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

[KDude]

If someone claimed to know my "hidden intent", I'd surprise them. edit: I mean, if they knew me fairly well, they could go there. Almost anyone who reacted too quickly was wigging on Si though, I'll say that. Fi has nothing to do with it. I think Fi types could make a good counselors, however. Especially in the sense of seeing potential in people, and generally having a welcoming nature.

 

[MacGuffin]

Fi-users are better at discovering hidden intent than other types. Esp NFPs. They are unsurpassed in this regard, IMO. That's why they make great therapists. They probably DO know your intent/emotional state better than you do. In fact, hidden motives are often quite apparent to others - it is only the self that they are really hidden from (ego defense mechanisms).
Didn't you recently call Wonka out for having a "hidden agenda"? So even weak Fe-users aren't entirely blind to motives that lie beneath the surface.

It's almost always pointless for a Fi-user to insist on their interpretation of hidden motives though - since the other person is too invested in not consciously allowing such an interpretation - otherwise they wouldn't bother hiding the motive from the self in the first place. Mature Fi users will help the other person come to a realization on their own. That's a great and rare gift.

That's great, but mostly irrelevant, since we are talking about when the Fi-user is wrong:

Okay, somewhere in the past few pages I started having flashbacks about experiences I've had with a couple of Fi doms. I have had a few friendships go south because an Fi dom felt like I was suppressing emotions that they could "sense" that they felt like I was ignoring. Where I might have felt some basic frustration at some situation I couldn't control, the Fi dom read it as anger, and reacted as if it must go much deeper than I care to admit. On occasion, they would accuse me of having anger towards them, when 1) in my experience it wasn't anger, just frustration that would easily pass once I ranted a little and 2) it wasn't directed at them at all. And I gotta tell you, the more someone insists I'm feeling something I'm not and insisting I deal with it, the more I realize that person doesn't know me. And that we might have a problem in the friendship.

How does one get the Fi-user to back off and either admit their mistake or simply drop the matter for the sake of the relationship?

 

[skylights]

How does one get the Fi-user to back off and either admit their mistake or simply drop the matter for the sake of the relationship?

tell them that you love them and are not trying to hide anything from them, and they're wrong and then explain to them how you really see it. or tell them that you love them but you really need some time alone.

wording like "back off" and "drop it" really freaks me out because i feel like you're pushing me away without any affirmation that you still care about me and want a relationship.

--

sidenote - i've been trying to be less me-centric lately when it comes to posts but wow. it's frustrating. i'm not sure i totally understand why writing from your own perspective and talking about yourself is considered self-absorbed because ultimately i can only see through my own perspective... and wouldn't everyone else just prefer to talk about themselves anyway, instead of me making guesses?

 

[MacGuffin]

tell them that you love them and are not trying to hide anything from them, and they're wrong and then explain to them how you really see it. or tell them that you love them but you really need some time alone.

wording like "back off" and "drop it" really freaks me out because i feel like you're pushing me away without any affirmation that you still care about me and want a relationship.

Heh, affirmation again!

sidenote - i've been trying to be less me-centric lately when it comes to posts but wow. it's frustrating. i'm not sure i totally understand why writing from your own perspective and talking about yourself is considered self-absorbed because ultimately i can only see through my own perspective... and wouldn't everyone else just prefer to talk about themselves anyway, instead of me making guesses?

Can you step outside yourself and view how you look to others?

 

[Fidelia]

I think it's fine to say how things look from your perspective, skylights. Just explain the thought processes in doing so and what you react to best. At the risk of sounding can-opener-ish, I do much better when I at least understand the process that gets people to different points in their thinking/decision making and I become much more tolerant and flexible. (Incidentally, in other dealings, I feel more secure when I know roughly what to expect from the other person next. I don't need to control their behaviour, so much as be able to have a reasonable prediction of what it might be).

I was finding the same thing as you today, trying to post without using words like productive, solution, results, behaviour, actions, clarifying etc all the time! I realized what a tendancy I have to focus on the words people are saying, their ideas, the thoughts expressed and compliment them, rather than assuring the person themselves of their value to me. It still seems foreign to me, as a compliment about what I say or identification with it is felt as being validation of myself. I just assume the other person is aware that we have mutual respect if I am engaging in detailed conversation with them.

You expressed concern though at appearing self-centred to us. Rather than replacing what seems natural to you, think more along the lines of adding. After you state things about your own experience, ask what it looks like from their perspective. That conveys interest in them.

I think we all can feel when the other person is holding something back (even Fe users). I see better now why it bothers Fi users as much as it does. My main concern when someone holds something back is how it is impacting our relationship, if it's something bad that the person feels about me (remember, we expect others to probe us for answers if they really care, so we do the same!) or if it is keeping us from taking action that will ameliorate the situation. Fi often will state conjecture about why we are not saying everything as if it is fact. That is usually what I react to the worst. It adds to the emotional noise I am attempting to bleed off so that I can talk about what's going on (if there is something). It also makes me feel like the person really doesn't understand me at all. They are also delusionally insisting that they do understand me and will help me, taking on a teachery kind of tone that feels patronizing, yet misinformed. It raises my hackles, kind of like Fe insisting that it knows the one best way for YOU to interact with others, and trying to impose that on you, when it really knows nothing about why you choose to act as you do, understand you sufficiently or what is best for you ultimately.

I think it is actually fairly seldom that I haven't examined my own motives or what I'm not talking about. If I've chosen not to share, it usually is because I am still processing and sorting and need the emotional noise to die down a little bit or else that I need more time for trust to build in our relationship. Giving me space to do that (much like with Fi needing time to sort) will probably result in me talking about the underlying issues much sooner. Also asking questions about what I talk about, instead of making assertions about how I feel and why is something that I will respond to more openly and with less resistance.

 

[Tallulah]

^^

Agreed; also, it sometimes helps if someone tells me that I don't have to share if it makes me feel uncomfortable. That makes me feel like they respect my wishes and boundaries and don't take them personally. And then it makes me feel more comfortable opening up.

 

[Salomé]

That's great, but mostly irrelevant, since we are talking about when the Fi-user is wrong

You entirely missed the point of my post, and all the other answers you were given. Tallulah's post doesn't prove anything, though I'd give her more credit for understanding her own emotional state than someone like you - who a) frequently admits that you have no idea what you're feeling b) represses anger c) frequently acts in passive-aggressive ways

You think it's arrogant that a Fi-dom insists they know your emotional state when you don't, but think about it. If you live your whole life without a mirror, who is best able to describe what you look like: you? Or someone looking at you? What if you're blind? Then you take it on faith that someone with vision knows more than you do about what your world looks like. Do you think emotions are more intangible than lightwaves? They're not. It's all energy. If you go through life as a person permeable to the emotional states of others (as NFPs do) then you can sense them as strongly as you can see the colour of their eyes. Just because we don't have a solid scientific explanation for it yet, doesn't mean it's not a real phenomenon. Many healing therapies rely on the therapist monitoring their own emotional or physical state and recognising that they are experiencing their client's symptoms.

That doesn't mean Fi-doms don't suffer errors of judgement at times - Ne in particular, can lead them astray - but chances are, as an INTP, they have a better read on your emotional state than you do. And even if they have it wrong, it's still part of their reality, part of how they experience you, you can't just discount it as "they're wrong". You might as well ask them to ignore gravity.

How does one get the Fi-user to back off and either admit their mistake or simply drop the matter for the sake of the relationship?

You're asking the wrong question. Strategizing, instead of trying to understand. If you don't respect and listen to the Fi-user and acknowledge that their reality is different from yours, you don't have a relationship.

 

[Amargith]

I gotto say..I stayed out of this thread purposefully, as I've participated in so many Fi/Fe threads, I figured people would be tired of hearing my rants

But this one is definitely filled with wisdom. I feel we're finally getting to a point where we can concretely almost put together a manual on Fe and on Fi, and potentially are on the brink of finding that overlapping area where nobody gets ruffled feathers


@Mac: there are at least 4 reasons an Fi-user's reading can be off (personal emotional instability, not having enough back info, laziness aka not doing your research before jumping to conclusions, inexperience, ...)

However. Chances are that, unless they're full blown emotionally unstable, they are on to something. They might not be accurate when they guess as to what it is, but there's something there. It's like ignoring that whining puppy they were talking about before. Me, I always compared it to a frigging bell going off, which I cannot ignore, and the other person doesn't seem to hear. All I want from you is to acknowledge the fact that there *is* in fact a bell. If you're going to insist that there is no bell and I must be insane, I'm going to go mental. For real. Then I'll start wondering what possible reasons you could have for lying to me, hiding the truth for me and why that bell is going off at all. And that's where you get inaccurate. Since there is no way for me to get more information on the bell, I'm going to have to resort to Ne to consider which options are all available, and there will be some crazy ones in there!

Also, when dealing with a rather inexperienced Fi-user, or one that's off their game for some reason, they might mistake certain emotions that have a similar vibe for another. For instance, momentary frustration can look like full blown rage, especially in a debate (like Tallullah talked about). Unfortunately, as Ti-users tend to *like* precision, they refuse the explanation or indication the Fi-user is given as being correct or truthful, and meanwhile imho, tossing the baby out there with the bathwater. Ok, maybe it's not full blown rage, but there *is* something there...plz plz plz take a moment and either explain to us why it's irrelevant/not important/should keep ringing/be ignored or is otherwise covered already and a non-issue, or turn it off coz it is driving me crazy :steam: (honestly, let's see you ignore a frigging smoke-alarm going off right next to you and keep drinking tea as if nothing's going on *pouts*)

You can see why at this point you won't get an appology from the Fi-user. You're demanding them to say out loud that there *is* no bell and appologize for even suggesting you are hiding a bell from them. Ironically, *that* would be lying. And most Fi-users are kinda truth-oriented, especially on these things.Dropping it is hard, as that bell is still going. Plz turn it off. Plz, or let us at least help you turn it off. We're worried about you

/rant

 

[Xellotath]

[This is a bit of a "meta" post, apologies in advance if it doesn't seem immediately constructive.]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread for awhile.
I felt relieved upon reading Morgan's lovely post - until a sense of dread and deja-vu hit me:

This thread is kind of useless. Or at least, just as "useful" as any other Fe vs Fi thread. Some affirm, some deny, some re-work the definitions... (even though EW presented a supposedly "clear" workable definition.) EW thought that by organizing our entries under a common format we could avoid the pitfalls of most collective contributions regarding the feeling functions. In other words, this place should be renamed "Hey, all the other Fe/Fi threads went nowhere, lets pretend Te will fix the problem!". Perhaps she didn't put much thought into it or was trying to embody the optimistic "Fe/Fi conflicts are resolved with the help of other functions"-narrative, but I try not to pretend I'm psychic, nor is this intended as an ad-hominem in any shape or form, EW seems really nice and she gave the whole thing a fair try.

And my cynicism might be due to watching my tertiary function fail, but I'm starting to think there is simply no resolution. In fact, the mutual and persistent deterring between the two feeling functions is giving me space to seriously doubt other people's so-called ability to switch from function to function (and with it, a large part of the supposed self-observatory skills). You know, like those people who say "Lol, I used my Fi, then my Fe, then my Te, then my Ne and a hint of Ni in X situation and I solved it all!".

Are my standards too high? This thread is supposed to be a "guide". Almost sticky-worthy. But I'm getting the impression that maybe its more useful to have a "Fe Vs Fi" sticky, without the ambitions of documenting anything, much less bridging anything. Just a space for people to lash out (within TypeC guidelines of course).

What if we're stuck in our ridiculous little 4-function sets? Perhaps its my Perceiver nature, but that concept intrinsically terrifies me.

The more the functions instinctively repel one another, the more permanent and irreparable our typological condition seems.

I wonder if I'm alone entertaining that idea... (I probably am)

 

[William K]

And my cynicism might be due to watching my tertiary function fail, but I'm starting to think there is simply no resolution.

Well, sometimes the journey is more important the ultimate destination

 

[Seymour]

Personally, I think this thread has been helpful. I'd agree that we're never going to understand foreign perspectives perfectly... and as we get closer sometimes the chasm of understanding seems wider. Still, even cognitive understanding at a remove is helpful for having a model for dealing with misunderstandings as they arise.

As far as MacGuffin's issue with "how do you get the Fi-er to back off when they mistakenly think you feel X?" Let's look at it from each perspective.

The Fi-er

You, the Fi-er, have perceived emotion X (correctly or incorrectly) from the other party. The other party has told the you that you are mistaken. Ignoring minor misidentifications (target or minor feeling variation), there are three main options:

• The person is not feeling X on any level
• The person is feeling X and doesn't want to talk about it
• The person is feeling X, but isn't aware of it

So, in the context of the interaction I think it doesn't matter in practice (for you, the Fi-er) which of the above is true. You've already let them know they seem to be feeling X. Just pushing anyway is more likely to make the other person angry and defensive than anything else, especially if you are correct. So, saying something like (depending on the nature of the relationship) "okay, I'm sorry I'm picking up X from you mistakenly... I'll try to keep in mind you are not feeling X, but if I slip up or need reassurance that's the case, I hope you won't mind."

That way they know that you are taking their evaluation of their mental state seriously. Meanwhile, you can make a mental note and try to analyze why you think they were feeling X. It's possible it's just mannerisms or interaction style. It's also possible years later they will say, "I was so angry back then and so unaware of it!" Unless you are their therapist, it's not your job to get them to acknowledge their emotions—assuming you are correct in the first place. Some people have whole defensive systems build up around denying their anger or fear (for example)... forcing acknowledgement without laying a lot of groundwork first is likely to be bad for all parties concerned. And, again, you could be wrong.

The Other Party

So, you are the other party and this obnoxious Fi-er has just tried to tell you how you feel (like they'd know?!?). You are certain they are wrong, so how to get them to back off and leave you the hell alone...

Perhaps saying something on the order of, "I'm honestly, to the best of my knowledge, not experiencing X. If there's something I'm doing that is sending out that message, let me know so I can either try to explain or modify that behavior. Meanwhile, let's get back to doing [whatever you were doing before]. If you need a reassurance or reminder that I'm not actually feeling X (particularly at you), let me know."

So you've communicated that you understand that are perceiving something (something that isn't true, in this case), that it may be an ongoing irritant for them, and that you'd rather get back to whatever you were doing before. If they keep pushing, you can respond appropriately at that point, perhaps by pointing out how insulting they would find it if someone kept insisting they were feeling something they weren't feeling. (As Fi-ers, that'll throw 'em for a loop.)

Meanwhile, if you get the same feedback from multiple people ("you seem awfully angry"), keep that in mind. Maybe it's just your mannerisms or a specific behavior you could adjust (then you wouldn't have to deal with misreadings from obnoxious Fi-ers)... or it's not utterly impossible they are right on some level. That feedback is a data point (right or wrong) so keep your eyes open to see if a pattern emerges. If the only pattern that emerges is that Fi-ers are whacked... there's some truth in that, too.

 

[Totenkindly]

The more the functions instinctively repel one another, the more permanent and irreparable our typological condition seems. I wonder if I'm alone entertaining that idea... (I probably am)

Probably not, although I think maybe the feelings of futility are being driven by focusing SO much on the cog functions as the determining factor.

I sort of dropped the thread because I'm tired, but also because I don't like deconstructing everything to functions so much... We're not functions, we're people. Sometimes it's worthwhile to examine a particular function (just like the science method of isolating something in order to examine a smaller and more management scenario), but the funny thing is that I think personal choice and intent, along with a lack of hubris, impacts ability to relate... and that is not confined to type.

Two of the the most important people in my life are Fi-intensive (one in primary, one in tertiary but very strong), and while we've had our conflicts, we just have commitments to each other as people... and one thing that plays a large role into things is just trusting motivations or making a choice to trust motivations even if it's not clear at the time, or making a choice to stay committed to our relationship(s) regardless, assuming we can work through things.

Sometimes we butt heads... and admittedly, they both bitch to me about far more stringent users of the social-network approach to life... but I've always been able to communicate. I also have a number of Fi people here who I deal with just fine and who feel close too. It's only a few that I have issues with... and type might not be the primary problem.

I think intellectualizing things too much increased the distance and confuses the matter. The questions really align more like this: (1) Do I trust them, instinctively? (2) Do I choose to trust them even if I'm not sure? (3) Do I accept that maybe not everything I feel and perceive is accurate, AKA "I'm Just a Bozo on this Bus too" (4) Do I believe I can extricate myself from a situation where I'm mistakenly trusted someone, so I can afford to take the risk? (5) Is it WORTH taking a risk on people or is that too dangerous for me?

Stuff like that.

I really hate getting into fatalistic mindsets, although I'm capable of it and am struggling right now with a few other relationships (interesting, more of them Fe people) where the rift seems entrenched and impossible to cross because of inherent perspectives. But even with those people, I'm feeling like if they were more open to step outside their own perspective for a bit and flex, we could accommodate each other. My mom and I had a good talk yesterday where she is making steps toward me not based on changing her worldview... but because she loves me and wants me in her life.

Is that sort of commitment really the sort of issue here? We don't HAVE to get someone or be aligned with them intrinsically in order to still be committed to each other.

 

[skylights]

Or at least, just as "useful" as any other Fe vs Fi thread. Some affirm, some deny, some re-work the definitions... (even though EW presented a supposedly "clear" workable definition.) [...] In other words, this place should be renamed "Hey, all the other Fe/Fi threads went nowhere, lets pretend Te will fix the problem!".

yeah. i agree with you about the thread not really being a guide at all - and that the initial intention was Te let's clear this up once and for all - which i also agree is not gonna happen. the format was doomed because, let's face it, few people actually think in that format. but at the same time, maybe that motivation was somewhat useful in that this thread has been significantly more peaceful and productive than quite a few recent ones. i figure at the very least it's good in the effort to differentiate from the turmoil of the others.

also, i think it's important to consider that even though the Fe-Fi threads seem redundant and recurrent, what each individual takes away from them is something different... this thread has been revolutionary for me personally, as i imagine other threads have been in the past for others. so yeah, it's not The Definitive Guide for everyone and that's actually a fairly presumptuous title on some levels... but it kind of has been A Definitive guide (for me). so i think that possibility always exists, that it will be the thread that changes everything for someone.

The more the functions instinctively repel one another, the more permanent and irreparable our typological condition seems.

I wonder if I'm alone entertaining that idea... (I probably am)

no. i had this thought last night too upon reading a Fe-er's explanation of their distancing behavior as disgust of the other person - which is a concept that is so foreign and terrifying to me that i began to think that reconciling is perhaps impossible. after a while i calmed down and started looking for alternatives to that thought though, because - well, honestly - i just didn't like it.

after a bit of thought i've come to an idea that maybe it is hard to leave our perspectives - maybe to the point of impossible - but at the same time, i feel like i'm learning another language. sure there are a lot of different dialects, and no one speaks it exactly the same, but there are some really general rules that, if i go by, the other side can understand me better. i'm still probably going to think in Fi-ish for the rest of my life, but at least i can try to translate into some form of Fe-ish to get my intentions across. and the most curious thing is that we're really trying to get at the same fundamental things - truth, trust, care, comfort, security, love - but we're going about it in different ways. so i don't think it's fundamentally irreconcilable. we just have to be willing to figure out how the other person is going about trying to get those things, so our opposite methods stop impeding one another.

I sort of dropped the thread because I'm tired, but also because I don't like deconstructing everything to functions so much... We're not functions, we're people. Sometimes it's worthwhile to examine a particular function (just like the science method of isolating something in order to examine a smaller and more management scenario), but the funny thing is that I think personal choice and intent, along with a lack of hubris, impacts ability to relate... and that is not confined to type.

yeahh. i'm bad about this actually, sorry thread. i think because it's all loose association and not necessarily type-determined in my head - more like correlations - it's no big deal to talk like that. but others can read it as very definitive, i suppose. i agree with you that everything should not and can not be reduced to function alone.

 

[Salomé]

The more the functions instinctively repel one another, the more permanent and irreparable our typological condition seems.

I wonder if I'm alone entertaining that idea... (I probably am)

I don't find it depressing. I find it all very interesting. This thread has really opened my eyes to a lot of stuff I was blind to before because I took a great deal for granted. It has crystallized vague, fuzzy impressions into a more solid structure that makes sense to me. I think understanding someone else's viewpoint is always a good thing, even if you can never totally embrace it as your own.

We don't HAVE to get someone or be aligned with them intrinsically in order to still be committed to each other.

Hahaha! But WE do!

 

[Tallulah]

I don't find it depressing. I find it all very interesting. This thread has really opened my eyes to a lot of stuff I was blind to before because I took a great deal for granted. It has crystallized vague, fuzzy impressions into a more solid structure that makes sense to me. I think understanding someone else's viewpoint is always a good thing, even if you can never totally embrace it as your own.

This, and what skylights said.

I'm not (in my mind, anyway) reducing everything to cognitive functions, but it's the easiest way to talk about it. It's a simplistic shorthand. At least now I have a general idea of where Fi folks are coming from, and I won't be so quick to be irritated when our methods clash. It's the lack of understanding of what it's like for them that makes me default to judging them by my own processes and preferences, obviously incorrectly.

I think this thread has been most helpful, and I believe that even when it looks like we're not listening to each other (because we're talking about ourselves) we really are. I think it's definitely sticky-worthy.

 

[Totenkindly]

Hahaha! But WE do!

"We?"

I've known Fi and Fe people who can make commitments without understanding the other side implicitly because they are committed to the relationship regardless. Maybe you have not seen it, but I have. So I'm going to have to say that any sort of blanket-statement inferring that all Fe OR Fi can be labeled like this is a statement that I think experiential knowledge has dismissed.

I do prefer to actually understand people, though, if I get a choice, and in terms of a strongly felt relationship? It ain't gonna happen unless I do. I'll maintain ties, but they aren't going to be my best friends and confidantes.

But that is just me, and I'm not going to speak for an entire sector of personality type.

 

[Lauren]

I have to agree it's hard to reach a consensus. It takes a great investment of time and energy. It's not the most expedient way, by any stretch. But, when people feel heard, feel known, you get the best out of everyone.



Ah, sim. Well, we have to have rules because without them, the ensuing chaos would be a menace to hearing all voices and getting anything accomplished in this world. One must learn to abide by them, but to be aware there are times for leniency and times to even break them.

The forum is not a democracy where all voices are welcomed to help deliver a verdict. I think the mods did the best they could in a difficult situation.

There's the need to have a balance, between the needs of the many, or the few, or the one. (How Star Trekky of me!) Each situation brings unique challenges to achieve fairness, justice and equity, no?

I've thought about your Star Trekky reference recently while in a situation where I was very aware of the needs of the individuals in the group. In order for the people I worked with to not be jealous of a close friendship I had with another member of the "team," I made sure I talked with almost everyone and did not give out an air of exclusivity. I had to weigh the needs of the many (Fe) against my own individual needs and the needs of the one (my friend). Deciding for the needs of the many wasn't difficult for me as this benefits the needs of the one. But there were times when I just wanted to be myself and to not hide the close friendship. What I mean is that I didn't feel I needed to completely submerge it. Perhaps this is Fi. I dislike being inauthentic and paying lip service to the group constantly. I'll do it because others expect and need it (and I also because being expansive and hearing others thoughts, ideas, and feelings is a good thing: everyone wants to be heard and feel that their feelings are being considered). This runs counter to my love for an intimate one-to-one connection, and my need to be heard as an individual; however, when you have a generous loving connection with one other person, it elevates everyone that comes in contact with it. So, the whole group benefits in that sense.

 

[Salomé]

"We?"

Fe likes universal statements. It amused me. I have an odd sense of humour.

You're right of course. (Kinda)

Someone loving me and wanting me in their life means next to nothing to me if I don't return the sentiment. Even if that person is biologically related to me. I am unmoved by the affections of others. Well, occasionally startled, but not into reciprocity. The whole "I like you 'cos you like me" thing? I never got that...
Commitment is always contingent for me, never unconditional.

 

[Fidelia]

I feel with these threads that although not everything can be reduced to functions, I learn a little more each time about how different combinations of functions affect our viewpoints and natural course of action. I also have found I've learned a lot about the similarities between different types of extraverted function and different types of introverted function.

Although these threads may never reach any definitive conclusions, I found that the last time I discussed Fe vs Fi, I came away with a much better understanding that Fe and Fi have very different needs to feel appreciated or loved and a few ideas of what not to do anyway. This thread has also been enlightening to me a bit to provide me with some of the thought process behind the viewpoints Fi has. I don't think it will ever be natural to me, but it's like visiting a foreign country and suddenly being able to pick out some commonly used phrases and basic cultural customs. It makes you feel more secure while you're there. That allows you to keep your eyes and ears open to learn more, rather than being so focussed on how uncomfortable you feel or how strange their customs seem to you. When someone explains why in some cultures what certain innocuous hand gestures in your own convey there, or why it's bad to give someone an odd amount of flowers as is customary here, or that you need to refuse something several times or else it appears you are being presumtuous and grabby, it puts me more at ease and it doesn't seem like such an odd thing if there is really a reason behind it.

I think I'll still struggle to remember some things in the heat of the moment, but I am more likely to realize where I've gone wrong sooner and have more ideas about what I can do to diffuse the situation, to make my intent more understandable, or to convey to the other person that I value them.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I find it a strange accusation that Fi people insist that other people feel a certain way and ascribe emotion where there is none. I've heard that on these boards before, but frankly, never in my real life. In my life, I find myself on the other end - the one having emotion projected onto them, the one having people insist I must feel a certain way when I do not. Like many introverts, I tend to fall into moments of thoughtful repose where I have a "neutral" face and people will assume I must be upset or angry or unfriendly or whatever....I used to think it was Es, especially SFJs, doing this to me.

I now wonder if this is a perceiving issue and little to do with Fe/Fi.