Introduction
It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all.
C.G. Jung
A century later, this difficulty remains. One could expect that, like for Ni and Fe, a modernized perception by later authors could have made Fi more accessible to us. But modern texts give an overall incorrect picture.
I don’t feel more apt than Jung to say something relevant about Fi. Yet, Fi is quite common. Dominant introverted feelers are rare but not so rare. ENFP is quite common but most importantly, ESFP is very common. Thus high Fi-users are everywhere.
Before getting into this text, it is required to understand the basics of the feeling function: feeling judgement, good/bad, valuing/values, ethics, parallelism, narratives. You can get acquainted here:
- Extraverted Feeling
- Juan E Sandoval: Extraverted Feeling
Jung
Jung is the best about introverted feeling and maybe the only author to take seriously. The goal of this section is to produce a shorter version, stripped from a few confusing ideas.
Introversion vs intuition
Something surprising can be found in Jung’s entire chapter. Assuming I read between the lines correctly, he seems to relate introversion with something like inner images, inner objects, or what he calls primordial images. But what is it?
There could be some confusion between N and introversion. It becomes especially apparent in his take about Si that sounds too close to Ni. It also appears when he suggests multiple times that Ti is more focussed on abstraction than Te.
By “primordial images”, I am not sure what he means. For the feeling function, maybe these “primordial images” could refer to the deep roots of human feeling and ethics born and supported in universal and timeless narratives that can only be approached by getting closer to the unconscious, in the intimacy of the subject. It is even likely that the source is so unfathomable that a vague word such as “primordial image” could fit.
But if these primordial images have anything to do with God or something mystical, then why would Ni be the prophets in Israel? The “primitive images” sound dangerously close to “inner vision” of the “intangible essence of reality” that is N by definition. Since his phrasing is unclear, I decided to drop all parts of his text related to it.
As a safer approach, introversion relates to favouring and over-protecting the subject as well as an indifference for the object. Introversion somehow involves an inner world of some sort, narrowly chosen and controlled by the subject. But the notion of inner vision and its link to the unconscious should mainly be related to intuition. It is of crucial importance here because this text is meant to draw a clear line between INFJ and Fi.
Introversion for rational functions
For introversion, the subject is naturally not influenced by the object (in his choice of focus) and he sees himself as the listening ear of his own process.
For the perceiving functions (S and N), introversion causes:
- A subjective selection and narrowing of incoming information to suit the needs and priorities of the subject.
- Neglecting the sharing of information to the outside, especially when the object interferes
For the judging functions (T and F), introversion manifests as:
- What to assess rationally is selected narrowly by the subject. The rest is postponed for assessing later (or never)
- The subject feels he is the ultimate jury; any “argument” being made is intended to convince only him.
For T, the rules of logics (intellect) and the truth value of any assertion (correct/incorrect) are considered universal and absolute, no matter if introverted or extraverted.
In a similar way, valuing, narratives and the way affect is supposed to respond to good and bad is assumed to be rather universal by the F function. The rational functions are not really meant to be “subjective” (meaning idiosyncratic or biased), no matter if introverted or extraverted.
Thinkers believe in some clear notion of correct/incorrect. But thinkers often disagree with each other. We thus have to admit T can conclude wrong (commit mistakes). Similarly, F can be “wrong”. Yet, rational functions are supposed to do their job properly. Implicitly, the subject assumes his inner process is doing a universally valid job; no matter if introverted or extraverted.
What makes Ti less tyrannical than Te is that it aims to convince the subject, attain logical consistency in his inner world. But it considers his methods and conclusions universally and factually valid as much as Te.
It is the same for Fi and Fe. But F does not produce an opinion about truth, it makes a choice about how to behave, feel and interact. If F was to express an ethical position too openly, it would become an unproductive judgment.
Shortened description
Based on the previous points, I produced a truncated version of Jung’s introverted feeling. I also removed anything that describes pathologic aspects (hysteria for example). And finally, I removed a few details I believe to be false.
What follows is an extract from Jung:
[..] Since introverted feeling is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood (*). It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it […]. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined — they can never be clearly comprehended. […] It shrinks from the brutality of the object (**), in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence
(*) Fi is, as a fact, misunderstood. Like Ni and Ti. It does not mean Fi-users complain or victimize themselves for being misunderstood. This is instead the “martyrdom” of Fe.
(**) Don’t confuse with an outward blame of the object being brutal, which again can only be Fe
[…] But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately presented or communicated to the outer world (*). Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one’s fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find […]
(*) This does not mean Fi-users tend to be artists, more than this feeling is not communicable in ordinary forms
It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. […] They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed (*). Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other’s path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are ‘cooled off’ by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness.
(*) A similar conceit exists in Ni as a selection and crypticity of information. But it’s less about motivations than how the vision was shaped or how it aims to shift.
One may even be made to feel the superfluousness of one’s own existence. In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive object. But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation. […]
A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop into the depth. Whereas, for instance, an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in both word and deed at the right place, thus quickly ridding itself of its impression, an intensive sympathy, because shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that embraces the misery of a world and is simply benumbed. It may possibly make an extravagant irruption, leading to some staggering act of an almost heroic character, to which, however, neither the object nor the subject can find a right relation. To the outer world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this sympathy looks like coldness, for it does nothing visibly, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.[…]
Although in the normal type, the tendency, above alluded to, to overpower or coerce the object once openly and visibly with the thing secretly felt, rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads to a serious attempt in this direction, some trace of it, none the less, leaks through into the personal effect upon the object, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define. It is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds the immediate circle under a spell. It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power (*) that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious. […]
(*) Not to confuse with Ni’s natural mystery in outward expression
Why no-one sees it?
Before trying to describe Fi, let’s give a quick overview of how our imagination looks for introverted feelers but inevitably misses the mark.
Fi-dom stands out as pretty special to anyone who had a close encounter. Yet, it stands out as something that pretends to be banal. The problem is that, while it stands out, it’s nearly impossible to say how. It is not suited to be expressed by words.
It does not mean introverted feelers are silent people. Maybe INFPs appear a little strange but INFJs appear significantly stranger: an impenetrable unimpressed gaze, mesmerizing metaphors, cryptic views, and sometimes a surreal artistic universe. Maybe some INFPs are not very talkative. But mutism or unreadability is not something inherent to Fi. It’s not that introverted feelers do not speak or that no-one speaks about them; it is that no-one is able to put words on what makes them introverted feelers.
It explains partially why Fi remains relatively unseen. Unless a special personal link exists, an Fi-user never reveals himself. And even when such a link exists, the focus is more on the parallelism than himself; the interpersonal matters too much for a dominant feeler. Contrary to the general rule that introverts sound more egocentric, introverted feelers appear less egocentric than extraverted feelers. The general tendency of their ego is to become unfriendly for reasons that escape others almost completely.
The best imitation: INFJ
Many INFJs sound deceptively like introverted feelers. They often hide behind an encrypted mystery, a strange aloofness, a conceptual wall or a just a distanced observant silence. When Fe kicks in, they appear suddenly self-referential, often through touching confessions or an avalanche of warm feelings. This introvert who defeats his defensive shyness to connect and show his inner world is not an introverted feeler but his best imitation. INFJs and introverted feelers are, in fact, extremely difficult to tell apart.
Since INFJ is slightly easier to imagine than a real Fi-dom, popular websites tell their story in a thousand narratives called “Fi”. We can find this story in songs as well (all these songs were written by INFJ 9w1s):
Art
NFs have rich fantasies and are usually more involved in art and entertainment, with a keener sense of aesthetics suited both for appreciation of art and artistic creation. If introverted, it allows a rich inner fantasy world. It makes INFx good candidates for art and hopefully, INFP will be found in artists. Let’s look at three typical INFx:
These three examples were chosen because they are usually perceived as INFP. Are they? Bowie and Bush are clear INFJs: both Ni and Fe are obvious. For Bjork, I still don’t know for sure but while she looks more INFP-like, interviews also suggest INFJ.
The least we can say about them is that if they meant to never shine, reveal themselves, impress or influence (see Jung), then something went wrong.
Without a surprise, the vast majority of artists of key importance and undisputed excellence who fall in the “weird introvert” category are INFJs. One could hopefully find a few famous artists who are INFP. But for the moment, this search seems bound to find INFJs only. This is compatible with Jung describing Ni as the artist (alternative to the “prophet”) and the way he describes his approach to art.
Other false leads
Authenticity: the word “authenticity” makes a lot of sense when talking about Fi. The problem with Fi’s authenticity is that it is so subtle and personal, that it does not find a way of expression as obvious as self-talk. “Revealing oneself”, even quite honestly, is something else. It’s more about finding a path between an inner vision and a resonance in many others through objective narratives, which typically sends us back to Ni and Fe.
Depression / melancholy: I would agree Fi has a higher vulnerability to depression or melancholic moods. But again, if this depression happens to be one day confessed in an appealing form, then Fe is the driving force.
We could continue following false leads forever. Any image likely to be associated to Fi by authors after Jung comes from the dominance of Fe and Ni in recent psychology. These functions project themselves:
- Ni: “the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself”
- Fe: expresses and feels a parallelism easily to external narratives
When using N, what inner vision links to the label “Fi” are images a given culture made visible in one way or another. Artistic visions contain universal narratives (ugly duckling, lonely poet, little weirdo, rock and roll suicide…) controlled by F. And if these narratives were channelled externally somewhere in the world to be visible enough, then it was by Fe.
Description
It is rather easy to say what Fi is not and how people falsely imagine it. It is much more difficult to say something relevant about it. Because Jung already said what matters the most, I can stick to a simpler rephrasing with a few additional observations.
Dampening the object
Since F applies to affect, valuing and ethics, this dampening applies to other’s feelings, external valuing and objective ethics. Fi does not seem to care externally. An introverted feeler does not get into any of this if no parallelism is found. Even if it were to happen, he would say nothing about it, since the feeling process returns to the subject without intending any external impact.
As such, an Fi-user does not openly care about other’s values, won’t experience an impulse to get into the fight, won’t comment about them and won’t propose his alternate perspective with much effort. Should his perspective be expressed, it would pierce through others’ as if completely ignoring them and would feel devoid of any impactful energy. He may find in other’s feelings, narratives and valuing an accessory stimulus but does not shows it at the surface.
In the presence of an Fi-user, and without the pre-existence of a personal link (chosen by him), F is somehow voided of its external energy. It feels subtly ridiculed from an invisible place, so that the energy of easy friendliness, warm expressiveness, should it be an ordinary enthusiasm or showing off harmlessly, is cooled off. Like Jung said, it takes the wind off the sails, sending an invisible message of the other’s superfluous existence. Or it stays out. Since Fe is always a bit counterfeit by norms and social conventions, this attitude of Fi-users does not feel so strange.
It is not to imagine Fi-users as cold, joyless or unfriendly persons. Whenever the energy is safely returned to the subject, introverted feelers are naturally expressive, often joyful, deeply empathetic and very friendly. They are definitely people persons. It’s just that the object is not meant to show the way to the subject. The object is supposed to go his way, not towards the subject, and serve only as an accessory stimulus.
Intensiveness
If the object wants to attract the good graces of the subject, he must succumb to his superiority. Then, the delightful repose or sympathetic parallelism with a mask of cool indifference takes a completely different face: Fi is intensive.
For Fi to find a way into the object (here another person), the object must somehow accept a form of compliance. He must agree to drop the general narratives of Fe and allow to be touched by more personal ones, allow the subject to stamp his mark on him. The object becomes energized and fascinated to such a point, he does not realize he becomes an extension of the subject. The personal link has unusual closeness and intensity.
While the introverted feeler still feels his feelings as his own, deeply intensified and profoundly real, the object is subjected to it. He feels both empowered and penetrated, opened to something he would not have thought possible: Fi leads the way into the depths. Just as feelings show as intensive, so does sympathy. This sympathy is so absolute that the object drops any kind of defence and feels submerged.
While I may have (unwillingly) described this in negative terms, this close encounter with Fi is something I view as precious. The way Fi takes the wind off the sails of the adjusted attitudes of Fe (and the other functions), is a pre-requirement to experience life from a more authentic position. It feels deeply alive.
Again, it’s important to not confuse this side Fi with the “confession” aspect of INFJ, neither to its “everyone’s therapist” side that, while having some depth, is far from being as intensive. Fi-doms don’t exactly confess, they penetrate and lead the object.
Getting in other’s shoes
Between a tranquil middle state of feeling that dampens and rebuffs the object and an intensive personal link, a strange behaviour is to be found in Fi-users. Mainly in INFP: getting in other’s shoes. Why more INFPs? It’s just that Ne has a thousand possibilities to pursue.
It is a combination of several aspects of Fi already mentioned:
- Using the object as an accessory stimulus
- Embracing the misery of the world from an inaccessible place
- Guiding the object towards narratives relatable by the subject
- Using F in the place no-one would feel tempted to, thus without external interference
It looks like Fi-users often encourage people to get into certain confessions or narratives, invisibly influencing them in certain directions so that, through someone else’s story, the Fi-user can experience something he deeply relates to. We find this typical movement of introversion: from the subject, into the object and back to the subject.
Fi “manipulates” the object’s narratives by a subtle investment or disinvestment of his energy at certain points of the story, asking questions that sound open and naïve like “did you feel that…” so that he somehow creates in the other’s story some framework he can relate to. It allows the subject to experience parallelism without the object getting in his direction or imposing his reality.
He also shows as rather funny behaviours when an INFP suddenly shows a great interest for someone (who has nothing special) in the name of inclusion and sympathy, but the person actually does not understand what the INFP is trying to do. Which usually does not matter to the INFP: he lived his own narratives through it.
Idealism
Fe and Fi are equally as idealistic. While T is an effort to find out rationally what facts are, F is an effort to find out rationally what the state of affairs should aim at. In Fi, since the subject is free to focus on narratives in his inner world, he can focus on narratives that can touch his sympathetic or ethical side, even if these narratives are not related to anything external.
Note: It is important to recall INFJ is as idealistic as INFP and the term “idealistic” alone cannot tell these types apart. Similarity, the general notion of a “fantasy world” exists in both types.
Conclusion
Jung is the best take about Fi. I cannot provide any other resource about Fi sufficiently free from the usual mistakes I mentioned. Most of them create a dangerous confusion between Fi and Fe-aux, most noticeably INFJ.
Knowing real persons who are Fi-doms, or at least Fi-aux, and observing the facts described by Jung is the only way to form a realistic picture of Fi. The easier resources can only lead the learner astray, searching Fi in magical idiosyncratic personal expressions and various narratives that are only expressions of Fe (and often Ni).
Jung is INTP and like most introverted thinkers, he is difficult to read. The later MBTI culture was brought to us mainly by INFJs. It introduced invaluable additions. For example, Jung only dimly suggested “valuing” for F while nowadays, its relationship to the more precise notion of ethical values is well known. Ni has also been brilliantly expanded since Jung.
Some INFJs are deeply perceptive and easier to read. But in the case of Fi, it came with a drawback: they created a labyrinth of projections of Ni and Fe onto Fi. Seeing Fi through the blur created by our culture requires having a closer look.
Enneagram Elements 