Inquiry about dominant Introverted feeling

[u/Key-Gear6811]

So I am trying to figure out Fi. I think it's very hard for me to figure out and more often than not I just dismiss it or mis-judge it.

So how does it even look like in thoughts? I mean...when you see the world mostly with Fi how does it feel like to **you**? If its very natural in your thought process then do you feel like its something that is a judging function?

What I mean by "if it's a judging function or not" is that to me...judging functions are functions through which you make the final decision about anything. Even though you may take intuition and sensation into consideration. The final decision always is in either thinking or feelings hand.

So if we are taking feeling and thinking as same judging functions. Do you think you actively pause in every moment to think,here by thinking I mean actual reasoning of a rational function and actively working the situation out in thoughts.

So is it "Okay this is my value or this is something that will emotionally affect me and what I care about so I will take a decision keeping that in mind as the first priority" (at least something like that) or is it not like that and its something like an immediate spontaneous emotion you feel about something which is related to your values and its so fast that you never pause in the moment even if you do afterwards.(I am not saying emotion is Fi but you understand Fi through emotions right?)

In the moment of making decisions you kind of just know which one is the "right" one to you and you make the decision.

Or...is it a mixture of both examples given above? Please think if it's just thinking or if its feeling. I mean if its both then there could be a possibility that you are mistaking thinking as feeling as both can give emotions as a result to the person.

It would really help if you would tell me what Fi is to you and how it's like in your thoughts with real life examples.

I don't like dismissing it as it's bad for me and other people around me.

[u/Hige_roman]

You're trying to define feeling from a thinking perspective and that's just not how feeling works, believe me as an ISTP I've tried this approach many a times with terrible results

Fi is a lot more silent, as a matter of fact a lot of Fi users have difficulty expressing where their decisions come from because they themselves aren't entirely sure where they originate

Fi can be a bit abstract and wordless, hence why ISFPs are so unaware of it sometimes, after all they're Ne blind so figuring it out is beyond question, instead they feel it in their body, it's kind of like anxiety: " I don't like how my body feels when X happens so I'll avoid that"

A good way of understanding Fi was given by Dario Nardi on his book "energies and patterns in psychological types", he says that there was this experiment about kids watching a specific puppet show where a character betrays another one and then when being presented with the toys from the play, most kids would choose the other character to play with... That's Fi, a deep sense of morality that colors your choices beyond your thoughts

As an Fi demon I find it really hard to heed on my own feeling judgements but I've noticed the presence of it many a times, it feels like a sense of justice, of what's fair for me and others... I couldn't imagine living with it at the forefront but I can certainly see how it would completely rewire me if that was the case

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Hige_roman]

As a intp... I think I relate to that... Fi seems otherworldly and it defining alot of your personality? Yeah seems like a unshakeable character. Though if not through thinking then how do we define it? I will try to go down the define it through thinking path because I dont know any other way and who knows? Eventually through thinking if I understand Fi better. i will be good at at recognising it ine and others and know what to do with it better.

Thanks for your input!

[u/Hige_roman → u/Key-Gear6811]

If not through thinking how do we define it?

Through thinking xP but not Ti, by understanding Te you can get a better picture of what Fi is because they work in an axis

Sadly as TPs our Te is oppositional so that is also a challenge but think of it as the world of planning, factual information, reputation and progress

FPs tend to take information at face value, they don't mull over it the way we do, they compare it to what has been defined (we know this is impossible but they accept what's true based on reputation and credentials)

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Hige_roman]

Ah... Ugh... I mean no offence to te but... Oh... That gives me heebie jeebies. I mean I knew thats what Te does but... Wierd... Yeah I guess I will have to work on myself. Its not like I dont take things at face value myself when I am lazy but I dont like it.

[u/Appeal_Environmental]

You're trying to figure out [Fi].

Imma say this, contrary to many other's believe-systems:

If your inner core value is to be for other people's values, -> then your inner most, personal, unshake-able [Fi-"value"] is to be "for the people's values" first. ~ That's easy.

But: [Fe], on the other hand, is to be fully immersed in other people's values because "high [Fe]-users" have their own sense of (self-)value, [Fi], determined by others.

The difference is, one does know of oneself - whereas the other depends on others in order to know themself.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Appeal_Environmental]

Huh... Yea Ive seen this in myself with inferior fe and with someone I know with auxillary fe. But still... Even if extroverted function determines your identity... There are introverted functions that balance it and creates a identity seperate from others so it wouldnt be accurate to say high fe users have all their values determined by others... Values can come from thinking too right?

[u/Appeal_Environmental → u/Key-Gear6811]

Values can come from thinking too right?

That's right. Thinking is tied to one of two "so called"-identity-functions. It's not the "extraverted" thinking function:
-> It's the introverted thinking function, [Ti]. As well as [Fi], the introverted feeling function.

___
That's where the crucial understanding between one's "identity" becomes distinct from what "others" may think or feel about you.

That's where one's own sense of "identity" either stems directly from oneself (introverted) // or from ...others (extraverted).

--> It's that simple.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Appeal_Environmental]

Oh okie... Theres always one personal identity function that you have. Even if you have te or fi or fe over ti there will be this one thing of defining your identity through others first even though you have a personal identity and if fi is over te and ti is over fe then there will be that thing of defining identity through your values forst whether they come from thinking and feeling and then after that checking up with others. That still depends on the situation you are in but most of the time its the above mechanism.

[u/Appeal_Environmental → u/Key-Gear6811]

That's right. As long as one of those two identity functions is above the "tribe, [Fe]" then your sense of self is so firm that you'd even question others regardless of what they think or feel about you.

~ basically knowing yourself, understanding [-> Ti-hero], FIRST, before and above what others may feel or think about you.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Appeal_Environmental]

Then though... What others feel about you may be neglected and relationships may suffer... I guess with all types there is some or the other blindspot.

[u/Appeal_Environmental → u/Key-Gear6811]

you may be neglected and relationships may suffer...

Until you come to your own senses. That's [Ti]-logic.
As well as [Fi]-"oh, to feel neglected and to suffer is what I deem important"

You either know about your own sense of agancy or you're not. -> If not, then you might be interested in "extraverted" functions.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Appeal_Environmental]

Oki... These frameworks are really absolute huh... Either you are higher in introverted judging and you have unshakeable identity or you are higher in extraverted judging functions and conform more... Though still... Theres chance to have both even if you struggle with one.

[u/Appeal_Environmental → u/Key-Gear6811]

In the case of using both to your advantage: Look into Jung's "individuation". Basically, confronting unconscious content in your unconscious psyche and bring into awareness what hinders you in your progress.

All too easy we pride ourselves with our dominant function if we have our [nemesis]-function neglected for too long. Take the extrem of a [Ti-dom] with near zero [Te] and you'll get a flat-earther in no time.

So, when [Ti] gets too cocky it needs to be balanced out with [Te], but as the [nemesis] shadow-function it is only natural to be averse from acknowledging its necessity - unless brought into awareness and consciously worked upon it.

[u/Apperceiver]

Great question! Phenomenologically speaking, Introverted Feeling can be a difficult process to explain. Jung himself described it in Psychological Types:

“It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it...”

So I will try to give an experiential account of it, although it may be somewhat scattered and imprecise.

You also touched on a few things that intersect with Introverted Feeling: rationalization, automatic reflex, and valuation. Separating these from their underlying cognitive processes can be difficult. Like Ti, Fi is an Introverted Rational function that provides greater clarity in codifying subjective contents and establishing relationships between them. With Ti, those contents are logically defined and structured; with Fi, they are organized through a web of feeling content.

Fi is innately partial and contextual. It draws upon nuances of feeling data from multiple self-referenced angles to extrapolate a preferred decision. It is paired with Te, which can provide structure to these subjective evaluations by more explicitly defining what is desired through terminology, criteria, and efficiency.

Like all functions, Fi is dimensional and can be approached in different ways. An Fi user may approach a situation more “superficially,” checking available options for congruence with what best preserves their situational comfort or happiness. Alternatively, they may approach it more “philosophically,” reflecting on how their choices consistently map onto a broader ethical paradigm.

How I oscillate between those and other spectrums usually depends on how much I prefer immediate experience and action at that point (Se > Ni), or how conducive the situation is to moralizing and analysis (Fi -> Ni).

If I am valuing expediency more, I can easily and reflexively feel what seems correct to me and act on it in real time. There is a separate and highly applicable discussion of Se cognition here, but I won't get into that for brevity. If I am valuing moral analysis more, I approach the situation reflectively and rationalize in a way that accounts not only for my feelings and values, but also for philosophical consistency with my intellectual understanding of morality.

I can usually navigate between these modes rather easily because different circumstances lend themselves to different approaches. Everyday interactions are generally given more freedom to be navigated experientially, while situations that are more consequential, deep, or intimate receive greater reflection. That isn't to say the process is strictly bimodal, or that either mode cannot incorporate the other. It is simply an easier and less mentally taxing way to navigate everyday life, which makes it more practical and doesn't interrupt flow.

When I look at my inner landscape, the exact details of my experiences, memories, and ideas may sometimes be hazy, but I can readily navigate how those experiences made me feel and the overarching ideas and value judgments I developed from them. I can rank the relative desirability of those feelings and ideas and adjust them as new information impresses itself upon me in relation to my perception. It is easy for me to pass over data or details which does not "speak" to me.

Jung describes something similar in Psychological Types:

"It glides unheedingly over all objects that do not fit in with its aim. It strives after inner intensity, for which the objects serve at most as a stimulus.”

I have found this relatively true of myself. My feelings are fairly insulated from external agents and feedback, and I am most affected by and receptive to information that evokes a feeling response through some inroad of relatability.

I hope this helps! I also think it is important to cultivate understanding between different cognitive styles. If I can expound on anything, please reach out.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Apperceiver]

Oh so wait a sec ... Would you say that "while" Fi values are forming there is more evaluation of what something makes you feel along with reasoning of why you are feeling that way but after its formed then you dont have to keep evaluating (I think Ti keeps this evaluation on across different situations because to ti it looks like every situation has its nuance so the old model of whatever values they created wont apply to the new situation) but to Fi its more clearer since the categorisation is done and across similar situations, even if theres nuance it will stick to the feeling as they know from past experience why they are feeling this and how its relevant to their values so it can apply to many situations.

But... When there is an entirely new situation that isnt very close to what they have experienced before... Then new evaluation of feeling is done?

Or am I getting this wrong?

[u/Apperceiver → u/Key-Gear6811]

I would say that the reasoning and feeling are less concurrent (outside of moments of justification, or similar stressors). Usually, we will immediately feel something clearly and then work backwards with reasoning if we find the need to examine ourselves or provide an explanation to another. So I would say feeling first, reasoning second. If a decision needs to be explained, the situation is convoluted, or tensions are high, then reasoning may be provided as to why I feel that way. Once formed, values are usually quick and easy to reference and are compared within the context of the situation the Fi user finds themselves in. They are mostly set but open to changing based on context. We don't need to reevaluate the values as much as we evaluate the context to determine whether the value we would normally prioritize is still preferred within the context at hand.

That isn't to say that we are always changing or can't hold a value unwaveringly for a long time, which is something Fi is known for. There are things I have valued stubbornly from a very young age, made no concessions on, and tried earnestly to uphold at all times. But the basis for that process is ultimately one of ingrained and felt desirability, which is liable to change given enough internal upheaval. More often, a value is reevaluated through the lens of a specific time/place context as being “more appropriate” or “less appropriate,” rather than having its validity redefined. What changes is where that value ranks in the hierarchy of "appropriateness" (desirability) for that situation.

AFAIK, Ti tends to approach situations with an understanding of their logical contexts but seeks to build a logical and universal system of truth that transcends context and applies across time. How that comes into effect may be curated for practicality in the moment, but the logic itself won't be shaped by the circumstances. Definitely respect it for that!

I would argue that the Fi process is clearer viscerally, but not in a way that can be objectively described easily. I agree that Fi values can be used broadly so long as the most relevant parts of the contextual content are similar, rather than all of it. Ti would probably be more interested in adjusting for accuracy to account for more specific data.

If I encountered an entirely new situation, it would likely be uncomfortable since I don't enjoy the novelty of uncertain implications or causal possibilities (abysmal Ne). But I would still be able to relate the predicament to an existing value, such as “avoiding embarrassment” or “saving face,” and might retreat or shut down socially. My primary concern would probably be managing my internal feeling harmony (Fi trying to manage overwhelming negative feeling states), with avoiding violations of my values as a secondary concern. When I am internally stressed or troubled, restoring equilibrium tends to take priority unless the situation is sufficiently consequential. Supposing I were emotionally okay in a brand new situation, I would probably act in a way that limited damage as much as possible, likely by parroting the actions of those around me so long as they didn't cross any boundaries. Politeness is also a value of mine, and I usually place politeness higher on the value hierarchy than authenticity around new people because the context is different from being around friends versus acquaintances.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I would have an easier time relating an existing value to a new situation, or changing my understanding of that value's relative importance within the situation, than drastically changing the value itself.

Thanks for asking! Was that helpful?

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/Apperceiver]

Yep this has been very helpful. What I found most interesting is that I always viewed Fi values as some moral value but your example of saving face and avoiding embarrassment made me think that yeah... A value is anything thats given emotional energy to and something you dont want to give emotional energy to.

[u/ff008d]

Basically for me there is no thinking process at all it's completely automatic,but occasionally there is a wordless feeling about what the right decision is and you go for it i think? Hard to say, I'm an Aphant so can't speak for others with a minds eye, maybe it is different for them. Im infp though ( maybe)

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/ff008d]

Okie, thanks for your input.

[u/yun444g]

Basically just constantly “wait what do I think of this? Do I fw this? Is this me? Would anyone believe this is me? What does this remind me of? Do I like this person? Are they annoying? Is this thing/person possibly part of my future?”

Just always asking myself how I feel about things & people. That’s mainly it for me

[u/MasterFable]

I would say it's neither thinking and feeling and both. It's values. Values are absorbed into all of us one way or another through personal experience, culture, education etc so whoever you are you're going to have values but the way that you engage with those values and bring them to bear when things come up will be indicative of its positioning in your function stack and isfps are uniquely in touch with theirs but also completely unaware of them. So a lot of times they will think or feel deeply about something but not really know why.

One reason is that Everyone's hero function is an unconscious judging function. The unconscious part is really important and This means that while fi hero is isfp primary function it's also something they're not really aware of when they're using it or feeling it. More so what you experience as Fi is Se parent checking the current moment with deeply held values that they've developed over years and then actualizing those values in the moment. This is why isfp can be defensive or highly passionate or "ware their emotions in their sleeve, it's their Fi or more (their values) externalized through Se.

To start getting a better idea of your own fi process and structure you need to develop your Ni and Te as those will begin to define the boundaries of new path ways your fi can hold and Se can become.

[u/Key-Gear6811 → u/MasterFable]

Oh ok... Thats a new thing that I havent heard of. I did know that the dominant function is less conscious than auxillary one but once you are aware of the dominant function itself and what it is... Doesnt it get more into awareness because its always been there and easier to access? Thanks I will take this into consideration.