INFJs simply don’t have Fi. 

Thanks for the video, Ren 😊 Regarding Ti and feeling emotions, as an INFJ, I'm more aware of what I think and I generally analyse the situation. My feelings change based on my understanding of the situation. I don't analyse emotions, I analyse the incidents that happened and the rationale of the situation. Sometimes listening to songs that resonates with what I feel helps me feel emotions better.

Have to disagree with this one. Human cognition is complex, to narrow it down to 4 main functions is a gross oversimplification. The 8 function model accounts for how each type makes use of each function. I dont think it broadens type descriptions the way you’re thinking of it. If anything it specifies more than it broadens. To say that infj is not capable of using fi is to say that infj is not capable of knowing or forming their own personal emotions, which is simply not true. An infj may not be using fi the way an infp would, but regardless its still there even if its not at the forefront of their consciousness. Everyone is capable of using each of the functions to a certain degree, the difference lies in the strength of the function and the purpose it serves with respect to the rest of the stack. Ironically this need to narrow down the functions into as neat of archetypes as possible, disregarding complexity in favor of neatness is a very Ni take lol.

Thanks for these thoughts, Ren. It is interesting to think about Fe vs. Fi as being about the cognitive processing of feelings rather than as the emotional experiences themselves. I do think this must be an oversimplification, though, as it's clear that the emotional experiences of Fe users and Fi users are actually different. Fe users are much more likely to be empathetic in a very direct way, where their emotional experiences are wrapped up in those of others (even before any decision making process is consciously undertaken) whereas Fi users simply don't experience feelings this way, at least not to nearly the same degree. You could try to say that this is actually a distinction in cognitive processing, and not in the experience itself, but if that's true then the cognitive processing is so core to our programming and unconscious that it happens prior to what we recognize as the emotional experience itself and the distinction between the experience and the cognitive processing of it would seem meaningless in that case. It seems to me that we really are just experiencing things differently. They're the same human feelings but with a different level of openness to the external world.

Great to see that Southern France light. You are lucky to live there Ren

Thanks for explaining that Ren, because I have some pretty deep feelings, but I do control them. I don't allow them to control me (most times). At least not as much as I see they dominate an INFPs emotional landscapes. I do envy them their depths sometimes though, because I used to get all those 'emotionless' and 'cold' references, with people acting as if I'm pretending or scamming, while they get sympathy. Now I know. BTW, my copy of your new book arrives the 8th from Amazon. You do have a knack for analysis, my friend. Philosopher-Saint of the INFJ (bet your wife would laugh at that one).

I think the 8 function and the enneagram tritypes and wings and instincts are all good tbh. I understand what you mean by adding variations to the formula makes it harder to implement as a science. I think having these extra bits helps hone in further and further to how a person is. Let's take myself for example INFP but I was stumped for quite a while and thought I would be an INTP because of how much I constantly think & don't exactly fit the UwU fairy soft INFP but then looking into enneagram and seeing that I was neck and neck 5w4/4w5 helped me understand that yes I was indeed an INFP but not the default type, otherwise I would still be in that INXP limbo. Seeing that my tri-type was 549 (triple withdrawn) gave me the heads up that my strategy of being is way too lobsided and I realised that I could do with being more social & outgoing. I do still agree tho. Aligning the values of MBTI to enneagram does not really work, it's like aligning arabic and greek as languages and wondering why it doesn't fit snugly. I think it's better to wade through the Caveats than to neglect important information because it doesn't fit into the singular system

It's my impression that shadow functions could exist as some at least could explain certain stereotypical characteristics in types that would not really have an explanation for otherwise by just looking at the top 4 stack. The PoLR is a good example of this. If you talk to an isfp and istp, they have far greater lack of Ne (their poLR function) than a lot of others types that ALSO do not have Ne in their mainstrack. Examples of missing Ne are a lack of excessive talking without a clearly having a point is only really missing in ISFP and ISTP, that pretty much only talk in "outcomes", but keep their whole thought process inside, while the reverse can be observed that the NE doms that tend to think out loud without even getting to a point. They are really opposites in that sense. (I just picked ISP's as example) Basically there are examples like this for every type. However, I'm open to hearing other reasons why these specific traits are in the isps and not in others that also lack Ne in their main function.

MBTI Feeling is not the same as emotions. Anything can trigger emotions. I think of F in MBTI as sensitivity to feelings, either our own or other people’s. An Fe user doesn’t usually want to give other people bad feelings, and this creates positive or negative feelings in the Fe user. An Fi user doesn’t want to experience negative feelings themselves. Fi users can relate to the feelings of others because they know how they feel themselves due to Fi. This Fi users can be highly sympathetic but not very of at all empathetic which is an Fe thing. Both types have internal emotions and sensitivities, it’s just a case of which type you are most sensitive to, those of others or your own.

I'm wondering what you mean by 8 function models being less valid? The way I see it is you have your 4 main functions that can be developed, and your 4 lower functions are the ones that "suck", essentially. I think the lower functions are still useful to be aware of but only as potential causes of stress or difficulty - e.g. As an INFJ, generally when I run into trouble in the world it's usually because of a struggle with Te or Fi, or to a lesser extent Si/Ne. I generally do not run into trouble in Ni/Fe/Ti areas and even Se, in fact I'm obviously feeling good and in my element when those functions are called upon. Is this not an 8 function model? Are people trying to say something different?

It doesn't help that the original theory was developed with not only four functions, but only one attitude. Your first function was extroverted or introverted, or more accurately, Jung believed the entire person was extroverted or introverted. The rest of the function stack was neutral (or the opposite, depending on your interpretation). An ENTJ for example was always extroverted, and would use his or her second function of intuition either extroverted because they are extroverted, or introverted because it would oppose the attitude of the first function. The popular modern Grant stack alternates introverted and extroverted in the four function stack, but the original model was either neutral or opposite for all the other functions. People are arguing in the comments that the human mind is not so simple, but neither was this model. With the exception of the inferior function, the middle two could shift around because they weren't as set as the primary function. The secondary function could bind with the primary function and ate it, or work separately and compliment it. Your third function could shift up if you needed it and if your personality was less rigid. They could also work in harmony as if they were one function, and young considered this one of the goals of developing your personality. In fact using one primary function too much was considered a flaw for him. Having a psychological type wasn't so much a personality type in the original theory, as it was a way to figure out where you're thinking had gone wrong. Where you had become too rigid, or too much of a type, or were relying too heavily on a particular function. Young's goal and describing the different types was to help us balance them and therefore make your type neutral and have as little an impact on your life as possible. And the reason for this was because he believed that the real you was deeper than personality type. By creating these convoluted 8 function personality models, and even the complex alternating for function models, we are encouraging people to do the cognitively unhealthy thing which is embracing your type rather than discovering and embracing who you really are beyond your type. Now for young you found who you really are by studying your unconscious, but nowadays Jungian tharapy has fallen out of favour, as it's unscientific. There are, of course, other ways simple things, like journaling and trying new things to discover what really resonates with you. Hopefully you can tell that I love personality theories, and I've done my research into mbti and jungian typology but it never made me a better person. What we've lost sight of since the 1920s was that this whole system was originally meant to help you live your life, discover yourself, and maybe even understand the tools your strongest with; your cognitive functions. But remember that personality is the vehicle, not the destination, to yourself and your best expression of that in the world.

The three-body problem is a problem in the field of physics. The goal is to find how three things move when they attract each other with gravity. It would be for instance the problem of the movement of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Physicists do not have a general solution that always works.[1]

I perceive Fi as a kind of applied moral philosophy. So you don't have to think theoretically like a philosopher whether a certain situation or action is morally or ethically okay, instead you can feel it. It reminds me of the story of Cain in the Bible, when Cain was asked by God about his feelings after offering an inappropriate sacrifice to God. So it seems to be an internal moral compass that is independent of what is currently acceptable in society, but is geared towards God's commandments. In this sense it is subjective, but not arbitrary.

I always get this feedback that I have too much Fe, just because I am trying to understand and process my emotions, when in reality I am consulting the outside world about my emotions because it helps me process it better, I find whenever someone labels me as having a developed Fi shadow, I just disregard those people because they clearly are people that don't understand how I feel about things, and would rather take the time to psychoanalyze me with pseudoscientific perspectives

Pretty much everyone can use all 8 functions on basic level, even if it's somewhat wonky and exhausting. And when it comes to Se, according to Dario Nardi, people regardless of type show signs of advanced use when playing video games, down to showing overall brain activity pattern typical for Se-doms, which doesn't tend to happen for other functions.

I don't think Se is a blindspot so much as it is a nuisance to work around or interfering. An INTP would have Se as a blindspot... meaning it doesn't even register... quite non-existent. We can learn, adapt and even change overtime therefore people are capable of dipping into and discovering their inferior cognitive functions. What I find interesting is that we INFJs can outwardly survey others and the values of others... we can be very hyper vigilant about the values and emotional climate of others yet someone has a crush on us or likes us and it totally goes unnoticed. What's up with that? Wouldn't we be aware that the person has feelings for us and not have to hear it directly to confirm they like us? I'm going to say that we use certain functions to verify and in some Fi is that function and in others Ti is that function. If I'm using Ti to verify Fe the confidence level is low. I don't believe an Fi person would have this insecurity. If an INFJ is trying this on for size it would appear to make decisions that are extremely distorted and disjointed (aka Hitler as an extreme example). So an INFJ can use or defer to Fi but it would need to abandon Ti to do so which confuses and convolutes things.

Have you ever made a video about types/typology and how it might be viewed as essentialist? Especially with how problematic essentialism can be.

We have everything, the secondary process help/assist when the primary process can't do the things, are not the best tools in a situation, when stress or emotional, even if not our preferences. You have Fi, you have your own values, interests, passions that are aligned with yourself. It's just unconscious most of the time. It would be strange that Fe users, are always aligned with others, do things aligned with others, and never with themselves. Fe serve their Fi. You have acces to Fi through your Fe. I already proved with dreams that we all have the 8 functions. And you can experience it too. Ask before sleep for example : "show me in dream my 7th function, the trickster", and you will meet the archetype, a child representing & acting like Te, surely taking action quickly, ignoring if it pleases to others or not. I can understand some INFJ don't believe the 8 functions model or another, with their Te trickster, not understanding how this system work. We develop all functions (for the most spiritually advanced of us) I agree that Fe-Ti & Fi-Te process feelings differently. Just all types process feelings differently. Expose the INFJ to a lot of noise triggering their shadow, (Se door to the shadow/unconscious), and you will see them using Ne Fi Te Si.

I think the online tests just fail incredibly and leave people more confused. The functions I don’t have I don’t even really understand very well like Ne and Te but I can see how those users are different to me. I can see how the Fi users are so different to me. I am definitely an Fe user.

This video has a lot in it. If an infj is most often in their dominant function ni they will have a weaker se function as in less developed. In a way it’s the same for fi which is less developed than fe. However, because it’s a ‘feeling’ function it will feel more familiar than say a thinking function (although I like the idea of jumpers). I think infj types will be critical of fi in themselves and maybe in others.

The FI is weak and can show up a critic in the 8 cognitive model. It helps spread a duality in self and understanding of the weak areas we have. The inferior 4 show up as a shadow side in moments and hopefully not length of time. It's good to know your dominant functions. However mbti and cognitive theory didn't arrive until the 20th century. It's hard when this understanding becomes a subjective experience. It's easy to cast this judgment regarding FI. Which I'd agree. But that was before I did healing shadow work and payed more attention to the cognitive functions working dominant in others. For instance, hanging around my INFP bff developed my NE more. Her NI got really good. She dislikes cognitive theory, so I keep it to myself. But self development can be exploratory through FE. The FI function cares about personal values more. Just a take as well. Thank Renaud for your perspective.