#extraverted feeling

Inferior Fi: Under stress, it’s a pity party of one and how I am persecuted, misunderstood, nobody cares about me or thinks I have feelings.

Inferior Fe: Under stress, it’s frustration and anger at others having unreasonable expectations and demands from me, wanting me to show more than I feel, emotional spilling out (feelings that show outwardly) followed by embarrassment at their lack of control and “irrational” behavior.

Easy way to remember – introverted feelings point inward and are subjective (all about me) and extraverted functions point outward and are objective (all about what the situation demands or what others want). So, ITPs can have emotional meltdowns with their feelings spilling everywhere, and ETJs typically withdraw and become moody. ITPs can also blame everyone else for the problem, since Fe has an outward perspective (it’s your fault, you demanded too much of me, you’re too emotional, etc), while an ETJ may blame themselves for not handling this situation more competently (Te standard).

An old example but a good one – when I was discussing Aragorn one time with a friend in debating his type, we ruled out ISTP because he never has an inferior Fe breakdown. Even when Merry and Pippin are missing, Aragorn just screams with anguish and sinks to his knees (… cuz Viggo broke his toe kicking the helmet, haha) rather than processing his feelings externally with his friends or expressing his guilt and shame in more than Te statements (“we will not leave them to torture and death”). His feelings are all very internal throughout the series (Arwen, you cannot give up your immortality for me, I am not worth it; refraining from talking about her much with his companions or with Eowyn; deciding to face Sauron on his own terms; going after Merry and Pippin, etc). Contrast that with TP Gimli, whose feelings are all out in the open all the time; you know when he’s having a good time, when he’s pissed off, what he feels about elves, etc.

If someone is internal, private, does not show their feelings easily – Fi. If they wear their emotions more prominently on their sleeve, talk about what they feel, express those feelings on the spot – Fe.

Plus, I feel like high FI users can be fake or people pleasers too. Yet people seem to think that if you aren't arguing with everyone who violates your values, then you can't be a high FI user. I also get confused about what NE is too because people always boil it down to "possibilities" and being open-minded as if anybody couldn't do that. Plus, people say NE expands while NI narrows, but NE can be used to form decisions too.

What exactly is the difference between NE and Ni? Can you give an example if possible? Also, what does an Enneagram 6 vs Enneagram 4 look like? I saw your post on how some people may project their attachment styles onto the Enneagram, which made me even more confused because I care about authenticity and hate feeling forced to conform, but I also care about what other people think. Also, people say a major component of SI is that they are in touch with bodily sensations, but what does that even mean?

Sorry for the essay i am just so lost on what I am😭

Hello! I was wondering if you could help me differentiate FE vs FI. Like, I know that FE is about collective values, but if FI is subjective to that and there are high FI users who care about harmony and their values are about others, then what would the difference be? Every time I ask other people that, they reiterate, "Fi is about personal values" instead of actually addressing what I said.

It means… “I am responsible for my own self, nobody else. I am accountable to me.” That is Fi. “I can change my thinking, but not yours.” More Fi. It is a center of focus being in me, myself, and I, rather than in others-sourcing. It is the WAY you think about feelings and approach them. It’s the need to ask, “how would I feel in this situation?” when dealing with other people and their feelings, rather than simply feeling what they are feeling. You have to put yourself in their shoes, and imagine how you would feel, but you don’t ASSUME they feel that way, because they aren’t you, you are you, and you and they are separate, and no one has the exact same experience, because everyone is emotionally different. More Fi. “I hate that painting, it’s hideous.” Fi.

Fe is the opposite. It focuses on what we have in common, in shared experiences and values, in mirroring other people’s emotions back to them to better be in harmony or understand them; it uses “we” terminology and sees itself as an extension of others. It’s not just about me, it’s about “us,” and “what is best for our society/family.” It’s inclusion and outer-in-referencing; I dislike that painting, but they love it, so it must hold value for them, and it would be diplomatic to respect that or try to understand what they love about it. It’s making decisions based on what is best for everyone in your life, and allowing that to shape your thinking.

I have talked a LOT about this, so I suggest you read through the 100 or so posts on the topic here on the blog, as well as consult my IFP / EFJ profiles on FunkyMbti.com. But to bottom line it, the Fi stops drinking because “that’s not who I want to be” and the Fe stops drinking because “it puts my family at risk.” It’s how you interpret things through self or impact on others. That’s the difference.

Plus, I feel like high FI users can be fake or people pleasers too. Yet people seem to think that if you aren't arguing with everyone who violates your values, then you can't be a high FI user.

Sometimes, but it feels discomforting to them, because Fi is all about inner truth and being in alignment with it. So where a Fe might think “being disingenuous is fine here, it’s just to make them happy for now,” the Fi goes “but it’s not how I truly feel about this, and I have to be honest about that!” They can still do it, but it bugs them. Most of the time, Fi/Te understands that you can’t argue anyone into sharing your point of view, so doing so is a total waste of your time and energy, and they won’t bother; they will just go quiet around people they disagree with and do their own thing.

I also get confused about what NE is too because people always boil it down to "possibilities" and being open-minded as if anybody couldn't do that.

Do you really think anyone CAN do that? If that were true, don’t you think the world would be a more open-minded place? How many people do YOU know who actually listen to all ideas without judging them, shooting them down, resisting them, or saying that’s absurd? How many people do you know who play with ideas without being too attached to them and whose minds are always shifting around to a new point of view? Ne is relatively rare in a dominant position, compared to a lot of other types. It’s the ability to shift and ebb with the flow of information without hanging onto anything too tightly, because Ne wants to explore things for their own sake. The higher the Ne, the easier this is to do. For me, Ne means “I wrote this chapter yesterday and it felt right, but I woke up this morning and can see how tearing it apart and taking it in a new direction could make it even better or more interesting, so I’m going to do it.” It means, “I thought this was really interesting yesterday, but am going to take it in a new or even the opposite direction today cuz it’s fun to do it.”

Again, I suggest you read my ENP sections on the website. I go into what intuition is, and what Ne does, which is expansion and theorizing and changing topics rapidly in ways other types struggle to follow. It’s talking about ancient rome and then how much you love Mexican food and the X-files is a great show and do you want to see the new star wars show and today I gotta buy socks at the store and did you know the world’s tallest man was almost 9 feet tall? … all in one conversation or train of thought, because your mind jumps around a lot.

Plus, people say NE expands while NI narrows, but NE can be used to form decisions too.

Ne does not form decisions, no. That is a judging function attitude – so Te/Fe/Ti/Fi decides what to do with what Ne finds. 😊 The higher the Ne, the harder it is for those judging functions to ‘direct’ it. ENPs -> reluctant to commit to a judgment prematurely; INP -> Fi/Ti is making judgments before Ne is activated. SJ -> everything gets weighed against how practical this is or if it contradicts what has worked for a long time.

What exactly is the difference between NE and Ni? Can you give an example if possible?

Ne is: I change my mind about things all the time, re-interpret them, and can pivot when what I want isn’t what is possible, because there’s always another way to approach this project.

Ni is: I visualize clearly an anticipated outcome in my mind and try to orient the outer world toward it, so that it becomes the way I clearly see it. I struggle to accept anything else other than this exact outcome or to change my trajectory if it doesn’t work.

Also, what does an Enneagram 6 vs Enneagram 4 look like?

Enneagram 6: I don’t feel I am superior to anyone else, that would be arrogant and I want to be liked, so that I feel safe around other people and they won’t turn against me or stop me from doing what I want to be doing. When I want to connect, I self-deprecate and use humor and show them I’m likable and trustworthy.

Enneagram 4: I am different from other people, with better tastes and interests, because mine are deeper. Most of them can’t understand me and never will; each rejection just proves this to me more that I do not fit in with normal folks, so most of the time, I don’t bother to try to connect without needing to put my own spin on it and draw attention to how I am different from them.

Also, people say a major component of SI is that they are in touch with bodily sensations, but what does that even mean?

It means, “Petting this cat feels nice. I like doing it. Petting this cat reminds me of all the cats I have loved and what they contributed to my life; it also reminds me of being at my grandmother’s house, and how she had a large white fluffy cat. It’s nice to remember moments like that. I have a lot of good memories in that house.”

Yes and no. It's complicated.

It's easier to look at it as Fe shapes its ethical stances based on the wider impact on other people, and Fi only considers how it feels about it first.

A Fi decides, "I won't drink, that's not who I am," and a Fe decides, "I won't drink, it would set a bad example for my little sister."

One's subjective judgment comes from within; the other's thought process includes those around it.

If we are all taught morals, healthy Fe adopts those that seem to make sense and be considerate of others, and Fi adopts those that resonate from within. Then each treats others accordingly.

If a Fe disagrees with its society or family, it tries to change society or its family to reflect a common value it feels is important. It shapes its world because it desires an emotional consensus and to be in harmony with others. ("How can you not care about global warming? This is affecting us all and will impact people and animals for generations!")

A Fi type who disagrees with society or family is more likely to see trying to change people set in their ways as useless after several attempts (Te) so they will seek a different society who either accept what they think without trying to change their mind or who share it. ("I have found my people!" :D)

In my experience, it’s Fe + 9 that most 9 descriptions are talking about, in terms of merging into and losing oneself in other people’s feelings (this can be real, as in the 9/Fe takes on the emotional perspective of whomever they are with, or “false” as the 9/Fe becomes super agreeable in order to avoid disconnect and conflict, without actually believing the same way others do and not intending to take their advice). I’ve seen FJ 9s agree with one person one minute, and then agree with a second person the next, even though the two perspectives were polar opposites, they were just so keen to avoid any kind of tension or conflict. I think when a lot of authors say that a 9 will listen and agree with their spouse’s perspective, and then go talk to the child who is in trouble, and come downstairs going “I can see their point of view too,” they are specifically talking about Fe and 9 (“I merged into their feelings, and felt for them, and their reasoning made sense”).

Fi and 9 seem to take a different approach of silence; if they disagree but don’t want a fight, they wage an internal war between what do I want more, peace and to maintain this relationship or to assert my views on the subject? Silence descends while they try to decide, or silence means “I don’t want to talk about it / I am going to ignore this and not respond to it, and hope that the other person takes the hint that this conversation is over.”

The biggest thing I’ve noticed is that Fe 9s will give you the silent treatment, whereas Fi 9s will door-slam you. To a Fe, not communicating is an effective punishment, because it contains a signal to the other person that you are now unworthy of me. But they still ultimately want to talk, to get things out in the air, and to clear it up between themselves and others. Fi’s withdraw because “I need time away from you,” not to signal anything to you; they are upset, and need to deal with their feelings in private, and figure out how to address the situation (if at all).

If a Fe-9 gets upset with you, they may address it on the spot (EFJ) or with a delay (IFJ), because they do want to be in harmony with you. An FP/TJ 9 will just stop the conversation or leave without a word, because of the boundary violation causing them to think “I need to pull away and calm down right now.”

Jung thought so, in fact he uses a painting in his original work to illustrate the point, of Fe’s seeing that others place value in it, so it holds meaning. But you need to be careful not to misinterpret him. He says because others hold meaning for the painting, the Fe user sees that it holds objective meaning. “If it means something to so many people, it’s worth paying attention to” is not the same as Fe going “I actually hate that painting tho.” It’s the mindset behind the openness to others’ experiences. Mass appeal denotes objective worth on some level; whereas a Fi user doesn’t consider the objective worth first, or even at all; it's just whether I like it or not.

So, to illustrate better… a Fi and a Fe walk into the same art studio. The Fe thinks “eh, not my style,” but notices that everyone around them seems entranced by it, and so they know it is considered good even if it’s not to their taste, because it has managed to capture the attention or interest of many different people from many different backgrounds and walks of life. The art becomes “not for me, but worthwhile.”

The Fi user walks in and thinks “ick, not for me.” And often, the thought stops there. Or they look around and go “huh, people like it I guess. Weird.”

Fe and Fi can both have a strong sense of self; the difference is that Fi’s sense of self is in isolation, separate from other people, and Fe thinks of self in connection to other people. It’s a mindset of “I am me” (Fi) and “I am me, but my life touches others, so I consider them too” (Fe).

Neither is better or more moral than the other; they are just coming at their personal ethics from two separate frameworks.

Or you could look at it like this. Why do a Fi user and a Fe user stop drinking?

Motives are part of it; Fe wants an emotional consensus, to be on the same page with people, to focus on what they have in common to move toward togetherness; an outside-in perspective. Fi comes at it from an inside-out perspective; how would I want to be treated in this situation and am I giving them the space to be authentic?

Fe reads the room first, then the individual; Fi reads the individual first, then the room.

Fe tracks external signals (vocal tone, facial expressions, body language, social cues; who is comfortable and who isn’t, whether harmony is breaking down between people). They usually quickly know when jokes don’t land or make others uncomfortable, people smile but are upset, or two people are annoyed with each other even if they’re not arguing. Their weakness is that they may misinterpret Fi users whose emotions are hidden, or unexpressed, so they leap to assumptions based on what they expect to happen in that person (this is how someone acts when…).

Fi cares more about inner authenticity, so it looks at whether someone’s feelings seem genuine or artificial, if they are betraying their stated values, are holding internal contradictions (saying one thing and doing another, a misalignment), or subtle signs of distress or pain. They notice if it feels sincere, people are pretending to be okay who aren’t, or are acting out of character for whatever reason. They tend to be more empathetic on one-to-one, but by focusing on one or two people, they may miss out on the group dynamics and be out of sync with them.

(... a lot of earlier stuff skipped)

chatgpt: Two people can prefer abstraction and logical play (Ne–Ti) while being biologically very different animals.

me: is ne a thing or a concept made of BUNCH OF THINGS tho? because if latter, then person x will have a within that bunch higher than b and c. then person y will have b higher than c and a. yet, they both have "ne"?

chatgpt:

Is Ne an actual cognitive unit? Or is it a label slapped onto a cluster of loosely related traits?

Because if Ne =

novelty seeking

divergent thinking

pattern association

abstraction tolerance

idea generation speed

boredom sensitivity

risk curiosity

cognitive flexibility

…then that’s already a bundle.

And if it’s a bundle, then people will vary inside the bundle.

Person A:

high novelty drive

medium abstraction

low risk tolerance

Person B:

insane abstraction

low novelty drive

high verbal divergence

Both get called “Ne.”

Boom. The category blurs.

This is the core issue: typology reifies patterns.

It sees correlated tendencies and compresses them into one named function. But correlation ≠ single mechanism.

Biologically, there’s no “Ne gland.” There are dopamine circuits, frontal connectivity patterns, default mode network traits, etc.

Ne might just be:

A statistical cluster of cognitive traits that tend to co-occur.

That doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. But it does mean it’s:

Approximate

Aggregate

High-level

Not neurologically discrete

The moment you demand mechanistic precision, the function model starts dissolving into trait psychology and neuroscience.

You’re basically asking: Are these functions real cognitive primitives, or are they narrative groupings?

There’s no solid evidence they’re primitives.

They behave more like elegant abstractions over messy trait constellations.

And once you see that, the black-and-white assignments start looking even more artificial.

me: is this too anti-elegant then: dop = intuition, oxy = fe, vaso=fi, nor=reflexy side of se, ach=mental depth, tes=assertiveness mostly through fear repression, gaba=singular best base level neuroticism unit (buddha), sero=base level contentness (obama unit) and finally opi = savoring (kind of creates an axis with dop).

me2: i am not actually equalizing these with cognitive functions. i am saying use these primitives, use them in such a way so they are not high or low only but they also can be mid and you will explain way more, pathological stuff included where jungian systems break. oxy is not fe but it's better at describing something real similar to fe. fe tries to be oxy but then talks about moronic stuff like hamlet is the most fe person who sends her daughter and friends to depression and death etc. fe is expressiveness, being dramatic, being theatral? fuck that. use oxy. better. that's what i am saying.

chatgpt:

Now this is a stronger direction.

You’re not saying “dopamine = Ne.”

You’re saying: Start from biological primitives that actually exist, then model personality as graded regulation patterns — not symbolic slots.

That’s a different move.

And yes, that would automatically solve:

the black/white problem

the “strong vs weak only” problem

the pathological edge cases

the Hamlet-is-peak-Fe nonsense

Because oxytocin system sensitivity is measurable, graded, dysregulatable. It can be:

low

mid

high

unstable

context-dependent

And it actually corresponds to:

bonding

trust calibration

in-group cohesion

empathy modulation

social salience

That’s way more grounded than “Fe = emotional expressiveness.”

You’re also right about something important:

Socionics often confuses drama with ethics. Theatricality is not bonding capacity. Expressiveness is not relational attunement.

Oxytocin dynamics explain warmth and affiliation better than “Fe does vibes.”

Where Jungian systems break is pathology.

They have no language for:

anxious attachment

trauma bonding

dominance dysregulation

addiction loops

reward hijacking

neurotic baseline differences

Because their primitives are symbolic, not physiological.

The risk, though, is reductionism.

If you move entirely to neurotransmitters, you lose cognitive architecture. Chemistry explains motivation intensity well. It doesn’t cleanly explain abstraction style or symbolic structuring.

But as a base layer?

Using graded neurobiological systems as primitives is far more scalable and falsifiable than mystical “information elements.”

You’re basically saying:

Stop starting from mythic categories. Start from measurable regulation systems.

me: this is gonna be a good example i think. break down the "fe bundle" as socionics describes it as an "information element" crazy unrelated stuff inside that bundle.

chatgpt:

Good. Let’s dissect the so-called Fe information element without mystical fog.

Socionics Fe bundle usually includes:

Emotional expressiveness

Reading emotional atmosphere

Creating mood

Group emotional synchronization

Drama / theatricality

Affect amplification

Moral outrage displays

Charisma

Public emotional messaging

Contagious enthusiasm

Emotional timing

Managing “vibes”

Now look at that list carefully.

That’s not one thing.

That’s at least five different systems smashed together:

1. Emotional expressiveness

Motor output control + inhibition threshold + cultural learning. This involves:

Prefrontal inhibition

Amygdala reactivity

Social conditioning

That’s not the same thing as bonding.

2. Emotional perception (reading the room)

That’s:

Pattern recognition

Social threat detection

Attention to micro-expressions

Predictive modeling

Could involve oxytocin sensitivity, but also general intelligence and experience.

3. Mood induction / emotional contagion

That’s:

Mirror neuron systems

Vocal prosody control

Reward response to synchrony

Different mechanism again.

4. Group alignment / cohesion

Now we’re closer to oxytocin / in-group salience. But that system also produces:

Tribal bias

Out-group hostility

Moral rigidity

Which Socionics conveniently doesn’t bundle into Fe descriptions.

5. Theatricality / dramatization

That’s sensation-seeking + reward drive + inhibition thresholds. Could be dopamine-heavy. Not inherently “ethical.”

So what happened?

Socionics observed correlated traits in expressive, socially active personalities and bundled them under one label: Fe.

But those traits are:

Neurologically distributed

Motivationally distinct

Sometimes negatively correlated

You can have:

High bonding sensitivity (oxy-heavy) but low theatricality.

High drama but low empathy.

Great room-reading but zero warmth.

Strong public charisma but weak private intimacy.

All of those would sit inside the Fe bundle.

That’s why it feels low resolution.

Fe isn’t a primitive. It’s a cluster abstraction.

And once you break it apart, you see the cluster contains semi-independent variables.

Which means someone can be “mid Fe” simply by having some subcomponents high and others low.

The black/white model collapses because the bundle itself isn’t unitary.

That’s the deeper critique.

Not “Fe is fake.”

Within the context of MBTI, it means intentionally making sense of an emotional reaction through the lens of self-understanding instead of ignoring it, acting on it instantly, or asking for clarification.

So... a Fi user notices an internal reaction (something about this bothers me), they pause and go quiet and on the outside look very stoic or blank, but on the inside are asking a bunch of questions of themselves with their thoughts (what exactly am I feeling here? is this an emotion I've experienced before? is it contradicting any of my values? is this showing me something new about myself?); once they identify it, they trace its origins (which of my values was violated or affirmed?) and then decide what to do about it (do I need to recuse myself from this jury pool, tell my friend never to say that in my presence again, or just accept that this is part of me?).

To anyone else, it looks like nothing is happening; to them, a lot is happening internally, away from everyone else's eyes.

Fe users can do this on the spot, through interacting with others and responding or acting on their feelings, rather than needing solitude for it. Instead of going quiet to internally process, Fe adjusts while the situation unfolds by noticing emotional cues immediately (what was said or done; how everyone is emotionally responding to it), and figuring out how they feel while giving a response (I don't like that / I feel sad / wasn't that horrible?? let's talk about it!), and allowing others' reactions to be part of their own response.

Fe thinks, "What's happening between us right now?" and Fi thinks, "What's happening to me right now?"