I've been having interpersonal difficulties with my INTP office mate over the last several months that basically can be boiled down to a fundamentally different view of relating. The best I can articulate the distinction is that it's something akin to positive versus negative rights. Relating and connectedness for Fe is understood in a "positive" sense in that it is active and generally obliges action. The existence of a relationship between two people is dependent upon their participation in it--the things those involved do to outwardly acknowledge the bond they share, and the extent to which they act out the role that that bond has created for them. I'm not exactly doing the mindset justice, but it's what I seem to get from it.
The Fi perspective takes a "negative" view of attachment. The inaction that preserves the integrity of individual space. Fi relationships are about that freedom to simply be without anything interfering with the other party's expression of themness. There's that desire to get to that point where you feel connectedness on that deepest level to glimpse deeper still into that common thing that gives rise to us all. That emphasis, though, on individual space also leads to the mentality that what happens in your space is on your terms. No one is owed anything just 'cause. Fi-users don't oblige easy, and that "positive" Fe attitude can end up looking like so much self-entitled bullshit to us. Your uniqueness, your value as an individual is inherent to you, and can't be diminished by me acknowledging it or not. It's yours; it's sacrosanct and inviolate. Give me the chance to give you something real and genuine, freely. Being compelled to externalize the feeling that I have for you, that connectedness between us, is like being violated. It creates grounds for heartfelt loathing.
I understand why Fe could find such an attitude to be selfish. There is more in play and at stake than how I feel about something individually. There is some greater good to be considered out there somewhere, I guess. And, moreover, I'm apart of that greater collective whether I "choose" to be or not. While there are no islands, there are the things that we share in common. Those things can be anything--material, intellectual, emotional, whatever--and it's the voluntary giving and taking of them that creates relationships. Fe entitlement, in my view, utterly corrodes that interaction. When someone's basic attitude is that they have some sort of "right" to partake in what's yours, or have some say in how you manage yours without any greater justification than some vague appeals to "common courtesy", it's hard to construe it as anything other than a power play.
That gets at the heart of my issues with Fe. Despite all it's anxious feelings about it's myriad obligations, it's fundamental lack of respect for individual choice means that it has no real concept of responsibility. Or freedom. You can't have either without respect for choice.
These things only crystallized for me as of late. Not totally unrelatedly, I've been catching up on Breaking Bad over the past month or so, and have joined many others in my contempt for Walter's ENFJ wife, Skyler. Anna Gunn, the actress who plays her, wrote an op-ed for The Times a couple of weeks ago defending her character by saying that people hated her because she was a "strong woman", and, you know, sexism. To be fair, I don't see her as particularly strong. I think if your basic attitude is that everyone owes you something, it'd probably be pretty easy to go around being demanding, controlling, and generally placing what you feel to be best above any other consideration. Why would you ever be otherwise?