bla bla bla bla bla:zzz:We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.
Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.
But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.
It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.
You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?
My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.
This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.
You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.
Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.
Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.
This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal. Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.
Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.
Only with people that:
A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).
If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.
But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.
It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)
Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.
Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"
There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.
Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.
Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.