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

[CrystalViolet]

This is very true in the corporate world. The extroverted functions are able to express/assert themselves on others better than the introverted functions. At least Te/Fe/Se.. I'm not really convinced Ne has much leeway socially- unless there's some practicality involved in an Ne-user's ideas.

Ne is the the brain storming function....it generates possibilities within the confines of the enviroment. It's also great tool to be had, when having to think off the cuff in emergency situations. That's when Ne is truly an advantageous function. I would not be surprised if Ne user were over represented in emergency services for instances. Sorry, this is off topic...I just had to address it. It's at it's best advantage in spontaneous situations.

 

[William K]

Here's the question, though. If the emphasis is always on the individual, how is a consensus ever reached? That's what always confuses me about Fi. Whose opinion is the most important? It's seemingly impossible to have everyone equally happy and validated.

A couple of points
- Having a personal/individual opinion on something doesn't necessarily mean that the opinion is different from the consensus. It just means that that opinion/view/value is reached based on the person's own internal processing, not something that is based on the social norm.
- Even if an individual opinion is different from the norm, we're not talking about 1000 people with 1000 totally differing goals. There will be groups of individuals with a similar, albeit minority view of things. Finding a consensus is not an impossible task (unless you're talking about Middle East Peace, sadly)
- In the worst case scenario where a person has some weird opinion that is totally unique and different from the norm, many times that opinion won't affect or be affected by the majority opinion. I think a couple of Fi-users have already mentioned it, but it's not a black-and-white thing that the individual opinion must always be put to the forefront. We are capable of doing things for the greater good.

 

[CrystalViolet]

I think people tend to see Ti as subjective, basically because the basic foundations and premises are internally set.
I don't fully understand it, but I am willing to admit that.
I could be wrong, but I do think both Fi and Ti both work from the concept of "If I know this to be true, then X Y Z therotically are true too"
Both functions are algorythms ever refining and redefining. Both distill outside input so the essence of "truth" is revealed. The material is different and thusly the equipment doing the refining is different.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.....but it seemed good.

I don't necessarily think Fe as more objective, than Fi either. I always think of my mother when she'd say "I'm cold, put on a jumper." She didn't ask me, if I was cold, she assumed because she was cold, I was too. Again I'm not sure where I'm going with this, I'm just grabbing at strands of thought as I read this thread.
Fi looks inherently selfish, because we act upon internal determinants, but Fe can be selfish too by imposing thier feelings onto to others without asking. I'm just repeating sentiments expressed already here.
I'm thinking what irritates Fe users the most (and I'm basing this this off the feelings I get round Ti-users) is the fact we seem like we are hair splitting our feelings and our observations, and the Fe-users feel like they are about to get nose bleeds, because the answer right there already, what actions that need to be taken are already dictated, and it is just more efficent do it that way, rather trying to redefine what's already in place. Am I on the right track?
So basically what irrates Fe users about Fi's grand declarations of Universal emotional truths isn't the truths themselves, but that we have completely ignored standard operation procedures (otherwise known as social graces, or what ever more appropriate word is applicable), declared our theories as fact without subjecting them to testing and peer review.
The Fi users get upset when our grand theory of truth gets ignored, because using our own brand logic we've thought this through, deeply and examined for flaws (or unauthenticity.) Our theory is air tight, but we need people to accept our idea, so we can go out and test it and make the appropriate changes to the standard operating procedures, so they aren't so restrictive, but the truth is so obvious to us we don't understand why no one else can see it too.

Am I on the right track?

 

[Salomé]

Stop imposing motivations on me that do not exist, Morgan.

How does one impose a motivation, exactly?

I already know that EW is not one to be "guilted" into not doing something, she's a pretty established character on this forum. I'd be an idiot if I was engaging her in order to do that, wouldn't I?

That wasn't my implication. You are misreading me (as usual) and not only that, you are being aggressive and commanding (as usual). I asked a question. Which you haven't answered. You just choose to see it as a personal attack. Fidelia does not, perhaps because she has a better handle on her Fe.

I'm also not primary Fe, so I use it differently... and sometimes poorly. Maybe I screwed up here.

It's possible. And yet you don't question your own assumptions, just fly off the handle.

You can stop mislabelling my (potentially misguided) attempt at authenticity as manipulation any time you like. I'm not whoever you happen to be projecting onto me, nor have I been.

It never occurred to me that you might be trying to manipulate anyone. (NOW it has...) My question was about how those 2 responses were representative of the diplomacy that has been attributed to Fe by Fe users in this thread.
EWs response suggested that she felt she had to tone down her approach (i.e. she felt guilty, which could be fairly easily anticipated, btw) but I can see nothing wrong with her comments in this thread - I was offering her my support as freely as you chose to attack her, as I saw no justification for that display of belligerence. You may feel free to express every antagonistic feeling you have, but you have no right to expect them to be validated.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think it even bypasses the Fi/Fe thing to remember the point you stress here: "consider how a behavior inconveniences others." A lot of the forum issues and things people get in trouble for would be helped if people, regardless of type, would just think in terms of this.

I will always care about how my behaviour might affect another person.

But "behaviour" & "inconvenience" ... those words do make me feel this is more of an Fe judgement, interestingly.

If you had said, "consider how your actions affect others", I wouldn't have zeroed in on it.

Shall ponder. And I'll try to behave myself.

 

[Salomé]

Here's the question, though. If the emphasis is always on the individual, how is a consensus ever reached? That's what always confuses me about Fi. Whose opinion is the most important? It's seemingly impossible to have everyone equally happy and validated.

There is an implicit assumption in your question that consensus is a good thing, or even a possible thing. And you seem to be redefining the term to include the notion of compromise, when it is (ostensibly) about recognising the contribution and opinion of every individual within a group (including dissenters) - such that everyone IS happy and validated (or gives the appearance of it).

How often is consensus actually required? How often can it be said to be truly unanimous and how often is it achieved through coercion or other manipulation? And if the latter, what value does it have over more arbitrary methods - other than the (deceptive) appearance of group validation? The entire concept is pure Fe (apparently it derives from the Latin term for "feel together"). So, in effect, you are asking Fi to validate a Fe value.

 

[Totenkindly]

I will always care about how my behaviour might affect another person. But "behaviour" & "inconvenience" ... those words do make me feel this is more of an Fe judgement, interestingly.

If you had said, "consider how your actions affect others", I wouldn't have zeroed in on it.

Which is ironic, since I was quoting Fi-maven EW (her post made at 12:11pm, Monday); I didn't choose those words myself.

You're right, though; they do have a more Fe feel.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ It is. Seeing EW addressing those words to Fe users, they don't jump out, but when they are reflected back to Fi users, they do. At least for me.

What resonated better for you?

a.) "consider how your actions affect others" or b.) "consider how a behavior inconveniences others."

Do you find yourself more open to one or the other?

 

[Totenkindly]

Ironically again.... I like (A) better.

*Jenny throws wrenches around the room, wheeee!*

Mostly because I don't see "inconvenience" as being as strong as "affect." Affect seems broader to me, so it includes "inconvenience" to some degree but a host of other things as well... all of which I think needs to be considered.

And I would probably have unconsciously used a word like "impact" instead of "affect."

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ooooh nice! And impact works, especially if one is throwing wrenches around!

-----

Z Buck, I have a massive example for you. Let me know when you are online and I will share it.

 

[Tallulah]

A couple of points
- Having a personal/individual opinion on something doesn't necessarily mean that the opinion is different from the consensus. It just means that that opinion/view/value is reached based on the person's own internal processing, not something that is based on the social norm.
- Even if an individual opinion is different from the norm, we're not talking about 1000 people with 1000 totally differing goals. There will be groups of individuals with a similar, albeit minority view of things. Finding a consensus is not an impossible task (unless you're talking about Middle East Peace, sadly)
- In the worst case scenario where a person has some weird opinion that is totally unique and different from the norm, many times that opinion won't affect or be affected by the majority opinion. I think a couple of Fi-users have already mentioned it, but it's not a black-and-white thing that the individual opinion must always be put to the forefront. We are capable of doing things for the greater good.

So, would you say it's more about being heard than about the action ultimately taken, then? This is what I'm trying to understand--I guess because Fe is kind of an action thing, and I'm trying to get the distinction of what Fi looks like, ideally, in a group setting, if it's as unfettered as an Fi user would like.

There is an implicit assumption in your question that consensus is a good thing, or even a possible thing. And you seem to be redefining the term to include the notion of compromise, when it is (ostensibly) about recognising the contribution and opinion of every individual within a group (including dissenters) - such that everyone IS happy and validated (or gives the appearance of it).

How often is consensus actually required? How often can it be said to be truly unanimous and how often is it achieved through coercion or other manipulation? And if the latter, what value does it have over more arbitrary methods - other than the (deceptive) appearance of group validation? The entire concept is pure Fe (apparently it derives from the Latin term for "feel together"). So, in effect, you are asking Fi to validate a Fe value.

I understand that I'm coming from an Fe assumption--I just have to start there because it's what I know, and hopefully someone can explain to me the difference.

Well, I guess a consensus is required any time a group comes into being, such as starting a forum like this one or starting a school or a club or anything that has members. Voices can be heard, but at a certain point, decisions must be made, or we'd be here into eternity, discussing the same issue and never getting anywhere. I guess what I need, or what I would like to know, for my own understanding, is what a Fi user feels takes the place of a consensus and would be more affirming, but still be effective. At a certain point, people kind of have to decide and move on, don't they? Someone will always not get their way, even if everyone's been heard.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Am I on the right track?

I think it's a good synopsis of what I was getting at also, which is sort of based on my understanding of Jungian functions and my own observations/experience.

 

[Salomé]

I understand that I'm coming from an Fe assumption--I just have to start there because it's what I know, and hopefully someone can explain to me the difference.

Well, I guess a consensus is required any time a group comes into being, such as starting a forum like this one or starting a school or a club or anything that has members. Voices can be heard, but at a certain point, decisions must be made, or we'd be here into eternity, discussing the same issue and never getting anywhere. I guess what I need, or what I would like to know, for my own understanding, is what a Fi user feels takes the place of a consensus and would be more affirming, but still be effective. At a certain point, people kind of have to decide and move on, don't they? Someone will always not get their way, even if everyone's been heard.

Most groups are not governed by consensus though, are they?
Schools have Principals, Clubs have Chairpersons, forums have moderators. This forum certainly doesn't require consensus to make decisions.

As OA mentioned before, Fi isn't always in opposition to the majority - you just rarely get to see its expression unless it is. Much like Ti - we don't do validation, we won't even usually comment unless we disagree with something or we are pointing out a logical inconsistency. Most Fi users aren't going to stick their heels in unless a principle has been violated - in which case you are never going to get a consensus, but you may end up with one less member.

 

[Jaguar]

If we keep it strictly on a Fe vs Fi level however, the discussion is bound to get lost on someone's hangups about their ESFJ mother.. and possibly project that kind of Fe on to an ENFJ. Personally, I happen to see a lot of good about ESFJ moms, but I know they're nothing like ENFJs either. So why discuss it here?

Your thoughts are exactly my own on the matter. People relentlessly apply Fe-Si to all of Fe.
Fe-Ni is not like Fe-Si in combination. There is someone in another thread asking if he is ENFJ or ESFJ and I posted this:

ESFJs are more concerned with tradition, politeness, and emotional currency. ESFJs have trouble thinking outside the box. ESFJs are more prone to being religious. ESFJs are traditionalists. ESFJs can be very pragmatic and unwilling to change, and even hostile to changing the rules or established expectations. "I want to help you. Let me see if I can find something in the rules to let me help you."

ENFJs are more concerned with the future, possibilities, and how best to make someone happy. ENFJs have trouble thinking inside the box. ENFJs are more prone to being spiritual. ENFJs are visionaries. ENFJs can be very unconventional and idealistic, and even hostile to people being unwilling to change the rules to make things right. "Who cares how you're supposed to do it, this guy needs help."

As you can see, Fe-Si and Fe-Ni are quite different, yet far too many people take the Fe-Si description and call it Fe, in general.
(I happen to think a few INFJs in this forum are probably ISFJs in reality, but I digress . . . )

Knowing all of that, I do think it can be quite pointless to have these Fe-Fi threads.
Not to mention, the OP showed me her hand with the words: "let the antics ensue" in her title.
To then feign surprise or make it appear as if she made an innocent observation that these types of threads "upset people," is annoying.
The underlying motivation of this thread is palpable.

 

[PeaceBaby]

As OA mentioned before, Fi isn't always in opposition to the majority - you just rarely get to see its expression unless it is. Much like Ti - we don't do validation, we won't even usually comment unless we disagree with something or we are pointing out a logical inconsistency.

@bold, yes.

Your thoughts are exactly my own on the matter. People relentlessly apply Fe-Si to all of Fe.

I agree with that.

(I happen to think a few INFJs in this forum are probably ISFJs in reality, but I digress . . . )

And likely there many others who are mistyped all over this forum. However, I don't think that makes any discussions pointless; one has to analyze the data further, and try to seek out consistencies. Plus, the more people that decide to participate, the better and clearer those consistencies will seem.

Not to mention, the OP showed me her hand with the words: "let the antics ensue" in her title.
To then feign surprise or make it appear as if she made an innocent observation that these types of threads "upset people," is annoying.
The underlying motivation of this thread is palpable.

This I disagree with. Anticipating some conflict with a "tongue in cheek" comment from the get-go is hardly tantamount to feigning surprise when a small amount flares. You're inferring and assigning a motivation that has no grounds. The whole thread has been overall informative and civil, with intelligent people trying to find common ground amongst ourselves.

 

[Fidelia]

I also agree with what Jag and KDude have said about Fe-Ti being much different than Fe-Si.

I wonder if it would be possible/desired to narrow this discussion down to Fi/Te and Fe/Ti since that encompasses the people interacting here. I really think that bringing in people's ESFJ/ISFJ family members muddies the waters and then a bunch of time is wasted reiterating that Fe is not necessarily about keeping the rules.

It might be interesting to have a similar thread exploring Fe-Si vs Fi-Se...

 

[Fidelia]

Most groups are not governed by consensus though, are they?
Schools have Principals, Clubs have Chairpersons, forums have moderators. This forum certainly doesn't require consensus to make decisions.

As OA mentioned before, Fi isn't always in opposition to the majority - you just rarely get to see its expression unless it is. Much like Ti - we don't do validation, we won't even usually comment unless we disagree with something or we are pointing out a logical inconsistency. Most Fi users aren't going to stick their heels in unless a principle has been violated - in which case you are never going to get a consensus, but you may end up with one less member.

I especially liked the bolded comment here. That helps make more sense to me. It's always seemed to me like Fi never is happy. I guess it's that it only shows itself (in group issues that we're talking about) when there's a problem, not when things are going swimmingly. Is that accurate?

So if consensus is not a goal for you guys, would you say that it's a matter of allowing everyone to be understood before the head person/people make the final decision? I actually don't like the consensus process a lot either. I think it's useful to gather information to be as informed as possible and see things from many points of view beforehand, and then look to find the right decision. Obviously for practical reasons it's good if that also ruffles the fewest feathers possible, although I wouldn't always say that's even a measure of what the right thing to do is at all times. I'm not sure where that leaves me. I know I dislike committees and group work intensely. I'd like to either be a peon or the leader, but not have everyone have completely equal levels of decision-making clout. Don't know where all that fits in with Fe and Fi. It is probably true that part of the reason I feel that way is that I want a good product in the end and do not want to associate my name with something I feel has been poorly done.

 

[Jaguar]

I also agree with what Jag and KDude have said about Fe-Ti being much different than Fe-Si.

I wonder if it would be possible/desired to narrow this discussion down to Fi/Te and Fe/Ti since that encompasses the people interacting here. I really think that bringing in people's ESFJ/ISFJ family members muddies the waters and then a bunch of time is wasted reiterating that Fe is not necessarily about keeping the rules.

It might be interesting to have a similar thread exploring Fe-Si vs Fi-Se...

My comments were about Fe-Ni being different from Fe-Si, not Fe-Ti.
There's no need to change or narrow the thread's scope. I'm not staying in the thread. I just wanted to respond to KDude's comments.

 

[Fidelia]

How do you think Ni affects Fe? I always thought of it being a Fe-Ti thing.

 

[cascadeco]

How do you think Ni affects Fe? I always thought of it being a Fe-Ti thing.

SFJ's have FeTi as well, though, so I've always tended to see the NiFe vs. SiFe to be what should be focused on -- at least in terms of how Fe is embodied by NFJ's vs. SFJ's. There are noticeable differences.

Also agree that many Fe 'behaviors' and stereotypes are in actuality Fe in conjunction with Si, if not Si itself.

But, if we're gonna compare Fi vs. Fe, I suppose that's where it could be more useful to utilize FeTi vs. FiTe. That seems to be the two camps in most of these sorts of threads anyway.