Fe-aux (INFJ & ISFJ) Socialization Issues

[Siúil a Rúin]

My impression is that Fe-aux folks can have specific types of difficulty in relating socially because the Fe creates a strong need for connection, but the dominant introverted, perception function causes them to be more individualized and withdrawn. This can create an internal dichotomy, but also a less efficient way to establish connections than their extroverted Fe-dom counterparts. The Ni and Si doms can also detach either into nostalgia and the personal, experiential world of Si, or into the theoretical, imaginative, abstracted sense of Ni reality.

Please disagree if this doesn't resonate, but I think that Fe-aux are at high risk of staying in unhealthy relationships and losing a sense of self in order to maintain peaceful connections. While it's true that I'm going through a personal rough patch right now, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that when I read this list of socialization traits on a "recovering doormat" site, I realize that I am struggling with every single thing on this list.

Part of the reason I get angry and push back when people berate INFJs and ISFJs is because I understand their tendency to internalize all of that sort of negativity. Then when I push back people just increase their criticisms rather than listening to context, rather than trying to understand that when you tell a Fe-aux something negative, it is like speaking those same words through a megaphone for most any other type. The words hold a different meaning and so become less accurate. Anyway, please disagree as needed.

 

[Eilonwy]

I agree that there's something going on with Fe-aux, and possibly also Fe-dom, but not to the same degree. I think this is worth exploring further to see what comes out of it.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Please disagree if this doesn't resonate, but I think that Fe-aux are at high risk of staying in unhealthy relationships and losing a sense of self in order to maintain peaceful connections.

I wouldn't stay in an unhealthy relationship for any reason.

 

[Geonat]

My impression is that Fe-aux folks can have specific types of difficulty in relating socially because the Fe creates a strong need for connection, but the dominant introverted, perception function causes them to be more individualized and withdrawn. This can create an internal dichotomy, but also a less efficient way to establish connections than their extroverted Fe-dom counterparts. The Ni and Si doms can also detach either into nostalgia and the personal, experiential world of Si, or into the theoretical, imaginative, abstracted sense of Ni reality.

Please disagree if this doesn't resonate, but I think that Fe-aux are at high risk of staying in unhealthy relationships and losing a sense of self in order to maintain peaceful connections. While it's true that I'm going through a personal rough patch right now, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that when I read this list of socialization traits on a "recovering doormat" site, I realize that I am struggling with every single thing on this list.

Part of the reason I get angry and push back when people berate INFJs and ISFJs is because I understand their tendency to internalize all of that sort of negativity. Then when I push back people just increase their criticisms rather than listening to context, rather than trying to understand that when you tell a Fe-aux something negative, it is like speaking those same words through a megaphone for most any other type. The words hold a different meaning and so become less accurate. Anyway, please disagree as needed.

Perhaps this is something that slowly gets better with age. Thing is that I personally have to become a worse person (from my point of view) by practicing this weak part of the personality. This is what destroyed my last 8 year long relationship, but at the same time it forced me into uncharted territory, and helped me get over the threshold so to speak. It is still extremely painful to set boundaries. I don't know if there is any good way to develop it. Have you had similar experience?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Perhaps this is something that slowly gets better with age. Thing is that I personally have to become a worse person (from my point of view) by practicing this weak part of the personality. This is what destroyed my last 8 year long relationship, but at the same time it forced me into uncharted territory, and helped me get over the threshold so to speak. It is still extremely painful to set boundaries. I don't know if there is any good way to develop it. Have you had similar experience?

Unfortunately I'm plenty old myself. It takes me a long time to figure out if I'm in a bad relationship because my empathy is overly strong, so I see the context from the other person's point of view as strongly as my own. It's a great skill in a professional context in which there are already hard boundaries, but it is difficult in personal scenarios. I am getting divorced for the second time, so I do figure out what doesn't work and eventually fix it, but it takes me a long time, and I don't have the same sort of will as most people. I don't have a natural self-ego investment that is easily angered or pushes back against people. My mind floats about seeing every scenario from every possible vantage point, so that I am processesing waaay too much information to readily come to conclusions. Then I easily feel sorry for people because I can feel their fear and pain so readily, that I tend to understand why they are crossing lines. This steals my normal anger response which makes it harder to process unhealthy dynamics.

 

[Geonat]

I wouldn't stay in an unhealthy relationship for any reason.

With kids one can become very compliant and absorb an enormous amount of that stuff just to keep the peace so that they can have both parents living under the same roof.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

With kids one can become very compliant and absorb an enormous amount of that stuff just to keep the peace so that they can have both parents living under the same roof.

Be careful of who you have kids with.

 

[Eilonwy]

I would suggest changing how you're thinking about your interactions with other people. Instead of seeing it as feeling sorry for them and the possible pain or discomfort you might put them through, try to see it as not wanting to feel your own discomfort at causing discomfort. It's uncomfortable to set good boundaries. Make some peace with that fact. You are going to feel discomfort and cause discomfort. That doesn't make you a bad person.

 

[Geonat]

Be careful of who you have kids with.

Why didn't you tell me eight years ago?
ESFJ perhaps felt that I was an INTP (my bad)

Edit: Some of this may have contributed (ESFj & INFj):
Illusionary relations between psychological ("personality") types

Edit 2: Sorry, can't help associating - will restrain myself - but:
ESFj and INTj = duality while
ESFj and INTp = conflicting
so if you happen to be INTP and unsure of whether you're INTj or INTp, just try interacting with an ESFJ(ESFj) and see what happens
(The general j/p vs J/P problem for introverts is addressed in a recent thread)

 

[LittleV]

I was more like this growing up... but Fe would also allow for one to notice social patterns. While being exposed to information... the Si-user may ponder the most appropriate things to do within his/her cliche/institution/culture... and the Ni-user may ponder why these appropriate things were even appropriate within society/humanity/existence before being confronted with what to 'do'. Put these mechanisms in various contexts and you would get many different behaviors, ways of internalizing, natures of interpersonal relationships, etc.

My relatives are very hands-on, practical, quick, domineering, loud, vulgar, entertaining, etc. It is almost as though I'd be an accommodating person who could seem too tolerant... yet be able to get her point across without ruffling too many feathers because of what she'd played with within her mind. There were times when I had to be the leader... being one of the older kids, make up games, etc. Simultaneously, I was very respectful of authority (even in disagreement)... and would at times be seen as shy. However, I cannot be/feel like myself when I am around people for too long; I'd begin to take on others' qualities within just a day... the main reason why I need boundaries. The only times when I am (albeit reluctantly) willing to be around someone more often is if I'd feel as though our energies were similar and/or I'd believe that there could be growth involved for everybody.

People who meet me would not see me as shy at this point... but they may still wonder why I may seem sociable but not frequently involved in group activities. Some may work harder to get to know me (I am somewhat easy to approach) in an easygoing fashion... and others may consider me confusing and watch from a distance while trying to test me during interactions.

Nonetheless... I would say that people tend to see me as many distinctive things... and I know I play a role in this. It is not often that I would try/want to explain myself to others, unless there were some type of genuine bond.

 

[Eilonwy]

When you set healthy boundaries, you start attracting other people who set healthy boundaries also--and who will respect your boundaries because they want their boundaries respected in turn. Otherwise, you'll attract those people who would treat you like a doormat and not respect your boundaries.

ETA: Also, if you tried to set healthy boundaries as a child and those were violated or ignored, then it's going to be difficult to know how to set those healthy boundaries and NOT have them violated or ignored. But it is possible.

ETA2: And, maybe, as a child, SiFe sees those violations of boundaries as part of their social duty, along with other social data they take in (I'm expected by society to put up with these sorts of violations from certain people in authority); while NiFe sees those violations of boundaries as a statement about their personal worth (I'm being treated this way because I'm worthless, so I must prove my worth so people will treat me better).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I do think that IxFJs are particularly prone to sunk investment fallacy where connections to others are concerned. I don’t actually have any close ISFJ friends, but I have seen a very distinct inclination in the INFJs I’ve known to remain loyal/feel an investment for too long to connections that had only become detrimental (this is generally only where someone had become truly important). Since I suspect it’s because of introverted perception (the tendency to prioritize experiential data), I imagine it would be an ISFJ thing as well. For IxFJs- more than anyone else- when we interact with someone, our past experience of them is more present for us than our immediate experience of them. In other words- we interact with a sort of conglomeration of everything that person has ever been to us, not simply the immediate collection of opinions and behaviors in front of us. If we have amassed very positive past experiences of someone, we can tend to stay far too long in a situation that works heavily against us. [But then, once enough negative experience builds up to tip the scales in the other direction- we pretty much only realize it was building up once it’s too late and the scales are already tipped, and the decision to cut the cord is pretty much non-negotiable. The only way to undo that is to add more positive experience to the plate- but since (ime) most people tend to want to 'fix' it with more of the negative approach that caused the scales to turn in the first place, it generally doesn't change.]

 

[the state i am in]

for me, i relate to it through e4 and e2 vacillation. getting caught in my own felt body image or the felt body image of the other.

i think the only thing that i can honestly speak for is that sometimes it's difficult for me to see myself clearly without others reflecting me, and to see what is happening for me, and to see my needs clearly and how they have been interpreted through my emotional responses that happen of their own accord but that then i have to figure out how to work with.

i'm not a doormat. but i do have a lot of difficulty regarding trust, which starts with self-trust and is maintained through a continued faith in a positive future, not that the exact outcome you want will happen but that the positive will be there if you're willing to stay open to really feeling out the whole of the situation and working towards what would be best to commit to in it, despite all the other feelings you are having, all of which you must complete in terms of the process of hearing so that you can then let them go.

without this, it's really hard to commit to your own version of reality, and without doing this, it's really difficult to hold open the recognition of what it's like to commit to a version of reality, that everyone has one if they want to truly take responsibility for themselves that is authentic to themselves and their capacity to be a self-sufficient adult. and it's hard to keep open the space needed to respect those other realities as real for those people, and to come from a place that allows those to relate rather than being taken over by each other.

eta: having a clear sense of the stories that are happening all around you, the stories of moods, relationships, interactions, sequences of events, etc, this Ti sense, is so needed to help us stay on track and maintain the accountability needed to really know the factors in deciding and owning our decisions.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I realize that these traits are enormous taboos in society, and that to be a "doormat" is just about the worst admission a person can make. One thing that I want to bring out is that these same weaknesses are accompanied by strengths which include loyalty and empathy.

I don't know if there are IFJs who function at the opposite end of the doormat spectrum and are very controlling or if that is something more akin to extroversion or ITJs. I think there are a number of female ITJs who are mistyped as IFJs.

Another thought I had: Even though I value not being passive aggressive, I would have to add that the emotional/social framework presented here would suggest that the IFJ would be passive aggressive, and I have been at times, although not consciously.

 

[Geonat]

[...]
Another thought I had: Even though I value not being passive aggressive, I would have to add that the emotional/social framework presented here would suggest that the IFJ would be passive aggressive, and I have been at times, although not consciously.

This is certainly true for me. When agitated enough it finally comes out in some form of furious Fi senex role verbal moral assault. Sometimes I can get so mad that my whole body shakes (inferior Se). But it would take A LOT before that happens. And if someone punched me in the face, there would most likely be very active aggression as a response

 

[reckful]

I agree that this is an IFJ thing, and I'd say it's an example of a shared characteristic that's better accommodated by a dichotomy-centric perspective than a functions-centric perspective. Characterizing it as an "Fe" thing doesn't really make sense since it's not an EFJ thing, or at least not to nearly the same degree as it is an IFJ thing.

 

[Zarathustra]

I agree that this is an IFJ thing, and I'd say it's an example of a shared characteristic that's better accommodated by a dichotomy-centric perspective than a functions-centric perspective. Characterizing it as an "Fe" thing doesn't really make sense since it's not an EFJ thing, or at least not to nearly the same degree as it is an IFJ thing.

Well, unless one is going to say that IFPs engage in the exact same behavior, and for the exact same reasons, it makes more sense to ascribe it to aux Fe. I thought fia did a pretty good job explaining the reason(s) why.

 

[reckful]

Well, unless one is going to say that IFPs engage in the exact same behavior, and for the exact same reasons, it makes more sense to ascribe it to aux Fe. I thought fia did a pretty good job explaining the reason(s) why.

If it's a characteristic that tends to result from a combination of I, F and J, how would it follow that "IFPs engage in the exact same behavior"?

And given that the aux is supposed to serve the dom, what sense does it make to be finding characteristics that Fe is supposedly the cause of when it's in the aux position but that it doesn't cause when it's in the dom position?

If you've never read my long INTJforum post on why I'm a "dichotomies guy," consider yourself invited.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic in the right column to access the full article)
Reynierse article​

 

[meowington]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] While I think you make some valid points, I must say barely anything in that doormat list applies to me. I still feel blame for other peoples' moods too often, but that's about it. I'd say I'm very sensitive to being pushed around and don't let that happen easily.

 

[Zarathustra]

If it's a characteristic that tends to result from a combination of I, F and J, how would it follow that "IFPs engage in the exact same behavior"?

I'm not saying it does.

Imo, that's the only reason to take your position, tho (if all IFs engaged in such behavior [and thus Fe was not a factor]).

Obviously, I was taking issue with your preference for a dichotomy-centric perspective.

To me, saying one has I, F, and J preferences is to say one has aux Fe.

I prefer a function-centric perspective.

And given that the aux is supposed to serve the dom, what sense does it make to be finding characteristics that Fe is supposedly the cause of when it's in the aux position but that it doesn't cause when it's in the dom position?

Well, first off, perhaps all the aux does is more than simply serve the dom. Perhaps it has its own imperatives, but, when in the auxiliary position, these don't quite get expressed the same way as when in the dominant.

Or, perhaps what was described above is the auxiliary serving the dominant (and that is precisely the problem [perhaps if it was more differentiated, and serving itself {and thus the individual was more balanced in their introversion and extroversion than another IFJ for whom this was not the case}, they would not allow themselves to be such a doormat, engaging more in the kind of behavior that EFJs do]).

The point seems rather obvious to me: that Fe in the aux position doesn't necessarily manifest the same way it does in the dominant position.

I actually see much less point to your question, than what your question is questioning.

If you've never read my long INTJforum post on why I'm a "dichotomies guy," consider yourself invited.

I researched you once, and came to understand that you prefer a dichotomy-centric perspective.

I might have run into that thread via a link you posted another time, and might have read some of it -- can't remember.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic in the right column to access the full article)
Reynierse article​

I am a member, but I believe I have zero posts, so the links might not work anyway.

Thanks for posting.

Is there anything particularly of note here?

I'm pretty sure I understand the position; what in these links do you find persuasive?