Fe vs Fi difference?

[BronzeBlue]

This is an interesting observation I made which may or may be because of Fe vs Fi differences.

I do believe myself to be a Fe-user while my sibling is likely a Fi-user. Their possibly Fe-using partner and I both tend to read through the comment section on random articles, videos etc. My sibling finds this completely unnecessary. I theorised that this is because Fe wants to gauge general consensus/'emotional' atmosphere to help build a better, more objective opinion (opinion = information to consider and process/judge for me, personally). Fi already knows what it thinks regardless of external influences, nor is it interested in other people's opinions.

As my sample size is fairly small, I could be completely wrong, but I'd be interested to know if you've observed something similar in your own or other people's behaviours. This could possibly be influenced by the positioning of Fe/the Feeling function in your stack, but their partner and I are likely not the same type. It was this similarity regardless which made me curious.

What do you think?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It makes sense for Ti to value public opinion. For what is a more natural truth than what the people feel?

It's not enough to say that Fi doesn't care about what anyone thinks though. Fi just isn't looking for a superficial constant called "truth". Going deeper you see that people feel a certain way because of their particular upbringing and circumstance, and there is where the real truth is to be found. Much information is useless because the source is tainted with bias, but when you come across a pure source, you've gained an expert, or a confidante.

 

[The Gopher]

This is an interesting observation I made which may or may be because of Fe vs Fi differences.

I do believe myself to be a Fe-user while my sibling is likely a Fi-user. Their possibly Fe-using partner and I both tend to read through the comment section on random articles, videos etc. My sibling finds this completely unnecessary. I theorised that this is because Fe wants to gauge general consensus/'emotional' atmosphere to help build a better, more objective opinion (opinion = information to consider and process/judge for me, personally). Fi already knows what it thinks regardless of external influences, nor is it interested in other people's opinions.

Well I'm back to apparently being Fi and I do the same thing with comment sections.

 

[BronzeBlue]

Well I'm back to apparently being Fi and I do the same thing with comment sections.

High or low Fi? If I may ask. Just curious if that plays into it as well, if at all.

 

[Happy]

I'm an Fe user, and I'll generally skim over the comment section once I'm done with the content, just to see in a general sense how it has been received. Usually, if there's positive discussion around the content, it's valuable; if there's dickwads arguing about trash, then the content has been ineffective; etc.

(I won't base my opinion on the comments at all, as I will prefer to make up my own mind regardless of whether that aligns with popular opinion. I'm only looking for community reception to roughly gauge the effectiveness of the content)

I'm not sure this falls in line with your theory

 

[Minuend]

Secondary Fi. If the article is sciency, analytical or political-y, I'll read the comments to see other perspectives and see if anybody is pointing out errors, have conflicting sources or so.

If it's entertainment media, I sometimes scroll down to read the mess that is shitstorms and the inevitable blame of the other sex, ideologies, religion and so forth.

I guess I read to see how some react when it comes to stuff like random news articles. Like "guy shot dog that was trespassing", "number of depressed teens increased" or "some families struggle around christmas". Stuff like that.

Guess I could add that it's mostly for entertainment or curiosity's sake. And absorbing information I might yet not have

Edit 2: I guess I'll also add I sometimes like to brainstorm with people if there's an issue I don't have a particular opinion about, but I prefer to do so with someone I know

 

[BronzeBlue]

I'm an Fe user, and I'll generally skim over the comment section once I'm done with the content, just to see in a general sense how it has been received. Usually, if there's positive discussion around the content, it's valuable; if there's dickwads arguing about trash, then the content has been ineffective; etc.

(I won't base my opinion on the comments at all, as I will prefer to make up my own mind regardless of whether that aligns with popular opinion. I'm only looking for community reception to roughly gauge the effectiveness of the content)

I'm not sure this falls in line with your theory

I think so. I don't necessarily use comments to judge whether I disagree with the article or not. I think it's rather that I make up my mind loosely about the article/thing itself and read through a few comments to see if there's an angle I hadn't considered yet. If yes, I'll consider and revise my opinion if necessary. It may be because a lot of the time, I'm shaky on relying on my own judgment of whether I'm right or wrong in believing what I do. Adding more opinions/angles helps me assert to myself that I have the best possible overview of the topic itself and have understood it correctly/haven't missed anything.

Part of it for me may also be because any information is inherently biased. Adding external commentary into the mix helps me 'calibrate' it to a more neutral ground.

I'm not sure if that made sense, sorry.

 

[Reluctantly]

From a strictly philosophical point-of-view, Fi being subjective, holds personal significance and value, regardless of outside viewpoints or opinions. However, what other people think can be used to enforce its personal value as an objective standard for all. I feel like the law does this a lot where say abortion is made illegal; the standard then is that you can't have an abortion and now you can be punished if you do. Objectively, a standard has been set and Te will enforce it.

On the other hand, Ti is also subjective and can set an objective standard for all. But it's different than what most think it is because the conclusions drawn by Ti aren't factual, but more inductions or deductions. For example, let's say that I notice homeless people act weird and can't seem to hold or get a job. I might conclude for many added reasons that they are mentally ill and in need of care. So Fe tries to influence them in that way, as if attempting to enforce this conclusion as an objective standard in how to help homeless people.

That's my take anyway on the underlying philosophy of the functions, but I don't believe that people fall neatly into one or the other necessarily and that type defying anecdotes just mean that people don't fit neatly into one or the other category all the time.

 

[Rixus]

I'm not sure what difference it'll make - but yes, if I read an article online I always scan the comments section to see what other people thought. Not that their thoughts will sway mine, but it's interesting to see how our opinions of the same thing differ.

Sometimes I'll even get involved in the discussion - perhaps a challenge to come up with the wittiest comment if it's that type of article, or if I'm in the mood, I might argue with the trolls. Sometimes engaging in a battle of the minds with trolls is fun - partly because they're usually unarmed. I haven't done that in a while, though.

 

[The Gopher]

High or low Fi? If I may ask. Just curious if that plays into it as well, if at all.

Aux.