F = personal relationships vs T = social interactions

[Tennessee Jed]

I've heard it referred to as task-based vs people-based. To accomplish a group task, you do need to know how to steer the ship / manage people, but the focus is on the task.

[...]

Yeah, i identify with that. I mean, I've had to develop the latter a lot due to various life scenarios, but I'm more intuitive at analyzing a group as a machine where people are the parts -- i,e., the top-down broad view. It's got an end goal and it views individuals as part of that goal and/or the role they play in reaching it.

It's also not that one cannot have a very intense and perceptive view of a particular individual and experience empathy for them, but it tends to be generalized into the "human condition" -- i.e., as indicative of the experience that person is undergoing, as something any person can experience, and what that truth of experience is. That's the "sweet spot," and to focus solely on the specific person and just relate to that one person (without generalizing out to summarize some core truth) is what takes energy. Compare that to a perspective where the specific person is actually the end goal.

Great post, thanks. I'll take it as confirmation on the Ti-Dom side.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[snipped...] Now, if I had to make a comparison between the way I operate and my ENFJ friend's leadership style, I'd say she's a mother to all of them.

-If I am to deploy two people to do a task, she will comment that they do not get along, while I don't care about that since they're individuals who give results.
-I can infuse respect within a group, while she can infuse understanding and love.
-I will encourage each one of them to preserve their individuality even among the group, while she puts an emphasis on anything that does not scream the word differences.
-I have a sharp eye to read people's motivation and prognosticate their behavior, while she's more in tune with their feelings much like a sponge.
-I care more about substance, while she cares more about its delivery.
-She's also the kind of person who reads something disconcerting and types "...". It's hilarious.
-In some rare occasions we might do the same thing, but with different intentions in mind.

Regarding group dynamics, in times of turmoil and adversity, I am one who uses wisdom, knowledge, strength, determination, and leading by example to inspire them forward. In such times she feels useless because a harmonious atmosphere will not solve the problem nor pushes them to break their boundaries. She would still support them through everything even when support seems useless.

Those are some of the key differences I can come up with in this short lapse of time.

Some of your findings are on point. I will come back to you later.

Yes, exactly. The second half of your post (quoted above) is pretty much how I envision the difference between Te-Dom vs Fe-Dom when exercising leadership roles. Fe-Dom can exercise a more touchy-feely type of leadership which is in line with today's philosophies. Whereas Te-Dom is more traditionalist and holistic and focused on putting together at team that gets results.

But the main point is that both Te-Dom and Fe-Dom are, in fact, about people-handling. Just in very different fashions. That's how I'm reading it anyway. Great post.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I'm finding this an interesting discussion and am still collecting my thoughts on it. Thanks for starting it, [MENTION=22236]YUI[/MENTION].

Thanks. I'm deliberately going a little slow with the thread so that people have time to think about the ideas and maybe provide some feedback if they're inclined. As I mentioned earlier, I still intend to post on the subject of Fe vs Fi. I'll post something on that subject Tuesday afternoon or evening.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I feel compelled to state for the record that I think the phrase "touchy-feely" is gross and that I think it's gross when people are touchy-feely. Google defines it as "openly expressing affection or other emotions, especially through physical contact." I think if that is being read into what I wrote, then it's being read incorrectly. At least in the context of needing to work together to complete some task, folks need to keep it in their pants. This may be a matter of semantics, but I mean, the meaning of words/phrases matters. And the expression "touchy-feely" actually has the connotation of crossing personal boundaries, which works against the kind of 'nurturing an environment of mutual respect" that I was trying to describe.

I get the feeling this is going to fall on deaf ears, and that I simply don't know how to present the input in a way that's going to get heard, but whatever.

For me, I really feel I have a decent grasp of efficiency/operations, but part of what makes things optimally efficient is knowing where to put people / where strengths lie and who works better with whom, who hates doing certain things (so I'll try to accommodate preferences when deploying), but also recognizing when I have no better option so someone ends up needing to do something they don't particularly enjoy. Is what I'm describing simply an F bent on efficiencies? fwiw I'm not a strong F either, going by dichotomies.

This is how I'd describe myself as well. I realize I'm an outlier as an FJ, but I don't have a lot of patience for personal hand-holding. What I am good at is observing from a distance and and sort of orchestrating which person should go where and what they should do. I might know to put people who need hand-holding together so that their need can cancel itself out (and which people this works with, as well as which people aren't compatible, etc), but I rarely have the patience to do this myself. My own personal inner landscape (for want of something better to call it) is loaded with mental post-it note observations I've made about people, and I can be good at pulling the strings in such a way that people work well together. Even when I have to tell someone they must do something they hate doing, I can be good at coming up with some way to tell them that makes it slightly less heinous (usually just acknowledging that it's heinous, saying that it needs to get done, and possibly explaining how the heinousness is being equally distributed - along those lines). All of the post-it note observations I've made (and not even consciously, it's just something that's constantly happening in the background of my mind any time someone is in my purview) help me know how to do these things. But as soon as someone needs me to listen to how their day has been or they need an audience to talk about personal stuff (unless it's directly germane to the task at hand) - especially if it's a regular occurrence, like they need this for 20 minutes a day from me in order to feel respected - then we're gonna have a problem.

And I don't know, I don't really consider it hand-holding to do these things so much as I consider it troubleshooting issues/drama before it starts. It's easier to focus on the things that need to get done if there aren't a bunch of stupid, preventable little fires happening all over the place.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I feel compelled to state for the record that I think the phrase "touchy-feely" is gross and that I think it's gross when people are touchy-feely. Google defines it as "openly expressing affection or other emotions, especially through physical contact." I think if that is being read into what I wrote, then it's being read incorrectly. At least in the context of needing to work together to complete some task, folks need to keep it in their pants. This may be a matter of semantics, but I mean, the meaning of words/phrases matters. And the expression "touchy-feely" actually has the connotation of crossing personal boundaries, which works against the kind of 'nurturing an environment of mutual respect" that I was trying to describe.

I see your point, and I agree with you. I'm just being imprecise when I use "touchy-feely" to describe the Fe way of doing things. I'm using "touchy-feely" in the sense of "being solicitous of feelings of the other person," but that's not exactly what "touchy-feely" technically means. So I'll quit using "touchy-feely" in that sense or context.

As for the rest of your post: I'm not so much interested in *your* experience of *your own* Aux-Fe.

Let me explain that by reiterating what I'm trying to accomplish in this thread. Basically, I'm trying to establish an F vs T division along the following lines:

F is concerned with:

--What is love? Loyalty? Betrayal? What kind of partner would I want? What kind of friend? Do I want a friend who competes with me, or a friend who supports me? Do I want a partner who challenges me, or a partner who mirrors me? What is sexy to me, versus what is not sexy to me? What causes me to trust people, and what causes me to mistrust people? What constitutes friendship? What do I do if I get angry at a friend? And so on...

Whereas T is concerned with:

--Where am I on the pecking order? What's my role in my social group? How much do I lead and how much do I follow? How do I deal with group conflict? What if I try to assert my wishes or demands and other members of the group frustrate me in that attempt? What if I fail? What if I succeed? Should I automatically do what others tell me, or can I do things differently from others? How do I handle the anger of others? How do I handle my own anger in the group setting? What if I get ostracized from the group? What if I get elected leader of the group? And so on...

The tools that you develop at this stage are very different from the tools that you developed at the "F stage." Here, at the "T stage," you develop tools such as: The concepts of equity, equality, balance, social structure, social hierarchy, conflict management, anger management, leadership, followership, rank, pecking order, etc.

I characterize this F-vs-T comparison, in short, in the following manner:

T skills are in the realm of "social" or "group leadership" skills, as opposed to F skills being in the realm of "personal relationship" or "one-on-one interaction" skills.

Thus, what I'm ideally looking for is people with broad experience of all types who can draw comparisons of both F and T and say whether or not they see F and T in a similar light.

Therefore, I'm *less* interested in a precise and detailed breakdown of your own personal experiences of your own Aux-Fe. Thats partly because you're an Ni-Dom who has been a nurse and a manager (If I remember correctly). You might have picked up some Te management skills as part of your repertoire. Also, I could point to your description of your Aux-Fe skills and say that it sounds like a workplace-based use of F "personal relationship" or "one-on-one interaction" skills (as I've defined them), but you could interpret your experiences in a different way and try to prove how you see those same skills as "social" or "group leadership" skills (which I've defined as T skills).

So your personal observations of your own Aux-Fe skills are of limited use. I would rather hear from people who have worked or lived with or have experience of *both* F-Doms and T-Doms in their lives, and who can do the same kind of broad F vs T comparisons that I have attempted, and can thus confirm or deny what I'm suggesting.

Also: Not to put down your input, but you're an Ni-Dom, and Ni-Doms love long arguments. I've seen you go round and round with people on this topic in the past. (You're one of the chief participants in the never-ending Fe-vs-Fi wars in the past.) Based on what I've seen, I suspect we could slice and dice your description of your own experience of your own Aux-Fe forever and still never come to any agreement.

So my position on this is as follows: I'm interested in hearing about your own experience of your Aux-Fe, and I've paid attention to what you've posted. But I don't want to get into a big digression with you about it. For purposes of this thread, I would rather stick to the topic of broad F vs T comparisons, in the spirit of what I've proposed in my own posts in this thread.

To put it another way: You're an N-Dom, not an F-Dom or T-Dom. I would rather hear less about your *own* Aux-Fe, and more about your experiences with the various F-Doms and T-Doms that might be in your life.

 

[cascadeco]

This is how I'd describe myself as well. I realize I'm an outlier as an FJ, but I don't have a lot of patience for personal hand-holding. What I am good at is observing from a distance and and sort of orchestrating which person should go where and what they should do. I might know to put people who need hand-holding together so that their need can cancel itself out (and which people this works with, as well as which people aren't compatible, etc), but I rarely have the patience to do this myself. My own personal inner landscape (for want of something better to call it) is loaded with mental post-it note observations I've made about people, and I can be good at pulling the strings in such a way that people work well together. Even when I have to tell someone they must do something they hate doing, I can be good at coming up with some way to tell them that makes it slightly less heinous (usually just acknowledging that it's heinous, saying that it needs to get done, and possibly explaining how the heinousness is being equally distributed - along those lines). All of the post-it note observations I've made (and not even consciously, it's just something that's constantly happening in the background of my mind any time someone is in my purview) help me know how to do these things. But as soon as someone needs me to listen to how their day has been or they need an audience to talk about personal stuff (unless it's directly germane to the task at hand) - especially if it's a regular occurrence, like they need this for 20 minutes a day from me in order to feel respected - then we're gonna have a problem.

And I don't know, I don't really consider it hand-holding to do these things so much as I consider it troubleshooting issues/drama before it starts. It's easier to focus on the things that need to get done if there aren't a bunch of stupid, preventable little fires happening all over the place.

Wow, I 100% agree with this. I know I've talked about this in my blog but many may not have seen it, so I'll share it here too - I'm not known as being a super 'feelery' person at work, nor am I one to gush with emotion or hand-hold anyone (or hand-hold/emotionally placate customers in a way they may actually desire) - thus I can come across as IxTx to customers, for sure, and with coworkers, IxTJ. Some of it (maybe a lot of it) is age -- whereas when younger I was much less liable to 'rock the boat' or even be *viewed* as curmudgeonly/ not-having-it, this has significantly decreased with time.

I am *excellent* - same as the example you shared - at commiserating with fellow team-members though and acknowledging when something I know is crappy needs to be done and even saying I know they don't like it but it has to get done. I find being super up front about stuff like this - not even trying to sugar coat or needlessly try to put a 'spin' on it -- works really well. I just view it as being really honest but also upfront about what needs to be done. I like to think it's my way of 'connecting' with teammates - recognizing preferences, doing my best to cater to them, but also being real when things just need to get done or my other options are terrible / would result in terrible operations so they need to take one for the team, ha.
-------------

My current boss is an ENFx (I'm pretty sure he's ENFP but I'm just leaving it ENFx as probably a lot of people on here would type him as ENFJ because he's very warm / might be viewed as dom-Fe), and he is the epitome of people-empathizer -- he's very affirming of everyone, including all of the more obnoxious customers; and he's got such an inclination to give everyone a chance that he's hired some folks all of the rest of us just facepalm and lament over -- just, there's a point where you have to stop being a bleeding heart and start realizing some people just shouldn't be hired, period, and there can be significant negative repercussions to always trying to see the good in people and giving people chances that no one else would likely hire. But he hasn't reached that stage yet, ha. So I'd say my boss is a more extreme ENFx such as is being discussed in this thread in terms of what ENF managers can be like. He is extremely excellent at meeting your needs and accommodating any issues you may have with scheduling or whatnot; I would say though that he has a hard time being firm, being the 'bad guy'/taking the reins if there is a behavioral problem, and per the above, can make hiring decisions that aren't great for the team as a whole, where others have to then pick up the slack.

 

[Jaguar]

Whereas T is concerned with:

--Where am I on the pecking order? What's my role in my social group? How much do I lead and how much do I follow? How do I deal with group conflict? What if I try to assert my wishes or demands and other members of the group frustrate me in that attempt? What if I fail? What if I succeed? Should I automatically do what others tell me, or can I do things differently from others? How do I handle the anger of others? How do I handle my own anger in the group setting? What if I get ostracized from the group? What if I get elected leader of the group? And so on...

The tools that you develop at this stage are very different from the tools that you developed at the "F stage." Here, at the "T stage," you develop tools such as: The concepts of equity, equality, balance, social structure, social hierarchy, conflict management, anger management, leadership, followership, rank, pecking order, etc.

Get out a stopwatch and clock how long it takes to read/ think about any of that. Then ask yourself how anyone could lead with that rolling around in their skull and actually get anything done.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Get out a stopwatch and clock how long it takes to read/ think about any of that. Then ask yourself how anyone could lead with that rolling around in their skull and actually get anything done.

My point is that those issues (pecking order, conflict management, etc.) are questions that *everyone* faces in their late youth and adolescence. *All* the personality types have to deal with these issues. And they work out their own answers to those questions over time.

But my idea is that Thinkers tend to continue viewing the world through that particular prism more than other types. Thus, Te-Doms tend to turn that mentality into the way they deal with the world through long habit, making it an automatic way of seeing the world--they can decide those types of issues almost instantaneously. Whereas Ti-Doms use those same principles inwardly to work out (over time) theories about philosophy, law, etc. But it takes years with them, because they work it all out in detail in their internal Ti laboratories.

(See my earlier posts where I described all this in detail.)

 

[Jaguar]

My point is that those issues (pecking order, conflict management, etc.) are the questions that *everyone* faces in their late youth and adolescence. *All* the personality types have to deal with these issues. And they work out their own answers to those questions over time.

But my idea is that Thinkers tend to continue viewing the world through that particular prism more than other types. Thus, Te-Doms tend to turn that mentality into the way they deal with the world through long habit, making it an automatic way of seeing the world--they can decide those things almost instantaneously. Whereas Ti-Doms use those same principles inwardly to work out (over time) theories about philosophy, law, etc. But it takes years with them, because they work it all out in detail in their internal Ti laboratories.

(See my earlier posts where I described all this in detail.)

While I have seen what you speak of in far more conventional types, including those who beat on their chest like Tarzan, it is something I find tedious and gets in the way of reaching my goal. On a side note, be careful writing in absolutes - using words such as "everyone" and "all" detracts from what you are saying and could lead to someone not taking you seriously.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

While I have seen what you speak of in far more conventional types, including those who beat on their chest like Tarzan, it is something I find tedious and gets in the way of reaching my goal.

I assume you're suggesting that you're a TJ. So you find that those things are tedious in what sense--they're old familiar territory for you and not worthy of note? Or you simply don't use those things and find them a non-issue?

On a side note, be careful writing in absolutes - using words such as "everyone" and "all" detracts from what you are saying and could lead to someone not taking you seriously.

That's good advice. Thanks. I'm just suffering from typical F-Dom lack of precision.

 

[Jaguar]

I assume you're suggesting that you're a TJ. So you find that those things are tedious in what sense--they're old familiar territory for you and not worthy of note? Or you simply don't use those things and find them a non-issue?

Assume away, if you must. What I am saying is, it's a non-issue.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Assume away, if you must. What I am saying is, it's a non-issue.

Fair enough. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Fidelia]

I might agree with some of your observations in a broadstrokes kind of way. However, I think Fe actually pays a lot of attention to pecking order and social structure as a way of navigating.

I do agree that Te is much better at figuring out what is advantageous or how to lead in a way that is most efficient. Many of the STJs I know are very good at doing work efficiently, prioritizing, seeing the larger structure and understanding what is necessary to climb the ladder. They are competent and affable, and the ESTJs that wish to are pretty good at being schmoozey. They are in general responsible with belonging and money and interested in investing and planning for the future. Many of the NTJs I know are more interested in entrepreneurial pursuits or developing their own systems, but also seem pretty good at monetizing those pursuits. They may climb a particular ladder, but it seems to me more in the interests of having the freedom to do what they are most interested in, more than settling in for a career on one of the rungs of the ladder. I have, in my fairly limited experience, found that while they can be great at dealing with systems that involve people, they are a little more prone to sort of processing people with a particular formula, rather than relating on a personal level to each individual. One that I know is an extremely successful consultant, who goes into large educational structures and helps them find ways of assessing how the system is running and where it is breaking down, and also finding ways to resolve the problems between people to a point where they can work together. Yet in some ways, on a personal level, I find that their discomfort with negativity, or rigidity in how they relate, or seeming need for control (even though they are really warm, good host, etc) is more borne out of dislike of being thrown curveballs they aren't prepared for or don't have a pat answer for.

Again, I have no idea, as I am not 100% sure of some of the typings and even those are influenced by circumstances, upbringing, etc. But, yes, I'd agree that Te users often are better with assessing how to work within a system, or to use it to advantage, and Fe users maybe are more focussed on individual relationships.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[snipped]However, I think Fe actually pays a lot of attention to pecking order and social structure as a way of navigating.

Actually, I'm going to address that in the Fe vs Fi part: The role of extraverts as enforcers of the collective's rules. It's something that all four types of extraverts can do, to different degrees. But I would argue that Fe does it in a one-on-one fashion (and thus falls under my definition of interpersonal relations), whereas Te would tend to do it in a more holistic or bureaucratic sense, that is, in the framework of rank, seniority, conflict management, etc. (and thus falls under my definition of T-style people-handling).

I do agree that Te is much better at figuring out what is advantageous or how to lead in a way that is most efficient. Many of the STJs I know are very good at doing work efficiently, prioritizing, seeing the larger structure and understanding what is necessary to climb the ladder. They are competent and affable, and the ESTJs that wish to are pretty good at being schmoozey. They are in general responsible with belonging and money and interested in investing and planning for the future. Many of the NTJs I know are more interested in entrepreneurial pursuits or developing their own systems, but also seem pretty good at monetizing those pursuits. They may climb a particular ladder, but it seems to me more in the interests of having the freedom to do what they are most interested in, more than settling in for a career on one of the rungs of the ladder. I have, in my fairly limited experience, found that while they can be great at dealing with systems that involve people, they are a little more prone to sort of processing people with a particular formula, rather than relating on a personal level to each individual. One that I know is an extremely successful consultant, who goes into large educational structures and helps them find ways of assessing how the system is running and where it is breaking down, and also finding ways to resolve the problems between people to a point where they can work together. Yet in some ways, on a personal level, I find that their discomfort with negativity, or rigidity in how they relate, or seeming need for control (even though they are really warm, good host, etc) is more borne out of dislike of being thrown curveballs they aren't prepared for or don't have a pat answer for.

Again, I have no idea, as I am not 100% sure of some of the typings and even those are influenced by circumstances, upbringing, etc. But, yes, I'd agree that Te users often are better with assessing how to work within a system, or to use it to advantage, and Fe users maybe are more focussed on individual relationships.

Your observations on T's are helpful. But I'm wondering: Do you see these habits of T's as a type of people-handling skills in the developmental sense that I suggested in my previous posts? Because I would argue: I understand that as an Fe-Aux you don't like the "negativity, or rigidity in how they relate, or seeming need for control," but the fact remains that the T's in question are still doing people-handling, and in fact they're doing it well. Just not the way that *you* would do it.

 

[Tilt]

I see your point, and I agree with you. I'm just being imprecise when I use "touchy-feely" to describe the Fe way of doing things. I'm using "touchy-feely" in the sense of "being solicitous of feelings of the other person," but that's not exactly what "touchy-feely" technically means. So I'll quit using "touchy-feely" in that sense or context.

As for the rest of your post: I'm not so much interested in *your* experience of *your own* Aux-Fe.

Let me explain that by reiterating what I'm trying to accomplish in this thread. Basically, I'm trying to establish an F vs T division along the following lines:

F is concerned with:


Whereas T is concerned with:


I characterize this F-vs-T comparison, in short, in the following manner:


Thus, what I'm ideally looking for is people with broad experience of all types who can draw comparisons of both F and T and say whether or not they see F and T in a similar light.

Therefore, I'm *less* interested in a precise and detailed breakdown of your own personal experiences of your own Aux-Fe. Thats partly because you're an Ni-Dom who has been a nurse and a manager (If I remember correctly). You might have picked up some Te management skills as part of your repertoire. Also, I could point to your description of your Aux-Fe skills and say that it sounds like a workplace-based use of F "personal relationship" or "one-on-one interaction" skills (as I've defined them), but you could interpret your experiences in a different way and try to prove how you see those same skills as "social" or "group leadership" skills (which I've defined as T skills).

So your personal observations of your own Aux-Fe skills are of limited use. I would rather hear from people who have worked or lived with or have experience of *both* F-Doms and T-Doms in their lives, and who can do the same kind of broad F vs T comparisons that I have attempted, and can thus confirm or deny what I'm suggesting.

Also: Not to put down your input, but you're an Ni-Dom, and Ni-Doms love long arguments. I've seen you go round and round with people on this topic in the past. (You're one of the chief participants in the never-ending Fe-vs-Fi wars in the past.) Based on what I've seen, I suspect we could slice and dice your description of your own experience of your own Aux-Fe forever and still never come to any agreement.

So my position on this is as follows: I'm interested in hearing about your own experience of your Aux-Fe, and I've paid attention to what you've posted. But I don't want to get into a big digression with you about it. For purposes of this thread, I would rather stick to the topic of broad F vs T comparisons, in the spirit of what I've proposed in my own posts in this thread.

To put it another way: You're an N-Dom, not an F-Dom or T-Dom. I would rather hear less about your *own* Aux-Fe, and more about your experiences with the various F-Doms and T-Doms that might be in your life.

Well both [MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION] and I have expressed our experiences with how we experienced our Fe dom-ness and we are being told it's wrong. That's the funny thing. So what if [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] is *just* a mere IXFJ.....many of her points still have validity.

No shit... both Te and Fe work with people in different ways but this delineation is overly simplified.

 

[Fidelia]

No, I don't really mind it in a work setting. I'd rather someone be more dispassionate. I think it's useful for them to have advisors just to alert them to a wider picture. I think it becomes more problematic in say connecting with a rebellious teenager or a family member that's just lost someone etc. Even in the case of my uncle, he is more interested in getting things settled for the other person work-wise or savings wise than understanding what they need right then and whether they are ready yet for the action he is prescribing. In a conversation with anyone, his opening line is to ask for three positive things that have happened lately. He wants the highlights, a little soundbite that he can relay. I don't think it is lack of caring so much as not knowing what to do should people not relate in a way he knows what to do with, so it can come off as overly directed.

I kind of feel that you are fairly attached to your hypothesis, which is okay, but I think it needs some refining to accurately reflect other people's experiences.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Well both [MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION] and I have expressed our experiences with how we experienced our Fe dom-ness in addition and we are being told it's wrong. That's the funny thing. So what if Z Buck McFate is *just* a mere IXFJ.....many of her points still have validity.

Actually I haven't addressed your posts because they were more personal in nature and didn't address the overall theme of the thread: F vs T. I would like to see more of a comparison of F vs T. That's been the stated theme of the thread ever since the OP. It's even in the title.

So I read your posts, but I don't necessarily have anything to say about them. They don't really fit the stated theme of the thread.

As for INFJs: I have no problem with them contributing. But the second Fe is mentioned, a couple of them have a long habit of joining in and making the thread all about Aux-Fe, sometimes for hundreds and even thousand of posts. To me, that's an abuse.

Turn it on its head: My aux function is Ne. I like to think that I have some insight into the nature of how N works because of it. But I wouldn't hijack a thread about how the function N works and try to make that thread all about my Ne-Aux. My Ne-Aux doesn't operate exactly the same as N in the Dominant position. So I limit my participation in threads on the nature of N.

And basically that's the nature of my problem with (some individual) INFJs.

No shit... both Te and Fe work with people in different ways but this delineation is overly simplified.

It's still a valid thread topic. One can attempt to make broad-brush comparisons of F vs T.

 

[Tilt]

Actually I haven't addressed your posts because they were more personal in nature and didn't address the overall theme of the thread: F vs T. I would like to see more of a comparison of F vs T. That's been the chosen theme ever since the OP.

So I read your posts, but I don't necessarily have anything to say about them. They don't really fit the stated profile of the thread.

As for INFJs: I have no problem with them contributing. But the second Fe is mentioned, a couple of them have a long habit of joining in and making the thead all about Aux-Fe, sometimes for hundreds and even thousand of posts. To me, that's an abuse.

Turn it on its head: My aux function is Ne. I like to think that I have some insight into the nature of N because of it. But I wouldn't hijack a thread about how the function N words and try to make it all about my Ne-Aux. My Ne-Aux doesn't function exactly the same as N in the Dominant position. So I limit my participation in threads on the nature of Ns.

And basically that's the nature of my problem with (some individual) INFJs.


It's still a valid thread topic. One can attempt to make broad-brush comparisons of F vs T.

I essentially use personal data points because I can't speak for ALL FJ and TJ users.... to insinuate such would be to make broad-brush comparisons on my end, ironically. Much of typology is self-report in nature and so it would be difficult to draw fair comparisons without consistently observing people and refining the mental model.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I essentially use personal data points because I can't speak for ALL FJ and TJ users.... to insinuate such would be broad-brush comparisons on my end. Much of typology is self-report in nature and so it be difficult to draw fair comparisons without consistently observing people and refining the mental model.

Understood. And I read what you posted and was interested by it. But it didn't fit the stated theme of the thread, so I didn't comment back.

 

[Sacrophagus]

As for INFJs: I have no problem with them contributing. But the second Fe is mentioned, a couple of them have a long habit of joining in and making the thread all about Aux-Fe, sometimes for hundreds and even thousand of posts. To me, that's an abuse.

You're letting fear and worry become a hindrance of what promises to be an interesting conversation.
We are still talking about human nature that cannot be calculated in essence. Their experience, provided it follows the baseline, does not lose its validity and should be taken into account. After sampling and much observation we might come up with appropriate conclusions to support your hypothesis.

You can either have that or nothing.