What type of communication or phrasing offends you as a fe/fi user?

[Stansmith]

Listening to certain Fe-users gossip is disheartening. They seem to have nothing substantial to talk about beyond their own arrogant, conventional, surface interpretations of others' subjective experience. Human suffering is trivial to them as long as they're not receiving their routine ass kissing/social graces.

 

[Stansmith]

Emotion for many Fe-users is nothing more than courtesy.

 

[Cellmold]

Quoting yourself....feels really really pretentious...especially if the quote is and perhaps the writer is but meh I'll do it anyway.

Well if Fi is the internal flame of human spirit free of the trappings of all set conditions and conduct, then Fe is the external flame of shared comfort helping us to push on and that it will 'all be ok'.

Fi fights for us and paves a way to common human understanding. Fe surrounds us with a shared standard of sympathetic consideration, it doesn't delve in, rather it spreads itself extensively, reminding us that even the empty platitude must have come from a core value of decency and respect. Thus it wraps around us like cotton wool...on those little bumps and slips where we need an environment of assurity to fall back...which it provides.

Fi on the other hand is the personal flame of humanities naked essence, born into a world that often only understands by set standards of labelling; it strives to free us from the drudgery and danger of falling too hard on definitions that set us apart. Instead it attempts to throw open a path of understanding that eats through to the very centre of human truth. A truth so pure that it cannot be expressed clearly in any language of the tongue, which is unfit to tread the intangible depths that this truth consists of.

This is why Fi struggles so very much in a world that cannot understand a drive without words, a drive that must be emoted in the very soul to have any understanding at all.

But both are needed. We need some set standards to avoid anarchy and we need to occasionally set those standards aside so that we avoid oppression.

So through this balance can two sides come together and meet the other going in the opposite direction..one will smile and nod, the other will twinkle with the eyes and they shall both understand one another in a new found view of respect.

 

[PeaceBaby]

i get that it expresses your sentiment... but i am not actually convinced that it's the case - that it genuinely represents the reality of Fe. figuring out whether it is or isn't the case has being a major concern for me. i wouldn't be talking about it if i didn't have my doubts in all directions.

Agreed - I liked it because you expressed it so well from your vantage point. Whether it represents reality is another matter entirely.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I put up with the interaction and process the resentment.

If you process the resentment, then you don't ignore it in the way that I meant when I used the term 'ignore'.

 

[PeaceBaby]

If you process the resentment, then you don't ignore it in the way that I meant when I used the term 'ignore'.

Explain?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Explain?

I'm not sure what you think I meant by "ignore" when I wrote "it probably shouldn't go ignored".....but if you process the resentment, then you aren't ignoring it in the way I meant "ignore". If you're suggesting "ignore" while also saying you process it, then I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make in my post.

And I kinda feel like I can already see the dead end here, so my guess is this isn't really worth trying to iron out, especially if this thread is already too much of a distraction.

 

[Society]

Agreed - I liked it because you expressed it so well from your vantage point. Whether it represents reality is another matter entirely.

i try to shift my perspective to represent reality the more i learn... not to say that i'm necessarily particularly successful, but it is always the goal when trying to understand anything... anything at all.

that's one of the many things i used to take for granted everyone does in their own way to some extent, before this typology crap. now there's "understanding good enough for me", and "no good can come out of this understanding", and "understanding so far as it's useful"... worst, now there are "ugly understandings" to be avoided at all cost - never uttered at the tip of one's tongue - and "beautiful understandings" to be carefully weaved and protected... essentially declaring "reality and the people in it can go fuck themselves, i shell act according to whatever understanding makes me feel good"... but never in a raw enough format. instead you just get trapped in a circle that such a conclusion can't be true because its ugly, even if previously the exact same people will utter all the components for that very conclusion.

i'm loosing faith here.

 

[Society]

Quoting yourself....feels really really pretentious...especially if the quote is and perhaps the writer is but meh I'll do it anyway.

reminded me of this:

Aeon doesn't want the Breen populace to become as free as she is. They're not up to it. That was the point of Thanatophobia. She likes Trevor's hands to be tied, so to speak, by the burden of his office, by his addiction to power. She doesn't want the Demiurge to relieve him of that burden. (That was implicit in that episode- though not the main point.) Revolutionaries need an oppressive establishment to thrive, just as governments need hidden enemies to justify stricture. If he were to be deposed or give up his office, she might even have to face the possibility of a committed relationship. Better that he remain unattainable. Besides, it's his supreme power that makes him attractive. Not because she likes powerful men-- but because his sense of responsibility is something she identifies with so strongly. She bears her own responsibility in her own way, for sure, but only for herself. She's both repulsed and fascinated that Trevor would take on the burden of so many that depend on him. She'd never admit it, but in that way, she admires him. It's a balance that must be maintained in a state of tension. (The ONE time Aeon does act to kill Trevor is when she pulls the lever in the Purge. And that is done at the coaxing of Trevor himself. He taunts her into acting against her "conscience" as proof that she is not under his control. "Conscience" is an idea, therefore a word, therefore a tool.)

- an interview with peter chung

 

[Lady_X]

so...have we gotten to a good place here or what?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm not sure what you think I meant by "ignore" when I wrote "it probably shouldn't go ignored".....but if you process the resentment, then you aren't ignoring it in the way I meant "ignore". If you're suggesting "ignore" while also saying you process it, then I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make in my post.

I took what you said as looking at the long-term perspective - an aggregation and subsequent synthesis of data via interaction leading one to consider taking action to change the dynamic.

What did you mean?

I'm saying you can ignore taking action aside from the action inside oneself.

Plus, I'd like to draw us back to the question - do you want me to answer the question as posed above?

 

[Society]

Listening to certain Fe-users gossip is disheartening. They seem to have nothing substantial to talk about beyond their own arrogant, conventional, surface interpretations of others' subjective experience. Human suffering is trivial to them as long as they're not receiving their routine ass kissing/social graces.

Emotion for many Fe-users is nothing more than courtesy.

not sure if your parodying the MBTI-newbie misconceptions or embodying their usage

 

[Southern Kross]

so...have we gotten to a good place here or what?

Yes. Now I'm going to undo all that move the discussion forward.

OK so I've been trying to write a list for Fe like Fidelia did for Fi. This was hard for me to do (stupid Fi mind traps keep getting in the way!) and I'm sure I've missed some important aspects or have failed to express myself well. Basically I feel very uneasy and uncertain about the whole thing, so please don't hate me.

Taking her lead:

I think I irritate Fe users in the following ways:
- I don't realise the implications my words have and don't pick up the signals that Fe is sending me.
- I tend to be either too literal or too impenetrably esoteric in my communication methods; neither tends to be very appealing to Fe.
- I have no idea how to actually relate to people. I can't build bridges; all I can do is deal in subjective information and hope that a bridge, somehow, inadvertently gets built in the process. Actually, to be more accurate, I just hope that the chasm will magically close and that a bridge won't be necessary at all. With every interaction I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping it somehow works out. I suppose this seems like immense incompetency and unnecessarily indirect to Fe-users, if not, a refusal to oblige others. But I don't have a clue how to take the direct route.
- I'm not good at feigning things I don't feel or mean. When I do attempt to feign things, even for the sake of politeness, I'm a terrible actor. I'm very uncomfortable with doing this and my resistance may seem selfish or self-indulgent. Sometimes, I can genuinely become incredibly stubborn when I don't get my way and passive aggressively inflict my displeasure on others.
- When someone seems too decisive in declaring a judgement of a person, a situation, a moral question etc, I hear it as them declaring an absolute, objective truth. I am very resistant and easily offended by this, and can cause a bit of a scene because of it.
- I can sometimes force my evaluations on others because I think my rationale is the only valid one. I can be self-righteous and a know-it-all.
- In many ways, I tend to care more about the information than the package. This can be insensitive.
- I lump in emotional content, with factual content, with subjective observations, etc, and expect people to decipher and filter out the meaning and intention behind it. I can juggle all these factors in my head but this approach forces Fe users to guess. And when they guess incorrectly I get pretty impatient and pissed off. This isn't really fair.
- I expect my feelings to be accepted at face value. I don't like to justify them. When people express that they don't understand why I might feel a certain way, I take it as criticism or an attempt to undermine me.
- I evaluate people by comparing and contrasting my perception of person's inner state with how they're behaving externally. This seen as strange, intrusive and unfair because I'm weighing up things people haven't overtly said and base it on factors which others see as irrelevant details (?). It can be like judging someone for something they haven't done and might never intend to act on. I also can get this wrong (or be just slightly off) and it seems unfairly presumptive and an unnecessary distraction to the matter.
- Ideas or vibes that come to me from others (especially negative things) can accumulate in me without anyone knowing it. I'm often building a picture of a person, or a situation, or a point of discussion in my head by taking in or evaluating underlying aspects. I can then react to that without warning, which seems crazy, out of the blue and totally out of proportion.
- I believe that a lot of interpersonal problems come from a lack of perspective. For that reason I try to explain and clarify things, and to Fe-users it can seem like I’m justifying negative behaviour. Perhaps this can also seem naïve and a bit of a cop-out, because sometimes you have to place more significant on the face value (???). It perhaps doesn't help that the line between understanding something and justifying something is much clearer to me than it is to Fe users, and I regularly forget that.


Some things I have had to hammer through are:
- When I am just saying something I think/feel with no implications or expectations, Fe users often hear what you say as a judgement or a demand for action. I need to find a way to communicate my internal state without it seeming like that. Sometimes more information is the key - if I explain why I am saying something (what I need to get out of it) it will stop the negative assumptions. Fe users really care about knowing intentions. It's still hard for me to remember to do this.
- Fe needs to separate facts from emotional data. They can’t juggle both like I can, and need more neutrality. I have to learn to be extra careful about this in emotionally charged situations.
- I can hold multiple, seemingly contradictory points of view. I can play devil’s advocate, without really believing what I’m preaching. Fe users don’t do this. They only sees me as taking a side (usually against them) and perceive my claims of being open to both perspectives as disingenuous. I don’t know what else to get this across to them, or even if they will find this sort of thinking/behaviour can be acceptable to them.
- I often need other people to admit fallibility to some extent; either explicitly or implicitly. Too much certainty is like a personal insult to me. I honestly don't get how people can sound certain and not intend to be. I don't know how to reconcile this.
- Fe compares the information with the package and decides how to take it. If the package isn't satisfactory, all their attention goes on this and the information will be lost on them. I need to work on the packaging side more. However, I'm not very good at thinking through all the implications of things beforehand.
- I need to find a way to work out what Fe users need from me; how to reciprocate, show appreciation, comfort them etc.
- Realise Fe needs to work through emotions externally and to not take it too seriously.
- This is something that bothers other Fi users more, but I thought I’d mention it for their sake: Fe fakeness. I think it's not affectation if it’s done out of sensitivity for the feelings of others. It does bother me when people suppress their feelings and it’s not done out of respect and consideration for others (even if they may think it is).
- I don’t ‘speak’ Fe and don’t pick up on what they consider to be clear signals. I then look like an insensitive jerk to them, when I fail to respond accordingly. I have no idea how to fix that. I can’t see things that I don’t, and surely I can’t be blamed for something I didn’t intend to do. It feels like someone else makes the rules, doesn’t tell me about them, and then punishes me when I break them. My surprise and upset reaction is then seen as playing stupid. I do try my best to accommodate but it doesn't seem to do the job sufficiently. Again, I don't know what to do about that.



My brain hurts now...

 

[Society]

My brain hurts now...

then i recommend taking an advil before reading this post....
(edit: broke it into 3 separate parts for slightly easier reading)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Fe/Fi or just... the normal human reaction in all directions?

- When someone seems too decisive in declaring a judgement of a person, a situation, a moral question etc, I hear it as them declaring an absolute, objective truth. I am very resistant and easily offended by this, and can cause a bit of a scene because of it.

here you seem to be saying you have trouble when you perceive what people say as absolute's...

- Fe needs to separates facts from emotional data. They can’t juggle both like I can, and need more neutrality. I have to learn to be extra careful about this in emotionally charged situations.

and here you seem to be saying you have trouble with Fe because they perceive what you say as absolute's?


i am not catching the difference here... is it merely that in the first requires a display of certainty? like...

- I can sometimes force my evaluations on others because I think my rationale is the only valid one. I can be self-righteous and a know-it-all.

the certainty described here ^ ?


so to be clear, the problem - the taking of of certainty as a deceleration of absolute truth - seems to be going both ways, in what you describe understanding from Fe users and what you describe Fe users understanding from you...


so the question is: would you not have the exact same problems with other Fi users?
if you don't - why? what's different about Fe?
if you do - isn't it just a problem you have with... people?


________________________________________________________________________________________

the "not all Fe users are FJs" flag raising

- I can hold multiple, seemingly contradictory points of view. I can play devil’s advocate, without really believing what I’m preaching. Fe users don’t do this. They only sees me as taking a side (usually against them) and perceive my claims at being open to both perspectives as disingenuous. I don’t know what else to get this across to them, or even if they will find this sort of thinking/behaviour acceptable.

assuming we are inclusive of all Fe types... are you serious? have you ever met a TP? we are considerably less rare then NFJs so it's quite a bit more likely that you have, not to mention there's quite a bit on the forum, plus this isn't the first time we are talking, so i can say with a high degree of certainty that you have talked to TPs.


and both the introverted and extroverted varieties do that... very often... comparatively a lot more then any NFP i've known - in fact i am not sure how Ti can function otherwise: it is the nature of Ti is to go down to building blocks of the information and explore them from different perspectives to grab different meanings to connect together. STPs usually emerge from this process with more general-data questions to explore & investigate, NTPs toy with the building blocks and speculate about various possible connections, emerging from it with differential questions to determine which possibility is more likely. in both cases, devil advocating is completely integral to the working of Ti - at least in TPs (for FJs reading this: in am interested if you experience this too).


to be specific - i am talking about conscious devil advocating - exploring the data from multiply perspectives - regardless if they align with your own (which i suspect is where TPs differ form FJs). that is not the same as holding multiply contradictory views as true (which is where TPs and FPs tend to differ).

________________________________________________________________________________________


ranting about attitude towards packaging

- In many ways, I tend to care more about the information than the package. This can be insensitive.

this is something i actually identify with myself... or rather, the attitude towards the packaging.




it's not that packaging is foreign to me - i used to do it for a living...

produce this reaction:

but i was completely and utterly conscious that i was bullshitting the fuck out of people.
even later when i moved to selling equipment to help quitting smoking (which didn't work for me), i was completely conscious that its works to the extent of the sales pitch - it's a placebo and it works as well as you can convince people it will work.

when i was younger i remember watching bill maher in the bush years, completely conscious that the reason it's entertaining is that i's packaged to make people who disagreed with the bush policies (at the time myself included) to feel better about themselves by finding as many witty ways to imply that they are better then others.


i remember i was around 8 when i decided that MacDonald sucks without the packaging, so i tried making my own lunch packages and put everything in it (for some reason i never extended this awareness to kinder chocolate eggs - those work on me for as long as you had construct-able toys inside, and would probably still work on me if they would stop using toy characters instead)...


and even today i am working on packaging in a way - in designing the user experience while working an app, i am constantly thinking what would the user expect after doing X, what would the user understand from seen Y, how do i frame a certain set of information for the user to understand... it's not outright lying, but it is constantly building mental rails for people to follow to get them from where they are to where they want to go to.


the point is: i am constantly aware of packaging, but while doing so, i am constantly aware that it is packaging. i am aware of the value of packaging, but i am always suspicious of it and looking for the raw information. where i have difficulty is where it is to still keep the packaging when something is real. so this:

- Fe compares the information with the package and decides how to take it. If the package isn't satisfactory, all their attention goes on this and the information will be lost on them.

makes no sense to me...

picking the information by it's packaging is the exact opposite of my internal reaction (picking the information despite it's packaging).

 

[Southern Kross]

Oh, [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]. You've gone all Ti on my vagaries.

You certain make valid points, and at the moment I don't feel up to deconstructing the matter and explaining things.

But the gist of it is:

- Some of these things might apply more to FJs than TPs.
- With some points you're only getting the summary version and I haven't explained myself well - I apologise for that. Explicitly outlining my rationale in Ti style clarity and covering all of my bases is highly laborious for my brain. I often assume everyone else will be able to join the dots like my brain does. Sorry.
- Some of what seem to be contradictions are really things that I feel are different, but don't consciously know why, or how to put the distinction into words just yet
- Some of it might be misinterpretations on my behalf.
- Some of it might just come down to the inherent self-contradictory nature of my own thinking. It might simply be a Fi double standard at work. I don't know.

Sorry, I don't meant to sound dismissive or deliberately evasive. I think I just need to think about your points more. Maybe another Fi user can explain it better. Maybe other Fi-users will totally disagree with me. Maybe I'm full of shit. I don't know right now.

 

[Such Irony]

There are a bunch of posts I'd like to answer to. Regarding why I feel the way I do about moodiness -

It seems like the person is imposing their mood on others in an effort to either get them to do something, or inadvertently polluting the emotionally environment of everyone around them. Whether imposing those emotionas on others is intentionally done or not, it seems selfish and inconsiderate because someone may not have done anything wrong, yet has to deal with behaviour that implies they did until it wears off for the other person. Moodiness, especially in a confined space, (like on a trip) casts a pall over everyone. I find it emotionally threatening because it is unpredictable - no one (including the moody person) knows when it will start or end, and it can manifest itself in a number of ways at any time. I think most people who are moody don't see it as something personally directed, yet it affects the people around them whether or not they intend it to. I think Fe users tend to take it as "You are not doing your job. If you were, I wouldn't feel this way." I think when Fe users act moody, they are (badly) communicating that they are at the end of their string and are upset at someone and expect the person to notice and make adjustments. Fi doesn't seem to operate in the same way. Therefore, they may miss the Fe signals that something is wrong, and they also may not realize how personally some people may take their moodiness.

I'm an Fe user with Fe in the inferior position though. I interpret others moodiness in much the same way as you and I can't stand emotional surprises. I feel like I have to use my inferior Fe to quickly come up with a response to try to smooth over the other person's emotions and I'm not confident enough with using Fe quickly on my feet like that.

Re Fi or Fe being selective. I can see what you are talking about and I think we both do this, but in different areas. Working on articulating this properly in my head because I've noticed both things at work in inverse ways.

An example of doing something you don't feel like for someone else's sake that you care about - Maybe you hate hospitals. You always have. Yet someone you really care about has fallen seriously ill and needs your presence there. I think Fi is more likely to say, "It's not them. I just don't like hospitals. I'm staying home." whereas Fe reasoning might be more like, "I hate hospitals, but so and so has been there for me in the past and they need me right now because there's no one that can fill that place for them. I guess I'll go, even though I really don't want to." Another example might be going to a musical with your SO. You don't really enjoy musicals and you have no real interest in seeing this one. However, your SO has checked around and they have no one else to go with and they've offered to pay for your ticket. They'd really like to have a shared experience and it matters to them. Fi reasoning might go something like, "I have other things I'd rather do with my evening and I don't even like musicals. Is it such a big deal to go alone?" Fe reasoning might be more like, "They did this this and this that I wasn't interested in. I guess I'll go even though I don't really want to and make it fun for them". Fe focusses more on the fairness aspect and also how it will impact on other people. More priority is given to sacrifice for people closer to them, because more investment has been offered in the past which obligates. (I'm not sure about this, because this might only be NFJ Fe, or it might be more individual than that). Fi is much more about the individual and being authentic to their feelings instead of doing things out of obligation????? (I don't really want to presume to say, because I'm not sure what it's about). I'm not even sure if these examples sound fair to Fi users, but that is the kind of thing I'm thinking of.

Interesting. I'm definitely more like Fe here. I often set aside my own preferences and wishes if it seems like the other persons are somehow more important or urgent. I'd suck it up and go to the hospital. Goddam it, my friend or family member needs me right now. It would be selfish not to go. I'd have to have a very good reason like being physically unable to and simply disliking hospitals does not seem valid enough.

Same thing with the musicals. I happen to love them myself but even if I didn't, if it was important enough to my lover, I'd go. The only reason I wouldn't go is it I found it absolutely repulsive and there are very few things that I dislike to that degree. I think its definitely about the fairness. There's probably some things he didn't want to go to that I enjoyed so it's only right that I return the favor.

There's a games group I belong to and there's about a 50/50 mix of Fi/Fe users. The Fi users seem more adamant about wanting/not wanting to play certain games. The Fe users seem to care less about what games are played just as long as everyone seems to have a good time. Again I'm more like the Fe. Sometimes I play games that aren't my favorites but if that's what the majority wants to play then I just ride with it. That's not to say I never assert my own wishes or desires. I do, but I also realize the fairness aspect and If I'm going to be the only one in the group that wants to do something, it's not going to be much fun for the other people.

I sometimes get irritated with people who push their wishes and idiosyncratic values too much that go against what everyone else feels. To sum it up, it seems like Fi is most concerned with what do I personally feel about this? While Fe is more about, what do people in general feel about this? What is good for the majority, even if I personally don't agree with it myself?

 

[skylights]

This is a lovely thread but it makes my head spin a little with its info load. I will just submit my personal nuggets for the data bank.

Fi communication frustrates me in that it's often not very conscientious of how the other person will feel in response. It can be very self-absorbed. I think Fi users in general would benefit from thinking about how what they are about to say will seem to the other person and changing their way of expressing if it seems like it may be difficult or painful for the other person to deal with.

Fe communication frustrates me because it can assume that the other needs to be directed. Fi users don't natively understand we're expected to redirect in return, so we may tend to get upset, and valuable conversational topics can be lost entirely in pursuit of others. Personally I often don't process fast enough to keep up with the Ji single-line-of-thought. So I think Fe users would often benefit from trying to be patient with Fi "rambling" and trying to find valuable information in tangents, as well as intentionally directing conversation less - or at least less quickly!

 

[Fidelia]

That's something interesting - I guess it had never occurred to me that Fi users didn't realize that redirection is assumed and welcomed. Would verbalizing that out loud be helpful (in addition to trying to direct less?)

 

[Southern Kross]

Sorry to dredge things up again but I'm just going through some of the posts made in the last week.

I think this is why a Fi users non-expression/negative emotion/clear lack of enthusiasm for something important to the other person can anger Fe users after awhile, especially if they feel they have invested pretty heavily in the person and now need their interest/enthusiasm or support in some way. It's seen as the person being willing to take whatever you give, but not reciprocate with an open heart because it wouldn't be authentic to how they feel in the moment (even if that feeling could change). For the Fe user (well, at least this one), they would be more likely to evaluate the closeness of their relationship, what might be reasonable to expect/hope for given the amount they have or haven't put in, and how much the thing being requested really matters to both parties. (At it's best), it takes both views into account and tries to find something that works for both, but if someone does have to suck something unpleasant up, they are expected to do it with a reasonably cheerful attitude, especially if the negative part is beyond the other person's control, and with the understanding that the other person will try to make it up to them somehow. I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if Fe users sort of see it as depositing and withdrawing from each other's emotional bank accounts. Even if the "money" is freely offered, it is understood that if it is accepted, the person accepting the "money" is obligating themselves to make a deposit of some sort in the future so that the relationship doesn't become one-sided and unfair. I don't think it is a matter of constantly tallying up totals, but when it does start seeming that one person is being capricious with the "funds" or is unwilling to help the other when they are in desperate need, even though they have been willing to accept stuff in the past, that's when the frustration starts to build.

I don't think it is so much a matter of demanding a specific, but not verbalized expected response that puts the Fi user in a no win position. It's just that actions are usually seen more definitely as either a deposit or a withdrawal, rather than something neutral and so when the consideration for the other person doesn't appear to be reciprocated, Fe users are more likely to read a much deeper more negative message into it than was intended.

*Don't kill me please
*Also, I'm not sure how much of this is increased by being a SO dom and by being a Ni user.

I totally see what you're saying and the value of this principle, but this is can so cold to Fi users.

Give and take is certainly part of all types, I just think it works a little differently. Bear with me, here and I'll try to explain how and the pros and cons of both, using this example:

My ESTJ sister is very generous with her money and often when she goes out with several friends she will buy a round of drinks, without any prompting from others. She never keeps score about whether her friends have bought her an equal amount of drinks. She realises some of her friends are poorer than her and doesn't expect anything much from them. She 'invests' without expectation of return. She told me, in not so many words, that she feels that giving and sharing is a way to show that she cares about her friends. However, she does think the basic courtesy would be for her friends to occasionally return the favour, and buy her a drink. One of her friends (a ESFP) doesn't do this, and avoids doing it in a rather underhand manner. And it really bothers my sister (along with another xSFP friend who agreed that it wasn't right either), not because it's unfair per se, but because it shows a lack of respect for her. The ESFP taking from her and exploiting her generosity feels like an insult to my sister. The selfishness of that, and the fact that the ESFP is taking advantage of her, that's what upsets her, not the lack of reciprocity itself. She doesn't care that it's unfair; she cares that her friend doesn't feel she's worth kindness. Does that make sense?

Now you can see this is between two Fi users. And what the difference comes down to is personal values about what is right in the situation. It shows that great generosity can come out of Fi and great selfishness. Now I don't think the ESFP's personal values are right. I could see how she would fail to recognise her behaviour as wrong, but that doesn't excuse it. She needs to see the sort of attitude towards her friends that her behaviour is indirectly communicating. To me, my sister's kindness is the sort I really value. I would say it's the Fi ideal in giving; it's doing something kind for the sake of it, as an end in itself. I acknowledge there are problems with this approach: it's inconsistent (not everyone will choose to participate in it equally or regularly - as per the example), it's not always a viable option, it relies on people to do this of their own volition (without social expectation or prompting), and it doesn't build interpersonal relationships like Fe does (because there's no back and forth to bond people).

Now correct me if I'm wrong but, Fe uses reciprocity so that people can feel connected. It's to establish a sense of security with the people you care about; knowing that they will have their back. It's more consistent and reliable. The main problem with the Fe approach can be in the expectation of return. In the Fi view of it: it can be like kindness comes with strings attached. This can create a lot of resentment, because it suggests that a gift is offered with false intentions. It communicate to Fi-users that it was not offered in order to give pleasure to your friend (ie. as an end in itself), but so that you can get something out of it. Of course, this is not always the case, and this is not really how Fe is meant to work ideally. And I've seen enough of Fe generosity myself and know how incredibly warm, kind, altruistic it is. But my point is that sometimes giving can be a selfish act too, just as much as taking and not giving in return can be.

 

[Fidelia]

Absolutely, I agree with you on all points. I don't like that aspect of Fe either, and I've seen that at times, even in myself.

I wouldn't say that when I give, it is with a constant tally in mind. It's only after a pattern of disrespect emerges (as in the case of your sister and her friend) that the aspect of unfairness becomes an issue for me. When I accept help from someone, it is with the understanding that it came at some sacrifice for them. If I feel that they are offering help for selfish reasons, I don't feel any compunction about refusing it, because I don't wish to be in that person's debt. I also wouldn't allow someone to pay for even coffee for me if I thought they could misconstrue it as romantic obligation when I had no interest, because I want my intentions to be clear.

Maybe the distinction between the two approaches is that everything carries with it a degree of outcome/meaning/intention for me. Just as conversations all are going somewhere specific (to Fe sensibilities), it feels to me that interactions also convey intention/commitment/investment/expectation, and so I am careful about who I give that to and who I accept it from.

Does that make any sense?