[Fe] Fe and how it works

[Orangey]

If I know the person somewhat well, a simple acknowledgment like "Hey," is fine. All the rest of the queries like "What are you doing this weekend? and "Did you hear the thunder last night?" are highly unnecessary, to me. But that's just me; idle chatter bugs me to no end.

I agree, if the chatting lasts too long, or is about stupid, uninteresting things (like the thunder last night). But that's adding a new dimension- length of conversation. The longer the conversation, the greater the risk of getting bored and having to endure stupid time-killer topics. I of course like to keep it brief, but the initial cordiality is needed, especially in those types of collegial relationships.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Why do you think it's idle? Would I be better off asking how many people you've slept with?

It's idle because it serves no purpose besides being cordial and/or opening up to more meaningless conversation. No offense intended; I actually see this as a negative on my part that I can't engage with people on this level since so many do. People comment on my unbelievable "coldness/rudeness" irl. But I don't want to waste time and energy discussing such matters when I could be doing something more important.

 

[SciVo]

From what I can see, Fe is more concerned with making others feel comfortable, even when you'd rather not, and it expects others to do the same and gets on them when they don't. Fi is more individualistic and about being true to yourself and giving others the space to do the same. To Fe users, that can seem moody/selfish or uncaring at times. To Fi users, Fe seems a little pushy and cohearsive/manipulative.

I've never heard it put that way before. Finally, an explanation that really clicks! To other people, I might seem to have become more Fe over the years, but I think that I actually just have healthier Fi (after years of hefty self-work). So, now I'm really good at expressing empathy for someone's universal needs... but also better at maintaining an emotional buffer distance... and I'm still comfortable telling someone if I think that a behavior is ethically wrong (and why), but now I only bother if it would make a difference.

No this sounds right for me, thank you for clarifying. I can shoot the breeze and have a good time with people I just met and will never see again and that interaction is enjoyable to me as well.

I can have an enjoyable conversation in a checkout line. I'm usually busy in my head, but I'll gladly accept an opportunity if one presents itself. (I recently discussed local experimental vs. folk pop bands with a stranger in a line for a restroom at a club.) However, I'll do it the Fi way by fidelia's description.

 

[proteanmix]

It's idle because it serves no purpose besides being cordial and/or opening up to more meaningless conversation. No offense intended; I actually see this as a negative on my part that I can't engage with people on this level since so many do. People comment on my unbelievable "coldness/rudeness" irl. But I don't want to waste time and energy discussing such matters when I could be doing something more important.

Further down the rabbit hole: why is it meaningless? You get as much meaning out of it as you put in. It has to start somewhere, right?

 

[Orangey]

It's idle because it serves no purpose besides being cordial and/or opening up to more meaningless conversation. No offense intended; I actually see this as a negative on my part that I can't engage with people on this level since so many do. People comment on my unbelievable "coldness/rudeness" irl. But I don't want to waste time and energy discussing such matters when I could be doing something more important.

I still to this day come off as cold (as per people's descriptions of my style of interaction) because I am often thinking about something and don't notice or remember that I have to be cordial. In those instances, I think, "why the hell should I be bothered wasting my mental time and energy talking about nonsense with this person, even for a moment?" Then I remember what it's like to be on the receiving end of such treatment, and what it means in a broader sense when I'm ignored or treated as though I don't exist. Then I apply that principle to my interactions with people, and remind myself that it does matter that I be cordial, because it could have implications and meanings that extend far beyond my own intentions.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Further down the rabbit hole: why is it meaningless? You get as much meaning out of it as you put in. It has to start somewhere, right?

I don't know if I mentioned this in this thread yet, but I'm not very interested in mundane events. I mainly like to discuss abstract topics, "in-depth" issues, or topics not directly related to what's happening now or what happened yesterday. So talking about anything that happens in everyday life is meaningless to me because I place no significance on them.

I still to this day come off as cold (as per people's descriptions of my style of interaction) because I am often thinking about something and don't notice or remember that I have to be cordial. In those instances, I think, "why the hell should I be bothered wasting my mental time and energy talking about nonsense with this person, even for a moment?" Then I remember what it's like to be on the receiving end of such treatment, and what it means in a broader sense when I'm ignored or treated as though I don't exist. Then I apply that principle to my interactions with people, and remind myself that it does matter that I be cordial, because it could have implications and meanings that extend far beyond my own intentions.

The bolded: exactly. But I don't really care if someone doesn't engage me in this kind of discussion. I'm not interested anyway. It's not that they have to be ignoring me, but just not coming at me with all these questions that serve no purpose.

 

[proteanmix]

I don't know if I mentioned this in this thread yet, but I'm not very interested in mundane events. I mainly like to discuss abstract topics, "in-depth" issues, or topics not directly related to what's happening now or what happened yesterday. So talking about anything that happens in everyday life is meaningless to me because I place no significance on them.

I'm not trying to be a jerk with my questions so please bear with me.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this tons of times, but how do you get into those topics you prefer discussing without some opening? How do you gauge someone's willingness to do "in depth" issues if you don't see a point because it's meaningless to you? From what you're saying I'm getting mixed message. If I were to walk up to you and we've had no prior contact and say "I've been watching you over the last few months, but purposefully not interacting with you" and then launch into an abstract topic of your absolute delight then you are doing that Fe thing that Orangey mentioned. You didn't need the "deep" interaction in order for you to be interested. It's just a matter of content with you, not the interaction itself.

 

[Orangey]

It's not that they have to be ignoring me, but just not coming at me with all these questions that serve no purpose.

But I'm saying that there's not much that they could say that wouldn't be uninteresting to me as a topic of conversation. It then comes down to the choice of either asking me something polite but uninteresting, or not saying anything at all. Even a "hey" or a nod are going to occupy some amount of my mental time and energy. So it comes down to a choice between the two.

I'm wondering what type of brief, cordial interaction would be intellectually interesting and worth my mental time and energy, because I can't imagine it, even if it does exist. The other option is of course to do what proteanmix mentions and just launch into an intellectually interesting conversation without any of this cordiality that we've been talking about, but I don't think that goes down well with most other people, and it sort of wouldn't work with stuff like brief elevator or hallway meetings. It requires too much time. And I'm often not willing to devote my mental space to such invasions by others unless I'm in the mood (i.e., drunk) or they're my friend, like I mentioned earlier.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I'm not trying to be a jerk with my questions so please bear with me.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this tons of times, but how do you get into those topics you prefer discussing without some opening? How do you gauge someone's willingness to do "in depth" issues if you don't see a point because it's meaningless to you? From what you're saying I'm getting mixed message. If I were to walk up to you and we've had no prior contact and say "I've been watching you over the last few months, but purposefully not interacting with you" and then launch into an abstract topic of your absolute delight then you are doing that Fe thing that Orangey mentioned. You didn't need the "deep" interaction in order for you to be interested. It's just a matter of content with you, not the interaction itself.

Not a problem.

To the bolded: I would probably look at you like . And it's not what Orangey mentioned because it's not friendly, impersonal interaction on my part. I do engage in idle chatter sometimes, but only when truly necessary. And when I do it's slightly painful for me. Seriously.

When I'm getting to know someone I ask about their passions, aspirations, etc. Not what they did last weekend.

I'm wondering what type of brief, cordial interaction would be intellectually interesting and worth my mental time and energy, because I can't imagine it, even if it does exist.

That's right, there isn't one. Which is why I shun brief, cordial interaction.

 

[SciVo]

I'm wondering what type of brief, cordial interaction would be intellectually interesting and worth my mental time and energy, because I can't imagine it, even if it does exist.

I've found that food and music are highly personal topics of superficial conversation, with infinite variation and real emotional significance. People love to share their favorite recipes, how it went with the new dish that they tried the other day, their favorite kind of music, how the bands were this weekend at the club, etc.

 

[proteanmix]

When I'm getting to know someone I ask about their passions, aspirations, etc. Not what they did last weekend.

LOL, I think you'd get if you started like that with me. I'm interested in those things as well, but I don't immediately start that way. And it's funny because those things tend to come out (as SciVo mentions) in the "idle" chat. I mean, in the course of what someone did last weekend they tend to reveal their passion for gardening and their dream of opening a bed and breakfast, ya know? Or that they're wine enthusiasts or have sky diving as a hobby. I find they naturally come out over the course of conversation.

 

[Orangey]

From what you're saying I'm getting mixed message. If I were to walk up to you and we've had no prior contact and say "I've been watching you over the last few months, but purposefully not interacting with you" and then launch into an abstract topic of your absolute delight then you are doing that Fe thing that Orangey mentioned. You didn't need the "deep" interaction in order for you to be interested. It's just a matter of content with you, not the interaction itself.

Eh, I don't see the contradiction. She said that during interaction, she would care about the "deep" issues like the person's deepest feelings and secrets and what have you. Now she's saying that any conversation that is devoid of such content would be uninteresting to her, like the elevator "how about that weather" type conversations. What she'd ideally prefer, it seems, is interesting conversation that is broached without any such meaningless introductions.

You're saying that this is sending a mixed message because if she's not interested in the interaction for interaction's sake, which she seems not to be if she maintains that cordiality in the form of "how are you" questions is meaningless, then any conversations that she does find interesting must be interesting because of their content, and not because of the interaction for its own sake. I find that she is not sending a mixed message, however, because she never said that an interesting, "deep" conversation was interesting independent of the content. On the contrary, she said that such conversations would be interesting precisely because of the content (finding out their feelings, talking about secrets, all that junk).

And she never said that the type of Fe interaction I was describing didn't resonate with her because it placed content in a higher value position than the interaction itself, she said instead that she could not find such conversations interesting because they don't include personal content.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

LOL, I think you'd get if you started like that with me. I'm interested in those things as well, but I don't immediately start that way.

Yes, I do have issues speaking with most people. Which is why I don't talk to many people. *shrug*

 

[Orangey]

I've found that food and music are highly personal topics of superficial conversation, with infinite variation and real emotional significance. People love to share their favorite recipes, how it went with the new dish that they tried the other day, their favorite kind of music, how the bands were this weekend at the club, etc.

Haha, that would be highly weird, for me at least, to encounter someone I know casually in an elevator or a hallway and start asking them, "so hey, what's your favorite music?" Or, even better, "what did you cook last night?"

In fact, I wouldn't even call that interesting. I probably care even less about that than I do about whatever contrived answer they were going to give me about how their weekend was.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Haha, that would be highly weird, for me at least, to encounter someone I know casually in an elevator or a hallway and start asking them, "so hey, what's your favorite music?" Or, even better, "what did you cook last night?"

In fact, I wouldn't even call that interesting. I probably care even less about that then I do about whatever contrived answer they were going to give me about how their weekend was.

Lol, same. What you cooked last night? That was an example I used in another thread of what I definitely don't like to discuss. :zzz:

 

[Fidelia]

I don't think SciVo was suggesting approaching it as a first conversation in the elevator. More that if you are talking with a colleague or something, you learn a lot about them through hearing about their interests/lack thereof regarding food and music. I love talking about that sort of thing and it often does evolve into something deeper.

I understand wanting to go right in for the meaningful stuff, but what LA is suggesting sounds to me like the emotional equivalent of people a person who insists on foregoing all courtship rituals or foreplay and is surprised when the other party isn't ready to have sex on demand. Maybe I have misunderstood, but I'm unlikely to tell anyone my thoughts or talk about anything meaningful if they cannot even put up with hearing about something that semi-matters to me for a couple of minutes and I can do the same with them. And if you want to forego all of the conventional conversational rituals, it does have consequences. I suppose it's a matter of weighing your boredom or inconvenience (which wouldn't have to be either depending on how you look at it) against the social benefits and possibility of getting to understand people better.

 

[proteanmix]

Eh, I don't see the contradiction. She said that during interaction, she would care about the "deep" issues like the person's deepest feelings and secrets and what have you. Now she's saying that any conversation that is devoid of such content would be uninteresting to her, like the elevator "how about that weather" type conversations. What she'd ideally prefer, it seems, is interesting conversation that is broached without any such meaningless introductions.

You're saying that this is sending a mixed message because if she's not interested in the interaction for interaction's sake, which she seems not to be if she maintains that cordiality in the form of "how are you" questions is meaningless, then any conversations that she does find interesting must be interesting because of their content, and not because of the interaction for its own sake. I find that she is not sending a mixed message, however, because she never said that an interesting, "deep" conversation was interesting independent of the content. On the contrary, she said that such conversations would be interesting precisely because of the content (finding out their feelings, talking about secrets, all that junk).

And she never said that the type of Fe interaction I was describing didn't resonate with her because it placed content in a higher value position than the interaction itself, she said instead that she could not find such conversations interesting because they don't necessarily include personal content.

The reason why I found the statements contradictory is because to me the interaction is still the bolded part, it's just a matter of how she prefers to enter into the interaction. She begins in media res, I may start at the "so how's the weather" (btw, that annoys me too, but once again I'm willing to play along) in order to get to those other parts.

And then we moved onto the matter of personal content, which for me is littered throughout the interaction, but for her seems to be concentrated in a few key topics. I still see how we're looking for the same information, just differently.

Another reason why I'm not quite understanding/see a contradiction is take those brief encounters we mentioned. I made a distinction between people I interact with casually and those I have more sustained contact with. From what I'm understanding LA to be saying is that if she's in line with Jane Doe in the grocery store, if she can't find out those meaty parts of her then she's not interested. I say I don't need those meaty parts to be interested and satisfied, casually and even if I were interested, I have a good idea of how to get my interest satsified but I would feel like that would be getting too personal too quickly and that's when I have some sort of Fe block, like I'm overstepping my boundaries with someone I don't know well. It still seems like a Fe block, with LA only it's manifesting in "I'm not interested." Now if this is a person I interact with frequently, like at work, I need to know them in more depth because our relationship is different. LA are you saying you wouldn't be interested in any case if you couldn't get to the meaty parts? To me these two scenarios are in different categories so of course I wouldn't respond the same way.

Hey, and I'm also saying I got slightly confused in what you said so if I'm not addressing your points that's why.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I understand wanting to go right in for the meaningful stuff, but what LA is suggesting sounds to me like the emotional equivalent of people a person who insists on foregoing all courtship rituals or foreplay and is surprised when the other party isn't ready to have sex on demand.

That's a rather interesting comparison....

You've got it completely wrong. I simply said I am not interested when people ask how my weekend is or how I'm doing that day, because they are not really interested in these matters and are only going through the motions. Now if they actually wanted to know and were interested in my replies, that's a completely different story.

Maybe I have misunderstood

Yes, you have.

And if you want to forego all of the conventional conversational rituals, it does have consequences. I suppose it's a matter of weighing your boredom or inconvenience (which wouldn't have to be either depending on how you look at it) against the social benefits and possibility of getting to understand people better.

I'm not terribly concerned about the "consequences," actually. Which would be that the people would no longer approach me for these types of conversations. This is a benefit, IMO. I don't have to talk about what someone did last weekend in order to understand them better. I've understood people pretty well thus far without having to do so.

 

[River]

"What did you do last weekend?"

"oh, barbecue with the family <bla bla bla>. Saw event horizon with my eldest"

"Oh, i found that film rather intriguing. What did you think of the concepts presented?" (or, even sneakier, mention a few then slowly branch it out)

Its a few lines, if they don't bite you waste a short amount of time. If they do, interesting conversation. Difficult?


As for elevators... A few remarks about the endless fascination with saving time... comment on the surroundings but leaves an opening. I've had several short, interesting exchanges in similar situations.

Naturally, with limited time the depth is finate. Prefferable to discussion of just the weather, however.

 

[Orangey]

And if you want to forego all of the conventional conversational rituals, it does have consequences. I suppose it's a matter of weighing your boredom or inconvenience (which wouldn't have to be either depending on how you look at it) against the social benefits and possibility of getting to understand people better.

Or against the possibility of signifying something that you didn't intend to signify (e.g., that you don't respect the person, that you don't take them seriously, that they aren't worth your time, so on). The consequences of ignoring my professor, for example, would be that they wouldn't trust me, or that they would see me as uninterested in maintaining collegial relationships and therefore expendable. After all, what prof wants graduate students who have no chance of maintaining their connection with them once they're full blown, accomplished professors themselves?