What would the world do without Fe?

[uumlau]

Now HERE is a possible Fe/Fi difference!

When my POV is being severely disagreed with (believe me, I know all about that), I don't feel like it's a "wound" that needs to be nursed. It doesn't require a therapeutic massage and incense! I feel like I put it out there into the public domain and something is going to get said about it. I've put in emergency exits for myself when things start hitting me personally--when I need to stop participating in a thread if it's pushing my buttons. but seriously, I don't expect to be gently patted on the head and coddled. This has more to do with my relationship to internet forums and attachment to my ideas, I suppose. Things I don't want criticized I hold to myself. My preciouses....

What I've noticed is that the wounds are in different spots. I've observed that for Fe, Ti seems to be what gets wounded. For Te, Fi is what gets wounded.

Fe tends to use "you" language a lot, just as Fi tends to use "I" language, which is how Fi starts perceiving Fe to be a busybody and Fe perceives Fi as self-absorbed. Fe's "you" language can be very positive, an effort to express concern for the other individual as a person. It is genuine concern.

Fi, on the other hand, can perceive that concern negatively, as not genuine, as pushy or bossy, and so on. Fi expresses concern and connection by sharing of themselves and of their experiences, which sounds self-absorbed to the Fe side of things, especially if the "Fe-user" hasn't asked about such things.

When "Fi users" use "I" language with each other, this is how they avoid conflict: each is talking of their own experiences in their own context, saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I had that happen to me once. I ended up handling it thus and so." Thus advice is given, without expressing opinions of "you" that might be taken the wrong way. They don't hear it as self-involved, because it's mutually understood as a means of respecting boundaries. Giving an Fi user an example of how one is wrong about something works just fine. Or giving the Fi user a Te example of what is wrong, pointing at the idea and saying that the idea is wrong, works just fine. But telling the Fi user that the Fi user him/her-self is wrong, that causes a wound, because the message heard is very different from the message sent. What is heard is that one is intrinsically wrong, not that merely an idea is incorrect.

Contrariwise, I've noticed that on the Fe side, going after ideas in the Te way (directly talking about the other's ideas) is what causes similar offense, because Ti maintains that one cannot know the truth so certainly. The correct approach is to ask questions, point out inconsistencies and ask that they be resolved, and so on ... a more Ti approach to knowledge.

In fact, this is where I figured the "directness" conversation would end up, with Fe possessing one kind of directness, and Te another. Both sides are differently direct, and differently sensitive, and both are honestly puzzled by the others "overreactions" to directness.

Additionally, is this a sign of a person who doesn't tolerate being disagreed with very well? And what about my (possible/hypothetical) feelings of frustration? Because I didn't make a dramatic exit from the thread they don't exist? Squeaky wheels!

I think both sides were frustrated. I would disagree that it was about "not taking being disagreements with very well", but rather how the disagreement is expressed and then interpreted in completely different terms. FWIW, Proteo, I respect both you and Oro for tackling these issues.

Big for putting up with all of this.

Yeah, I have pretty deadpan delivery. People tend to not tell when I'm joking.

Hahahahahah!

My Mom, INFJ, was exactly the same way. She'd end up having to backpedal and say, "I was joking. No really! I was being sarcastic."

I would hypothesize that it had to do with delivering both the verbal message -and- the appropriate accompanying body language and tone that so many people would take her sarcasm seriously - that normally no one would take the statement as for real, but her delivery was so sincere and honest!

 

[Glycerine]

What I've noticed is that the wounds are in different spots. I've observed that for Fe, Ti seems to be what gets wounded. For Te, Fi is what gets wounded.

Fe tends to use "you" language a lot, just as Fi tends to use "I" language, which is how Fi starts perceiving Fe to be a busybody and Fe perceives Fi as self-absorbed. Fe's "you" language can be very positive, an effort to express concern for the other individual as a person. It is genuine concern.

Fi, on the other hand, can perceive that concern negatively, as not genuine, as pushy or bossy, and so on. Fi expresses concern and connection by sharing of themselves and of their experiences, which sounds self-absorbed to the Fe side of things, especially if the "Fe-user" hasn't asked about such things.

When "Fi users" use "I" language with each other, this is how they avoid conflict: each is talking of their own experiences in their own context, saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I had that happen to me once. I ended up handling it thus and so." Thus advice is given, without expressing opinions of "you" that might be taken the wrong way. They don't hear it as self-involved, because it's mutually understood as a means of respecting boundaries. Giving an Fi user an example of how one is wrong about something works just fine. Or giving the Fi user a Te example of what is wrong, pointing at the idea and saying that the idea is wrong, works just fine. But telling the Fi user that the Fi user him/her-self is wrong, that causes a wound, because the message heard is very different from the message sent. What is heard is that one is intrinsically wrong, not that merely an idea is incorrect.

Contrariwise, I've noticed that on the Fe side, going after ideas in the Te way (directly talking about the other's ideas) is what causes similar offense, because Ti maintains that one cannot know the truth so certainly. The correct approach is to ask questions, point out inconsistencies and ask that they be resolved, and so on ... a more Ti approach to knowledge.

In fact, this is where I figured the "directness" conversation would end up, with Fe possessing one kind of directness, and Te another. Both sides are differently direct, and differently sensitive, and both are honestly puzzled by the others "overreactions" to directness.



I think both sides were frustrated. I would disagree that it was about "not taking being disagreements with very well", but rather how the disagreement is expressed and then interpreted in completely different terms. FWIW, Proteo, I respect both you and Oro for tackling these issues.

Big for putting up with all of this.



Hahahahahah!

My Mom, INFJ, was exactly the same way. She'd end up having to backpedal and say, "I was joking. No really! I was being sarcastic."

I would hypothesize that it had to do with delivering both the verbal message -and- the appropriate accompanying body language and tone that so many people would take her sarcasm seriously - that normally no one would take the statement as for real, but her delivery was so sincere and honest!

YES. The whole post resonated with me. Instead of "you", I try to use "someone, "one", "individual". Is that more diplomatic or is that still offensive to the average Fi user?

I usually want to chew people out when they say definite things. I have chewed people out for saying all XXXX... or XXXX are...

 

[uumlau]

YES. The whole post resonated with me. Instead of "you", I try to use "someone, "one", "individual". Is that more diplomatic or is that still offensive to the average Fi user?

I usually want to chew people out when they say definite things. I have chewed people out for saying all XXXX... or XXXX are...

Exactly.

I tend to use third person pronoun or "it" in forum posts. It's the only grammar that seems to resonate in a general way, with the only disadvantage that it can sound stilted and formal. '

If one says "You" and there is even an inkling of a negative point, then it is possible for whomever "you" refers to infer that the negative point is about them. If one says "I" and there is even an inkling of excessive pride in oneself, or how one is better than others, it can be heard as how "I" am better than you.

It gets worse, though. If one says "Fe user" or "Fi user", even if only to mean an archetype and to think through a problem, one is often likely to offend those who identify with "Fe user" or "Fi user", and it can take quite a while to undo that damage. Notice how I try to say "tends to" and similar qualifiers when discussing Fi and Fe.

The overall object is to discuss "ideas" in an abstract, impersonal space, rather than a space in which people are likely to take offense.

 

[cascadeco]

It gets worse, though. If one says "Fe user" or "Fi user", even if only to mean an archetype and to think through a problem, one is often likely to offend those who identify with "Fe user" or "Fi user", and it can take quite a while to undo that damage. Notice how I try to say "tends to" and similar qualifiers when discussing Fi and Fe.

The overall object is to discuss "ideas" in an abstract, impersonal space, rather than a space in which people are likely to take offense.

Qualifiers I can respect. I try to do the same myself because, like Pitselah, I really can't abide definitive statements - which is what tends to happen when discussing the theory. I can't abide them, because they are simply untrue. Yes, there are certainly trends for each of the functions and each of the types, but you can't really assess a particular individual based on the overall trend. The individual may be on the outskirts of the bell curve. So to speak.

 

[garbage]

I just really am trying to reconcile the 'look beyond MBTI tendency' for 'Fe users' with the whole perception that 'Fi doesn't want to box people in.'

So, how is that reconciled?

YES. The whole post resonated with me. Instead of "you", I try to use "someone, "one", "individual".

Well, personally, I don't tend to t

that it was pointed to and 'called out'

the use of particular functions doesn't dictate whether or not one reaches

If an individual who identifies with a certain type doesn't identify with a certain thought or idea that one associates with

dammit.

I usually want to chew people out when they say definite things. I have chewed people out for saying all XXXX... or XXXX are...

+ a billion

Yeah, I have pretty deadpan delivery. People tend to not tell when I'm joking.

When I care about getting my 'joking' across on forums, my favorite smiley to use is . I love it.

Yeah, I'd say that sometimes 'deadpan' delivery is part of the joke. It's just a lot easier to clear that up in 'real life,' immediately after the delivery.

The overall object is to discuss "ideas" in an abstract, impersonal space, rather than a space in which people are likely to take offense.

Also agree with this

 

[Qre:us]

Given that human beings are social animals - well, it'll be like amputating that evolutionary trait.

Humans are both individuals and part of a group, and both these aspects need to be maintained for our species to survive. The individual must put a value and/or identity onto onself, in order to propagate own genes, and then rely on the protection of their group/their tribes, to raise their progeny to its own reproductive success. You cannot isolate either aspects.

Our individual identity, its formation, its meaning, relies on a certain kind of reflection, bounce-off, of the society at large.

I am female. <- this is meaningless unless the properties attached to it are outlined, such that X property is included and Y property is not included to understand the term "female", and so on.


One cannot claim an individual identity without being part of a group.

 

[Poki]

I have issues with people seeing things a definitive way. The more open someone is the definitive I can be...the more definitive they become the more open I become.

 

[proteanmix]

I focussed on O here because she's the one who's backed out and the rest of the participants are still in the ring and ready to go (so to speak). The why of that matters to me; I don't see that action as her needing to be babied. I see it as potentially something (that if addressed) can lead to greater self-discovery. I want to get her back in. I want to support her so she can express that inner stuff ... Fi users can find it hard to articulate at times, and can be easily squished by strong Te or Fe convictions.

So...the squeaky wheel? The person who seemingly evidences the emotional "trauma" gets the bandage? I encountered something similar to this in my RL recently, because I didn't make a show of how I was feeling I evidently wasn't feeling anything at all. Also, why don't you voice these concerns to her personally via PM or wall message if you really want her back in the thread? If she's put it on ignore, then she's not seeing any of this.

And squished my @ss. What other strong Fe has consistently been a presence here in the thread? Once again, you're portraying Fe as the school yard bully who pushed the little scrawny Fi kid off the swing.

Orobas: What is "the game" and how do "we" crush each other?

 

[Jaguar]

#1

Why not be sensible here and realize that it may just be you, who has a problem.It's not that you don't "speak Fe," it's that you don't read people very well.

#2

It doesn't mean it's Fe users, it means IT'S YOU! Stop making it Fe, when it's you.

I'm waiting for someone who is unbiased to see that the same person could have posted those two comments.
On the other hand, perhaps a few members need to visit an optometrist this week.

 

[Poki]

So...the squeaky wheel? The person who seemingly evidences the emotional "trauma" gets the bandage? I encountered something similar to this in my RL recently, because I didn't make a show of how I was feeling I evidently wasn't feeling anything at all. Also, why don't you voice these concerns to her personally via PM or wall message if you really want her back in the thread? If she's put it on ignore, then she's not seeing any of this.

And squished my @ss. Besides me and bologna what other strong Fe has consistently been a presence here in the thread? Once again, you're portraying Fe as the school yard bully who pushed the little scrawny Fi kid off the swing.

Orobas: What is "the game" and how do "we" crush each other?

YOU CALLIN ME WEAK

I am still stuck as to whether this is possibly a test Oro is doing or not.

 

[uumlau]

I just really am trying to reconcile the 'look beyond MBTI tendency' for 'Fe users' with the whole perception that 'Fi doesn't want to box people in.'

So, how is that reconciled?

How does what reconcile with what? Both sound like statements that reject MBTI to some degree.

Qualifiers I can respect. I try to do the same myself because, like Pitselah, I really can't abide definitive statements - which is what tends to happen when discussing the theory. I can't abide them, because they are simply untrue. Yes, there are certainly trends for each of the functions and each of the types, but you can't really assess a particular individual based on the overall trend. The individual may be on the outskirts of the bell curve. So to speak.

I have issues with people seeing things a definitive way. The more open someone is the definitive I can be...the more definitive they become the more open I become.

"Definitive" is a good word, because it demonstrates where the miscommunication can come in. When I use a "definitive" statement when explaining something in simple terms to someone else, I'm not "defining" anything, I'm explaining a process, or how something works, with a known context between the both of us. Especially in a highly technical field, one needs to communicate knowledge in distinct pieces. Each piece, taken all by itself, is usually false, but part of a larger statement and context. Once the person on the other end assembles all the pieces, it will be "true" (more or less). Adding in a lot of qualifiers about how something isn't 100% true is usually only needed in special cases, and otherwise gets in the way of communicating effectively, because it will become obvious what is 100% true and what is "mostly true" once the other person understands the technical process being described.

This mode of speech doesn't work too well on forums, however.

 

[cascadeco]

"Definitive" is a good word, because it demonstrates where the miscommunication can come in. When I use a "definitive" statement when explaining something in simple terms to someone else, I'm not "defining" anything, I'm explaining a process, or how something works, with a known context between the both of us. Especially in a highly technical field, one needs to communicate knowledge in distinct pieces. Each piece, taken all by itself, is usually false, but part of a larger statement and context. Once the person on the other end assembles all the pieces, it will be "true" (more or less). Adding in a lot of qualifiers about how something isn't 100% true is usually only needed in special cases, and otherwise gets in the way of communicating effectively, because it will become obvious what is 100% true and what is "mostly true" once the other person understands the technical process being described.

Of course this does all depend on the other person actually understanding, as well as concluding what you are concluding, and seeing the 'truths' that you see as truths, rather than coming away from it deciding that what you see as a truth is not what they see as a truth.

I do think this is interesting, though. A good distinction as to the 'intent' of Te, and what might be misconstrued about it.

 

[garbage]

How does what reconcile with what? Both sound like statements that reject MBTI to some degree.

One of the claims throughout this thread is that it's the 'Fe users' who don't want to use MBTI to place people into categories, that it's more of a 'Te' thing.

In many other parts of the forum, the claim has been that it's the 'Fi users' who don't want to strip people of their identity by placing them into categories. "You can't box me in; I'm too idiosyncratic!"

So, either (a) the theory doesn't actually readily explain that tendency, (b) there's an explanation within the theory that I haven't thought of, or (c) the underlying motivations of the two types are different but lead to the same outcome.

 

[skylights]

YES. The whole post resonated with me. Instead of "you", I try to use "someone, "one", "individual". Is that more diplomatic or is that still offensive to the average Fi user?

I usually want to chew people out when they say definite things. I have chewed people out for saying all XXXX... or XXXX are...

i agree completely with this; i don't think "someone/one/individual" is offensive at all, and get upset with blatant generalizations too.

i don't think it's specific language that's offensive to me as much as tone and implication.

I agree there's the possibility of O's reply being facetious.

Regardless, at the core I get a sense of her being frustrated at not being able to get her message across and feeling somewhat attacked in trying to do so. I do genuinely think her feelings are hurt here.

that's the sense i got too, for what it's worth.

So...the squeaky wheel? The person who seemingly evidences the emotional "trauma" gets the bandage? I encountered something similar to this in my RL recently, because I didn't make a show of how I was feeling I evidently wasn't feeling anything at all. Also, why don't you voice these concerns to her personally via PM or wall message if you really want her back in the thread? If she's put it on ignore, then she's not seeing any of this.

And squished my @ss. Besides me and bologna what other strong Fe has consistently been a presence here in the thread? Once again, you're portraying Fe as the school yard bully who pushed the little scrawny Fi kid off the swing.

Orobas: What is "the game" and how do "we" crush each other?

i don't mean this with any personal dislike towards either of you, but simply from my point of view this post reads almost very similarly emotionally as orobas', hurt and frustrated, even if your behavioral responses were different. you're both seeming to be fairly focused on how the external environment is upsetting to you personally.

your deadpan is masterful though, geez. i thought your joking post was serious too

 

[PeaceBaby]

So...the squeaky wheel? The person who seemingly evidences the emotional "trauma" gets the bandage? I encountered something similar to this in my RL recently, because I didn't make a show of how I was feeling I evidently wasn't feeling anything at all. Also, why don't you voice these concerns to her personally via PM or wall message if you really want her back in the thread? If she's put it on ignore, then she's not seeing any of this.

And squished my @ss. Besides me and bologna what other strong Fe has consistently been a presence here in the thread? Once again, you're portraying Fe as the school yard bully who pushed the little scrawny Fi kid off the swing.

Orobas: What is "the game" and how do "we" crush each other?

Don't swing off on a tangent now ... I know you have feelings; I know you were feeling annoyance, iritation and impatience with the stereotypes presented, almost to the point of finding it offensive to you personally, but it doesn't seem to me that your feelings were hurt. Were they?

If they were and I missed it, I owe you an apology. If not, is it so hard to put yourself in her shoes, or in my shoes? Can you see how - for me - I would like to try bringing cohesiveness back to this thread rather than have some people leaving the discussion due to hurt feelings?

Right now, as we are talking here, I imagine us sitting side by side, not facing each other adversarially. I am speaking in my typical tone - soft yet direct, making solid eye contact, but not constantly holding your gaze; I am using my hands, palms open and up, to emphasize my sincerity.

Presented to you (in my original post in this thread) was an opportunity to see things from two points of view - yours and mine, roughly correlated to Fe dom / Fi dom. It's not like I actually disagree with you btw - you make many excellent points; I believe I repped you in this thread to that effect already. My metaphor basically = your opinion on the whole behaviour / function analyses ... differing only in that I do observe some core communication issues that do seem to correlate to typological lines, and some to enneagram typing. And that they can magnify online due to the lack of body language and other visual and auditory cues to help frame them contextually.

Fe is strong, charismatic, dynamic; that's why it's imperative if you want to facilitate communications that you engage Fi in a manner more fitting to draw it out. You have the skills to do this, yet your impatience takes over and crowds your effectiveness in this area. And you have a right to feel that way; people make such ridiculous claims sometimes about each function, especially the feeling functions.

Clearly I don't know all of the facts, and can't speak for Orobas; I am only going off of my feelings in this thread. It's not about taking sides.

I would support you as vigorously if I felt you needed it. Right here, right now, you don't.

 

[Zarathustra]

One of the claims throughout this thread is that it's the 'Fe users' who don't want to use MBTI to place people into categories, that it's more of a 'Te' thing.

In many other parts of the forum, the claim has been that it's the 'Fi users' who don't want to strip people of their identity by placing them into categories. "You can't box me in; I'm too idiosyncratic!"

So, either (a) the theory doesn't actually readily explain that tendency, (b) there's an explanation within the theory that I haven't thought of, or (c) the underlying motivations of the two types are different but lead to the same outcome.

I think it might help to consider the positioning of the Fi and Fe.

I think the higher F is in one's functional preference, the more you see the tendency you've described.

Nevertheless, and I can't believe I'm going to be the one harking on this point now: it might come down to individual differences...

I do, though, think that Ts will tend to be more open to the boxing...

 

[Amargith]

This isn't exactly on-topic, but thought I'd share my responses/impressions to both Orobas' final post in here and protean's response to it: When I read Orobas' post, I honestly suspected she was being totally facetious, and basically ripping on / condescending of Fe - as she seemed to be adding all of the supposedly-obligatory-and-stereotypical-Fe-'approaches', without really buying into it- it just seemed like a robotic response, saying what she perceives she's 'supposed' to be saying to be Fe-ish - and it just seemed blatantly over the top and I actually thought SHE was being tongue-in-cheek. Thus I thought protean's tongue-in-cheek response/joke was of the same vein.

Funny
I didn't blink twice when I saw O's reply. Maybe it's coz I know her a bit already, otherwise I admit it does have potential for sarcasm. The thing is, it didn't even occur to me to think that she would do that. The thing I saw, when I read that, was an exasperated O desperately trying to figure out how to put in Fe-terms (the best she could) what she'd been saying for many posts already: that she didn't mean to hurt anyone, or offend anyone or make assumptions...and that she was sorry if that in truth had happened.

For that matter, it sorta pissed me off ,as to me it seemed like she surrendered, given up the will to fight, to try and be understood and just give in to maintain the peace, and jump through all the hoops she felt she had to to appease people, despite not really *feeling* what she was saying /dramatic explanation.

Then again, only O can really say what she meant by that post, I guess



As for needing to be coddled...no. Not needing to be coddled, but the need to be heard and understood, especially when sharing a piece of them, or an idea, is very big. There's no problem with people disagreeing with our views, as long as it doesn't get personal. As long as only the idea gets feedback and it doesn't get used to read into who you are as a person and judge you. And *yes*, I am aware that that was probably not the intent, but that's how it comes off. You did make it about her and how she should look at herself if she thought such things. That, if you wanna avoid confrontations with Fi-users, is about the worst thing to do ever. We tend to prefer a certain harmony to the relationship with the person we're debating shit with and keep idea debating strictly to the idea and not make it about the person involved as that gets emotionally messy real quick. I do admit I've seen Fe-users that truly need that approach as it helps them sort out their own perspectives, so I understand that this is a valid way to help out others, though I admit to not understanding how it works. I would very much like to though.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Nevertheless, and I can't believe I'm going to be the one harking on this point now: it might come down to individual differences...

This Is Golden.

Thus Spake PeaceBaby!

 

[skylights]

i just want to point out that i don't think that theory and individuality are necessarily mutually exclusive... theory is always going to miss some individuality, while individuality is actually the fundamental basis for typology theory.

theory-wise, introverted functions will tend to cherish identity and individuality. Fi should be more interested in personal value/emotional individuality, while Ti should be more interested in idea/intellectual identity. Ni will prize individuality of vision and depth while Si will prize individuality of experience.

on the other hand, extraverted functions in general will seek to reconcile differences. Fe will seek to group people together and Te will seek to group logical connections together. Ne will group and combine ideas while Se will group and combine experience/physical detail.

hence this:

What I've noticed is that the wounds are in different spots. I've observed that for Fe, Ti seems to be what gets wounded. For Te, Fi is what gets wounded.

and

One of the claims throughout this thread is that it's the 'Fe users' who don't want to use MBTI to place people into categories, that it's more of a 'Te' thing. In many other parts of the forum, the claim has been that it's the 'Fi users' who don't want to strip people of their identity by placing them into categories. "You can't box me in; I'm too idiosyncratic!"

so, theoretically, NeFi / FiNe and FeNi / NiFe will both seek both individuality and solidarity, just in different ways. and since we all use all of the functions, we will all prize all of these to a certain degree.

regardless of theory, individuality and solidarity are what make us living beings; difference provides us with individual identity and drive and likeness provides us with cohesion for survival and collaboration. and to some extent conflict between and over the two is bound to happen because individuality and solidarity are push-pull forces both within and amongst people.

in other words... this conflict is almost unavoidable. of course, the way we handle it is, at least to some extent, under our control.

 

[uumlau]

One of the claims throughout this thread is that it's the 'Fe users' who don't want to use MBTI to place people into categories, that it's more of a 'Te' thing.

In many other parts of the forum, the claim has been that it's the 'Fi users' who don't want to strip people of their identity by placing them into categories. "You can't box me in; I'm too idiosyncratic!"

So, either (a) the theory doesn't actually readily explain that tendency, (b) there's an explanation within the theory that I haven't thought of, or (c) the underlying motivations of the two types are different but lead to the same outcome.

I wouldn't say that either one is "typical." There are far too many "Fe users" and "Fi users" on this forum to conclude that they generally distrust MBTI as a rule.

I would suggest that we all bring our own skills into play in addition to MBTI to evaluate things as appropriate. Some have a greater degree of additional skills, and would prefer to use those before resorting to MBTI, if at all. Others will tend to start with MBTI, and then work from MBTI generalities to get to individual specificities.

Personally, I tend to pull out MBTI if there is a problem that doesn't seem to be resolved by my normal approaches. Sometimes it provides an insight. Sometimes it doesn't. If I get an insight, it's something to try, it might work or it might not.