What would the world do without Fe?

[Poki]

@ protean: True, but where a Fi-user will be more likely to build a theory of it and figuring out how exactly it works (like a Ti-user would), a Fe-user seems to be more focused on prevention and adaptation for the future, in this case through the use of taking responsibility (like a Te-user would). Both end up with the same result: adaptation to the situation, but in the case of the Fi-user it comes from putting puzzle pieces together and understanding what was missing in that (theoretic) puzzle before, whereas with Fe-users it seems to come from working within the (practical) system and refining that system to include this situation for next time.

Since Fe (like Te) includes actions and practical application, taking responsibility and blame is part of rectifying the situation, whereas Fi just backs up, refines the theory to then go back and figure out the next part. It's mostly experimenting and tinkering to get it just right, something you build at in your mind. There's no point in assigning blame or responsibilty as it would stunt the creative process. However, implementing the theory to then see it go wrong and harming someone is appologized for. The reasoning and questioning and research before however...not so much, as it's part of who the individual is. And to be apologetic for who you are as an individual, to say the least, rather unhealthy and self-destructive.

From my experience its like strategic Fi guesses. Fi strategic, not Te strategic as the purpose is to understand which is an internal thing instead of to accomplish an external goal.

 

[sculpting]

The problem is that we often classify as a means of deflecting our own shame and guilt about situations that went wrong, i.e. we rationalize it. Making a communication failure an issue of "type" and "functions" allows us to distract ourselves from our real emotion about the situation - "I feel guilty for failing to communicate." Instead of saying "this happened because of the conflict between Fi-Fe," it would be more effective to say "we didn't fail to communicate because we're bad or defective people. We just have different communication styles. Now that I know this, I can modify my communication efforts to get my message across better."

But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.

 

[Poki]

But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.

I rationalize in a way thats meant to help Fi in a more immediate sense as things get worked out long term just through life problems, but it has nothing to do with blame at all. This rationalization is like a balancing act for me.

 

[onemoretime]

But onemoretime...I dont feel shame or guilt about problems. Instead I sense anxiety or stress-Fi, then attempt to resolve with Te-what you call "rationalization" is the natural way an ENFP solves problems. It isnt an excuse...it is problem solving.

This is another example of how an Fe user would misread the actions of an Fi user-and thus assign motive incorrectly.

Anxiety/stress are shame/guilt responses.

 

[garbage]

on the INFJ common issues thread I think you can see some of the very best discussions here...that highlight how universal this issue is across that divide. Both sides approach with the best intent and end up arguing.

To use any tool, the first thing you need to understand is that you are different....then you can use tools to bridge those differences.

I'm gonna read these back over sometime soon and see if I can pick out these differences.


I'm okay with leaving the personal bullshit out of these discussions, too.
--
When someone comes at you with a very indirect communication style ("This needs to get done"), and if the stakes are kind of high, it's.. probably best just to seek common ground rather than just (a) completely ignoring the other person because they don't communicate in the same way that you do, or (b) assuming that you know what they want. Both are dangerous in their own right.

People come to you with some polite mannerism ("It'd be nice if we could tackle this problem..") and, quite often, it's pretty easy to get a first guess at what they're looking for. If you think that the person wants help, and if you're in a position to help, there are ways around the 'over-politeness.' For instance, if you can first discuss their problem with them--thereby establishing some situational trust in them that you're interested and not too busy. It's pretty straightforward from there to lead them into direct communication ("Yes, I would like your help") once that trust is established.

Sometimes, that approach isn't very easy. One of the problems with overly indirect communication is that it can be readily spun in a variety of ways. I recounted a story of a friend who stormed off to tackle some problem on her own without asking for help, and either (a) could have legitimately wanted to tackle it on her own, or (b) secretly 'docked points' from others for not stepping in. In fact, if we had assumed one or the other of these possibilities, she could easily have claimed the other to be true. It was impossible to tell, given the circumstances. And, well, it never was clear.


For what it's worth, indirect communicators also need to learn how to communicate with the direct communicators when there are projects or friendships at stake. That responsibility isn't a one-way street. If you need someone's help, and if they can't readily read your pretenses.. for God's sake, make yourself more clear!


(General "you.")

This actually was a huge problem in the airline industry once. Cultures that had two characteristics (large power distance (subordinates did not address their superiors on equal terms) and shame as a basis of social control) had much greater crash rates, and much more catastrophic crash rates, than those with other characteristics. Copilots would indirectly hint at problems to the captain, fearing that the captain would interpret this as an attack on his piloting skills, and as a result, imminent catastrophe would go unnoticed. The industry, worldwide, took drastic steps to correct the issue - comprehensive training requirements to equalize the flight environment, and making the use of English mandatory while in-flight (English doesn't have many class distinctions in its vocabulary). As a result, crash rates in these cultures reduced drastically.

Good ol' Malcolm Gladwell. That was a great book.

 

[Jaguar]

Jag...Rather than pointing out an idea, then calling out flaws in my ideas, you instead directly attacked me as a person...Why did you do that?

I have news for you sugar, Protean made the same argument I did. We are in complete agreeance that you are unwilling to see this as a problem that belongs only to you, not Fe, and your refusal to step up to the plate and accept personal accountability. If you consider that an "attack," then you have even bigger problems reading people than I thought.

Read this:

Then basically are saying you CANNOT COMMUNICATE with half the population. Do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean it's Fe users, it means IT'S YOU! Stop making it Fe, when it's you. Furthermore, stop dragging other Fi users into your underworld and blowing it up into some kind of Fe-Fi communication abyss, when it's Orobas's lack of understanding. You're making yourself the standard and everyone else the exception.

^ PROTEAN'S WORDS which I support 100%. It's my own viewpoint, as well.

What I find offensive here is two members saying the same thing to you, but you accuse only one of "attacking" you. I'll be direct - that type of inequity lacks integrity. That means it is YOU making an ATTACK on ME, since you have chosen to apply two different standards here, depending on who you are dealing with.

 

[Amargith]

Seriously, I'm with Orobas on this. Can we *not* make people defensive and derail the thread even further? This is a thread about the function Fe, afterall, and O was just sharing some thoughts on this, and trying to get some constructive feedback on stuff she mulled over in her head, kinda like you would with any idea or theory. Just say that you're not inclined to believe that her examples have anything to do with the Fe-Fi difference and state why.

Whatever her personal issues are, they're none of your business, imho,nor is anyone really qualified to judge on that as they do not know who she is. I don't believe she even asked for advice on her situation and how to deal with it, just for feedback on how to analyze the situation. ffs, she's not standing trial here.

edit: let me be clear, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just at the general vibe in this thread.

 

[Jaguar]

Seriously, I'm with Orobas on this.

Seriously, I'm with Protean on this.

 

[uumlau]

But this situation happens so frequently in a work environment, at least for me it does. It's not some huge thought process I need to go through and I do think it's obvious.

Is it so difficult to understand that some people do that more easily than others? And that sometimes the work environment issues are reversed, with (for lack of a better expression) "Te-style" dominance of the culture, with "Fe-style" people trying to get by?

I fully understand your misgivings w/r to applying MBTI and Jungian functions to everything. If one understands a situation on its own terms, that understanding will be more complete, and "functions" just get in the way. However, if one is unfamiliar with the situation, those simplistic functions can help one quickly classify and process issues, rather than just sitting in confusion because one doesn't grok the whole process.

What happens when you have a direct Fe communicator or does no such animal exist? Once again, the way you and Orobas are describing it, Fe=indirect, Te=direct. Is that a claim you all want to make because it seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

Yeah, that's a simplistic picture, with the Te=direct and Fe=indirect. I fully agree. With respect to the Tannen book, due to how she describes the situations, what she describes as "direct" is the Te behavior, while the "indirect" has a more Fe feel to it. (I go into more detail at the end of this post, but as I don't have the book with me, I don't have quotes available to make this as clear is I might, otherwise.)

I don't expect Orobas to hold the same value set as I do, but only being able to communicate with people who are "like" me is a severe handicap. What is insulting about this whole thing is exactly what Jag outlines above: instead of Orobas owning it as her problem, she extrapolates it to functions. Instead of taking accountability for her communication difficulties, it's suddenly a type issue.

Well, I think that's where the miscommunication is coming in: she is taking accountability. Her manner of doing so appears to be foreign to you, to the point of looking like "rationalization" and "blaming Jungian functions". She steps back and analyzes patterns. More often than not, the analysis results in self-correction, not blame.

If you want to map this to function, (which I think is bologney but I'll play along) and using Orobas as an example, her Fi still sits in front of Te and I would say that Fi is way more indirect that Fe. I won't fuss about Te being more direct than Fe, but Ti seems pretty direct to me as well. Then you've got Se and Si and I'd like to see the argument made that Se is an indirect function...I'd jump on Si being indirect. Would extroverted functions be more direct since they're more visible? As I've already brought up earlier, all EJs fall into the In Charge group and then ESTP. Would In Charge (two of which are Fe users) be the most direct? ENFPs are in the Get Things Going category which engages through enthusiasm and excitment, but so are ESFJs and ENTPs. I would think that if these types are all grouped together they must have equally effective, but different means of leading and engaging people.

These are good points. Fi is way more indirect about emotions and handling emotions than Fe. You essentially have to step on Fi toes really hard to get a straight reaction out of them. This is where a better definition of "direct" and "indirect" come into play, because they are being used in a particular way by a particular author.

Specifically, a "direct" approach would be to say, "I want some ice tea, please." Someone sharing that communication style would presumably ask if they want lemon or sugar and go get some, or reply that, sorry, there is no ice tea to be had (or even "Go get your own damn tea.")

An indirect approach would be to talk about how hot it is, eventually mention that a cool drink would be refreshing, and only when exasperated or dying of thirst ask for water or tea or something.

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but when outlining the direct style, it was described as being "information only" with no emotional content, saying no more or less than needed, while the indirect style worked at preserving relationships, respecting boundaries, and in general tried to make assumptions about how the other might react to various statements. As you can see, with these kinds of definitions, it's easy to make the simplistic (I'd say 0th or 1st order) observation that Te = direct and Fe = indirect. Yes it gets more and more complicated as you get into the details, but it's a good starting point for understanding.

 

[Poki]

So as to me...I am totally Fe Blind-thus allowing me to observe the behavioral patterns as they unfold with Te quite effectively. I dont understand Fe motives, but I see patterns. I am exceptionally sensitive to Fi...which is unspoken. So proteo you are totally right in that half the population is off limits. Understanding how to bridge those gaps is the point of the convo. Let's place me at the 99% for Fe-blindness.

Rely on the bolded Your Fi will throw you way off. A situation that you may see as leading to hurt does nothing to me in way of being hurt by someone, it will be something entirely different. Its as far off as me trying to use Ti to judge why an Fi user does something. When you see hurt I feel something else. In the meantime though the Fi judgement is half way to what what works best, meaning it does actually work.

 

[Aleksei]

A couple threads lately got me thinking - what would the world be like without Fe?

It seems like it would be a much more selfish and unhappy place.

I think a world without Fe would look something like this:

 

[Poki]

The problem is that we often classify as a means of deflecting our own shame and guilt about situations that went wrong, i.e. we rationalize it. Making a communication failure an issue of "type" and "functions" allows us to distract ourselves from our real emotion about the situation - "I feel guilty for failing to communicate." Instead of saying "this happened because of the conflict between Fi-Fe," it would be more effective to say "we didn't fail to communicate because we're bad or defective people. We just have different communication styles. Now that I know this, I can modify my communication efforts to get my message across better."

Didnt we graduate from elementary, cant we skip steps? You miss her actions for her words. She stated that she is working on her communication, that its working better, but some people here are stuck on her "statement" of blaming it on Fe communication. I mean please...see "everything" and stop getting stuck on a particular part...I know Jag realizes how inaccurate that can be(fault of mine in a post, not his).

I must say that communicating with my ex ISTP has changed massively in the last two weeks-once I learned how to phrase requests in a more Fe way...

Doesnt sound like she is stuck on anything she is getting attacked for...projection maybe

I am sorry this whole Fe vs Fi commnication statement that Orobas uses can be likened to "women are from venus, men are from mars" or whatever that book is called, yet so many therapists recomend it.

Me and my wife tried the whole feeling things and being Fe it got really twisted. It kept coming out I feel when you feel which places blame back on the other person for feeling. Sorry doesnt work for Fe. And are you realling telling an Fi to use her feeling words. Doesnt this just get it out in the open. I have never known a dom/aux Fi user to have a problem with recognizing her own feelings. Sounds more like an Te dom/aux issue.

I do better with "I think" statements. But when will that ever make it into "books". "Use your think statements" Try it see how it gets twisted around. See if it ends up "I think that you think". Have fun.

 

[skylights]

I fully understand your misgivings w/r to applying MBTI and Jungian functions to everything. If one understands a situation on its own terms, that understanding will be more complete, and "functions" just get in the way. However, if one is unfamiliar with the situation, those simplistic functions can help one quickly classify and process issues, rather than just sitting in confusion because one doesn't grok the whole process.

and it can lead you to consistent solutions. if i can say, this seems like it can be understood in the construct of a Jungian Fe-Fi conflict, then i can refer to how Fe works and how Fi works and (being Fi) try something that would relate more to Fe. maybe that won't work. but if it does, that's awesome, and the theory is useful.

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but when outlining the direct style, it was described as being "information only" with no emotional content, saying no more or less than needed, while the indirect style worked at preserving relationships, respecting boundaries, and in general tried to make assumptions about how the other might react to various statements. As you can see, with these kinds of definitions, it's easy to make the simplistic (I'd say 0th or 1st order) observation that Te = direct and Fe = indirect. Yes it gets more and more complicated as you get into the details, but it's a good starting point for understanding.

that's interesting. i was just thinking, that perhaps Te would seem more "direct" than Fe because Te navigates ideas and Fe navigates people. in other words, Te seems more "direct" to us (people) because we can see it more plainly. it's not navigating around us. but if you think of it from a neutral perspective - seeing a Fe dom/aux communicate something to someone else, it can be very direct, because they're communicating taking the personal variables into account. does that make any sense? it's like relativity...

did i seriously just relate function theory to physics

There's no point in assigning blame or responsibilty as it would stunt the creative process.

and blame stunts ability to heal. blame is a very negative word, both for the blamer and the blamed. carrying blame along is not going to help anyone be healthier inside. if i've said that i'm sorry and am making amends, then what function does blame have anymore?

Anxiety/stress are shame/guilt responses.

kind of - they're related. shame and guilt are very interpersonal. they require at least two people. anxiety and stress only require one person. anxiety and stress are related to how i feel about myself. shame and guilt are related to how i feel about myself in someone else's eyes.

 

[Amargith]

@bologna (it won't let me quote you for some reason)

Agreed, for the most part. I also find that I personally (when I'm not stressed or distracted), automatically will pick indirect communication to request something that isn't too urgent, especially if I don't know if the other person isn't already preoccupied and prone to bending over backwards to help someone. I will however use very direct communication to get things moving and when I'm pressed for a deadline on something important. Imo it's just a matter of using the right type of communication in the right situation, in order to communicate the importance and urgency of the matter, as well as the status of it (personal request, to the benefit of us all, necessary to us all, etc).

 

[Hopelandic]

My Fi says: I think Fe is the cornerstone of modern man.

If it were not for group cohesiveness (later on, specialisation RE: Te), man would not have evolved the complex systems in which allow us to 'prosper'* as a species.

*this is relative, depending on how you look at evaluating the course of human evolution.


I struggle to see how you can isolate an individual function and look at cause and effect though.

 

[sculpting]

@bologna (it won't let me quote you for some reason)

Agreed, for the most part. I also find that I personally (when I'm not stressed or distracted), automatically will pick indirect communication to request something that isn't too urgent, especially if I don't know if the other person isn't already preoccupied and prone to bending over backwards to help someone. I will however use very direct communication to get things moving and when I'm pressed for a deadline on something important. Imo it's just a matter of using the right type of communication in the right situation, in order to communicate the importance and urgency of the matter, as well as the status of it (personal request, to the benefit of us all, necessary to us all, etc).

This in bold is what I am seeing in my young ENFPs at work. NeFi is how we understand others, but Te is how we meet deadlines...a baby Te that is about at the level of a ten year old ESTJ...

 

[onemoretime]

kind of - they're related. shame and guilt are very interpersonal. they require at least two people. anxiety and stress only require one person. anxiety and stress are related to how i feel about myself. shame and guilt are related to how i feel about myself in someone else's eyes.

Or yourself... judging yourself as you would another person is part of the dissociative response. Guilt is entirely self-contained, as well, as you're judging yourself compared to some standard, and finding yourself deficient.

 

[Amargith]

I don't judge others. I just see the consequences of their actions and the intentions behind those actions, despite the result. And I base my reaction on those two things, fixing/helping to rectify the situation and/or talking to the person to investigate their intent if need be, to prevent more harm from happening. So to me, guilt is not useful. It stunts me. It makes me scared of acting, out of fear of doing something else wrong.

The second I do something that harms someone else, I feel sorry for causing it, but I instantly review why I did something and what went wrong in the execution. It usually takes me a split second. If my intent is true and right, guilt and blame are tossed in the bin as they're of no use while I figure out how to navigate this situation better in the future.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm an ENTJ with Fi (inferior) and I know how people are feeling most of the time, it's just that sometimes I don't care, like when they're completely wrong, their feelings are irrelevant.

An ENFP is even better at knowing how others feel, and they also care most of the time, so your argument is invalid.

I also don't see how some of you throw out loyalty, caring, love... out of the equation along with Fe. Fi is perfectly capable of all of that, only I think it's better cause it's more authentic.

I think the world would be more honest, sincere, authentic, realistic and less fake. The world would be more hierarchical and with the "suck it up and work" attitude we'd soon have robots who would do everything for us while we have fun.

Wait, there's gotta be something bad. I just can't come up with anything. :/

Even if it tests as your lowest function, I think you use Fe. Everyone does.
Actually this whole idea that people use either X or Y function makes no sense. Cognitive functions are not like separate Leggo blocks that either you've got it or you haven't.

Also, a passionate desire to be rid of Fe is exactly one example of it.

Knowing how someone else feels is on one level something that can never be achieved, but there is a difference between identifying a state and understanding the nuance and causality behind it. To use a different example, when someone looks at a cloud and is asked to draw the cloud, many times the person will draw what is essentially a hieroglyph of that cloud and not a true representation of the literal cloud before them. In this way if someone is sad, there is an "iconic idea of sad" which we can understand and impose onto that person and think we understand their state. The labeling of subjective states as a way to understand is precisely the way to be completely blind to it. Just as no two clouds have the same shape, no two emotional states resonate the same. We can identify to some extent what another is feeling, but to quickly assume we know is to imply this process of labeling the icons of emotions rather than looking at that state from the inside with a sense of empathy. That understanding cannot be placed into words because words too are icons of ideas and not the original idea.

 

[garbage]

We don't need to go into the streets to see bigotry, we can just walk through this thread saying, "Oh! Lookee!"
Look out for "demonic" functions, too. Lol.

The things that people don't like become their definitions of "the other," which in turn become their definitions of functions that they don't "use." Which in turn colors their perceptions of other people.

But then, to an extent, I guess it's sort of valid when it's actually well thought-out and not taken too far.