You're putting this in a context which entirely twists the point into something else that was not implied by me (or others from what I can tell). It's not a matter of Fi-doms selfishly pushing for their own ideal & pouting when not heard. The ideal is NOT all about the Fi-doms personal values at all. An INFP is very likely to be acutely aware of how much other people's needs differ & that there is often no blanket standard that works for everyone. The INFP is NOT just looking out for their own needs, but those of the other individuals also. The Ne possibilities works both ways - to both conceive of a variety of acceptable solutions and to accept a variety from others, able to see how other people's ideas fit the basic value at stake. In this sense, the INFP adapts more to the individuals involved & the specific context, where Fe seems to want to implement rules for everyone to adapt to & make every context "standardized". Of course, the Fe method promotes stability by bringing in a measure of predictability & asking people to compromise. The Fi method works on the premise that nothing is fully predictable, so it's better to be flexible & adapt as you go. It's a form of compromise also, so that Fi is not that threatened by Fe. Fe seems MUCH more threatened by Fi, from my perspective, but Fi feels more repressed. It's pretty classic J vs P stuff in that respect.This is meant as a serious question, because it strikes at the heart of the breakdown in Fe/Fi interaction in many cases. Many Fe users see the above reaction as sort of a "special snowflake syndrome." Is it genuinely difficult to accept not getting your ideal desired outcome? Does compromise of any sort lead you to feel this way? This is what Fe doesn't understand. We're generally fine with not getting our ultimate desired outcome if the compromise is fair. To us, not being willing to accept any perspective but your own seems, for lack of a better word, immature. I know that's not where you're coming from, but that's what it seems like to an Fe user, so I realize there's a disconnect thing happening here. What would you consider to be a good outcome with a Fe user? One where you felt valued. Are you okay with a compromise outcome if the Fe user heard you out and explored the possibilities, but ultimately felt that it wouldn't best suit the needs of the group?
I think you misunderstand what is meant by the ideal outcome. It's more of a general win-win than a 100% perfect goal. A strength of FiNe IS seeing new, better ways to meet individual needs of the group without trampling group needs. It is a strength of FiNe (or NeFi also) to be innovative in dealing with people instead of adhering to shared values. I'd argue that many Fe values have roots in Fi ideals, and Fi is the force which continues to seek refinement of these, just as Fe seeks to make them as workable & encompassing of as many people as possible. Sometimes when Fe is trying to stabilize, Fi (via Ne in this case) is trying to innovate, and that can cause a clash, but much of the time it can be complementary.I think what's hard for me to understand is that I can't imagine there ever being a situation in which each and every member of the group felt like every shade and nuance of their opinion was validated and a solution emerged in which everyone was 100% happy. Making one person 100% happy is inevitably going to make the next person 50% happy or 2% happy or 0% happy. (Also, "happy" looks weird when you type it over and over.)
It's an uphill battle though when there is an automatic rejection of a new approach simply because it is not the Fe standard approach. It can begin to feel that the rules violate their own principles when there is not enough flexibility for the individual's needs (that individual being other people too, not just the NFP). I realize this has shades of Si in it, but there are some aspects which seem to occur in NFJs also, as far as their having very singular visions at times.