But anyway, for me as a Fe-aux/Ni-dom, I feel like there's something ungrounded-in-solid-reality about using human value systems as a means to assess facts or truth, and for me it feels like this whether it's introverted (Fi) or extroverted (Fe) versions.
I myself personally would have a lot more respect for human value systems of any
sort as a way to asses facts/truth if they were accountable to actual reality in some very clear and unshakeable way - for example, if they were deeply sourced in/emerging from something like ecosystems, and "wrongness" would show up in physical ways related to survival, wellness etc, occurring whether or not anyone decided to "believe it" or have an emotional narrative about it. But without that kind of hardcore grounding, using human values - again, in my view, Fe OR Fi, same basic means of assessment but different approach - using human values to assess for facts or truth seems to me to easily be a matter of who can impose their will, stay most stubbornly self-referentially/group-referentially tied to what they believe (narratives are quite often self-justifying), deceive and/or manipulate best.
On reflection, I really don't think I could handle being a judging-dominant of any sort. And as far as Fi and Fe in particular .... yeah, from my perspective, there seems to me to be no way to actually get at truth/wrongness/accuracy from the space of human value systems (Fi or Fe), not in the cultural contexts I've encountered at least. But then again, if I was a Fi-dom or Fe-dom, I probably wouldn't feel this way to begin with.