For INTJs, you may imagine you see Fe because of the bolded statement :
First of all, this:
As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.
was on Lenore Thompson's wiki, so I'm not sure if it was actually her that wrote it, or someone else.
Secondly, how was this viewpoint obtained? In the very first sentence it assumes Fi as a tert function of ITJs, so I know right off that whatever is proposed about Fi and it's characteristics in ITJs could be clouded by confirmation bias.
Thirdly, if you exclude this first reference putting the context of "Fi as a tert function of ITJs," it really sounds more like Fe again, than Fi. "...refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something...." sounds very Fe to me, not Fi, because someone using a weak, Fe tert function would not rock the boat, but would step back and observe the rules of society. So it makes me think the person writing it, instead of just observing how ITJs are, and explaining it, then figuring out if it was Fi or Fe, is trying to adhere to some prescribed hierarchy of functions as proposed by someone since Jung's time.
So, in effect, all of us who have used the current model of the tert aligned along with the dominant, might be so biased that how could we see the glaringly obvious even if it stares us in the face. Because we've convinced our minds, and convoluted our thinking to fit the model for so long, that we can't even see Fi when it's Fe, and vice versa. Such is the power of the human mind in its need to make things fit.
Jung himself describes all the time in his P.T. book, that all the functions, especially the undifferentiated ones, are very difficult to see and understand, in ourselves and others. He was not specific regarding a function model, so why stick so dogmatically to a model, that for everyone, or many, or most, might be wrong?
4w5 5w4 1w9
~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
Life Path 11
The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.
Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39
Being anally simplistic and pointing out the obvious, the difference between P and J is where the perceiving and judging are directed. Ps are objective in their perception and subjective in their judgement. Js are objective in their judgement and subjective in their perception. The strength of the objective approach is that it is directly tied to reality and the scene. The strength of the subjective approach is the inclusion of subtleties which are not present in the objective view (it goes beyond the scene).
Ps tend to be quite theoretical in their judgements. Generally open and happy to be undecided as the subjective is rarely complete or conclusive. They will be fast to have confidence in what they perceive though.
Js on the other hand will have confidence in their judgements and make them quickly and with certainty. They will question their perception though, and see things like symbolism/history as well as what's there.
One questions and explores the perception, one questions and explores the judgement. The source of conflict is often when the other tries to explore their area of certainty, because the objective view doesn't change easily like the subjective one. What is there is simply there.
Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.