How do you use extraverted feeling? How do you experience it?

[Ren]

I'm not sure on the order, there, but we definitely see you reflecting on your feelings an awful lot - having said that, though, it's what we would expect from a video diary format, right?

The point is that all of those Introverted functions are balanced with an extroverted expression. When you use Ti, for instance, there's still a reflex to investigate its truth value and utility (Te). Your Fi use is tempered with an exploration of how others feel (Fe), too. A lot of the time when you talk about how you feel (Fi) or do things, you'll compare yourself with your brother or mother, &c. (Fe).

There is thus a reflexivity to our function use that is rarely mentioned I think.

That's very interesting. It isn't always easy for me to understand exactly how I feel, but it is true that I spend quite a bit of time making sense of it and the videos have become a part of that.

I've also become more reflective in that sense since I began my sabbatical.

 

[Ren]

I have a recurrent experience of "understanding how I feel, but a little too late", like after a decision has been made that I wouldn't have made had I understood faster.

The current period I'm in is about addressing this and becoming more aware of my deep feelings. Maybe I am in my "Fi" period

 

[Infjente]

Ever since that thread about parents types, I've been wondering if typing gets more difficult when one's parents don't share the same judging functions?

 

[John K]

I've got some more questions about the feeling function and I'd be interested in people's views on these:

• Does the way feeling judgement is described in general inhibit men from identifying with it, and even lead to mis-typing? Jung himself describes it in terms of his female patients and seems to introduce a gender bias into the F-T dichotomy. Many of the web sites in particular describe it in sugar coated terms, and I found it quite hard myself in the past to look past these biased descriptions and see the heart of what it is.

• Is feeling judgement the only way we can actively express our moral behaviour? It seems to me that our values are where we distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and how we choose in relation to those values is where we become saints or sinners - or more likely somewhere in between. I start to wonder whether thinking judgement, based on logic, can have any in-the-moment relationship at all to morality - it can only be true, or false, or indeterminate, not good or bad. Of course, thinking may well help us to determine and validate our actual values in the first place, but I'm talking here about the application of those values not their selection. So on this basis, the moral assessment of any thinking choice has to come from a values-based feeling judgement as far as I can see. But does this make sense to anyone else?

 

[Rowan Tree]

SWEET HARMONY is the flavour we are all familiar with: It’s I love you, you are loveable. It’s when I want you to feel good. And it’s when you make me feel good. It's ... that was a great thing you did. It’s when I forgive you. It’s when you don’t like me, but you still want good things for me. It's when I can’t thank you enough, or when I will sacrifice a lot to make you happy. It’s let’s find a way to sort this out. It’s well done! ... It’s how awful! I’m here for you .... or how pleased I am that things have worked out so well for you.

This is definitely the commonly represented and kindest form of Fe. And I think, because in so many ways us INFJs don't naturally fit-in with conventional thinking, we can forget how much Fe is favoured socially over Fi and how in that respect we can be more conventional. I agree with the view that, as well as bitter discord serving as the dark side of sweet harmony, harmony in itself can be perilous. I certainly have to watch in myself a desire to find agreement when I should just draw a line in the sand. As the brilliant (now meme!) puts it:

SALTY NURTURE is the Fe that cares for people’s development: education, social skills, safety, health, spiritual growth. It’s the parent that removes a dangerous object from a child, or teaches them to share. It's the teacher who challenges misbehaviour, poor attitude. It’s a coach that pushes an athlete beyond the pain barrier in training, the manager that deliberately places a promising member of staff outside their comfort zone so they will develop. It’s the friend who challenges us when we are doing something wrong.

Completely agree with @Lady Jolanda here.

SAVOURY EXPLOITATION covers a range of possibilities that run from gaining advantage through to taking advantage for an ulterior purpose. It’s the advert that says ‘buy me and you will be happy – everyone else is doing it’. It’s the politician or clergyman glad-handing, their eyes already shifting over your shoulder to the next person while their smile is still pointed at you. It’s when your mother insists you can’t have a quiet wedding because the family wants a big one. It’s when you are buying a car and you make friends with the salesman, so you and he are all nice guys and he gives you a bigger discount. It’s please fix this problem - I’m pretty upset and annoyed about it.

This, for me, is the logical end of the dark side of harmony. When it must be imposed in all circumstances, harmony becomes a kind of selfish oppression that disguises itself as beneficence.

SOUR SPITE is the Fe that tailgates you because you are in my way and I want you to go faster or get out of my way. It’s when you boost your self esteem by making me feel inadequate. It’s when I don’t like you and want you to know it because that gives me a kick. It’s when I want to control you for your own good - I love you, why don’t you do what I want. Or trust me - I want to scam you. Or, I need you to remain vulnerable because that feeds my feeling of self-worth.

This almost feels like where the dark side of Fe meets the dark side of Fi.

BITTER DISCORD is the polar opposite of Harmony. It’s hate - I wish you harm. It’s destroying your ex-partners possessions after a break-up. It’s when I enjoy hurting you and making you despise yourself. It’s when they aren’t like us, they are different, rubbish, dangerous. Or, it’s when I will sacrifice a lot to harm you. Or again, it’s when I am unforgiveable / I can never forgive you. And it’s when revenge is sweet. It's when I make you obey me by compelling you with fear and pain.

Yes, I have seen in myself a tendency to do this in extremis. And it is very unhealthy. This is the INFJ doorslam when it is not justified, when another route would better serve everyone.

In these terms, an INFJ's cognitive preferences could be expressed like this:

Ni-Ne
Fe-Fi
Ti-Te
Se-Si

I like this way of framing it, and it links quite well to the shadow functions. And to the idea that:

Everyone's is a little unbalanced.

I am conscious (more or less) of using Si but I often feel like I suck at using Fi lol.

I think Fi is something I often express as an insecurity, and I have seen that in some of your videos in a relatable way.

 

[John K]

Many thanks for your thoughts Rowan

harmony in itself can be perilous

That's a very insightful perspective from both you and @Deleted member 16771. The corollary may well be that Discord can be beneficial, when it is used to disrupt an evil for example.

Completely agree with @Lady Jolanda here.

I'm surprised at the way you and @Lady Jolanda have picked out the negative side of Nurture - maybe it's the way I expressed it. What I had in mind was (for instance) choosing a present inconvenience or discomfort in order to gain a clear future benefit. It's how good parents and educators operate, as well as good coaches. It's present discomfort for future Harmony, perhaps.

I think Fi is something I often express as an insecurity, and I have seen that in some of your videos in a relatable way.

Oh yes - that resonates with me too !!!

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Haha well, I'm sure my views are colored by the few positive experiences I've had with Nurture. I also think the negative side stands out more - the positive side of parenting, educating and coaching is more 'invisible', behind the scenes. Exactly because the focus lies on the coachee, not the coach.

 

[John K]

Haha well, I'm sure my views are colored by the few positive experiences I've had with Nurture. I also think the negative side stands out more - the positive side of parenting, educating and coaching is more 'invisible', behind the scenes. Exactly because the focus lies on the coachee, not the coach.

Of course and I suspect these negative sides of Nurture are riddled with undertones of Exploitation or Spite rather than pure manifestations of Nurture which I conceived as always being focused on the benefit of the recipient. I suspect many feeling judgements are mixed combinations of several of these flavours,

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Does the way feeling judgement is described in general inhibit men from identifying with it, and even lead to mis-typing?

I think this is probably the case, although I have to say that personally I never resisted my 'F-ness' because I was very aware of my emotionality. Ironically, of course, I'm actually a T, so I wonder if there's some non-gendered bias at play where people like to identify more with those traits that they're developing.

Even so, yes Fe is described in a way that might make men less likely to identify with it, and I'm sure that there would be ways to avoid the connotations of the label. Even something like calling the feeling functions 'fire' and the thinking functions 'air' would do a lot to mitigate this bias, and then experimenting with 'masculinised' descriptions might be fun, if not ideal (since ideally we would want gender-neutral descriptions).

I'm thinking about what a 'masculinised Fe description' would sound like. Maybe something like this:
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) - 'Bold Heart Function'
Fe is the awareness of the emotions of people around us, and the ability to actively guide those emotions. Someone who uses Fe makes the feelings of those around them their responsibility, often putting others at ease with their calming and protective aura in addition to a confident use of social skill.

Actually yeah, it wouldn't be that hard, and you don't even have to be obvious about it ('protective aura' was a bit obvious, I grant). Even just suggesting aspects like 'mastery' ('social skill', 'awareness') and 'control' ('responsibility') is probably enough to do the job.

Is feeling judgement the only way we can actively express our moral behaviour?

If I engaged completely with this question I'd end up writing multiple paragraphs (since it's a thread in itself) which would ultimately run into the problem of moral axioms. In terms of MBTI, moral axioms can only really be described as Fi, with everything else either a justification (Ti, Si) or expression (Fe, Te) of those axioms.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Of course and I suspect these negative sides of Nurture are riddled with undertones of Exploitation or Spite rather than pure manifestations of Nurture which I conceived as always being focused on the benefit of the recipient. I suspect many feeling judgements are mixed combinations of several of these flavours,

Yeah, I mean check out the damage that narcissistic parenting does, and especially something like submitting to the family vibe (Fe), 'keeping the family secret', 'keeping up appearances', sweeping things under the rug for the sake of harmony, &c.

In fact, it might be useful to come us with a series of statements (speech-acts if you like) that demonstrate 'negative Fe':
- 'We don't talk about that'
- 'Don't get too deep when people are here, keep it light'
- 'keep your issues to yourself'
- 'talking about that is inappropriate'
- 'don't kiss your manfriend/girlfriend in public'
- 'we have fun in this family, join in'
- 'get up and dance, or you're a party pooper'

And basically any variation of 'the group/appearances are more important than you'. I suppose the negatives of Fe are a bit like the drawbacks of utilitarian ethics (Fe) as opposed to Kantian ethics (Fi); one calculates that the individual is disposable for the sake of the group (Fe), the other insists that the individual always has value (Fi).

 

[Impact Character]

Extroverted Feeling (Fe) - 'Bold Heart Function'
Fe is the awareness of the emotions of people around us, and the ability to actively guide those emotions. Someone who uses Fe makes the feelings of those around them their responsibility, often putting others at ease with their calming and protective aura in addition to a confident use of social skill.

-pointing out or argue how someone else has rude behaviour or stepping out of line and having severe negative impact on group atmosphere/feelings of all participants
-fighting or stepping on it when someone else was rude, morally painful and so forth to the group.. (that protector type)
So basically a more direct and harsher approach like a pushover or spokesman, especially when noone assert themselves though the group suffers even more from it by keeping silent.

while female Fe is way softer in terms of words, such as being careful, tactful and gentle with insights presented to the tribe (means not in an arguing way but rather stating something).. sensory Fe is often indirect action, too: feeding hungry stubborns that argue to calm them for example, change background music and lighting, recommend a break to everyone to calm down when it is too emotional..just to name a couple..

I have seen people execute both depending on the environment and usually still with a general preference for one or the other "gender" style, if they were feeling well that is.

Yeah, I mean check out the damage that narcissistic parenting does, and especially something like submitting to the family vibe (Fe), 'keeping the family secret', 'keeping up appearances', sweeping things under the rug for the sake of harmony, &c.

In fact, it might be useful to come us with a series of statements (speech-acts if you like) that demonstrate 'negative Fe':
- 'We don't talk about that'
- 'Don't get too deep when people are here, keep it light'
- 'keep your issues to yourself'
- 'talking about that is inappropriate'
- 'don't kiss your manfriend/girlfriend in public'
- 'we have fun in this family, join in'
- 'get up and dance, or you're a party pooper'

And basically any variation of 'the group/appearances are more important than you'. I suppose the negatives of Fe are a bit like the drawbacks of utilitarian ethics (Fe) as opposed to Kantian ethics (Fi); one calculates that the individual is disposable for the sake of the group (Fe), the other insists that the individual always has value (Fi).

I'm impressed how close this content is to tricky families that look good on paper and show quite the same symptoms like the usually better known extreme abusive family situations that cause childhood PTSD.

 

[Rowan Tree]

I'm surprised at the way you and @Lady Jolanda have picked out the negative side of Nurture - maybe it's the way I expressed it. What I had in mind was (for instance) choosing a present inconvenience or discomfort in order to gain a clear future benefit. It's how good parents and educators operate, as well as good coaches. It's present discomfort for future Harmony, perhaps.

I can definitely see what you mean, and indeed I like nurturing in this sense, but I can often see how taking a teaching role can be a way of controlling the other to distract from the self. And sometimes I wonder if a more anxious Fi style of teaching, one that undermines itself by demanding autonomy in the other, can be a good alternative model. These things are all about subtle imbalances, though.

I suppose the negatives of Fe are a bit like the drawbacks of utilitarian ethics (Fe) as opposed to Kantian ethics (Fi); one calculates that the individual is disposable for the sake of the group (Fe), the other insists that the individual always has value (Fi).

That's an interesting way to put it and I think works in broad terms. But I often also think both utilitarianism and deontology could have negative Fi and Fe versions. The utilitarian that insists that their premises lead inexorably to a hard antinatalism seem to me both a reductio ab absurdum against utilitarianism itself and a very Fi type position (in this way, David Benatar strikes me as Fi in his thinking). Whereas the utilitarian who argues that virtue signaling is generally good and should be encouraged as a rule because it inspires more beneficent acts overall (a position that, imo, makes a mockery of nuanced conceptions of human flourishing) is quite an Fe utilitarianism (see Peter Singer). The development of Kantianism seems to more radically depart from Kant's orginal thought than the development of utiliarianism, which seems a fairly consistent application, but whereas Jürgen Habermas strikes me as quite Fe in his thinking, Jacques Lacan seems more Fi. I could be being unfair, here though—as a dirty virute ethicist.

 

[Asa]

Great thread. Really interesting in-depth explanation of Fe.

Saltiness: Saltiness is my major flavor… I’m known among my friends and acquaintances for giving helpful, honest, but kind advice.
Even when I act like a 'bitch' toward someone my objective is about the other person’s personal growth and/or the overall positive growth of the group. (This behavior has a lot to do with acceptable behavior within my "culture", too.)

Sweetness: My sweetness is supportive, genuinely happy for successes and “there for people” when their lives take a downturn, but I’m not overly sweet. This has caused me to think my Fe is under-developed. I will drop everything to help a friend, hold doors for people, help random strangers, etc, but I’m not Ms. Bubblehearts and Lollypops, and I have good boundaries about being a people-pleaser. I really, really care – that’s sweetness. Extroverted Fe doms are described as the kinds of people everyone likes because of sweet and savoury. I admire that about Fe doms.


Savoury: Ugh. I’m not a fan of Savoury, but it won’t go away. Savoury is the struggle that won’t ever let me forget what other people think, or stop weighing what others want with what I may or may not want. Savoury is what made me join a subculture to be different with other people who are the same kind of different, as opposed to Fi doms who are fully comfortable with saying, “I am just me.” Combined, savoury, sweetness, and saltiness give all the fucks, and don’t mesh with the IDGAF, “No Fucks To Give” mentality. Savoury makes me fret over whether people will like my art or writing, and really hang on other’s opinions and support, even if I know I shouldn’t. Savoury makes me go along with, try not to make waves, stay silent when I should speak up. Savoury makes me speak up when I don’t want to, and be loud when it makes me uncomfortable, because I feel the pressure from the herd. Savoury makes me bold about how I am different because I’m so uncomfortable with being different that my only defense is acting like I enjoy being “other”. It’s my ability (along with sweet) to chat with just about anyone and make them feel more comfortable, even if we have nothing in common. I’m not saying I’m always chained down by savoury, but I always feel the pull.

INFJs have an interesting relationship with Savoury because we don’t fit in, which makes us individuals, yet we feel the urge to fit in, because we have Fe.

Is there an umani that is some kind of better version of savory? I’d like that.

Sour and Bitter: I’m repulsed by both sour and bitter. When I was younger I delved into this a bit because of course immaturity always brings out chaotic facets of type. If I acted on it, it always made me extremely uncomfortable and people would tell me it was very unnatural for me.
I will punch a motherfucker in the face if he harms me or my loved ones. That’s bitter, but it is also protection and justice.
I never want revenge or to hurt others, I really, really don’t. I mostly want people who’ve hurt me to go away and stay away. Door slamming is a good set-up for ensuring that happens.

There are very few situations (2) where I've felt bitterness/sourness toward others in recent years, and it is mostly about my pain. I haven't wanted revenge or harm to come to them.

Sometimes I wish awful things would happen to sadists and those who cause harm. Like, I wish hunters would get attacked by the animals they’re trying to kill because hunters suck, or trip and break a leg in the forest so they can't kill animals. I wish every person who abused an animal or child would break their fingers every time they hit. I wish harmful politicians would be booted from office, etc. Stuff like that is still sour and/or bitter, even if it is "fantasy justice".

 

[Rowan Tree]

Is there an umani that is some kind of better version of savory? I’d like that.

 

[Impact Character]

Is there an umani that is some kind of better version of savory? I’d like that.

I liked the umani inquiry, too haha <3

 

[Asa]

I liked the umani inquiry, too haha <3

Umami is a nice, balanced, positive savoury. I hope we can all find that.

PS: I also like this dog.

 

[Infjente]

How do you understand and use extraverted feeling?

Fantastic idea for a thread!

To me, Fe is like an anchor. On one hand it's stops me from sailing where I want/need to go, on the other hand it's what keeps me from drifting away when I want/need to stay put. I think it works in a similar way for the ENFP with aux Fi, so I'll add some notes on how my yin (or yang?) ENFP has explained his Fi for comparison. *Take those notes with a grain of salt, please*

SWEET HARMONY is the flavour we are all familiar with: It’s I love you, you are loveable. It’s when I want you to feel good. And it’s when you make me feel good. It's ... that was a great thing you did. It’s when I forgive you. It’s when you don’t like me, but you still want good things for me. It's when I can’t thank you enough, or when I will sacrifice a lot to make you happy. It’s let’s find a way to sort this out. It’s well done! ... It’s how awful! I’m here for you .... or how pleased I am that things have worked out so well for you.

I had to think of this flavor as a scale of sweetness, ranging from sweet to bittersweet, in order to not confuse myself.

Sweet: is "when the stars are in line"/the ocean is completely still, and there's no need for the anchor.

Me/Fe: this is the state where I can "freestyle" my expression of love and care. Everything is already in harmony, so I'm free to make people feel good, for the actual sake of making them feel good and appreciated. There's no concerns, no weighing of future consequences or a "greater good agenda".

Him/Fi: Has very much the same expression as my Fe. There's no inner conflicts with authenticity or values that's hindering him from expressing his love and appreciation freely - or from taking in the love and appreciation without checking wether it's true/authentic.

Bittersweet: is when the circumstances are in chaos/full storm, and the anchor is needed to help make the right decision, and you succeed.

Me/Fe: This is what I'm always
preparing for. This is where I must not fail. This is where I'm going to give it my all. This is where I'll go into the center of the storm to grab and hold the all the ropes so nothing drifts away, and hope I'm strong enough to not let go, even if I'm ripped apart.

Him/Fi: This is where he need to know that he is prepared to take care of himself. That he won't fail himself. That he is giving his all to look after himself. And hope he is strong enough to not sacrifice himself being the one holding it all together and being ripped apart.

In daylight, Fe looks like the "better" function under these circumstances, but that's not necessarily the case. Why are we both so determined to pass this "test"? Maybe it's because we both know we are likely to fail? I fear being selfish, he fear being selfless ... What does that say about us really?

SALTY NURTURE is the Fe that cares for people’s development: education, social skills, safety, health, spiritual growth. It’s the parent that removes a dangerous object from a child, or teaches them to share. It's the teacher who challenges misbehaviour, poor attitude. It’s a coach that pushes an athlete beyond the pain barrier in training, the manager that deliberately places a promising member of staff outside their comfort zone so they will develop. It’s the friend who challenges us when we are doing something wrong.

Me/Fe: this is the Fe that's always there. The feeling is not personal, but more of an outside radar picking up indicators of harmony/disharmony. Those indicators are used in an inner process where I'm determining what's important now for the sake of future harmony.
The Fe "absorbing feelings"- thing, I kind of get, and I kind of don't. What I'm feeling depends on where my attention is directed, I think. If I'm tuned in on someone, I guess I feel the "theory" of what they are experiencing, without feeling much of the actual sensation that comes with? If I'm spaced out or focused on something else, I'm likely to be bothered when I sense other's negative emotions, and take on similar emotions. But that's not really absorbing as I see it, but my nervous system mimicking what I've interpreted or something. I guess that's why it feels like Fe "is always on", because the more I ignore it, the more it burns. When "bothered" long enough, I start holding the poor, innocent, suffering people responsible for it, like as if they were doing it on purpose

Him/Fi: Fi is always on as well. It's personal, and used to determine what he needs to do, not so much what needs to be done. His responsibility is to act accordingly to his values, no matter what. That might include taking action in all of the "salty nature examples", some of them or non of them. If he ignores his Fi, it will haunt him as a deep grudge against himself (sometimes projected). He is never present in the moment, and often has to "sleep on his feelings" to know what he is actually feeling about something. That's because conflicting values can occur at the same time: "a person should be patient" vs "a person should not take shit", both has to be felt thoroughly before he can make up his mind (which often makes it hard to communicate boundaries as well).


For the last three flavors, I'm in denial

 

[John K]

I think this is probably the case, although I have to say that personally I never resisted my 'F-ness' because I was very aware of my emotionality. Ironically, of course, I'm actually a T, so I wonder if there's some non-gendered bias at play where people like to identify more with those traits that they're developing

My own experience was rather different interestingly. When I came across descriptions of Fe, I didn't resist them, it was more that I just didn't recognise it as the way I was behaving - it didn't seem to fit, and I went with T as a default, particularly as I'm good with Ti. With better information, and much introspection I came to change my views, but that came from looking at generic overall INFJ type behaviours and INFJ weak spots as much as from an initial better understanding of F.
I must say that your own Fi values are very well honed and strong - you have a mastery in the way you express them that really underlines the image of Bold Heart
to me, even though I know you were thinking of Fe with that idea.

Fe is the awareness of the emotions of people around us, and the ability to actively guide those emotions. Someone who uses Fe makes the feelings of those around them their responsibility, often putting others at ease with their calming and protective aura in addition to a confident use of social skill.

This is quite different from how I understand F. For me it's a decision making process in either orientation, not primarily an awareness of emotions. The decisions I make are based on emotionally supported values, but it's primarily the way I make many of my judgements and choices in the outer world. I think that my awareness of emotions in the people around me comes from a combination of Se, Ni and Fe in combination, rather than just from Fe - there's certainly a lot of Ni perception in there before any Fe judgement kicks in - but maybe it's different for other people.

-pointing out or argue how others have rude behaviour or stepping out of line when it had severe negative impact on group atmosphere/feelings of all participants
-fighting or stepping on it when others were rude, morally painful and so forth to the group.. (that protector type)
So basically a more direct and harsher approach like a pushover or spokesman, especially when noone asserted themselves though the group suffered even more from it by keeping silent.

That's a good example of my Salty kind of Fe

while female Fe is way softer in terms of words, such as being careful, tactful and gentle with insights presented to the tribe.

And that's a good example of Sweet Fe

while female Fe is way softer in terms of words, such as being careful, tactful and gentle with insights presented to the tribe.. sensory Fe is often indirect action, too: feeding hungry stubborns that argue to calm them for example, change background music and lighting, recommend a break to everyone to calm down when it is too emotional..just to name a couple..

And this I suspect is a blend of Sweet and Salty .....

but I can often see how taking a teaching role can be a way of controlling the other to distract from the self. And sometimes I wonder if a more anxious Fi style of teaching, one that undermines itself by demanding autonomy in the other, can be a good alternative model. These things are all about subtle imbalances, though.

I think this is a very good example of Salt Nurture, combined with Sour Spite which sustains a problem in someone else in order to balance a problem in your own ego - it's a touch vampiric. But let's be honest - many examples of nurturing are going to be mixed. A professional counsellor will hopefully be motivated by the desire to help others through their personal difficulties, and this may involve some challenges and initial out of comfort zone experience for the patient, so we are in the Nurture Zone. But the counsellor is also making a living out of this, and probably wouldn't be involved if there was no income from it, so there is Exploitation here as well - of a good sort.

Is there an umani that is some kind of better version of savory? I’d like that.

Thank you very much for your thoughts Asa, which gave me a lot of confidence that I'm not completely out of court with some of these ideas. The Savoury flavour is the one I had most challenge with - it's the taste that really isn't a good metaphor for the type of Feeling behaviour that I was trying to grasp. My intent was to polarise the different ways feeling could be used, but with the expectation that most feeling judgements would probably express a combination of these. I've attempted to rank them in a spectrum from very good to very bad, though of course this could never be more than an approximation - there are bad aspects to Harmony, and good aspects to Discord in some circumstances. Exploitation is in the middle - it includes the example I gave above of a professional who makes his living out of Nurture. It also includes the holiday advert that appeals to me on Fe grounds, and helps me to a valued travel experience as well as making money for the supplier. It also includes things on the border with Spite, such as the glad-handing vicar who unintentionally discounts you while greeting you. Maybe it should be split further - and I'd like to find a better metaphor for this part of the spectrum.



Just on a more general note - it's encouraging that so far everyone who has contributed has gone with the idea that there is a dark side to Feeling. That was for me one of the concepts that seems least well expressed in descriptions of the Feeling function in the world at large.

 

[John K]

Fantastic idea for a thread!

To me, Fe is like an anchor. On one hand it's stops me from sailing where I want/need to go, on the other hand it's what keeps me from drifting away when I want/need to stay put. I think it works in a similar way for the ENFP with aux Fi, so I'll add some notes on how my yin (or yang?) ENFP has explained his Fi for comparison. *Take those notes with a grain of salt, please*



I had to think of this flavor as a scale of sweetness, ranging from sweet to bittersweet, in order to not confuse myself.

Sweet: is "when the stars are in line"/the ocean is completely still, and there's no need for the anchor.

Me/Fe: this is the state where I can "freestyle" my expression of love and care. Everything is already in harmony, so I'm free to make people feel good, for the actual sake of making them feel good and appreciated. There's no concerns, no weighing of future consequences or a "greater good agenda".

Him/Fi: Has very much the same expression as my Fe. There's no inner conflicts with authenticity or values that's hindering him from expressing his love and appreciation freely - or from taking in the love and appreciation without checking wether it's true/authentic.

Bittersweet: is when the circumstances are in chaos/full storm, and the anchor is needed to help make the right decision, and you succeed.

Me/Fe: This is what I'm always
preparing for. This is where I must not fail. This is where I'm going to give it my all. This is where I'll go into the center of the storm to grab and hold the all the ropes so nothing drifts away, and hope I'm strong enough to not let go, even if I'm ripped apart.

Him/Fi: This is where he need to know that he is prepared to take care of himself. That he won't fail himself. That he is giving his all to look after himself. And hope he is strong enough to not sacrifice himself being the one holding it all together and being ripped apart.

In daylight, Fe looks like the "better" function under these circumstances, but that's not necessarily the case. Why are we both so determined to pass this "test"? Maybe it's because we both know we are likely to fail? I fear being selfish, he fear being selfless ... What does that say about us really?



Me/Fe: this is the Fe that's always there. The feeling is not personal, but more of an outside radar picking up indicators of harmony/disharmony. Those indicators are used in an inner process where I'm determining what's important now for the sake of future harmony.
The Fe "absorbing feelings"- thing, I kind of get, and I kind of don't. What I'm feeling depends on where my attention is directed, I think. If I'm tuned in on someone, I guess I feel the "theory" of what they are experiencing, without feeling much of the actual sensation that comes with? If I'm spaced out or focused on something else, I'm likely to be bothered when I sense other's negative emotions, and take on similar emotions. But that's not really absorbing as I see it, but my nervous system mimicking what I've interpreted or something. I guess that's why it feels like Fe "is always on", because the more I ignore it, the more it burns. When "bothered" long enough, I start holding the poor, innocent, suffering people responsible for it, like as if they were doing it on purpose

Him/Fi: Fi is always on as well. It's personal, and used to determine what he needs to do, not so much what needs to be done. His responsibility is to act accordingly to his values, no matter what. That might include taking action in all of the "salty nature examples", some of them or non of them. If he ignores his Fi, it will haunt him as a deep grudge against himself (sometimes projected). He is never present in the moment, and often has to "sleep on his feelings" to know what he is actually feeling about something. That's because conflicting values can occur at the same time: "a person should be patient" vs "a person should not take shit", both has to be felt thoroughly before he can make up his mind (which often makes it hard to communicate boundaries as well).

Thank's so much for this comparison between the Fe and Fi experience - it's fascinating . It's clear to me from @Deleted member 16771's comments and your specific examples that the model I suggested could probably extend to F as a whole, rather than just be restricted to Fe - though it would need some Fi based examples to illustrate it.

For the last three flavors, I'm in denial

Spoiler

 

[jn56uytrx]

To begin, I am sliding into the belief that I lean more heavily into the infp camp, but the most confusing aspect of that discernment is strong use of something that at least often looks like Fe. So, I think this reflection may be more comparison from the other side of the F ring. Take it for what it's worth.

SWEET HARMONY is the flavour we are all familiar with: It’s I love you, you are loveable. It’s when I want you to feel good. And it’s when you make me feel good. It's ... that was a great thing you did. It’s when I forgive you. It’s when you don’t like me, but you still want good things for me. It's when I can’t thank you enough, or when I will sacrifice a lot to make you happy. It’s let’s find a way to sort this out. It’s well done! ... It’s how awful! I’m here for you .... or how pleased I am that things have worked out so well for you.

When I genuinely feel this way, it naturally pours out of me. Other times I am not feeling it, but I recognize the social environment expects it. I then either go through an internal process of aligning the expected behavior with my internal experience (so it is genuine), or quietly withdraw from participating. I have a hard time doing this when I don't feel it and will do lots of internal acrobatics to get aligned, or I have to get out. Sometimes, if the dissonance gets too bad, I might lose it and say angry judgy things about stupid social expectations. Then slink away in shame because that kind of outburst isn't in alignment with my values about non-judgement and respect for all ways of being.

SALTY NURTURE is the Fe that cares for people’s development: education, social skills, safety, health, spiritual growth. It’s the parent that removes a dangerous object from a child, or teaches them to share. It's the teacher who challenges misbehaviour, poor attitude. It’s a coach that pushes an athlete beyond the pain barrier in training, the manager that deliberately places a promising member of staff outside their comfort zone so they will develop. It’s the friend who challenges us when we are doing something wrong.

I kind of suck at this. I lean very heavily into letting people find their own way. My limit setting generally comes from when someone is crossing my boundaries and I tell them no. I try not to save others from that discomfort anymore, because I have realized that it is part of their process of growth. I will try to teach people things, but it is usually because they have come to me asking for certain knowledge. Or if to stay to connected with them, I need them to learn something to behave in a way that works better for me. But, in the end it always their choice to say yes or not. I do notice sometimes when people are doing things that may not benefit them and might try to get them to see it and want to change, but often that is still self-motivated because of my job and fears of judgement if I don't address something glaring. More often, if I am not impacted and people aren't asking for my influence, I let them be.

Truth be told I am annoyed by people who think they know what others need more than people themselves do. I assume people will find what they need when they are ready and if I am what they need, I am happy to help to the degree they say they want to receive.

SAVOURY EXPLOITATION covers a range of possibilities that run from gaining advantage through to taking advantage for an ulterior purpose. It’s the advert that says ‘buy me and you will be happy – everyone else is doing it’. It’s the politician or clergyman glad-handing, their eyes already shifting over your shoulder to the next person while their smile is still pointed at you. It’s when you mother insists you can’t have a quiet wedding because the family wants a big one. It’s when you are buying a car and you make friends with the salesman, so you and he are all nice guys and he gives you a bigger discount. It’s please fix this problem - I’m pretty upset and annoyed about it.

I think that my profession pays me to connect and help, which leaves me vulnerable to this one. I think I have begun to burn out a bit because the forces in my job have pushed me farther into this to survive and when I am too far into it, the work no longer touches my soul or brings out my best self to those I entered the field to serve. It's one of the parts of life that suck. I'm trying to rebalance back, while still acknowledging this is a part of life and the reality of this has to be navigated.

Well, as I reflect, there is a part of this I am totally OK with. If I have a need or want, I feel comfortable asking someone to meet it. I think it is good boundaries to do so, and to expect the other person to decline if they do not want to. I do not feel comfortable with hidden agendas that people do not have the freedom to decline participation in.

SOUR SPITE is the Fe that tailgates you because you are in my way and I want you to go faster or get out of my way. It’s when you boost your self esteem by making me feel inadequate. It’s when I don’t like you and want you to know it because that gives me a kick. It’s when I want to control you for your own good - I love you, why don’t you do what I want. Or trust me - I want to scam you. Or, I need you to remain vulnerable because that feeds my feeling of self-worth

My first reaction to this one was as an observer of it used by other people, but in truth, I have to admit when I feel condescended to, one of the things I go to is judging them as weaker for trying to be "better than" essentially just flipping the dynamic in my brain and putting them "lesser than" me. Very sour of me.

BITTER DISCORD is the polar opposite of Harmony. It’s hate - I wish you harm. It’s destroying your ex-partners possessions after a break-up. It’s when I enjoy hurting you and making you despise yourself. It’s when they aren’t like us, they are different, rubbish, dangerous. Or, it’s when I will sacrifice a lot to harm you. Or again, it’s when I am unforgiveable / I can never forgive you. And it’s when revenge is sweet. It's when I make you obey me by compelling you with fear and pain.

My first thought was I don't do this. But it only took a moment of reflection to consider I might, it's just buried in a cloak of my values/righteousness.

Is feeling judgement the only way we can actively express our moral behaviour? It seems to me that our values are where we distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and how we choose in relation to those values is where we become saints or sinners - or more likely somewhere in between. I start to wonder whether thinking judgement, based on logic, can have any in-the-moment relationship at all to morality - it can only be true, or false, or indeterminate, not good or bad. Of course, thinking may well help us to determine and validate our actual values in the first place, but I'm talking here about the application of those values not their selection. So on this basis, the moral assessment of any thinking choice has to come from a values-based feeling judgement as far as I can see. But does this make sense to anyone else?

To bring in a different model, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), what is taught there is Wise Mind, which is the balance of emotion and logic.


In this model, one would be encouraged to become aware of emotional experience and listen to the information the emotional cues provide, but not lean entirely on emotions for decision-making, instead then incorporating that emotional information into logical consideration of other facts. A Wise Mind decision, in this framework, takes both emotion and logic into consideration as valuable parts of the equation for any behavioral choice.