When looking at MBTI though, it's interesting to see how far it will stretch out, how far the usefulness of that particular tool extends. It's not that we've forgotten the other tools or their well-documented uses. Sometimes, although all of the above appears forgotten, I think it's simply assumed obvious in the context of trying to see what typology can "do". Is that helpful to explain why you get warning bells that the premise is unsound?
FYI, everyone: pay attention to the bolded. We are, after all, on a typology forum. To respond to any sort of typological statement with the "but typology does not (or cannot) explain everything" platitude means nothing without an additional explanation of
how and why, in whatever particular case, typology is insufficient or limited, beyond just saying that people are unique or whatever other catch-all explanation for dismissing typology first occurs to one's mind. There is no way to prove, one way or another, whether a specific application of typology is true or false; at most, a discussion can shed light on which applications of typology appear to be useful or not so useful.
In these threads, Fe users ask many questions ... since I see the effort being made to try to understand, I try to explain, thus it does set up a cycle (in these particular situations) where I am trying more to be understood than to understand myself. In my perhaps flawed logic, to understand
me, means you can understand a little slice of Fi, so I try to offer myself kind of unvarnished, if you will - the acoustic version of PB ... and then when (if) each Fi user does this, the larger patterns of Fi will be more heard, more visible, more real to people.
@bold: What I am trying to say, in another way, is that I want to explain Fi by being Fi, by talking in Fi terms, otherwise I am diluting and altering the message. Then, it's not really Fi anymore, not really "me " anymore. To "play" on the music analogy uumlau, you won't really understand heavy metal or one of Beethoven's sonatas until you really
listened to each ... me describing the music to you in terms of another style of music is not going to replicate the actual experience of hearing that music for yourself. It's not about expecting everyone to accommodate my music. If a person does try to listen to my music but doesn't like it, I guess one of us has to bend ... either I don't play my music, or I try to make it sound more like yours in order to effectively communicate and have a relationship. Or, I can just keep playing it my way and let the chips fall where they may.
Going even farther on a personal level with the analogy, instead of being appreciated for playing my music (displaying that level of honesty on this forum) I feel especially lately that I have lost credibility points for doing so. In sharing on my terms, I am well aware I risk alienating the very people I want to make connections with. And I know I likely have; this really saddens me. It's totally clear to me that IRL I have to use all of my tools to communicate with people. Here on the forum, I wanted to try a different approach for a while, let the PB song play a little more loudly. But, since I like harmony too much to keep playing my tune and offending the ears of some of the audience, I need to contemplate turning it down for a while.
And hey, and this is no pity party on my end. It is what it is, and I accept that.
A part of what happens with respect to translating between contexts/frames/spaces is that
some things don't translate well or at all. Moreover, some information is even extraneous, filler material, patterns of speech or thought that enter the communication, but are not actually relevant to any particular message.
Here is a song with a very Fi message. I'm going to post three versions of it, here. I believe every version has the core message, but each is in a different frame, with extraneous elements that don't translate.
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW88EvEAd0k"]Pop version (Joshua Tree)[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejc8a5wW8QI"]Gospel Version (from Rattle and Hum)[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpgXT2n0YWg"]Salsa Version (Coco Freeman)[/YOUTUBE]
The core Fi message is along the lines of, "There's something here I need to know/understand/figure-out/discover. I will know what it is when I find it, but beyond that, I cannot say." It is a statement of the nature of faith, that in spite of belief, there is something missing. That in spite of overcoming many challenges, of having known love/desire, knowing both good and evil, it is still missing ... but it is out there to be found.
Note that in the music I've posted, as good as it is, there are elements that repulse
some others, including other Fi users. Heck, an Fi-dom salsa friend of mine doesn't like the salsa version, because she hates pop music turned into salsa, and that makes it not really salsa in her mind. (But, proving her Fi-frame-of-mind, she'll then say, "Oh, yeah, you like this song, so it's OK if you dance it with me.")
So part of the challenge of communicating ideas, especially complex ideas, especially abstract ideas that cannot be stated in concrete terms, is to figure out how to convey the idea such that the proper "resonance" is achieved in the other person. That resonance isn't an exact replication of the original idea. Even when it's a concrete idea, different people will "store" it differently, e.g., Ni storing "meaning" while Si often recalls the exact words. But the idea
is conveyed and understood after a fashion.
There is another aspect of this resonance: especially in Fi terms, what one will hear in return for one's own song is a very different song. You still hear your own song in there, but now it carries two hearts instead of one. The Joshua Tree version is the original, but someone else heard the rather hidden "gospel" tones of the song, and brought those out: it's the same song, sung by a different heart, emphasizing what that heart heard and resonates, and adding that heart's own characteristic touch. Similarly, the salsa version takes the original and seamlessly adds a salsa beat, a Spanish translation, and some spectacular brass that takes the original question of faith and turns it into a celebration of life.
Same song, same Fi. Entering new hearts reveals new understandings.
So part of the reason I explicate this is to give the Fe side of the equation an idea of how Fi interacts in its own terms. Those who identify with Fe (plus Ni) in this thread will most likely find my explanation to resonate more with Ni than Fe.
The other part of the reason I explicate this is that in order to convey an idea, it isn't enough to just be authentic and express it as one understands it oneself: some people will get it right away, but most won't.
One must also listen to the hearts of others and express it in a way that properly resonates in those hearts as well as one's own.
So back to my heavy metal music analogy, one's own heart might be heavy metal, but perhaps the other heart needs to hear a power ballad version of what you have to say, and not "Highway to Hell" version. No, it's not the "complete truth," but if one evokes enough of the truth, the other can use that to find the rest, or even truths that you don't see, yet.
And finally, in order to properly listen and translate, one eventually needs to be able to hear all of the different versions in their own terms without being repulsed by some element or another. By instantly rejecting some aspect of a message, one actually changes the message one hears into a message very different from the one sent. Ironically, yes, I am on the one hand saying that one should frame the message so that others don't instantly reject it, but on the other hand that one should strive to not instantly reject others' messages: these points are complimentary, however, not contradictory.