[NF] When Fe & Fi Go Awry: The Definitive NF guide to F-ness (Let the Antics Ensue)

[Esoteric Wench]

Insight on a Ni dom. When I first get in an argument, all the pieces are zooming around in my mind and so I have absolutely nothing constructive to say right then. Then, I piece the pieces together in my mind from anywhere from a couple hours to one week. After that, if I wait too long to talk about something, a million judgments form in my mind, usually along the lines of, "That person is a mean jerk!" If I talk soon, then I know I can prevent those judgments and further hurt to both the other person and myself.

Random Ness, I found this very interesting. I'm beginning to consider the differences between Ne and Ni and I found this very helpful. I don't want to get us too far off topic, but wanted to mention. I'm thinking the process you describe above falls within the nexus of Ni dominance and externalized judgment. I experience the exact same "zooming"; however, I'm unlikely to make judgments if I wait too long. Conversely, I leave my judgments hanging open...perhaps too long sometimes. Very interesting.

So what I've learned is...if someone needs their space after an argument, I should respect it, because perhaps they are like an IFP who needs time to think it all out and doesn't see the need to discuss things.

And, IFPs, if someone needs to understand something for closure, you should find some kind of common ground with them. Otherwise, you better have a good excuse, because if not, then refusing to discuss anything with them is just cruel.

I completely respect this position. And, know it is easier said than done. I'm sorry it didn't work out with your INFP, but am most impressed with your kindness and willingness to accommodate her needs in this area.

 

[PeaceBaby]

The reason I think this is because it is often true - others seems to enjoy/need to "talk things over" - but also because it is the last thing I would do. At the point of any failure, personal, introspective analysis is what occurs; any attempt to bring me out of this will be met with anger - interjections are viewed as stealing valuable time from what I consider to be extremely meaningful internal dialogue(s). This can be difficult for the other person involved because they are relegated to the status of "burden" while this painful process is taking place. Being forced into any sort of heart-to-heart during this period (which could be anywhere between 1-30 days, I would say) would be viewed with aggression and the result would be akin to waking someone from a deep sleep and bombarding them with questions: intense irritation.

Dominant Fi never feels a need to justify itself and views attempts by others to "patch things up" as servile, and therefore undesirable. This is "bad side" of the INFP. Time is a watchword, a necessary component for both the INFP and whomever else is involved. An upset INFP is much like an open wound; time, the scab.

Just to present an alternate viewpoint: As an INFP, I don't relate or feel similarly to this at all. If one is trying to find a system to relate behaviour to, this situation would seem better related to enneagram type than MBTI. As a 9, the way I engage in conflict is very different. If you and I had a problem, I would be right there working through it 'til we found a peaceful resolution. I cannot rest or be comfortable until this happens. I seldom withdraw, despite how awful these types of issues can be and how painful they feel at the time. My goal is to reestablish harmony, and in order to do so, will invest a great deal of energy and generally wish to do so within a short time frame. Immediate wouldn't be too fast.

 

[Adasta]

^ I have a friend who's a 9 and I find the type of conciliation you mentioned unbearable! I know she means well, but I somehow view any immediate attempt to nullify my bad mood as being servile in some way, as if she is too afraid to deal with someone in a bad mood or even to experience one herself. Once I've calmed down from the initial ferocity of my rage - which is almost always non-demonstrative - after about an hour or so, I find she's a pretty good arbitrator who doesn't seem to judge me for my emotionality: she just tries to reconcile both parties to a peaceful resolution. I appreciate that.

As an aside, I've always been intrigued by INFPs being cast as inclined towards psychology. I personally found psychology too intense to pursue as anything more than a hobby (like philosophy, for example); I now wonder whether an INFP e9 would be more suited than an INFP 4w5 to that profession since they can combine depth of insight with a genuine need to restore order?

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ thanks Adasta for your thoughts! I have to try really hard to give the other person space when I sense they need it, because my own need to reconcile is so great I am eager to start the process asap. And, some things really do benefit from being hit square on, in the heat of the moment.

My daughter, for example, is an INTJ; in the few conflicts we had during her teen years, she would want to withdraw at times, avoid the emotions ... and I would give her an hour or so, but then we had to explore the emotionality of the situation before she had gotten to a point where you could not re-engage her. My son ... as an ESFP, you think he'd be the easier one to explore emotions with but no ... he keeps a great deal bottled up, and getting to his core requires a whole different strategy. One must watch and wait ... when he's feeling things intensely he cannot find the words.

lol we are all so different, aren't we?

I do feel attracted to psychology but feel concern that I would not be able to keep the appropriate professional distance in certain situations. And my nine-ness may make me impatient with people who take forever to initiate communication with those they are in conflict with.

 

[Random Ness]

The enneagram seven I know also withdraws and ignores you during arguments. That lines up pretty well with sevens not wanting to "internalize" anything, doesn't it?

I, as well, would find psychology as an intriguing path of study. My biggest worry is that I'd feel so bad for my patients that I'd be the one needing consoling.

I wonder, can thinker types be good counselors?

 

[Adasta]

^ I think so, since Thinker types would be sure there was a cause and, subsequently, a solution. I'd just end up sobbing and wailing "Why is life so cruel?" which, while endearing, wouldn't help anyone at all.

 

[Tallulah]

I think I would make a terrific counselor, but I suspect after years of it, I would get frustrated with those who don't really want to be helped--some people remain trapped in therapy for years and years, endlessly exploring their feelings and never open to adjusting their perspective, negating the benefits of therapy in the first place. I'm naturally empathetic, though, and having experienced dysthymia, depression, and anxiety myself, I would be able to help others through similar situations. I think it's hard to counsel others if you don't know how earth-shatteringly debilitating mental illnesses can be. My mother, though a feeler and a good listener, wouldn't make a good counselor because she can't really relate to being depressed. She'd be baffled as to why people couldn't just snap out of it.

 

[skylights]

My son ... as an ESFP, you think he'd be the easier one to explore emotions with but no ... he keeps a great deal bottled up, and getting to his core requires a whole different strategy. One must watch and wait ... when he's feeling things intensely he cannot find the words.

interestingly, i have found the same thing with a friend of mine who i highly suspect to be SFP. he got angry at me and could not really address it with words, but i think we both understood what he was feeling. introverted functions are a bitch sometimes... the farther in you go, the harder it becomes to voice what you find.

i am considering becoming a counselor... maybe... ugh

i think INTs in particular could make good counselors. i feel like most INTJs i know would like to pretend that they don't have the patience or heart for it but they're really quite good at helping guide others.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah I think INTJs are actually rather patient and quite helpful because they give rational advice. I've experienced this with more than one INTJ and I've appreciated it. But I think only certain types respond to this. I think others might perceive it as being too cold, perhaps condecending, or even overly logical.

I think the reason why INFJs are "the counselor" is totally clear based upon two females that I'm fairly certain are INFJ. They radiate a kind of hesitant, controlled warmth, they ask a lot of questions about you rather than announce what they think of you, and are careful to phrase their advice so it might be more palatable.

I think the healthiest and/or smartest ones can lead you to your own answers without you even realizing how much they're guiding you.

 

[uumlau]

i think INTs in particular could make good counselors. i feel like most INTJs i know would like to pretend that they don't have the patience or heart for it but they're really quite good at helping guide others.

Heheheh.

On the one hand, we'd probably be very good at it. On the other, it would annoy us to no end and emotionally drain us, likely making the rest of our lives rather unpleasant.

Never mind having to clamp our mouths shut every time we will have justifiable cause to say, "How could you be so STUPID?!?!"

 

[Thalassa]

Heheheh.

On the one hand, we'd probably be very good at it. On the other, it would annoy us to no end and emotionally drain us, likely making the rest of our lives rather unpleasant.

Never mind having to clamp our mouths shut every time we will have justifiable cause to say, "How could you be so STUPID?!?!"

I actually have an INTx friend who considered becoming a counselor. He can give really awesome, patient advice to people he cares about, he has this wonderful quality (I think he's INTJ, but he won't decide between the two) that seems very caring and rational at the same time...but then he was all like, "Wait. I can't be a counselor. I hate people!"

 

[skylights]

okay. quick semi-derail

[edited out for sake of privacy] - essentially question was about ENFJ inconsistency in dealing with personal space

</semi-derail>

gracias!

 

[Fidelia]

Hmm that's weird. The only point of reference I have is that the one ENFP I knew in real life was very warm and I'm not an especially touchy person but I distinctly felt like she was a little weirded out by my initiating any kind of touch with her. I don't know if any other ENFPs are like that or not, but if you have any leanings that way, then maybe ENFJ can sense that. Other than that, I have no idea.

 

[skylights]

hm. thanks for your ideas fidelia i could see that as a possibility. i am quite warm but not very actively/sensily-so (like Fe or Se style), and usually am not the one to initiate physical contact, so maybe the reaction is to that.

 

[Random Ness]

I'm trying to figure out how Fe and Fi morality are different. It confuses me. If I explain my view on morality, will someone tell me if it's "Fe-representitive" or if it's not type related (NOT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES [let's not start a war here], just how I arrived to my attitude on morality)?

I base morals on how it affects people. If something hurts people most of the time, it's wrong. If something helps people most of the time, it's right. I find people who create morals based on what feels good or what seems good annoying because they ignore that other people have their own feelings and logic. However, there are ALWAYS exceptions. Nothing is ever 100% right or 100% wrong. I do not appreciate sweeping statements of morality.

Theory is hard to swallow. I'll offer practical applications.

I hate it when people say they don't support homosexuality because it doesn't feel right to them. They're heterosexual, OBVIOUSLY they find homosexuality disturbing. But homosexuals are born homosexual, and they suffer through so much being homosexual. If people actually took the time to LEARN ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS, instead of taking ONE look at them and judging them as "bad", they'd realize no one in their right mind would choose to be homosexual.

I don't support using drugs to ease your pain because then you get addicted, screw up your life even more, and have to recover from a lot more than you were originally trying to save yourself from. However, if someone completely lacks the resources to get help, and drugs are the only way to prevent them from constant pain or suicide, then I support its use. It's a "lesser of two evils" situation.

I don't support using torture to get information out of someone. Ever. It would have to be a very specific, very dangerous situation for me to support it. Torture screws up people so badly that it is always too cruel to do to someone.

 

[Random Ness]

I've got to stop reading Fe vs. Fi threads other than this one. This one's moderated by experienced people, the other ones aren't. After reading those threads, I start to hate BOTH Fe and Fi. =__________=

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I'm trying to figure out how Fe and Fi morality are different. It confuses me. If I explain my view on morality, will someone tell me if it's "Fe-representative" or if it's not type related?

I base morals on how it affects people. If something hurts people most of the time, it's wrong. If something helps people most of the time, it's right. I find people who create morals based on what feels good or what seems good annoying because they ignore that other people have their own feelings and logic. However, there are ALWAYS exceptions. Nothing is ever 100% right or 100% wrong. I do not appreciate sweeping statements of morality.

I think that when operating at their best, it's very difficult to distinguish between Fi and Fe if you're the casual observer. In other words, Fe and Fi both take people factors into consideration when arriving at a decision. They also both care very much about having positive personal relationships. Finally they both dislike confrontation. (Voilà the F versus T focus on people and relationships.)

So if Fi and Fe both manifest themselves in very similar ways, what's the difference? I've come to believe that it's due to differing internal processes used to reach the (usually) same end result. These differing processes are never more obvious than when Fe and Fi are not at their best.

But in terms of what you wrote, I think that both Fe and Fi users would identify with what you're saying here. I know I do and I'm an Fi user. So I agree that "if something helps people most of the time, it's right." So this doesn't seem type-related to me.

On the other hand, it just occurred to me that there may be an Fi vs. Fe thing going on here. 'Cause I'd say "if something helps people most of the time, it's right... AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE <Insert Fi value here.>"

Anyone else want to disagree?

 

[Random Ness]

On the other hand, it just occurred to me that there may be an Fi vs. Fe thing going on here. 'Cause I'd say "if something helps people most of the time, it's right... AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE <Insert Fi value here.>"

That's what I thought, that both Fs reach the same conclusions, just in different ways.

Hmmm...my version of that sentence would be: "If something helps people most of the time, it's right, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS." Though, that doesn't sound like isolated Fe.