Fe Fakeness

[Viridian]

After reading this BBC article, I wonder if it's actually a cultural thing...

 

[Fidelia]

OK, so I have some questions :

- You say you put little stock in your emotions, so what is it that you put faith in? Being so aware of your own fallibility (ie. in your feelings) what makes you trust your other methods of perception or reasoning? Or do you rely wholly on others for creating a balanced view?
- How much work does it take you to suppress those distrusted feelings? Is it a push-pull experience? Or does your lack of ownership of them (ie. because you think them just transitory) make it easy to distance yourself from them?
- How clearly can you separate your own emotions from your thinking. Can you easily distinguish when a conclusion/view etc is emotion based and what is not? or do you simply make your best attempt to ignore them and hope for the best?
- When a strong emotion overcomes you in the heat of the moment and you cannot help but express it (eg. you snap at someone in anger), do you still express it with an intention? Do you never just rant for example, without trying to affect others in some way? If not, how does that intention come across at such times?

I should clarify that I don't completely disregard my emotions as I think they can be important reference points or indicators of something. However, I consider them one of several other sources of information to factor in. I suppose for the most part there is a pre-formed structure or framework which I use to make sense of the world and form opinions. As new information comes my way, I look at it through the lens of this framework and either add it, or reject it. I'm guessing that this is a product of Ni and Ti working together. Because Ni provides such a myriad of possibilities at every turn, I use observations of others, what I read, personal experience etc to create a structure for ruling out some information/possibilities and accepting others.

I think Ti requires that it be structured in some sort of way that I can make sense of and which answers the questions that frequently come up. That's also likely why my Ti insists that we agree on the starting points of our discussion before we jump towards any course of action or conclusions. I am aware this seems ponderous to others at times and also that some people would feel that I am not easily open to considering a wild variety of possibilities, particularly from someone whom I don't think has credibility in that area. It's like looking in a mirror that I believe to be inaccurate to get a perception of reality. I've noticed on here that Fi-Te users are much more able (maybe it's Ne as well...) to consider new ideas with more openess. I certainly don't mind restructuring my whole thought system, but I need to be well convinced that it is worthwhie to rebuild that whole structure. This is why a person caught in a Ni-Ti loop is a terrible sight to behold. They just get stuck in an endless loop of gathering and restructuring information.

What makes me trust this process more than only my feelings at the time, is that it has had time to be tested in a number of situations and pulls experience from more sources than solely myself. It is less vulnerable to fluctuation with my mood or physical state at the time, so I feel that I can be more objective (although none of us can be totally objective). My emotions are easily impacted by the state of other people around me, and not just what wells up from within me, whereas Fi is much more self-referential and therefore feels more reliable to you I think.

I think my lack of attachment to my emotions does make it easier to step back from them in some regards. On the other hand, I'd also say that I have a tendancy to sometimes underestimate the strength of what I am feeling, because it seems to work on delay. Usually my emotions towards any situation or person are based on my LAST interaction rather than the current one. I think ENFJs are much more in the moment. In an attempt to be fair and reasonable, I sometimes avoid expressing resentment when it is first felt (maybe I'm missing context, maybe it's just me etc) and by the time I do feel it's worth expressing it's become a much bigger deal than I intended for it to be or thought it was and I am embarrassed. However at any sooner juncture, usually it's just a collection of little annoyances, none of which seem like a large enough problem to bring up without sounding petty.

When a strong emotion comes through, it is sometimes unexpected even to me, although if I'm really at the end of my string I will become rather direct with the intention of either resolving the issue or because I no longer care if I do damage the relationship in some way. If I do choose to continue discussing it, I may become increasingly blunt with the person if they do not acknowledge the initial outburst in some way. I think Fi users sometimes think they are being respectful by not checking to see if a snappy comment was the result of a deeper issue etc (going on what would feel polite to them) or feel the onus is on the Fe user to talk about whatever is bothering them. I'm understanding this better now, but it still feels terribly imposing to unload on someone if they haven't invited more information. It seems as if there would be no point because they aren't interested yet in resolving the issue even though it seems obvious (to me) that I've expressed a problem in some way. Over time though I then get resentful that I'm very affected by an outburst from them, but they don't seem to be when I am upset.

My time on here has been extremely informative to me and I've learned a lot even in the modbox from my interactions with Fi using mods about how they resolve conflict or even what we both interpret as being conflict and what we both believe is the most useful response.

I think I'm very aware that my emotions can colour my thinking and are not strictly divisible. That's why I like to have some time for my emotions to settle before I take any definitive action. It feels then like while they are still a part of the equation, they are not infused in the whole problem to such a great extent.

Sorry for writing a book on this! I would say that SFJ flavoured Fe is certainly quite distinct from NFJ flavoured Fe because it is tempered by differing functions, so I certainly wouldn't claim for my comments to be universal to all Fe users, all NFJs, or even all INFJs. I think from discussions though that I have heard some similar sentiments expressed by INFJs anyway.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Was thinking about his today ... if someone is upset, I tackle the emotions first because to me that's the place that represents the greatest efficiency. For INFJ's, I wonder if it represents an inefficiency of sorts.

For example, if I approach someone who I sense is "sad", if I can pin-point the cause of that sadness in this moment (gather contextual information), and then really flesh out and feel that emotion with that person, it will point to solutions I can offer that are relevant to that moment. I can commiserate with you. I can listen. Or I can put the Ne - Te to work on the problem. As appropriate.

To me, those emotions point to root cause and then, after unearthing, the root cause can be addressed. Addressing the root cause returns, reforms, or restores an equilibrium point, and permits the continuance of forward-motion.

 

[Zarathustra]

But, as I said before, you are going too far in projecting that other's problems are always primarily emotional.

I think you are doing this because, for you, the primary problem does tend to be emotional: Fi is dominant.

But, for others, while an emotion might be part of it, the primary problem might be rational.

You never got back to me as you said you would after I raised this issue earlier.

 

[PeaceBaby]

But, as I said before, you are going too far in projecting that other's problems are always primarily emotional.

I think you are doing this because, for you, the primary problem does tend to be emotional: Fi is dominant.

But, for others, while an emotion might be part of it, the primary problem might be rational.

You never got back to me as you said you would after I raised this issue earlier.

I am not sure what you are asking me ... clarify?

 

[Zarathustra]

I am not sure what you are asking me ... clarify?

I'm asking you to get back to me regarding the (related) matter you said you would...

You said you would have to think about it and would get back to me...

I believe it was in this thread...

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm asking you to get back to me regarding the (related) matter you said you would...

You said you would have to think about it and would get back to me...

I believe it was in this thread...

Part was thread and part PM I think ... let me research, back momentarily.

 

[Zarathustra]

Part was thread and part PM I think ... let me research, back momentarily.

Found it.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50854&p=1687360&viewfull=1#post1687360

 

[Fidelia]

But, as I said before, you are going too far in projecting that other's problems are always primarily emotional.

I think you are doing this because, for you, the primary problem does tend to be emotional: Fi is dominant.

But, for others, while an emotion might be part of it, the primary problem might be rational.

This! I'm not denying that emotions enter into the equation, but they often aren't the primary issue for me. If I resolve the problem at hand, then the negative emotions also dissipate.

I get kind of weirded out when people want to either focus on the emotions (which seem kind of obvious to me why they are there) and dissect them (particularly if not invited to do so!) or lend me support that I don't feel in need of. What I am in need of is a sounding board and someone who can point out anything I might not have considered or offer a more efficient way of dealing with what I am feeling. If they listen to me vent and then we discuss what to do about the problem after I've gotten that extra emotional noise out of the way, then I'm good to go. That person has performed a true service for me.

I'm not masking or trying to get out of admitting to the emotions I feel, so much as figuring out how to create an environment that will not continue adding to the overload and which will clean up the problems that appear to be there (get more information out so that misunderstandings are cleared up, find the most effective way to communicate so that we can work well together, express frustration appropriately so that it doesn't do longlasting damage to either of us, etc). Without some way to ameliorate the situation, I really am unable to spend much time focussing on the negativity that that situation engenders, because that just keeps multiplying the noise and possibilities and bad feelings to the point where I am immobilized.

 

[Zarathustra]

This! I'm not denying that emotions enter into the equation, but they often aren't the primary issue for me. If I resolve the problem at hand, then the negative emotions also dissipate.

Interesting...

I was primarily thinking of Ts, but INFJs are the strongest thinkers amongst the Feelers, so I'm willing to accept this as plausible.

It also likely has something to do with what you wrote last night and what Kalach has been saying about Fe and leadership.

 

[Fidelia]

Both of these are kind of dumb analogies, but maybe they help to illustrate the point.

I sort of see emotions as being like a fish and having someone squirt red food colouring in the water. While the dye affects me, it isn't really a part of me. It takes awhile for the colouring in the water to eventually settle on the bottom and me be able to see clearly again. If I can ask someone I trust how it looks to them, since I'm in the middle of the clouded water and can't see well, they can help me navigate out of it. Once I either get out, or the dye has had time to settle, then I can start thinking about where it came from, how I can keep that from happening in the same way again (or is it just some kind of environmental hazard that I need to learn to work around), what my response should be, whether or not it has a toxic effect or is really fairly benign, etc. It either takes time or someone else's help to help me feel that I am seeing clearly enough to take action. Therefore my first priority is getting the water back to a normal colour or else finding some clean water to move to. After the fact, I'll analyze it till the cows come home.

Or maybe someone turns the radio on full blast. I can't concentrate on what the radio signal is giving me until I can get it turned down to a bearable level or I can get it tuned in more clearly to the channel that will give me the information I need. Offering to analyze the sounds I'm hearing before we get those first things out of the way seems ridiculously unhelpful to me.

I'm curious how it would feel approaching it from the opposite side. I also wonder what it's like for Thinkers who are Fi users. I can't quite get my head around it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

But, as I said before, you are going too far in projecting that other's problems are always primarily emotional.

I think you are doing this because, for you, the primary problem does tend to be emotional: Fi is dominant.

But, for others, while an emotion might be part of it, the primary problem might be rational.

You never got back to me as you said you would after I raised this issue earlier.

hmm, let's see if I can try to do this justice.

Sorry if I am not clear.

I am not saying that people's problems are primarily emotional (although, that is quite possibly favorably arguable in and of itself). And I am not projecting my experience onto other people (or at least, I try to avoid that, since I often vibe on emotions that I don't fully understand in context and relying on my own internal vault of emotional definitions might be too limited or vague.)

What I have found is that many problems presenting as logistical do evoke a visceral, potentially emotional response in the person with the issue, even if it's not as palpable to the person having the feeling in the moment. Me, I sense the disturbing emotion far ahead of being predictive as to cause. You could walk in the room and I will sense you vibing disconnect, and it is not until that moment that you have my attention. Then, my own internal state is defaulted to a lower priority than your own (that's probably a 9 thing there, not an Fi thing per se) so I can more fully analyze you. If it's just you being pissed off that the pencil sharpener is broken, I downgrade the internal alarm and still watch to see if there's something else more over-arching, something cumulative.

So for me, it is simply my personal starting point. I probably didn't realize the pencil sharpener needed fixing until I noticed it was aggravating to you and that propelled me to fix the problem.

Te might assume that if they can address my problem, they will fix my emotions. For Te people, I work that angle.

My (Fi) assumption may be that if I can address the emotions, I can fix the problem. For people issues, I work that angle.

Ni-Fe might assume if they address the context or perspective, they fix the problems and / or the emotions.

Changing perspectives is my personal challenge area, and it requires I work harder because you aren't using a metric that is as natural to me, although context can change my emotions, and I do sift stuff and have reframed areas of my personal life to help alleviate an emotional component.

My caution is to not assume either 1.) the emotion or 2.) the cause. That's where extra data gathering is necessary to avoid dangerous presumption. The best thing I can be is a guide to unearth something that either a person can fix themselves or I can brainstorm a fix for. Many people however are dismissive of "non-credentialed" brainstorming and that's another hurdle beyond the purview of this post.

To reiterate, the emotion is the signal to me that there's a problem in the first place. I have learned that some people do not wish their emotions to be focussed on. I would say, this is maybe 20% of people overall. Most people do want to either vent or be commiserated with. I can grow impatient if you wish to wallow where you are and not fix your problems to fix your emotional state and return to equilibrium and grow.

But to me, to use [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] 's previous analogy, your emotions are like a crying baby, I find them very hard not to pay attention to in the first place.

I do think Fi dom picks up on these subtle cues before any other type.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Both of these are kind of dumb analogies, but maybe they help to illustrate the point.

I sort of see emotions as being like a fish and having someone squirt red food colouring in the water. While the dye affects me, it isn't really a part of me. It takes awhile for the colouring in the water to eventually settle on the bottom and me be able to see clearly again. If I can ask someone I trust how it looks to them, since I'm in the middle of the clouded water and can't see well, they can help me navigate out of it. Once I either get out, or the dye has had time to settle, then I can start thinking about where it came from, how I can keep that from happening in the same way again (or is it just some kind of environmental hazard that I need to learn to work around), what my response should be, whether or not it has a toxic effect or is really fairly benign, etc. It either takes time or someone else's help to help me feel that I am seeing clearly enough to take action. Therefore my first priority is getting the water back to a normal colour or else finding some clean water to move to. After the fact, I'll analyze it till the cows come home.

Or maybe someone turns the radio on full blast. I can't concentrate on what the radio signal is giving me until I can get it turned down to a bearable level or I can get it tuned in more clearly to the channel that will give me the information I need. Offering to analyze the sounds I'm hearing before we get those first things out of the way seems ridiculously unhelpful to me.

I'm curious how it would feel approaching it from the opposite side. I also wonder what it's like for Thinkers who are Fi users. I can't quite get my head around it.

I swim in the red water, and listen to the radio - does that help?

All that stuff is all around me, and since I can't just jump out of the water or stop hearing the bad music, I just deal with it?

(And they are great analogies, btw.)

 

[Zarathustra]

I am not saying that people's problems are primarily emotional (although, that is quite possibly favorably arguable in and of itself).

I'm saying that I think your genuine belief is far more in the parentheses.

And I think that that line of argumentation is false.

I think that you believe it to be the case because it is the case for you.

I am not, however, denying that emotional components can be part of the issue.

I'm just saying, as I said before, that for some people, they are not the primary issue.

And I am not projecting my experience onto other people (or at least, I try to avoid that, since I often vibe on emotions that I don't fully understand in context and relying on my own internal vault of emotional definitions might be too limited or vague.)

What I'm saying is that I think that you do tend to do this, in a specific sense: in the sense that you tend to think that their emotions are the issue. I'm not saying that you don't move forward with caution, try to understand the situation for what it is, taking care not to make bad assumptions. I'm just saying that, because the problem is usually an emotional problem for yourself, I think I notice you assuming it's the same for other people. This is more of an observation taken from my entire time here, and using some other peoples' independent observations that jibe with my own.

What I have found is that many problems presenting as logistical do evoke a visceral, potentially emotional response in the person with the issue...

I agree with this.

But this does not mean that the primary problem is emotional.

The primary problem is the factual problem, which then, secondarily, might cause a visceral, emotional response.

Me, I sense the disturbing emotion far ahead of being predictive as to cause.

I know.

But that's not the case for everybody.

You could walk in the room and I will sense you vibing disconnect, and it is not until that moment that you have my attention. Then, my own internal state is defaulted to a lower priority than your own (that's probably a 9 thing there, not an Fi thing per se) so I can more fully analyze you. If it's just you being pissed off that the pencil sharpener is broken, I downgrade the internal alarm and still watch to see if there's something else more over-arching, something cumulative.

I touch on the pencil sharpener metaphor later.

It's key, so watch for it.

So for me, it is simply my personal starting point. I probably didn't realize the pencil sharpener needed fixing until I noticed it was aggravating to you and that propelled me to fix the problem.

I touch on this later, too.

Te might assume that if they can fix my problem, they will fix my emotions. For Te people, I work that angle.

My (Fi) assumption may be that if I can fix the emotions, I can fix the problem. For people issues, I work that angle.

@bolded: ok, well that's good. The problem I see though is right below the bolded: if you assume every issue is a people issue, then these two rules conflict with one another.

Changing perspectives is my personal challenge area, and it requires I work harder because you aren't using a metric that is as natural to me, although context can change my emotions, and I do sift stuff and have reframed areas of my personal life to help alleviate an emotional component.

I do think this tends to be harder for Fi dom's and aux's. The emotional response is so strong, the desire to shift perspective to see things from a different angle is not strong enough to win the battle. Frankly, it's annoying, imo.

To reiterate, the emotion is the signal to me that there's a problem in the first place.

This is fine.

That can be the warning signal.

It just doesn't mean that the actual problem is an emotional one.

As you point to here...

I have learned that some people do not wish their emotions to be focussed on. I would say, this is maybe 20% of people overall. Most people do want to either vent or be commiserated with.

While 20% may not want their emotions to be focused on, I'd say there's still a larger % for whom the emotion is not the real issue. They might not have a problem dealing with the emotional side (honestly, I would assume the 20% of which you speak have trouble with their emotions [probably ETJs, maybe some others]), but that doesn't mean that "dealing with that side" is really gunna fix the problem. The problem that needs to be fixed is that the pencil sharpener needs to be fixed. Once that's done: emotional response gone. Tending to my frustration as opposed to the pencil opener is mostly a waste of time, imo. I'll probably talk with you about my frustration anyway, if you bring it up, but that's just cuz I can tell that that's how you deal with things, and I'm trying to keep things socially proper. The truth is: I just want the damn pencil sharpener fixed.

I can grow impatient if you wish to wallow where you are and not fix your problems to fix your emotional state and return to equilibrium and grow.

Ditto.

FiSi wallowing pisses me off.

It's unproductive.

But to me, to use [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] 's previous analogy, your emotions are like a crying baby, I find them very hard not to pay attention to in the first place.

I do think Fi dom picks up on these subtle cues before any other type.

I'm not saying this isn't true, but it's always a bit odd to me why Fe wouldn't pick up on it first... what I am saying, though, is: just cuz the first thing you pick up on is the emotional vibe, doesn't mean that's what the person actually needs to be dealt with. And to assume that it is is projecting (whether accurate or not).

 

[PeaceBaby]

What I am saying, though, is: just cuz the first thing you pick up on is the emotional vibe, doesn't mean that's what the person needs to be dealt with.

Everything I have said agrees with that - what are you arguing?

All I am saying is the first thing I notice is the emotion. I won't notice the broken sharpener first. I'll notice it makes someone mad. Then, I try to tailor the response to how well I know the person. Ergo, for many, it does not mean focussing on the emotions at all. It means just fixing the sharpener.

What is of note, is that Ni TO ME can have a confusing element to it, in that I read the emotion, but you fix it using a technique I seldom use myself, which is a perspective shift to reframe the whole issue and eradicate the emotional components of the problem.

 

[PeaceBaby]

OMG, you're doing massive edits [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] - I'll wait ...

 

[Zarathustra]

Everything I have said agrees with that - what are you arguing?

What I'm saying is what I wrote in those first quotes you compiled and said you'd get back to me on:

It allows you to boil all T down to really just having an F root.

And thus Ts, when it really comes down to it, aren't do anything other than F.

Once again, you seem to be ascribing too much Feeling motive to a Thinker, which you (and most Feelers) seem very wont to do.

Ah I see what you are getting on about ... I'll need to think about this for a bit, before I can respond.

I think we might've also pm'ed about it.

My point is that I think you do this all the time.

You assume that for us Ts, that when we have an issue it's because of some emotion.

And, as I said in those quotes, I think this is false, and is caused by Fs projecting and trying to boil all things down to some F root.

And I'm not saying there's not a complex interrelationship and dynamic between T functions and F functions.

I'm just saying that what Fs often try to accomplish is to make all T into nothing more than F at its core.

And I think this is a false construction.

Frankly, I think it's caused by Fs' will to power.

I don't think Fs want to grant Ts greater objectivity, and thus want to boil all T down to F.

This way, they can just say that Ts aren't really objectively talking about the matter at hand, they're just expressing an emotion.

In fact, I would surmise that, right now, every F who doesn't like what I'm saying is trying to do precisely what I'm saying they do.

"He's not talking objectively about a phenomenon in the world... he's just venting his subjective feelings blah blah blah blah blah"

 

[Zarathustra]

OMG, you're doing massive edits [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] - I'll wait ...

Well, yeah... duhhh!



*been done for 5 minutes now, tho*

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm saying that I think your genuine belief is far more in the parentheses.

And I think that that line of argumentation is false.

I think that you believe it to be the case because it is the case for you.

So, you are saying I am a liar here, that I am being disingenuous? That's a perfectly serious question, because that is what you are implying.

I am not, however, denying that emotional components can be part of the issue.

I'm just saying, as I said before, that for some people, they are not the primary issue.

Let's talk about the pencil sharpener again. Perhaps it makes you angry because you have an anger management problem, and abandonment issues as a child. That COULD be a relevant answer to why such a little problem makes you so damned angry. Fixing the sharpener is a short term fix but you've got bigger issues that truly need attention. I most certainly DO NOT think that every problem is an emotional one, but I will say that MORE problems have an emotional origin than a person is generally aware of.

What I'm saying is that I think that you do tend to do this, in a specific sense: in the sense that you tend to think that their emotions are the issue. I'm not saying that you don't move forward with caution, try to understand the situation for what it is, taking care not to make bad assumptions. I'm just saying that, because the problem is usually an emotional problem for yourself, I think I notice you assuming it's the same for other people. This is more of an observation taken from my entire time here, and using some other peoples' independent observations that jibe with my own.

I hear what you are inferring. I don't think Jim's emotions were the issue - but I tried to address his emotions FIRST to more fully understand the issue. Otherwise, you INTJ's are no different than your INFJ cousins, expecting people to be mind-readers then eviscerating them when they don't guess correctly.

I also think Jim's issues are much farther-reaching than just being intractable on the forum, but again, that explanation is inappropriate here and beyond the purview of this post.

I do think this tends to be harder for Fi dom's and aux's. The emotional response is so strong, the desire to shift perspective to see things from a different angle is not strong enough to win the battle. Frankly, it's annoying, imo.

Perhaps you forget too I am at a different life stage. I am not the 20-something NFP's - I swim with my red water, come hell or high-water, and for some reason, that is how I am supposed to do this, even if it means I did have to learn to jump out of the tank too. I am not an Ni dom, I am not wired to just rethink a problem and ta-da, emotional problem solved. Of course, I do problem-solve, and that DOES often alleviate the emotional noise. But that's a fundamentally different approach I think.

While 20% may not want their emotions to be focused on, I'd say there's still a larger % for whom the emotion is not the real issue. They might not have a problem dealing with the emotional side (honestly, I would assume the 20% of which you speak have trouble with their emotions [probably ETJs, maybe some others]), but that doesn't mean that "dealing with that side" is really gunna fix the problem. The problem that needs to be fixed is that the pencil sharpener needs to be fixed. Once that's done: emotional response gone. Tending to my frustration as opposed to the pencil opener is mostly a waste of time, imo. I'll probably talk with you about my frustration anyway, if you bring it up, but that's just cuz I can tell that that's how you deal with things, and I'm trying to keep things socially proper. The truth is: I just want the damn pencil sharpener fixed.

I disagree. I just pulled that % out of my butt anyway, so you shouldn't focus on it like gospel. Not wanting to pay attention to the emotional state or deeming it irrelevant is a totally different matter than having "emotional problems".

FiSi wallowing pisses me off.

This is not exclusively an Fi - Si thing and I did not present it as such. Your inference is too specific.

It's unproductive.

Not always. It's what we have to learn to use to empower ourselves and manage well.

 

[PeaceBaby]

My point is that I think you do this all the time.

You assume that for us Ts, that when we have an issue it's because of some emotion.

And, as I said in those quotes, I think this is false, and is caused by Fs projecting and trying to boil all things down to some F root.

And I'm not saying there's not a complex interrelationship and dynamic between T functions and F functions.

I'm just saying that what Fs often try to accomplish is to make all T into nothing more than F at its core.

And I think this is a false construction.

Frankly, I think it's caused by Fs' will to power.

I don't think Fs want to grant Ts greater objectivity, and thus want to boil all T down to F.

This way, they can just say that Ts aren't really objectively talking about the matter at hand, they're just expressing an emotion.

In fact, I would surmise that, right now, every F who doesn't like what I'm saying is trying to do precisely what I'm saying they do.

"He's not talking objectively about a phenomenon in the world... he's just venting his subjective feelings blah blah blah blah blah"

I don't think this at all.

Explanation will have to come later, I have tasks to attend to.