What does it really mean to say that you like something? This would seem to have a different meaning to a thinking preference than to a feeling one.
The thinking function has been the dominant function for the evaluation of scientific truth for a few hundred years now and the feeling function has been rather maligned as a function that could have any importance in matters of truth.
But, I am not sure that this is so. Especially, if we are concerned with human truth – subjective truth, and a person that is well-liked or has some degree of influence can accord value (and truth) to things just by saying that they like them or don’t. It at least impels people to consider it, whereas if someone else said the same thing it might not mean as much, or have as much weight, coming out of their mouth. So, this gets into the idea of social status. Isn’t this a form of truth, something that can be more or less measured? We would agree that celebrities have more influence because they are famous, which means that they are more important as people in some way because a lot of other people that do not have this status of fame pay attention to them.
When you say x, y, or z is what a person likes, this tells you something about them. It may indicate what other things they would like from associative thinking. In other words, there is a certain predictability and pattern to liking things. If you like capitalism over communism that will probably tell us something about your preferences and, by extension, other things that you would like. If you didn’t like those other things then that would tend to indicate some exception to the general rule and maybe some kind of misunderstanding or distortion on the part of the person not liking this other thing. Marketers, for example, pay attention to this kind of “like” information. What do people like? What do they want? Not, what is true? Or even, what may be best for them? But, simply, what are the dominant preferences of x, y, or z demographic?
And there is something of this straight line activity in this form of measurement (Fe). It is like a form of logical reasoning. If you are a liberal and you like Rachel Maddow, then you will probably be accepting and liking these further things along that continuum. It just goes with the territory. And to the degree that you didn’t would probably indicate the degree to which you were relatively uninfluenced by mass feeling values. And this seems actually to be a purview of the judging functions in total, even the thinking function. Because as much as they are dominant orientations in an individual, or to a lesser extent, just strong because of cultural conditioning, which occurs through these functions, it seems rather predictable what the affinities and disaffinities of these functions will be.
It is the whole Thinking vs. Feeling war. Which is also the war of the sexes. And a lot of this comes down to the feminine vs. the masculine.
So, at a biological level, it is rather predictable that most woman will form a preference for something based on feeling rather than thinking. Woman will say, “I just like this, I don’t care why”. And a man might point out why some of the things that she likes are at odds with each other. But, this is like talking at cross-purposes to her truth. To like something or be attracted to something is a simple as that, right? That is the end in itself. Thinking tries to find the consistency and the “a leads to b leads to c” type of truth. But a woman could like men that are brutes but also espouse the ideology of peace. And they are both true for her. So, feeling presents this contradiction to thinking. It is illogical.
Subject-Referenced Truth
So, what I am basically getting at in the “culture of like” is that a particular person liking or disliking something or someone is a form of measurement that is referenced to them and not to the external environment. It is not asking what is really true necessarily. It is just when you find yourself liking someone or something.
And it also seems that when a feeler accords this degree of “like” or not, it is more important than if a thinker did it who might not be as in tune with what they like or don’t, because it would be relatively more primitive and undifferentiated as a function per classical theory. So, this means when a feeler says they like something it has more weight (or truth) in some way then when someone who is deficient in this function says that. Since being a thinker necessarily involves a repression of the feeling function (per definition) and to engage thinking means to be directly dismissive of feeling values in the search for value (or whatever the judging functions are searching for), that “like or dislike” are repressed in the search for objective truth.
A Feeler is basically paying attention to their preferences – what makes them feel good or bad essentially. I think feeling is as simple as that in some respects. I like or do not like. And Fe is more “expressed like” while Fi is more “withheld like.” So, what I’m getting at is that Feeling’s basic modus operandi is to like, which means to feel an affinity for, to want to move towards that thing that is liked; attraction, magnetism, blending with.
Yes, what is feeling really saying? It is more clear what thinking is saying because it seems clear that it is basically saying, “What is true apart from my desires or affinities as a person/subject?” Thinking has to disregard and repress what is preferable or not to it in order to function correctly.
And so the same thing is true of feeling. It has to repress and disregard what is objectively (so-called) true in order to discover what it prefers. And that is their truth. Feeling also seeks for what other people prefer. Whether what they like or don’t is true or not in some objective sense is relatively irrelevant. Because they are simply attempting to find out some subjective truth.
So, what is the value in this activity of feeling? Well, it seems to place all the power, value, and emphasis on subjects and the subjective experience. It essentially says if something is discovered to be objectively true but that truth doesn’t accord, resonate or exhibit friendliness towards human sentiments, then it is invalid on that principle alone. And this primarily seems to have to do with the quality of being harsh towards human sensibilities. Thinking is harsh and hard compared to feeling, which has the quality of softness and tenderness.
And isn’t it true that thinking will tend to like hard and harsh things that are directly antagonistic to soft feeling values as a natural “like instinct”? Isn’t that their natural form of “like”? Isn’t this particularly true of extraverted thinking that tends to dislike anything soft, meek, cuddly, maudlin, and such? Is this not true by definition?
And on the other hand, wouldn’t it be true that feeling could simply say, “It is true because it came to you.” There is no other measurement of truth. If something can somehow get to you and inhabit you in some way as an existence, is it not true on that basis alone from a subjective point-of-view? And even if this is perhaps incorrect to reality, doesn’t it still have some power, existence, and validity due to the fact that a subject finds it to be true for them. If enough people believe in something, doesn’t that create some kind of truth, even if it is only confined to human culture?
And thinking disregards these biases (at least consciously) of people. It says that it is stupid to believe in something if it has been proven by science, logic, and empirical evidence that it isn’t so. This is the definition of stupidity, isn’t it, to believe in things that aren’t true?
But, are not thinkers engaging in some form of stupidity when they completely ignore emotional realities and preferences when they so firmly espouse truth at all costs? Aren’t they being psychologically ignorant? Isn’t this psychological ignorance at the root of so many failed systems? Things that sound good in principle but don’t take people’s prejudices and preferences into account. Systems that are logical unto themselves but don’t take into account the human desire towards their simple and irrational desires, their desires to not act in their best interests (whatever those may be). Does thinking know what is in humanities best interests? People may have a desire to experience failure and chaos. People may have a desire to experience the opposite of what is in their best interests. In short, thinking fails in its claim to truth as far as subjects are concerned. Thinking is sympathetic to the object. And this is its form of “like”. And often the object is (by many definitions) something that is devoid of life, blood, flesh, lymph, desire and incalculability. An object is something hard and unsympathetic.
Feeling is subject-oriented and subjects as far as we know them tend to be driven by instinct and biology. Feeling is driven towards sympathy. I think Fe is the drive towards the objective in an ameliorating sense, that is, to blend with the objective instead of being steely against it. To flow towards the object and around it actively. To reach out into experience with a “like energy” similar to how in biology there is the principle of chemicals being philic or antagonistic. There are agonists and antagonists. Things can be lipophilic or lipophobic for example. Sympathetic or antagonistic. So, Fe seems to be the theme of extended friendliness and accord with its environment, extending affiliation and accord and living in harmony with nature. Te, on the other hand is the antithesis of this in the theme of Man vs. Nature. It has all the thematics of man’s dominion, manipulation, and power over the natural world, to make Nature do what he wants. It has all the implications of a phobic, distrustful and antagonistic stance towards Nature.
Fi seems to be the “like power” withheld or unexpressed towards the objective. Jung mentions in people of this type that they can be identified by their complete and total reserve and denial of the object such that they appear to be very cold. But, this coldness is for a different reason than the true coldness of thinking. It is more as the inverse or withholding of the “like power” and not being able to find steady avenues for the expression of it. Fi seems to partake of the natural tendency of feeling to “like” things or people. Well, it actually is, by definition (mine in part), a liking of the subject, but, perhaps this desire to express “like” is hard to satisfy because of the nature of people. Can they be trusted? Will they return it? Fe is more impersonal in that it just directs like energy towards objects that have no innate power to return love, so it is not depending on the reaction. Fi, by definition (mine in part), is a reaction towards some extraverted function, so it is very dependent and vulnerable in some way, probably more so than any other function. It seems like pure susceptibility (Mother Yin) to everything such that as a biological protection it has to remain undeclared, silent, and hidden. So, it has a particularly powerful and potent expression of “like” power and valuing. It is similar to when a female says to a man that she loves him and how many females are worried about whether to say this and if it will be returned. It is the essence of sensitivity in the subjective sense. But, it is her power to bestow the highest form of “like”, which is love. This is the highest form of appraisal of anything it seems. When you say you love someone or something (assuming you mean this), you are according to it this absolute ability to affect you. And with Fi, unlike Fe, it tends towards exclusivity. As a matter of fact, it tends towards finding the one thing or person that you like so much that they become the holder of all the contents of this “like power”. This seems to be introverted feeling’s drive, to love one person or thing to the exclusion of all else. This is the honor it bestows.
Fe, on the other hand tends to expand out its “like” energy to encompass as many different things and people as it possibly can. And so, obviously it is much less vulnerable than Fi. If it isn’t one thing, it will be another. No biggie. If it isn’t this man or woman, then, it will be another. If I lose my ability to pursue music, then, I’ll switch over to this other medium. So, we can kind of see how benefic, benign and light-hearted this attitude is. It wants to like as much stuff as it can. It is fun. To come into this person’s life and express love towards them and then be gone to the next person it can do this with. Obviously from a biological and physiological viewpoint this way of loving and liking cannot approximate Fi love with each person or thing it feels for, or it would exhaust itself.
Fe has not put all its eggs in one basket. Fe also has some power of magnetic attraction or some electrical or outgoing magnetism. It is a factor in charisma. Many people love and like Fe expressors. They are popular because they tend to make the people around them feel good. And that is what humans most want – to feel good. Bottom line. It is that whole dialectic of humanity and biology. Humans are attracted to what makes them feel good. Even if they are attracted to pain, it is because this pain feels good. Or it makes their pleasure more piquant, standing out in sharper relief.
Humans, as a species instinct, do not seek truth. This may be changing slowly but I am speaking of the present and past. If the truth about things interferes with human pleasure, then, out with that truth. Humans are a feeling species, even though there are thinkers in it.
Well, actually, this is not completely true. I mean, humans are thinkers compared to the rest of the species of nature. But, it was more starting from basic feeling values to evolve more towards thinking over time.
And this feeling world still holds such a grip over humans. And yet, we have been in this stage over the past few hundred years where we have so been in love with the thinking function and have elevated it so far above feeling values. This has been the dialectic of science.
So, feeling is innately a world of cooperation and sharing and peace. It is probably much like the world the authors of the book, Sex at Dawn, describe the world before the agricultural society took hold, the latter of which strikes me as almost wholly extraverted thinking in nature. I don’t how much of this is idealized but I think there is something to it. In the Fe world people shared sex with the members of the group. There wasn’t exclusivity. Then, the extraverted thinking function came into development under the agricultural shift, in the process implicating introverted feeling as its natural duality on the other end of the pole, to together become the axis of exclusivity in relationship and the birth of the institution of marriage and with it the concept of monogamy. But, if, as the book maintains, that human’s natural instinct is not towards monogamy, then, that implies that humans are more Fe in their origins. And so perhaps we could say Fe is the human function par excellence. It is just humanism in the sense when we use that word to describe all the good and beneficent instincts in human nature. The natural desire to reach out to other humans in a friendly and cooperative spirit is what we mean by the term “good”. It is that natural instinct to flow in a friendly way towards others, to work things out, to give, and to share, as natural instincts.
Introverted feeling doesn’t have this attitude at all except in a very narrow sense of who it considers its intimates, which are relationships of relative exclusivity. And the others that are not in this clan are natural enemies and to be distrusted. This attitudes arises because of introverted feeling’s relation and reaction to extraverted thinking.
Extraverted feeling is the world of feeling proper, which is affiliative as a prime motive, the desire and instinct to like and give positive appraisals.
Extraverted thinking is the world of thinking proper, which is phobic and antagonistic as a prime motive, the instinct not to blend, not to give positive appraisal, the instinct to deny and say no, the instinct towards competition rather than cooperation, and so on and so forth. Its natural instinct towards the object is to compete, to gain power and ascendancy over it.
And So…
And so, you now have my permission to like me. If you liked any of the foregoing words strung in rows, then please, return the “like” either monetarily or network-wise.
Later stargazers.
another insightful article. congrats!
Thank you dear sir Luka.
This article synched up expertly with my Google search for INFJs and polyamory and confirms my theory about restrictive monogamy being an Fi/Te thing and Fe/Ti being more open to group love.
What I don’t agree with is your take on Fe and the replaceability of the object. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but INFJs are not emohos.
What of soulmates? This INFJ believes deeply in soulmates and has been fortunate enough to have crossed paths with a few. Not the “One True Love” kind. And perhaps that’s the Fi-dominant type? But it is true that we each have many soul mates and they are irreplaceable. This is the attraction to poly for many an INFJ. Union with our soulmates encourage us to spread our love outward even further, embracing non-duality and the love of One. To love is to love intensely. To love one once is to love them always.
Yes, I agree with your theory that Fi/Te has much to do with the institution of marriage and consequent monogamy and Fe/Ti being more open to group love. However, we must remember (or learn for the first time) that INFJs have heavy Fi via their id function (See Fi in INFJ article in INFJ section). On the other hand, ENFPs, for example, have heavy Fe via their id function and I think this temperament is responsible for much of the “peace and free love” sentiment of the 1960s.
As for the “replaceability of the object” I don’t think I said anything about that in this article regarding Fe. What I was saying is that Fe in and of itself (which it almost never is), as a pure function, is concerned with extension towards the objective (and subjective too because all feeling is subjective) in a rather extensive and broadening arc manner such that it strives to bequeath it “like power” to as much as it can encompass. That is just its function in its purity. Of course, all this will be modified by other functions and their relative placements in the economy of any given type, not to mention factors occurring outside the realm of one’s given type, such as familial and societal conditioning for example.
As for INFJs and soulmates, yes, INFJs are generally very preoccupied in one way or another with the idea of the perfect fantasy bond with another individual of the opposite sex (usually) and this drives them on and motivates them in their search in life. I think many INFJs will find as they mature that the Fi type of love (intensive and indefinitely monogamous) will be something of a hindrance to them as this type of relationship progresses far past the initial fantasy stages and intense communion associated with falling in love. All NF types share this to some extent, as do all intuitive-preferencing types to a somewhat lesser extent.
So, for an INFJ, their auxiliary function of Fe is more appropriate for them as they mature and this necessarily entails some curtailment of their deep Fi impulses of extremely deep rapport and sharing with one other intensely special person.
The way this could manifest in a healthy sense to get both sides of the equation going is to love intensely while the Fi monogamous bond exists but be open to and aware that their will probaly be a need and a longing at some point to extend a similar love to other special people as well. Is there a problem with this? Yes, in so far as we are participating in our current paradigm of exclusive relationships with one person that eventually lead to marriage, childbearing, and shared financial resources with this one person, it can lead to problems for an INFJ simply for the reason that they have a lot of love or “like” to give, that they tend to be complex and multifaceted individuals with a lot of different sides to them that they NEED to express. This is not the case with everyone but for INFJs it usually is.
So, the question becomes can they express all these sides of themselves with one person without becoming bored of that person.
I don’t know the ultimate answer to this for every INFJ but I have a tendency to want to answer in the negative in a general sense.
Is there one soulmate for any given person? I don’t think so. But, that is just my opinion. I think INFJs in particular can be very good in relationships with all kinds of different people and they would feel very restless in a relationship unless the person they were with was exceptionally multifaceted themselves.
Maybe INFJs should get together with other INFJs. Perhaps, that would be the answer to the “One True Love.” In short, I don’t know and am really only speculating out loud.
However, if one has one and only true soulmate then doesn’t that mean that they will eventually find each other in that fateful manner and happily remain together the rest of their days. If that is true, then, it will happen of its own accord I would think. And if it isn’t meant to be, then, their ain’t nothing you can do about it anyway.
And I would say in any event that whatever the case may be that you will have a better chance of finding this one true love if you have lots of different relationships.
Should an INFJ stay with a person that they don’t feel is their soulmate out of obligation or wanting to honor the other person? This depends on how much of your own happiness you are sacrificing and what that other person is giving you that is something you value, but, however falls short of soulmatedom. I can’t answer that question. It is up to an individual in each given instance what they will do based on what they know and what they can bear and so on.
I don’t know if this is something where an enneagram comes in. My sister and I are both INFJs and while we are both very different (she is ALL Ni/Fe to the point that she’s way too much mood for me and I am way too much Ti for her) we are both serial monogamists for whom guys fall hard and then we get bored. And yet, and yet, I could never be involved in a polyamory community. Even though it’s a sort of plural monogamy, I’d die managing all those hidden feelings flying about the place. I like to focus on one person at one time.
The brilliant thing about my ENTP husband – who is my soulmate in the sense that the only other people on the planet I could imagine being with forever would need to more or less exactly like him – is that I find him endlessly fascinating. We can enjoy talking to each other forever and never get bored of being together and greeting the world together. We’ve also reinvented ourselves multiple times both before we met and within our marriage. Generativeness is core to our personalities. In other words, we will be the same core people but into totally different things five years from now. We will always be taking each other on new adventures and there’s never an adventure one of us hasn’t gone on that the other hasn’t been (eventually) down to follow. So in some ways, I am a serial monogamist in several successive relationships with the same person. He is also incredibly playful (yet serious) in the same way that I am incredibly serious (yet playful). He’s my balloon and I’m his tether.
I highly recommend ENTPs with a strongly developed Fe for INFJs with a strongly developed Ti. It’s incredible.
I couldn’t agree more. I think that ENTP is the perfect match for an INFJ. They will bring out the best and highest sides of each other. So, score for you!
Also, I agree with what you said about INFJ not being into the polyamory community. INFJs are very tricky types that are pretty much straddling the gap between Fi and Fe. So, neither exclusivity nor polyamory seems to really work for them. Fun being an INFJ, isn’t it?
Thank you for your insightful reply, Blake.
I had relstionship with an ENTP and there my heart’s capacity for love and kindness grew exponentially. Instead of wanting to simply collapse into us, I desired to spread our love everywhere. Suddenly I was waxing poetic, singing and dancing. After years of depression, my mind was clear and confusion lifted. There was this feeling of safety that enveloped me that is difficult to put into words but all became right with the world. Between us, ideas sprung from the the love that we generated and we journeyed towards an incredible communion with the world. MB’s ball /teether analogy is fitting.
What’s the deal with ENTP/INFJ? Are there any other magically pairs?
Wow, that sounds like a wonderful relationship.
So, the deal with the ENTP/INFJ pairing is that they both tend to bring out the best sides of each other while simultaneously minimizing the difficult sides of each other. One of the keys to this magic is that an INFJ has strong Fi (though this isn’t generally known), but this Fi causes them such intense and overpowering feelings that it can sink them to the bottom of the sea. So, an ENTP basically has no Fi in their nature. They are completely oblivious to it, and in fact, will go out of their way to show their complete disregard for the things of Fi. This is part of where the ENTP irreverence comes from, this lack of Fi. And this is very, very refreshing to an INFJ who is often helpless and overpowered when in the presence of people using strong Fi.
On the other hand, ENTPs love Fe but need help with it and guess who is in mucho bigtime position to help them out with this? INFJ, that’s who. The same is true of INFJs who love Ti but are looking for someone to help engage them in it. ENTPs will turn on such a flow of crystalline and staggering Ti around an INFJ that they will feel like they just arrived in heaven. So, these types feed off each other’s energy and in a completely positive, uplifting, and appropriate way. They leave each other feeling energized.
So, the way to figure out the perfect and magical pairing for any type is to take the dominant function and put it in the opposite attitude direction. So, for dominant Ni the opposite attitude direction would be Ne, intuition directed towards the object rather than the subject.
Then, just take the auxiliary function of the type and look for the type that has it as a tertiary function, and vice-versa, and you have your magical pairing of types. I would say that these are the most ideal relationships.
I’ll list these ideal relationships:
INFJ/ENTP
INTJ/ENFP
INFP/ESFJ
INTP/ESTJ
ISFJ/ESTP
ISTJ/ESFP
ISFP/ENFJ
ISTP/ENTJ
Your mileage may vary (and it probaly will) but these are in theory the best and most ideal relationships between types. And I think there is a lot to this. That being said, why aren’t people often with their best fit for relationship? Well, there is more going on here then idealism and theories, that’s what. Human nature is very mysterious. People often seek relationships with people that will bring out the worst in them, for example. And there may be a reason for this. So, please take this as highly idealistic and theoretical. In practice, we can get into relationships with all kinds of different types for many different reasons and motivations. And those are good too.
I’m curious now… Which types do you think would be most torn between Fe and Fi? Since every type has each of the functions in varying orders and degrees, which stacking would be more susceptible to being caught between finding the holder of all the “like power” and expanding their “like”? And would that lead to feeling more conflicted or more balanced, in a way?
Just a thought. I apologize if it makes no sense.
INFJ and ISFJ are the two types that are most caught between Fi and Fe. In other words, neither function can be ignored and so they have to play both of them out. What does this look like? Well, it depends, but, I think it would be safe to say that IxSJs are fairly conflicted in relationships, especially INFJs, because they are caught between the desire to “love the one” and the alternate desire to “love the many”.
In today’s Western monogamous world, this IxFJ desire to do both can cause confusion to their romantic partners because we have been conditioned more towards the Fi-Te axis of what is acceptable in relationships of this type. This will be less of a problem for an ISFJ because they are an SJ type and so take their cue from the traditional and prevailing standards. So, yes, it might be exclusively a problem of the INFJ type the most.
INFJs can love very deeply due to their Fi id. They have very strong Fi in their nature and in some respects Fi is THE STRONGEST function for an INFJ, believe it or not. However, frustratingly enough, this strong Fi is something that they are scheduled to rise above in the course of their development and so this is what causes such pain to an INFJ and sometimes the partners of them.
INFJs have a drive to spread their love (or like) far and wide across as many different venues and people it can encompass. This is their auxiliary Fe kicking in and this is actually good for them. But, there is still the conflict from the Fi id that wants to maintain exclusivity and deep relationship with ONE person. This Fi can be an undermining and disempowering function for them if allowed to reign supreme. If you know anything about psychoanalysis you will know that the id should NOT be allowed to take over the whole structure of the psyche because this will lead to disintegration. So, the general word of advice I can give to INFJ is to maintain some kind of balance between Fe and Fi, but err on the side of Fe.
In practice, this will probaly prove difficult, but on the other hand, isn’t this what we are alive for? Yes, it’s challenging and can be extremely frustrating. Often we want the either/or answer. But, all functions must be honored and this is particularly true for the Feeling function in both its respective guises in the INFJ. The INFJ must use both Fi and Fe. Actually, they don’t have to use Fi because it will just be there for them whether they want it to be or not. What is more appropriate to say is that they MUST USE Fe.
I’ve said it many times. Fe is the answer to all INFJ woes. This is true of the auxiliary function for all types. And Fe is more optional for an INFJ (or ISFJ). You have to consciously use it. If you do, it will operate like Heaven’s dream. The auxiliary function is in many ways THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION for any type. It is the key to psychic integration.
For an INFJ, using the auxiliary Fe is basically a way for them to drain off the very intense and potentially poisonous Fi id accretions, which typically manifest as extreme feeling and devotion towards one other person. This extreme feeling and the sense of wanting to do right by this other person can be so overpowering for the INFJ that it can lead them into psychic disintegration. And that ain’t too constructive, is it?
So, the INFJ should express this feeling. They should take this Fi feeling of such overpowering depth of love and fling it out into the world, or towards the world (extraverting it) where it might actually do some good. Otherwise they will drown in a sea of love with this other person (assuming this person stays with them long enough for this to happen) and they will, in short, be fucked. Totally helpless.
But, they can’t turn off the Fi either. So, they just have to learn to deal with it. And the most correct way for them to deal with it is through Fe, which is simply expressing it outwardly towards other people and perhaps in some chosen artistic medium of their choice.
Read Goethe’s, The Sorrows of Young Werther, to get a taste of the intensity and unbearable suffering in love of an INFJ type. How much they can love that one special person and the depths of despair to which it drives them. Yes, Goethe was an INFJ and he wrote a book to express the depths of feeling he experienced in an actual relationship that he had with a woman he felt unbearable love for.
Is it possible to have the ‘thinking’ function and not be in tune with your emotions or suppress them, but.. have a strong feelings or values inside?
When you say “to have” the thinking function, I am going to assume you mean to have it as a dominant or auxiliary function. And yes, in that case having the thinking function in either of those positions would tend to indicate suppression of the feeling function, which is its natural opposite. However, it is more tricky and nuanced than that in actual practice (and even in actual theory). And at any rate, we “have” all the functions in some way. Just because someone is strong in thinking doesn’t mean that they will have no emotions at all (Unless they are Richard Kuklinski or some outlier sociopath). It just indicates a relative lack. Generally, how this goes is that whatever the dominant function is, its opposite, the inferior function, will be a function of great lack in the temperament. So, we don’t have it, yet we do in a way. It is just that we will tend to have it in the exact opposite potential of the dominant function. But, we can swing to the other side suddenly in an overcompensation movement towards the inferior and embody it for short periods of time. And we “have” it at any rate as a very important awareness, focus, and attraction such that we can be mighty preoccupied with it because we are so lacking in the inferior function. But, yes, usually in this case, we will suppress the things of the inferior function much of the time so we can embody the things of our dominant function. And they are mutually exclusive, which means that you can’t do both at the same time.
So, the the second part of your question is saying that you can have strong thinking (or overthinking, which is I think what you are getting at and sounds tertiary in your case) and yet have strong values and feelings “inside”. And again, the word “inside” is a bit confusing to me. But, since I know you from talking to you many times I would say what you are referring to is your id function, which in your case would be Fe and the thinking you are referring to is Te tertiary. The tertiary function often manifests as something a person is simultaneously strong and weak in, which makes it in some ways the perfect function, because we are driven towards it attractively and yet we have facility with it. The same thing could probaly not be said about any other function position.
And if there tends to be facility with both feeling and thinking, that tends to indicate they are not the dominant/inferior axis but the auxiliary/tertiary axis and also the id function, the latter of which is always very strong “deep inside”. The id function has that “inside” feeling. So, I would say you are an ESFP type who is pulling heavily towards the tertiary Te and this is what you are talking about when you say you “overthink” things, particularly in a strategic and action-oriented sense of “So, what should my next move be? If so and so does x,y, or z, then how should I counter or respond to meet my objectives?” And your objectives are likely to be Fi in nature, which would your auxiliary function, the development and maintenance of a long-term and exclusive relationship with a special person, which in the case of an ESFP would be the path of forward development for them.
So, the answer here would be to lead with your feelings, and not your Fe id feelings (which are the ones that you want to spread all over the place) but the Fi auxiliary type feelings of honoring and the sacredness of the other person as well as yourself. But, in practice the tertiary acts as a following-up, finishing, or resolving function to the auxiliary leading out into activity. So, they operate very much in tandem, alternating back-and-forth such that you wouldn’t want to ignore either one but you certainly want to give precedence to the auxiliary Fi as being the thing that establishes the predominant tone in your relations. The ‘thinking’ will then come in as a sort of chastity or sobriety in the affairs of the introverted feeling, kind of in effect saying, “Whoa, hold up a minute, before you get all supremely bound up in this intense and exclusive love thing, let’s be a little smart and effective about it.” Thinking in the tertiary has that type of reigning in or stepping back a little from the predominant feeling lead. But, this is the way it should be. If you let the tertiary thinking take control of the whole proceeds then, you are going to fall into the trap of being too analytical about what is essentially an affair of feeling and emotion. Also, if you are an ESFP, you will have to watch out for the strong Fe in the id position. So, when I am talking about leading with feeling I mean introverted feeling. Extraverted (exuberant and indiscriminate) feeling is strong in ESFP (and ENFP too) but, it can be a problem and issue for them because they get carried too far afield of where they want to be. It can (for example) lead them away from the exclusive relationship that they are good at developing and maintaining into the world of total fucking whoredom (sorry, I had to say it).
(I’m laughing right now just to let you know) but that last part… really… I don’t know with you sometimes ^_^ thank you though. That’s interesting
Well, you can laugh all you want (and please do!), but, I am dropping knowledge bombs on you yo. So, appreciate that homegirl!
And then conduct yourself accordingly.
*Anticipates further laughter*
I noticed that! Thank you =)
I wonder if INFJs, and perhaps intuitive types in general, are more susceptible to Pygmalion projects. It seems that in our idealism this would be so. And while all types have an ideal match, it’s as though the INFJ/ENTP and INTJ/ENFP match are the most celebrated in the type community. I suppose this is driven by the unbounded idealism of these types.
Of course they are. They want to change everything in the world to something else. That’s the basic principle of intuition.
And the reason the INFJ/ENTP and INTJ/ENFP match are most celebrated…well, not even really their matches, just them in general, is because everyone is in love with intuitive dominance. This reaches its apex in the INFJ type. So, worship at the altar of INFJ, I guess. Well, I already said they could rule the world. I meant that.
Intuitives feel special. They know. So…I don’t know. Yo.
I definitely know yo. Worship, bow, and taste all that you’ve been missing.
Hey the ho!
So that’s a VERY interesting picture you selected to adorn this post. Where’d you find it, and why’d you use it?
I found it on Wikimedia Commons and I used it because it fit in with the nature of this post rather beautifully. Rather serendipitous actually. Glad you find it to be so worthwhile. I agree with you.
On various other site I read that INTPs and INFJs are considered the “golden pair.”I would like to know yours thoughts considering INTP would also have Ni in the ID similar to INFP.
Why do those sites say they are a “golden pair?” Is this a meme that is going around? First of all, I have to say that the general prevailing portrait/description of the INTP type is fairly far off the mark in my opinion, which of course will lead to errors in ascription of who is that type. I have seen so many errors of ascription (and description) of who is an INTP, that I don’t know we would even be talking about the same thing when we are referring to that type.
For one thing, many people that I would consider ISTPs and ENTPs are classified as INTPs. Jung himself is one great instance. Actually, many people consider Jung to be an INFJ, which is even farther off the mark than the INTP assignment (well, maybe not farther off the mark, but, being off the mark in a different way). In my understanding of the definitions of this system, Jung was an dominant introverted thinking type (he himself said as much) with introverted intuition because most any great psychologist MUST HAVE some form of Ni. Now, yes, according the Id Function position I introduced to this system, an INTP would have Ni at the id position. However, the id function being what it is – primitive, undifferentiated, infantile, regressive, and in short, highly muddled and inelegant in expression, this translates to INTPs being strongly psychological but highly confused and all over the place when it comes to precisely applying this function. This lies in start contrast to the ISTP type who has Ni as a tertiary function, the tertiary function being the exact opposite to the id function in expression in many respects – sophisticated, highly differentiated and integrative, elegant, refined, and in short – very economical and precise in expression. The caveat is that the tertiary function is fairly weak quantitatively, but it makes up for this lack exactly in the area of the qualitative. It could be called qualitatively perfect as a function position. Just right. Not too much nor too little.
Anyway, I see ISTPs as being much more psychologically on target than an INTP whose psychological insight tends to be highly muddled by personal subjectivity for one thing. INTPs are the type that claims to be absolutely objective, unbiased, and rigorously logical, but the mistake they make is not accounting for their own highly irrational nature stemming from their Ni id, the id function being as a rule deeply unconscious yet could be said is the primary deep and underlying motivation for any type. This is how I see the INTP type archetypally and as their sort of mythology and story. They are deeply irrational and have a sort of defensiveness that arises in the form of their rigorous insistence on absolute logic and objectivity. But, it is all based on a foundation of extreme irrationality. I think INTPs and INFPs can be some of the most irrational of all types. INTPs, of course, cover it up better with their dominant Ti, but, to a discerning and penetrating eye, they aren’t this way deep down.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t consider INFJ and INTP to be the “golden pair.” It would be much more likely that INFJ would form a “golden pairing” with the ENTP type. By the same logic, an INTP would form a “golden pairing” with the ESTJ type.
The problem with this kind of pairing, in matters of love at least, because in other kind of relationships (as in socionics) may work , is that it ignores the specifics of each type – an infp may find, in theory, complementarity in esf, but Fi nature is so idiosyncratic, its likes/dislikes are so strong (Dario Nardi showed this on brain scans), that it will allways feel Fe as an enemy (but an esfj can accept an infp more easy); in the same time, something weak in esfj, can attract an infp (they are like sociopath attracted to weakness) or can make a basis for a relationship; and this kind of reasoning can be applied to all the situations, which makes any attempt at finding a logic of love useless
That conclusion -“any attempt at finding a logic of love is useless”- does not follow from your premises. I don’t think that Fi will always feel Fe as an enemy. They have a certain complementarity. But, at any rate, I don’t understand how that proves that an attempt at finding a logic of love is useless. I like that phrase – a logic of love. Poetic.
Ditto for the magic of the ENTP/INFJ coupling. Rarely boring unless we bring work home, which cannot always be helped. However, boring is hardly the descriptor that describes this dynamic. We do bring out the best in each other and even love and honor each other’s limitations without shaming or coercing. We just naturally spur each other on to our better selves. I am happy in love in this marriage more consistently than I have ever been. It leaves me with so much more energy and love for the rest of the world and other parts of my life. I highly recommend this pairing to mature INFJs/ENTPs. Earlier in life and before we worked on our stuff this would not likely have worked. I can’t say that young INFJs/ENTPs can’t work, because they may be more developed for whatever reason than either of us would have been. We both needed some hard and sharp corners knocked off and polished a bit first before we found each other and recognized we oddly fit. We surprised a lot of people because we seem so different, or maybe that was just our surprise that we projected onto others. Dunno, don’t care. Just living and loving mostly happily for the past 8 years. Damn, we earned this!
These were my blind spots. Now I see it.
I always hated fi behavior. Blake helped me in understanding more about my fi id and about other fi types.
Thank you. I feel stronger than ever before.
And I use to think fe is gay so never used it but other humans apparently love my fake love too much. So I am just gonna go with it. I am gonna quit trying to act like estps. I like them but other people don’t like them as much as they like expression of fe.
Objective truth is guiding me towards subjective truth and I can’t say no.
Here I go… Gay love
“Other humans apparently love my fake love too much” hahaha brilliant