F = personal relationships vs T = social interactions

[Jaguar]

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

Eric Clapton plays differently than Eddie Van Halen, who plays differently than Keith Urban, who plays differently than David Gilmour. They all play the guitar.

 

[Fidelia]

In this case, I should just note, I don't have a horse in this race. Those old Fe Fi discussions were a very long time ago. I learned some things through them, which were important at that point, but my attention is more focussed on other things.

Do you think it's possible that the reason some Fe users are approaching from the POV of their own personal experiences is that it's maybe the part of the nature of Fe? I'm not sure if that is the case, but am throwing it out there as a possibility.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

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.

You're right, of course. The trouble is that I have limited time here, so I wanted to try to keep the thread on-topic as much as possible. I haven't posted for almost a year, and I only have a small window to post now. So I just kind of did a brain dump on a topic of interest, to see if it resonated with others.

And I got some interesting input, both on how best to present the ideas, and on how others see the ideas. T responses seem to have been more favorable than Fe responses, for example.

Anyway, I think I'll drop out here. Like I said, I have a busy schedule, and this discussion has already taken too much of my time. Also, I figure it's best not to do a post on Fi-vs-Fe. It looks like the thread is already on the edge of devolving into a full-blown war on the nature of Fe, as usual.

So I'll leave the thread as it is, and maybe others can play around with it and get something of use out of it. I'll lurk. But I've said my bit, I've seen the reactions, and that's all I really wanted.

 

[Fidelia]

Of course, it's up to you, but I don't think there's a necessity for it to turn into anything bad. This and the other thread on the topic are some of few real discussions I've seen take place for some time. So whether you choose to remain in the discussion or not, thanks for provoking some interesting dialogue!

 

[Tilt]

In this case, I should just note, I don't have a horse in this race. Those old Fe Fi discussions were a very long time ago. I learned some things through them, which were important at that point, but my attention is more focussed on other things.

Do you think it's possible that the reason some Fe users are approaching from the POV of their own personal experiences is that it's maybe the part of the nature of Fe? I'm not sure if that is the case, but am throwing it out there as a possibility.

At least, for me. I have 2 other Fe doms that I am fairly close to and we do have some similarities but for me to assume their intent and generalize would be offensive because I am not them and they are not me. For example, even on this forum, I relate to SearchingforPeace, geedoenfj, and hard on some level but we all have our own unique flavor twist on what Fe feels and looks like. If one were to look closer, there would probably be some common underlying themes but how we each approach things is going to be a bit different.

The way I feel I had a pretty good understanding regarding my TJ friends is because I have spent probably over a thousand hours dissecting their thought process through conversation (sounds insane, but I wanted to understand what they are all about). Even then I can't proclaim to understand the motivations others of similar typings. But I have seen some interesting patterns though. Is that Fe? 😄

 

[Tilt]

Eric Clapton plays differently than Eddie Van Halen, who plays differently than Keith Urban, who plays differently than David Gilmour. They all play the guitar.

The funny thing is that the more I categorize and apply that to real life interactions, the more misunderstanding it tended to create. I use MBTI and enneagram as one of many blueprints/heuristics to explain the motivations of others. The psychology of motivation, personality, stress is a vast world.

 

[cascadeco]

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.

For the record, I probably missed the detail in the OP where you cited you were only interested in discussing T-dom (thus IxTP and ExTJ) and F-dom (thus IxFP and ExFJ), and thus not interested in discussing or hearing personal experiences of IxTJ, IxFJ, ExFP, or ExTP ---- but when I initially started posting in this thread and until this post you made, I read the title of the thread and assumed you were speaking of F and T in the dichotomy sense --- thus the topic and discussion was fair game as well as applicable for ALL 16 types, whether dom or aux T or F.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

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...

I don't have a lot of time just now, but wanted to add that I thought I was describing typical INFJ experience - if not FJ, by extension. I was unclear about this (and I have found it grating in the past when people show up to these discussions, seemingly implying that their own experience must be indicative of some general rule, so I see where you're coming from). I think I am an FJ outlier in the sense that I'm rather extreme in not having the emotional reserves to deal with lots of hand-holding (likely something to do with being e5, least so instinct variant). But the part I described about the internal landscape being full of observations noted about people (and how there's a constant background process of this happening) - as I understand it (based on extensive discussion of it here in the forum), that is people-oriented introverted perception.

I'd be interested in hearing how TJs relate to the list of questions above. I can't speak to what happens inside a person, obviously, but the hardcore examples of TJ I've dealt with in the past (ex-husband, some acquaintances, etc) make it difficult to believe that the second group of questions above (assigned to T) happen more for T than F. I'm inclined to think that a F will likely delve into the second batch of questions in even more detail. I can relate equally to both lists myself (and suspect this is true of all FJs), and the only difference between them is that different contexts would raise them. Just like a restaurant might raise questions along the lines of "What am I hungry for? Do I feel like trying something new? Do I like cheese?", a hardware store instead would raise questions like "Do I feel like pushing a lawnmower to save the cost of buying a riding mower? And how self-propelled do I need it to be?" But I do realize that I'm forming this estimate (of how much TJs ask themselves these social questions) based on rather extreme TJs examples (the ones I've known, and who probably almost never ask these questions in as much detail as you've listed). I've likely known other TJs who do, and whom I've not typed because their type inclinations were not strong enough for it to be obvious to me.

 

[Tilt]

I don't have a lot of time just now, but wanted to add that I thought I was describing typical INFJ experience - if not FJ, by extension. I was unclear about this (and I have found it grating in the past when people show up to these discussions, seemingly implying that their own experience must be indicative of some general rule, so I see where you're coming from). I think I am an FJ outlier in the sense that I'm rather extreme in not having the emotional reserves to deal with lots of hand-holding (likely something to do with being e5, least so instinct variant). But the part I described about the internal landscape being full of observations noted about people (and how there's a constant background process of this happening) - as I understand it (based on extensive discussion of it here in the forum), that is people-oriented introverted perception.

I'd be interested in hearing how TJs relate to the list of questions above. I can't speak to what happens inside a person, obviously, but the hardcore examples of TJ I've dealt with in the past (ex-husband, some acquaintances, etc) make it difficult to believe that the second group of questions above (assigned to T) happen more for T than F. I'm inclined to think that a F will likely delve into the second batch of questions in even more detail. I can relate equally to both lists myself (and suspect this is true of all FJs), and the only difference between them is that different contexts would raise them. Just like a restaurant might raise questions along the lines of "What am I hungry for? Do I feel like trying something new? Do I like cheese?", a hardware store instead would raise questions like "Do I feel like pushing a lawnmower to save the cost of buying a riding mower? And how self-propelled do I need it to be?" But I do realize that I'm forming this estimate (of how much TJs ask themselves these social questions) based on rather extreme TJs examples (the ones I've known, and who probably almost never ask these questions in as much detail as you've listed). I've likely known other TJs who do, and whom I've not typed because their type inclinations were not strong enough for it to be obvious to me.

I gotta say that I never found you to be particularly an outlier in terms of Fe....just a more analytical version of an Fe user. From my experience, there a wide spectrum of how Fe manifests... super warm and touchy-feely to strategic and calculated - there is a HUGE emphasis on pecking order and definition of roles...if you get into a room with several EXFJs fighting over something, it's more often than not about how someone else is overstepped their boundaries and how he/she didn't fulfill their defined/perceived role. And then they expand upon how to keep the person in check. The supposed "T set" of questions could just as easily fit into the more "strategic" side of Fe.

From my POV, ETJs often seem to emphasize more on how people/the system are competent/incompetent and usually expand upon how to make things run more efficiently.

 

[Fidelia]

I agree. While my enfj mother is a Fe dom, and she's warm and hospitable, she doesn't fit into the stereotype I think that some people have of Fe. She is very practical in some ways and isn't overtly emotional. She was sentimental and had a catch in her voice when she read Christmas stories aloud when I was growing up, but she wouldn't be likely to cry at something on the news or in her daily life, at least in front of people. She's friendly but not gushy or super touchy. She's kind, and has been suckered by some people sometimes, but she's also skeptical and shrewd in other ways and is very hard to fool. She definitely notices the dynamics between people and is aware of undercurrents between them.

I think that Te doms focus on how to organize a system and plug people into that, maximizing efforts that are made to produce measurable results.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

In the theories of management today, there are two ways to manage, transactional vs transformational. Here is an summary: Transformational Leadership Vs. Transactional Leadership Definition | Chron.com

....
Transformational and transactional leadership are polar opposites when it comes to the underlying theories of management and motivation. Transactional leaders focus on organization, supervision and group performance, whereas transformational leaders focus on change within the organization.

What is Transactional Leadership?

Transactional leadership styles are more concerned with maintaining the normal flow of operations – this style is best described as “keeping the ship afloat.” Transactional leaders use disciplinary power and an array of incentives to motivate employees to perform at their best. The term “transactional” refers to the fact that this type of leader essentially motivates subordinates by exchanging rewards for performance.

A transactional leader generally does not look ahead in strategically guiding an organization to a position of market leadership; instead, these managers are often concerned with making sure everything flows smoothly today.

What is Transformational Leadership?

A transformational leader goes beyond managing day-to-day operations and crafts strategies for taking his company, department or work team to the next level of performance and success. Transformational leadership styles focus on team-building, motivation and collaboration with employees at different levels of an organization to accomplish change for the better.

These leaders set goals and incentives to push their subordinates to higher performance levels, while providing opportunities for personal and professional growth for each employee.

.....

Different management styles are suited to different situations. When it comes to front-line supervisors of minimum-wage employees, for example, a transactional leadership style can be more effective. Shift supervisors at a fast food restaurant will be much more effective if they are concerned with ensuring all of the various stations run smoothly, rather than spending their time thinking up better ways to serve hamburgers.

On the other hand, CEOs or sales managers can be more effective if they are transformational leaders. Executive managers need the ability to design and communicate grand strategic missions, passing the missions down to transactional leaders for implementation of the details.
....

Te seems to fit the transactional model, while Fe seems to fit a transformative model.

There is a lot of literature and research on this.

I have worked in both environments. I know one I prefer.

I recently reread The Caine Mutiny after the death of Herman Wouk. There was one line in it that Navy structure was designed so that dumb idiots could execute it.

In transactional environments, workers do the minimum they can without being fired. They need extensive supervision and are kept in fear of being fired.

In transformational environments, workers are highly motivated and need little supervision. They go above and beyond because they feel and are empowered.

Can transactional (Te) leadership be successful? Sure. Treat every employee as fungible.

I read a few years ago an article on a transformative led mini mart chain. A typical 7-11 employee has 2 hours of training. 7-11 has huge problems with employee turnover, employee theft, and customer theft. A different chain spends 2 weeks training new employees, pays their employees good wages, and invests in employee morale. They have almost no theft and little turnover.

People are not robots. Fe space is the land of external human interactions. Te space is object interaction.

Again, Amazon warehouses are Te managed. Employees are treated like robots. They will be replaced with robots. Until then, they have high turnover.

 

[Jaguar]

Fe space is the land of external human interactions.

Throwing a knife across the room into someone's back is a hell of an external human interaction. Or are you going to tell me they only sing Kumbaya at sales meetings?

 

[Tater]

Sing Kumbaya. Or else...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Do you think it's possible that the reason some Fe users are approaching from the POV of their own personal experiences is that it's maybe the part of the nature of Fe? I'm not sure if that is the case, but am throwing it out there as a possibility.

I can't remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that it's an NFJ issue to need experience to match theory in order to give the theory any weight - and that really, really resonated for me. In fact, I think it's a big part of why (historically) the INFJs here have written tomes in response to information that didn't seem accurate. It's not so much an attempt to cram excessive revision down someone else's throat (though it's reasonable to feel that way) so much as the perpetual task of coming as close as possible to describing experience accurately. Theory itself feels too insubstantial if there isn't adequate experience to confirm it, and the sharing of personal experience amongst ourselves is exactly the kind of thing that tethers theory to reality and makes the theory 'feel' substantial. And then consistency/repeatability over time of reported experiences matching theory is another effective tether. I think that introverted perception needs these tethers for theory to hold authentic merit in our minds, and without them it's just insubstantial flyspecks.

eta: Back to the point of the thread though, I see others are agreeing with me about the T set of questions. I really do think it's more Fe's wheelhouse to constantly make those kind of observations about the 'group' (in the context of interacting with the group). I'd like to see some TJs respond to whether they identify with that thought process.

 

[Earl Grey]

Here's an idea I've been toying with: To me, F seems to be about personal relationships (primary personal attachment bonds: partners, parent-children bonds, friendship bonds, etc.), whereas T seems to be about social interactions. Thus, for example:
--When you're talking about how you relate to a partner or a friend, you're talking about using F.
--But when you talk about "being able to sense the emotional temperature of a room full of people upon entering," that's probably going to fall under use of T.

[ . . . ]

So again, let me stop here and ask: What do people think about the distinction that I'm drawing? F = personal relationships vs T = social and group interactions: Do you think it's total BS, or does the idea seem to have some merit? It's just an idea I'm toying with, so I'm genuinely interested in getting honest feedback on this. Then later, once a consensus on the F vs T idea arises, I'll follow with what I think is the main distinction between Fe and Fi.

This is hellishly difficult for me and I have trouble identifying F/T within myself (so much that I've just tossed MBTI and went with enneagram, but I won't go into that), most data comes from other people and sometimes they are wildly different than what I expected. The F/T divide had always been more puzzling to me, so I'm not sure how much I can chip in, but I do find this topic interesting.

My own two cents are that Fi = personal relationships, Fe = wider scope of relationships, in other words, groups but what do I know, while Ti is a personal scope of management, and Te is a wider scope of management- so, people included (be in warmly, or coolly managerial). The nature of the relationship might differ (the T you describe might not be your warm beer-drinking buddy on weekend nights but it exists, it's just not 'warm' and 'friendship'-ey) but it's a relationship nonetheless. I always thought of Fe as Te but with a softer hand- still goal-oriented, procedural (J), but with a bigger focus and emphasis on individuals and their well-being. Think an E-FJ kindergarten schoolteacher. In other words, both Fe and Te are social, albeit in different ways, while both Fi and Ti are individual, albeit also in different ways.


EDIT: I thought a little more about this.
To slightly echo what [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] said, Te knows how to work a system- but to add my own opinion to that: Fe seems to be skilled at working a system of 'people'. Again, think a E-FJ kindergarten schoolteacher. I often rely on my Fe-friends to do the certain kinds of people-managing, usually if that part 'malfunctions' and they start to deviate from the motivations and goals. Fe seems to be able to touch them on a more personal level, view them as a person, validate them, and get them back up on their feet. I guess that much falls into Fe being more individuated / 1 one 1.

I look forward to further contributions on this thread.

 

[Earl Grey]

Oh I would like to note that while some Fe-users note that a heavy-handed approach to managing is 'not the way', it depends on what is being achieved. It may fail as a schoolteacher (or provide different kind of results), but it would be excellent on a drill instructor. So yes, it still is a people-oriented (in that in involves people) managerial style, how you communicate and work people. Its effectiveness simply depends on how and where it is played.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Here is where Fe leadership fails: I know a Fe using entrepreneur who is struggling right now. He trusted the wrong employees and vendors. His lack of Te has brought his business into crisis and may fall into numerous lawsuits. His efforts at fixing things made it worse. He fell prey to amoral snakes who ripped him off.

He needs a good ESTJ #2 to make things work.

As of now, he is personally down millions.....

 

[Zhaylin]

I'm fairly certain my hubby was an ISTJ (he tested as ESTJ but there wasn't an "E" bone in his body lol).
He was frequently the victim of con-men and ne'er-do-wells. He also had a hard time knowing what was an appropriate reaction or jokes and such. He was abrasive, at times, and rubbed people the wrong way even when he meant no harm or was actually trying to be helpful and kind.
He had to rely on his office manager and myself to gauge suitable behaviors and to get a read on people.
He put on airs that he didn't really care about the emotional realm, but I knew he was affected by a lot of things.
He lacked Fe and Fi was undeveloped or absent most of the time. I'm not sure about his Te and Ti. He was a scientist as well as an architect.

 

[cascadeco]

Oh I would like to note that while some Fe-users note that a heavy-handed approach to managing is 'not the way', it depends on what is being achieved. It may fail as a schoolteacher (or provide different kind of results), but it would be excellent on a drill instructor. So yes, it still is a people-oriented (in that in involves people) managerial style, how you communicate and work people. Its effectiveness simply depends on how and where it is played.

Yeah, I would add that for me at least it depends on the job as well. For example if I have 'just a job' and it's not the sort of environment where touchy-feely 'Where do you want to head/ where do you see us growing and what opportunities can we explore and foster and how can we grow as a team and thrive and pursue the stars and blah blah (hahah)' discussions aren't really desired / applicable, then I'm totally fine being a cog in the wheel and would just as soon not have to pretend I'm super interested in the job and and company (because I might not be, in a lot of cases). And, imo there's the reality that for a lot of people in the more entry level jobs who don't have much or ANY say whatsoever in company direction or policy, then those sorts of higher-level approaches at engagement can be kind of counterproductive - especially if said employee knows they're just a miniscule part of things (I mean that is a reality, too).

I would also add I think what people are referring to as the 'Te approach' can be done in a way that doesn't lack humanity or desire for welfare of fellow employees or subordinates.

I'd say a lot of things would be best as a blended approach - or at least more catered to individuals if the manager has a good read on how their employee works best / what the employee responds best to.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Here is where Fe leadership fails: I know a Fe using entrepreneur who is struggling right now. He trusted the wrong employees and vendors. His lack of Te has brought his business into crisis and may fall into numerous lawsuits. His efforts at fixing things made it worse. He fell prey to amoral snakes who ripped him off.

That doesn't mean that Te-doms are exempt from such an ordeal. In fact, I see that as simply the entrepreneur being a poor judge of character instead of it having anything to do with him being an Fe-dom.