Yep. Our world does not rely on morals. Us humans do. And we are part of it.
[INFJ] Extroverted Feeling: Cowardice or Courageous?
- Thread starter 5ufvdee369jcdd
- Start date
There is a saying that "fools talk, cowards are silent and wise men listen" and I think there is a fine point to every INFJ out there not knowing when to speak up and when not to. I sometimes felt that my silence was awkward but appreciated, and that I would have my input out there when needed to, I was counted on that part. If you have nothing to say, it would be foolish to speak. If you have something to say and stay silent, you are a coward. And when you listen first, think and feel what you want to say, you'll have a moment for what you truly have to say.
I think the main problem here is about what we think and feel like about other perspectives about ourselves. Someone once said that it's more important what things look like, to some, to those we want to make an impression on for example, sure. But what do you think? Is it better to please every perspective and ignore your insights? Is it better to please the crowd when your intuition is saying "don't do that" or "I wouldn't do or say that if I were you". Sometimes, it's more about them than it is about you. That is one of the reasons I hate debating. I forfeit just to avoid unpleasant feelings of the one who would have to debate with me. Even though I was right, it doesn't give me the justification to wreck someone's opinion. I think people debate because they are uncertain themselves. Or the second reason, to appear as something.
Stay true to yourselves and the inner thought, I would say.
I think the main problem here is about what we think and feel like about other perspectives about ourselves. Someone once said that it's more important what things look like, to some, to those we want to make an impression on for example, sure. But what do you think? Is it better to please every perspective and ignore your insights? Is it better to please the crowd when your intuition is saying "don't do that" or "I wouldn't do or say that if I were you". Sometimes, it's more about them than it is about you. That is one of the reasons I hate debating. I forfeit just to avoid unpleasant feelings of the one who would have to debate with me. Even though I was right, it doesn't give me the justification to wreck someone's opinion. I think people debate because they are uncertain themselves. Or the second reason, to appear as something.
Stay true to yourselves and the inner thought, I would say.
D
Deleted member 16771
I am a slave to FeI'm grumpy at Fe
D
Deleted member 16771
I'm Spartacus, you're Spartacus, let's go out in a blaze of glory against our fluffy overlords.I am a slave to Fe
To me, Fe signifies my ability (which is a weakness many times) to totally relate to others and get in their space, even if I don't actually agree with them at all.
Or is that Ni? Now I am getting confused. For me it's a question of: Does keeping the peace conflict with core principles?
Also, I don't think staying true to who you are and your values needs to be done in a way that causes conflict if you are talking about people who are generally emotonally healthy.
I think the way I use Fe that could be called cowardly is disappearing when there is tension or conflict when I think the ultimate outcome doesn't really matter to me that much anyway.
Would you say the following examples are Fi or Fe?
In middle school I had a classmate with poor hygiene. Some girls put soap and deoderant on her desk one morning. I arrived at school before she did. I took the soap and deoderant, threw it out and then yelled at my classmates for their insensitivity. It didn't make me unpopular, though. I always got along fine with everyone regardless of me being preachy sometimes. I think I genuinely like most people and that helped.
Another example - in high school we had an inexperienced teacher. One day, everyone decided to ditch class. I felt bad for her and convinced about five of my friends to stay.
Another example, whenever a fight got nasty I'd just up and disappear, unless it was a person or idea I disliked enough (yeah, that happened occasionally) and wanted to take down. That's probably Fe - right?
It's funny, because when I took a professional career test, the results showed intj, but the description didn't resonate with me. Now when I take any tests, I consistently get infj. And now this thread has me questiong Fe vs. Fi.
However, when I recommended a book for HSP's to a clearly HSP relative, he looked at me and was like, "why would you know about that stuff? You're so normal." I was highly insulted. But I think that's Fe at work.
As an adult, I find that having a set of core values, a core identity, your center, and being able to access your center after any situation is the key for me.
Or is that Ni? Now I am getting confused. For me it's a question of: Does keeping the peace conflict with core principles?
Also, I don't think staying true to who you are and your values needs to be done in a way that causes conflict if you are talking about people who are generally emotonally healthy.
I think the way I use Fe that could be called cowardly is disappearing when there is tension or conflict when I think the ultimate outcome doesn't really matter to me that much anyway.
Would you say the following examples are Fi or Fe?
In middle school I had a classmate with poor hygiene. Some girls put soap and deoderant on her desk one morning. I arrived at school before she did. I took the soap and deoderant, threw it out and then yelled at my classmates for their insensitivity. It didn't make me unpopular, though. I always got along fine with everyone regardless of me being preachy sometimes
. I think I genuinely like most people and that helped. Another example - in high school we had an inexperienced teacher. One day, everyone decided to ditch class. I felt bad for her and convinced about five of my friends to stay.
Another example, whenever a fight got nasty I'd just up and disappear, unless it was a person or idea I disliked enough (yeah, that happened occasionally) and wanted to take down. That's probably Fe - right?
It's funny, because when I took a professional career test, the results showed intj, but the description didn't resonate with me. Now when I take any tests, I consistently get infj. And now this thread has me questiong Fe vs. Fi.
However, when I recommended a book for HSP's to a clearly HSP relative, he looked at me and was like, "why would you know about that stuff? You're so normal." I was highly insulted
. But I think that's Fe at work. As an adult, I find that having a set of core values, a core identity, your center, and being able to access your center after any situation is the key for me.
D
Deleted member 16771
FiIn middle school I had a classmate with poor hygiene. Some girls put soap and deoderant on her desk one morning. I arrived at school before she did. I took the soap and deoderant, threw it out and then yelled at my classmates for their insensitivity. It didn't make me unpopular, though. I always got along fine with everyone regardless of me being preachy sometimes
Fe skills, Fi motivations.
Depends what everyone else is doing.
Thanks for the reply.
This is confusing. I am pretty sure I am a feeler.
Also, I kind of do care what people think of me. I just don't need them to think I fit in with them.
Great question, I guess I've never thought of my Fe Function as either being cowardice or courageous. As far back as I can remember I have always thought of how certain situations made me feel, or observing others go through them. So overtime I didn't so much have to go through the exact situation, but I could identify with common feelings associated with them to empathize with others.
Personally my Fe Function is in full swing when I identify maltreatment, whether that be bullying, abuse, manipulation, etc. Basically anything that inflicts some element of emotional or mental anguish for no reason. Having said that I would identify it as protection moreso than courageous or cowardice. It feels like a natural reflex when I really think about it.
By the time I reached adolescence constant observation lead to spotting a commonality amongst those who are cruel for entertainment or power. The ability to treat someone poorly was really just a way to compensate for low self-esteem, and who better to project that on then those who wouldn't stand up for themselves.
My Fe function is in no way to go against the group, later in life I found a quote that accurately described it...
"To turn the other cheek to injustice is to be an accomplice to it."
For example, in highschool I noticed it was common to see a group of 5+ to 1 scenario. Others just watched, or laughed for whatever reason. My instinct to defend that person overrode the logic that I was outnumbered in those instances, but I didn't care I wasn't thinking about that. It was more about "Okay I see you're doing this to someone that won't fight back, so I will take their place..try me." Again it was using my own similar experiences to save another from having to.
I suppose it would be easy to say I was just being oppositional to the group if one couldn't understand why I just couldn't keep my mouth shut and mind my own business. So if some element of foul play is occurring that could inflict harm on someone, I walk solo no prob if the whole herd hates me for calling out bullshit oh well. It could be Christmas dinner at Grandmas (yes, it's happened lol) If it was wrong, it's wrong.
Sorry if that's all over the place @MaiklJexocuha it's the best way I could offer incite on the Fe Function from my perspective lol
Personally my Fe Function is in full swing when I identify maltreatment, whether that be bullying, abuse, manipulation, etc. Basically anything that inflicts some element of emotional or mental anguish for no reason. Having said that I would identify it as protection moreso than courageous or cowardice. It feels like a natural reflex when I really think about it.
By the time I reached adolescence constant observation lead to spotting a commonality amongst those who are cruel for entertainment or power. The ability to treat someone poorly was really just a way to compensate for low self-esteem, and who better to project that on then those who wouldn't stand up for themselves.
My Fe function is in no way to go against the group, later in life I found a quote that accurately described it...
"To turn the other cheek to injustice is to be an accomplice to it."
For example, in highschool I noticed it was common to see a group of 5+ to 1 scenario. Others just watched, or laughed for whatever reason. My instinct to defend that person overrode the logic that I was outnumbered in those instances, but I didn't care I wasn't thinking about that. It was more about "Okay I see you're doing this to someone that won't fight back, so I will take their place..try me." Again it was using my own similar experiences to save another from having to.
I suppose it would be easy to say I was just being oppositional to the group if one couldn't understand why I just couldn't keep my mouth shut and mind my own business. So if some element of foul play is occurring that could inflict harm on someone, I walk solo no prob if the whole herd hates me for calling out bullshit oh well. It could be Christmas dinner at Grandmas (yes, it's happened lol) If it was wrong, it's wrong.
Sorry if that's all over the place @MaiklJexocuha it's the best way I could offer incite on the Fe Function from my perspective lol
I think Fe is ultimately corrosive.
Fe users are kindly, well-meaning people, no doubt. Their compassion gets them involved in people's feelings and emotions, but from everything I've observed, Fe users get over-involved and burdened with people's NEGATIVE FEELINGS a lot more than their positive ones.
Fe users seem to be heavily biased towards keeping any negative feels in check, be they real or imagined, especially hurt, sadness, and depression. While this in itself isn't criticism-worthy, it's implications are.
Fe users are the archetypal sjws; they will attack anything which might cause anyone sadness. I suspect it's because Fe's unconsciously have such a strong aversion to being drawn into empathizing with negative feelings, that they're willing to attack even good things, if they perceive there being a possibility that someone might feel bad about it. This is essentially emotional hedonism, and hedonism destroys the kind of goods and principles worth fighting for, simply because they aren't easy to achieve.
Moreover, Fe differs from Fi, in that Fi characterises personal integrity and conscience, whereas Fe characterises communal integrity and conscience. Again, this isn't bad in itself, but it certainly leads to Old-Testament style brutality: if someone does bad, the entire nation is cursed, so wrong-doers are treated with brutality, even if their crime is merely proposing a medical treatment, which might cause a few people negative feelings.
The result of an Fe dominated culture, is that progress isn't measured by advances in knowledge and technology, but by how few people have negative feelings. It's conformist tribal thinking at its worst.
Fe users are kindly, well-meaning people, no doubt. Their compassion gets them involved in people's feelings and emotions, but from everything I've observed, Fe users get over-involved and burdened with people's NEGATIVE FEELINGS a lot more than their positive ones.
Fe users seem to be heavily biased towards keeping any negative feels in check, be they real or imagined, especially hurt, sadness, and depression. While this in itself isn't criticism-worthy, it's implications are.
Fe users are the archetypal sjws; they will attack anything which might cause anyone sadness. I suspect it's because Fe's unconsciously have such a strong aversion to being drawn into empathizing with negative feelings, that they're willing to attack even good things, if they perceive there being a possibility that someone might feel bad about it. This is essentially emotional hedonism, and hedonism destroys the kind of goods and principles worth fighting for, simply because they aren't easy to achieve.
Moreover, Fe differs from Fi, in that Fi characterises personal integrity and conscience, whereas Fe characterises communal integrity and conscience. Again, this isn't bad in itself, but it certainly leads to Old-Testament style brutality: if someone does bad, the entire nation is cursed, so wrong-doers are treated with brutality, even if their crime is merely proposing a medical treatment, which might cause a few people negative feelings.
The result of an Fe dominated culture, is that progress isn't measured by advances in knowledge and technology, but by how few people have negative feelings. It's conformist tribal thinking at its worst.
Both and neither depending on the situation.
I guess any form of judgment could be correct or incorrect in a given moment, just as much as that given moment being subjective to ones experience and growth of understanding.
I guess any form of judgment could be correct or incorrect in a given moment, just as much as that given moment being subjective to ones experience and growth of understanding.