Download Episode Hereright click link and select “Save Link As…”

In this episode, Joel and Antonia talk about which Myers-Briggs cognitive function is more selfish “Harmony” (Extraverted Feeling) or “Authenticity” (Introverted Feeling).

In this podcast you’ll find:

  • Joel defines selfishness as taking more than you should.
  • Antonia defines selfishness as making sure you get yours first.
  • Extraverted Feeling “Harmony” Fe – All FJs and TPs
  • Introverted Feeling “Authenticity” Fi – All FPs and TJs
  • Fi is selfish for the individual.
  • Fe is selfish for the collective.
  • Fe may define selfishness as individuating away from the collective.
  • Fi thinks it’s selfish to make everyone assimilate.
  • Fe finds it rewarding when someone gets their needs met.
  • Fe also takes a hit if someone isn’t getting their needs met.
  • Fe uses other people’s emotions to calibrate if everyone’s needs have been met sufficiently.
  • To a Fe user, Fi does feel selfish because they are taking more energetic resource than they are allowed.
  • Why is it okay to sacrifice inner turmoil over group turmoil?
  • Fe allows everybody to have a bad day as long as everyone agrees that they take turns.
  • Fi sometimes forgets that other people have struggles too and need a turn in the bitch fest.
  • Fi sometimes wants everybody else to focus on their problems and solve them.
  • Fe can be a sickly sweet commandant who condescends to others and forces them to do things their way.
  • Fi can’t understand why anyone would suppress who they are for the group’s benefit.
  • Fe sacrifices themselves every day for the group’s benefit.
  • Fe creates a system where everybody gets their time/day to be special. And the rest of us acknowledge when it is our day and when it is not.
  • Fi doesn’t understand why they need to assimilate for the benefit of everyone.
  • We all have to take the hit on occasion.
  • Fe does more emotional labor than the other types, so they notice when things are imbalanced.
  • Sometimes we project selfishness on to people who have permitted themselves to do what we haven’t. So, it’s a sort of envy.
  • Fe: “I wish I had permission to take for myself.”
  • Fe can learn from Fi that they need to acknowledge their needs freely.
  • Individuals matter, and they need to acknowledge their needs eventually.
  • Fe users can become passive-aggressive, angry, and resentful against the people around them who seem to take, take, take.
  • What Fe fails to realize is they are the ones who created the situation.
  • It becomes a false virtue for Fe users to sacrifice to others while hiding feelings of anger and resentment.
  • Resentment’s root is in envy.
  • Fe hates feeling negative emotions about others, so instead of stacking resentment maybe they can learn from the actions of the Fi user.
  • “They’re giving themselves permission to have those feelings and be disruptive, and I need to give myself the permission to do the same thing on occasion.”
  • Less mature Fe wants us all to buy into the same reality.
  • Fe teaches us that even if we can’t find compassion for ourselves, we can still be compassionate to others.
  • Fi can feel emotionally cavalier to Fe because Fi assumes everybody can deal with their emotional experience.
  • Fe is more gentle with people’s emotions, but they tend to overdo the nurturing and over-protecting.
  • Over-protecting is selfish of Fe because they are protecting themselves from having to see someone else in pain.
  • Our egos are the manifestation of selfishness.
  • So, our way is always going to appear better to us than someone else’s way.
  • Selfishness is not the product of a cognitive function.
  • Selfishness is the product of the individual.
  • All of us are selfish.
  • We have thrived as a species because we are selfish and have a will to live and dominate.
  • We accuse each other of selfishness but rarely admit it to ourselves.
  • Fe has its finger on the pulse of how serving the group helps serve self.
  • The more seasoned Fe gets, the more it will bring in Ti and need less input from others.
  • It’s common for younger Fe users to conflate harmony with agreement.
  • When Fe is caught up in something symbiotic, it wants to share it.
  • Fi has to get good at knowing the sweet spot.
  • “Most of me is on board, so it’s good.”
  • Fe assumes everyone is going to be on board.
  • Fe feels good when everybody is experiencing the same emotion.
  • Fi wants to make sure it won’t regret doing something that runs contrary to its values.
  • Project positive intent on others.
  • Fi can learn from Fe and vice versa.

In this episode Joel and Antonia talk about which Myers-Briggs cognitive function is more selfish "Harmony" (Extraverted Feeling) or "Authenticity" (Introverted Feeling). #introvertedfeeling #Extravertedfeeling

To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:

Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Soundcloud
Stitcher
Google Play
Spotify
Radio Public
PlayerFM
Listen Notes

If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!

Want to learn more?

Discover Your Personal Genius

free-personality-test-myers-briggs-2

We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…

50 comments

  • Keith
    • Keith
    • October 1, 2019 at 8:08 pm

    Half way through the podcast, with some thoughts – I think that without a doubt, Fi is more selfish then Fe. Identifying as an INFP, I know that introverted feeling is heavily focused on self. I wouldn’t knowingly snatch an extra slice of pizza if I was aware that someone else would then go without, but I am less aware of the needs of others then those using more Fe. I liked Antonia’s breakdown of the differences of the two, in pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of both. Fe seems to be much more aware of and focused on the needs of others than Fi, and that is undoubtedly a more selfless way of being.

  • Erica
    • Erica
    • October 1, 2019 at 6:26 pm

    Is using the word selfish, being selfish in its own right? Doesn’t it display the selfishness of a person or a group of people if they are using the word selfish to describe or solicit feedback from another person or group by using this term to identify how “they” ,individually or as a group, are experiencing some sort of lack due to what they are labeling as “selfish” behavior. They are concerned with their own lack(individually or as an individual as part of a group), The need to label arises from them seeing the lack they are experiencing.
    As Joel mentioned, I believe this type of labeling is a form of bullying by the person or group using the label. Even if they never openly share the label with the other person or group of people, they are essentially justifying their own negative thoughts/beliefs around themselves, and/or the group and the “lack” they think they are experiencing. This I believe is selfish to themselves and others. They are not being open minded and are putting the blame on someone else for why they are experiencing lack. Instead of trying to gain an understanding to realize a bigger picture. I believe that we are all responsible for our own experience and the act of pointing out someone else’s “selfishness” is an act in futility and unnecessary. Use this determination to guide who you want in your life but leave it at that and maybe if you really want to challenge yourself try to understand the other point of view, with an honest interest to understand. I believe if we all do that the “selfishness” is wiped away as people are able to learn from each other and see the value in all perspectives including their own. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I feel that the word selfish is very judgmental, and I am sure I am not seeing all sides here…but I feel this way of thinking has been positive for me and a way to keep an open mind. I am an ENFP and I have a lot of growth ahead of me…so I hope this comes across as just another perspective and one that is not absolute but thought provoking.
    I am so grateful for the work that Personality Hacker makes available and for who Joel and Antonia are! You guys are truly making a difference in my life! Thank you so much

  • Drew
    • Drew
    • September 30, 2019 at 4:56 pm

    Many, many thoughts on this episode, but as an INFJ, my major breakthrough was the realization that Introverted Feeling users don’t necessarily need me to adopt all of their opinions!!! It had NEVER occurred to me. I’ve always perceived FPs as the authoritarian types. This will be so helpful going forward, as I’ve often felt as though FPs are actively trying to beat me down into their way of seeing the world, when really they’re usually just expressing their own truth. On the other hand, I do find it hard to discuss issues with FPs, especially those that they’re passionate about. This probably has a lot to do with my Ni-Fe in particular, as my dominant function is by definition unattached to any specific values. I can actually feel assaulted by hardline positions in the moment, and need to be removed from the conversation to work out my thoughts.

    I do think that balancing out polarities is helpful to find harmony between Fe users and Fi users. Joel talked a lot about his gripes with certain social norms that some Fe users may insist upon. However I get just as annoyed with those same norms because my tertiary Ti kicks in to point out how arbitrary it all is, and that nobody is actually enjoying themselves. I’d imagine that Fi users can find balance with their Te by looking around and realizing when their Fi isn’t serving their external goals.

    Super episode! I feel like I have some really actionable strategies to integrate!

  • Erik Bland
    • Erik Bland
    • October 1, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    Great talk – I was really looking forward to listening to this one. I use Fi in my 10 year-old position in my car model, and I do occasionally get criticism for being selfish (though generally only by people close to me). I think about the concept of selfishness a lot, so it was good to hear the perspective on it from both Fi and Fe.

    In short, I will agree with Antonia’s comment at the end of the podcast that we are all selfish. Fe may seem selfless, but this philosophical argument (basically that altruism isn’t real) is that Fe helps itself by helping others. But I don’t even think we need to go that far in comparing selfishness in Fe vs Fi. And I’d also rather focus on positive aspects than negative. So in that regard, how do Fi and Fe try to help?

    First, I don’t view helping or even agape as the domain of Fe (vs Fi). I like to think of the analogy of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. As a disclaimer, in this analogy, teaching is thought to be superior to giving, but in reality, I don’t think that’s true. A starving man 500 miles from a lake doesn’t need to know how to fish. He needs a fish. Different scenarios will be preferentially treated by giving or teaching. end disclaimer

    I think of Fe is being very good at figuring out when someone needs a fish, and getting one for them. I view Fi as being very good at figuring out when someone needs to learn how to fish. They may or may not be equipped to teach them, but they can help them find the space and find the internal drive to learn. That internal drive is crucial to Fi – someone who doesn’t want to learn never will.

    And this brings me to what I really think separates Fe and Fi. Fe preferentially solves problems externally. If someone is depressed because their boss is a jerk, or can’t afford to buy food, they may confront the boss or help the person get food. Fi preferentially solves problems internally. Instead, they may help the person to find a new way to look at their boss so that they don’t feel beaten down (or build up the courage to quit), or may encourage someone to find the resolve to change their lifestyle so they can afford food.

    But this isn’t just about how we help others solve problems. It’s how we solve our own problems. I think if I use Fe, I want external solutions. If my boss is a jerk, I want my boss’s behavior corrected. If I use Fi, I want internal solutions. If my boss is a jerk, I want to either quit or learn to accept my boss. The problem is that if I use Fe and someone offers me internal solutions, I view them as not solving the problem. Feeling right with oneself doesn’t cure hunger or disease, for example. So I think of them as selfish. Conversely, if I use Fi and someone offers me external solutions, it can feel like a band-aid that attempts to hide the problem without solving it. Having someone else correct the behavior of my current jerk boss doesn’t help me learn how to deal with other people in my life who are jerks, for example.

    The difficulty is recognizing that what works for Fe may not work for Fi and vice versa. This is hard to do, and I struggle with it a lot. If someone asks me for advice, it’s easy for me to say “here’s what I would do”, without recognizing that they are not me. Similarly, when Fe says “if we were all in agreement, we’d all feel better because I know I would”, this is incorrect. When Fi says “if we can all make sure that we act in a way that resonates with who we are individually, we’ll all be better off, because I know I will”, this is also incorrect. We’re not just disagreeing on how to solve the problem, we’re disagreeing on what the problem is. And when we can’t understand others, it’s easy to label them as selfish (Fi) or bossy (Fe).

    In the end, understanding others is great, but it’s not always possible. I think if we can learn to accept others, even if we can’t understand them, we’ll atleast give others permission to not be just like us. Through your work on personality type and personal growth, I can see that PH is trying to help us understand, or atleast accept, our differences – so thanks again for your work!

  • Andrew
    • Andrew
    • September 30, 2019 at 3:55 pm

    This was a great episode! When Joel poses the question of how many people are required to make your cause unselfish, and my neuroscience brain lit up! I am sure Antonia and Joel are familiar with the Dunbar number, and maybe they have actually referenced it in previous episodes, but I think it can be of use in this situation. With regards to an individuals network of affective connections, humans have the neo-cortex capacity to emotionally interact (be influence and influence) with approximately 150 people. This being within the frame of real-life personal interactions, excluding social media and extreme circumstances like the island scenario that Joel calls upon. I would be curious to know what your thoughts are on this evolutionary concept and how it relates to the topic at hand.

    Love your work, keep it up!

Leave a comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.