Dear Fe User,

[Synapse]

Summary of 395+ posts in less than 15 sentences:

- Some things are right, some things are wrong, some things can't be figured out, and some things are opinions. Sometimes people think opinions are facts. They might make this mistake because they don't think it through and just follow other people. In other cases, people have their own personal biases. In both cases, people may get vindictive toward imagined threats. This is a no-no.

- Sometimes skills useful for one task are inappropriate for others.

- People need to be spoken to in their own personal "language" (or be adept at translation themselves) to understand other people. Some people are really hard to communicate with in general, but it also varies depending on your own "native tongue" if communication will go well.

Misunderstandings can make people feel like doo-doo.

- People should keep their cool and not let their emotions blind them from understanding. That's also a no-no.


Did I miss anything?

Yes you missed lots. Reread the thread.

 

[Poki]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at Poki. When I say I feel I have tried, check out my involvement on most of the Fe/Fi threads over the last year or so. I feel that the amount of effort that has gone into asking questions or working through conflicts or expressing thoughts and asking others about their though processes represents a sincere desire to understand.

I dont know its hard to explain. I dont question your desire or sincerity at all. I agree you have put in alot of effort and have helped alot.

 

[Fidelia]

Is it that you are making a distinction between a more cerebral look at these issues vs an emotionally intense, get your feet wet approach?

 

[highlander]

Highlander - Yes! You get it! I'm not going to unload emotionally on someone just because I have taken offense, and I will look for ways to that explain their behaviour in a more favourable light. However, it doesn't mean that it doesn't bother me.

You know how it is not immediately obvious to Fe users why saying that someone's feelings aren't reasonable is felt as attacking them at their core? Well, in this particular case, I feel that I've gone to great measures to NOT dismiss Fi users' viewpoints as being invalid. I've worked like crazy on this in a number of threads, purposefully gone through conflict (which I dislike) so that I could find out where our communication styles or interpretations diverge, asked many questions (which to me is a sign that I respect the other person enough to try to understand them), and not stated my thoughts in the language that would initially be my first impulse to.

O's responses felt to me that she did not take into account the fact that Fe users are all separate individuals, whith different function orders, different experiences, and different levels of interest in bridging that gap. I believe understanding functions explains people's instinctive impulses, but does not conclusively define them. I see Fi users time and time again insisting that Fe users force them into an unfair one size fits all mold when I feel that that's what is being done right back. When I did express as politely, but directly as I could what kind of response that invokes in me (thus seeking further information or perspective rather than jumping to the conclusion that Fi users are selfish or hypocritical), it was mostly glossed over and attention turned back to how Fe users attack Orobas as well as that even though some progress has been made in these threads, it should not take as long as it has.

I do understand that I need to pay more attention to the feelings behind those words rather than the words themselves. On the other hand, I find it very hard to continue on with discussion if I believe there's been a huge error made and also if I feel that my efforts are trivialized. Maybe it's because a core value of Fe is trying to accommodate and understand. If I feel like I've worked hard to do both and someone basically walks in and says that my efforts don't count for anything, it is going to make me feel like no longer bothering to try or that the other person expects understanding without giving either the information or reciprocation for that to happen. It kind of feels like the person is telling me that something which is a significant part of my identity is something that I am terrible at, and not offering any constructive information beyond that.

I think from a Fi perspective, it is just that the person is saying how their own experience feels to them. From my perspective it does feel like a negative judgement and not recognizing how out of their way people already are going to try to better understand. I've also noticed in the past that when I bring up issues to Fi users of what really is bothering me, they tend to gloss over them because they are looking at the reason for communicating it as being the same as their own reason would be. In this case, I only bring something up if I need more information or if I feel like there is a roadblock in our communication that needs to be addressed before we can continue on effectively.

You have no idea, highlander, how something as simple as recognizing the fact that a roadblock has been hit (at least from the other person's perspective) and validating that by asking about it dissipates a lot of the frustration or emotion that would otherwise be directed at you.


You said highlander that it is not as immediately obvious to you as to why something is a problem for us and then it is like stepping on landmines. I found that interesting with the INFJ Common Issues thread. INFJs were getting increasing frustrated, blunt and direct with an ENFP who in return felt hurt and attacked but wouldn't back off with Te suggestions that had not been invited in the first place and she kept making assertions about INFJs that seemed inaccurate and were lacking key pieces of information. To the INFJs, it seems painfully obvious what was wrong, in fact we thought we had stated and re-stated what was the issue. Someone else later on in the thread said something to her that was stated just slightly differently and all of the sudden, things seemed to come into focus for her. I am interested in investigating further what a few tweaks in language for either side would do in more effectively conveying in effectively translated language where problems are before they become big issues.

It's funny - I recall reading some of that in the INFJ issues thread and didn't fully understand why you and others responded so strongly. So to clarify, what I'm hearing from you here is:

A) You don't feel appreciated
B) You perceived the comments as criticism which you felt was unfair - especially bothersome since it related to the very things in fact that you focus on and are good at
C) You think she is over-simplifying things - essentially that she's wrong
D) You don't feel your concerns were being validated; not only were they taken lightly - in fact, then she started talking about herself

I know you don't like to be blunt like that - just trying to put it into my language

Looking at it from my perspective, her comments didn't seem so affronting. I noticed that after the original issue was created, she apologized and made other comments to try and mend fences. The apology seemed fine. But to you - they weren't the right words.

I do think people have these triggers - things that they respond to strongly - or that might offend them. These things might not seem like such a big deal to others because they don't live in that reality. In this case, it seems like a combination of Ni+Fe identity that is being assaulted. That is, since so much of the INFJ's identity is tied to these things - understanding human relations in depth and breadth (a metaperspective if you will; depth of insight on these things) along with being very "others focused" - seeking to honor the values and feelings of others, making efforts to accomodate them, being considerate and being affirming. What you see in this case is that the other person is discounting all of these things that you do or bring to the table. You feel completely unappreciated. It goes to the core of your identity. Then, with Fe kicking in of course, these actions of the other person are highly inappropriate, so the judgment goes back the other way. This person (the Fi user) simply isn't behaving in an appropriate manner and you begin to communicate that back the other way to help to change the behavior.

Does that sound right? Am I over-analyzing? I'm a little worried that I'm being too presumptuous here or overly direct in my assessment.

 

[Bamboo]

It's cool though, right? Before enlightenment, functional preference was just something to make other people bend to. After enlightenment, functional preference is just something to get good at because not everyone can do what you do and sometimes, even though they won't like it or even really understand it, they'll need to hear that other voice.

Yes you missed lots. Reread the thread.

^ those things are true, but we like to see how close we can get ... everyone who participates here is very interested in getting closer and closer to deeper appreciation of each other. Trying to bridge the gaps.

Nah, I don't think I missed much. Probably offends the hell out of you. That's ok, I'd expect that. Keep in mind I'm poking fun at you with the overt simplification.

I'ma guess the reactions:
Some may have trouble understanding I'm showing another viewpoint. They may think I'm making a declaration that my viewpoint is "more better" than theirs. Nope, I'm just showing another viewpoint. It's not a hierarchy. It's all on the same level. Another viewpoint.

Another one. That is, way I see it, there's more than one. Really. And I think you are free to yours.

Oh, by the way, all that "not a hierarchy" stuff is bull. I think mine is better. But the rest is true. Anyway...

The important thing to realize is that I have a whole different utility with my explanation than others do with theirs. Specifically: I'm looking to use it to navigate and deal with people efficiently and fairly. It's short, it's sweet, and it's readily adaptable. It doesn't cover all bases, but it covers most of them.

Some people, maybe the Fi users in paticular, will really not like that. They will look at my summary and say but how could you forget this exception! what about that. Read it carefully - remember the utility: efficient and fair. Pay attention to the qualifiers. Just about everything is covered, or there is ambiguity to cover it. In practical usage, you might not get the impression that I really understand you on a deep, personal level in passing. Because I won't. You'll be one of 6 billion people. You won't be special, you won't be unique. But I'll treat you fairly. That's my end goal. And I have just about all the information I need in just a few paragraphs to do that.

Now other people might say that's terrible, you're ignoring the unique essence of the individual. Here's the thing. Everyone is a unique combination of a variety of factors. But push comes to shove, we are all humans. We all function in approximately the same manner - we all are an organic machine pushed by a brain and a heartbeat. Now that leaves a lot of room for variation, but once you understand the basic layout, the differences are highlighted rather than diminished.

Now Fe users might say that this is all pushing us out of harmony, but once again, I'll disagree. Remember, it's about the basic layout. And guess what - we all have the same one. We are all together in a variety of uniquely human (read: silly) struggles. Now sometimes people are adverserial. There is a mismatch. To solve these problems we need to understand what we are, and importantly, when understanding an enemy (which we may irrationally label as something else), we need to understand what they are NOT. They aren't monsters. They are human, like you, which means they are just as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Except, by some small twist of ratios, they might be trouble and you might have to stop them. Or they are misinformed and you have to educate.

Either way, to keep that harmony you love so much, you have to see them for what they are. Conflict is unavoidable. But it can be minimized with quick action.



All the rest is preference. Some people are just all about other people and want to know all this stuff. Not really my thing, so have fun extracting every detail from each other so you feel connected or whatever. Weirdos. :hi: I don't understand the why? here but I'll accept it. Just don't pull your voodoo on me, it creeps me out. I'll be around when you need to get something done. Trust me, I'm good at it. I'll call you if I want to get in touch with something deeper or whatever it is you guys do.

xoxo,
Bamboo

BTW: The question "did I miss anything?" is a legit one. I think I did a good job covering bases here but maybe there was something I missed.

 

[Kalach]

In my earlier post, which uumlau questioned, I was citing that part of the disconnect in these sorts of threads is the fact that different people apply and view mbti differently. Then I elaborated as to how I tend to view mbti and its limitations, because I was asked, and why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such.

Just on that point, why dangerous? I ask specifically because for someone like me it seems firstly that I don't have very much choice in how I view the outside world, I just do key into mechanistic systems ahead of other stuff and so I want that to be important, and secondly, are we seeing here:

(1) competing functional preference, aka Te holds no particular interest to someone preferring a more F focus, and therefore concerns that something is being done wrong because it's not being done the F way?

or

(2) a genuine value statement of what it is that, for example, a more mechanistic view of the world misses?



EDIT:

in other words, did we just now witness the truth of Fe, the purpose of its existence?

 

[Synapse]

Nah, I don't think I missed much. Probably offends the hell out of you. That's ok, I'd expect that. Keep in mind I'm poking fun at you with the overt simplification.

Nah, I was amused, there are some aspects you might have certainly overlooked, but it was in jest, I should have used a more apt icon.

 

[highlander]

Just on that point, why dangerous? I ask specifically because for someone like me it seems firstly that I don't have very much choice in how I view the outside world, I just do key into mechanistic systems ahead of other stuff and so I want that to be important, and secondly, are we seeing here:

(1) competing functional preference, aka Te holds no particular interest to someone preferring a more F focus, and therefore concerns that something is being done wrong because it's not being done the F way?

or

(2) a genuine value statement of what it is that, for example, a more mechanistic view of the world misses?



EDIT:

in other words, did we just now witness the truth of Fe, the purpose of its existence?

I'm not going to respond to your question but here is some of what I think is going on. If you think about how as INTJs, we have this depth and breadth of understanding of topics that interest us - a big part of what we are about is to bring these insights to the table on these areas we are focused on. It helps us to define the expected outcomes, chart the course of action, plan for contingencies, etc. The INFJ is the same except the thing they are focused on is people and human relations. So, when you think about putting people into these boxes, given the depth and breadth of their perspective, they view the system as overly simplified. They like it because it is an interesting data point that can be brought into their overall framework of understanding, but they recognize it is only that - a data point.

As an INTJ, you no doubt have felt this way in the past about things. That there is this complex system with interrelated parts that are all working together. You've heard people come in (sorry, I will pick on STJs for the moment) and make some direct statements that we should do X and Y and Z. They are focused on a short term goal. They may be very tactical. You are wondering - should be be doing these things at all? Are they missing the bigger picture? Are we forgetting about A, B, and C. You might think their view is overly simplified. This is how the INFJ views MBTI. It's too simplistic. It's not considering all of the complexities, nuances, the bigger picture and the details.

Edit: To describe it a different way, where I work, we have lots of frameworks and methodologies we can apply for projects. There are people who memorize these things and execute the hell out of them (usually STJs). I find them enormously useful but always think they are flawed. I don't want to waste energy re-inventing the wheel, so I steal very liberally from what has been done before. Still, I want to customize the approach for the client. I use the methodologies and frameworks as more as a data point than a bible on how to execute on something. I'm always wanting to improve them but am relentlessly focused on what works. In a sense, this is how I think an INFJ might approach human relations. The methodologies and framework in the consulting example are comparable to MBTI, Enneagram, etc.

And in saying these things, I know some of them may feel that they don't like the box I'm putting them in

 

[Kalach]

I'm not going to respond to your question but here is some of what I think is going on. If you think about how as INTJs, we have this depth and breadth of understanding of topics that interest us - a big part of what we are about is to bring these insights to the table on these areas we are focused on. It helps us to define the expected outcomes, chart the course of action, plan for contingencies, etc. The INFJ is the same except the thing they are focused on is people and human relations. So, when you think about putting people into these boxes, given the depth and breadth of their perspective, they view the system as overly simplified. They like it because it is an interesting data point that can be brought into their overall framework of understanding, but they recognize it is only that - a data point.

Ah, but... and I wish I knew more about enneagram, but INFJs usually aren't 5w4. 5w4 is all about the knowledge. And if I knew what enneagram was all about I'd know what it means that INFJs are usually, what, 4? But anyway it seems it makes some kind of difference that Fe is their contact with the world.

Which is to say, using the INTJ model, we can observe that extroverted judgment is about systematising and organising the outer environment. Systematising when the emphasis is knowledge and organising when the emphasis is action. But something else happens when the extroverted judgment is F. It's no longer (just?) about knowledge, nor (just?) about action.

It's.....

and here my head explodes just knowing that I am attempting to finally describe what it is to derive values in extroverted judgment form...... it can't just be group norms nor social conventions. And it can't be just that because feeling is affective. Despite pre-existing exterior organisation being a convenient utilitarian signal system for navigation of feeling, the system can't and won't stop at received wisdom for at least the reason that people still walk around feeling stuff. Or to put it another way, extroverted judgment deals in systematisation AND organisation... the individuals don't just learn from others how to act, they are the creators of norms and conventions too.

And somewhere in there is a value system.

 

[uumlau]

Hey, Fidelia, I just wanted to say here that I really do appreciate the efforts that you've made to cross this weird Fe/Fi bridge. I thought I might bring my thoughts to bear on what is bothering you.

You know how it is not immediately obvious to Fe users why saying that someone's feelings aren't reasonable is felt as attacking them at their core? Well, in this particular case, I feel that I've gone to great measures to NOT dismiss Fi users' viewpoints as being invalid. I've worked like crazy on this in a number of threads, purposefully gone through conflict (which I dislike) so that I could find out where our communication styles or interpretations diverge, asked many questions (which to me is a sign that I respect the other person enough to try to understand them), and not stated my thoughts in the language that would initially be my first impulse to.

Yep, I see you doing this over and over, and adopting what you've learned.

O's responses felt to me that she did not take into account the fact that Fe users are all separate individuals, with different function orders, different experiences, and different levels of interest in bridging that gap. I believe understanding functions explains people's instinctive impulses, but does not conclusively define them. I see Fi users time and time again insisting that Fe users force them into an unfair one size fits all mold when I feel that that's what is being done right back. When I did express as politely, but directly as I could what kind of response that invokes in me (thus seeking further information or perspective rather than jumping to the conclusion that Fi users are selfish or hypocritical), it was mostly glossed over and attention turned back to how Fe users attack Orobas as well as that even though some progress has been made in these threads, it should not take as long as it has.

Actually, I think it's the Ne/Si, and not a little bit of Te, that is bothering you here far more than the Fi.

Ne is chopping things up into patterns and seeing what fits. It's rather analogous to the Fourier space I mention in an earlier post. Instead of looking at each person as an individual entity (the way in which Ni would prefer to analyze/perceive/intuit), Ne is finding the patterns between people. This is the space in which typology resides. Without the patterns of similarity between people, there is no typology, just a lot of individuals that have to be understood individually. So in the Fourier analogy, instead of seeing a single complex wave form, typology picks out the "frequencies and amplitudes" that "add up to" that wave form. Often, what pops out when looking at things this way is that certain frequencies are very loud and prominent within a certain type, and then there are a lot of other frequencies, which comprise all that make us individual and human.

When talking about the loud, prominent, typological frequencies, especially in Te mode, I imagine that's rather offensive to your Ti approach: so many details are being missed, it isn't just that one frequency. The thing is, the other details aren't being "missed" so much as they're "not the topic of discussion." The other details aren't part of the overall pattern. So they don't get mentioned, even in passing, and thus missing Ti-style qualification that "well, it's just typology, not a detailed psychological profile" - it offends you that the qualification isn't made.

I do understand that I need to pay more attention to the feelings behind those words rather than the words themselves. On the other hand, I find it very hard to continue on with discussion if I believe there's been a huge error made and also if I feel that my efforts are trivialized.

I don't think they're being trivialized. I think Highlander and I are seeing both sides, here, to a large degree (but not a complete degree). We see much of what you INFJs see because we share the Ni and we have a common approach, but we also see what Oro sees because we share that Te and Fi underlying logic.

Keep in mind that the "huge error" you are perceiving is a result of different communication styles. When I discuss things with Oro in person, I'll interject that it's more complicated than what she's saying, and she'll reply that she's aware of that, but that looking at it in that level of detail hides the pattern.

Typology is essentially about patterns, and the patterns give huge clues about what is really going on underneath the hood. Imagine two mechanics, A saying that one needs to open the hood, take the engine apart and analyze it piece by piece to figure out what is wrong, and B saying that it's a Toyota Camry with a 4-cylinder engine, and it's making that particular ping that it makes when the spark plugs need cleaning. B isn't saying that the spark plug diagnosis is necessarily everything that needs fixing, nor is A saying that the spark plugs don't need fixing. It's two different starting points.

Similarly, NiFe and NeFi have two different starting points. Eventually they converge at the truth, but there is a need for patience as one waits for that to happen. It's a good thing, actually: it covers a lot more ground, as you can tell by how much effort it takes to reach a meeting of the minds!

Maybe it's because a core value of Fe is trying to accommodate and understand. If I feel like I've worked hard to do both and someone basically walks in and says that my efforts don't count for anything, it is going to make me feel like no longer bothering to try or that the other person expects understanding without giving either the information or reciprocation for that to happen. It kind of feels like the person is telling me that something which is a significant part of my identity is something that I am terrible at, and not offering any constructive information beyond that.

To the bold, I don't think anyone said that. What I hear both sides saying is, "You aren't listening." This is a typical crosstalk pattern: it means that the sides aren't fully translating from/to each others' "languages."

To the red, this is useful to hear. Again, I don't think anyone is saying that. Rather, the terms and context are so different, one tends to hear things that aren't there.

I think from a Fi perspective, it is just that the person is saying how their own experience feels to them. From my perspective it does feel like a negative judgment and not recognizing how out of their way people already are going to try to better understand. I've also noticed in the past that when I bring up issues to Fi users of what really is bothering me, they tend to gloss over them because they are looking at the reason for communicating it as being the same as their own reason would be. In this case, I only bring something up if I need more information or if I feel like there is a roadblock in our communication that needs to be addressed before we can continue on effectively.

This is a good synopsis of the Fe/Fi conundrum, from the Fe point of view.

There is an old tradition of taking a Chinese fortune cookie saying, and adding the words, "in bed," to turn it into a funny joke. In a lot of the Fe/Fi crosstalk, it seems to my reading that both sides seem to add, "therefore you are a bad person," to whatever the other side said. Always remember that it is difficult to see the genuine kindness in others' eyes through a computer screen.

Your next bit, here, is a VERY good analysis and start at how to help each other see that kindness:

You have no idea, highlander, how something as simple as recognizing the fact that a roadblock has been hit (at least from the other person's perspective) and validating that by asking about it dissipates a lot of the frustration or emotion that would otherwise be directed at you.

You said highlander that it is not as immediately obvious to you as to why something is a problem for us and then it is like stepping on landmines. I found that interesting with the INFJ Common Issues thread. INFJs were getting increasing frustrated, blunt and direct with an ENFP who in return felt hurt and attacked but wouldn't back off with Te suggestions that had not been invited in the first place and she kept making assertions about INFJs that seemed inaccurate and were lacking key pieces of information. To the INFJs, it seems painfully obvious what was wrong, in fact we thought we had stated and re-stated what was the issue. Someone else later on in the thread said something to her that was stated just slightly differently and all of the sudden, things seemed to come into focus for her. I am interested in investigating further what a few tweaks in language for either side would do in more effectively conveying in effectively translated language where problems are before they become big issues.

The primary thing I've noticed - and I've mentioned this before - is that Fe tends to talk in terms of "you" (or other third parties, never "I"), while Fi tends to talk in terms of "I".

Note how most of my posts are phrased: I use "one," as in "one might try this" for phrasing a suggestion, or "if one does X, then Y will certainly happen" as a more direct statement. I've noticed that "I" and "you" tend to strike certain Fe/Fi chords in a strong way, either very negative or very positive, which implies that using such phrasing is likely to alienate half of one's reading audience.

I still use "I" a bit, since once in a while, "I" am properly the subject of my sentence, but I almost always avoid "you." I never want to imply that I'm saying something about "you" when I'm really just talking in "idea space" about my ideas, not about "you" or "me" or my opinion of "you" or "myself" as a person.

In this instance, however, I will use the "you" word, Fidelia: you have impressed me very greatly with your efforts at coming to an understanding of this awkward topic, which is so very very easy to take too personally.

 

[PeaceBaby]

The primary thing I've noticed - and I've mentioned this before - is that Fe tends to talk in terms of "you" (or other third parties, never "I"), while Fi tends to talk in terms of "I".

I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

Thoughts?

 

[uumlau]

I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

Thoughts?

Yes, that is likely more accurate than my representation. However, I try to err on the side of caution and avoid the you/I formulations whenever possible.

 

[cascadeco]

I'm not going to respond to your question but here is some of what I think is going on. If you think about how as INTJs, we have this depth and breadth of understanding of topics that interest us - a big part of what we are about is to bring these insights to the table on these areas we are focused on. It helps us to define the expected outcomes, chart the course of action, plan for contingencies, etc. The INFJ is the same except the thing they are focused on is people and human relations. So, when you think about putting people into these boxes, given the depth and breadth of their perspective, they view the system as overly simplified. They like it because it is an interesting data point that can be brought into their overall framework of understanding, but they recognize it is only that - a data point.

As an INTJ, you no doubt have felt this way in the past about things. That there is this complex system with interrelated parts that are all working together. You've heard people come in (sorry, I will pick on STJs for the moment) and make some direct statements that we should do X and Y and Z. They are focused on a short term goal. They may be very tactical. You are wondering - should be be doing these things at all? Are they missing the bigger picture? Are we forgetting about A, B, and C. You might think their view is overly simplified. This is how the INFJ views MBTI. It's too simplistic. It's not considering all of the complexities, nuances, the bigger picture and the details.

Edit: To describe it a different way, where I work, we have lots of frameworks and methodologies we can apply for projects. There are people who memorize these things and execute the hell out of them (usually STJs). I find them enormously useful but always think they are flawed. I don't want to waste energy re-inventing the wheel, so I steal very liberally from what has been done before. Still, I want to customize the approach for the client. I use the methodologies and frameworks as more as a data point than a bible on how to execute on something. I'm always wanting to improve them but am relentlessly focused on what works. In a sense, this is how I think an INFJ might approach human relations. The methodologies and framework in the consulting example are comparable to MBTI, Enneagram, etc.

And in saying these things, I know some of them may feel that they don't like the box I'm putting them in

Totally!!!!


Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

Also - functions do not equal behavior. There are trends between function and behavior, but there's a lot of overlap. So it's not a 1:1 mapping of one function = one behavior, another function = opposite behavior.

So basically - mbti is useful, yes. But it may drastically miss the mark if one would depend on it to explain everything, and in doing so, would begin formulating all of ones' intuitions and interactions with people based on it alone. Might result in starting on a faulty premise. So when I read statements on the forum that begin 'INFJ's do this behavior', 'ISTP's do that', whatever... I immediately think of the ones who don't do that, and aren't represented by what is being said. What I DO find useful in terms of mbti discussion and application is purely cognitive - INFJ's tend to approach/think about these things this way (nothing to do with resultant behavior), Fe as a cognitive process is this, Fe approaching Te's should think of the fact that Te's approach and see the world in such and such way, Ni doms are similar in that they both xyz, when Ni doms interact with Si doms it should be remembered that Si doms instead assimilate information and view the world in abc way. It sounds like Orobas uses mbti in this way in some of her Examples, but in other examples, such as the one I questioned her on, I didn't understand what she was assuming or thinking. I realize I sound really soap-boxy and I apologize.

 

[MacGuffin]

Cut. To. The. Chase.

But then again, my empathy is damaged and I'm a selfish prick who hates listening to other people. So, for me getting to the point is the only point. Information exchange. But, relating makes me uncomfortable, though I see the value of it through the other side of the glass where I'm fogging up the window.

I'm not quite to this point, but I'm getting there with these F threads. How many more hundreds of posts are needed? My eyes glaze over and I just skim, not even really reading. Around and around they go.

I'd like a thread where everyone summarizes their thoughts and conclusions on the subject. No back-and-forth, just one statement per person.

 

[sculpting]

Totally!!!!


Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

Just because a logic system cannot be expected to explain everything-does that mean it shouldnt be applied to anything?

It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

So again-just because the system will break down and points and fail to be complete-is that reason to not attempt to use the system at all? Is it okay to push the system to the breaking point? then fill in the gaps with understanding of the particular individual?

For instance above-each possible issue described sounds overgeneralized and generic to me, yet simultaoneously too isolated to a given individual to help people at large.


I wrote a huge wall post to address you previous question but-perhaps the gist-

even if this behavior of trying to change people has nothing to do with Fe/Fe-dom and ESTJ's (or other types) are just as liable. Or it might be someone who is narcissistic (or another character trait) who projects onto everyone else - who could be any type.

but do you assume that because I only describe how an Fe dom was being controlling in my example.....that what I meant was that only Fe doms are controlling? You seem to imply this in your initial quote. This is really important.... Just because I didnt talk about other people being controlling doesnt mean I dismissed the possibility.

(Sorry to seem as if I am picking on you in anyway cascadeco, you bring up really awesome points, thus I am enthusiastic to address them.)

 

[cascadeco]

Just because a logic system cannot be expected to explain everything-does that mean it shouldnt be applied to anything?



So again-just because the system will break down and points and fail to be complete-is that reason to not attempt to use the system at all? Is it okay to push the system to the breaking point? then fill in the gaps with understanding of the particular individual?

Again - I don't think I've said the system shouldn't be applied to anything. ??

Is it ok for YOU to push the system to the breaking point? Sure, if you want to and you think it helps you, go ahead. For me personally it is not useful in that way.

For instance above-each possible issue described sounds overgeneralized and generic to me, yet simultaoneously too isolated to a given individual to help people at large.

Back to one of my first posts, 'people at large' can be categorized and there are patterns/trends in personality. You can lump personalities in various ways. I can look out at the whole world and see these various categories of people. But I'm not interested in helping people at large; I'm not even sure what that means. Maybe that's a difference? How in the world do I help people at large? I'm not addressing large groups of INFJ's or ESFP's, it's always individuals who will be interacted with.

but do you assume that because I only describe how an Fe dom was being controlling in my example.....that what I meant was that only Fe doms are controlling? You seem to imply this in your initial quote. This is really important.... Just because I didnt talk about other people being controlling doesnt mean I dismissed the possibility.

(Sorry to seem as if I am picking on you in anyway cascadeco, you bring up really awesome points, thus I am enthusiastic to address them.)

That's why I was asking you for clarification - because yes, my initial thought was to think you were connecting Control with Fe. I didn't see what the purpose was of bringing that anecdote up, otherwise.

No worries... I will admit I'm not entirely comfortable having been drawn into the conversation this deeply... lol... I like saying my piece and then that's a wrap ...

 

[sculpting]

I wanted to highlight this quote from Syn-to be honest it was like a huge breath of fresh air, such a relief to read it. This describes how Ne views the world- patterns connections across huge gaps. The future possibilities and paths crystallize out of those patterns.

I suspect we are no longer simply dealing with Fe/Fi but instead with Ni-Fe-Ti-Se and Ne-Fi-Te-Si. Every single aspect of how we perceive and judge the world will differ.

I see everything that way.

When I look at attractive women I can see what they look like when they're old. When I look a children I can see how they might grow up to be cool or an embarrassment to their families. When I look down the street I can see the future overlaid like a glittering snow obscuring the present. Sometimes when I look in the mirror I can see my own skull lying in repose.

The INTJ is correct with respect to Ni-Se-and how important Se is for an Ni user.

Note how Synarch didnt specify a specific women, specific child, or a specific instance-every single thing he said was free of a specific Se context. It was all generalized Si rules that could be applied to "any" child, "any" women, or "any" instance of Syn looking in the mirror. Based upon the Si generalized rules in his mind-Ne patterns remembered through Si-he can reapply those patterns to any new women, new child or new instance looking in the mirror.

Of course when he applies this to the new women, he will fill in the details of that particular women in that moment-not having those details, that Se context before hand-but that doesnt invalidate his Ne generalized pattern and confidence in his ability to do make predictions based upon the Ne pattern. Maybe the next time he looks in the mirror-it will be a cracked mirror, so his predicted observations will need to modifed in accordance with what he actually saw-and so on...

 

[sculpting]

Is it ok for YOU to push the system to the breaking point? Sure, if you want to and you think it helps you, go ahead. For me personally it is not useful in that way.

This may be a key conclusion actually

Back to one of my first posts, 'people at large' can be categorized and there are patterns/trends in personality. You can lump personalities in various ways. But I'm not interested in helping people at large; I'm not even sure what that means. Maybe that's a difference? How in the world do I help people at large? I'm not addressing large groups of INFJ's or ESFP's, it's always individuals who will be interacted with.

Hmmmm-check out the post about Ne above....I think this is poking at the diff between Ne-Si and Ni-Se. The people at large means apply what i learn to large groups -of individuals-so I MUST have generic things to apply-then remold to the individual. Te builds generic rules, Fi adapts to the individual. Perhaps for an INFJ-Fe builds generic rules and Ti adapts to the individual? I dunno...

That's why I was asking you for clarification - because yes, my initial thought was to think you were connecting Control with Fe. I didn't see what the purpose was of bringing that anecdote up, otherwise.

.

It was linking Fe with a specific type of control-but it almost sounded more like you heard it to be that Fe doms are the only ones who control and only do so in a specific way. Since I didnt mention all the other ways I see people being controlled-then what i mentioned was taken...almost as an insistence of a universal truth. This is very much like the Ni-Si issues I sometimes stumble across with the INTJs....*ches cud for a bit*

Thanks so much cascadeco, I fell saddened that have created angst and stress as I dont seek to be combative-but i do seek to really understand what isnt clear.

 

[sculpting]

I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

Thoughts?

I agree with this-however pay attention to sentence structure. I am such a grammer fail-but note how the sentence structure reduces the usage of "I" in Fe users speech, posts and emails-this is a generic Te style observation of course and individual Fe users may choose to use 'I" much or less often. I note usage of "we" rather than "I" quite often as well. ENFPs use "I" so much that it can be interrpreted as being very self centric.

 

[Kalach]

Totally!!!!


Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

Also - functions do not equal behavior. There are trends between function and behavior, but there's a lot of overlap. So it's not a 1:1 mapping of one function = one behavior, another function = opposite behavior.

So basically - mbti is useful, yes. But it may drastically miss the mark if one would depend on it to explain everything, and in doing so, would begin formulating all of ones' intuitions and interactions with people based on it alone. Might result in starting on a faulty premise.

Oh, you Ti types...

The possibility of faulty premises isn't going to bug me as much because I'm working from, more or less, a checklist. X premise is dumb if there is no way to say it describes the world, Y premise is good if there is some way, and so on.

One presumes then that Fe has a similar shortcut available. The whole Fi rigmarole of making all the subjective checks to determine the coherence of a given feeling is unnecessary because........ [something]

So what's a good way of finishing that sentence? I totally don't know because I normally assume other people are without determinate feeling relationships to one another. I mean, I expect people to be coherent, but I also expect them to be discrete.

But then, you do too, right? Every person is a separate atom in one sense or another, yeah? Fi people assume it's via a feeling that's completely their own; Fe people assume it's their truth. Shall I go out on a limb and start describing that truth? The truth of whatever it is has happened to them, the truth of their pasts, the truth of their responses to things... the individual details of who they are and what they developed into. Or did I just describe Fi and call it Ti?

So anyway, I don't know how to see the world as a system of relationships because although relationships exist, they're "unique". Which isn't in the least bit true, is it? It's just that I'm not attending to the formal aspects of people related to people. I'm imposing a view of specialness on each person, that they have some significant affective subjective component... and it might be dangerous to suggest too much form inheres in the way people relate... one might start with faulty formalisms..........

But one doesn't if one knows how.


Right?