Dear Fe User,

[Forever_Jung]

I don't think it does to Fe users. I really don't identify my emotions as an integral part of my identity. It's more like symptoms or information that may direct me to look at factors I may not otherwise give as much weight to.

Do you think that's the case even with Fe doms?

 

[Synapse]

i suspect Ps naturally leave space for randomness and chaos; it’s assumed in our thoughts and behavior. if you don't account for that then it'll throw off the calculations.

Dunno, randomness and chaos are an interpretation only, rarely are such artifacts randomness and chaotic in nature. Its just the precept based upon the analysis a misinterpretation of the infrastructure. Its like closing your eyes and randomly making dots on a piece of paper, you think its random and chaotic. But you open your eyes and find there to be a pattern. I would hazard a guess each type's random dot experience would be an interesting deviation. Say if I just put dots to paper, thousands of dots there would definitely be some kind of cohesion.

And if you contract the time frame of individuals life spans in comprehensible ways that plot the emotional scales of thoughts and feels and their associated randomness and chaos to the reactions that are occurring patterns would be emergent. It would be interesting.

Just because it is outside the reference range of understanding isn't a qualifier to judge or perceive the circumstance as random, chaotic, irrational, illogical etc, its a 'too hard' lets deplete the variable to reinterpret to something that is comprehensible and tangible.

 

[Synapse]

On that note I'm on a tangent spurred on by something earlier. Whether this has any relevance.

INFJ's feel their way through their relationships and social building skills. And this comes from a source of wanting to be aware of the outcome of how society, people function. In doing so create an illusion that the values are definitive instruments in predictable behaviour that their cognition becomes in tune with. The very same sense of wanting to be social is the very same sense that closes from assigned discrepancies classified as alert modalities. And just like INTJ's there are contingencies that INFJ's have. Unlike INTJ securities and valued hierarchies INFJ social values and internal hierarchies are interlaced throughout their thinking. Why INFJ forums is such an emotionally charged artifact and INTJ forums is such an emotionally cold artifact. INFJ value for social etiquette borders on a moral and ethical premise in their value system. I've seen it displayed a lot, its a judgment placed upon what I call the proclivity of attitude in regards to experiencing their kind of emotional attachments and disassociations through precognitive intuition. Applying social contingencies that reshape their awareness to fit their value system over their ideals.

In each instance its like an internal limit breaker to experiencing. By focusing on an event horizon that is beyond the scope of approximation there is an internal conflict going on. And that is according to the impressions that are created around the social orbit, like a road with dents, the orbit accumulates debris. For INTJ's rather than a social orbit we'll call it a strategic orbit of contingencies and for INFJ's we'll call it a subtle orbit of resonance. Qualifiers and markers that pertain to the emotional state of valuation in accordance with the internal rules and regulations as influenced by the flavours of the people they look up to into their own precept of approximation.

Now with INTJ's we can see that the strategic orbit of contingencies is meant to create plans for security on a grand scale that is seen as visionary. And it is in a way a formula to create a lasting valuation of their worth as a legacy for what their achievements and predictive patterning of their logical conclusions draw upon in their interpretation of things to come. Often for this reason their lack of malleable acceptance of adding other peoples pieces of their orbit around their linear one is because they are of the belief, and a primarily emotional belief not entirely logical, that their vision is secure, unshakable, provable, implementable and incomparable. Which it is in the time frame of that moment in time that the projection has occurred. The funny thing with that is in that moment the very human concept of time changes and then the other hundred contingencies that happen to counteract that dimensional reality are strange. When its multidimensional, and just like thousands, millions of thoughts that happen a day time is an illusion. The ego mind learns certain concrete values and uses them accordingly as the means to shape the reality of the outcomes that are projected into the future. And the predictive power applies from an emotional center because thoughts happen to form from emotions, without emotions the association to think of the logical vision in question would be unthinkable. Its like putting acid with fruit, it'll melt. And hence cold and calculating, and yet completely removed from the now and totally blinded by the many possibilities that their thinking limits them from. INTJ's think their contingencies and back up plans are for their security and the source comes from their insecurity in wanting to control their future. Without understanding that the human condition is created to exist in the now. And then INTJ blind spots are in the now and believe in their futures all the while creating some kind of insecurity in an unobtainable perfection. Like a mole tunneling lots of exit strategies only to find the whole infrastructure can still collapse, hence tunnel vision. Ah I blabeb I lost the point of that. I just felt like writing it since I'm in the mood to.

Now the INFJ subtle orb of resonance is interesting. While this would be likened to chess pieces I'm unsure about that, I would actually attribute the term more to NT variences. But that's for another time. I call it resonance because its actually tuning into a wavelength along their valuation of the mosaic, like a meandering and weaving tapestry, that correlates to their infrastructure of accumulated wisdom through the orbital waves that transpire. Much like through the looking glass in Alice and Wonderland is strangely what pops into my mind.

And this is a kind of diffraction in a subtle way in determining the outcome of positive and negative intonation before it happens. Like a light bulb moment an inventive ENTP might have, an INFJ has a purple bulb moment like an internal dialogue that's placed on a scale of importance according to their definition of external energies and associations. Based on the feeling of that impression, that sense of awareness of reading about the markers and orbital signature that is left behind. Like a smell, except its like a vibration that resonates with the internal landscape of how your precepts listen to the validated systems of acceptable and unacceptable instruction. And in doing so the complexity of the analysis becomes such that you can reshape your intuition in seeing into another more clearly of their motives and understand the sincerity drives and motives faster and sooner. However there is the debris around the orbit and with that foresight there is also a muddied sense of disenfranchisement and disconnect depending on the variance of experience and attributes that the human condition affords.

Who knows, more speculation.

Dare I say I'm yet to meet any INFJ's in person so I'm speculating. Does any of this makes sense to INTJ's and INFJ's? Dunno I just wrote it as it comes.

 

[sculpting]

Their actions would be appreciated, nonetheless. Hopefully what they choose to do isn't so drastic that they've somehow encroached on you.

Hmmm, kind things are never an issue to be honest. Perhaps unexpected but as tildy said-it's the thought that counts. The negative side will be their dissapointment when I do not return the kind gesture-but this is a very well explored issue on many threads though.

On the dark side -the interrpretation of my expression of emotion as a request for their action actually backfires in two ways:

1) They seem to feel manipulated or resentful at being "requested" to act in a certain manner-which I never actually desired or requested.

2) They seem to assume my expression of emotion is a request for them to modify how they have judged a topic-which is not what I desire.

If it is, the Fe user will react in a way that seems very harsh and unpredictable to the Fi user. The issue is really that the Fe user thinks that the Fi user 1) Did not get the message for some reason - obliviousness? choosing to ignore? Fe user not being clear enough? 2) Is purposely being obtuse and is trying to upset them. This means that the Fe user will keep stating their case in stronger and stronger terms in such a way that the Fi user feels personally judged and rejected when they don't see what it was that they even did in the first place.

Again though-how do I explain to an Fe user that I would like to agree to disagree? That I have heard their view on a topic and given we see the world differently, it is an area in which will always disagree?

(I also realized-when in discussions with Fe users, I keep waiting for presentations of logical fallcies-Ti style info or objective Te data...thus I never modify my opinion, not because I am close minded at all, but because I havent seen data that contridicts my understanding of the issue. The information provided is Fe value judgments-which I improperly interpret as individual Fi emotive responses, which I can affirm but disregard intellectually as insufficient data sources that cant over rule what I have observed)

 

[sculpting]

synapse i read your posts and I adore them-They are so Fi driven that I often have to spend time pondering them though, so I dont reply, but I greatly value them. Your Fi is almost Ni-ish in it's search for universality and there are many pieces I find familiar, but I dont know how to expand upon them very well.

YES:
- The group, its associated dynamics, culture and how it functions.
- Patterns of behaviors of individuals and groups
- Society more broadly
- The dynamics of how people relate to one another
- Understanding individual's behaviors, motivations, desires and beliefs

NO:
-and motivations that others seem have in the group.
- Understanding the nature of the relationship between you and this other person - with all of its nuances
- Assessing consistency of behavior of individuals and behavior with social protocols
- How decisions, actions, or expressed opinions are going to be reacted to, countered or felt by others and weighing benefits and costs of the course of action
- Using all angles of how the group works, connects, gets along (or doesn’t) and all of their views and then deciding what course of action is most amenable to the intended goal while accommodating the most people
- Given all of the above factors - how much of yourself do you invest in relating to them; also, how do you customize your interaction for the situation

I enjoy studying the above under "YES" in a context independent manner given I don’t use Ni but Si. I establish generalized rules which can be used to predict, but not absolutely define. Guidelines, tendencies, proclivities. Once the general TeSi rules are built, you lay them back on top of individuals, then fine tune with Fi knowledge of that person, sort of using Ne to blur over the fuzzy areas. It could be considered an extension of Fidelia's commentary on Fi below:

Both parties do not realize that the purposes or goals of Fe users and Fi users are completely different. They may use some of the same tools, but for very different ends. It's kind of like how one person may use a rock as part of a stone wall they are building, while another may use it as a stand in for a hammer. Both are valid uses for rocks, but if an onlooker were to judge the effectiveness of the person using the rock to hammer with by how well their wall was coming along, they'd think there was something wrong with the person. Conversely, if the hammer user were looking at the rock wall builder by how effectively they wielded the rock as a makeshift tool, they would judge that they were doing quite poorly.

 

[Kalach]

Now with INTJ's we can see that the strategic orbit of contingencies is meant to create plans for security on a grand scale that is seen as visionary. And it is in a way a formula to create a lasting valuation of their worth as a legacy for what their achievements and predictive patterning of their logical conclusions draw upon in their interpretation of things to come. Often for this reason their lack of malleable acceptance of adding other peoples pieces of their orbit around their linear one is because they are of the belief, and a primarily emotional belief not entirely logical, that their vision is secure, unshakable, provable, implementable and incomparable. Which it is in the time frame of that moment in time that the projection has occurred. The funny thing with that is in that moment the very human concept of time changes and then the other hundred contingencies that happen to counteract that dimensional reality are strange. When its multidimensional, and just like thousands, millions of thoughts that happen a day time is an illusion. The ego mind learns certain concrete values and uses them accordingly as the means to shape the reality of the outcomes that are projected into the future. And the predictive power applies from an emotional center because thoughts happen to form from emotions, without emotions the association to think of the logical vision in question would be unthinkable. Its like putting acid with fruit, it'll melt. And hence cold and calculating, and yet completely removed from the now and totally blinded by the many possibilities that their thinking limits them from. INTJ's think their contingencies and back up plans are for their security and the source comes from their insecurity in wanting to control their future. Without understanding that the human condition is created to exist in the now. And then INTJ blind spots are in the now and believe in their futures all the while creating some kind of insecurity in an unobtainable perfection. Like a mole tunneling lots of exit strategies only to find the whole infrastructure can still collapse, hence tunnel vision. Ah I blabeb I lost the point of that. I just felt like writing it since I'm in the mood to.

Ah, sweet inferior function.


But the INJs don't have a judgment e as our primary concern. Security doesn't reside (wholly) in recognising order out of disorder. That, despite what the INFJs have been saying about the comfort of knowing where everyone else stands, is still the EJs. No, to have at the limits of the INJ vision we need an ESP to assert for us what intuition really is compared to the true flow of reality going on around us even now.

But still... "unobtainable perfection"...

I don't see perfect images. If actually called upon to decide something I'll see utilitarian steps.

Steps toward... whatever was required. The vision itself resides in the background. Despite being the dominant concern, it's rendered secondary when one is called upon to speak.

If there is some INJ version of the unobtainable perfection, it's less a perfection and more a simple.... [placeholder for a word]. If the vision is ever completely articulated, it ceases to be "the"vision. It enters the past at that point and counts as grist for the new vision. Perhaps into that placeholder above should go the word "revolution", that word just in the sense of constant movement, but not revolving for that would suggest cycles, which isn't quite what's wanted here. "Movement", perhaps.

Heh. Intuition as unobtainable movement. All possible movements and the point where they all overlap in no movement.





Pffft.

 

[IZthe411]

Hmmm, kind things are never an issue to be honest. Perhaps unexpected but as tildy said-it's the thought that counts. The negative side will be their dissapointment when I do not return the kind gesture-but this is a very well explored issue on many threads though.

On the dark side -the interrpretation of my expression of emotion as a request for their action actually backfires in two ways:

1) They seem to feel manipulated or resentful at being "requested" to act in a certain manner-which I never actually desired or requested.

2) They seem to assume my expression of emotion is a request for them to modify how they have judged a topic-which is not what I desire.

I know what you mean here. I don't like that either.

 

[Southern Kross]

SK, would Fi users be comfortable prefacing their comments as just "raving on about stuff"? I ask that because I think that it would help Fe users be a lto less defensive and prescriptive if they understood that you are expressing yourself, thinking aloud (much in the way I vent so that I can come to an effective solution to my problem), and that you have no particular aim you are trying to achieve by doing so other than that as an end in itself. This was totally new news to me a couple of weeks ago. Seriously!

The thing is, we were convinced that we have been signposting this for you.

To make things clear, here are ways Fi-users (again I can only really speak for doms/auxs) show they are just putting an idea out there or merely expressing a personal view they don't mean to impose on others (taken from a real thread):

"I don't know if that's just me..."
"There's something kind of..."
"Its not that I don't..."
"Maybe its that..."
"The way I imagine..."
"I was surprised by..."
"That's not my personal perception..."
"This feels like..."
"Maybe its just me, but here's my personal take..."
"I mean, this reads to me..."
"I actually prefer..."
"I would disagree that..."

To us (admittedly these were mainly INFPs), that is a bunch of clear qualifiers for the preceeding and following statements. Its to tell others: its "just my view", "I maybe, sort of, possibly think this", or its "just a thought that came to me". We don't like to talk in absolutes or assume others feel the same as us or impose our views on others, so we want to remove the burden of objectivity from what is said. When you see statements like:

"Its wrong to..."
"People should be more..."
"You shouldn't..."
"It doesn't mean..."
"They apparently don't ..."
"Then it's obviously not..."
"This means that..."

Then they are being more prescriptive or claiming more universal understanding, and are displaying possible intentions regarding the situation. (note: I found it really hard to find these sorts of statements from XXFPs without qualifications. That just shows how much they are actually trying to avoid confrontational language or making broad, objective claims)

 

[Thalassa]

Agreed on both- which underscores the discussion here that Fe isn't consistent across all of it's users. It's based on individual discernment, so it will differ in how it's expressed.

I'd like to add, before someone comes in here and contends that Si isn't open, and their Je isn't malleable - that's false. I don't want that to take over the thread- we can discuss if necessary.

I do think ISxJs can be more "malleable" than ESxJs. It makes me think of my ISTJ grandfather who would really crack down and be judgey on particular issues, but for the most part was consistently much easier on children and overall forgiving of people he loved than his ESxJ wife, who appeared to need to be in constant control and was more nit-picky. Same for my ESFJ ex, needing constant control over the situation or even other people, except for the moments when he was being purely warm and radiant and loving. I've known several ISFJ women who seemed quite accepting and accomodating of people in general as long as they didn't cause any visible external disruption.

 

[Poki]

I do think ISxJs can be more "malleable" than ESxJs. It makes me think of my ISTJ grandfather who would really crack down and be judgey on particular issues, but for the most part was consistently much easier on children and overall forgiving of people he loved than his ESxJ wife, who appeared to need to be in constant control and was more nit-picky. Same for my ESFJ ex, needing constant control over the situation or even other people, except for the moments when he was being purely warm and radiant and loving. I've known several ISFJ women who seemed quite accepting and accomodating of people in general as long as they didn't cause any visible external disruption.

My ISTJ grandpa is the same exact way. Certain issues he will fight to the death for and become extremely hard headed, everything else he is really malleable and fun to joke around with and be around. Despite the fact that he is ISTJ and I play heavily with respect when it comes to people older then me for fun, he is very playful on that front with me as well because he knows I am playing.

 

[highlander]

I really don't identify my emotions as an integral part of my identity. It's more like symptoms or information that may direct me to look at factors I may not otherwise give as much weight to.

i suppose this may also be one of the key differences between Fi and Fe users. i suppose to Fe users, emotions are more of a tool for understanding others? i think with all Fi users, our emotions are a big part of our identity.

This is fascinating Fidelia - if this is how Fe is. It is like you separate the emotions and view them objectively in yourself and in others as part of an overall system. It may sound strange coming from an INTJ, but for me, the passion and emotion are everything. They are the fuel that drives all else. I'm with IndyAnnaJoan - it is a big part of my identity.

Similarly, Fi users should understand that when Fe users bring something up, it is because they are implying that the action that needs to be taken cannot be accomplished by them alone or they are trying to bring to someone's attention a serious problem that they have. They don't like to rock the boat needlessly because they assume their comments could be taken as a criticm or as conflict inducing. So you'll only hear those comments under extreme provokation, after a lot of thought, or if the consequences have been weighed and the potential good to be accomplished outweighs the potential bad. A lot of thought has gone into them bringing something up and it should not be trivialized or dismissed as thinking aloud. If it is, the Fe user will react in a way that seems very harsh and unpredictable to the Fi user. The issue is really that the Fe user thinks that the Fi user 1) Did not get the message for some reason - obliviousness? choosing to ignore? Fe user not being clear enough? 2) Is purposely being obtuse and is trying to upset them. This means that the Fe user will keep stating their case in stronger and stronger terms in such a way that the Fi user feels personally judged and rejected when they don't see what it was that they even did in the first place.

Ohhh... That explains much *thinks about 100s of mistakes*

also, perhaps this is related to being a Ne dom - but it feels very uncomfortable to have everything i do always under scrutiny for how consistent i am (note: i am not very consistent when it comes to behavior) or to have someone predicting my next move (note: half the time i don't even know what's coming next).

i think that's essentially the crux of my annoyance with the game. i don't have a problem with others having an impact on me in a way i can't choose, or being held accountable for my actions, but the game eliminates freedom. it doesn't leave any room to just be.

Yes. It feels extraordinarily confining. We are actually probably way more predictable than we would like to think but the idea of somebody boxing me into a set of predictable behaviors does bother me.

Also: outside of even the mbti definition of judgment being different- using judgment is not the same thing as being judgmental. Using judgment is about discernment, without necessarily adding a positive or negative value; being judgmental is about being critical, assigning an excess of negative value to things. And the word 'judgy'- as it's used in this thread, I'd guess- would mean something inbetween, maybe a kind of hastiness to place positive or negative value? Because I agree that Fi'ers tend to assign positive or negative value faster than Fe'ers- for Fe'ers, it's more relative to context.

Maybe this is not an Fi perspective - it is something else. Not sure. What might bother the non Fe user is that they feel they are being subtly judged. That is, the issue isn't confronted and so it festers. I like to get things out in the open. Confront the issue. Get it over with. Forget about it and move on. So, the fact that it isn't quite expressed but yet so very much felt, is annoying because I want to get it out in the open and come to closure. That being said, a lot of issues don't need to be confronted. You can navigate around them. So these expectations that I have for directness are probably unreasonable and counterproductive.

I also realized I will project my ENFP worldview onto ENFJs. Meaning when they approach me in an emotionally expressive manner, I tune them out as they come across as irrational and overly emotional. I assume they are ranting and once they calm down, we can have a productive rational discussion, so I forgive and ignore the ranting-like I would to an ENFP. In reality it seems they are trying to deliver finalized judgments. Oh dear that's rather funny. oops. Hehehe.

A question-assuming when Fe users approach and express an Fe judgment-What is the best way to say "I am sorry, I disagree. It seems we will need to agree to disagree over this topic as we see it differently" ? Typically I affirm them (Fi), then try and explain my position (Te)-which they describe as rationalization since they have judged it differently.

So, I'm wondering in this case - what is the best response to the person who prefers Fe? We want to know!

Here's the crux of what I find challenging:

I get emotional sensory input from every person I meet. I'll just be shopping or out walking or driving my car and I get a read on people, as I have said before like a radio station that's always on in the background. Whether or not you believe that, or question the accuracy of what I "hear" - that isn't really important atm. What I want to convey is that I often get a read on an emotional state that doesn't match the outer behaviour or expression. Sometimes an Fe user will appear overly cheerful or overly angry and I don't feel like their inner state reflects the intensity of that expression. And sometimes, I can feel they are seething or frustrated or super-sad but when you ask them how they are doing, they say they are fine, and try to give off every appearance of doing so.

Now, from reading so many responses in all of these threads, I understand more deeply why one might choose or not choose to emote, and how removed from emotions Fe users can tend to see themselves. But to a large percentage of the population, when you think you are concealing what you really feel, I want you to know you aren't, and because of that people can't help but think Fe is fake or phony. And, there are times that concealing emotions or using them like a tool doesn't serve anyone's purpose at all and will distance people from you that could help you work through those feelings and see that they often have a purpose, they have something to teach. At least that's what what feelings are like to me.


So, I don't know what to do about that, fully, still. I try to gather enough data about a person to try to understand them as best I can, despite the contradictions I sense. It does seem unnecessarily complicated at times though - when I choose to emote I have no intention but being honest to how I really feel. No agenda.

Bolded - This is somewhat how I feel. On the forum, I'm NOT able to capture the perceptions very well at all but IRL, I believe I am very sensitive/perceptive to the responses or reactions of others, and to understand what is behind those responses or reactions. I don't know if this is Ni/Se, Fi, or what it is. What I do know is that I seem to be able to quickly see through things and people who know me well have said that I can be extremely perceptive. One of my pet peeves is when I meet someone who I feel is a "bullshitter". I can pretty quickly sense a lack of sincerity while others seem to be oblivious to it. The end result is that I quickly feel that I cannot trust this person and once I feel this way, I believe little of what they have to say.

Being totally honest and open about how one feels - to me, that's the greatest gift.

Thanks all for sharing here on how you see the world.

Bolded - Here is the problem. I think we have an unrealistic expectation in this. We are overlaying our value structure on others. We are not accepting others for who they are. I do think though that if you look at the interaction between Fi and Fe that this might be a positive thing. The person who prefers Fi gets the Fe user to open up and say more of what they think or feel. The Fe user helps the Fi user to consider the practical interpersonal outcomes of their actions. Anyway, that's my theory.

Edit: It may sound like I'm contradicting myself between the last paragraph and the one before it, or being contradictory, but I'm trying to understand both sides. It makes me wonder if I have been unfair at times in the past.

Now with INTJ's we can see that the strategic orbit of contingencies is meant to create plans for security on a grand scale that is seen as visionary. And it is in a way a formula to create a lasting valuation of their worth as a legacy for what their achievements and predictive patterning of their logical conclusions draw upon in their interpretation of things to come. Often for this reason their lack of malleable acceptance of adding other peoples pieces of their orbit around their linear one is because they are of the belief, and a primarily emotional belief not entirely logical, that their vision is secure, unshakable, provable, implementable and incomparable. Which it is in the time frame of that moment in time that the projection has occurred. The funny thing with that is in that moment the very human concept of time changes and then the other hundred contingencies that happen to counteract that dimensional reality are strange. When its multidimensional, and just like thousands, millions of thoughts that happen a day time is an illusion. The ego mind learns certain concrete values and uses them accordingly as the means to shape the reality of the outcomes that are projected into the future. And the predictive power applies from an emotional center because thoughts happen to form from emotions, without emotions the association to think of the logical vision in question would be unthinkable. Its like putting acid with fruit, it'll melt. And hence cold and calculating, and yet completely removed from the now and totally blinded by the many possibilities that their thinking limits them from. INTJ's think their contingencies and back up plans are for their security and the source comes from their insecurity in wanting to control their future. Without understanding that the human condition is created to exist in the now. And then INTJ blind spots are in the now and believe in their futures all the while creating some kind of insecurity in an unobtainable perfection. Like a mole tunneling lots of exit strategies only to find the whole infrastructure can still collapse, hence tunnel vision.

I don't think it needs to be so perfect. For example - covering 80% of the likely scenarios might easily be deemed good enough.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

hm, "feeding off" - do you mean feeding off positive responses from other people? i could see that easily. the nature of Ne and Fi together makes for good people pleasing because Ne is good at adapting in the moment and Fi is good at knowing what others want/need, and it's pleasing to F in general to please others. it can certainly be used in a negative way, or a fairly neutral way (eg accidentally leading people on when you're just trying to be nice to them), or at its best it can manifest the "champion" behavior for which keirsey named the type, to help people see the best in themselves and empower them to become their own advocates.

the particular ENFP i was referring to was an unhealthy one, and i should have clarified that i believe ENFP's can be manipulative when they are unhealthy.

 

[uumlau]

I agree that recognizing and confronting differences, and bridging that communication gap, is important and is also the main reason for mbti being useful in providing a framework for those differences.

I think what happens though, when trying to turn it into more than it is (i.e. using it to account for every difference between people), is the misapplication of functions. I think this is the main divide when it comes to these sorts of discussions.

At what point is it definitely a misapplication of functions?

There are those who *appear* (note I'm saying 'appear', it might not in fact be what they're doing or proposing) to want to apply functions to every single human behavior as well as use them to explain all of the differences/communication gaps. Then there are those who argue against this - want to remove functions from the explanation of ALL differences, etc, and tend to see functions as somewhat limiting when it comes to explaining differences - at least, in real-world applications. I definitely see myself more in the second group.

This perspective appears to discount the notion of having categories of differences.

What I find interesting is that in spite of individuals each having individual traits that make each one unique, there are certain psychological categories such that an individual is either one or the other. That the individual, having chosen (for lack of a better word) one path over another (e.g., one function over another), becomes inherently different, in a categorical way, from those who chose the other path.

Or more plainly, there wouldn't be an endless generation of "Fe/Fi threads" if the differences were not observably real and categorical.

That said, yes, individuals are unique, and are best understood as individuals with unique traits. But the categorical differences remain useful: it quickly becomes obvious why person A readily understands an idea, and person B does not, or vice versa ... NOT because person A is so smart, or person B is so dumb, but that the thinking of each are in entirely different spaces. And that understanding is what allows one to explain an idea such that both people understand it.

 

[highlander]

At what point is it definitely a misapplication of functions?

Good question. In truth, I think we probably do it all the time in the forum. This may sound odd but I see value in the exaggeration - for the purpose of forming an overall impression of something. That may elicit a strong negative reaction from some but the rough idea or approximation seems helpful to me anyway.

Or more plainly, there wouldn't be an endless generation of "Fe/Fi threads" if the differences were not observably real and categorical.

Right. Exactly I don't think there could possibly such a "division" or lack of understanding of the others perspective if there were not real differences.

 

[sculpting]

One of my pet peeves is when I meet someone who I feel is a "bullshitter". I can pretty quickly sense a lack of sincerity while others seem to be oblivious to it. The end result is that I quickly feel that I cannot trust this person and once I feel this way, I believe little of what they have to say. .

Awhile back I became much more careful IRL of assigning sincerity vs insincerity...once I understood i was really seeing Fi vs Fe. I realized I had been passing a value judgement on people based upon my own ability to detect Fi in them-I avoided "bullshitters" aka people who used a lot of Fe...OnceI understood they were not "phony" but just different in expression, I became very wary of what my Fi told me about trusting them. I still do not trust them with Fi, but I recognize they are not unstrustable with respect to Te. (perhaps this is what you see? just tossing it out there in that case...)

Bolded - Here is the problem. I think we have an unrealistic expectation in this. We are overlaying our value structure on others. We are not accepting others for who they are.

Are we overlaying our value structure or are we projecting our own worldview upon the other? (This may be the same thing to be honest) In either case it is a mistake I make badly. IRL I tend to only share Fi with others who I could sense Fi in, or who I could crack their Fe mask-typically ENTPs and INTPs with crazy Ne, but even they only get Te. If I can do neither I tend to remain at a friendly distance. Online, I cant see those unspoken Fi cues-thus can read far too much or too little into an interaction. It isnt that I require them to be emotionally open because I value it-it is that I misread Fe as Fi. This is very much a personal issue for me though. I am like a stupid little kid-because someone is nice to me, I assume they like me? IRL, the Fi unspoken feedback makes me much more tentative and much better at measuring interaction depth.

 

[Thalassa]

This is fascinating Fidelia - if this is how Fe is. It is like you separate the emotions and view them objectively in yourself and in others as part of an overall system. It may sound strange coming from an INTJ, but for me, the passion and emotion are everything. They are the fuel that drives all else. I'm with IndyAnnaJoan - it is a big part of my identity.

Yeah I relate to this seeing the world always in terms of passion and intensity of feeling, especially before I began to learn to be a bit more rational and think through some of my feelings. I understand what Fidelia is saying...but it's a skill I learned through necessity in adulthood in order for balance and maturity, not because it's how I was originally made. I also related to what IndyAnnaJoan said about Fi being less subtle.

I have found this thread very helpful in learning about Fi and Fe to the point of being able to recognize them as valid concepts again.

 

[highlander]

Awhile back I became much more careful IRL of assigning sincerity vs insincerity...once I understood i was really seeing Fi vs Fe. I realized I had been passing a value judgement on people based upon my own ability to detect Fi in them-I avoided "bullshitters" aka people who used a lot of Fe...OnceI understood they were not "phony" but just different in expression, I became very wary of what my Fi told me about trusting them. I still do not trust them with Fi, but I recognize they are not unstrustable with respect to Te. (perhaps this is what you see? just tossing it out there in that case...)

Yes this is what i am afraid I have been doing.

I have found this thread very helpful in learning about Fi and Fe to the point of being able to recognize them as valid concepts again.

I think I understood it in theory but a lot of what's been communicated here has helped to make it real.

So which do you prefer?

I cant see those unspoken Fi cues-thus can read far too much or too little into an interaction. It isnt that I require them to be emotionally open because I value it-it is that I misread Fe as Fi. This is very much a personal issue for me though. I am like a stupid little kid-because someone is nice to me, I assume they like me? IRL, the Fi unspoken feedback makes me much more tentative and much better at measuring interaction depth.

You and me both. This innocence has a wonderful quality in a way, but it feels like it's opening up an area of vulnerability and so you learn to become guarded. Maybe that is some of what is behind the response of Fi to Fe. When you obtain evidence to the contrary, it can feel like a betrayal, so after enough experiences you begin to protect yourself.

 

[PeaceBaby]

For me, I wouldn't call it bullshitting so much as dissonance ... to feel something but witness behaviour that doesn't seem to align. Oh, I know most people are good, and they don't mean to come across negatively. It was hard aligning the why, and these threads help with that. Still ...

I think we have an unrealistic expectation in this. We are overlaying our value structure on others. We are not accepting others for who they are. I do think though that if you look at the interaction between Fi and Fe that this might be a positive thing. The person who prefers Fi gets the Fe user to open up and say more of what they think or feel. The Fe user helps the Fi user to consider the practical interpersonal outcomes of their actions. Anyway, that's my theory.

Yes, it's unrealistic. That's what makes it idealistic. But I don't see it as not accepting others; on the contrary, it's extremely accepting. I don't expect other people to be like me at all, or share my values, or even be interested to hear what I have to say. All I hope for is someone that cares enough to try, to reach out. It is simply wonderful when that area opens up between two people.

Ironically, it's why I so vastly manage my own inner space, what I share or emote, why I shut people out who I sense are trying to read me (or who might be able to unless deemed trustworthy), why I am tentative to assign motivations, to make declarations ... a whole raft of things. I am too tired atm to express my ideas more clearly. Apologies.

And too, I like to have the control here ... this is my locus, my sphere of influence. If I can't Fe or Te as well as a native speaker, I need to embrace what I do have and use that to the utmost of ability to help me grow. I am so, so weary of trying to un-Fi myself.

 

[Glycerine]

Awhile back I became much more careful IRL of assigning sincerity vs insincerity...once I understood i was really seeing Fi vs Fe. I realized I had been passing a value judgement on people based upon my own ability to detect Fi in them-I avoided "bullshitters" aka people who used a lot of Fe...OnceI understood they were not "phony" but just different in expression, I became very wary of what my Fi told me about trusting them. I still do not trust them with Fi, but I recognize they are not unstrustable with respect to Te. (perhaps this is what you see? just tossing it out there in that case...)

I think I can see where you are coming but I wanted to make a distinction between phony/bullshitters and Fe. Fe can be about diplomacy but there are TRULY phony people in the world regardless of Fe or Fi My Fe is usually careful about trusting people. If someone seems to be too good to be true (with extreme charisma and social skills)or if the actions don't align with their words, then I wait to see if they are genuine. I have met people who I have had a really bad feeling about from the get go and my first impressions are usually right. That sounds so judgmental but typically when I give these people a chance, I get burned almost every time.

 

[highlander]

Yes, it's unrealistic. That's what makes it idealistic. But I don't see it as not accepting others; on the contrary, it's extremely accepting. I don't expect other people to be like me at all, or share my values, or even be interested to hear what I have to say. All I hope for is someone that cares enough to try, to reach out. It is simply wonderful when that area opens up between two people.

Inside, we may be accepting but I think it might come across to Fe users as they are being judged by not meeting this ideal. The ideal is considered as superior. In other words, the practical orientation doesn't feel accepted as "good enough." Then Fe considers Fi as being out of touch with reality. I don't know. Maybe I'm out of my league here .....