Is Fi Absolute?

I’ve noticed that I have a tendency to subconsciously theme when it comes to article writing. Once my mind gets rolling on a subject, it’s hard to walk away until I’ve explored it deeply. Lately, my focus has been one of exploring Introverted Feeling, or Fi. Of course, it’s not that I have Fi in my stack, but rather I’ve come to realize that Fi has been lacking good representation, for whatever the reason. This has been made clear to me by various Fi users that I’ve been interacting with as of late. So, hopefully I’m able to relay this thought properly, but I’m going to try and discuss the major difference between dominant Fi and lower Fi, and in doing so, address a prominent misconception that even I once fell prey to.

Function placement is a funny thing. While the core principles of a function are always the same, a function’s placement in the stack can make all the difference in the world as to how the function manifests. Identity functions specifically shift a good deal, based on location. I’ve said this many times before, but I’ll say it again for the sake of any new readers or those who may have forgotten. The higher the function, the greater the range of use one has with that function. It doesn’t indicate skill in using that function, but rather, how many ways in which they’ll use it. A dominant user can demonstrate all the negative uses that an inferior user will demonstrate. However, a dominant user should demonstrate much more beyond that limited scope.

Generally speaking, identity functions are how we connect to our core person, how we introspect. Naturally, how we view ourselves is how we form our sense of identity. Some people will have a more clear sense of identity, while others might be more vague. Some will give their identity careful consideration, while others may not. It’s all going to a matter of which identity function you have, and where it is placed.

So, now that I’ve laid some generally ground work, let’s look more specifically at Fi. Fi has a close connection with their own emotional being. This is not to say that they’ll be an emotional wreck, but rather that they’ll find it tantamount to have a clear understanding of their feelings, and be honest about these feelings, with themselves and others. (Allow some variance here for maturity and proper development. Things I say are rarely absolute, but trends and tendencies within the average scenario.)

Dominant functions are our primary focus, and as a result, get the majority of our energy. Dominant identity functions are no different. Oftentimes, Fi is described as this rigid sense of self, this absolute knowing of who one is and how they feel at all times. This is a fallacy. Dominant Fi is a never-ending journey of self-discovery. They’re never done evaluating themselves.

What does this mean?

Well, it means that the average, healthy dominant Fi user is not going to just flippantly decide how they feel about something. They need to evaluate. They need to dwell, ruminate, and explore. Dominant Fi is flexible, and ever-changing, as they discover more and more about themselves. Overtime, they will establish solid opinions and values, certainly, but these aren’t necessarily unyielding. You know how Ti is described as never being certain, struggling to be 100% with their opinions, and viewing nothing as absolute? Fi parallels to Ti. Dominant Fi will rarely be 100% certain about themselves; there’s always more to learn.

Ok, so what about all those judgement high Fi users? Am I saying that they can’t actually be high Fi users? No. I’m not saying that at all. However, the rigid, harsh enforcing of opinions does not come from Fi; it comes from Te. That’s where the confusion often lies. A threatened Fi user may fall into that Te and whip out a sudden, sharp judgment, but if the user is healthy, that should not be a constant state. Of course, the key word in that previous statement is “healthy”. An unhealthy dominant Fi user that is essentially in a grip-like state, or calling frequently on their lower Te, may present as a very rigid, and harsh person. As I mentioned, allowed for some variance here. People are extremely complex and diverse.

Remember what I said about Fi wanting to be emotionally honest? Well, let me give you an example. This is a negative example, which I’m not saying is demonstrative of all Fi users, but I want to get a point across here. There is this common Fi trope I see in movies/shows. It’s essentially that of an annoying, indecisive Fi dominant. They’re constantly falling in love, but then changing their mind, and backpedaling. It comes off as incredibly selfish, since they keep giving people what is essentially “emotional whiplash.” However, the problem here is that since they feel the need to be honest about their feelings, they can’t just settle into this less than ideal situation, and end up stating how they feel, much to the dismay of others. This behavior in many ways comes of as wishy washy, and hypocritical. I’ve seen people try to attribute it to Fe, as a result, but that is false. Fe tends to be more dishonest with how they feel for the sake of maintaining social integrity. This is an example of Fi constantly in flux, never 100%.

However, like I said, I’m in no way stating that the majority of Fi dominants are like this. Healthy Fi has a deep capacity for empathy, desires harmony, and considers the feelings of others. Fe does not get to claim ownership over those things. Fi gets unjustly described as selfish, simply because Fi desires to be emotionally consistent with self, and thus will frame things in an emotionally honest way. Fe often re-frames their personal motivations into group-oriented ones, making it come off as selfless even when it is not. Fi will often get a lot of flack because they are less prone to doing this. However, this does not mean they’re constantly (or even commonly) disregarding harmony. They often strive to uphold harmony, since that is something that Fi users frequently value, but Fi users also strive to be much more straightforward and honest in regards to portraying their real self whenever they can (whenever they do not perceive it to threaten harmony).

As I stated, for dominant Fi, self is not set in stone, ergo they tend to adjust and change who they are. This is why we say that Fi will try on new identities while seeking to discover who they are and what fits them. They toy with their identity, and play with it, just like Ti toys with logic.

Now, what about other Fi placements? I’ve spent this whole time specifically speaking of dominant Fi, but there are three other placements. Do they act the same? Well. Middle identity functions are generally more confident, because that identity no longer exists in a constant state of evaluation. However, auxiliary Fi will still be very flexible, and subject to change, but it should also occasionally be more certain, and that tertiary Te will be more often blunt (in an amiable way, when healthy). They will likely share the tertiary Fi mindset, of “I am who I am, and people will see me through my actions.” But, an auxiliary Fi user should still relate to many of the dominant Fi traits that I described above. On the other hand, tertiary Fi will by far possess the most fixed sense of self, assuming a loop situation is not present. Of course, that rigidity is the result of auxiliary Te with just enough thought being put on their Fi for them to feel certain enough. Inferior Fi may vary wildly, since inferior functions can quickly waffle between extremely under-thought to extremely overthought.

So, I said all this to lead up to this thought: it’s inaccurate to describe IXFPs as having an extremely rigid sense of self-knowing. That is not the typical scenario. When it is, it speaks to a hyper-focus on the lower thinking function. In many scenarios, it portrays an unhealthy state. In some instances, it’s simply a case of inaccurate typing, as it is not unusual for lower Fi users to mistake themselves as dominant Fi users, possibly due to the stereotypes, misunderstanding the system, or perhaps an identity crisis, of sorts. We can all have those. Good Fi is flexible Fi. Flexible Fi attempts to account for all the variables: nuance, context, impact. This is also why dominant Fi users may get trapped in a state of inaction, needing to develop that inferior Te in order to push themselves into action. They want to evaluate. They want to understand. They want to know, but can they ever truly know when everything is constantly in flux?