First of all, I think Eric B made a good post
here:
Still, I would argue that Fi generally comes across as less critical than Ti, and even less so than Fe (although Fe can also be very expressively warm, of course).
That would be because F is less critical than T, and Fi=F
P, and Fe=F
J, and
P tends to be less critical than J! Both T/F and J/P are parallel "responsiveness' or "agreeableness" dichotomies.
In my opinion, the reason Fi has such a reputation for stubbornness is that it seems to come out of nowhere. Fi-types are generally very agreeable... until we are very much not. It's surprising if you don't know that aspect of the person, but it's hardly the normal operating mode. Anyone who thinks Fi = (rebellion + stubbornness) is ignoring much of the nature of Fi.
So I think where types fall on these different scales is interesting, since several of them capture qualities would affect how agreeable/disagreeable one is. And, of course, the scale ratings should be taken with many grains of salt... it's a newer instrument, limitations of self-reporting, etc, etc.
Even if the scale ratings reflect any kind of reality, they don't tell the whole story. While IFPs tend to rank low on "self-focus", for example, it's also true that we are plenty capable of rationalizing what we want.
Still, I think the business world highly values Te-related skills (as evidenced by most top-level managers)... and to a lesser extend Fe (people oriented roles) and Ti (technical and faster paced fields). Fi comes in a distant fourth, generally... since its benefits are fairly meta.
Fi's deep humane focus (in a preferred position; it's different for TJ's tertiary or inferior) tends to make people acquiescent to others, but then if deeply held values are crossed, then they will dig in their heels. If it's really serious, then they could become passionate.
In either the typological/functional models, or temperament (which is what I'm basically refer to), there are always exceptions to the typical behavior, and rather than contradicting between the different models, even the atypical behavior seems to correspond.
I saw that study before, and I also find the terms agreeable & disagreeable confusing/misleading.
Even though I am an F, on the Big5/SLOAN test, I don't score as agreeable...I'm near the middle & score as an RLUEI (with E standing for "egocentric" as opposed to agreeable). I think this is because I am concerned with autonomy over the group & don't have a warm demeanor. Even though I go with the flow, I am also not overly accommodating because of my loner streak & a sense of ethics which includes my rights.
However, in the work place, I am also not aggressive nor outspoken. I'm not a team-oriented follower nor a group leader, which makes my agreeableness very contextual. I tend to be in the agreeable category where it is NOT to my advantage (ie. a concern for fairness & the wellbeing of everyone, even at the cost of my own advancement), but disagreeable where it is also NOT valued (ie. not warm or outgoing). Somehow, I think this is worse for advancement, because the aloof demeanor makes for bad first impressions, but I'm also not particularly assertive when it comes to pay/raises/promotions/etc.
If I remember correctly, you were more of a Phlegmatic than Supine. Even though the two get bundled together in being represented by both the INP and NF groups, the Phlegmatic is actually
moderate rather than totally reserved and agreeable. They can take people or leave them, and usually don't want to expend too much energy with people. So this could explain why some Fi types might be more stubborn and less agreeable. So what you describe sounds just like that.
The Phlegmatic is also more Calm, while the Supine is Limbic, so the five temperament theory could also explain some variations in Neuroticism, as well as agreeableness.
Also, @several people and WSJ article, I don't think the opposite of "agreeableness" is supposed to be "
disagreeableness". I'm not sure what is; but I believe using that term sort of skews our understanding of what agreeableness is. It almost suggests a
character trait vs flaw too much.
Before I knew about Big Five, or even Type, I had thought "agreeable vs
critical" would be a good representation of the Responsiveness factor, but I realized that even "critical" carried too much of a negative connotation and could easily be misunderstood.
)
