What type of communication or phrasing offends you as a fe/fi user?

[Society]

Haven't you ever heard of constructive criticism? There was nothing to fix in [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]'s remark. His point seemed to be that these Fe comments are not always constructive. Not surprisingly I agree with his perspective, and often find in such situations that people are putting superficiality over substance, or judging the book by its cover.

me = said person with Fe preference criticizing [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] for how he said something..
something = complains about being criticized by said person with Fe preference for what he said or how he said it

well it was funny in my head... i'm tired.

 

[Southern Kross]

ouoh! what is this? i don't understand any of this. can an INFJ (or PeaceBaby) explain? And is it also the line of thought of ENFJs!?

You missed that whole thread I think.

Basically it seems the NFJs (and perhaps all FJs, or all Fe users?) dislike objective facts being mixed in with emotion-based information. The NFPs (and perhaps all FPs or all Fi users?) can filter through what is objective and what is subjective and take something of value away from it. Like if you have an emotional argument with someone, Fi sifts through what which information is viable and which is biased and/or irrelevant, and find some nugget of truth in it all. However, Fe is more likely to feel affected by other people's emotional states, and this can interfere with their ability to evaluate any objective claims at the same time. For this reason they prefer to separate emotions from factual information in a more defined manner; they like it to fit into one category or the other and for this to be clearly signposted. If someone mixes facts with emotions (or subjective bias in general) it seems that FJs see that as an attempt to exploit their easily affected nature, and manipulate them into a particular conclusion. It undermines the purity of the facts for them. Whereas Fi is much more concerned about the purity of the subjective experience (feelings in particular).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

ouoh! what is this? i don't understand any of this. can an INFJ (or [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]) explain? And is it also the line of thought of ENFJs!?

A specific example might be that if you want feedback about why some INFJ you know did such-and-such, it’s most effective to post, “I’m having this problem with an INFJ I know (or “a couple of INFJs I know”), can anyone help me understand why this is happening?”

If you post it as though you’re presenting some theory (e.g. “INFJs do this because their Ni _____ and their Fe ___, etc.”) as if it applies to all, then we’ll be too distracted by the SYSTEM ERROR flashing through our mind to actually be able to see any truth in what you’re saying. We will nitpick that mofo to death, explaining why it does not apply to all and why it is not an objective assessment- not to invalidate the feeling behind it (which is how it seems to get interpreted) but just to get rid of the SYSTEM ERROR message in our own heads.

In short- if you’re venting, that needs to be made clear (not sure “venting” is the right word, but it’s the best one I can come up with just now). Presenting a theory as if it’s ‘objective’ means that it would need to be objective (e.g. someone studying the functions without some aim of sorting out personal feelings)- it can’t be fueled by some emotional charge or we sense that and it trips us up. It needs to be presented as sorting out personal feelings if that’s what it is.

[If you want to see this in action, you need look no farther than the doorslam thread….or this one, which is probably the one Southern Kross is talking about.]

I do see this a bit in the ENFJs I know, but it isn’t as pronounced. I’ll just see them shrink back a bit because a mental note has been made that something isn’t adding up. [Though they can certainly answer to that better than I could.]


eta: I should note that I personally would be fine with hearing the whole "Ni does ___ and Fe does ____" if a disclaimer is added and it's explicitly stated that you're trying to work through personal issues with an NFJ and you want to know if the theory resonates. (I should probably add that even beyond that, I still need for things to be phrased "it seems like" and/or "it appear as though" instead of having it stated declaratively- or it will still trip me up.) Without that clear disclaimer though, I sense the charged emotion and can't get past it. It should be noted that I have no idea how much this applies to SFJs (though I suspect it would be somewhat the same).

eta: It's also worth mentioning, this is a conclusion the INFJs in this forum reached. It's always possible this forum draws in a certain kind of INFJ and that this isn't as widely applicable as it may seem.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

that is very true to my experience, but i also noticed a pattern when it happened: in areas where the patience required can't be blamed on the other, but rather on the subject matter itself:
this includes both the patience required of NTPs for Ni to both do it's internal processing and back track to where it came from to understand how it got the idea and understood something, and the patience required of NTJs to watch as Ne-Ti finishes it's last few dozen^x rounds around the possible ways to break down the problem...
[
[qwu and both of those seem to come mostly easily when progress - whether it is on a project or in further understanding something - depends on persistent, external factors .

What kind of external persistent factors? Perhaps I should allow them the time to formulate more clear statements instead of demanding them immediately.

 

[Society]

What kind of external persistent factors?

a few examples off the tip of my head:
- when the discussions entails the next stages of the project you are working on which you can't get too anyway until the team finishes the current stage (RL example: coding, writing & flashing out content together, unfolding small scale petty political schemes)
- when the discussion includes long waiting periods for the responses of a lot of different people who are in on the endeavor (RL example: coordinating initiating & LARPs).
- when the discussion requires waiting for actual data regarding the nature of the events being analyzed or the change being forecast (RL: following events in politics, expected software or book releases, following the LHC or that time they thought they found a particle traveling in FTL, etc).

edit: i am wondering if any of this can somehow be stretched to work for Fi/Fe....

 

[pinkgraffiti]

You missed that whole thread I think.

Basically it seems the NFJs (and perhaps all FJs, or all Fe users?) dislike objective facts being mixed in with emotion-based information. The NFPs (and perhaps all FPs or all Fi users?) can filter through what is objective and what is subjective and take something of value away from it. Like if you have an emotional argument with someone, Fi sifts through what which information is viable and which is biased and/or irrelevant, and find some nugget of truth in it all. However, Fe is more likely to feel affected by other people's emotional states, and this can interfere with their ability to evaluate any objective claims at the same time. For this reason they prefer to separate emotions from factual information in a more defined manner; they like it to fit into one category or the other and for this to be clearly signposted. If someone mixes facts with emotions (or subjective bias in general) it seems that FJs see that as an attempt to exploit their easily affected nature, and manipulate them into a particular conclusion. It undermines the purity of the facts for them. Whereas Fi is much more concerned about the purity of the subjective experience (feelings in particular).

ok, i get it, but this is valid only in the rare case that my/someone's mood is altered. not valid in normal conversation (or?)
also, i have to remind myself everytime that, whilst Fe-users seem way more emotional than Fi-users, at the end of the day (also by what you're saying) they seem like unemotional machines (wtf!?)

A specific example might be that if you want feedback about why some INFJ you know did such-and-such, it’s most effective to post, “I’m having this problem with an INFJ I know (or “a couple of INFJs I know”), can anyone help me understand why this is happening?”

If you post it as though you’re presenting some theory (e.g. “INFJs do this because their Ni _____ and their Fe ___, etc.”) as if it applies to all, then we’ll be too distracted by the SYSTEM ERROR flashing through our mind to actually be able to see any truth in what you’re saying. We will nitpick that mofo to death, explaining why it does not apply to all and why it is not an objective assessment- not to invalidate the feeling behind it (which is how it seems to get interpreted) but just to get rid of the SYSTEM ERROR message in our own heads. .......etc.etc....

ok ok i get it now. but reading this makes me feel you're INTJs or something.....aren't you emotionally proficient enough to swift through the emotion taint thing of the conversation? in your case, if i was telling my experience with someone and asking for your opinion, i'd be very careful to mention that it's my own personal experience and that my outlook on it may be narrow and not representative of the bigger, true state of things (Ne?). but normally i get along very well with INFJs, i guess we both have that dominant non-judgmental outlook on things..be it Ne for me or Ni for you.

 

[Riva]

Which type would get offended for having a harder time taking the context into consideration?

Theoretically it should be fps who should have an issue in this department but i've met a few fjs that have issues too? Maybe it's their/fjs' desire to politically correct others to maintain harmony which makes it appear so?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You missed that whole thread I think.

Basically it seems the NFJs (and perhaps all FJs, or all Fe users?) dislike objective facts being mixed in with emotion-based information. The NFPs (and perhaps all FPs or all Fi users?) can filter through what is objective and what is subjective and take something of value away from it. Like if you have an emotional argument with someone, Fi sifts through what which information is viable and which is biased and/or irrelevant, and find some nugget of truth in it all. However, Fe is more likely to feel affected by other people's emotional states, and this can interfere with their ability to evaluate any objective claims at the same time. For this reason they prefer to separate emotions from factual information in a more defined manner; they like it to fit into one category or the other and for this to be clearly signposted. If someone mixes facts with emotions (or subjective bias in general) it seems that FJs see that as an attempt to exploit their easily affected nature, and manipulate them into a particular conclusion. It undermines the purity of the facts for them. Whereas Fi is much more concerned about the purity of the subjective experience (feelings in particular).

I relate to this in two different ways. In online debates I can feel frustrated when objective information which is the core of the discussion is mixed in with ad hominem attacks because I find it distracting. The same is true of playing in an orchestra. When the conductor is angry, temperamental, and humiliates members, I can't focus on the music. It doesn't motivate me in the least to play better, but just distracts. In those impersonal settings I think I agree with what you are saying, and it does feel like manipulation to me.

In personal conflict, I will tend to function on two levels. There will be the visceral, emotional, hurt level where I can be crying or upset, but I can also reason and discuss, or when alone, just analyze internally at the same time. If the emotional state originates within me, I can focus on reasoned discussion probably better than average. I tend to dismiss my own emotions in that state as being the same as vomiting or coughing. I see it as just a physiological reaction to something. It is possible that the difference has to do with my level of trust within the dynamic.

 

[skylights]

You missed that whole thread I think.

Basically it seems the NFJs (and perhaps all FJs, or all Fe users?) dislike objective facts being mixed in with emotion-based information. The NFPs (and perhaps all FPs or all Fi users?) can filter through what is objective and what is subjective and take something of value away from it. Like if you have an emotional argument with someone, Fi sifts through what which information is viable and which is biased and/or irrelevant, and find some nugget of truth in it all. However, Fe is more likely to feel affected by other people's emotional states, and this can interfere with their ability to evaluate any objective claims at the same time. For this reason they prefer to separate emotions from factual information in a more defined manner; they like it to fit into one category or the other and for this to be clearly signposted. If someone mixes facts with emotions (or subjective bias in general) it seems that FJs see that as an attempt to exploit their easily affected nature, and manipulate them into a particular conclusion. It undermines the purity of the facts for them. Whereas Fi is much more concerned about the purity of the subjective experience (feelings in particular).

I wonder if, in a cognitive function light, it doesn't distill down to a misread.

The FJ,

Seeking Fe practical mobilization, gets Te crude harshness and Fi impractical idealistic ethics.
Seeking Ti idealistic logic, gets Fi subjective inaccuracy and Te temporary superficial logistical solution.

The FP,

Seeking Fi idealistic ethic, gets Ti impersonal criticality and Fe temporary superficial solution.
Seeking Te impersonal facilitation, gets Fe personal directives and Ti impractical idealistic logic.

The key to communication would therefore be in learning to translate 4 ways: Te-Ti, Te-Fe, Ti-Fi, and Fi-Fe. To be willing to remove the idealism in the case of the introverted functions and to apply realism, to remove the realism in the case of the extraverted functions and to apply idealism, to remove the personal perspective in the case of the Feeling functions and apply impersonal perspective, and to remove the impersonal perspective in the case of the Thinking functions and apply personal perspective.

It would seem this could be part of why FPs and FJs often agree on the surface but then it tends to break down once conversation really gets started, but then can come to mutual conclusions again far down the line.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I get tired of the Fe-ers in my life endlessly hinting at me to do something instead of just stating it out right. I suspect they want something from me but I find it so irritating to have to puzzle it out when it would make both of our lives easier if they just spit it out.

Generalized example:

Fe-user: Boy this table I am trying to move foolishly all on my own sure is heavy!

What would work better:

Fe-user: Hey I need to move a table and I think it will be too heavy for me to move solo, do you mind helping me out for 5 minutes?

Otherwise it just comes off as a guilt trip designed to infringe upon my freedom to choose since there is usually no escape clause embedded in the hint. It's you do this magical thing I am hinting at or the world is about to end.

- fin thread -

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Otherwise it just comes off as a guilt trip designed to infringe upon my freedom to choose since there is usually no escape clause embedded in the hint. It's you do this magical thing I am hinting at or the world is about to end.

- fin thread -

To me, it seems to be the same thing either way. I can't believe for a minute that the Fi user wouldn't be annoyed if I said.... "No, I have to watch the cricket match." Either way, there isn't really freedom to choose, not unless you want the person annoyed at you. I don't feel like I have any more freedom if someone states something more directly. The only thing is that if someone is less direct, I might not understand that they are asking me to do something. It varies.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Otherwise it just comes off as a guilt trip designed to infringe upon my freedom to choose since there is usually no escape clause embedded in the hint. It's you do this magical thing I am hinting at or the world is about to end.

- fin thread -

To me, it seems to be the same thing either way. I can't believe for a minute that the Fi user wouldn't be annoyed if I said.... "No, I have to watch the cricket match." Either way, there isn't really freedom to choose, not unless you want the person annoyed at you. I don't feel like I have any more freedom if someone states something more directly. The only thing is that if someone is less direct, I might not understand that they are asking me to do something. It varies.

I do think sometimes Fi people phrase things so that I feel like I'm free to make my own decision. This would be fine, except they seem to do this even when they want me to make a specific decision.

You can do that whatever you want. Whatever works for you

You sure you're fine if I do Y, and not X.

It's your decision. You can make choices for yourself.

Ok, I choose Y.

You know, it's really better if you choose X. X is going to work way better for you.

I tried X, i didn't really like it. I'm going to go with Y.

You know, you're going to be much happier if you do X.

So it does matter to you which one I pick

That kind of thing makes me want to make the same noise Charlie Brown makes when that football is taken away. If you have an expectation for me to perform a certain action, don't phrase it like it's all the same and that it doesn't matter. Because when you do that, I'm going to go with only what I want and think. When they tell me that, I read that as them telling me that they don't really care one way or the other. Don't say it's "up to me" and then try and persuade me into doing something different... I know what you're doing there.

 

[Poki]

I get tired of the Fe-ers in my life endlessly hinting at me to do something instead of just stating it out right. I suspect they want something from me but I find it so irritating to have to puzzle it out when it would make both of our lives easier if they just spit it out.

Generalized example:

Fe-user: Boy this table I am trying to move foolishly all on my own sure is heavy!

What would work better:

Fe-user: Hey I need to move a table and I think it will be too heavy for me to move solo, do you mind helping me out for 5 minutes?

Otherwise it just comes off as a guilt trip designed to infringe upon my freedom to choose since there is usually no escape clause embedded in the hint. It's you do this magical thing I am hinting at or the world is about to end.

- fin thread -

Agree. I don't like asking for things...but because of that I doing myself, instead of "hint". Hate it when they child it against you because you don't get the "hint" also. Isn't this a "woman" thing...lol. not all women, I just mean a "stereotypical" women thing

 

[Coriolis]

Like if you have an emotional argument with someone, Fi sifts through what which information is viable and which is biased and/or irrelevant, and find some nugget of truth in it all. However, Fe is more likely to feel affected by other people's emotional states, and this can interfere with their ability to evaluate any objective claims at the same time.

I do the highlighted all the time, but have attributed it to Te rather than Fi. I never considered the role of Fi in it, though I'm often the first to point out that no function operates in a vacuum, they all work together.

Which type would get offended for having a harder time taking the context into consideration?

Subjective or objective context? In other words, the factual circumstances, or the emotional atmosphere -- or something else?

I relate to this in two different ways. In online debates I can feel frustrated when objective information which is the core of the discussion is mixed in with ad hominem attacks because I find it distracting. The same is true of playing in an orchestra. When the conductor is angry, temperamental, and humiliates members, I can't focus on the music. It doesn't motivate me in the least to play better, but just distracts. In those impersonal settings I think I agree with what you are saying, and it does feel like manipulation to me.

I just strip out the emotional attacks to find the objective content. When I find there is none, that is the disappointment. I think this is much easier to do online. In RL situations like your orchestra example, I find that kind of behavior counterproductive in that it just injects noise (no pun intended) into the proceedings. Pulling out the legitimate criticisms becomes much more work.

The FJ,

Seeking Fe practical mobilization, gets Te crude harshness and Fi impractical idealistic ethics.
Seeking Ti idealistic logic, gets Fi subjective inaccuracy and Te temporary superficial logistical solution.

The FP,

Seeking Fi idealistic ethic, gets Ti impersonal criticality and Fe temporary superficial solution.
Seeking Te impersonal facilitation, gets Fe personal directives and Ti impractical idealistic logic.

Does this change for TJ/TP where Fi/Fe are in tert/aux position?

To me, it seems to be the same thing either way. I can't believe for a minute that the Fi user wouldn't be annoyed if I said.... "No, I have to watch the cricket match." Either way, there isn't really freedom to choose, not unless you want the person annoyed at you. I don't feel like I have any more freedom if someone states something more directly. The only thing is that if someone is less direct, I might not understand that they are asking me to do something. It varies.

Yes. I dislike being in a situation where I am expected to assume something, or read between the lines like this. On the flip side, I dislike being offered help when I don't need it, because someone has assumed wrong or has some other agenda. When I want help, I ask very explicitly.

I do think sometimes Fi people phrase things so that I feel like I'm free to make my own decision. This would be fine, except they seem to do this even when they want me to make a specific decision.

I feel the tendency in myself to do this, because I can have very strong ideas about what is right, even for another person. I have learned to state my opinion and make my case, then really step back from it at that point, and let the person make their own choice without further pressure. (Of course, I'm not above saying "I told you so" if it turns out I was right!)

 

[skylights]

Does this change for TJ/TP where Fi/Fe are in tert/aux position?

I would tend to assume it is the same process of seeking one thing and finding another... probably the Fs will be looking more for their F processes and the Ts for the T processes, but I suspect it is the same clash in general. Would you agree with that, as a TJ?

I don't feel like I have any more freedom if someone states something more directly. The only thing is that if someone is less direct, I might not understand that they are asking me to do something. It varies.

I do think sometimes Fi people phrase things so that I feel like I'm free to make my own decision. This would be fine, except they seem to do this even when they want me to make a specific decision.

That is very true. But at the same time, I think the way it is "supposed" to go in the Fi world is:

A: "Hey, would you help me move this table?"
B: "This cricket match is at a really intense point right now. Do you mind if I help you as soon as it calms down?"
A: "Oh no that's fine!"

(alternatively, A: "My arms are going to break off if you don't help me move the table right now!"
B: "Sucks for you. I'll call the wahmbulance.")

It's like... you're supposed to hit on certain things that affirm the value of the other person, but it's okay if you have other things you value, too, and you respect both of them. It's okay that you're really into your cricket match as long as you respect that the other person could use your help. Or you could suggest that someone else could help them. You have to acknowledge the Te fact that the table needs to be moved, and the Fi value that you want to help them. But you can also acknowledge the Te fact that the match happens to be at a great point you don't want to miss out on, since cricket is Fi valuable to you.

The second scenario is where Fi/Ne overexaggeration and "cold" Te playfulness can come in.

 

[Coriolis]

I would tend to assume it is the same process of seeking one thing and finding another... probably the Fs will be looking more for their F processes and the Ts for the T processes, but I suspect it is the same clash in general. Would you agree with that, as a TJ?

You are right that the Te process gets much more attention. "Seeking Te impersonal facilitation, gets Fe personal directives and Ti impractical idealistic logic" is then the biggest conflict. "Seeking Fi idealistic ethic, gets Ti impersonal criticality and Fe temporary superficial solution" is probably accurate, too, though I never looked at it that way. I can understand someone having a different "Fi idealistic ethic" and discuss on these terms to understand each other. I can deal with criticisms of my Fi ideals in terms of consistency and practicality, but responses that contain none of the above seem to miss the point entirely. Perhaps Fe and Ti are what is left over here.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Oh goody. Fe's counterpart, Ti, has arrived to the station. Let's see which killjoy village it drops us off at. Oh, right. ALL OF THEM.

To me, it seems to be the same thing either way. I can't believe for a minute that the Fi user wouldn't be annoyed if I said.... "No, I have to watch the cricket match." Either way, there isn't really freedom to choose, not unless you want the person annoyed at you. I don't feel like I have any more freedom if someone states something more directly. The only thing is that if someone is less direct, I might not understand that they are asking me to do something. It varies.

Well, I would upset if my man said he was watching cricket because I didn't realize I liked wussies so much. Unless he had a Brit accent in which case ALL IS FORGIVEN so long as he talks dirty to me, MRROW.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Agree. I don't like asking for things...but because of that I doing myself, instead of "hint". Hate it when they child it against you because you don't get the "hint" also. Isn't this a "woman" thing...lol. not all women, I just mean a "stereotypical" women thing

Lulz, possibly!! I prefer the direct and happy approach because it makes things happier in ze long run. I'm not a real girl!! D: I am the Pinocchio of vaginas.

 

[Poki]

Lulz, possibly!! I prefer the direct and happy approach because it makes things happier in ze long run. I'm not a real girl!! D: I am the Pinocchio of vaginas.

Lol...imagining all the possible parts that can grow when you lie

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh goody. Fe's counterpart, Ti, has arrived to the station. Let's see which killjoy village it drops us off at. Oh, right. ALL OF THEM.

Killjoy Village is a happier place than you think. It's not a very good name.

Well, I would upset if my man said he was watching cricket because I didn't realize I liked wussies so much. Unless he had a Brit accent in which case ALL IS FORGIVEN so long as he talks dirty to me, MRROW.

Would you prefer something manlier like Ultimate Frisbee? NFPs love ultimate frisbee. There are mountains of scientific evidence.