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.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!
Big for putting up with all of this.
Hahahahahah!Yeah, I have pretty deadpan delivery. People tend to not tell when I'm joking.
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!