the Fi bias

[Glycerine]

People are too lazy, or cheap, to buy any decent books - specifically written about the functions. What really amazes me is that any human being outside this forum knows what no one *inside* this forum seems to know. People can be true to their own personal values (Fi) and still adhere to broader societal values, (Fe) at the same time. It's just that some are better at it, than others.

You're quite wise. I always learn a new perspective from my real life ENTJ friends whenever we chat.

 

[Jaguar]

You're quite wise. I always learn a new perspective from my real life ENTJ friends whenever we chat.

Wisdom has nothing to do with type. And I took ENTJ out of my profile long ago.
It's up to you, to figure out why.

 

[PeaceBaby]

What really amazes me is that any human being outside this forum knows what no one *inside* this forum seems to know. People can be true to their own personal values (Fi) and still adhere to broader societal values, (Fe) at the same time. It's just that some are better at it, than others.

Well said. Some are better at it, and for some, there's a closer alignment between the two. Regardless, the outcome is the same.

 

[Glycerine]

Down with these showdowns then. Besides, like so many grounded individuals have said, it's about PREFERENCE not ABILITY. I could be an Fe dom and still be downright shitty in how skilled I am at using it. I also know that I have probably learned how to use pseudo Fi efficiently by being around NFPs most of my life but would still much rather to use primarily Fe. Along with that, I probably combine them both sometimes to optimize people's well-being. For the Fi users who say that they really want to understand Fe, then get to know several healthy and a couple unhealthy XXFJs intimately as friends. That's how I learned much about strong Fi use.

 

[Quinlan]

I was thinking about Fe and my wife (ESFJ), Fe really is a powerful thing, getting inside people's heads, anticipating what they're going to need/want. I just can't do that, I can respond to their needs but find it very hard to anticipate them in any kind of accurate way.

 

[Thalassa]

And the Fe doms I chose to know are just as loathe to manipulation and lies as I am.

I think any type can be manipulative.

I’m not even trying to argue that there isn’t something ‘shallow’ about Fe- compared to Fi. I’m just arguing that emphasizing it as ‘shallow’ (this is not at you, Orobas, it’s in general) is very one dimensional and biased (it’s a perspective that downplays quantity because it discounts breadth), and that ‘shallow’ is by no means synonymous with ‘fake’ (‘fake’ downplays quality). It’s exactly the same thing as arguing that Fi is narrow/ego-centric (discounts depth) and narcissistic (downplays quality). And narcissists don’t empathize any more than ‘fake’ people do.

From what I understand Fe is likely to be narcissistic personality as well i.e. ENTP and ESFJ without proper Ti or Si development.

If Fe looks controlling, think about what Fi getting Te to do its bidding looks like. I think both extremes throw equal amounts of shit in the pool. And Fe types don’t like getting lumped together with the unfortunate ‘fake’ and manipulative extreme any more than (I presume) Fi types particularly want to be lumped together and branded as people who systematically club other people over the head with their own opinions like narcissistic cavemen until the other side concedes from sheer exhaustion.

Actually IxFPs are highly unlikely to club other people in the head with their opinions, they're more likely to withdraw when upset, unless they feel it's something really serious. When I think of narcissitic cavemen clubbing people in the head with opinions until the other side concedes from sheer exhaustion, for some reason I think of ENTPs....lulz.

And in the empathy/sympathy thread: people are arguing that Fi uses more empathy and Fe uses sympathy, while simultaneously commenting on how empathy is about genuinely caring and sympathy is about ‘pretending’ to care because you can’t directly relate. Really, no amount of adding “but Fi has it’s downsides too, and I love Fe types” is going to undue how Fe is flat out belittled as fake, even borderline sycophantic.

Now, is it really a matter of Fi/Te not perceiving that^ as belittling? If just as many people jumped into those threads arguing that Fi is too narcissistic to care about other people as much as Fe- would that not seem like belittling? Because that might be one of the biggest reasons this is a problem in the first place.

I think you're reading way too much negativity into it. People don't get out of bed at 4 A.M. to help others when they "pretend to care." I'd really appreciate you butthurt people stop putting words in my mouth. If anything, I put Fi down, and tried to build Fe up. Thanks.

 

[Glycerine]

I was thinking about Fe and my wife (ESFJ), Fe really is a powerful thing, getting inside people's heads, anticipating what they're going to need/want. I just can't do that, I can respond to their needs but find it very hard to anticipate them in any kind of accurate way.

Both ways are pretty awesome. ESFJs know how to anticipate people's needs but aren't quite as good at winging things if things go awry. The ISFPs seem like the opposite so in many ways, it must be a harmonizing partnership, eh?

 

[Jaguar]

Down with these showdowns then. Besides, like so many grounded individuals have said, it's about PREFERENCE not ABILITY. I could be an Fe dom and still be downright shitty in how skilled I am at using it.

Give the member a prize!

 

[Paisley]

Reading through this thread I've found the overall feeling to be an attempt at understanding how we perceive antithetical dominant feeling functions, and I think everyone here has a well rounded understanding of IF and EF.

Just to shed a little more light, I'll just quote from Carl Jung on Introverted feeling and Extraverted feeling in how he views it.

Introverted Feeling:

"Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. Since it is primarily controlled by subjective pre-conditions, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object ; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access ; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.

Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximate presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images. But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to
create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid selfadmiration. Just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself. This is the mystical, ecstatic stage, which prepares the way over into the extraverted functions repressed by feeling. Just as introverted thinking is pitted against a primitive feeling, to which objects attach themselves with magical force, so introverted feeling is counterbalanced by a primitive thinking, whose concretism and slavery to facts passes all bounds. Continually emancipating itself from the relation to the object, this feeling creates a freedom, both of action and of conscience, that is only answerable to the subject, and that may even renounce all traditional values. But so much the more does unconscious thinking fall a victim to the power of objective facts."

Extraverted Feeling:

"Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of traditional or generally valid standards of some sort I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do ; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious. Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils aesthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart ; it merely appeals to the senses, or worse still to the reason. Doubtless it can provide aesthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process
go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops ; every object is seized upon with feeling valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical."

With that quoted, there's definitely understanding for why IF's feel EF's are flakes and why EF's feel like IF's are selfish, when either have fallen into their imbalanced or "worsed" states.

My IN EF while I'm at work is sometimes comical in knowing exactly what to bring someone, or reading a situation others have difficulty communicating. Given what little experience I have with IF, I usually enjoy most FP's and their amazing ability to create something out of nothing. I view IF to be a much more artistic/creative force than EF, but EF to be a much more personable/giving force than IF, but what do I know.

 

[Arclight]

How to know Fe is deep and genuine.

Be loved by it. Then you will know what love is. It is deep, genuine, focused and intense.

 

[Paisley]

How to know Fe is deep and genuine.

Be loved by it. Then you will know what love is. It is deep, genuine, focused and intense.

As Extraverted Feeling is all about the feelings of others, it is selfless by definition. Whether it's deep, genuine, focused, and intense is up to the person as Fe can be as shallow, disingenuous, and unfocused as Fi, but I will concede that it will more often than not, be intense, as Fe is directed away, not within.

 

[Poki]

I seriously don't see how it's hard to grasp Fe or Fi (even if it is just in theory) but then I have been analyzing this crap for the past two years. Fe and Fi users typically want similar things but just go about it in different ways.

The problem isnt really grasping the abstract Fe/Fi and if you believe its just a theory then it makes it even harder to recognize and learn. Its about understanding it in person, hands on, experiencing the difference. Not about talking about what Fe/Fi is with people who are, but just dealing with problems, living life, talking about real stuff, real issues. I frequently talk to an ENFP IRL. We dont see the same things, we dont have the same focus, and we have different reasons for pretty much everything. Alot of things we agree on the outcome or the right vs wrong when it comes to people values, bu the way we get there or the things that go through our mind are extremely different. I cant decide anything for them, or make a judgement on their behalf because I have no clue what they see or how they judge. I simply have the option to accept or not accept. Another NFP I talk to outside of here is more awkward, we are to different, in such different places in life that we just dont have much to talk about.

Fi/Fe really do want/need different things. On the whole yes in a flat concrete world they want the same things, but when you bring in priorities, securities, issues, fears, what pulls them, responses, etc. The flatness goes away and you get to see the real difference between Fe and Fi. Simple example. If someones wants are another persons needs and vice versa, but you dont yet understand the difference between want and need. The combined list will be identical until those people go through life and begin to seperate them out into wants/needs, cant stand/can deal with., etc.

 

[Glycerine]

The problem isnt really grasping the abstract Fe/Fi and if you believe its just a theory then it makes it even harder to recognize and learn. Its about understanding it in person, hands on, experiencing the difference. Not about talking about what Fe/Fi is with people who are, but just dealing with problems, living life, talking about real stuff, real issues. I frequently talk to an ENFP IRL. We dont see the same things, we dont have the same focus, and we have different reasons for pretty much everything. Alot of things we agree on the outcome or the right vs wrong when it comes to people values, bu the way we get there or the things that go through our mind are extremely different. I cant decide anything for them, or make a judgement on their behalf because I have no clue what they see or how they judge. I simply have the option to accept or not accept. Another NFP I talk to outside of here is more awkward, we are to different, in such different places in life that we just dont have much to talk about.

Fi/Fe really do want/need different things. On the whole yes in a flat concrete world they want the same things, but when you bring in priorities, securities, issues, fears, what pulls them, responses, etc. The flatness goes away and you get to see the real difference between Fe and Fi. Simple example. If someones wants are another persons needs and vice versa, but you dont yet understand the difference between want and need. The combined list will be identical until those people go through life and begin to seperate them out into wants/needs, cant stand/can deal with., etc.

I am surprised that you still are willing to reply to my posts, lol. So anyways, thank you for putting the situation into more grounded terms. You're right, I was too wrapped up in the abstract side of it and was putting into too simplistic terms.

To be fair, I was talking from experience. I have known 4 IXFPs closely and have known 2 INFPs and 3 EXFPs below the surface. For the most part, I got along fine with them with a few bumps in the road. I shared a lot of values with most of them even though we preferred different functions and respected each other's different way of going about it. This is my really short (probably illogical ) reasoning but yeah this isn't a hardcore dead serious discussion.

 

[Thalassa]

As Extraverted Feeling is all about the feelings of others, it is selfless by definition. Whether it's deep, genuine, focused, and intense is up to the person as Fe can be as shallow, disingenuous, and unfocused as Fi, but I will concede that it will more often than not, be intense, as Fe is directed away, not within.

Yeah I think Fe and Fi are both capable of fucking with other people for their own amusement, though.

A person with sick Fe will still respond and seek connection with others and attention from others, but will then openly claim the disconnect and distance that others are accusing Fe of (I know I have actually had these conversations with Fe users whose behavior - consistently responsive and actively attention/connection seeking - did not match up with their words of "I don't really care.") It's very disconcerting, and feels manipulative. It can drive an Fi user to tears. I know from personal experience.

Fi on the other hand will just sort of take sadistic glee in messing with people, which will appear more openly evil or selfish to *some people*, but it's still a cover for anger/mistrust/pain in both cases, I think.

 

[Jaguar]

The problem isnt really grasping the abstract Fe/Fi and if you believe its just a theory then it makes it even harder to recognize and learn. Its about understanding it in person, hands on, experiencing the difference. Not about talking about what Fe/Fi is with people who are, but just dealing with problems, living life, talking about real stuff, real issues. I frequently talk to an ENFP IRL. We dont see the same things, we dont have the same focus, and we have different reasons for pretty much everything. Alot of things we agree on the outcome or the right vs wrong when it comes to people values, bu the way we get there or the things that go through our mind are extremely different. I cant decide anything for them, or make a judgement on their behalf because I have no clue what they see or how they judge. I simply have the option to accept or not accept. Another NFP I talk to outside of here is more awkward, we are to different, in such different places in life that we just dont have much to talk about.

Fi/Fe really do want/need different things. On the whole yes in a flat concrete world they want the same things, but when you bring in priorities, securities, issues, fears, what pulls them, responses, etc. The flatness goes away and you get to see the real difference between Fe and Fi. Simple example. If someones wants are another persons needs and vice versa, but you dont yet understand the difference between want and need. The combined list will be identical until those people go through life and begin to seperate them out into wants/needs, cant stand/can deal with., etc.

Just because you have a problem with one, doesn't mean you will have a problem with more, or all, of the same type.
Nor do you even know if someone's type is accurate, to begin with. I don't just take your word that the person is ENFP, INFP, or any kind of P.

Hell, my INFP buddy got typed as ESTJ by co-workers.
Classic.

 

[Poki]

Just because you have a problem with one, doesn't mean you will have a problem with more, or all, of the same type.
Nor do you even know if someone's type is accurate, to begin with. I don't just take your word that the person is ENFP, INFP, or any kind of P.

Hell, my INFP buddy got typed as ESTJ by co-workers.
Classic.

I have actually thought about the second NFP being STJ. She has very dominant STJ traits and she is married to an ISTJ. The "testing" she does though is more along the lines of NFP testing. The NFPs will know what I am talking about. My wife has also joked that we should swap husband/wife because her ISTJ is much more list/clean/order and I am more like this NFP in regards to things that are more P related.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

And yes, I'm the first to admit that, growing up with some rather..unhealthy Fe-users has lefts its allergic reactions with me. Guilttripping (which Fidelia and OMT have thankfully demystified finally for me), oppressing my sense of identity, constantly telling me what the 'proper' thing to do is and telling me that I'm weird and I need to get over myself already..ya know, it tends to frustrate a person. It feels like I'm to change who I am just to make them more comfortable being around me. And when I try not to be around them, they make sure they *are* around me coz 'they care so much'.

I'm sorry but that through Fi-Te glasses, just feels like blatant emotional manipulation and not as love at all. You're not giving me even the space to be me as you're insisting I be around you 24/7. And, it's incredibly hard for me to grasp how you yourself can be yourself that way, constantly constrained by social rules (yes, that is how it feels to us). It's only here that I came to understand why those mechanisms work that way for Fe-users, and I'm *still* learning on that. So yes, feel free to know that some Fi-users, myself included, are weary with and wary of Fe at times, because it can really rub us the wrong way. However, that doesn't mean I feel the need to belittle it. Just to vent on it. And, share how it's perceived by me.

Okay, I think I’m getting this. The need to disparage ‘Fe’ is really about having an ax to grind with people imposing thoughtless rules about social behavior on you, and the tendency to be manipulative (trying to make you feel ‘thoughtless’ or ‘selfish’ for not adhering to a bunch of social rules that are- more often than not- mindless in the first place)? Does that seem to define it, or is that another over-simplification? I can see how ‘wanting to paint one’s own point of view in a better light’- like two little girls on a playground in new dresses, and one feeling the need to make the other’s dress look ugly in order to make her own look better- is an over-simplification. That’s really how it looked at first- but that’s precisely why I started this thread, to test the accuracy of my assumptions. It took me a while to ‘get’ that it was really about an underlying resent towards certain controlling behaviors because those behaviors keep being referred to as ‘Fe’ behaviors, and I kept feeling wholly distracted by the need to point out that ‘controlling, shallow, fake and/or manipulative’ aren’t essential attributes of Fe (just like narcissism, self-absorption and ego-centricity aren’t essential attributes of Fi- they’re simply unfortunate possible weaknesses).

I can understand the underlying resent: both in the sense that I think I kind of do the same thing with Te (in the way I refer to Te heavy argument as a caveman’s approach to dialogue), and in the way that I also actually resent having someone impose mindless rules of etiquette (with accompanying guilt-trip) on me. Something tells me that I just haven’t felt anywhere near the same depth of resent for the latter, though. It annoys the bejeezus out of me, but I can generally just shake it off once the person is out of range- it must be a lot more difficult for people inclined toward Fi to do that.

And yes, in the attempt to grasp Fe, you'll find some people saying things that are seemingly belittling. But if they are at that point trying to understand the differences and get a grasp of what Fe (something foreign) is...cut them some slack. Or rather, tell them how you'd prefer it to be worded

I don’t think any one person has a right to tell another person when they ‘should’ or ‘should not’ feel belittled. We can either decide that someone else feels belittled too easily and write off responsibility for having caused it, or we can decide to better understand why the person feels belittled. It’s all about taking responsibility for that choice. You know? I mean, it’s available to start a thread- asking Fe types why it makes them feel personally belittled when you throw insults at the Fe- if you really want to understand why it’s such a problem. In the end, it isn’t that you’re ‘wording’ something the ‘wrong’ way; it’s that these Fe/Fi battles seem to be more about wanting to be understood than being willing to consider the other side and meet somewhere in the middle. And when that happens, it’s just a cluster-f#ck of people clubbing each other over the head with their own opinions until everyone’s worn out.

As Extraverted Feeling is all about the feelings of others, it is selfless by definition. Whether it's deep, genuine, focused, and intense is up to the person as Fe can be as shallow, disingenuous, and unfocused as Fi, but I will concede that it will more often than not, be intense, as Fe is directed away, not within.

Absolutely. As many people have already touched on in this thread: my own irl experience is that Fe or Fi really has practically nothing to do with how genuinely caring a person ends up being- that it’s entirely incumbent on the thoughtfulness and mindfulness with which a person actually applies their affections to people outside of themselves.

A lot of why this topic sticks in my craw is that I can see equal amounts of “genuine” caring on both sides of the fence (as I can also see equal amounts of phony “caring” as well). The quantity of “genuine” caring is the same, it’s just dispensed differently [breadth vs. depth (?)]. It’s just really a shame that there can’t even be a discussion about the differences in the way the types dispense their caring because the way ‘Fe’ keeps getting put on a Catherine Wheel for people to unleash their pent up resent (when it isn’t even really about Fe in the first place).

 

[The Outsider]

I thought Ni was the god-tier function around here.

 

[neptunesnet]

I thought Ni was the god-tier function around here.

I think you're right.

 

[Amargith]

Okay, I think I’m getting this. The need to disparage ‘Fe’ is really about having an ax to grind with people imposing thoughtless rules about social behavior on you, and the tendency to be manipulative (trying to make you feel ‘thoughtless’ or ‘selfish’ for not adhering to a bunch of social rules that are- more often than not- mindless in the first place)? Does that seem to define it, or is that another over-simplification? I can see how ‘wanting to paint one’s own point of view in a better light’- like two little girls on a playground in new dresses, and one feeling the need to make the other’s dress look ugly in order to make her own look better- is an over-simplification. That’s really how it looked at first- but that’s precisely why I started this thread, to test the accuracy of my assumptions. It took me a while to ‘get’ that it was really about an underlying resent towards certain controlling behaviors because those behaviors keep being referred to as ‘Fe’ behaviors, and I kept feeling wholly distracted by the need to point out that ‘controlling, shallow, fake and/or manipulative’ aren’t essential attributes of Fe (just like narcissism, self-absorption and ego-centricity aren’t essential attributes of Fi- they’re simply unfortunate possible weaknesses).

I can understand the underlying resent: both in the sense that I think I kind of do the same thing with Te (in the way I refer to Te heavy argument as a caveman’s approach to dialogue), and in the way that I also actually resent having someone impose mindless rules of etiquette (with accompanying guilt-trip) on me. Something tells me that I just haven’t felt anywhere near the same depth of resent for the latter, though. It annoys the bejeezus out of me, but I can generally just shake it off once the person is out of range- it must be a lot more difficult for people inclined toward Fi to do that.

Is it part of Fe to you? I dunno..but yeah, those things really grate on me. I just came back from my family. For years they commented on my appearance as it was not 'up to standard' to them. This time, I actually did something about the one issue that bugged them so for so long. Not perfect, but still. Instead they picked something else in my appearance to bitch about. My hair. How I'm getting too old to have it that platinum. Oh, and let's not forget my birthmark which my dad mistook for a fungus. I'm not kidding you. Only later did the change I made come up. And then it was in passing like, oh..you actually did something about that? Ok *next topic*. That just makes me wanna scream, and sigh. And never be near them again.

At the same time, I see them having fun together and doing grouphugs and laughing and enjoying the kids and I wonder if I'm somehow missing something. How I am that f*cking clueless, somehow. Coz they do tease each other with comments like that as well, though they seem less...tense and serious than with me. Every time I relax around them, as I wanna get into this and *fit in*, the comments come out of nowhere and I wonder what I did to deserve to feel judged like that.

You say in your next point nobody should get to say how another feels and that one should take responsibilty for their actions. How is it then, that Fe-users somehow tell you to get over yourself when you address that you don't appreciate their comments. Again, I'm not attacking you, I'm just...I guess, I'm trying to understand, trying to somehow not get hurt when seeing them. Trying to make sense of Fe.

I don’t think any one person has a right to tell another person when they ‘should’ or ‘should not’ feel belittled. We can either decide that someone else feels belittled too easily and write off responsibility for having
caused it, or we can decide to better understand why the person feels belittled. It’s all about taking responsibility for that choice. You know? I mean, it’s available to start a thread- asking Fe types why it makes them feel personally belittled when you throw insults at the Fe- if you really want to understand why it’s such a problem. In the end, it isn’t that you’re ‘wording’ something the ‘wrong’ way; it’s that these Fe/Fi battles seem to be more about wanting to be understood than being willing to consider the other side and meet somewhere in the middle. And when that happens, it’s just a cluster-f#ck of people clubbing each other over the head with their own opinions until everyone’s worn out.

As Poki pointed out...the devil is in the details and as tedious as those threads can get, I did learn a lot from them. Granted, I'm nowhere near where I wanna end up, but still further along than I'd ever have gotten on my own.

As for someone telling you how to feel, you're absolutely right. Nobody should tell you how to feel. However, I disagree with you about where the responsibility for the invoked feeling lies. That too seems to be a difference between Fi and Fe-users. I don't blame someone else usually (unless I've already repeatedly asked not to do something as it hurts me, see above!), for making me feel a certain way. They're just being themselves and they cannot read my mind or know what buttons are going to cause what response, though some common sense is of course to be applied. So, I take responsibility for my own feelings and will try and neutralize them, giving people the benefit of the doubt and maintaining harmony.

I will say I'm sorry when I've hurt someone, however, I am sorry about the fact that I accidentily hurt them, not about telling them what I think. And I will explain to you why I did what I did, so you too can understand where I come from, as well as in the hopes that you'll do the same, so we can avoid this in the future (Te-approach as Orobas calls it). I however do refuse to feel guilty about what happened and take full responsibility for it. We're both adults and accidents will happen. Surely we can negotiate for a better outcome next time, and surely we can understand that these things happen. In case this is harsh, I know that this isn't how Fe-users work. Ask Onemoretime about this, I've had this convo with him as well

It's actually a pretty interesting difference between Fi(Te) and Fe(Ti)-users, I'd say. It's the intention behind the action that decides blame or guilt to me. Not the action itself. And that's apparently very much different with Fe-users.

Note how even now I'm not appologizing for using the words that I did, and the words you sort of took offense over. I'm explaining to you why I used them the way I did and how I do believe that to be ok. My intent was never to hurt you, or to oppress you, tell you what to feel. I'd never do such a thing. My intend was to explain to you why Fi-users may seem belittling to you despite not having said intent. (man, this is getting meta upon meta ).


Know that I do not mean any offense with this and I do appologize if this rubs you the wrong way