User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 471

  1. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satine View Post
    @ protean: True, but where a Fi-user will be more likely to build a theory of it and figuring out how exactly it works (like a Ti-user would), a Fe-user seems to be more focused on prevention and adaptation for the future, in this case through the use of taking responsibility (like a Te-user would). Both end up with the same result: adaptation to the situation, but in the case of the Fi-user it comes from putting puzzle pieces together and understanding what was missing in that (theoretic) puzzle before, whereas with Fe-users it seems to come from working within the (practical) system and refining that system to include this situation for next time.

    Since Fe (like Te) includes actions and practical application, taking responsibility and blame is part of rectifying the situation, whereas Fi just backs up, refines the theory to then go back and figure out the next part. It's mostly experimenting and tinkering to get it just right, something you build at in your mind. There's no point in assigning blame or responsibilty as it would stunt the creative process. However, implementing the theory to then see it go wrong and harming someone is appologized for. The reasoning and questioning and research before however...not so much, as it's part of who the individual is. And to be apologetic for who you are as an individual, to say the least, rather unhealthy and self-destructive.
    From my experience its like strategic Fi guesses. Fi strategic, not Te strategic as the purpose is to understand which is an internal thing instead of to accomplish an external goal.
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #122
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The problem is that we often classify as a means of deflecting our own shame and guilt about situations that went wrong, i.e. we rationalize it. Making a communication failure an issue of "type" and "functions" allows us to distract ourselves from our real emotion about the situation - "I feel guilty for failing to communicate." Instead of saying "this happened because of the conflict between Fi-Fe," it would be more effective to say "we didn't fail to communicate because we're bad or defective people. We just have different communication styles. Now that I know this, I can modify my communication efforts to get my message across better."
    But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

    This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

    This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.
    I rationalize in a way thats meant to help Fi in a more immediate sense as things get worked out long term just through life problems, but it has nothing to do with blame at all. This rationalization is like a balancing act for me.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #124
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

    This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.
    Anxiety/stress are shame/guilt responses.

  5. #125
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    on the INFJ common issues thread I think you can see some of the very best discussions here...that highlight how universal this issue is across that divide. Both sides approach with the best intent and end up arguing.

    To use any tool, the first thing you need to understand is that you are different....then you can use tools to bridge those differences.
    I'm gonna read these back over sometime soon and see if I can pick out these differences.


    I'm okay with leaving the personal bullshit out of these discussions, too.
    --
    When someone comes at you with a very indirect communication style ("This needs to get done"), and if the stakes are kind of high, it's.. probably best just to seek common ground rather than just (a) completely ignoring the other person because they don't communicate in the same way that you do, or (b) assuming that you know what they want. Both are dangerous in their own right.

    People come to you with some polite mannerism ("It'd be nice if we could tackle this problem..") and, quite often, it's pretty easy to get a first guess at what they're looking for. If you think that the person wants help, and if you're in a position to help, there are ways around the 'over-politeness.' For instance, if you can first discuss their problem with them--thereby establishing some situational trust in them that you're interested and not too busy. It's pretty straightforward from there to lead them into direct communication ("Yes, I would like your help") once that trust is established.

    Sometimes, that approach isn't very easy. One of the problems with overly indirect communication is that it can be readily spun in a variety of ways. I recounted a story of a friend who stormed off to tackle some problem on her own without asking for help, and either (a) could have legitimately wanted to tackle it on her own, or (b) secretly 'docked points' from others for not stepping in. In fact, if we had assumed one or the other of these possibilities, she could easily have claimed the other to be true. It was impossible to tell, given the circumstances. And, well, it never was clear.


    For what it's worth, indirect communicators also need to learn how to communicate with the direct communicators when there are projects or friendships at stake. That responsibility isn't a one-way street. If you need someone's help, and if they can't readily read your pretenses.. for God's sake, make yourself more clear!


    (General "you.")

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    This actually was a huge problem in the airline industry once. Cultures that had two characteristics (large power distance (subordinates did not address their superiors on equal terms) and shame as a basis of social control) had much greater crash rates, and much more catastrophic crash rates, than those with other characteristics. Copilots would indirectly hint at problems to the captain, fearing that the captain would interpret this as an attack on his piloting skills, and as a result, imminent catastrophe would go unnoticed. The industry, worldwide, took drastic steps to correct the issue - comprehensive training requirements to equalize the flight environment, and making the use of English mandatory while in-flight (English doesn't have many class distinctions in its vocabulary). As a result, crash rates in these cultures reduced drastically.
    Good ol' Malcolm Gladwell. That was a great book.

  6. #126
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Jag...Rather than pointing out an idea, then calling out flaws in my ideas, you instead directly attacked me as a person...Why did you do that?
    I have news for you sugar, Protean made the same argument I did. We are in complete agreeance that you are unwilling to see this as a problem that belongs only to you, not Fe, and your refusal to step up to the plate and accept personal accountability. If you consider that an "attack," then you have even bigger problems reading people than I thought.

    Read this:

    Then basically are saying you CANNOT COMMUNICATE with half the population. Do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean it's Fe users, it means IT'S YOU! Stop making it Fe, when it's you. Furthermore, stop dragging other Fi users into your underworld and blowing it up into some kind of Fe-Fi communication abyss, when it's Orobas's lack of understanding. You're making yourself the standard and everyone else the exception.

    ^ PROTEAN'S WORDS which I support 100%. It's my own viewpoint, as well.

    What I find offensive here is two members saying the same thing to you, but you accuse only one of "attacking" you. I'll be direct - that type of inequity lacks integrity. That means it is YOU making an ATTACK on ME, since you have chosen to apply two different standards here, depending on who you are dealing with.

  7. #127
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Seriously, I'm with Orobas on this. Can we *not* make people defensive and derail the thread even further? This is a thread about the function Fe, afterall, and O was just sharing some thoughts on this, and trying to get some constructive feedback on stuff she mulled over in her head, kinda like you would with any idea or theory. Just say that you're not inclined to believe that her examples have anything to do with the Fe-Fi difference and state why.

    Whatever her personal issues are, they're none of your business, imho,nor is anyone really qualified to judge on that as they do not know who she is. I don't believe she even asked for advice on her situation and how to deal with it, just for feedback on how to analyze the situation. ffs, she's not standing trial here.

    edit: let me be clear, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just at the general vibe in this thread.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  8. #128
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satine View Post
    Seriously, I'm with Orobas on this.
    Seriously, I'm with Protean on this.

  9. #129
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post

    But this situation happens so frequently in a work environment, at least for me it does. It's not some huge thought process I need to go through and I do think it's obvious.
    Is it so difficult to understand that some people do that more easily than others? And that sometimes the work environment issues are reversed, with (for lack of a better expression) "Te-style" dominance of the culture, with "Fe-style" people trying to get by?

    I fully understand your misgivings w/r to applying MBTI and Jungian functions to everything. If one understands a situation on its own terms, that understanding will be more complete, and "functions" just get in the way. However, if one is unfamiliar with the situation, those simplistic functions can help one quickly classify and process issues, rather than just sitting in confusion because one doesn't grok the whole process.
    What happens when you have a direct Fe communicator or does no such animal exist? Once again, the way you and Orobas are describing it, Fe=indirect, Te=direct. Is that a claim you all want to make because it seems like a gross oversimplification to me.
    Yeah, that's a simplistic picture, with the Te=direct and Fe=indirect. I fully agree. With respect to the Tannen book, due to how she describes the situations, what she describes as "direct" is the Te behavior, while the "indirect" has a more Fe feel to it. (I go into more detail at the end of this post, but as I don't have the book with me, I don't have quotes available to make this as clear is I might, otherwise.)

    I don't expect Orobas to hold the same value set as I do, but only being able to communicate with people who are "like" me is a severe handicap. What is insulting about this whole thing is exactly what Jag outlines above: instead of Orobas owning it as her problem, she extrapolates it to functions. Instead of taking accountability for her communication difficulties, it's suddenly a type issue.
    Well, I think that's where the miscommunication is coming in: she is taking accountability. Her manner of doing so appears to be foreign to you, to the point of looking like "rationalization" and "blaming Jungian functions". She steps back and analyzes patterns. More often than not, the analysis results in self-correction, not blame.

    If you want to map this to function, (which I think is bologney but I'll play along) and using Orobas as an example, her Fi still sits in front of Te and I would say that Fi is way more indirect that Fe. I won't fuss about Te being more direct than Fe, but Ti seems pretty direct to me as well. Then you've got Se and Si and I'd like to see the argument made that Se is an indirect function...I'd jump on Si being indirect. Would extroverted functions be more direct since they're more visible? As I've already brought up earlier, all EJs fall into the In Charge group and then ESTP. Would In Charge (two of which are Fe users) be the most direct? ENFPs are in the Get Things Going category which engages through enthusiasm and excitment, but so are ESFJs and ENTPs. I would think that if these types are all grouped together they must have equally effective, but different means of leading and engaging people.
    These are good points. Fi is way more indirect about emotions and handling emotions than Fe. You essentially have to step on Fi toes really hard to get a straight reaction out of them. This is where a better definition of "direct" and "indirect" come into play, because they are being used in a particular way by a particular author.

    Specifically, a "direct" approach would be to say, "I want some ice tea, please." Someone sharing that communication style would presumably ask if they want lemon or sugar and go get some, or reply that, sorry, there is no ice tea to be had (or even "Go get your own damn tea.")

    An indirect approach would be to talk about how hot it is, eventually mention that a cool drink would be refreshing, and only when exasperated or dying of thirst ask for water or tea or something.

    I don't have the book with me at the moment, but when outlining the direct style, it was described as being "information only" with no emotional content, saying no more or less than needed, while the indirect style worked at preserving relationships, respecting boundaries, and in general tried to make assumptions about how the other might react to various statements. As you can see, with these kinds of definitions, it's easy to make the simplistic (I'd say 0th or 1st order) observation that Te = direct and Fe = indirect. Yes it gets more and more complicated as you get into the details, but it's a good starting point for understanding.

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    So as to me...I am totally Fe Blind-thus allowing me to observe the behavioral patterns as they unfold with Te quite effectively. I dont understand Fe motives, but I see patterns. I am exceptionally sensitive to Fi...which is unspoken. So proteo you are totally right in that half the population is off limits. Understanding how to bridge those gaps is the point of the convo. Let's place me at the 99% for Fe-blindness.
    Rely on the bolded Your Fi will throw you way off. A situation that you may see as leading to hurt does nothing to me in way of being hurt by someone, it will be something entirely different. Its as far off as me trying to use Ti to judge why an Fi user does something. When you see hurt I feel something else. In the meantime though the Fi judgement is half way to what what works best, meaning it does actually work.
    Im out, its been fun

Similar Threads

  1. What would the world be like without religion?
    By RandomINTP in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-30-2017, 11:06 AM
  2. How would the world be without Ni?
    By Lightyear in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 07:37 PM
  3. What Would the World Do Without Fi?
    By Glycerine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 08-23-2010, 03:23 AM
  4. How would the world be without Ti?
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-21-2010, 11:10 AM
  5. What would the world be without Sensors/Intuitives?
    By VanillaCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 06:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO