I think mannerisms carry emotional overtones only according to societal standards. These societal standards may just cause mannerisms to be misinterpretted by people who value judging the emotional meaning behind actions even when there is no intended emotional meaning.
That being said, perhaps it'd be best if we all realize that our actions may be interpretted as "emotional overtones" by some people and not by others and change our mode of actions depending on the circumstances.
I'd generally agree with this, although clearly there are some mannerisms which seem to inherently, cross-culturally carry emotional content (there are good sociology studies on such).
And I share your frustration in the context of Fe vs Fi. If I opt out of attending a graduation because I'd rather spend personal time with that person at a later date, I'm really not saying "I don't care." But to some Fe users, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't like that fact, but it pays to keep it in mind. Sometimes, you can't say nothing and anything you do has some meaning.
Yeah I did blame it on the listener's side, as the listener is the one doing the misinterpretting. However, I can see the value in avoiding such actions that are so often misinterpreted.
Same on my side. I've found that my INFP tendency to soften statements with "I feel" and "it seems to me that" can be read as me being uncertain in technical contexts. I've also had to learn to be much more direct about things at work, because some people take things at face value and ignore all indirection (hard as that is for me to imagine).
I don't know if I agree with this. There often really is no emotional investment, but NFs can't seem to figure that out because that just completely does not fit in to their own values and perspective.
Maybe it's a computer geek thing. My coworkers are often sparring for the top-dog/best-informed/smartest-geek. There's a kind of dynamic that goes on that reminds me of people playing ping pong or a trash-talking while dueling in a video game. It's definitely aggressive and in one's face. There's clearly some investment in the whole thing (they WANT to be proven right/best/correct), but it's not personal in an INFP way.
Perhaps? Maybe Fi just gets more bothered by apparent anger/aggression than other functions though.
I think it's true that Fi-doms tend to be the most personally bothered by conflict. Fe users are also bothered by conflict, but tend to see it more as a threat to group well-being (which they tend to value). Also, Fe users can tend to come down hard if they feel the conflict creators aren't abiding by the social contracts.
Conflict about unimportant matters goes against most Fi's value systems (which tend to emphasize personal autonomy and respect for opinions). Many NFPs (especially INFPs) tend to only argue about the truly important, so there's always emotional investment about those central values.
I don't really think I was explicitly asking INFPs about anything. I wanted anybody's opinions.
Huh... seemed like "Why do you Fi users do this?" and then you said NFJs didn't have that issue (not primary Fi users, anyway), and neither did SFPs. That leaves INFP as the only Fi-doms remaining. (Okay, you were asking ENFPs too, I admit.)
And I wasn't trying to "stir-the-pot" (really I wasn't!). I'd like to know how I can avoid doing that with Fi users. Srsly.
Heh, if you like I can go through your initial post and pick it apart for emotional content and connotations if that would be helpful. You did say you couldn't have chosen more neutral words and gotten your point across, which sounds like you were aware of the emotional content in this case.
At any rate, I'm not personally offended by any of this. I do understand (first-hand) the INFP reaction to intense debating as angry conflict. I think NFPs can learn to tolerate that style of debate over time, and NTs can help by clearly stating that they aren't upset and it's not personal. Also keeping an eye on the emotional content of your body language and word choice can help (if you care enough to do so).
This seems like a pretty fundamental type misunderstanding to me, where each side misinterprets the other's actions based on how they would respond personally. NFPs think you are angry, and you think they are being arrogant for thinking such. We can keep in mind that arguing ≠ angry (for NTs, anyway), and you can keep in mind that we are getting repeated cues that you ARE angry/upset. It takes some desensitization for NFPs not to react to that, and to understand that in your mind it's all good free-wheeling fun.