I was just thinking to myself about the similarities between Fe and Te hegemony over their introverted cousins.
Originally Posted by fidelia
So this makes me see a whole other layer of subtleties here. For example, it seems like Fe is prone to discount any argument that doesn't acknowledge the goal as Fe sees it... just in the same way that Te does.
I would also say that while Fe and Te are not free of bias, they are inherently more objective than their introverted cousins. So yes, this Fi user is saying that, in general, Fe is more objective than Fi. By the same token Te is, in general, more objective than Ti.
But objectivity is NOT always the ideal. In other words, this externalized view of things / objectivity will only take you so far.
So if I were to go back to the analogy of the Fi being a lot like Ti in the sense that they are both introverted, hard to articulate, need time to reflect, and are more subjective than their extraverted cousins, some interesting thoughts come to mind:
#1 - If Te and Fe are more objective than Ti and Fi, then Ti and Fi shouldn't try to argue that they are equally objective when compared with Te and Fe. In other words, let's be upfront that Ti and Fi are more subjective. This isn't a bad thing... or a weakness... as long as you don't measure goodness and strength only by Te/Fe standards. Ti and Fi can tap into things that Fe and Te cannot. And in these arenas, they kick Te's and Fe's *ss. I feel like part of Fe and Fi getting along (and Te and Ti, too) is everyone acknowledging that there are two sets of standards here... and both are equally valid... and they are both different. Everyone needs to quit trying to make one live up to the standards of the other. See #2 for more about this.
#2 - Both Te/Fe users and Ti/Fi users need to understand that what seems true and authentic for them, does NOT seem true and authentic for the other. So instead of trying to tell the other they've got it all wrong, maybe they ought to try to learn to communicate with the other in a manner the other understands. For example, if you are a Ti user and you want to point out to a Te user that they are not validating or acknowledging your Ti position, then perhaps using some straightforward logical arguments is the best approach.
Ti User: "You know everyone has something to offer don't they? And also everyone has a subjective reality. I'm not disagreeing with your logic regarding ABC. But that doesn't mean there is not validity in my what I'm saying either. And, it feels like you're not willing to acknowledge that."
Te User: "I see what you're saying. You're right. And, of course, how you see things is important to me. While the solution I proposed is probably the quickest way to a solution, what you're saying is logically correct and my solution doesn't take this into account.
To me the above exchange is good because it's not pandering to either side. It's acknowledging what each function does best. (BTW, let me be upfront that I need to clean up above exchange here. In other words, I'm still a little weak in my ability to articulate what Ti is good at.)
The analogy would also hold true for a conversation between and Fe and Fi user.