Could you be an Introverted Feeling Type (Fi dom / I_FP)?

[Quinlan]

Here are some traits:


-'Still waters run deep'
-Mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand
-Can wear a childish mask
-Reserved
-Private about their motives
-outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous
-Not inclined to lead, follow or try and impress others
-Harmonious as long as they are free to be themselves
-Can be outwardly cold/indifferent
-Generally unenthusiastic
-Responds to strong emotions with coldness
-Not inclined to express feelings
-Intensive feelings rather than extensive, can be very kind in some instances without regard for appropriateness/manners etc.
-Feel sympathy without taking action
-Can feel misunderstood
-Under stress can be paranoid about "what others are thinking"
-Idealistic: continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision.
-Expresses itself best through art/writing but can struggle to find the right medium

http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Jung/types.htm

 

[Adymus]

This is like a vague advertisement for some over the counter medication.

"Do you go to bed and wake up tired in the morning? Do you experience irritation when your hands are too close to fire? Well maybe Addrosol is for you!"

Not a single one of these traits are exclusive only to Fi.

 

[Tamagochi]

Hmm, a bit of Fe perspective on those same things:


-'Still waters run deep' - Still waters become a slough
-Mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand - If you do not communicate then of course you're hard to understand. It's your responsibility to reach out rather then helplessly wait for something to happen. Besides connecting with people is fun
-Can wear a childish mask - Fe can be playful and curious if looked from a positive side. Being a crybaby and avoiding responsibility is something that most of us grow out of. Yet if Fi dominant person keeps silent then it could look like she's avoiding responsibility I guess
-Reserved - not at all
-Private about their motives - why hide something? Revealing motives allows to test and strengthen them .
-outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous - the same applies to Fe. Only a Fi dominant might choose to do nothing in certain situations while Fe leads to subtle actions
-Not inclined to lead, follow or try and impress others - Leading -> connecting -> fun Fe dominants like to impress
-Harmonious as long as they are free to be themselves - same for me
-Can be outwardly cold/indifferent - Fe radiates warmth. Yet INFJs have an unjust reputation of ice king/queen sometimes
-Generally unenthusiastic - Sometimes when my efforts are not appreciated but generally not.
-Responds to strong emotions with coldness - responds with fire
-Not inclined to express feelings - That's by the definition
-Intensive feelings rather than extensive, can be very kind in some instances without regard for appropriateness/manners etc. - Not sure about that. Feelings can be very intensive but if you do not let them out than how one can measure? And if "without regard for appropriateness" means reckless social interaction then Fe craves for style and elegance in those situations.
-Feel sympathy without taking action - huh? You mean when you see a starving man you should just go by feeling all sympathetic inside? Not my style at all
-Can feel misunderstood - Everyone sometimes gets misunderstood. If you do not communicate your thoughts and feelings then you get more of that.
-Under stress can be paranoid about "what others are thinking" - Fe likes social actions to be "appropriate" so it does resonate somewhat. But in general stress brings out the fighter in Fe user and then who cares about what the others are thinking.
-Idealistic: continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. - Guilty as charged.
-Expresses itself best through art/writing but can struggle to find the right medium - Depends I think. The more you give out yourself in live social interactions the less you are inclined to seek other forms to express yourself. But everyone is an artist - some just do not know it

 

[TinyBubbles]

This is like a vague advertisement for some over the counter medication.

"Do you go to bed and wake up tired in the morning? Do you experience irritation when your hands are too close to fire? Well maybe Addrosol is for you!"

Not a single one of these traits are exclusive only to Fi.

i agree, far too vague to be function-specific

 

[88chaz88]

Here are some traits:


-'Still waters run deep' Yes
-Mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand Yes
-Can wear a childish mask Someimes
-Reserved Yes
-Private about their motives Yes
-outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous Yes
-Not inclined to lead, follow or try and impress others Yes
-Harmonious as long as they are free to be themselves Yes
-Can be outwardly cold/indifferent Yes
-Generally unenthusiastic Mainly
-Responds to strong emotions with coldness Yes
-Not inclined to express feelings Yes
-Intensive feelings rather than extensive, can be very kind in some instances without regard for appropriateness/manners etc. Err...
-Feel sympathy without taking action I guess
-Can feel misunderstood Yes
-Under stress can be paranoid about "what others are thinking" Nah
-Idealistic: continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. Not really
-Expresses itself best through art/writing but can struggle to find the right medium Nope

http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Jung/types.htm

Am I Fi dominant? Hell no.

Sorry but I'll have to agree with Adymus on this one.

 

[Morgain]

Hmm, a bit of Fe perspective on those same things:


-'Still waters run deep' - Still waters become a slough
-Mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand - If you do not communicate then of course you're hard to understand. It's your responsibility to reach out rather then helplessly wait for something to happen. Besides connecting with people is fun
-Can wear a childish mask - Fe can be playful and curious if looked from a positive side. Being a crybaby and avoiding responsibility is something that most of us grow out of. Yet if Fi dominant person keeps silent then it could look like she's avoiding responsibility I guess
-Reserved - not at all
-Private about their motives - why hide something? Revealing motives allows to test and strengthen them .
-outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous - the same applies to Fe. Only a Fi dominant might choose to do nothing in certain situations while Fe leads to subtle actions
-Not inclined to lead, follow or try and impress others - Leading -> connecting -> fun Fe dominants like to impress
-Harmonious as long as they are free to be themselves - same for me
-Can be outwardly cold/indifferent - Fe radiates warmth. Yet INFJs have an unjust reputation of ice king/queen sometimes
-Generally unenthusiastic - Sometimes when my efforts are not appreciated but generally not.
-Responds to strong emotions with coldness - responds with fire
-Not inclined to express feelings - That's by the definition
-Intensive feelings rather than extensive, can be very kind in some instances without regard for appropriateness/manners etc. - Not sure about that. Feelings can be very intensive but if you do not let them out than how one can measure? And if "without regard for appropriateness" means reckless social interaction then Fe craves for style and elegance in those situations.
-Feel sympathy without taking action - huh? You mean when you see a starving man you should just go by feeling all sympathetic inside? Not my style at all
-Can feel misunderstood - Everyone sometimes gets misunderstood. If you do not communicate your thoughts and feelings then you get more of that.
-Under stress can be paranoid about "what others are thinking" - Fe likes social actions to be "appropriate" so it does resonate somewhat. But in general stress brings out the fighter in Fe user and then who cares about what the others are thinking.
-Idealistic: continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. - Guilty as charged.
-Expresses itself best through art/writing but can struggle to find the right medium - Depends I think. The more you give out yourself in live social interactions the less you are inclined to seek other forms to express yourself. But everyone is an artist - some just do not know it

hoera for the Fe dominants, not only the best people around but also making the world a better place:shocked:! Thank god we have people like you

 

[Quinlan]

Not a single one of these traits are exclusive only to Fi.

i agree, far too vague to be function-specific

Sorry but I'll have to agree with Adymus on this one.

Hey don't blame the messenger!

These are straight from the horses mouth, Carl Jung himself.

 

[rawr]

doesn't sound like any of these would be indicitive of Fi. It could cover about any type at time really. And definetly IXFX types.

 

[Quinlan]

Interesting, to criticise Jung's examples of Fi would be to criticise the very concept of Fi don't you think?

 

[Morgain]

Interesting, to criticise Jung's examples of Fi would be to criticise the very concept of Fi don't you think?

good point! :w:

 

[Quinlan]

Why not? Where is a better description of the introverted feeling type?

 

[Adymus]

Interesting, to criticise Jung's examples of Fi would be to criticise the very concept of Fi don't you think?

No, I don't think that!'

No matter how you slice it, those descriptions are vague as hell, you have to at least admit that. I am positive that I am a Ti dom and I relate to more than half of this, don't you think something is wrong with this picture?

Secondly, and probably most importantly, Carl Jung is not the end all supreme theorist. In fact, his work is extremely outdated, this model has expanded massively since Jung last touched it. We now know things about the functions that even Jung may not have known, or at least may not have told us.

I am not saying anything that you wrote is wrong or incorrect about Fi doms, but what Jung wrote is by no means exclusive to Fi dom behavior. Thus, this is not something anyone should be basing their judgment of their own type on, it doesn't matter even if God wrote this, it is still vague.

 

[Quinlan]

No matter how you slice it, those descriptions are vague as hell, you have to at least admit that. I am positive that I am a Ti dom and I relate to more than half of this, don't you think something is wrong with this picture?

Just because you relate to some of it doesn't mean it's your type but if you relate to most of it then that type is definitely worth serious consideration.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, Carl Jung is not the end all supreme theorist. In fact, his work is extremely outdated, this model has expanded massively since Jung last touched it. We now know things about the functions that even Jung may not have known, or at least may not have told us.

What I'm wondering is if typology experts and in particular the casual armchair typologist haven't strayed so far from the original definitions so as to be talking about something else entirely than Jung's Fi. If we have done this was their good reason or did they just get lazy?

I think many of the things we casually/stereotypically use to describe introverts are more accurately describing Jung's Fi doms. Due to Myers and Briggs lumping them together as one category (rather than four distinct types) we now have the introverts sharing far more traits than they originally did. Jungs introverts are more distinct.

I am not saying anything that you wrote is wrong or incorrect about Fi doms, but what Jung wrote is by no means exclusive to Fi dom behavior. Thus, this is not something anyone should be basing their judgment of their own type on, it doesn't matter even if God wrote this, it is still vague.

Any suggestions for what we should be basing it on?

 

[Adymus]

Just because you relate to some of it doesn't mean it's your type but if you relate to most of it then that type is definitely worth serious consideration.

Not quite, as you said below, most of this stuff is typical Introverted behavior, and none of it is exclusive to Fi doms per se.
I didn't say I related to some of it, I said more than half, a good %75 to be exact. And no I wouldn't say it is worth serious consideration, because another kind of introvert could very well agree to all of it and still not be an INFP. We can do better than this is what I am trying to get at.

What I'm wondering is if typology experts and in particular the casual armchair typologist haven't strayed so far from the original definitions so as to be talking about something else entirely than Jung's Fi. If we have done this was their good reason or did they just get lazy?

Is clarification and accuracy not a good enough reason? This is not the bible we are talking about, progression and clarification of understanding is something we should ultimately be striving toward. Clinging onto an authority of the past is a really bad idea, even if he was the original creator of the model.

I think many of the things we casually/stereotypically use to describe introverts are more accurately describing Jung's Fi doms. Due to Myers and Briggs lumping them together as one category (rather than four distinct types) we now have the introverts sharing far more traits than they originally did. Jungs introverts are more distinct.



Any suggestions for what we should be basing it on?

Or Jung's Fi doms are more accurately describing introverts in general. You also need to keep in mind that Jung never made the distinction between the Personality types created by the Dominant as well as the Auxiliary functions. For instance, Jung had the Introverted Feeling type, but he did not have the INFP and the ISFP, two very different models with very different functionality. This right here is a great example of how Jung's work was Incomplete and Outdated.

I agree that introverts do not all share the same characteristics, but it would be ridiculous to say that everything, or even only half of what you said is exclusive to the Fi doms.

As for my suggestions as to what we should be basing it on. I generally disagree with the approach of naming a bunch of superficial traits a certain type is supposed to have, and then saying "Is this you?" I prefer to begin by having an understanding of the cognitive function itself, and then determine that function is taking the highest priority in their psyche.

Here is a short and concise definition I would give of Fi:

Fi is how a person weighs new information gained by a perception function, based on a subjective model of personal values. Fi will react to inputted information through a process of “resonation”. Fi will resonate in such a way that tells the psyche whether they agree or disagree with the information. Fi is adaptive in that it is reactionary and interfaces with information that is sent to it in real time. Fi will Resonate with information when it aligns with its personal values, and reject information that does not. Fi has a very “yuck” sort of reaction when posed with disagreeable information, that tells a person right away where they stand on it, and what problems they have with it. Essentially, Fi acts as a person's moral compass, clarifying values to achieve accord. Fi types have high personal moral standards and are particularly sensitive to inconsistencies in their environment between what is being said and what is being done. Empty promises of adhering to something they value set off an inner alarm and they may transform themselves into a powerful crusading force.
Personality types that have Fi as their dominant function, such as the INFP and ISFP, are very reflective, and gain most of their energy by modeling their internal and personal Values. They can also augment their Fi when met with other types that have Fi models that they agree with. However, the models created by Fi are amorphous and unstructured tones of feeling, which is why it is extremely difficult to describe and turn into structured and articulated language.

 

[aeon]

Not a single one of these traits are exclusive only to Fi.

I don't think that was ever suggested or implied.

Fe radiates warmth.

Fe is a judging function. It doesn't radiate anything, warmth or otherwise.

Why not? Where is a better description of the introverted feeling type?

There may be. I think and feel the writings of Dr. J. H. van der Hoop are quite excellent in this regard.

What I'm wondering is if typology experts and in particular the casual armchair typologist haven't strayed so far from the original definitions so as to be talking about something else entirely than Jung's Fi. If we have done this was their good reason or did they just get lazy?

In the case of experts it is likely because of a framework or model changing over time as it is compared and contrasted with other approaches.

The casual armchair typologist? Well, they are casual about it, after all. As it regards Fi (and Fe for that matter), one of the most common errors to see on type forums is that these functions have something to do with one's emotional expression or internal experience of emotion. They don't, yet such assertions are made all the time. The casual typologist is just that.

Fi is how a person weighs new information gained by a perception function, based on a subjective model of personal values.

I liked the rest of what you had to say about Fi, but this is it, in a nutshell. Bravo! :thumb:


cheers,
Ian

 

[Adymus]

The casual armchair typologist? Well, they are casual about it, after all. As it regards Fi (and Fe for that matter), one of the most common errors to see on type forums is that these functions have something to do with one's emotional expression or internal experience of emotion. They don't, yet such assertions are made all the time. The casual typologist is just that.

Yes they do actually, especially Fe. Fe users use their own emotional expression as a communicative tool, showing people what they should feel, letting them know how they feel about something, non-verbal approval and disapproval, and it even reads the emotional cues of other people.
I'm not just giving you a ripped off text book definition either, I know from experience, I use my own Fe in these ways. On top of that, you can even observe that Fi users are not aware of what their own facial gesturing is doing like Fe users are.

Also, even the expressions of Fi do come out on the face, distinctly different than Fe's expressions. They are even part of the emotional experience of internal emotion, again, another thing I know from the experience of my Fe reading into people's slights against me.

I have been studying the connection between feeling functions and how the faces move for a long time now, I know for a fact that there is a connection.

Where exactly did you get the idea that these functions are separate from these phenomenon?

 

[Morgain]

Here is a short and concise definition I would give of Fi:

Fi is how a person weighs new information gained by a perception function, based on a subjective model of personal values. Fi will react to inputted information through a process of

 

[Quinlan]

that is maybe the best description I have ever seen on how my mind works. I don't know if that is the same with you other Fi dominants?

I always had a problem with the saying that Fi dominants have a strong set of values. I can't seem to formulate any value of mine, I would not easily say I like X, I'm against Y, ... But I totaly do the resonance thing. When I have a decision to make, I need to be alone and just "feel it out", does it resonates with my inner - I don't know what to call it - or not? And if people ask me why I made this certain decision, I can't give them a reasoning other than "it felt right to me". Like you say above: "it is extremely difficult for me to describe and turn my decision making tool into structured and articulated language. So I feel that the description "Fi dominants have a strong set of values" is somehow incorrect, incomplete. We (or maybe it is just me?) don't have a concious structured value system in place, it is more an subconcious feeling based judgement system. any thoughts?

I agree.

 

[aeon]

Yes they do actually, especially Fe. Fe users use their own emotional expression as a communicative tool, showing people what they should feel, letting them know how they feel about something, non-verbal approval and disapproval, and it even reads the emotional cues of other people.

Fe isn't about communication. It is a cognitive function that judges (input from the perceiving functions) - nothing more (and nothing less).

I'm not just giving you a ripped off text book definition either, I know from experience, I use my own Fe in these ways. On top of that, you can even observe that Fi users are not aware of what their own facial gesturing is doing like Fe users are.

Also, even the expressions of Fi do come out on the face, distinctly different than Fe's expressions. They are even part of the emotional experience of internal emotion, again, another thing I know from the experience of my Fe reading into people's slights against me.

I have been studying the connection between feeling functions and how the faces move for a long time now, I know for a fact that there is a connection.

Those behaviors may involve Fe (and Fi) as a part of a larger process, but expression is not part of those cognitive functions themselves.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a feeling function has anything to do with feeling as used to describe emotional experience. Emotion can certainly inform Fe and Fi, but Fe and Fi are not emotional processes themselves, nor do they themselves have anything to do with the expression of emotion. Their output of judgment may inform other processes, cognitive and otherwise, that may result in expression, emotional and otherwise, but as it concerns the functions themselves, they have nothing to do with emotion.

Where exactly did you get the idea that these functions are separate from these phenomenon?

Jung, mainly. van der Hoop as well.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Adymus]

No, actually Fe is about communication. Here is why:

Fe, very much like Te, is a function that is used to move an manipulate an external and objective construct. In the case of Fe, this construct is a social dynamic. A culture, a society, a tribe, a group of friends, etc. Fe focuses on the system of social dynamics, how everyone feels about what, and how they can be directed into feeling something else.
As an extroverted judgment function, Fe also serve as a person’s articulator, as it takes a person’s subjective thoughts and perceptions and turns it into a structured, objective, and external language. A language that can be related to this external and objective dynamic, whether it be a tribal dynamic (Fe) or a systemic dynamic (Te)
Because of this, personality types with dominant Judgment functions, such as the ENTJ or ESFJ for example, will be able to articulate with the most ease and types with inferior extroverted functions will have the most trouble with articulation. It is also the Dominant extroverted judgment types that need this articulation in order to help clarify their own thoughts and understandings. They start by “pushing” their perspectives onto others, and then when they are pushed back by the outside world, they introvert to check with their Introverted perception (Ni or Si) to see why they got the “Push back” reaction that they did. Once they see the solution then they “Push” again, and the cycle continuous.

Emotional expression as well as articulation is a part of Fe's ability to move this external dynamic, as well as read and interpret how the current dynamic is moving, and how it can be moved.

I don't remember Jung ever suggesting that Fe or Fi has nothing to do with facial gesturing and communication, but even if he did and I am not aware of it, I would still disagree.