Distrustful of Fe?

[Totenkindly]

Just stay away from the weasels and I won't have to hurt you.

[crunch!]

Can I carve your name in PT's leg?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

In reviewing this thread, there are a couple of important points that seemed worth addressing.

1. Where does the assumption that Fe is artificial come from? Even though it can include certain 'niceties', assuming that Fe by nature is not genuine feeling is equivalent to saying that Te is not actual thinking, Ne is only feigned intuition, and Se is a false, surface type of sensing. If Fe is considered equivalent within the system, then it is necessary to hold that it is as genuine as any other function. Quite frankly i know this to be the case. Someone with strong Fe is more likely to actually mean it when they say the nicety. The completely false use of pleasantries is a function of tradition or strategy which would fall under the domain of Sensing and Thinking (whose sincere attributes are likewise in the domain of Sensing and Thinking)

I propose that false external feeling is the result of the appearance of feeing being communicated through another function. Just as a Feeling function can falsely accept someone's thinking to keep the peace, so a Thinking (or other function) can falsify feeling for a strategized result. Perhaps these false forms of extroverted feeling should not be imposed on those whose primary way of processing information is Fe. Which leads me to my next point.

2. Individuals whose primary and secondary functions are Fe process readily the emotions of the external world. For this reason they are very possibly the most likely people to internalize emotional negativity. Ironically enough, this thread that often disses Fe as false, deceptive, hurtful, etc., has some potential to be a prime example of hurtful and/or false Fe. It is possible that a strongly Fe person is going to be the most sensitive to the outside world of negativity, including a thread like this. People are tough also, but this is an angle that i don't believe has been considered, so it seemed worth airing it out.

Cheers

 

[proteanmix]

Yes, Toonia that's exactly what I was getting at!! I don't understand why people conceive of Fe this way.

ETA: When I compliment someone or do something for someone it's not just because it's what I'm "supposed" to do. I constantly wrestle with the genuineness of my actions because I don't want to do something that is fake, false, and filled with artifice. This is why I didn't understand people saying that Fi is more soulful somehow because it's not standardidized. This is also why I asked if people distrusted Fe because it's more "promiscuous" than Fi (freely shared with most people).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The beauty of Fe

Here are examples of the most distilled beauty of pure Fe.

Without the interruptions of other processes, the heart of Fe is very immediate, spontaneous, honest, heartfelt, and free. It readily connects to the feelings of others around on 'their' terms, providing at times a clear, accurate empathy. Alone, it hasn't complex, deep agendas, but a desire to feel and be felt. Alone it embraces the feeling of the moment completely and without judgment.

 

[Totenkindly]

1. Where does the assumption that Fe is artificial come from? Even though it can include certain 'niceties', assuming that Fe by nature is not genuine feeling is equivalent to saying that Te is not actual thinking, Ne is only feigned intuition, and Se is a false, surface type of sensing. If Fe is considered equivalent within the system, then it is necessary to hold that it is as genuine as any other function.

! Very good way to explain it; the analogies have to hold true if the pattern is applied evenly throughout the system.

The completely false use of pleasantries is a function of tradition or strategy which would fall under the domain of Sensing and Thinking (whose sincere attributes are likewise in the domain of Sensing and Thinking)

So you are suggesting that some of the apparent misuse of Fe would be by Sensing Thinkers / Thinking Sensors? That it is merely trying to emulate Fe but failing, because it is merely about the rules and misses the core feelings?

I propose that false external feeling is the result of the appearance of feeing being communicated through another function. Just as a Feeling function can falsely accept someone's thinking to keep the peace, so a Thinking (or other function) can falsify feeling for a strategized result. Perhaps these false forms of extroverted feeling should not be imposed on those whose primary way of processing information is Fe.

Have you worked out any of the specifics yet, Toonia? It sounds like a promising avenue to explore.

 

[proteanmix]

So you are suggesting that some of the apparent misuse of Fe would be by Sensing Thinkers / Thinking Sensors? That it is merely trying to emulate Fe but failing, because it is merely about the rules and misses the core feelings?

I'd say Ts in general when it's not genuine. Why confine it to STs?

 

[Economica]

Yes, Toonia that's exactly what I was getting at!! I don't understand why people conceive of Fe this way.

Maybe because those of us who do not have Fe as a primary or secondary function can learn to emulate the behavior but never internalize the empathetic priority that makes the behavior come so naturally to you? That's my guess.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd say Ts in general when it's not genuine. Why confine it to STs?

I don't know. Is there a reason to, or is there a distinction between S/N that needs to be explored? (Did you have any reason to focus on Sensing, Toonia, in your post?)

I will think about it more and see what pops up in the mental E-ZBake.

Maybe because those of us who do not have Fe as a primary or secondary function can learn to emulate the behavior but never internalize the empathetic priority that makes the behavior come so naturally to you? That's my guess.

That is what it feels like to me -- that I am accessing Fe by leaping through Ne. I imagine what it would be like to be in someone's shoes, mentally (it's an impersonal process), and then the feelings come. I know I don't start with the feelings.

(Which frustrates me. I wish I could feel bad for people instinctively, as my first response; but I have to get there the "back way.")

 

[quietgirl]

But the act of buying a cake to celebrate someone's birthday is an Fe convention. If someone is not given a cake in our culture, it can *really* come across as "you don't care about me at all." And this is an arbitrary symbol, because there have been cultures where cakes are not used to celebrate birthdays, but OTHER symbols are used to suggest that one is an accepted member of the family or community and cared about.

An FJ is much more liable to buy/make the cake without thinking twice about it, and feel bad if they do not provide one even if the person tells them it's okay not to get one. An FP is probably more liable to find out whether the person even wants a birthday cake and more prone to be willing to substitute something different (ex: A trip to the bowling alley or some other favorite food in place of cake) *if* the person explicitly requests it. FJs can do this as well, but they don't tend to grasp it as well. (There can be exceptions, I am just describing the patterns I see.)

Does that make more sense?

.

As a Fe person, I would make the cake myself exactly the way I knew the person would like it. I'd probably add a personalized aspect of it - use their favorite colors, remember to not use an ingrediant they didn't like, etc etc. I don't do this for everyone - though I am introverted by nature - but it would be automatic for someone close to me. However, if I was invited to a party and it was appropriate to bring a cake then I would certainly bring one & probably research a bit to see what kind of cake the host liked. The key for me is that I could care less about the kind of cake that I would prefer, instead I am going to make them the cake that they would prefer - even if I didn't like cake at all!

One clue to Fe is the word "appropriate". I've noticed the use of this word in not only the INFJ, but also in other types where Fe is preferred over Fi - including an ESTP and INTP.

 

[ygolo]

Yes, Toonia that's exactly what I was getting at!! I don't understand why people conceive of Fe this way.

ETA: When I compliment someone or do something for someone it's not just because it's what I'm "supposed" to do. I constantly wrestle with the genuineness of my actions because I don't want to do something that is fake, false, and filled with artifice. This is why I didn't understand people saying that Fi is more soulful somehow because it's not standardidized. This is also why I asked if people distrusted Fe because it's more "promiscuous" than Fi (freely shared with most people).

I am simply trying to answer the question, since it is puzzling to me too.

I know a girl who is often accused of being fake. I'm pretty sure she's an ESFJ. She is accused of being fake by some of her relatives (INFP and ENTP I think), and accused of being dumb by her brother(an ISTP, I believe). She is not at all dumb, and has an astounding memory, but she seems to have a tendency to tune out when people discuss technical things, though her favorite subjects were math and biology in school.

She smiles a lot (and it often seems fake, even to me) and is fairly jovial, and can fool people who don't know her well (and more oblivious ones who do) into thinking nothing weird is going on inside her, but her close (and more observant) friends and family can see right through the smiles and joviality to sense something else. She calls it "making an effort," but others see it as fake. I personally find it hard to know when she is actually in a good mood and when she is not, and the reason is, quite simply, because she is "making an effort".

Perhaps fake is not the right word?

I have no clue how close I came to hitting the crux of the issue, but that is my guess. Do you think that example is something Fe's in general can identify with?

I think John Kerry was an Fe (my guess is xNFJ) and he lost the election due to a reputation of being fake, whether he was fake or not.

 

[TenebrousReflection]

In reviewing this thread, there are a couple of important points that seemed worth addressing.

1. Where does the assumption that Fe is artificial come from? Even though it can include certain 'niceties', assuming that Fe by nature is not genuine feeling is equivalent to saying that Te is not actual thinking, Ne is only feigned intuition, and Se is a false, surface type of sensing. If Fe is considered equivalent within the system, then it is necessary to hold that it is as genuine as any other function. Quite frankly i know this to be the case. Someone with strong Fe is more likely to actually mean it when they say the nicety. The completely false use of pleasantries is a function of tradition or strategy which would fall under the domain of Sensing and Thinking (whose sincere attributes are likewise in the domain of Sensing and Thinking)

I propose that false external feeling is the result of the appearance of feeing being communicated through another function. Just as a Feeling function can falsely accept someone's thinking to keep the peace, so a Thinking (or other function) can falsify feeling for a strategized result. Perhaps these false forms of extroverted feeling should not be imposed on those whose primary way of processing information is Fe. Which leads me to my next point.

I think this is because only developed Fe will have that level of sincerity. Since everyone else is using it at a more basic or undeveloped level, they are just working the system and by doing so are the bad apples that spoil things for those who are truly sincere. I think some people (myself included) just go through the motions with a desire to be polite and courteous, but we don't actually value the acts in themselves because they have become common and trivial. I know I can be reluctant to use traditional means to display emotion for fear of them being seen as less sincere (especially on-line where you can't read the same things you normally would to detect sincerity) and prefer to try to find some more original way to express myself when possible.

2. Individuals whose primary and secondary functions are Fe process readily the emotions of the external world. For this reason they are very possibly the most likely people to internalize emotional negativity. Ironically enough, this thread that often disses Fe as false, deceptive, hurtful, etc., has some potential to be a prime example of hurtful and/or false Fe. It is possible that a strongly Fe person is going to be the most sensitive to the outside world of negativity, including a thread like this. People are tough also, but this is an angle that i don't believe has been considered, so it seemed worth airing it out.

Cheers

I think both Fi and Fe would be sensitive to negativity, but it may be different types of negativity that affect each one differently.

Going back the birthday analogy...

Thinking about some Fe friends I know, they knew I didnt care for normal cake, but knew I liked coffee and cheesecake, so for one of my birthdays they bought me a coffee cheesecake (which was quite good).

I think both an Fe and a Fi will want to learn someones preferences and give a gift in accordance with those preferences. The difference comes in that Fes would rather honor a specific day and as someone who is more Fi I'd rather give a surprise gift when I thought it might make a difference to someone. For a few special friends I may give a birthday card or even gift but adding some originality to either the gift or its presentation is important to me (it might also be to Fes too I dunno).

I think Fi and Fe want to express very similar things, but Fi wants to find their own way to do it, and Fe wants to do it within the structure of social norms.

I'm sure this book is probably familiar to some of you, but maybe not to everyone, so I'd like to add descriptions from "Was That Really Me?" that pertain to Fi and Fe as dominant function types (not on the actual functions, but on the types that use these as their dominant function, but unlike type specific descriptions, these focus on things common to that function when it is used in the dominant role).

Both of these examples focus on the positives and these only apply to types that use these as dominant functions so it does not cover much as far as auxiliary processes.

From "Was That Realy Me" by Naomi L. Quenk (p. 98)
Important features of Dominant Introverted Feeling
Introverted feeling types are flexible, open, complicated, mild, modest, and often self-effacing. Though difficult to get to know, they are seen as trustworthy confidants who are tolerant of a wide range of differences. Their habitual approach to people is nonjudgmental, understanding and forgiving. They place a high value on affirming both their own and others individuality and uniqueness. They seek to affirm all parties in a controversy and thus readily see the validity of contradictory points of view. Underlying their characteristic tolerance is an overarching natural curiosity. They find the diversity in the world immensely appealing. ISFPs want to experience as much of the environment, especially the natural environment as possible; INFPs’ desire for broad experience, especially human experience may be secondary to their need to understand it.

Both introverted feeling types may find it difficult to take a firm stance on issues that are not centrally important to them. As a result, they may see themselves and be seen by others as indecisive and lacking in conviction. In matters which they hold strong values, however, they are firm and uncompromising in expressing and enacting their beliefs.

Introverted feeling types focus on what is good in others, so they tend to downplay others’ faults, often forgiving them for slights or minor hurtful behavior. At their best, they accept their own mistakes and imperfections as well, achieving some success in maintaining the inner harmony that Is so important to them.

In crisis situations, they typically will hold back to see if others will solve the problem competently. They are then content to follow someone else’s lead. But if adequate leadership is absent, ISFPs and INFPs may assume a dominant role, acting swiftly, confidently, and competently to handle the situation.

From "Was That Realy Me" by Naomi L. Quenk (p. 146)
Important features of Dominant Extraverted Feeling
Extraverted Feeling types typically radiate goodwill and enthusiasm. They are optimistic about life in general, and human potentil in particular. They prefer to focus on the positive, harmonious, and uplifting aspects of people and human relations, paying little attention to negative, pessimistic, limiting and divisive messages, situations, and conclusions. Thier primary goal is to create and maintain good feeling and harmony among people.

Although ESFJs and ENFJs may recognize judgments that rely heavily on logical analysis, cause-and-effect relationships, and statistical odds, they largly ignore such factors in making decisions. Others may therefore see these types as making decisions that "fly in the face of logic." Thinking types may be particularly puzzled and frustrated when an Extraverted Feeling type accurately describes the logical conclusions warrented by a situation but decides in favor of harmony and caring. From a thinking point of view, using such a criterion in decision making is inappropriate.

Extraverted Feeling types are careful not to hurt others' feelings and try to take others' well-being into account. If they cannot avoid telling someone an unpleasant truth, they will carefully soften the message by putting it in an affirmative context. Unconditional positive regard is a strongly held value.

As a result of their natural pleasure in pleasing others, Extraverted Feeling types can mistakenly be seen as overly caring or even codependent. In reality, attending to others' needs is usually a satisfying, legitimate way of expressing their dominant Feeling preference.

In a crisis that does not activate their inferior function, ESFJs and ENFJs focus on alleviating the concerns and suffering of others. They are comfortable letting others manage the more technical aspect of a crisis so they can devote their energies to creating a cooperative, comfortable atmosphere for crisis victims. When a situation demands more forceful methods, however, they will take any action necessaty for the benefit of others.

 

[Maverick]

To make a link with the other thread, one of the reasons that people are distrustful of Fe is due to "negative Fe" such as office politics. Also, Fe dominants might very well be angry with you or dislike you and you might never know it. How can you know wether they really think what they say or they're just saying it because it's appropriate?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

To make a link with the other thread, one of the reasons that people are distrustful of Fe is due to "negative Fe" such as office politics. Also, Fe dominants might very well be angry with you or dislike you and you might never know it. How can you know wether they really think what they say or they're just saying it because it's appropriate?

Sounds like it's not much harder than distinguishing between fact, fiction, parody, sarcasm or other literary styles in the fact-fiction spectrum. Just taking the clues and test the situation a bit, if necessary. As noted, some people don't offer "themselves" to you, but they offer an "interface". Of course there are well and badly designed interfaces. If someone is bound to act properly, and you can "reverse engineer" his/her workings, then it's like pushing buttons.

Sheesh, I am explaining Fe in terms of technical terms...

edit: to continue with the technical analogy, some people try to "hack in" to systems. Shouldn't be needed with reasonably behaving persons. If they offer an "user friendly interface", i.e. recognizable, understandable behaviours and straightforward responses, and large enough range of responses they can handle, then I think it's an invitation to be straightforward with the person. Etc.

 

[substitute]

Why are people so distrustful of Fe? It is the one function that I see the most consistently criticized (along with Si) as being hypocritical, manipulative, self-righteous, and insincere. What about this function makes people think of it in those terms?

Imagine what the world would be like without Fe. I think it would be a very unwelcoming place. If belonging (cue theme from "Cheers") is important to people then I think Fe is the mechanism through which this occurs. Is Fi able to do this just as well as Fe? Are people wary of Fi also or is this only reserved for Fe?

Probably because it's mostly Thinkers here with very little Fe, who simply don't comprehend Fe type motives as they are in someone who has better developed that function. I suppose it's analogous to the strong Feeler types who see strong Thinkers as being cold and uncaring, though we may care just as much, only choose to show it in different ways. I've often seen Thinkers being accused of coldness because they don't choose to show their love in typical hugs/compliments/sentimental ways.

For my part, my experience of those with strong Fe (xxFJ's) is that they can often come across as very self-righteous and a bit pompous, seeing themselves as a paragon of virtue and always in the right if any disagreements occur, unlikely to give ground or unreservedly apologise (the closest I ever get to an apology from an ENFJ is when they say we should just forget all about it and put it behind us, which isn't quite the same as admitting their part of the blame or apologising!) and fairly quick to judge (especially NFJ's) people based on superficial behavioural symptoms, quite unforgiving of those who commit social faux pas even when taking into account very extenuating circumstances, whilst reserving the right to force others to revolve around their 'needs'; inflexible in applying uniform 'standards' to everyone and judging those who fall short. Maybe this is the main vulnerability, the flaw to which those with strong Fe are prone just as those with strong T can be prone to arrogance and lack of sympathy/empathy.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

For my part, my experience of those with strong Fe (xxFJ's) is that they can often come across as very self-righteous and a bit pompous, seeing themselves as a paragon of virtue and always in the right if any disagreements occur, unlikely to give ground or unreservedly apologise (the closest I ever get to an apology from an ENFJ is when they say we should just forget all about it and put it behind us, which isn't quite the same as admitting their part of the blame or apologising!) and fairly quick to judge (especially NFJ's) people based on superficial behavioural symptoms, quite unforgiving of those who commit social faux pas even when taking into account very extenuating circumstances, whilst reserving the right to force others to revolve around their 'needs'; inflexible in applying uniform 'standards' to everyone and judging those who fall short. Maybe this is the main vulnerability, the flaw to which those with strong Fe are prone just as those with strong T can be prone to arrogance and lack of sympathy/empathy.

Well, we thinkers generally think its unethical to scheme and plot against people, even if we might be oblivious to the scheming and plotting that we actually do. I think the kind of behaviour you just described from ENFJ is an invitation to utilize tactics on them - tactical and strategical, social, emotional, practical, deceptive, straightforward and anything. I would bet that such a person would not feel too bad to be a target of such tactics - he/she would probably take it as a normal mode of dominating, influential behaviour - the kind of behaviour that everyone should do. Ok, it's disgusting from ENTP's standpoint (and INTP's, too), but we can leave our feelings out and we're good in games. It's silly, but why not just go in?

We shouldn't bee too rigid in our views.

Consider it from another viewpoint. What if an ENFJ would think it would be "dishonest" and "rude" to be so intelligent as to use "facts" and "logic", which are outright offensive? He would try to restrain him/herself from making sense on the grounds that it would be too powerful an attack if he/she would just do that. So he/she maintains the stance to attack on moral/ethical/deceptive/influential/etc grounds.. and would expect you to do the same.

Surely NT can fight against them. But we shouldn't go on their playground, exactly. You know the saying about fighting with idiots. They drag you to fight like an idiot and beat you with experience.

This is not to say that all/most ENFJ are idiots, this was just to describe the situation WHEN an ENFJ is reasonably viewed as such.

 

[wildcat]

Why are people so distrustful of Fe? It is the one function that I see the most consistently criticized (along with Si) as being hypocritical, manipulative, self-righteous, and insincere. What about this function makes people think of it in those terms?

Imagine what the world would be like without Fe. I think it would be a very unwelcoming place. If belonging (cue theme from "Cheers") is important to people then I think Fe is the mechanism through which this occurs. Is Fi able to do this just as well as Fe? Are people wary of Fi also or is this only reserved for Fe?

Fe q Fi = F.

 

[quietgirl]

For my part, my experience of those with strong Fe (xxFJ's) is that they can often come across as very self-righteous and a bit pompous, seeing themselves as a paragon of virtue and always in the right if any disagreements occur, unlikely to give ground or unreservedly apologise (the closest I ever get to an apology from an ENFJ is when they say we should just forget all about it and put it behind us, which isn't quite the same as admitting their part of the blame or apologising!) and fairly quick to judge (especially NFJ's) people based on superficial behavioural symptoms, quite unforgiving of those who commit social faux pas even when taking into account very extenuating circumstances, whilst reserving the right to force others to revolve around their 'needs'; inflexible in applying uniform 'standards' to everyone and judging those who fall short. Maybe this is the main vulnerability, the flaw to which those with strong Fe are prone just as those with strong T can be prone to arrogance and lack of sympathy/empathy.

Heh. My best friend (ENFP) has complained/been offended on more than one occasion because of what she calls my lack of an ability to apologize. It's not that I don't apologize - I do frequently - but she claims that I always back it up with some sort of explanation of my actions. This bothers her because she say that all she wants is an apology without the excuses. I don't see them as excuses - I see it as clarifying what my motives were in order to smooth things over & so she does not think I did it intentionally. No matter how hard I try, "I'm sorry" is naturally followed by "but I didn't intend...".

I do tend to lean towards the "let's forget about it and put it behind us" approach, too. However, I did that more when I was a teenager & now I only do it when I think the situation can only be solved by putting it in the past and moving on. I'm really big on solving something, gaining closure, and moving on - probably a bit prematurely in some cases, I will admit. I can understand how that would look like an inability to accept blame to someone who doesn't act that way, though. Part of that has to do with how ANXIOUS I get when I'm in a situation that is stagnant or conflicted. I just want the damn anxiety from the situation to go away, so I'll jump the gun and try to put the situation into the past. I'm not sure if that's a Fe thing, but I do see it being common among NFJ's.

 

[Totenkindly]

Heh. My best friend (ENFP) has complained/been offended on more than one occasion because of what she calls my lack of an ability to apologize. It's not that I don't apologize - I do frequently - but she claims that I always back it up with some sort of explanation of my actions. This bothers her because she say that all she wants is an apology without the excuses. I don't see them as excuses - I see it as clarifying what my motives were in order to smooth things over & so she does not think I did it intentionally. No matter how hard I try, "I'm sorry" is naturally followed by "but I didn't intend...".

Oh, I can very much relate to what you are saying.

I do not make excuses for my mistakes either (or at least try not to). However, I DO like (1) to explore how the whole situation evolved and why things happened the way they did and (2) to be clear about what my INTENTIONS were so that the other person knows me and has a better sense of my integrity as a person.

This would result in a need to describe what was going on inside of me and looking at how the situation unfolded systematically.

I do tend to lean towards the "let's forget about it and put it behind us" approach, too.

I do that too, if I think people's intentions were good and/or have been dealt with sufficiently. What actually happened is almost a technicality, in a sense.

Part of that has to do with how ANXIOUS I get when I'm in a situation that is stagnant or conflicted. I just want the damn anxiety from the situation to go away, so I'll jump the gun and try to put the situation into the past. I'm not sure if that's a Fe thing, but I do see it being common among NFJ's.

I'm not sure. It could come from a multitude of sources (past experiences, introversion, Feeling sense, etc.)

 

[the state i am in]

It's not that I don't apologize - I do frequently - but she claims that I always back it up with some sort of explanation of my actions. This bothers her because she say that all she wants is an apology without the excuses. I don't see them as excuses - I see it as clarifying what my motives were in order to smooth things over & so she does not think I did it intentionally. No matter how hard I try, "I'm sorry" is naturally followed by "but I didn't intend...".

last night i was kind of annoyed with someone, and as a result i understood why people hate Fe. i can always appeal to sympathy, create emotional positions and perspectives, write a plausible story that serves no purpose other than eliciting a particular reaction in others. it doesn't matter whether i FEEL IT MOST, whether it is the most accurate, honest, heartfelt, i know how to manipulate the impression (impression management) that strikes others, how to portray such and such in a certain light, etc. in this moment i felt like an attorney of the emotions.

if i were expressing what people call true feelings, unfiltered untested immediate gut responses, i would have been pissed off. i would have called said person out, said where the fuck do you get off talking to me like that, or i would have just done the get up and walk away (for good) infj doorslam. but i tried to construct a bridge between myself and this other person via Fe. try to show what the situation feels like to me, what it is like to be in my position. fostering an understanding of the Other. extraverted judging functions DO feel sneaky, sleazy, etc. Te is just as bad.

better put, life is just as bad. people manage and micro-manage others. everything heads to a 25-car pileup called compromise. human existence is decidedly social. we all relate in different ways while maintaining different agendas. such is our evolutionary state. Fi and Ti do not share the same values as you, we bridge the gaps, connect and communicate with others by anticipating their needs. We are more of a clean slate, spring cleaning comes every year and we find new things to connect with, communicate, interact, absorb.

but in the meantime we sometimes know too easily how to spin a good yarn, appeal to the emotions, etc. watch the crafty scheming hands of dom Ne, or the methodical plotting of Te with their slow closing in, or Se picking up visual and sensory clues they have no right to have at their disposal. if you got it, flaunt it is how the saying goes. everyone loses, everyone wins. most of the backlash against certain functions has to do with immaturity. with wanting to prize a dominant function over all other functions. inferiority complex, shadowy insecurities, etc. social compatibility is complex and contextual and depends on development.

 

[TaylorS]

(Based on my limited experience with NFJ's, I have found they are very good at making everyone feel included regardless of who they are.)

My mom is an INFJ so that is something I understand completely. She's one of the few people I know who is sincerely and compassionately inclusive of oddballs, and thus my childhood far less torturous than it could of been.