There are two stages in my reaction to behavior like what the nasty conductor does. I do feel annoyed by it right away, before any analysis. It is unproductive in that it is words, effort, and time spent without getting the group any closer to the supposed goals. I also find it ugly in an almost aesthetic sense. I recognize, though, that some of this is subjective and not everyone might be bothered by the behavior. Also, other people have different ways of doing things, so what looks unproductive and inefficient to me (and may actually be so) might be something the other person has found works for them. I feel, therefore, almost a burden of proof on myself in expecting something to change. It is not enough simply to say I don't like it, or it offends my sensibilities. it is incumbent on me to show why the nasty behavior really is a bad idea in some more objective sense.
Exactly. The bolded is especially well put - I very much agree.
My immediate instinct/reaction might be that his behaviour wrong, but I have to make a case for why it's wrong, beyond how it simply effects me. I take note of my reaction and value it as one opinion, one sign, one potential conclusion, but I don't assume that it's right until I've considered other possible explanations and run the numbers, so to speak.
Is this Fi understanding that people's values are different, with Te trying to find the external, objective common ground based on reaching shared goals? In any case, it is a common and natural thought process for me.
I think it's more than that. I think it's about trying to find common ground between the subjective evaluation and the objective evaluation. If they don't match up then there needs to be a shift: either you need to find a rational argument for why that initial instinct was accurate, or you need to alter your mindset to the appropriate response. On top of that (similar to what you mentioned), Fi considers the subjective reasoning of the other individual, and Te considers the role of the universal.
I would say that probably FPs put more stock in the instinctual reaction and TJs put more stock in what they can clearly prove. Of course, both approaches have their pros and cons.
That's another thing that might be Fe vs. Fi. I'll be complaining about someone else's behavior, and then someone else will try and explain it to me, and say things like "Oh, he's under a lot of stress, you have to see it from his point of view." Fine. Sure, whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that it's annoying as hell.
The things is, with Fi-users (primarily with FPs) the explanation can very much effect the reaction. For us, if there's a good enough reason for why someone behaves like an asshole, it can potentially dissipate our annoyance altogether; the right perspective can negate the emotions.
And then, a few days or weeks later, the Fi person will complain about the same thing I was complaining about. This kind of thing annoys me to no end, because I feel like they just ignored me. And what's worse, now they want me to have some kind of appropriate reaction to their dissatisfaction, but the only thing I feel is annoyance at them for brushing off the exact same complaint when I made it.
I guess they don't like to come to conclusions on those things so quickly, though.
I can see why this would bother you.
Personally, I tend to breeze over those immediate reactions (the same one you're probably having) because they're just so apparent and straight-forward. I don't mention them because it would be like stating the obvious. I've usually moved 5 steps past that in a just a few seconds, so what you end up hearing isn't affirmation of a reaction, instead it's the reaction to the reaction (or the reaction to the reaction to the reaction
). If that thought ends up taking a very complicated route, and after much processing, circles back to the original response, I may not notice that it's what you originally mentioned.
I don't think it's just that we don't like to come to conclusions quickly, it's partly that we just can't. We just don't have the short hand version that Fe has, and sometimes the long way is the only reliable way for me. Also it's important that Fi users do take the long way or else we can get lost in lazy assumptions, become reactive or make selfish decisions.
For me, the only reason I need for why it's inappropriate behavior is that it made me, and probably other people around me, feel shitty for something that has nothing to do with me, or someone else. Now, If the person apologizes and said they made the mistake, I can let it go, but if they keep on insisting they did nothing wrong, that's going to bother me.
Boiled down, the reactions of the other person are essentially what matters. I don't think it's so much about being fake as it is about creating win-win scenarios, or in a maybe more developed form like that of fia it can be about balancing the needs of the few with the needs of the many.
Although sometimes, it can be about letting others know that you aren't going to let them intimidate me. Because in some situations, this is the only thing people respond to, unfortunately. A fun way to do this is just through honesty, and just pointing out things I've noticed about them that conflict with their self-image or world-view. It sounds a little harsh, maybe, but acting on this allows me to let go of whatever anger I've been feeling and move on, and creates a space for reconciliation (for myself, anyway.)
And, if nothing else, it usually gets people off my case because the realize that I can bite back.
This does make sense to me but I just have trouble trusting in that stuff. It's not that I discount other people's reactions, it's just that I would be really nervous about relying on them too much. It would feel like blindly following, hoping that those people are right. I need to grasp the reasoning to feel safe in making a judgement.
