[Jungian Cognitive Functions] An Fe-Fi negative convo

[proteanmix]

Caring because you barely know a person is not magnanimity; caring in spite of what you know about a person is magnanimity.

Exactly. It's safer to care from a distance because nothing splatters on you and you don't get dirty. It's get so much more complicated once you find out more about the situation and still try to be there.

 

[cascadeco]

if this family knew what would be said about them to others, would they have taken her offer? it seems like an unfair situation, to be offered a safe haven, but to have it become a theatre in which your failures are noted and broadcast behind your back. i assume that was not the church woman's intent, nor did it start out that way - it just progressively moved that way as she felt like her gift was more and more abused.

and the church woman seems to have decided that it is her responsibility to take care of this family - as evidenced by her desire to continue checking in on them... but she has also clearly decided that there are boundaries to what she will do to help. certainly it is her right to not give any more than she wants to give, but it seems unfair to place the blame on the family for her choice to extend that gift of living space to them (after all, she offered; the family did not even ask). if she no longer wanted to extend her offer, that's her right, and it's appropriate to ask them to leave, but it is relatively unkind to give them a single week to make arrangements. i don't think anyone can deny that she was generous, but it came with so many strings attached...

I think I view things a bit oppositely, but perhaps this is where a difference in Fe/Fi approach is truly there. If someone extended their home or help, I wouldn't for the life of me think that it would ever be on my terms, or that I was free to do what I wanted or dictate the nuances or terms of how it would play out. I would feel absolutely *horrible* NOT doing everything in my power to make sure I'm not inconveniencing the other person. Because in my mind, the other person is the one extending themselves by offering their help/service - so why in the world would I think I had the right to take that generous offer and then go about things the way I'd go about them? I'm in their space, so to speak, so I'll respect their personality / rules, and I wouldn't begrudge those or think they're harsh - because they have a right to have those, in their own space.

Should they communicate the terms? Absolutely - and if they don't, it falls on them if things get messy because the communication never happened to begin with.

But I don't really understand this concept of a 'safe haven' /no strings attached (or rather.. too many strings attached) thing. The offerer to me shouldn't be the one who bends to accommodate the accepter of the offer, since it's the offerer who's sacrificing some aspect of their life in the first place -- it's the accepter who should be flexing, and if the 'terms' of the offer are unacceptable to them, then they'll need to find another alternative.

I mean, sure... some compassion and understanding are needed if the other person has trouble adjusting to things, so I think some sort of balance is needed and I'm not saying the giver/offerer should be miltant/rigid and such, but I'm more not understanding how someone could accept an offer of help and it not occur to them that they're in someone elses' space and therefore that means they can't just assume they can go their merry way as if they were still on their own.

 

[sculpting]

Protean. Thank you for bring me back from the edge of a frothing Fi attack of insanity regarding orangey's post. Your suggestions are actually very reasonable and useful. Sorry orangey I was married to an ISTP for 8 years....it gave me the toughest skin you can get for an ENFP, not a drma queen by far, but your post was exceptionally offensive in many ways.

When I help another I always do so with the expectation of never seeing the money again. I give them the gift of my trust. Seems damned stupid, but it works on other Fi users. Perhaps this is how we manipulate each other-via those expectations of honor and trust. Perhaps this is why the interaction style proposed by orangey strikes such a nerve in me. Innately you respect the other and you assume best intent. Your actions and forgiveness become the lesson that is passed on. Now this is all the pure Fi stuff and not realistic, so you round it out with some Te safe guards.

Note I paid her bill...not just gave her cash. I actually live about 200 miles away so I cant directly influence this women's life on a daily basis. If I was closer I would actually write up lists, looks up forms, help her with budgets. I would point out things she could do to be a better parent in terms not of her failings or behind her back but in a very direct open way. I'd pick the most important lessons and focus on them-proper health care, financial responsibility, accountability, planning.

If she used money to buy shoes? Well the first time she'd get a lecture. "Do you really care about your kids? Do you understand that you took money meant for their food and spent it on shoes? Do you understand that was wrong and not real clever? Do I need to explain why that was wrong and doesnt make any sense? Let me help you understand how to better spend your money and prioritize what is importan tnot simply what you like" Explanations and forgiveness would follow. If the pattern repeated, aid would stop. It seems real harsh, but if you keep offering help to someone who willfully chooses to not be accountable-after being educated-to keep helping is to enable them. They may need to suffer a bit of hardship to become self motivating.

Some people dont learn...it does make me wonder if we didnt offer social systems of help and support-like welfare-would it force these people to become motivated themselves and learn accountability? (No values here, just thoughts) My sis represents the worst of the worst, and abuses social programs endlessly-because she has never been forced to hit bottom. This family-in spite of the issues-just seems ignorant and uneducated-like the woman Fidelia mentioned. They dont seem to abusive in the way my sister is, so I am loathe to assume the worst of them I suppose.

 

[Randomnity]

I have 30 sec Orangey-but in bold above....That is your Ti...the couple NEEDS this Te

EDIT: Um. Oh my god. I didnt get to finish reading the rest of your post before. Jesus Christ. Wow. Jesus Christ. It makes my skin crawl. The parts in bold especially. Jesus Christ Orangey.

You know, if we're talking about personal feelings here, your condemnation of this woman makes my skin crawl.

She's disgusted by this woman for not raising her kids in a healthy environment, and talking behind her back to you about her disgust (privately).

You're disgusted by her for saying that this woman isn't raising her kids in a healthy environment, and talking behind her back to us about your digust (to everyone on the internet).

How, exactly, do you have the moral high ground here???

edit: I think it's really interesting that you're "loathe to assume the worst" about this isfp who has been shown to be irresponsible, neglectful etc but you're so very quick to assume dark motives for the woman who's been partially responsible for all this charity, helping the family improve their situation. It's almost like by being good to the family, she damns herself by raising your expectations for some reason....

 

[Orangey]

Sorry orangey I was married to an ISTP for 8 years....it gave me the toughest skin you can get for an ENFP, not a drma queen by far, but your post was exceptionally offensive in many ways.

So what?

When I help another I always do so with the expectation of never seeing the money again. I give them the gift of my trust. Seems damned stupid, but it works on other Fi users. Perhaps this is how we manipulate each other-via those expectations of honor and trust. Perhaps this is why the interaction style proposed by orangey strikes such a nerve in me. Innately you respect the other and you assume best intent. Your actions and forgiveness become the lesson that is passed on. Now this is all the pure Fi stuff and not realistic, so you round it out with some Te safe guards.

I have never proposed any interaction style. I've simply asked why respecting one's beneficiary is necessary for the act of giving to be considered valuable.

Note I paid her bill...not just gave her cash. I actually live about 200 miles away so I cant directly influence this women's life on a daily basis. If I was closer I would actually write up lists, looks up forms, help her with budgets. I would point out things she could do to be a better parent in terms not of her failings or behind her back but in a very direct open way. I'd pick the most important lessons and focus on them-proper health care, financial responsibility, accountability, planning.

No one said that you wouldn't help them more if you could. It's just been suggested that, until you've experienced being knee-deep helping this family, which you haven't, perhaps you should reserve judgment on the "ISTP" woman's venting/ranting.

 

[sculpting]

I think I view things a bit oppositely, but perhaps this is where a difference in Fe/Fi approach is truly there. If someone extended their home or help, I wouldn't for the life of me think that it would ever be on my terms, or that I was free to do what I wanted or dictate the nuances or terms of how it would play out. I would feel absolutely *horrible* NOT doing everything in my power to make sure I'm not inconveniencing the other person. Because in my mind, the other person is the one extending themselves by offering their help/service - so why in the world would I think I had the right to take that generous offer and then go about things the way I'd go about them? I'm in their space, so to speak, so I'll respect their personality / rules, and I wouldn't begrudge those or think they're harsh - because they have a right to have those, in their own space.

Should they communicate the terms? Absolutely - and if they don't, it falls on them if things get messy because the communication never happened to begin with.

But I don't really understand this concept of a 'safe haven' /no strings attached (or rather.. too many strings attached) thing. The offerer to me shouldn't be the one who bends to accommodate the accepter of the offer, since it's the offerer who's sacrificing some aspect of their life in the first place -- it's the accepter who should be flexing, and if the 'terms' of the offer are unacceptable to them, then they'll need to find another alternative.

I mean, sure... some compassion and understanding are needed if the other person has trouble adjusting to things, so I think some sort of balance is needed and I'm not saying the giver/offerer should be miltant/rigid and such, but I'm more not understanding how someone could accept an offer of help and it not occur to them that they're in someone elses' space and therefore that means they can't just assume they can go their merry way as if they were still on their own.

Cascadco-I think you have some really awesome points I find myself agreeing with you-just differently.

I think it is the same old symmetry that keeps popping up over and over again-Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi....I am afraid. On one hand it is annoying, but on another it depersonalizies the scenario so that it can be evaluated a bit more analytically I suppose.

I expect the Fi part is the "no strings attached" which will be followed by Te obligations. Assuming it is an FP family. You can tell me what to do, but dont tell me how to feel or what I feel. The family seemed willing to comply-but they needed to have the requirements stated in a very direct way-a Te list of what the rules were and what expectations were required. The communication error you mentioned occurred. As Fidelia noted, a more organized outlined approach would have prevented much of the stress in the interaction.

 

[proteanmix]

When I help another I always do so with the expectation of never seeing the money again. I give them the gift of my trust. Seems damned stupid, but it works on other Fi users. Perhaps this is how we manipulate each other-via those expectations of honor and trust. Perhaps this is why the interaction style proposed by orangey strikes such a nerve in me. Innately you respect the other and you assume best intent. Your actions and forgiveness become the lesson that is passed on. Now this is all the pure Fi stuff and not realistic, so you round it out with some Te safe guards.

This is why I thought you don't give homeless cash, you give them food or clothes because you don't know if they'll actually use the money for necessities.

And I don't believe that when giving money to Fi users they automatically do the right thing with the money and buy necessities. This is what I'm saying about having some discernment...this does come across as naive to me. I'm sorry it does. I don't just give people money trusting that they'll do the right thing.

I think it was last year a woman gave a homeless man her credit card to buy necessities for himself and he returned the card. The reason why it made the news is because it's a rarity. I decided to look up this woman a little more and found out that she was a marketing executive who made good money. She could have canceled the card at any time, claimed it was stolen, and wouldn't have to pay a dime. I wondered to myself, wow, did this woman really put herself out on a limb to help this man? It doesn't negate the good she did, but to me it did cast a shadow on her benevolence. I get it, why you would question the sincerity of someone's generosity based on what your MIL said. This is where I start balancing and weighing what really matters.

If you think it's hypocritical to help someone and be critical of them would it be better for the help not to be given at all?

Note I paid her bill...not just gave her cash. I actually live about 200 miles away so I cant directly influence this women's life on a daily basis. If I was closer I would actually write up lists, looks up forms, help her with budgets. I would point out things she could do to be a better parent in terms not of her failings or behind her back but in a very direct open way. I'd pick the most important lessons and focus on them-proper health care, financial responsibility, accountability, planning.

What does you being 200 miles away have to do with this? We're in the 21st century, distance doesn't matter. I'm sorry if I come across as niggling and harsh but I feel like if you really wanted to help, you would and could. You castigate and demonize the ISTP and her Fe but you're not even in the hot zone. Get her a prepaid phone and ask if she's available to talk once a week or every two weeks. Ask if she has access to a library and public computers and hence the internet. You can create an excel document with a basic budget and put it on Google Docs to share with her. You can walk her through it, ask her to plug in whatever income and expenses she has. You can send her to websites that she can plug the numbers in to figure out her expenses like this http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/50-30-20-budget.aspx?vv=900.

You being 200 miles away is imaginary. At the very least, I'm almost positive she would welcome a listening ear to talk to, someone to at least share her hardships with and encouragement that she can get through this. Can you at least offer this?

Are you willing to go that far? Is that too much work for you or too involved? This is getting your hands dirty. You don't need to feel the warm fuzzies towards this woman to do this.

If she used money to buy shoes? Well the first time she'd get a lecture. "Do you really care about your kids? Do you understand that you took money meant for their food and spent it on shoes? Do you understand that was wrong and not real clever? Do I need to explain why that was wrong and doesnt make any sense? Let me help you understand how to better spend your money and prioritize what is importan tnot simply what you like" Explanations and forgiveness would follow. If the pattern repeated, aid would stop. It seems real harsh, but if you keep offering help to someone who willfully chooses to not be accountable-after being educated-to keep helping is to enable them. They may need to suffer a bit of hardship to become self motivating.

Agree with this.

Some people dont learn...it does make me wonder if we didnt offer social systems of help and support-like welfare-would it force these people to become motivated themselves and learn accountability? (No values here, just thoughts) My sis represents the worst of the worst, and abuses social programs endlessly-because she has never been forced to hit bottom. This family-in spite of the issues-just seems ignorant and uneducated-like the woman Fidelia mentioned. They dont seem to abusive in the way my sister is, so I am loathe to assume the worst of them I suppose.

Agree again. How do you distinguish abusers from those who have fallen simply fallen on hard times or those ignorant of basic life skills? But that's not what you said in your OP, and I don't know how much detail you have into the situation once again seeing from afar is different from being in the situation yourself.

 

[copperfish17]

Everything Orangey, proteanmix, and cascadeco said.

At this point it all boils down to "doing." Are you, OP, going to get serious about helping the ISFP and her family in some fundamental ways? If not, I think it would be wise to just live and let live.

 

[uumlau]

Third, why is it necessary, in the first place, for the ISTP lady to respect the ISFP lady in order to give her aid? Why is that an expectation of her giving? One can maintain civil interaction without sharing mutual respect, and respect is something that has to be earned anyway. So why, especially given the description of the ISFP lady's ignorance, should the ISTP lady respect her? What has she done to earn it?

This is one of the key areas where I've observed Fe/Ti and Te/Fi to conflict. "Respect" appears means something very different for each.

The Fe/Ti version appears to align with notions of being credentialed, trustworthy, of having to earn status/position much as one earns money.

The Te/Fi version appears to be more subjective, that "respect" isn't something "earned by others," but rather an attitude that one inculcates in oneself. One respects life, one respects others as human beings, one respects others' rights. That respect is much as Jesus described love, that one should love one's enemies, not just one's friends and family.

Notice how this relates to F being introverted or extroverted. When extroverted, "respect" is a seemingly objective value that is earned or lost based on one's interactions with other people. When introverted, it is about one's own attitude toward the world. These observations are why I see what appears to be a typological pattern.

These are two very different usages of the word. The Fe/Ti usage equates "respect" with admiration and esteem. The Te/Fi usage doesn't exclude admiration or esteem, but also includes the more neutral "human decency" version of respect, an acknowledgment that others are different, and that even if one doesn't like the other person, there are still boundaries that one doesn't cross.

Also interesting is how these two understandings handle "disrespect." The "admiration" version of respect seems to think it's OK to be disrespectful (to whatever socially acceptable degree) to those who haven't earned respect, yet. The "human decency" version of respect appears to reserve disrespect for those who have "earned" disrespect - those who appear to be unrepentently bad in whatever regard one is measuring respect.

Even if there is no real typological link to Te/Fi and Fe/Ti, it's still helpful to note that one should listen for which version of respect is being used, because the consequences and values implied by each are rather different.

 

[Orangey]

These are two very different usages of the word. The Fe/Ti usage equates "respect" with admiration and esteem. The Te/Fi usage doesn't exclude admiration or esteem, but also includes the more neutral "human decency" version of respect, an acknowledgment that others are different, and that even if one doesn't like the other person, there are still boundaries that one doesn't cross.

Also interesting is how these two understandings handle "disrespect." The "admiration" version of respect seems to think it's OK to be disrespectful (to whatever socially acceptable degree) to those who haven't earned respect, yet. The "human decency" version of respect appears to reserve disrespect for those who have "earned" disrespect - those who appear to be unrepentently bad in whatever regard one is measuring respect.

The two bolded things stand out as incorrect, at least for me. One can still observe the common civilities required by casual interaction without sharing mutual respect, as I said before. This means that there is (1) a common level of civility (or social show of respect) that is observed independent of one's level of felt respect for the other, and (2) that because of (1), it is not okay to act disrespectful because you personally do not feel that you respect someone.

 

[Randomnity]

This is one of the key areas where I've observed Fe/Ti and Te/Fi to conflict. "Respect" appears means something very different for each.

The Fe/Ti version appears to align with notions of being credentialed, trustworthy, of having to earn status/position much as one earns money.

The Te/Fi version appears to be more subjective, that "respect" isn't something "earned by others," but rather an attitude that one inculcates in oneself. One respects life, one respects others as human beings, one respects others' rights. That respect is much as Jesus described love, that one should love one's enemies, not just one's friends and family.

I remember arguing this with an INTJ a long time ago, but he was on the side of "respect has to be earned and very few people get that far for me" and I was on the side of "every human deserves basic respect!" So I'm not sure it's necessarily a Fe/Ti-Ti/Fi conflict as we would both be on the wrong side there (both anomalies, maybe).

Now both definitions coexist fairly equally in my mind, as I've heard many people using both. It's important to distinguish the intended meaning rather than making assumptions, I agree.

edit: I think I would use the word differently to imply the different meanings. Like "I respect him" would be the earned respect type, but "treat him with respect" would be the basic human type.

 

[sculpting]

Removing value judgments for a minute-and be very aware we are neck deep in values in this thread-conflicting deeply held values-your post is insightful:

You know, if we're talking about personal feelings here, your condemnation of this woman makes my skin crawl.

She's disgusted by this woman for not raising her kids in a healthy environment, and talking behind her back to you about her disgust (privately).

That first sentence is almost Fi like-I appreciate and thank you for your honest opinion. Tallaluh, Orangey, and cascadeco mentioning that she ranting, likely using overly "flowerly" language to express her frsutration and felt she was sharing with someone she feels comfortable with. Let's call this a "Ti rant". Note in the OP how different my internal vs external response was. I tried to be very supporting of her as I do care for her, even though she was offending me on this particular topic. I showed my support by trying to accept her and her views and then seeking an alternative explanation to understand why she feels the way she does.

You're disgusted by her for saying that this woman isn't raising her kids in a healthy environment, and talking behind her back to us about your digust (to everyone on the internet).

How, exactly, do you have the moral high ground here???

So I come to a trusted, anonymous and analytical venue to share my frustration and sense of offense-an "Fi rant" and seek understanding. (It isnt "everyone on the internet"-that is your Fe sneaking up on you) Which promptly offends you, a Ti/Fe user.

First-as an aside-the fact that you picked up this pattern was very Ne. The symmetry across the two relationships and the precision. A very TiNe-ish sort of thing to be honest, but Ne all the way.

Second-it brings up an interesting point-when we each choose to rant in this manner with our introverted functions we run a very high risk of deeply offending the other half. It is in the moment letting off of steam but it seems to be being perceived in an exceptionally negative light by the other side.

edit: I think it's really interesting that you're "loathe to assume the worst" about this isfp who has been shown to be irresponsible, neglectful etc but you're so very quick to assume dark motives for the woman who's been partially responsible for all this charity, helping the family improve their situation. It's almost like by being good to the family, she damns herself by raising your expectations for some reason....

Again there is a symmetry here. Something about intent vs nonintent, and also...

Hmmm, I judge people by what they show me to be true and intent. I have not seen objective evidence of the ISFP being anything but ignorant and irresponsible-but not intending to harm. I dont assume dark motives for the ISTP-I just recited flat out what she said . I am actually very uncomfortable reading intent into others motives typically. I dont have to read anything past what she said....it would have harmed the ISFP to hear the ISTP say these things. I suppose a fundamental truth I hold is you shouldnt seek to hurt people. If you intentionally hurt another person, it is wrong. Since her words are so hurtful, it helps to understand that she may not realize how much of an effect her words may have-

I wonder if because Fi seems to act as a connective bridge, a mirror of sorts, that I could never intentionally harm her as I would feel her pain myself. So to intentionally harm is to harm myself and thus a stupid thing to do...However you guys connect with Fe, empathic, but external. So it is easier to show external care but maintain a very sharp internal separation which allows you to feel both concern and care in a more generalized sense but also condescension of her stupidity. Pure speculation of course.

 

[proteanmix]

Also interesting is how these two understandings handle "disrespect." The "admiration" version of respect seems to think it's OK to be disrespectful (to whatever socially acceptable degree) to those who haven't earned respect, yet. The "human decency" version of respect appears to reserve disrespect for those who have "earned" disrespect - those who appear to be unrepentently bad in whatever regard one is measuring respect.

Where are you seeing that it's OK to Fe to be disrespectful and ignore human decency? I see a woman venting in the OP. Why is it OK for the ISFP to be totally disrespectful to the generosity of the ISTP and you're focusing on a rant/vent as proof positive of Fe denigrating another human? The OP is thoroughly laced with O's judgments and at this point Orobas has acknowledged she's not even in the same geographic vicinity and I'm pretty sure there are details of the situation she doesn't know.

But it's OK for Orobas to rant and rail against this woman and it's a sign of Noble and Encompassing Fi? Please. I'm really not digging your rhetoric right here. I totally respect the pattern you're seeking, but when you say things like:

The Te/Fi version appears to be more subjective, that "respect" isn't something "earned by others," but rather an attitude that one inculcates in oneself. One respects life, one respects others as human beings, one respects others' rights. That respect is much as Jesus described love, that one should love one's enemies, not just one's friends and family.

Do you mean to say that and do you realize what you're saying? Do you understand how that can be interpreted, especially the bolded? As I am interpreting you, you're saying that Fi is closer to some kind of perfect love and Fe is caught up in the superficials? Like I said, do you mean to say that?

 

[Orangey]

Hmmm, I judge people by what they show me to be true and intent. I have not seen objective evidence of the ISFP being anything but ignorant and irresponsible-but not intending to harm. I dont assume dark motives for the ISTP-I just recited flat out what she said . I am actually very uncomfortable reading intent into others motives typically. I dont have to read anything past what she said....it would have harmed the ISFP to hear the ISTP say these things. I suppose a fundamental truth I hold is you shouldnt seek to hurt people. If you intentionally hurt another person, it is wrong. Since her words are so hurtful, it helps to understand that she may not realize how much of an effect her words may have-

But she didn't say those things to the ISFP, she said them to you. Therefore she did not intend to hurt the ISFP, she intended to vent to you.

 

[Randomnity]

That first sentence is almost Fi like-I appreciate and thank you for your honest opinion. Tallaluh, Orangey, and cascadeco mentioning that she ranting, likely using overly "flowerly" language to express her frsutration and felt she was sharing with someone she feels comfortable with. Let's call this a "Ti rant". Note in the OP how different my internal vs external response was. I tried to be very supporting of her as I do care for her, even though she was offending me on this particular topic. I showed my support by trying to accept her and her views and then seeking an alternative explanation to understand why she feels the way she does.

So I come to a trusted, anonymous and analytical venue to share my frustration and sense of offense-an "Fi rant" and seek understanding. (It isnt "everyone on the internet"-that is your Fe sneaking up on you) Which promptly offends you, a Ti/Fe user.

No it doesn't offend me. I don't have a problem with what either of you are saying, I'm just bothered by the inconsistency. You seemed very troubled by the "behind her back" aspect so I wanted to point out that you're doing it, too (and to more people). I don't care about it either way personally. Your internal vs. external voice is exactly parallel to what she's telling this woman (external voice) vs. what she's telling you (internal voice). She's being every bit as supportive to this woman in person (well, I'm assuming here, but you imply so and don't say otherwise) as you are with this istp. You're sharing your "internal" thoughts here, just as the istp shared them with you. I'm sure the istp wasn't telling this woman her internal thoughts either. It's exactly the same.

Second-it brings up an interesting point-when we each choose to rant in this manner with our introverted functions we run a very high risk of deeply offending the other half. It is in the moment letting off of steam but it seems to be being perceived in an exceptionally negative light by the other side.

Not sure if you're talking about myself or you, but I'm not offended. If you are offended, I'm merely saying what you said to Orangey, and for similar reasons, so I'm not sure why that would be offensive.

Hmmm, I judge people by what they show me to be true and intent. I have not seen objective evidence of the ISFP being anything but ignorant and irresponsible-but not intending to harm. I dont assume dark motives for the ISTP-I just recited flat out what she said. I dont have to read anything past this....it would have harmed the ISFP to hear the ISTP say these things. I suppose a fundamental truth I hold is you shouldnt seek to hurt people. If you intentionally hurt another person, it is wrong. Since her words are so hurtful, it helps to understand that she may not realize how much of an effect her words may have-

She wasn't hurting the isfp any more than you're hurting the istp by saying things like "she called her kids dogs!" and making all these value judgments about her along with what you quoted. The istp was mostly saying descriptive things, not hurtful things. The isfp isn't damaged by what she doesn't know, and neither is the istp damaged by what you're saying. You see? Exactly the same.

I wonder if because Fi seems to act as a connective bridge, a mirror of sorts, that I could never intentionally harm her as I would feel her pain myself. So to intentionally harm is to harm myself and thus a stupid thing to do...However you guys connect with Fe, empathic, but external. So it is easier to show external care but maintain a very sharp internal separation which allows you to feel both concern and care in a more generalized sense but also condescension or her stupidity. Pure speculation of course.

I don't see it as harming the isfp at all to vent privately to a person who won't repeat the info (I assume). If anything it helps her by taking some steam off the istp so she can better hold her temper with the isfp - and given what you've said here, I'd have a hard time holding my temper with the isfp. Again, it's not harming the isfp any more than you're harming the istp right now.

 

[proteanmix]

Orobas, will you start getting more involved with this woman who is obviously in need? Do you think deeper involvement will change your perspective about this situation?

 

[sculpting]

So-to copper fish and proteanmix-the point of the post wasnt complete condemnation of the ISTP, even though we have gone back and forth a bit. Remember that often when you see someone externalize Fi, it is not a judgment, but exploratory. So the goal of the post wasnt to say "Fe is evil and the ISTP is SATAN" The goal of letting the values and sense of Fi offense be seen was to explore what pieces I am missing. I feel frsutrated, offended, hurt for the women thus....what am I not understanding?

So I think it is okay to speak up, even if I dont "help out" because it is worth exploring the discrepancy in values. Maybe to emphasize...I need to understand this discrepency so that I can dismiss the sense of Fi offense and accomodate the ISTPs views with love and understanding.

(edit-^^this reads funny..the point-OP is just exploratory, seeking insight, not condemnatory)

But, yes, I know, all talk and no action, I hear you.

And I don't believe that when giving money to Fi users they automatically do the right thing with the money and buy necessities. This is what I'm saying about having some discernment...this does come across as naive to me. I'm sorry it does. I don't just give people money trusting that they'll do the right thing.

I think it was last year a woman gave a homeless man her credit card to buy necessities for himself and he returned the card. The reason why it made the news is because it's a rarity. I decided to look up this woman a little more and found out that she was a marketing executive who made good money. She could have canceled the card at any time, claimed it was stolen, and wouldn't have to pay a dime. I wondered to myself, wow, did this woman really put herself out on a limb to help this man? It doesn't negate the good she did, but to me it did cast a shadow on her benevolence. I get it, why you would question the sincerity of someone's generosity based on what your MIL said. This is where I start balancing and weighing what really matters.

If you think it's hypocritical to help someone and be critical of them would it be better for the help not to be given at all?

I have a better story-an enfj friend shared about her mom. The enfp mom was getting mugged and she asked the guy what he needed. He needed $400 bucks for rent. She wrote him a check and he left. It sounds really stupid, but if you are dealing with an FP in a spot like this....weird shit like this can make a difference. Not all the time, not everytime....but strange little kindnesses can alter how they continue onwards in life. Fi...you give a little and it makes the other person's Fi spark...and they give back...It sounds ridicoulously stupid and niave...but it does work in some sense.

But yeah in the real world it must be tempered by practicality and a realization that if you give, forget and be willing to walk away, because if you look at what you gave you may not be content with the results. I by no means advocate others should do this-this is just how Fi seems to naturally work and it is how I feel. It is what I do.

For your last line-it is the type of critique given and what can be done with the critique. It has to be deliverd in a way that doesnt make the person so defensive that they refuse to take the advice and use it. If you hurt their ego and hurt them emotionally, any additional advice you offer will be ignored or even rebelled against.

Must run, but will look at links you sent and pass on to DIL. Excellent suggestions and ideas all around in your posts. Much to ponder over there.

 

[Orangey]

So-to copper fish and proteanmix-the point of the post wasnt complete condemnation of the ISTP, even though we have gone back and forth a bit. Remember that often when you see someone externalize Fi, it is not a judgment, but exploratory. So the goal of the post wasnt to say "Fe is evil and the ISTP is SATAN" The goal of letting the values and sense of Fi offense be seen was to explore what pieces I am missing. I feel frsutrated, offended, hurt for the women thus....what am I not understanding?

This just seems like an elaborate way to backtrack and easily disavow the things that you say. And as folks have been trying to tell you, any "pieces [you are] missing" are pieces of information about the situation, not information about Fi or Fe.

 

[uumlau]

Where are you seeing that it's OK to Fe to be disrespectful and ignore human decency? I see a woman venting in the OP. Why is it OK for the ISFP to be totally disrespectful to the generosity of the ISTP and you're focusing on a rant/vent as proof positive of Fe denigrating another human? The OP is thoroughly laced with O's judgments and at this point Orobas has acknowledged she's not even in the same geographic vicinity and I'm pretty sure there are details of the situation she doesn't know.

Proof positive? Did I not include enough caveats in my post? Was I not abstracting the idea enough beyond the specific case?

Do you mean to say that and do you realize what you're saying? Do you understand how that can be interpreted, especially the bolded? As I am interpreting you, you're saying that Fi is closer to some kind of perfect love and Fe is caught up in the superficials? Like I said, do you mean to say that?

So are you saying that you believe that respect is an attitude to be inculcated in oneself, and that that is the ideal version of respect? Or was my use of the common understanding of Jesus' teachings (whether or not one is Christian) too morally loaded for you?

I'm not saying either one is ideal, but that they are different qualitative understandings that share the same word. Thank you for phrasing it as a question and leaving open the possibility that I did not mean to offend.

In general, I associate Fi with "inculcating attitudes." That the attitudes are relatively constant and tend not to change based on external circumstances. The Jesus' love example was in that vein: the attitude is within oneself, and not dependent on the external object of the love.

Fe is more reactive and adaptive to the external circumstances. This does not imply that it is "superficial." Rather, its expression is necessarily (and deliberately) variable. As my INFJ Mom put it to me,"<Uumlau>, I will always love you, but sometimes I really don't like you." The external circumstances bring in conditions that are invisible to Fi, and the "inculcated attitude" has implications that are invisible to Fe.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, why are we all getting excited here and losing sight of the main point? We seem to be descending into drama about whether the OP was "right" to feel what she did, or how she's being hypocritical. But I believe the post was made because the OP wanted to understand why the ISTP felt what she did, because she had been left with the impression that she was being judgmental and dismissive. She felt that the ISTP was judging this woman negatively as a human being, rather than negatively due to her actions, because emotional language was used. Fi users often make this mistake.

The kind of posts I've been seeing most recently seem likely to make the OP feel more confident in their negative opinion of Fe, due to her being condemned for her feelings on this matter. I consider this unfortunate, because she seemed to actually want to understand why the other woman acted the way she did. Many Fi users hold negative opinions of Fe, and never even give us a chance to explain our side of it.

So, OP, I want to try and explain what's going on here. People are angry with you because they feel that you are devaluing the ISTP's attempt to help, and calling her lacking in compassion, simply because it wasn't done the way you would have done it. They are not understanding that you are actually most annoyed because of your perception that the ISTP was condemning not her actions, but the woman as a human being.

I tried to explain in an earlier post that you may not have seen, that I believe the ISTP was merely using emotionally judgmental language in order to create sympathy for herself (and for the children's situation) and draw attention to what was going on, as she has found that emotional appeals and judgments tend to be more effective in getting attention and sympathy from most people than intellectual ones.

In other words, I don't think that the ISTP intended to come across as devaluing the ISFP as a human being, but only to express her frustration and get sympathy. She may have sounded like she was condemning the person, but that's because we tend to identify the emotions with the ACTION, so what we really mean is that the actions appear uncaring, not that the person does. We don't know what the person is feeling, but the point being made seemed to be that the ISFP is performing poorly in her role as a mother, not that she's a bad person. Fi users tend to identify the emotion with the PERSON, so when we condemn the action as uncaring, it's assumed that we're condemning the person as uncaring, when that's not the case at all. We just want the person to start acting like how we believe that someone who cares should act.

Does that make sense?