Fe/Te Nudges, Ti/Fi alignments: Communication

[sculpting]

Can you provide an example of the above? Would this be like the baby ENTPs who go around pushing buttons perhaps? There was a great deal of that last year...I guess I never realized the underlying motive was to destabilize others. From my perspective emotional destablization of others makes no sense at all. If the point of a discussion is to come closer to an objective notion of truth, it makes no sense to evoke emotional responses intentionally as then the feedback received on the objective idea is more or less gibberish.

What I have noticed more this year was a more pervasive trend towards more subtle personal attacks such as "If you believe that you must be [insert insult]". Rather than discuss the actual idea being proposed and have a back and forth discussion of facts/ideas about the topic under discussion, the whole convo would shift to a discussion of individuals having flawed characters. It was really quite odd and totally irrational to observe.

I think Orobas that that is the equivalent of Te destabilizing a person's idea. By making the person feel destabilized, maybe the thinking on his part was to see what comes out then - does the argument or stance hold together even when the person gets emotional? What's left? Don't know...

I was chatting with Fidelia in a thread in the bonfire and my original answer in another quote to Fidelia was actually incorrect, so I wanted to explore how others feel/think Fe and Te can be used to nudge others either to change Fe or Te objective judgments, or actually go deeper and modify the Ti and Fi subjective principles of another person.


Pattern 1:Te/Fe:
Te and Fe communicative nudges seem to be very direct and even blunt. It seems okay to both-as the Te and Fe is external to the ego perhaps?

Pattern 2: Fi/Ti:
Fi and Ti suggestions seem to be much more roundabout, more suggestive of exposing those subjective principles to another, then gently pointing out areas of disagreement. It is very subtle, rather indirect and never overtly states that the other is WRONG, rather seeks areas of nonagreement, then tries to gently realign the other person, while simultaneously cross-checking one's own Ti/Fi for possible errors. Maybe they really are correct.

Pattern 3: Nudging external with Te/Fe to realign anothers Fi/Ti through the other's Te/Fe:
It also seems that a Te/Fe dom/aux will directly state Fe/Te judgments that highlight the incorrectness of another person's Fe/Te judgment-with the result being that the person goes back and spends time reassessing the internal Ti/Fi principles that underlay the Fe/Te judgment. This reassesment is done quietly, alone given it is an introverted function.

This may be what Fidelia and I were chatting about above...Fidelia seems to be correct.

Pattern 4: An Fi/Ti aux/dom principle which gets extroverted as Te/Fe to go through another's Te/Fe to realign their Fi/Ti principles:
So I guess you could also have a pattern where this happens as well. The best example I can come up with is the enfp bitchslap but perhaps it is seen other places? Perhaps it is something seen mostly in Ti/Fi auxs and terts?

Miscommunication:
So I could see miscommunication across the Te-Fi/Fe-Ti boundary as we each try and follow our natural communication techniques above.

The further away from us the other person is wrt cognitive function order, the more of a train wreck might be created. Also, I can see the Fe/Fe boundary being worse than then Te/Ti boundary, given that while values arent emotions-they can evoke an emotional defense response when stepped upon.

As a communication pattern gets more complex with more steps-it seems there will be much greater risks of confusion. So maybe patterns 1 and 2 might annoy us if used from someone across the Te/Fe boundary, pattern 3 would result in hurt egos, but pattern 4 would result in a total lack of comprehension because what they are doing makes no sense at all?

So I dunno if any of this is correct or not but I wanted to start the thread and it least see it the patterns seem familiar to others. If some of the above sounds too certain please ignore the certainty and feel free to question or suggest other ways of looking at the problem. Just consider my thoughts above initial scribbles on a white board, observations but in no way conclusive at all.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I'm not sure about pattern 1 as I don't use Fe or Te... but it seems right according to appearances.

Oh, and I agree, Te seems to enjoy pushing buttons and destabalizing. I notice this with my ISTJ roommate a lot. He's hard to fight with. Tricky.

Pattern 2 seems correct.

As well as pattern 3. No objections.

An example of pattern 4, where my Fi becomes extroverted (assuming that's what you meant) would be like: hmm... I'm recalling this one time where a friend of mine was in an outrage towards her boyfriend. We had other friends over as well, and we all eventually got involved. Not fun. Later, another friend from out of town dropped in on us. The outraged friend was still going off and creating a scene. I finally chimed in to the friend from out of town, and very loudly, said, "Well, aren't you just soooo happy you came over! Now you get to enjoy this wonderful time with us." The outraged friend got the point and left the room. She eventually came out an hour or so later to apologize for her behavior.

I can't think of any instances where I utilized my feeling in an extroverted manner directly to piss off or point out a mistake of a Te. I'm definitely more roundabout. I want to think on this...

 

[Sunny Ghost]

The best I've got is yelling at my ISTJ roommate about him being inconsiderate. And telling an ENTJ that we're complete opposites and that was the reason why I had a hard time standing him.

With an INTJ friend, debates came up quite often... but I'm trying to recall how I would react. He definitely liked to push my buttons... I think I would often just tell him to go home or just walk away from him. Seems like I may have bluntly told him he's being an ass once or twice.

 

[sculpting]

The best I've got is yelling at my ISTJ roommate about him being inconsiderate. And telling an ENTJ that we're complete opposites and that was the reason why I had a hard time standing him.

With an INTJ friend, debates came up quite often... but I'm trying to recall how I would react. He definitely liked to push my buttons... I think I would often just tell him to go home or just walk away from him. Seems like I may have bluntly told him he's being an ass once or twice.

^^These both sound kinda like what you might see in an ENFP, but I expect that we do this much more often that most. Well the ESFPs do this as well. I suppose the pattern 4 could also be the "ENFP champion" approach as well.

I think there is a HUGE amount of value when considering Fe/Te doms/auxs in distinguishing between pattern 1 and pattern 3. With a Te user-even my INTJ 3 yo-they give Te nudges all day long and there doesnt seem to be any desire to dominate or emotionally destablize-more just say "No, that's wrong" and then correct you. At first it is annoying, but once you learn to treat it objectively, they are mostly right, so meh, who cares. I suspect Fe doms/auxs are similar and in both cases it is actually a sign of caring for the other person or respecting them.

Pattern 2 seems like normal convos between NXPs. The Fi users state "I" statements reflectively and the Ti users debate each other.

Pattern 3 might be what Fidelia and some of the other folks in the thread were getting at about it seeming that sometimes people seek to emotionally or logically destablize another to point out issues with internal values. It isnt something I do myself, but I do know when I have been on the receiving end of Fe doms/auxs doing this to me, it is VERY bad. I feels like a direct attack on Fi-thus is Very very bad. I suspect if a strong Te user was having a convo with an Fe dom/aux and tried pattern 3-it might feel like a nasty attack on their Ti.

Pattern 4 is just funny cause at this point, the convo will be so screwed up, we all think the others are just plain nuts. Imagine how an ENTP would interpret an ENFP doing this...."This crazy, bossy illogical person is trying to control me and tell me what actions I should or shouldnt do, based off nothing, and in the process is being hideously rude and offensive. Nutcase."

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I think I misunderstood. You mean to say (in my case) using inferior Te in order to realign a Te-dom/aux of another person?

 

[Fidelia]

I don't personally relate to pattern 3, but I wonder if that's why ENTPs act as they do.

 

[sculpting]

I think I misunderstood. You mean to say (in my case) using inferior Te in order to realign a Te-dom/aux of another person?

Um, well I think if you actually make a demand for a change in another's actions-that IS Te in nature-even if the request is to be nicer or to stop doing something that offends your internal Fi sense. It is a weird way to externalize our Fi into an action plan of sorts...These patterns above are all very concrete, artificially so, so I can see the communications coming across as simply stating the offense without making a request for change as well?

I don't personally relate to pattern 3, but I wonder if that's why ENTPs act as they do.

Maybe? It sounds a bit like what Arwann was discussing in the other thread. I saw an INFJ at INTJf also admit that he tests people this way sometimes-he asks them questions in a way to knock them off gaurd and make them answer quickly to expose what they really are thinking. So I guess you destablize Fe to get to Ti? Perhaps this is what the ENTPs were trying to do to the enfps last year-but it backfires as it pokes our Fi and they get bitchslapped in return.

I spoke with the INTJ and he agreed with you-that sometimes one INTJ might point out logical flaws in another's logical argument-but in reality the logical flaw highlights an underlying flawed value that needs to be reconsidered. But the values themselves are pretty much off limits to direct comment-not really to provoke emo.... But I dont know if this is universal....I do notice the baby INTJs can be kinda arrogant at times and even a bit demenaing if they do not respect another person-almost like because they hold logic as a Fi value-by being a bit arrogant and demeaning to another-if that other was an INTJ who also held logic as a value-I dunno, you are kind of poking them to be better in their logic perhaps via an Fi jab? As always it seems a case of projecting their worldview onto the other person....

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Orobas, I find this thread very interesting, Would you take a stab at giving a real life scenarios? I don't want us to get too distracted by Ti parsing of the examples you provide, but I'm having a bit of a hard time following your four scenarios without a specific example to illustrate each one.

 

[sculpting]

um, okay. I suppose cutting and pasting convos from here would be in bad form. Let me work on some examples.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Orobas,

In trying to figure out the finer points of what you're saying, I wound up trying to regurgitate your argument. I didn't really intend to do this at the beginning, but it sort of grew into a regurgitation, with my own additions, to what you were saying.

Is this what kind of information you're trying to communicate? I'm looking for (in typical Te fashion) for the conceptual framework, then I fill in the details. Please take this in that way.

How do Fe/Ti users and Fi/Te users communicate with each other?

Pattern 1: Te talks to Fe or vice versa.
Te and Fe both state things in a direct, even blunt manner. These are both externalized, straight forward, directing functions. When Te responds to Fe or Fe responds to Te, this is usually done with a conversational nudge.

A Te or Fe conversational nudge occurs when a Te/Fe observation is shared in a blunt, matter-of-fact statement. For example, a Te-user might say to an Fe-user, “Well that doesn’t work, does it?” The Fe-user responds with their Fe via a reciprocal blunt, matter-of-fact statement. For example, “I disagree. It did indeed work and here’s why…”

When Fe / Te communicate with each other in this manner, neither one is intending to change the other person’s essence. Instead, they are externalizing a personal observation about a situation. Oftentimes, this can come in the form of a challenge to the correctness of an action or feeling, but the implicit assumption is that the Fe/Te user is making a self-evident statement, and that the other Fe/Te user only needs to consider the Fe/Te logic being presented. They will either come around or respond with their own Fe/Te statement of logic. Thus, there is a bit of a tit for tat quality to these interactions.

Pattern 2: Fi talks to Ti or vice versa.
Fi and Ti communication is not so much straightforward as it is roundabout or indirect in its communication style. These are both internalized functions that communicate in archetypes and principles. Fi and Ti are subtle, indirect, and roundabout. Then try to gently realign the other person, while simultaneously cross-checking one's own Ti/Fi for possible errors. Maybe they really are correct.

When Ti responds to Fi or Fi responds to Ti, this is usually done via statements of the principles involved. For example, in Fi to Fi communication, such archetypal communication takes the form of a reflexive “I” statement with each person sharing their own experiences as archetypes that are illustrative to the matter at hand. Ti to Ti communication tends to parse the logical finer points of the matter at hand, via observations that parse the logical integrity of the principles the Ti user has identified as being at play. Each iteration of the Ti/Ti user conversation brings the Ti user to a better understanding of the essence of the matter at hand.

Fi/Ti communication is a combination of these two conversational techniques. Since both Fi and Ti are sharing subjective, internalized observations but tend to focus on different things (viz., feelings versus logic) there is a predictable miscommunication. Fi and Ti often feel that the other is missing the point or the essence of the matter being discussed.

Part 3 and 4 are still percolating in my head. Does any of this jive with what you were trying to say?

 

[sculpting]

oh, let me think on this..

I actually was just trying to conserve space-Pattern one was really meant to be Te to Te or Fe to Fe-not Te to Fe and so on...

Perhaps it would be better to say :
Pattern 1-Je to Je of the same Je
Pattern 2-Ji to Ji of the same Ji
Pattern 3- Nudging external with Je to realign anothers Ji through the other's Je-assuming both share the same JiJe
Pattern 4-An Ji aux/dom principle which gets extroverted as Je to go through another's Je to realign their Ji principles-again assuming they share the same JeJi

So these seem to be what I would call our "natural" ways we communicate to others to disagree and seek a new understanding. Once established it presents a nice foundation to then analyze things like what you actually discussed-when two folks dont share the same JiJe. It can be treated as a template to understand what we arent getting. For instance if an INFJ is baffled by ENFPs-by understanding the fundamental pattern differs-each side can understand how they are projecting their own pattern incorrectly or are inadvertantly contributing to the communication barrier.

 

[sculpting]

oh actually you got it-and then extended it-awesome!

Edit-Te to Fe direct communication can also be disrupted as they both seek to control the external world-but using very different metrics to determine the "best" solution. They also use very different tools, so when the two interact, the Te user can appear very assertive and uncaring while the Fe user appears illogical and emotional. In reality those are both false observations.

Ti to Fi can up as a train wreck but follows a pretty reproducible pattern as well. However it mostly gets totally messed up by the external objective functions taking over defensively.

(Note this is worst case scenario sort of stuff. We all develop sloppy, muddy coping mechanisms and projections to get us through these misunderstandings on a daily basis, unless we are VERY different form the other person)

 

[Fidelia]

I think that both Fe and Te can be quite matter-of-fact, dispassionate and blunt, but about much different things. Therefore, the Fe users bluntness about people issues (that's not an appropriate way to voice your dissent, you're self-centred, you're being unreasonable, etc) tends to poke Fi users in more sensitive or chaffable areas. Similarly, Te's bluntness (prove it!, we don't do things that way around here, that's impractical/illogical etc) tends to poke Ti users in their more sensitive or chaffable areas. It's kind of like elephant skin vs frog skin. Even if the frog threw back some kind of barb, it's not going to hurt the elephant (extraverted function user) nearly in the same way that the same thing would hurt them. At most, it is an inconvenience or annoyance to them, which bothers the introverted function user even more. Both extroverted functions see the distinctions that the opposite introverted function user are making as insignificant or impractical to really consider when trying to determine a realistic course of action. The introverted function user's way seems roundabout and they grow impatience with the retiscence to even verbalize, let alone come to practical conclusions about the implications of these very detailed thoughts or feelings. It seems like it is a waste of time to discuss something that has no bearing on the ultimate course of action, while the introverted function user things it's of essential value.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I think that both Fe and Te can be quite matter-of-fact, dispassionate and blunt, but about much different things. Therefore, the Fe users bluntness about people issues (that's not an appropriate way to voice your dissent, you're self-centred, you're being unreasonable, etc) tends to poke Fi users in more sensitive or chaffable areas. Similarly, Te's bluntness (prove it!, we don't do things that way around here, that's impractical/illogical etc) tends to poke Ti users in their more sensitive or chaffable areas. It's kind of like elephant skin vs frog skin. Even if the frog threw back some kind of barb, it's not going to hurt the elephant (extraverted function user) nearly in the same way that the same thing would hurt them. At most, it is an inconvenience or annoyance to them, which bothers the introverted function user even more. Both extroverted functions see the distinctions that the opposite introverted function user are making as insignificant or impractical to really consider when trying to determine a realistic course of action. The introverted function user's way seems roundabout and they grow impatience with the retiscence to even verbalize, let alone come to practical conclusions about the implications of these very detailed thoughts or feelings. It seems like it is a waste of time to discuss something that has no bearing on the ultimate course of action, while the introverted function user things it's of essential value.

Fidelia, this is very well said. I agree completely with you here. And I think you really expressed well the varying degrees of sensitivity.

 

[Fidelia]

I greatly appreciate what I've learned from you in regards to this. I don't think I had any kind of sense of this before that one thread. Thanks for being willing to see it through.

 

[sculpting]

Fidelia, thank you much for your thoughts-they really are an excellent perspective and your descriptions are always excellent. My entp at lunch agreed with one of the other thoughts you shared on another thread. She said "If the Fe users are yelling at you, it is most likely because they tried to tell you nicely five times in a row and you didnt listen." I said "well maybe I listened but just didnt agree..." Something about this made her start laughing and espousing the obliviousness of Te and ridiculousness of Fi... At any rate, your interpretations and contributions are always wonderful and insightful.

To sort of poke around this topic-How does it feel to interact with very strong Te users? Growing up did you identify coping strategies or communications skills, or simple recognition and forgiveness of individuality to help smooth over their sometimes abrupt communication style? I notice the INTJs are VERY good at picking up Fe communication techniques as memorized speech patterns. I thought it was a Te thing perhaps but when I watch my little INTJ-he already practices how to say things in different ways to different people-I suspect he is Ni-ing learned phrases to achieve the results he seeks.

The introverted function user's way seems roundabout and they grow impatience with the retiscence to even verbalize, let alone come to practical conclusions about the implications of these very detailed thoughts or feelings. It seems like it is a waste of time to discuss something that has no bearing on the ultimate course of action, while the introverted function user things it's of essential value.

Do you think this same frustration may occur a bit between Ni and Ne or Si and Se-just a bit though?

(Also I realized it may not be clear, the purpose of this particular thread oddly...I think it is sort of Ne-Sish. I havwe seen bits of these patterns repeated-so the automatic inclinitation is to expand those patterns around as far as I can...because I know one pattern is real, I am pulled to find the other patterns that MUST be around it. Like a jigsaw puzzle I guess)

 

[Random Ness]

Pattern 1:Te/Fe:
Te and Fe communicative nudges seem to be very direct and even blunt. It seems okay to both-as the Te and Fe is external to the ego perhaps?

Pattern 2: Fi/Ti:
Fi and Ti suggestions seem to be much more roundabout, more suggestive of exposing those subjective principles to another, then gently pointing out areas of disagreement. It is very subtle, rather indirect and never overtly states that the other is WRONG, rather seeks areas of nonagreement, then tries to gently realign the other person, while simultaneously cross-checking one's own Ti/Fi for possible errors. Maybe they really are correct.

Fe is blunt? Fe is all about being tactful. Doing everything in one's power to not upset the other person at all (not that it's always a good thing or productive, of course).

Maybe what you are talking about is statements vs. questions? Which would be more about socionics than MBTI (declaring vs. asking, and judicious vs. decisive). I talk in statements with the intention of someone correcting me if I am wrong (which I adjust if I know the person I am talking to doesn't like that; which, of course, I don't always know). It's not that I'm stubborn. It's the way I talk. It probably creates confusion as one side thinks you're being arrogant and the other side thinks you're being unproductive.

 

[Random Ness]

We all develop sloppy, muddy coping mechanisms and projections to get us through these misunderstandings on a daily basis, unless we are VERY different form the other person.

If we remembered this, we could all take steps to understand each other instead of getting pissed at each other all the time. (I'm talking about IRL, not this forum. heh)

 

[Random Ness]

Pattern 2 seems like normal convos between NXPs. The Fi users state "I" statements reflectively and the Ti users debate each other.

I dunno...I ALWAYS use "I" statments when talking about important things to show that IT'S JUST WHAT I THINK, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S THE TRUTH!!! to other people.

I suspect if a strong Te user was having a convo with an Fe dom/aux and tried pattern 3-it might feel like a nasty attack on their Ti.

I dunno...I feel pretty offended by Te (gone wrong, of course) without addressing my Ti. "How could you not care about how you're affecting others?!? How could you only care about the system?!? " That would be my Fe talking, not my Ti...though yes, my Ti can get offended by Te judgments.


Am I just the odd one out in this thread or something?

 

[skylights]

oro - this is really interesting, but can you try to give some examples for those numbered patterns you listed? my Ti kind of sucks and i'm getting stuck at coming up with an example for #3 with Ti in particular.

i'm trying to think about how myself and a very good friend (ENFJ) communicate when we disagree, because we inevitably run into this. and i think i know exactly the tension that occurs when we do run into Fe-Fi and Te-Ti mismatches, but i'm trying to figure out our patterns.

i think it can go like this:

ENFJ: proposal of Ni goal ; Fe action to achieve
ENFP: Fi protest to Fe action
ENFJ: explanation of how Ni goal serves humanistic concern (Fi) (bonus points for how it adds to knowledge (Ne))
ENFP: approves Fe action (OR) raises additional protest

ENFP: makes Ne observation and Fi complaint
ENFJ: agrees via Ni - Fe assessment (OR) disagrees citing Ni reasoning
ENFP: explanation of how Fi concern is universally applicable (Ni) (bonus points for how it's applicable in interactions (Fe))
ENFJ: approves Fi complaint (OR) raises additional disagreements

so i guess with us it's essentially of making Ni and Fi agree - generally this is done by her connecting Ni to Fi and me connecting Fi to Ni. which kind of makes sense - we have to draw the other in alignment with our internal functions; the external functions are already more malleable. i actually really don't see Ti and Te coming into our issues much... probably in her case because it's so low in her function order, and doesn't tend to emerge - and when i tend to engage Te, it's during situational troubleshooting (which she has no interest in anyway, i'm the crisis manager, lol) - or it's during arguing. in which case it's a shitstorm. tert Te thinks inf Ti is impractical and useless while inf Ti thinks that tert Te is clumsy and a moron (not to mention poor Fe and Fi getting attacked by Te and Ti, respectively)...

Fe is blunt? Fe is all about being tactful. Doing everything in one's power to not upset the other person at all (not that it's always a good thing or productive, of course).

i feel (Feel) like Fe is more blunt sometimes because it has a pointed intention and is accompanied by a Ni or Si goal. it generally has more of an active agenda than Fi does, as Fi is more responsive and passive. that is reflected in statements, but especially in directive statements. Fe statements tend to try to get others to do something. Fi is either absorbing or just wanting someone to "get off my lawn" - ie stop breaking my ethical code - but then once the infringement is over, Fi is done. it doesn't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting. Fe, on the other hand, like Te, is always seeing more efficient ways to achieve things, so it "nudges". and to someone who doesn't have high Fe too, Fe behavior doesn't always seem super tactful. it can be startlingly transparent.

edit: basically what fidelia said lol