It's one of the key points of your ideas and worth discussing.
I believe that you are mistaking the "rule following" that Te does for communication to be Fe. INTJ is essentially "pantomiming" Fe. We know what polite behavior looks like, but we don't actually understand it the same way. Here's a simplistic example: a young child might know a rule such as "when a performance is done, you're supposed to clap." It has nothing to do with why you clap, it's just the rule. There's no understanding of the Fe part, that you clap to show appreciation, and that you adjust how you clap based on how good the performance was. It's just "you're supposed to clap." If you pay attention to INTJs, they're following "rules," not actually reading situations for an appropriate response.
Thank you.
I don't consider INTJs rule followers, per se. I know you know the rules, backwards and forwards, but it's really up to your discretion of your Ni and other facets of your psyche and individual variations that make someone a rule follower or breaker. You know what polite behavior is, and you use it because you are adept at Fe. It need not be convoluted such as going through Te and all that. As a tertiary function, if you were Fi more than Fe, Fi would simply show up more. And I don't see that, unless one of you is stressed for some reason, or arguing vigorously, for example. Sure, I get that Fe and Te could work together, mine do, but it's simply that. It's easy for Te and Fe to work together, and difficult for Te and Fi, or Fe and Ti to work together.
I stated on the other thread that Fe and Ti don't jive at all. Do you really think when you are extraverting thinking that you are likely to introvert feeling on a regular basis? The two are antithesis to each other, I'd think. I know Fe and Ti are. If I'm Fe-ing, I'm not Ti-ing, and vice versa with Te and Fi.
You wouldn't understand Fe like an Fe dom or aux would. I don't understand Te like you do, do I? I appreciate your example. it's exactly what I'm talking about, and would expect in using Fe as a healthy teriary function. The *why* doesn't matter. The action of following through on a consistent basis with the clapping is Fe, no matter the motivation. If a child is made to clap and does it once because his mom is watching, that means nothing. If the child internalizes the behavior and uses it consistently, that is Fe. If the child knows he should clap but doesn't feel like clapping, and therefore rarely claps, that is either not Fe, or it is unhealthy Fe (i'm afraid to say it's Fi
). My point is that it is not *why* the person does the behavior necessarily, it is the act itself that is important and a manifestation of Fe. This, actually, is a good description of Jung's Fe definition, which is fitting because he was a T himself; that Fe is about knowing the rules of society and using them. If you are doing that, why must we twist it around Te, and not just call it what it is?