Actually, I think what's going on here is that Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti divide. In particular, I've found that Te often sounds like Fe (and vice versa), so in generally, Te users interpret both Te and Fe with the same filters on, and Fe users are listening to both Te and Fe as if it were all Fe.
So Fe users hear a good deal of rudeness from Te: when you tell the truth, for instance, it embarrasses people, so Fe users try to skim the truth or focus on the desired result all the while trying to avoid that embarrassment. Fe taken to an extreme becomes a "politically correct" kind of speech. Fortunately, skilled (i.e., primary and secondary) Te users and Fe users are usually become good at navigating this breach as they mature: Te users learn to use polite turns of phrase, and Fe users read the body language and tone of voice in order to realize that the Te user doesn't intend offense.
The "always right" is just how Fe users read Te users, and it particularly annoys tertiary and inferior Fe users because their Fe perception is often not as mature.
(More on this below.)
That'd be cool.
I think it's wrong to consider it a "facade". I'll continue to use terms like "Fe user" and "Te user" as a convenient shorthand, but I will always strive to emphasize that judging functions only indirectly affect behavior: one doesn't "use Fe" to choose what to say, one "uses Fe" (with Ni or Si as a perceiving function) to understand a situation and come up with several options of what to say ... and then one chooses what to say.
When a Te user is "using an Fe facade", what is really going on is that one is using Te to analyze things objectively, and then choosing to express oneself in the most effective means possible. If being very blunt means that the receiver gets offended and doesn't listen to the message, that's a failure, whether one is Fe or Te. So Te learns how to say things "nicely" so that the messages are actually received as intended. This dovetails into my later point about how primary/secondary Te/Fe users can accommodate each others' mode of expression, with some effort. You're reading this as using a facade, which is a legitimate way of looking at it. I just think it's easier to recognize that it's
still Te (or Fe), but just more experienced/matured.
Awww.
(Really, I don't mean to pry, but I am very curious, because I am without a context.)
Exactly. In a weird way, it's all the same big picture, BUT ... each side is trying to fill in different pieces, due to a different priority. Ni fills in the blanks and makes a partial portrait a complete portrait, for example, while Ne fills in the background of the portrait, with trees and leaves and sky and clouds and sun and shadow.
Nope. This is where my prior answers in this post dovetail to these comments. You can say something completely honestly, openly, in good faith, with nothing but good intentions, with caring and love and the warmest of warm fuzzies, but because it is the plain, unadulterated truth, a more immature Fe user will take what you say as a personal offense, reading into your words any of:
- You think I'm stupid?!
- Why do you think I don't care?!
- How can you possibly be so certain?! (This is often combined Fe/Ti reading Te ... Ti knows it doesn't understand, and distrusts the Te version.)
- How dare you characterize me that way!
- And so on ...
The Fe user might hear any number of things that you never said nor intended to say, but yet, if you read/listen to your own words from their perspective, you'll get hints of what they're getting at.
For me, the most common example when I was growing up was offering to help friends with their homework, and they'd be insulted that I thought that they needed help. I'm thinking I'm being nice and helpful, but because I didn't follow the Fe-style protocol, instead of offering help in a face-saving way, I effectively insulted them for being too stupid to do their own homework.
And this leads me to finally addressing this bit:
What I end up doing these days is phrasing things far more diplomatically, yet my message remains the same. For instance, when correcting "Dave", I could say one of two things:
- That's wrong. It really works like this: <give detailed logical example>.
- That's a good analysis, Dave, but there are a couple of things going on here of which you are unaware, namely <point out facts>. Given those facts, then that leads us to <my conclusion>.
The first, even though I don't even say "You are wrong," but rather "That is wrong," will be interpreted as an insult by many people. (I suspect that for Fe/Ti, because Ti is introverted, one's ideas are taken more personally, and require the same respect as you would give the person. Just a theory. Similarly, for Te/Fi, one's feelings require that level of respect.)
The second includes two levels of affirmation, and then follows with Te logical presentation. The first level is that I show respect for Dave's ability to reason, which works well both on Fe and Fi users, I think. The second is that I provide a face-saving reason for him to be incorrect, so it isn't as if he's being called to task for presenting an incorrect version of the facts (this is more for the Fe users, I believe). Then I am allowed to be blunt and factual, because I made it verbally clear that not only do I respect him and his ideas, but I also show that I'm not just trying to force my thinking onto the group.
Thus it isn't a matter of "truth now, pain later." It's more,
"a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down (in a most delightful way)."