjective system. I'd also note that Fi types' moral system is not derived from its environment or experiences less than an Fe's, it just displays different patterns of judgement in reaction to those stimuli. Much like light cannot exist if we cannot perceive darkness, emotions cannot exist if we do not perceive the world around us, and that logic applies to Fi to the same extent it applies to Fe. Third, it would be interesting to study how the functions behave in T types. What holds constant about Fe and Fi when trumped by Ti or Te? What changes? I'm going to spew out some observations of this dynamic in myself and see if we can draw a conclusion: My desire for harmony is strong (I am also a type 9w8 enneagram, atypical for an ENTP), but I have an easier time breaking any given harmonic state than, say, my ENFJ sister. When I have studied something thoroughly and feel that I have a sufficient understanding of its mechanics, I have no problem holding a view that contradicts others' views, or making a decision that others disagree with. However, if I am not confident of my view, or, more accurately, if I have not made a concerted effort to understand the full context of a view I purport to hold, I will often defer to the opinion held in my environment, or will be easily pushed to do so. Branching from this realization, I study everything I'm pushed to accept so I can arrive at an answer that I am truly confident in (i.e. I will never truly accept something I have not deduced myself). Branching from THAT realization, much of what catches my interest actually has to do with my desire to be able to fully defend my positions against other human beings who may, and often do, hold contradicting views. Also, when making decisions that affect others, I will take those peoples' opinions into account, and may knowingly make a sub-optimal decision because I feel that I am less personally invested in the result than the others involved. Stemming from that, I also tend to have a sense for the degree to which others want or feel something, a sense that becomes accurate quite quickly when getting to know people. I tend to take this perception as a point to be considered in my decisions rather than as passive observation. All types use both thinking and feeling to make their choices - I suppose we can say that our thinking functions guide our use of objective information in decision making (How long will it take to help this old lady cross the street? How important is the subject matter of this meeting? How many man-hours will be wasted while they wait for me?) while our feeling functions guide our use of our subjective values in decision making (How important is helping members of my community to me? How important is respecting my coworkers' time?) Anyways, I hope this is useful to you! Feel free to comment back if you disagree with any of it, or if any of my stances aren't as clear as I think they are. I recently found your videos through celebritytypes and was totally shocked at your depth of understanding and your clarity - your ENTP description was the best I've seen anywhere! I hadn't encountered the Prometheus concept before, and it is totally accurate.
Also, in terms of the issues people have with the statements about philosophies, maybe it would be more accurate to state that we can see how certain philosophies (such as the "for the greater good" concept) are born from Fe or Fi types. We've found that the Enneagram covers some areas that are only loosely touched on by the MBTI, and vice versa, so we use both to try to understand people fully. One aspect of psychology that the MBTI doesn't directly account for is the level of development, which the Enneagram does a great job of. To relate it to the same "for the greater good" concept, this attitude can be attributed to an average health Type 6 Enneagram. Type 6 is labeled "The Loyalist", and has a basic fear of being without support or guidance. As they grow to a higher level of development, they become increasingly independent and self-affirming while working symbiotically with the groups they are part of. As they decline the levels of health, they increasingly defer responsibility for their well-being to the group, society, government, etc. This increases their fear that they will be rejected from society and be left defenseless. That in mind, we can attribute the "greater good" concept which implies the suppression of the individual self and the glorification of the group as a whole to an average health 6, who has an hazy definition of self but a clear desire to be taken care of. A mid-upper six could also reasonably hold this ideal, being prompted by the fact that he feels good when he helps others, though I believe a highest-level (Level 1) Type 6 would understand that the preaching or broad practice of this ideal would lead to the atrophy of human rights; you cannot structure a society on the "greater good" principle because, by design, it precludes any individual, even type 6's, to grow to towards their full potential. That's an entirely separate topic though. I just thought I'd mention it... ya know... for the benefit of the group ;P
Even though I found your views highly insightful, I would wage to differ on Fi pertaining to individualism, and Fe pertaining to compromise. Rather, uniqueness of going about things, no matter from which functions, would define individualism, and Fi being quite helpful in compromise. I do not know, whether the dominant function sews itself into its environment to secretly smuggle the 5th function, or the individual's 5th function, into the other person's mind, in such a way that a sophist, or paradoxically also the Socratic teaching method, might. But I do know I have interviewed a few placebo-controlled INFPs(i.e. INFPs that had no idea of what MBTI is) and that they didn't say they had a strong emphasis of individualism and individual discovery, rather, having a strong preference of helping others understand each other and reach compromise, as you would describe Fe. Fi would somehow keep track of history and invoke values into things and solidify them over time, as opposed to the values invoked in a fleeting moment or delineated using other functions. I think Fi is strongly related to role-playing and, as you mentioned, having several personalities. Its strength is related to the complexity of one's value system, as is related to an ideal utopia. And as Fi has a somewhat negative relation to Te, the degree of the utopial complexity compromises upon itself with increasing strength of Fi, and yet adds up on idealism. That is because Fi strong people have weaker Te, and therefore they need to Fi problem solve their problems, as opposed to Te problem solving them. In this way, Fi is about the struggle of keeping one's hold on the self, in spite of failing to affect the environment in ways one desires. On the other hand, Fi weak people and Te strong people do not compromise, and as opposed to building utopias around their issues, have a pretty unsophisticated, or less pejoratively put simple, aims and utopias, which they stubbornly invoke through Te. You can see this in Carl Jung, because incapable of making a strong push, instead vouches for the road of invoking strong utopic formulations of reality as belonging to several personalities and existing in a mythological sense. This way, instead of trying to battle Freud solo hands-on, he festers an aroma of his own way of psychology, which deviously recruits an army of theorists to do his bidding for him. In contrast, an ExTP will stubbornly cross the world as a terminator, burning bridges and deciding to brawl everything and everybody on their own. Albeit poetic, if they fail, the whole ideational or any other system, if not somehow discovered and brought up into the light by Fi 6th, will be lost to the annals of history.
Sent this to an ENFP buddy, she related more to your Fi descriptions, while I found them unappealing compared to the Fe descriptions(INTP, inferior Fe)... That is genuinely scary man, you're getting too good at this!
I'd like to add a bit of insight here on introverted feeling. One might think that because introverted feeling is only based on one's internal feelings that it's easier going off of than that of extroverted feeling, which tries to harmonize with multiple forces instead of just one. I've seen this come up and I understand why. As a Fi dominant, I find this view very aloof. As an Fi user, and Fi dominant, I have to work with multiple values, many of which are competing with one another. The decision making process for me is full of trying to align with many different values at the same time. This can be incredibly difficult. For instance, I've grown to value objectivity to a large extent, because I'm so interested in history and academia. So.. an issue I deal with is staying in line with my objectivity value and my subjectivity value. This is just one of the many instances where looking to the inside does not result in an easy scenario.
+Past Analysis Btw, I just wanted to clarify something here. I, like most INFPs, present my findings as subjective. However, I like to be subjective within an objective. So for instance, I like to make work within academia, which could be considered an objective area. Still though, I present what I make as subjective within this area. There are of course facts and details that are truth within what I say, but my conclusions from the data are completely subjective. I don't like having my subjective findings or anyone else's in academia put above another's unless clear facts are present favoring them. This is my common solution to the subjective vs objective value struggle; to be subjective within an objective.
I think you sound a bit too rigid in your philosophy. Objective facts are not the only things that matter, some conclusions can be worth more than others without having concrete proof, or whatever. Check out "Is Rick from Rick & Morty The Ideal Scientist?" by Idea Channel here on UA-cam, it should send you down the rabbit hole on this topic. For the record: I'm an INTP, the host of Idea Channel is an INTP, and Rick from Rick & Morty could arguably be typed as xNTP. Ti does not like Te rigidity. :P
Thomas Mortensen Interesting tidpit there. I already had watched that video and was up to date on Rick and Morty by the time you messaged that. ^^ If we're talking about ideals, I absolutely think they can be worth more. However, if we are to go down the rabbit whole of objective idealism, I'll warn you that I'm not fond of that idea. As an Fi dom, Ti is fascinating and absurd.
+Past Analysis You are fascinating, absurd and subjective to the point where I'm amazed that some people get what's coming out of that world inside your head. :D Objective idealism is a metaphysical philosophy in which the universe is basically a mind, as far as I understand... but I suppose you mean ideals that are considered ideal for everyone, hence objective, encroaching on your freedom to be uniquely you, causing you to not like it? :P
I've been really enjoying your videos. It's really helped me rethink some things that were unclear for me in Jungian typology. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the functions manifest when they are at different points in the functional stack. As an INTP, I certainly relate to your description of Fe, but I'm sure it works differently for me than it would be for an EFJ or IFJ. It seems both like something that often thwarts me and a distant dream that one day I hope to have a better grasp of. Anyway, I'm looking forward to part IIb and I hope at some point you have time to comment on this.
I find that I relate to aspects of both. My interactions with the world and people are very conflict-averse (when I disagree with someone on an emotional issue, I almost always just briefly state my opposing opinion and then let them tell me I'm wrong; I'd rather keep them content and not have an argument on my hands than stand up for my opinions). I prefer to be appeal to the largest possible number of people as opposed to trudging my own path and being met with criticism from others. So, despite whatever beliefs I might have, I think it's more important for one to consider the opinions of others just as much as (or more than) one consider one's own opinions. My own convictions are also very malleable; if someone presents an opinion in a way that appeals to my logic and is very well thought out, I'll quite easily abandon any previous convictions, regardless how contradictory the new one is. So I don't really have the "precisely constructed and subjectively consistent moral system" that often is used to describe Fi. Furthermore, whatever convictions I have are usually quite far from radical and strive above all to appeal to the most viewpoints possible. All of the above seems to be indicative of Fe. However, I have a very subjective relationship with things like art and literature and music-- my aesthetic tastes are mine and mine alone, and I hold those aesthetic preferences very highly and don't like conforming to others' opinions in that regard. I don't know if that's a manifestation of Si (?).. could be. I develop very profoundly emotional and personal connections with those kind of things, particularly music. I also deeply, deeply suck at the whole "deftly navigating social situations" which seems to be connected with Fe types... like, I really freaking stink at people/emotional stuff. (for the record, outside of the F functions I prefer Ni/Ti > Ne > Si > Se/Te, if those would influence anything) Any clarification of the whole convictions/aesthetic-preferences divide would be appreciated. I have several friends who are just as perplexed as I am.
I think this gets interesting when you have dominant thinkers, because of course Te is opposite of Fi and Ti is opposite of Fe. In my experience a person's F function does as much to create a worldview as it does to make decisions. So many people in the comments have talked about being an INTP but still being individualistic, but INTPs are Fe users, so how does that work? Well, as an INTP myself, Fe means that I have a collectivist/social worldview. I see emotion and value as being shared, a social problem. However, this doesn't mean I like it. My Ti leads me to cast away society and emotion as being collectivist and appearance oriented, so I end up being super individualistic. But it's important to understand that this is because of Fe -- maybe you could say that Fe users are individualist because they hate society, and Fi users are individualistic because they don't care about society.
Malachi H Thank you for that -- that's something that's been on my mind, but I wasn't sure if it was really correct: I tend to be deferential to a fault; but whenever I talk about the function axes, if one end is repressed then of course the person won't immediately or directly relate to the philosophies often expressed by that end. But it will still be a part of their way of thinking EXACTLY like you put it. So thanks.
Malachi H +Michael Pierce Pretty much. I have a question. Could a dominant Ti and inferior Fe give off an Fi-like effect? As an INTP, I took the cognitive functions test on Similar Minds, and I scored more Fi than Fe.
TheMaleAvenger I think so, definitely. I usually get Fi when I take functions tests. I don't think they're super good at figuring your lower functions.
TheMaleAvenger I took a similar test as well, and it recognized my dominant and auxiliary function, Ni and Fe, though it also rated me high on Si. That isn't so surprising to me, because Ni is a rather similar function to Si, being the other introverted perceiving function. That would seem to be the same case with you, Ti and Fi both being introverted perceiving functions. If the test is looking for eight functions separately, I think that is more likely to happen. It also depends on how they define and how they search for the functions, obviously.
TheMaleAvenger Most functions-based tests give people high scores on both Ti and Fi, because they serve a similar, individuating role in the psyche. They carve out a construct inside a person that is relatively independent from the outside world, something for the person to hold true to. I like to liken it to Fi growing a biological heart and Ti constructing an elaborate mechanical wonder for the same purpose. Does the same thing, but colder, much like both Fe and Te can be used to observe societal norms and try to keep the peace but Fe users are almost invariably warmer than Te users. Given that INTPs are very likely to deny their Fe and identify strongly with individualist sentiments I don't think high Fi scores should come as any surprise.
Michael Pierce, I'm an INTJ, and I've read that my type tends to be the most independent of the 16 types. Why is that exactly? Fi is my tertiary function, wouldn't someone with Fi as their primary function be more independent or individualistic, such as an ISFP or an INFP?
STIX1022 I second Komatik here: the stack has to be taken as a whole. In truth, anyone with a Te/Fi axis will demonstrate the kind of 'individualism' that I refer to. That's not to say that Fe/Ti types aren't individualistic or won't ever be that way: I most certainly don't want to do a number of things other people do, but the difference is I'm still thinking in terms of what society considers valuable and how to deal with that, and how to act in a way that is best for other people even if that action is idiosyncratic, but Te/Fi doesn't care about society like that, it doesn't care about what society at large considers valuable, and doesn't like having to pay attention to it. So one tends to be accommodating while the other is "individuating", though by no means selfish or egocentric or not wanting to help others, but doing it because they themselves want to and feel its right, not because its generally considered right. In any case, many feel that the INTJ is "the most" individuating because its particular combination of functions often has certain effects that people associate with a rugged individualist. These are listed by Komatik, and stereotypically they combine to make a visionary who is going to change the world, which is what many people associate with individualist: that combination of personal vision and personal drive.
STIX1022 Also, depending on how you've arrived at your current type designation, it could be worthwhile to explore other types - ISTPs and ENTJs for example can be very similar to INTJs on the surface, but the actual mechanism that builds those drives is different and worth understanding - plus most importantly each type has its own idiosyncracies or "type defects" that it is helpful to be aware of. Integrative action for ISTP and INTJ is completely different, for example. The reason I ask is that the world is chock-full of people who mistype themselves, often as INTJ because of the type's superhuman reputation and "coolness" (please shoot me if I read one more forum topic about measuring a type's "coolness") but also in other directions, and it pains me to no end because of the issues above. If I relied only on tests, for example, I'd probably consider myself INTP or ISTP - I've gotten ENTJ once from a test where I told I like socialization (I do - it's just draining after a while).
Hi Michael, In your video, you stated that Fe = Groot and Fi = Follow the heart. Fe = Needs of many > Needs of self and Fi = Individualistic. However, is it correct in assuming that no one is 100% Fi or Fe dom so thus, even though being an Fi, I may sometimes value the harmony of the group over my own values? Or is it that I will ALWAYS prefer the opinion of my own above others as a Fi dom?
Mike Wu Emphatically no. There are no *always* here, although I may have accidentally implied that at some point in one of these videos: these are tendencies, not absolutes, and furthermore, in order to make the abstract processes more concrete and useful to people, I have to describe certain actual behaviors and philosophies that in our society seem to very, very often correlate with certain personality types. But it is never a matter of "this is YOUR philosophy that you're now stuck with for life". It is a matter of "okay, the way your psyche seems to work, its very likely that you more naturally relate to this idea, and will probably only champion the other idea as an extension of the first". What I mean by that is there are plenty, plenty, plenty of INFPs who say "but, I'm totally cool with self-sacrifice and community and stuff!" But the problem here is its not motivated in the same way, and thus often has subtle differences. I don't suppose that helps?
Mike Wu Adding onto what Michael Pierce said, Malachi H said it quite well in one of his comments on this video: "Building of of what +Celeste Moore said: don't forget about the different aspects of Fi. It's individualistic, sure, but it's also introverted. I think that the individualism comes from the introversion -- Fi blocked off from the world around it, and doesn't really interact with objective reality, so it doesn't care what other people think or feel. Fi knows what IT feels, though, so people who use Fi will have a very strong sense of personal values, and because they will also use Te, they will be more cold and maybe even fake to other people. This isn't because they don't like people, it's just they have trouble connecting. But all of this comes from the introversion aspect of Fi. *So the first thing you should ask yourself when trying to decide if you are an Fi or Fe user is whether your values are more inward or outward oriented. I think a well developed INFP or ISFP can empathize quite well, depending on what personal values their Fi leads them to have, so basing an analysis off of how individualistic you are isn't a great place to start.*" Also, Nelson Warner said this: *"This is more about your cognitive functions and the core mechanisms of your character than the actual implementation.* Michael Pierce used some stereotypical examples but they are definitely not ones that you necessarily have to agree with to be in their type. I identify with Fi definitely, but I value the group very highly. I have had experiences where I know that the individuals' needs can be best met with cooperation, and I have had experiences where I have felt people have obstructed me in some way to fulfill selfish goals. For those reasons and others I like the idea of a society where there is harmony and each is kind and conscientious of each other. That is my implementation though I identify with Fi. *Giving a description of your values and implementation isn't enough to quite get a good handle on your consciousness in my opinion.* Finally, I think that Fi types have a tendency to like to help people 'be the best they can be.' Just because you're selfless does not equate to Fe. Fi's can be an immense help, as can Fe's. I think Fi's often think "I can relate to that" and act accordingly. Whoever you are you should be helping the world to be a better kinder place in the way that you are best capable of." In other words, don't worry so much about the way you act. Worry more about the reasons _behind_ it. I'm sure there are Fe users who are individualistic and Fi users who are collectivist. Fe users are inherently no more self-sacrificing than Fi users. Komatik also said in one comment somewhere (I can't remember the exact place) that Ti and Te can also be used to create values--just for different reasons (logic instead of feeling). If your values come from outside yourself, you are an Fe/Te user. If your values come from within yourself, you are an Fi/Ti user. For example, are you self-sacrificing because you yourself value it or because society values it? My mother is an ESTJ (Te-dominant). Her values are outward-oriented, and she expects everyone in the family to follow those values, too. I'm an INTP (Ti-dominant), and I don't care about any of that (though I do value the group). My values originate from within myself (and let's just say that I've met some opposition - both friendly and unfriendly). This isn't to say that strong Fe/Te users are conformist. They just have a tendency to think that it's best to follow externally created values for the good of society.
Thank you MaleAvenger for your well written reply. Some key sentences struck me as a definitive Fi in that every selfless act I pursue is in no way related to society's needs/wants and in fact, majority of the time, it is against what society wants.
Mike Wu You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. =) Indeed. As an Fi user, if you do something that society wants, it's because you wanted to do it, not because everyone else wanted you to do it.
Mike Wu Fi is, above all, concerned with doing what feels right and true to the self. When Fi is sure of something, you feel it in your bones. Even if an Fe type would cringe, *this is how it is, dammit*
Great video as always. I do wonder if you're overreaching a bit with the philosophy angle; it's not that I disagree with your assessments so much as it might lead to people making crude assumptions like "He supports big government; he must be an Fe user" or "He thinks values are subjective; he must be an Fi user." Someone's explicit philosophical viewpoints are not a direct translation to their cognitive functions; for example, I am an INTJ, so in theory I should have a very objective view of reality. And I do, in terms of my day to day operation, but philosophically I completely understand that certainty is impossible and that all I have is my own subjective perception of the world.
XOmniverse I agree with you, and I've tried to address that in my Te vs. Ti video, but I don't know if I covered it as well as I'd like. I think any of my statements can be taken the wrong way depending on a person's individual circumstances and perspective, especially because I've found the way I demonstrate Se/Ni tends to zero me in on one perspective at a time and elaborate on it, getting all excited by the "delicious" idea, only to realize all the exceptions to the rule a few days later.
I really feel the introvert extrovert thing is over simplified. I'm an ENFP and very much pay attention to my inner life being intuitive and a feeling type. I am an extrovert in manner of expression and warmth and friendliness, but I have a very deep inner life as well.
I loved this video! Tons of fun watching it as always. I think you represented introverted feeling very fairly and appropriately and I was interested in your description of extroverted feeling. By the way, I'm sorry it's been so long since our last discussion. I still plan on making a comment, but I've been too distracted by all sorts of stuff in my life. I'll try to get back to you on the risk game metaphors, as I truly want to give it. I just need to stop procrastinating on it. :/
I am INFP. I happen to hold values that a society needs to accept and get over most differences. However I also champion individuals who express their deepest, inner feelers. Though I do respect the idea of breaking the status quo for the good of a society, I would think that doing so should be done for a good reason. I am interested in people living to their true potential, though I despise the idea becoming self-absorbed and unwilling to help others. Though I am shy, I do what I can to help people out people and love to do so. There has been many instances where I gave up things of my own for the sake of others. Based on the above, am I more Fi dominant or Fe dominant?
I am relatively new to Jungian Typology, but I can explain my understanding. This is more about your cognitive functions and the core mechanisms of your character than the actual implementation. Michael Pierce used some stereotypical examples but they are definitely not ones that you necessarily have to agree with to be in their type. I identify with Fi definitely, but I value the group very highly. I have had experiences where I know that the individuals' needs can be best met with cooperation, and I have had experiences where I have felt people have obstructed me in some way to fulfill selfish goals. For those reasons and others I like the idea of a society where there is harmony and each is kind and conscientious of each other. That is my implementation though I identify with Fi. Giving a description of your values and implementation isn't enough to quite get a good handle on your consciousness in my opinion. Finally, I think that Fi types have a tendency to like to help people 'be the best they can be.' Just because you're selfless does not equate to Fe. Fi's can be an immense help, as can Fe's. I think Fi's often think "I can relate to that" and act accordingly. Whoever you are you should be helping the world to be a better kinder place in the way that you are best capable of.
This is the problem a lot of people who are more unfamiliar with mbti come up against. The mistake is to break apart the functions separately and pick and choose which ones you think you might be, which will lead to a great deal of confusion. You have to look at all the functions in tandem. If you're INFP then you are by definition Fi dominant. If you are not sure of this, look at your other functions and how they work together. For example, if you were Fe dominant then you can either be ENFJ or ESFJ.
A good thing to remember is you are classified as introverted or extroverted based on what your dominant function is. If your dominant function is an extroverted function, then you are extroverted. If your dominant function is introverted, then you are introverted.
Now, all right, let's say I'm not one to compromise my values, but it's largely through reasoning, even in "emotional" situations. For instance, my friend decided to sleep with another friend's ex-boyfriend, so I retained my values and chose not to talk to her for a few weeks. However, after a while, I decided it would be better for group harmony to put aside my displeasure with her actions and went back to talking to her. So... where do I fall? At the moment I'm biased to think I'm Fe because ENTP seems to fit me quite well.
I think that for Fe its so normal that each human already is their own person, why especially emphasize this, but lets not overdo this and give space for everyone equally and Fe knows that everyone has their own values and that is why it wants to limit thise a bit and make consens on common ground. I think that each function can see the point the other makes. but then wants to limit it and favors the opposite. What Fi seeks, uniqueness and individualism, is self-evident for Fe and already existing. I cant say it for Fi aswell bc I don't understand it as well but it should be symmetrical
+Abraham Jaleel Probably it reflects the fact that you're a dominant judging type (Ti) so you have a certain affinity with Fi in that way, particularly dominant Fi, while Fe, becauase it is repressed by your dominant Ti is not as relatable to you at first precisely because you value its opposite Ti. Fi is alien enough that it doesn't trigger any rejection at first. That's what I would think, though.
+Michael Pierce I agree with this, I've been thinking about it too. I'm an INTP myself, and I have seen it in my INTP friends. Especially the one with a superiority complex, as you might expect.
I think introverts (and their introverted functions) are a result of an oppressive environment that didn't allow the individual to express his/her dominant function in extraverted fashion. A T-dominant type who doesn't have the courage or constitution to express his T in an extraverted fashion (i.e. to organize and impose order on the external environment) are forced to withdraw their T inside, making them Ti dominant. Likewise a Fi-dominant type might be someone who was unable to express his Fe due to some suppressing element in the external environment, someone who has had to hide his F inside. Perhaps due to an environment where solidarity and cooperation was not valued or encouraged. Or perhaps due to an overactive Fe dominant parent suppressing the child's Fe, creating some kind of allergy to Fe? Also, I think extraverted functions also serve as information gathering inlets as well as outlets to act on the environment. If we imagine the mbti type as a closed box/system/cell, the external functions serve as the interaction interface with the external world where information can pass both ways whereas the internal functions serve as the processing tools that handle and manipulate the incoming information. So extraverted types (edit: mainly) gather information from the environment thru their respectove dominant function whereas introverted types do the same thru their respective auxiliary functions. So a Fi dominant type is not attuned to the Fe (social rules and cooperation) strata of external environment whereas a Fe dominant type is. So a Fi dominant type cares more about how he feels or would feel in a specific situation whereas a Fe dominant type cares more about how others would feel (about the Fe-dominant?) in the same situation. Would appreciate any feedback and counter points.
yeghor I don't think introverted functions have trouble acting in the external world at all. You can plainly see people expressing more introverted functions pretty much by themselves all the time. The theory as to why they took the attitude they did, dunno. It sounds awfully Freudian in a sense. I don't know about allergy, we tend to take after our parents to an alarming degree if you ask me. Also, Te and Fe are judging functions, not perceiving ones. You'd say ExxJs would use those functions to perceive reality and then... perceive what with the introverted perception function? The functions simply being interested in the inner or outer world is a far better definition of their attitudes than limiting them concretely to acting in either one. People regularly express introverted functions to the outside world and use extroverted ones to analyze what's going on inside their heads.
Komatik I think they are switching to the shadow/dormant/suppressed extraverted version of their introverted functions. Thats how introverted functions might be manifesting outside. I dont know who coined the term judging and perceiving for the functions and based on what. I guess rational and irrational function classification is much better to that end in that rational (judging functions) are directly exercised by the person whereas irrational functions function autonomously, independent of the person. In that sense I believe a judging function can also serve to gather/sense information from the environment . It actually denotes an attunement to that specific external layer of information be it Te/Fe or Ne/Se. I believe the autonomous/irrational/independent nature of the perceiving functions syggest that they are mechanisms independent of the ego, i.e. they fıem the id and the superego constructs.
+yeghor You don't get it, a Fi-dom would not want to express themselves in a Fe manner at all. You start from the wrong and disrespectful notion that being extraverted is better than introverted, no, only if you are extroverted from the begining. For a Fi-dom, Fe can appear diluated and not personal enough, so they don't want that, they wan't to express themselves, but only that which was individualized before that, so even if they want to exteriorize their Fi, it only has value if they exteriorize what they interiorized befor. A Fe user might find that a Fi user doesn't express himself as it should, but a Fi user might find that a Fe user doesn't express his true authentic self.The same way, a Ti user would not want to be Te, because they would find Te lacking in consistency and precision. Seriously, the way you view introverts is ignorant as hell.
No, you're the only who claims that introverted functions are the result of an opressive environment, when it's clear that introverted functions have qualities that extroverted functions don't. By the same token, one could say that extroverted functions are the result of a dis-organized environment that didn't allow them to gain more depth, which would be equally stupid. It's like looking for reasons why the jaguar hunts alone instead of in a pack, when the reason is because that's simply its nature. The fact the only answer you could find for me is the childish "no, you are", just proves my initial statement.
I always associated Fe (and Te in a more statist sense) with socialism because socialism in its purest form always talks about good as if there is only THE common good, and that everything that does not lead to everybody having equal access to that ought to be stripped away. Does anyone else think there's a correlation?
Regarding what you said about Fi in the philosophy of anarchisms: actually there's a brand of anarchism called anarcho-communism whose father, Kropotnik is probably INFJ. The whole ideea is a society based purely on altruism and communal feeling instead of any kind of political or economical ierarchy. Also, Tolstoy, another INFJ, had views close to anarchism and for the same altruistic/all people are equal reasons.
Zacharyzmp You probably are an INFP. The one man is better than another sentiment of the Fi/Te axis comes from Te, and INFPs repress that into the unconscious. See my long post with a bunch of quotes from famous people, should make it clear(er).
Well, it might help that i'm an introverted feeler, but In my opinion, there is no objective value of something being right or wrong, but it's a universally subjective (at best if all people in the world hold that which simply isn't so) belief that the extroverted feeler seeks. In my opinion each person has the belief about a certain thing being of value or not. Extroverted thinking is about the outside logic system accuracy right? So Extroverted feeling can be called the outside value system efficiency. So the extroverted feeler might not necessarily believe that a value is "inherently" right or wrong (which where the value being true or not is mostly considered to come from in my opinion), but more to do with how holding this value effects the value harmony efficiency that is "good" for the world. So what makes a value "good" for an extroverted feeler is it, effecting the worldwide emotional harmony, and "bad" anything that destroys it. I think many extroverted feelers "do" have their own values which an inherent way believe is right, but what makes them think is bad or "wrong" is the disruption it can cause the world by applying it. I believe that values should apply to life (if right of course) no matter if we interact with other humans in our life or not. Imagine each person living in a bubble away from any other human being or at most with 20 or 30 other people. This can, (slightly or a lot, doesn't matter) change the values an extroverted feeler holds to be good because the change in the values comes from inconsistancy in the values or a philosophical belief they have. Values, right and wrong, good or bad, beautiful and ugly should not change that easily. If things like that can change to the opposite side of what they were in the past that easily, it would be like they never existed in the first place and they are only tools we use to control other people or live among them peacefully. An Introverted feeler and thinker (at their best of course) try to find the "absolute" logical or/and moral truth if there is one but the extroverted feeler/thinker tries to apply an efficient form of them to the world (or believe an appliable one to be good or bad). In my opinion, it should (mostly not always) be the job of an introverted feeler/thinker to find the absolute individual (for each member of the group) truth, aside from it, being appliable or not to the group itself and it should be the extroverted feeler/thinker that tries to apply it or conjure it to the group. Of course one may find the truth to cause chaos and horrifying consequences for the whole group so, the introverted thinker/feeler should consult their extroverted counterpart(s) about whether the truth is "good" to be executed to the world (so that "good" is of value too, but in the inherent way), because truth is not always "good". And good is what we need sometimes not the truth. But well, one can never state a universal subjectivity as an objectivity (which might even change from one individual to another)
I'm thinking, and this is just my mind going on a spin, that Fi would tend to prefer laissez-faire economics, as opposed to Fe, who would defend government intervention. Fi would say: "Let each be free to find a place in society, to compete and to rise to the top. Those who make it, make it. Those who don't, well, let them figure it out for themselves." Fe would say: "Let us make a society where as many as possible have access to the same basic things. All people deserve education, health care, and work opportunities. Let's make it all happen." Of course, this is just how I understood it.
***** This is accurate. I would imagine that, while Rand herself (an Fi user) probably had a more Nietzschean perspective, there are many people who are more focused on equality of rights, fairness under the law, etc. which may be more attuned to Fe-style thinking. An interesting contrast is Rothbard, an ENTP, whose political philosophy has many superficial similarities to Rand, but instead of trying to ground rights underneath a greater set of values focused on living egoistically (Fi), simply tries to argue that such rights follow from simple Kantian logic (Ti) and produce output that says everything should treat each other justly (Fe).
To the INFPs out there confused if you are INFPs because you don't feel all the "one man is better than the next" stuff - don't be. One important thing about the Te/Fi axis is that Fi is indeed individuating and wants everyone to be who they really want to be and to be able to express themselves freely. But I think Michael accidentally put a bit of Te into his Fi description - the Te/Fi axis' tendency for hierarchy, belief in inequality and a certain dogged drive for excellence is born from Te's desire to measure, organize and optimize the outside world.
To put this into display, here are some rather blunt quotes from INTJs (Ni Te Fi Se), who prefer Te over Fi, but consciously have both:
Nietzsche: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness."
Nietzsche: "Active, successful natures shun the dictum 'know thyself' and follow the commandment: 'Will thyself.'"
Nietzsche: "Not all men ought to be free. There are many who threw off their final worth when they threw off their bondage."
Fischer: "Most people are sheep, and they need the support of others."
Nash: "Don't ... depend on current fashion or ... popular opinion."
Nash: "[One] could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman. ... But without his 'madness' [he would] have been only another of the ... billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten."
Asimov: "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
Heraclitus: "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary."
Heraclitus: "Most men have sated themselves like cattle. ... Greater men are allotted greater destinies."
With a less abrasive tone:
Hegel: "[I] want to restore the human race to its full totality."
Paracelsus: "If you have been given a talent, exercise it freely and happily like the sun: give everyone from your splendour."
Power: "Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in."
The INTJs have a tendency to believe that some people are indeed superior to others, but exhort everyone to be the best they can be. A life of mediocrity is not a worthwhile one. Find yourself, realize yourself, lift yourself to greatness to set a path for others to follow.
Now, contrast with the INFPs who repress the hierarchical, optimizing, ordering conqueror/bulldozer out of the conscious mind and are left with the idealistic, individualistic, romantic Fi ruling their psyche:
Kierkegaard: "To pace about, looking to obtain status, looking to attain 'importance' - I can think of nothing more ridiculous."
Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
Camus: "To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others."
Orwell: "What I have most wanted to do ... is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice."
Tolkien: "I [am] a mere individual ... with intense feelings more than ideas."
Tolkien: "The most improper job of any man ... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."
C. S. Lewis: "[There is] in me ... a distaste for all that is public, all that belongs to the collective."
Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure."
George R. R. Martin: "My own heroes are the dreamers, those ... who tried to make the world a better place. ... Some failed ... but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it."
Saint-Exupery: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
Kafka: "[People are] quite different. What grips me need hardly touch you at all. ... What is innocence in you may be guilt in me. ... What has no consequences for you may be the last nail in my coffin."
Augustine: "The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but - what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices."
Wright: "'Natural' is the last thing [people] would let you be if they could prevent it. ... That's why they ... make all these senseless rules [and] foolish regulations."
Hans Fritzsche (Head of radio propaganda in Nazi Germany):
Fritzsche: "Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people - even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office."
So shush, be yourselves. The best yourselves you can be ^__^
Komatik~ Thank you. I am drawn towards the boldness of the INTJs, but resonate more in daily conversation with the INFPs... ~INFP Julia
Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure."
As an INFP this is how I make friends.
Good video, but I don't necessarly agree with Fi thinking in terms of "the one vs. the many" or Fe in terms of "everyone is equal"; altough these views are frequent with these functions, it's simplified. First, I don't really think Fe choses the group because of the "everybody is equal" mentality, but rather because Fe is Group oriented in the first place. And Fi is not so much about the "one vs. the many" as much as it sees the Individual as the only real truth, and society as essentialy something auxiliary to the individual. Because, Fe thinks: the Individual is nothing without the Group; Fi thinks:the Group is nothing without the Individual. A person with either function can agree with both statements as valid (as I think any mature individual would) but still, a statement will hold priority over the other depending on the preffered function. The reason I don't think Fe always thinks in terms of "everybody is equal" it's because implied that a Fe user couldn't be a narcisist or very arrogant, which is wrong, they can be narcisistic (or very humble, it depends) because Fe users care about social status and social hierarchy. Also, there's the infamous examples of deranged Fe users in history who tought certain individuals were quilty from the begining and should be eliminated for the better of the community, which wouldn't make any sense if they started from the "everybody is equal" premise. Rather, Fe is group oriented and will accept or deny that statement depending one wether they percieve it as a healthy belief or a dangerous belief for the better of the group. If a Fe user thinks that "everybody is equal" is something that ensues the right relationships between the members of the group they will accept it; if they think it's destructive to some holy principles that maintain the strength of that group, they will reject it. Like CT says, one shouldn't confuse content with function; so one shouldn't attribute clear statements such as "everybody is equal" to Fe or "morality is subjective" to Fi, but rather why they hold such beliefs. To simplify, Fe is: Community->Individual->Community, they can like indiduality but the community is the starting pointing and the end goal; while Fi is: Individual->Community->Individual, they can enjoy comon feelings but the individual is the starting point and the end goal. The basis of this is probably not some value judgement tough, rather is the affective component; and value judgements are build on these affective foundations. Fe more naturally alings itself with the common feelings and common values, because they are more naturally aware of them and better at taking them in themselves than those with Fi so they hold more truth and substance than personal feelings and values; while Fi are more loyal to their personal feelings and values because they're more naturally aware of them than Fe users and as such emphatize with the individual because they see a danger in the possibility that such personal feelings and values can be diluated, cheapened or even nulified by some common principles which lack substance and truth.
+nicolae madalin Boboc This is an excellent comment -- you've hit on a number of points that I've been struggling with between Fe and Fi. I especially like your reminder that its about form, not content, and then tied things back to the very basic processes going on (Fe is more aware of and aligns with common feelings, while Fi is more aware of its personal feelings). Thank you -- this is very useful for me.
+Michael Pierce Thank you for your reply, it's appreciated. :)
+nicolae madalin Boboc +Michael Pierce I second Michael here - this comment is excellent.
Really great comment! I'm Fi and found myself thinking this as the video was going on. I was thinking, I don't put the many over the few all the time, but it's not cos I don't see everyone as equal, in terms of being human. It's cos the many can be wrong (I mean, I'm sure at one point the "needs" of the many dictated that they "needed" to throw criminals into lion dens or draw and quarter people), or the few can have legitimate needs that might not be addressed by focusing on the needs of the many. I guess you could say that it's because I value people (as individuals in the way the video describes), that I don't think the group outweighs the individual.
Also, I don't believe that morality is subjective, and it kind of irritates me that I keep hearing this. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up in videos like this, in forums, etc.
Un roman pe aici cu expertiza, glad to see you.
when talking to my friend about the difference between Fe and Fi in musicians, i used this model:
lets say an Fe musician and an Fi musician has 10000 fans.
an Fe musician will focus on affecting ONE community. as a whole. ONE group of 10000 fans. the masses. the crowd.
an Fi musician will focus on affecting the individual. by using knowledge of the internal emotional state. he will focus on affecting and internally inspiring an INDIVIDUAL....multiplied by 10000.
an Fe musician will see his fans as a big bubble of 10000 people, and affecting it. while an Fi musician would see it as 10000 bubbles, and try to inspire each single bubble simultaneously.
i know i didnt add anything new, but its another example of the difference. hope it helps.
and thanks, mr. michael pierce for the awesome video :D
Now this is such an interesting topic because I feel like it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain an Fi-type of mindset in today's society. For example, I'm very much an individualistic person. Army service is mandatory in my country. I've never felt more depressed my entire life than during that nine months. My identity was stripped away and i just couldn't feel "free" somehow. Then again, I have a job where I feel like harmony and unity are essential, so while I always thrive to create harmony and think of others, I try to do it in a natural way, where we have no 'etiquette'.
Social conditioning is strong growing up today, but keep fighting my fellow INFPs! Sorry if my English was a bit sloppy. Thanks for the video.
Yeah,that's why i hate the idea of being forced to do military service.i've always thought,you do what you want to do.I think the states have a bad mentality because of this.But,that's an Fe-Fi conflict,i guess.
This is very intriging! We humans are fascinated and at the same time tormented by these questions. I relate to that Fi view (that does not mean I don't ask other's opinions about whatever I am thinking). On the other hand, I am aware that (from my prespective) I have met people that look more insecure about having or exploring their own preferences or values. BUT at the same time it looks impossible to me that the process of defining a value/preference would happen outside of the person. It has to happen inside of the person!!! This makes me wonder that Fe is simply trying to get away from social rejection and trying to be accepted and Fi is more prepared or familiar with social rejection.
Very good video by the way
I still have no idea which I use or supress. It's second nature for me to believe all people hold an intrinsic existential value, but I don't care for the totalitarian bend Fe has to it, in fact, I'm most suspicious of anything that tries to bring unity by eliminating differences.
Totally forgot to actually post rules in the description. ..just give me a minute. ..
It's there now!
Also, I apologize, but the Te vs. Ti video will need to wait until tomorrow.
I will be running through the comments here as soon as I can, as there's been a lot of concern about my use of philosophical examples, so I'll be addressing those: I think they are very good questions and concerns. Thanks for the support!
Michael Pierce
You've done an amazing job at typology. If it isn't completely accurate, don't sweat it, man.
Brandon Taylor Dude, thanks. I actually needed that.
Michael Pierce Brandon Taylor I second Brandon. Corrections to make good stuff better can always be made afterwards, and this is a hobby. Part of the fun in learning and theorizing is refining one's own understanding, not getting it down 100% the first time.
Komatik :) Thanks, man! And thanks for the good comments you've been posting. I appreciate it.
Listening to Michael Pearce’s voice makes me feel at one with The Tao of the Airwaves
Here are a few ramblings for you on Fe vs. Fi after discussing some of the concepts in this video, and of the video discussing the Fe-Ti axis vs the Fi-Te axis in the "How to Type Someone" series, with my wife. (Context: I'm ENTP and she's INTJ, so we differ on this axis. We discussed the topic, but I'm writing the comment so, as an Fe user, so I will cite Fe more as I understand it more fully.) Also, I've only read a few of the comments so I apologize if any of this is redundant.
I think you can Pierce (haha) to a deeper layer of truth if you frame your thinking differently. You effectively begin by stating that Fe makes judgements about a thing's objective value whereas Fi forms judgements about a thing's subjective value.
Firstly, Fi and Fe are judging functions. The language in the phrase "making judgements about a thing's value" seems to me to blend in the role of a perceiving function. With Feeling, we're talking about decision making; how you use the information you've gathered from your environment. For example, an Fe dominant type deciding to be late for a meeting because helping an old lady cross the street is "the right thing to do", or deciding not to help the old lady because "everyone is counting on me to be there." (I'll leave it to an Fi type to draw a corollary example). Making the decision requires him to assign value to things, like coworkers, his job, and old ladies, but the Feeling function is primarily driving the decision itself rather than the valuation of the components.
Secondly, the subjective vs. objective value distinction seems to me to apply more accurately to the difference between Feeling and Thinking functions rather than to the direction of the Feeling function. I know the pile of gold was a simple, exaggerated, funny example, but I think it conveys the wrong idea. The example my wife brought up was to consider the value of a life. Does an Fe type only believe a life has value because he is prompted to believe it does by his constituents? Does an Fi user believe a life has value only when an individual chooses to assign value to it? Take the old lady example again; why are two decisions possible in one constant scenario? Because the Fe user's decision is based on a subjective moral code. Even though that morality is formed partially, or even largely, based on environmental stimuli, it is still a subjective system. I'd also note that Fi types' moral system is not derived from its environment or experiences less than an Fe's, it just displays different patterns of judgement in reaction to those stimuli. Much like light cannot exist if we cannot perceive darkness, emotions cannot exist if we do not perceive the world around us, and that logic applies to Fi to the same extent it applies to Fe.
Third, it would be interesting to study how the functions behave in T types. What holds constant about Fe and Fi when trumped by Ti or Te? What changes? I'm going to spew out some observations of this dynamic in myself and see if we can draw a conclusion:
My desire for harmony is strong (I am also a type 9w8 enneagram, atypical for an ENTP), but I have an easier time breaking any given harmonic state than, say, my ENFJ sister. When I have studied something thoroughly and feel that I have a sufficient understanding of its mechanics, I have no problem holding a view that contradicts others' views, or making a decision that others disagree with. However, if I am not confident of my view, or, more accurately, if I have not made a concerted effort to understand the full context of a view I purport to hold, I will often defer to the opinion held in my environment, or will be easily pushed to do so. Branching from this realization, I study everything I'm pushed to accept so I can arrive at an answer that I am truly confident in (i.e. I will never truly accept something I have not deduced myself). Branching from THAT realization, much of what catches my interest actually has to do with my desire to be able to fully defend my positions against other human beings who may, and often do, hold contradicting views. Also, when making decisions that affect others, I will take those peoples' opinions into account, and may knowingly make a sub-optimal decision because I feel that I am less personally invested in the result than the others involved. Stemming from that, I also tend to have a sense for the degree to which others want or feel something, a sense that becomes accurate quite quickly when getting to know people. I tend to take this perception as a point to be considered in my decisions rather than as passive observation.
All types use both thinking and feeling to make their choices - I suppose we can say that our thinking functions guide our use of objective information in decision making (How long will it take to help this old lady cross the street? How important is the subject matter of this meeting? How many man-hours will be wasted while they wait for me?) while our feeling functions guide our use of our subjective values in decision making (How important is helping members of my community to me? How important is respecting my coworkers' time?)
Anyways, I hope this is useful to you! Feel free to comment back if you disagree with any of it, or if any of my stances aren't as clear as I think they are. I recently found your videos through celebritytypes and was totally shocked at your depth of understanding and your clarity - your ENTP description was the best I've seen anywhere! I hadn't encountered the Prometheus concept before, and it is totally accurate.
Also, in terms of the issues people have with the statements about philosophies, maybe it would be more accurate to state that we can see how certain philosophies (such as the "for the greater good" concept) are born from Fe or Fi types.
We've found that the Enneagram covers some areas that are only loosely touched on by the MBTI, and vice versa, so we use both to try to understand people fully. One aspect of psychology that the MBTI doesn't directly account for is the level of development, which the Enneagram does a great job of. To relate it to the same "for the greater good" concept, this attitude can be attributed to an average health Type 6 Enneagram.
Type 6 is labeled "The Loyalist", and has a basic fear of being without support or guidance. As they grow to a higher level of development, they become increasingly independent and self-affirming while working symbiotically with the groups they are part of. As they decline the levels of health, they increasingly defer responsibility for their well-being to the group, society, government, etc. This increases their fear that they will be rejected from society and be left defenseless. That in mind, we can attribute the "greater good" concept which implies the suppression of the individual self and the glorification of the group as a whole to an average health 6, who has an hazy definition of self but a clear desire to be taken care of. A mid-upper six could also reasonably hold this ideal, being prompted by the fact that he feels good when he helps others, though I believe a highest-level (Level 1) Type 6 would understand that the preaching or broad practice of this ideal would lead to the atrophy of human rights; you cannot structure a society on the "greater good" principle because, by design, it precludes any individual, even type 6's, to grow to towards their full potential. That's an entirely separate topic though. I just thought I'd mention it... ya know... for the benefit of the group ;P
Even though I found your views highly insightful, I would wage to differ on Fi pertaining to individualism, and Fe pertaining to compromise. Rather, uniqueness of going about things, no matter from which functions, would define individualism, and Fi being quite helpful in compromise. I do not know, whether the dominant function sews itself into its environment to secretly smuggle the 5th function, or the individual's 5th function, into the other person's mind, in such a way that a sophist, or paradoxically also the Socratic teaching method, might. But I do know I have interviewed a few placebo-controlled INFPs(i.e. INFPs that had no idea of what MBTI is) and that they didn't say they had a strong emphasis of individualism and individual discovery, rather, having a strong preference of helping others understand each other and reach compromise, as you would describe Fe. Fi would somehow keep track of history and invoke values into things and solidify them over time, as opposed to the values invoked in a fleeting moment or delineated using other functions. I think Fi is strongly related to role-playing and, as you mentioned, having several personalities. Its strength is related to the complexity of one's value system, as is related to an ideal utopia. And as Fi has a somewhat negative relation to Te, the degree of the utopial complexity compromises upon itself with increasing strength of Fi, and yet adds up on idealism. That is because Fi strong people have weaker Te, and therefore they need to Fi problem solve their problems, as opposed to Te problem solving them. In this way, Fi is about the struggle of keeping one's hold on the self, in spite of failing to affect the environment in ways one desires. On the other hand, Fi weak people and Te strong people do not compromise, and as opposed to building utopias around their issues, have a pretty unsophisticated, or less pejoratively put simple, aims and utopias, which they stubbornly invoke through Te.
You can see this in Carl Jung, because incapable of making a strong push, instead vouches for the road of invoking strong utopic formulations of reality as belonging to several personalities and existing in a mythological sense. This way, instead of trying to battle Freud solo hands-on, he festers an aroma of his own way of psychology, which deviously recruits an army of theorists to do his bidding for him. In contrast, an ExTP will stubbornly cross the world as a terminator, burning bridges and deciding to brawl everything and everybody on their own. Albeit poetic, if they fail, the whole ideational or any other system, if not somehow discovered and brought up into the light by Fi 6th, will be lost to the annals of history.
Sent this to an ENFP buddy, she related more to your Fi descriptions, while I found them unappealing compared to the Fe descriptions(INTP, inferior Fe)...
That is genuinely scary man, you're getting too good at this!
I'd like to add a bit of insight here on introverted feeling. One might think that because introverted feeling is only based on one's internal feelings that it's easier going off of than that of extroverted feeling, which tries to harmonize with multiple forces instead of just one. I've seen this come up and I understand why. As a Fi dominant, I find this view very aloof. As an Fi user, and Fi dominant, I have to work with multiple values, many of which are competing with one another. The decision making process for me is full of trying to align with many different values at the same time. This can be incredibly difficult. For instance, I've grown to value objectivity to a large extent, because I'm so interested in history and academia. So.. an issue I deal with is staying in line with my objectivity value and my subjectivity value. This is just one of the many instances where looking to the inside does not result in an easy scenario.
+Past Analysis Btw, I just wanted to clarify something here. I, like most INFPs, present my findings as subjective. However, I like to be subjective within an objective. So for instance, I like to make work within academia, which could be considered an objective area. Still though, I present what I make as subjective within this area. There are of course facts and details that are truth within what I say, but my conclusions from the data are completely subjective. I don't like having my subjective findings or anyone else's in academia put above another's unless clear facts are present favoring them. This is my common solution to the subjective vs objective value struggle; to be subjective within an objective.
I think you sound a bit too rigid in your philosophy. Objective facts are not the only things that matter, some conclusions can be worth more than others without having concrete proof, or whatever. Check out "Is Rick from Rick & Morty The Ideal Scientist?" by Idea Channel here on UA-cam, it should send you down the rabbit hole on this topic.
For the record: I'm an INTP, the host of Idea Channel is an INTP, and Rick from Rick & Morty could arguably be typed as xNTP. Ti does not like Te rigidity. :P
Thomas Mortensen Interesting tidpit there. I already had watched that video and was up to date on Rick and Morty by the time you messaged that. ^^ If we're talking about ideals, I absolutely think they can be worth more. However, if we are to go down the rabbit whole of objective idealism, I'll warn you that I'm not fond of that idea. As an Fi dom, Ti is fascinating and absurd.
+Past Analysis You are fascinating, absurd and subjective to the point where I'm amazed that some people get what's coming out of that world inside your head. :D
Objective idealism is a metaphysical philosophy in which the universe is basically a mind, as far as I understand... but I suppose you mean ideals that are considered ideal for everyone, hence objective, encroaching on your freedom to be uniquely you, causing you to not like it? :P
Thomas Mortensen Basically, yes. Does finding that objective ideal tickle your fantasy?
This is probably why Fe/Te sensors are the most common types; they need a lot of themselves to function properly lol
Wow, now that has finally made it clear to me.
Thumbs up for a very informative video, plus points for that small Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged reference. :D
I've been really enjoying your videos. It's really helped me rethink some things that were unclear for me in Jungian typology. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the functions manifest when they are at different points in the functional stack. As an INTP, I certainly relate to your description of Fe, but I'm sure it works differently for me than it would be for an EFJ or IFJ. It seems both like something that often thwarts me and a distant dream that one day I hope to have a better grasp of. Anyway, I'm looking forward to part IIb and I hope at some point you have time to comment on this.
I find that I relate to aspects of both.
My interactions with the world and people are very conflict-averse (when I disagree with someone on an emotional issue, I almost always just briefly state my opposing opinion and then let them tell me I'm wrong; I'd rather keep them content and not have an argument on my hands than stand up for my opinions). I prefer to be appeal to the largest possible number of people as opposed to trudging my own path and being met with criticism from others. So, despite whatever beliefs I might have, I think it's more important for one to consider the opinions of others just as much as (or more than) one consider one's own opinions. My own convictions are also very malleable; if someone presents an opinion in a way that appeals to my logic and is very well thought out, I'll quite easily abandon any previous convictions, regardless how contradictory the new one is. So I don't really have the "precisely constructed and subjectively consistent moral system" that often is used to describe Fi. Furthermore, whatever convictions I have are usually quite far from radical and strive above all to appeal to the most viewpoints possible. All of the above seems to be indicative of Fe.
However, I have a very subjective relationship with things like art and literature and music-- my aesthetic tastes are mine and mine alone, and I hold those aesthetic preferences very highly and don't like conforming to others' opinions in that regard. I don't know if that's a manifestation of Si (?).. could be. I develop very profoundly emotional and personal connections with those kind of things, particularly music. I also deeply, deeply suck at the whole "deftly navigating social situations" which seems to be connected with Fe types... like, I really freaking stink at people/emotional stuff.
(for the record, outside of the F functions I prefer Ni/Ti > Ne > Si > Se/Te, if those would influence anything)
Any clarification of the whole convictions/aesthetic-preferences divide would be appreciated. I have several friends who are just as perplexed as I am.
I think this gets interesting when you have dominant thinkers, because of course Te is opposite of Fi and Ti is opposite of Fe. In my experience a person's F function does as much to create a worldview as it does to make decisions.
So many people in the comments have talked about being an INTP but still being individualistic, but INTPs are Fe users, so how does that work? Well, as an INTP myself, Fe means that I have a collectivist/social worldview. I see emotion and value as being shared, a social problem.
However, this doesn't mean I like it. My Ti leads me to cast away society and emotion as being collectivist and appearance oriented, so I end up being super individualistic. But it's important to understand that this is because of Fe -- maybe you could say that Fe users are individualist because they hate society, and Fi users are individualistic because they don't care about society.
Malachi H Thank you for that -- that's something that's been on my mind, but I wasn't sure if it was really correct: I tend to be deferential to a fault; but whenever I talk about the function axes, if one end is repressed then of course the person won't immediately or directly relate to the philosophies often expressed by that end. But it will still be a part of their way of thinking EXACTLY like you put it. So thanks.
Malachi H +Michael Pierce
Pretty much.
I have a question. Could a dominant Ti and inferior Fe give off an Fi-like effect? As an INTP, I took the cognitive functions test on Similar Minds, and I scored more Fi than Fe.
TheMaleAvenger I think so, definitely. I usually get Fi when I take functions tests. I don't think they're super good at figuring your lower functions.
TheMaleAvenger I took a similar test as well, and it recognized my dominant and auxiliary function, Ni and Fe, though it also rated me high on Si. That isn't so surprising to me, because Ni is a rather similar function to Si, being the other introverted perceiving function. That would seem to be the same case with you, Ti and Fi both being introverted perceiving functions. If the test is looking for eight functions separately, I think that is more likely to happen. It also depends on how they define and how they search for the functions, obviously.
TheMaleAvenger Most functions-based tests give people high scores on both Ti and Fi, because they serve a similar, individuating role in the psyche. They carve out a construct inside a person that is relatively independent from the outside world, something for the person to hold true to. I like to liken it to Fi growing a biological heart and Ti constructing an elaborate mechanical wonder for the same purpose.
Does the same thing, but colder, much like both Fe and Te can be used to observe societal norms and try to keep the peace but Fe users are almost invariably warmer than Te users.
Given that INTPs are very likely to deny their Fe and identify strongly with individualist sentiments I don't think high Fi scores should come as any surprise.
Michael Pierce, I'm an INTJ, and I've read that my type tends to be the most independent of the 16 types. Why is that exactly? Fi is my tertiary function, wouldn't someone with Fi as their primary function be more independent or individualistic, such as an ISFP or an INFP?
STIX1022 I second Komatik here: the stack has to be taken as a whole. In truth, anyone with a Te/Fi axis will demonstrate the kind of 'individualism' that I refer to. That's not to say that Fe/Ti types aren't individualistic or won't ever be that way: I most certainly don't want to do a number of things other people do, but the difference is I'm still thinking in terms of what society considers valuable and how to deal with that, and how to act in a way that is best for other people even if that action is idiosyncratic, but Te/Fi doesn't care about society like that, it doesn't care about what society at large considers valuable, and doesn't like having to pay attention to it. So one tends to be accommodating while the other is "individuating", though by no means selfish or egocentric or not wanting to help others, but doing it because they themselves want to and feel its right, not because its generally considered right.
In any case, many feel that the INTJ is "the most" individuating because its particular combination of functions often has certain effects that people associate with a rugged individualist. These are listed by Komatik, and stereotypically they combine to make a visionary who is going to change the world, which is what many people associate with individualist: that combination of personal vision and personal drive.
STIX1022 Also, depending on how you've arrived at your current type designation, it could be worthwhile to explore other types - ISTPs and ENTJs for example can be very similar to INTJs on the surface, but the actual mechanism that builds those drives is different and worth understanding - plus most importantly each type has its own idiosyncracies or "type defects" that it is helpful to be aware of.
Integrative action for ISTP and INTJ is completely different, for example.
The reason I ask is that the world is chock-full of people who mistype themselves, often as INTJ because of the type's superhuman reputation and "coolness" (please shoot me if I read one more forum topic about measuring a type's "coolness") but also in other directions, and it pains me to no end because of the issues above. If I relied only on tests, for example, I'd probably consider myself INTP or ISTP - I've gotten ENTJ once from a test where I told I like socialization (I do - it's just draining after a while).
Hi Michael,
In your video, you stated that Fe = Groot and Fi = Follow the heart. Fe = Needs of many > Needs of self and Fi = Individualistic.
However, is it correct in assuming that no one is 100% Fi or Fe dom so thus, even though being an Fi, I may sometimes value the harmony of the group over my own values?
Or is it that I will ALWAYS prefer the opinion of my own above others as a Fi dom?
Mike Wu Emphatically no. There are no *always* here, although I may have accidentally implied that at some point in one of these videos: these are tendencies, not absolutes, and furthermore, in order to make the abstract processes more concrete and useful to people, I have to describe certain actual behaviors and philosophies that in our society seem to very, very often correlate with certain personality types. But it is never a matter of "this is YOUR philosophy that you're now stuck with for life". It is a matter of "okay, the way your psyche seems to work, its very likely that you more naturally relate to this idea, and will probably only champion the other idea as an extension of the first". What I mean by that is there are plenty, plenty, plenty of INFPs who say "but, I'm totally cool with self-sacrifice and community and stuff!" But the problem here is its not motivated in the same way, and thus often has subtle differences. I don't suppose that helps?
Mike Wu Adding onto what Michael Pierce said, Malachi H said it quite well in one of his comments on this video:
"Building of of what +Celeste Moore said: don't forget about the different aspects of Fi. It's individualistic, sure, but it's also introverted. I think that the individualism comes from the introversion -- Fi blocked off from the world around it, and doesn't really interact with objective reality, so it doesn't care what other people think or feel. Fi knows what IT feels, though, so people who use Fi will have a very strong sense of personal values, and because they will also use Te, they will be more cold and maybe even fake to other people. This isn't because they don't like people, it's just they have trouble connecting.
But all of this comes from the introversion aspect of Fi. *So the first thing you should ask yourself when trying to decide if you are an Fi or Fe user is whether your values are more inward or outward oriented. I think a well developed INFP or ISFP can empathize quite well, depending on what personal values their Fi leads them to have, so basing an analysis off of how individualistic you are isn't a great place to start.*"
Also, Nelson Warner said this:
*"This is more about your cognitive functions and the core mechanisms of your character than the actual implementation.* Michael Pierce used some stereotypical examples but they are definitely not ones that you necessarily have to agree with to be in their type. I identify with Fi definitely, but I value the group very highly. I have had experiences where I know that the individuals' needs can be best met with cooperation, and I have had experiences where I have felt people have obstructed me in some way to fulfill selfish goals. For those reasons and others I like the idea of a society where there is harmony and each is kind and conscientious of each other. That is my implementation though I identify with Fi. *Giving a description of your values and implementation isn't enough to quite get a good handle on your consciousness in my opinion.*
Finally, I think that Fi types have a tendency to like to help people 'be the best they can be.' Just because you're selfless does not equate to Fe. Fi's can be an immense help, as can Fe's. I think Fi's often think "I can relate to that" and act accordingly. Whoever you are you should be helping the world to be a better kinder place in the way that you are best capable of."
In other words, don't worry so much about the way you act. Worry more about the reasons _behind_ it. I'm sure there are Fe users who are individualistic and Fi users who are collectivist. Fe users are inherently no more self-sacrificing than Fi users.
Komatik also said in one comment somewhere (I can't remember the exact place) that Ti and Te can also be used to create values--just for different reasons (logic instead of feeling).
If your values come from outside yourself, you are an Fe/Te user. If your values come from within yourself, you are an Fi/Ti user.
For example, are you self-sacrificing because you yourself value it or because society values it?
My mother is an ESTJ (Te-dominant). Her values are outward-oriented, and she expects everyone in the family to follow those values, too. I'm an INTP (Ti-dominant), and I don't care about any of that (though I do value the group). My values originate from within myself (and let's just say that I've met some opposition - both friendly and unfriendly).
This isn't to say that strong Fe/Te users are conformist. They just have a tendency to think that it's best to follow externally created values for the good of society.
Thank you MaleAvenger for your well written reply.
Some key sentences struck me as a definitive Fi in that every selfless act I pursue is in no way related to society's needs/wants and in fact, majority of the time, it is against what society wants.
Mike Wu You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. =)
Indeed. As an Fi user, if you do something that society wants, it's because you wanted to do it, not because everyone else wanted you to do it.
Mike Wu Fi is, above all, concerned with doing what feels right and true to the self. When Fi is sure of something, you feel it in your bones. Even if an Fe type would cringe, *this is how it is, dammit*
4:51 i don't quite get it. While needs of the many are valued more than the needs of a few, it is majoritarionism not equality, is it?
Great video as always. I do wonder if you're overreaching a bit with the philosophy angle; it's not that I disagree with your assessments so much as it might lead to people making crude assumptions like "He supports big government; he must be an Fe user" or "He thinks values are subjective; he must be an Fi user." Someone's explicit philosophical viewpoints are not a direct translation to their cognitive functions; for example, I am an INTJ, so in theory I should have a very objective view of reality. And I do, in terms of my day to day operation, but philosophically I completely understand that certainty is impossible and that all I have is my own subjective perception of the world.
XOmniverse People making those kinds of statements simply indicates a flippant attitude to the subject, and can't really be rectified.
XOmniverse I agree with you, and I've tried to address that in my Te vs. Ti video, but I don't know if I covered it as well as I'd like. I think any of my statements can be taken the wrong way depending on a person's individual circumstances and perspective, especially because I've found the way I demonstrate Se/Ni tends to zero me in on one perspective at a time and elaborate on it, getting all excited by the "delicious" idea, only to realize all the exceptions to the rule a few days later.
I really feel the introvert extrovert thing is over simplified. I'm an ENFP and very much pay attention to my inner life being intuitive and a feeling type. I am an extrovert in manner of expression and warmth and friendliness, but I have a very deep inner life as well.
what is the introduction music?
I loved this video! Tons of fun watching it as always. I think you represented introverted feeling very fairly and appropriately and I was interested in your description of extroverted feeling.
By the way, I'm sorry it's been so long since our last discussion. I still plan on making a comment, but I've been too distracted by all sorts of stuff in my life. I'll try to get back to you on the risk game metaphors, as I truly want to give it. I just need to stop procrastinating on it. :/
Past Analysis Oh you're fine. I take a long time between conversations as well. We're all pretty busy -- so don't worry about it. On you're own time.
" A friend is a second self" Fe at it's finest.
I am INFP. I happen to hold values that a society needs to accept and get over most differences. However I also champion individuals who express their deepest, inner feelers. Though I do respect the idea of breaking the status quo for the good of a society, I would think that doing so should be done for a good reason. I am interested in people living to their true potential, though I despise the idea becoming self-absorbed and unwilling to help others.
Though I am shy, I do what I can to help people out people and love to do so. There has been many instances where I gave up things of my own for the sake of others.
Based on the above, am I more Fi dominant or Fe dominant?
I am relatively new to Jungian Typology, but I can explain my understanding.
This is more about your cognitive functions and the core mechanisms of your character than the actual implementation. Michael Pierce used some stereotypical examples but they are definitely not ones that you necessarily have to agree with to be in their type. I identify with Fi definitely, but I value the group very highly. I have had experiences where I know that the individuals' needs can be best met with cooperation, and I have had experiences where I have felt people have obstructed me in some way to fulfill selfish goals. For those reasons and others I like the idea of a society where there is harmony and each is kind and conscientious of each other. That is my implementation though I identify with Fi. Giving a description of your values and implementation isn't enough to quite get a good handle on your consciousness in my opinion.
Finally, I think that Fi types have a tendency to like to help people 'be the best they can be.' Just because you're selfless does not equate to Fe. Fi's can be an immense help, as can Fe's. I think Fi's often think "I can relate to that" and act accordingly. Whoever you are you should be helping the world to be a better kinder place in the way that you are best capable of.
This is the problem a lot of people who are more unfamiliar with mbti come up against. The mistake is to break apart the functions separately and pick and choose which ones you think you might be, which will lead to a great deal of confusion. You have to look at all the functions in tandem. If you're INFP then you are by definition Fi dominant. If you are not sure of this, look at your other functions and how they work together. For example, if you were Fe dominant then you can either be ENFJ or ESFJ.
A good thing to remember is you are classified as introverted or extroverted based on what your dominant function is. If your dominant function is an extroverted function, then you are extroverted. If your dominant function is introverted, then you are introverted.
Brandon Taylor See my post on the topic. You're probably INFP.
I don't think you are an Fi dom INFP. You may have Fi/Fe aux/tert.
Now, all right, let's say I'm not one to compromise my values, but it's largely through reasoning, even in "emotional" situations. For instance, my friend decided to sleep with another friend's ex-boyfriend, so I retained my values and chose not to talk to her for a few weeks.
However, after a while, I decided it would be better for group harmony to put aside my displeasure with her actions and went back to talking to her. So... where do I fall? At the moment I'm biased to think I'm Fe because ENTP seems to fit me quite well.
I think that for Fe its so normal that each human already is their own person, why especially emphasize this, but lets not overdo this and give space for everyone equally and Fe knows that everyone has their own values and that is why it wants to limit thise a bit and make consens on common ground. I think that each function can see the point the other makes. but then wants to limit it and favors the opposite. What Fi seeks, uniqueness and individualism, is self-evident for Fe and already existing.
I cant say it for Fi aswell bc I don't understand it as well but it should be symmetrical
Why is FE depicted as feminine and FI depicted as masculine in Jung’s description?
Im an Intp but I seem to relate and agree more with Fi than Fe, what does that mean?
+Abraham Jaleel Probably it reflects the fact that you're a dominant judging type (Ti) so you have a certain affinity with Fi in that way, particularly dominant Fi, while Fe, becauase it is repressed by your dominant Ti is not as relatable to you at first precisely because you value its opposite Ti. Fi is alien enough that it doesn't trigger any rejection at first. That's what I would think, though.
+Michael Pierce I agree with this, I've been thinking about it too. I'm an INTP myself, and I have seen it in my INTP friends. Especially the one with a superiority complex, as you might expect.
I'm an INFP and I initially related to Ti more than Te because it was my inferior function and I didn't fully accept it.
I use both. Why bother saying I prefer this one or that one.
Because you do. Lol
I think introverts (and their introverted functions) are a result of an oppressive environment that didn't allow the individual to express his/her dominant function in extraverted fashion. A T-dominant type who doesn't have the courage or constitution to express his T in an extraverted fashion (i.e. to organize and impose order on the external environment) are forced to withdraw their T inside, making them Ti dominant.
Likewise a Fi-dominant type might be someone who was unable to express his Fe due to some suppressing element in the external environment, someone who has had to hide his F inside. Perhaps due to an environment where solidarity and cooperation was not valued or encouraged. Or perhaps due to an overactive Fe dominant parent suppressing the child's Fe, creating some kind of allergy to Fe?
Also, I think extraverted functions also serve as information gathering inlets as well as outlets to act on the environment. If we imagine the mbti type as a closed box/system/cell, the external functions serve as the interaction interface with the external world where information can pass both ways whereas the internal functions serve as the processing tools that handle and manipulate the incoming information.
So extraverted types (edit: mainly) gather information from the environment thru their respectove dominant function whereas introverted types do the same thru their respective auxiliary functions.
So a Fi dominant type is not attuned to the Fe (social rules and cooperation) strata of external environment whereas a Fe dominant type is. So a Fi dominant type cares more about how he feels or would feel in a specific situation whereas a Fe dominant type cares more about how others would feel (about the Fe-dominant?) in the same situation.
Would appreciate any feedback and counter points.
yeghor I don't think introverted functions have trouble acting in the external world at all. You can plainly see people expressing more introverted functions pretty much by themselves all the time.
The theory as to why they took the attitude they did, dunno. It sounds awfully Freudian in a sense. I don't know about allergy, we tend to take after our parents to an alarming degree if you ask me.
Also, Te and Fe are judging functions, not perceiving ones. You'd say ExxJs would use those functions to perceive reality and then... perceive what with the introverted perception function?
The functions simply being interested in the inner or outer world is a far better definition of their attitudes than limiting them concretely to acting in either one. People regularly express introverted functions to the outside world and use extroverted ones to analyze what's going on inside their heads.
Komatik I think they are switching to the shadow/dormant/suppressed extraverted version of their introverted functions. Thats how introverted functions might be manifesting outside.
I dont know who coined the term judging and perceiving for the functions and based on what. I guess rational and irrational function classification is much better to that end in that rational (judging functions) are directly exercised by the person whereas irrational functions function autonomously, independent of the person. In that sense I believe a judging function can also serve to gather/sense information from the environment . It actually denotes an attunement to that specific external layer of information be it Te/Fe or Ne/Se.
I believe the autonomous/irrational/independent nature of the perceiving functions syggest that they are mechanisms independent of the ego, i.e. they fıem the id and the superego constructs.
+yeghor You don't get it, a Fi-dom would not want to express themselves in a Fe manner at all. You start from the wrong and disrespectful notion that being extraverted is better than introverted, no, only if you are extroverted from the begining. For a Fi-dom, Fe can appear diluated and not personal enough, so they don't want that, they wan't to express themselves, but only that which was individualized before that, so even if they want to exteriorize their Fi, it only has value if they exteriorize what they interiorized befor. A Fe user might find that a Fi user doesn't express himself as it should, but a Fi user might find that a Fe user doesn't express his true authentic self.The same way, a Ti user would not want to be Te, because they would find Te lacking in consistency and precision. Seriously, the way you view introverts is ignorant as hell.
nicolae madalin Boboc no you don't get it and it is you who is ignorant.
No, you're the only who claims that introverted functions are the result of an opressive environment, when it's clear that introverted functions have qualities that extroverted functions don't. By the same token, one could say that extroverted functions are the result of a dis-organized environment that didn't allow them to gain more depth, which would be equally stupid. It's like looking for reasons why the jaguar hunts alone instead of in a pack, when the reason is because that's simply its nature. The fact the only answer you could find for me is the childish "no, you are", just proves my initial statement.
great vedio
I always associated Fe (and Te in a more statist sense) with socialism because socialism in its purest form always talks about good as if there is only THE common good, and that everything that does not lead to everybody having equal access to that ought to be stripped away. Does anyone else think there's a correlation?
Regarding what you said about Fi in the philosophy of anarchisms: actually there's a brand of anarchism called anarcho-communism whose father, Kropotnik is probably INFJ. The whole ideea is a society based purely on altruism and communal feeling instead of any kind of political or economical ierarchy. Also, Tolstoy, another INFJ, had views close to anarchism and for the same altruistic/all people are equal reasons.
Just when I thought I narrowed my type down to infp...
Zacharyzmp You probably are an INFP. The one man is better than another sentiment of the Fi/Te axis comes from Te, and INFPs repress that into the unconscious. See my long post with a bunch of quotes from famous people, should make it clear(er).
Ralph Waldo Emerson Fi 3:05
Well, it might help that i'm an introverted feeler, but In my opinion, there is no objective value of something being right or wrong, but it's a universally subjective (at best if all people in the world hold that which simply isn't so) belief that the extroverted feeler seeks. In my opinion each person has the belief about a certain thing being of value or not. Extroverted thinking is about the outside logic system accuracy right? So Extroverted feeling can be called the outside value system efficiency. So the extroverted feeler might not necessarily believe that a value is "inherently" right or wrong (which where the value being true or not is mostly considered to come from in my opinion), but more to do with how holding this value effects the value harmony efficiency that is "good" for the world. So what makes a value "good" for an extroverted feeler is it, effecting the worldwide emotional harmony, and "bad" anything that destroys it. I think many extroverted feelers "do" have their own values which an inherent way believe is right, but what makes them think is bad or "wrong" is the disruption it can cause the world by applying it.
I believe that values should apply to life (if right of course) no matter if we interact with other humans in our life or not. Imagine each person living in a bubble away from any other human being or at most with 20 or 30 other people. This can, (slightly or a lot, doesn't matter) change the values an extroverted feeler holds to be good because the change in the values comes from inconsistancy in the values or a philosophical belief they have. Values, right and wrong, good or bad, beautiful and ugly should not change that easily. If things like that can change to the opposite side of what they were in the past that easily, it would be like they never existed in the first place and they are only tools we use to control other people or live among them peacefully. An Introverted feeler and thinker (at their best of course) try to find the "absolute" logical or/and moral truth if there is one but the extroverted feeler/thinker tries to apply an efficient form of them to the world (or believe an appliable one to be good or bad). In my opinion, it should (mostly not always) be the job of an introverted feeler/thinker to find the absolute individual (for each member of the group) truth, aside from it, being appliable or not to the group itself and it should be the extroverted feeler/thinker that tries to apply it or conjure it to the group. Of course one may find the truth to cause chaos and horrifying consequences for the whole group so, the introverted thinker/feeler should consult their extroverted counterpart(s) about whether the truth is "good" to be executed to the world (so that "good" is of value too, but in the inherent way), because truth is not always "good". And good is what we need sometimes not the truth. But well, one can never state a universal subjectivity as an objectivity (which might even change from one individual to another)
I'm thinking, and this is just my mind going on a spin, that Fi would tend to prefer laissez-faire economics, as opposed to Fe, who would defend government intervention.
Fi would say: "Let each be free to find a place in society, to compete and to rise to the top. Those who make it, make it. Those who don't, well, let them figure it out for themselves."
Fe would say: "Let us make a society where as many as possible have access to the same basic things. All people deserve education, health care, and work opportunities. Let's make it all happen."
Of course, this is just how I understood it.
Interesting point, j m k.
***** This is accurate. I would imagine that, while Rand herself (an Fi user) probably had a more Nietzschean perspective, there are many people who are more focused on equality of rights, fairness under the law, etc. which may be more attuned to Fe-style thinking. An interesting contrast is Rothbard, an ENTP, whose political philosophy has many superficial similarities to Rand, but instead of trying to ground rights underneath a greater set of values focused on living egoistically (Fi), simply tries to argue that such rights follow from simple Kantian logic (Ti) and produce output that says everything should treat each other justly (Fe).
Idk man I'm infp I think everyone should have access to basic things i relate to your fe statement fi sounds harsh lol more like ti idk
ÜbermeNNNNsch🤓
as in Rannnnch
I'm an INTP and I hate my Fe..