[INFJ] Extroverted Feeling: Cowardice or Courageous?

[5ufvdee369jcdd]

...

 

[Vendrah]

I dont know if what Im going to say helps much, but here it is.

(III) THE PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE EXTRAVERTED ATTITUDE

3. Feeling

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost. Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious.

Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils æsthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart; it merely appeals to the senses, or -- worse still -- to the reason. Doubtless it can provide æsthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops; every object is seized upon with feeling- [p. 448] valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical.

4. The Extraverted Feeling-Type

n so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling. As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution. One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.

But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.

We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object.

Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis.

Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type.

From: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Fe relys a lot on what are the objective criterias for Feeling. These have a variaton on societies per societies, so a Fe user is a coward if the objective criterias says so (or corageous if it says so).

Sorry for mentioning "stupid anime", but there is a famous one with an INFJ that it is in a fictional Japan crowded with heros, which are figures of very consideration on that fictionary society. Rather than just having a high consideration for the some stuff like height, family respectability and stuff like that, the objective criteria is how heroic one is instead.

Fe doesnt work absolutely (other cognitive functions plays a role unless the person is a pure Fe type, which are very rare cases) and we cant say that someone has zero control over what the objective criteria is, the concious does have partially choices. And on INFJ, Ni comes first and plays a role into changing these criterias to fit Ni visions.

So my opinion, coward or courage depends pretty much on what objective criterias of the person are. And on Ni visions.

 

[Wyote]

Cowardice is not necessarily a negative, nor is courage always a positive.
Context is important.
Fe usage in properly contextualized circumstances is what counts.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

What do you think?: Is Fe a function of "Cowardice"? Is it "Courage?" Why or (why not)?
INFJs: Do you see your Fe function as weak? Strong? Why?
Non-INFJs: Do you see the Fe function as weak? Strong? Why?

Well, some Fe-users like to have it both ways, and claim that Fe is both harmony-seeking and justice-seeking, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Somebody (I can't remember who) mentioned recently that August Landmesser is usually credited with being an Fi-user, and that his courage is a classic example of how that works. Though they went on to make some point about Fe iirc, I agree with the common view. Fi sets values and doesn't require social approval of these values. By contrast, Fe is constantly attempting to negotiate within systems of common values.

As somebody who has been frustrated first-hand with the rampant cowardice of Fe-users, I'm going to have to take that position for the purposes of this discussion. When you're trying to change something or fight some injustice, they're a pain in the fucking arse - constantly talking about 'playing the game' or being smug about knowing how to navigate the social rules of a situation despite also knowing that the situation is 'wrong' and ought to be changed. They can be weak and self-preserving, and when shit hits the fan in divisive situations I've only been able to rely on Fi-people. In terms of my own personal heuristics, Fi-users are like your vanguard when going into any kind of fight which requires courage - they're your fanatics, your immortals. Fe users will fight alongside you, too, but only when they see that the tide has turned - they're like your auxiliaries; low morale and easily broken, but just as good in winning situations.

Having said that, when Fe-users actually cultivate their Fi, they can be a powerful force for change (e.g. MLK)

 

[Wyote]

They can be weak and self-preserving, and when shit hits the fan in divisive situations I've only been able to rely on Fi-people. In terms of my own personal heuristics, Fi-users are like your vanguard when going into any kind of fight which requires courage - they're your fanatics, your immortals. Fe users will fight alongside you, too, but only when they see that the tide has turned - they're like your auxiliaries; low morale and easily broken, but just as good in winning situations.

Having said that, when Fe-users actually cultivate their Fi, they can be a powerful force for change (e.g. MLK)

INFJs in particular have a propensity for conflict avoidance. Engaging in real emotional conflict can be physically painful.
So helping them build that strength/tolerance is tricky, when all they wanna do is run away when it gets difficult.
This isn't everybody of course, just a propensity towards avoidance as a method of "solving" a problem.
Running away can solve a lot of short term problems, but that creates deeper long term issues.

But also, for myself at least, if I've flipped the switch and chosen to fight, I will with everything I've got.
It's tough to learn the middle ground there. Exiting out is a good method sometimes. Fighting every fight is too taxing.
Choose your battles with some level of wisdom and understanding, and don't tie your ego to giving up the fight if it becomes unprofitable/unmanageable.
These are tricky decisions for everyone.

 

[OK007]

I think it is a great exercise in that we mock we what don't understand. Courage and cowardice are on a specific basis not an approach to a generalized function. I can stand here in a false stance of definition and say Fe is iron in the table of elements and the ricochet of conversation would deviate from the point Maikl is trying to make. It is a very good question. Fi is based on presentation and that can be diluted in false premises...Fe is out there my friend...exposed. Which is more courageous? Great question Maikl...thank you.

 

[Impact Character]

Hmh I've been thinking about this topic too lately. I would like to throw these in (though English is not my native tongue and I might be misguided with the terms).

Fi ~ bravery (actually Te putting it out there)
Fe ~ courage (putting it out there)

I think Fi doesn't struggle as much with overcoming fear as Fe might. Fi doesn't need a cause, it activates itself.
Both can have moments of lacking bravery/courage, and usually it is the counter part who will point it out and not see their own.

 

[Wyote]

Fe is courage

 

[Impact Character]

thank you for the enCouragement

 

[Wyote]

thank you for the enCouragement

Courage the cowardly dog says you're welcome!

 

[Ren]

What do you think?: Is Fe a function of "Cowardice"? Is it "Courage?" Why or (why not)?

I'm of the opinion that Fe is unrelated to either cowardice or courage. Individuals are, not functions. The functions just manifest either courage or cowardice in different ways.

Fi users will tend to appear more courageous than Fe users when the courageous thing to do is to go against the group.

By contrast, Fe users will tend to appear more courageous than Fi users when the courageous thing to do is to go with the group.

It's a fallacy to imagine that the courageous thing to do is always to go against the group. It depends on the context.

 

[John K]

If you have references of Fe threads, can you please post them?

Maikl, this is a thread about Fe that I kicked off some time ago - every so often it comes to life .
How do you use extraverted feeling? How do you experience it?

I think it's people, not functions, that may be courageous or cowardly and a preference for a particular type of judging function is orthogonal to it. In other words people can be brave or cowardly whatever their orientation. Mind you, it will manifest in different ways. There's courage that involves confrontation, and Te/Fi folks will be more ready to confront than Fe/Ti people. Does readiness to confront determine where we are on the coward / brave spectrum - well it may, but it can also determine where we are on the idiot / wise spectrum. Many a stupid and needless war has been started by the bravery of confrontation without thought of the consequences. Look at the utter disgusting contemporary messes in the Middle East and Libya for example. On the other hand, confronting Hitler was exactly the right thing to do - and Napoleon too I suspect. But there are other kinds of cowardice and bravery too - not necessarily so spectacular. The bravery of my father who took care of my mother for 7 years as she developed dementia until she was so ill he couldn't get her off the floor when she fell (he was 85 then) - this is Fe at its very bravest, and I know people without Fe who would have fled. Fe gives us the courage to love and endure in the depths of this kind of adversity. It isn't spectacular - this was a long slow drawn out torture of courage - but no less in its way than someone who sacrifices their career or their life in a confrontational ethical conflict.

I think it's horses for courses, and there are swings and roudabouts with all the functions. Each primary function will give us characteristic strenghts and weaknesses, and these will show up in the different ways we can be brave, cowardly, wise, foolish.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Fi users will tend to appear more courageous than Fe users when the courageous thing to do is to go against the group.

By contrast, Fe users will tend to appear more courageous than Fi users when the courageous thing to do is to go with the group.

It's a fallacy to imagine that the courageous thing to do is always to go against the group. It depends on the context.

I think this is more like it.


Also, there's a problem here in that true courage (of the 'go against the group' type) is rare. In the example I have in mind in my own life, it was about 1 in 40. However, the most common types (ISTJ, ESTJ and ENFP) are all Fi-users, though ESTJs have it as their inferior.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

If we want to play the MBTI theorising game for fun, we might say that the two types of 'courage' are mostly exhibited by types with tertiary feeling functions, because that means the opposing orientation feeling function is in the PoLR slot. So...


Fi Tertiary & Fe PoLR (IxTJ) - I feel that this is right and I don't care what others feel. = 'against the group' courage. ISTJs are more likely to defend convention in this role, INTJs more likely to press for novelty.

Fe Tertiary & Fi PoLR (ExTP) - the group feels that this is right, and I don't care what I feel =. 'with the group' courage.


I'm not sure if that passes any sniff tests, but there we are.

Spoiler: Tertiary Thinking Functions

Ti Tertiary and Te PoLR (IxFJ) - I think this is true/logical, and I don't care what works.

Te Tertiary and Ti PoLR (ExFP) - This works and I don't care if it's true/logical.

 

[Ginny]

Extroverted Feeling: Cowardice or Courageousness?

So I've been thinking a lot about Extroverted Feeling lately and I am hoping to understand better how it is perceived: how INFJs particularly understand and feel about it and how other types, especially "thinkers" see it. It somewhat got my attention when I was reading @Deleted member 16771 (INTJ) post:


ref: https://www.infjs.com/threads/Deleted member 16771-blog.37062/page-13#post-1242024

I found that perspective fascinating, because on the one hand I absolutely agree with his INTJ perspective that Fe has a "softness" to its presentation and can easily be disregarded as "cowardly". However, as an Fe-aux user I've known and seen it also to be quite a unique strength, especially when it comes to building bridges of trust and communication when needed, or needing to improvise a solution when none are there and success is against the odds.

What do you think?: Is Fe a function of "Cowardice"? Is it "Courage?" Why or (why not)?
INFJs: Do you see your Fe function as weak? Strong? Why?
Non-INFJs: Do you see the Fe function as weak? Strong? Why?

Note: I know there are some good Fe threads here too explaining Fe and good/bad representations, but I'm more interested in getting perspectives. If you have references of Fe threads, can you please post them?

Fe is a harmonising function, when it is used for trying to bring together different perspectives. Fe is primarily a function able to see these different perspectives. Some try to reconsile them into one, others don't want to do anything at all. Yet others try to enforce a specific perspective that resonates with what they know or believe. The enneagram is a nice way of differentiating the alternating uses.

Motive has a way of bringing judgement into the mix. Remove motive and you'll lose judgement as well. I say it's neither courage nor cowardice, inherently. Only people can perform acts that may be judged thusly.

I have made a lot of posts on Fe/Ti-users and the contrast to Fi/Te. Might link/quote them some other time.

 

[acd]

Fe Tertiary & Fi PoLR (ExTP) - the group feels that this is right, and I don't care what I feel =. 'with the group' courage.

My reaction to that lol. But I think I can also be annoyingly contrary.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

My reaction to that lol. But I think I can also be annoyingly contrary.

Lol

I did wonder... 'with the group courage' just sounds like 'can be easily peer-pressured into doing dumb shit'.

Funnily enough, though, I reckon that on battlefields, both most of the individually valorous and individually cowardly will be Fi-users. They have a bit of a 'fuck it' mentality in both directions.

 

[Impact Character]

Lol

I did wonder... 'with the group courage' just sounds like 'can be easily peer-pressured into doing dumb shit'.

Funnily enough, though, I reckon that on battlefields, both most of the individually valorous and individually cowardly will be Fi-users. They have a bit of a 'fuck it' mentality in both directions.

Might be a "nah, I'll just go with the flow" thing..

 

[Ginny]

Funnily enough, though, I reckon that on battlefields, both most of the individually valorous and individually cowardly will be Fi-users. They have a bit of a 'fuck it' mentality in both directions.

Might be a "nah, I'll just go with the flow" thing..

Hm. I fail to see the difference between "going with the flow" and "fuck it"

Both can be described as my work ethic.

 

[Impact Character]

Hm. I fail to see the difference between "going with the flow" and "fuck it"

Both can be described as my work ethic.

lol

Hmh, "fuck it" had it considered there for a moment while "go with the flow" is more economic with the energy spent. xD