This thread is moving fast, and I took time to write a massive reply, so if any of this has been covered, apologies in advance for being redundant.
I definitely lean towards Fe rule enforcement on here, not because I Heart Rules, but because having some order makes it easier to keep a discussion on track, and I like to see people's drama kept to a minimum. I have zero problem with people expressing themselves, but when we're having an interesting discussion and it turns into three pages of flirting or three pages of YOUR MOM IS RETARDED AND SO ARE YOU, it becomes very frustrating, and it's difficult to keep the ideas flowing. Have that discussion in the "your mom is retarded" thread.
I'm not a fan of those derails also, but I don't think it's a Fi/Fe matter. Introverted feeling can be very sensitive to the emotional environment, but feels a lot more powerless to affect it. This means that more than not, we lead passively, by example. Outside of example, Fi often appears negatively, because it's in response to a violation. I'll get into that more below, especially where intuition comes into play regarding a Fi-doms manner of addressing an issue head-on without causing drama.
I think you touched on some important points. One that stood out most to me was the idea that Fe is more interested in the end result, while Fi is more interested in precision in expressing the emotion itself.
It's VERY important to note this is far less about emotion than feeling-values & feeling-thoughts. We're talking about consistency of ideal concepts more than emotion. Jung said that everything true of Ti is true of Fi, except Fi deals with feelings, which are evaluations of what is significant, valuable, and true from a moral/ethical stance. Fi forms models of what is ideal just as Ti forms models of what is logical.
Emotions are signals which the INFP will find useful, but not necessarily heed, particularly if they conflict with a feeling-value. I process emotions best when alone, because I need to turn inward to evaluate, and so the only times you really get any outburst from me is because I have not been able to process them and someone is demanding an immediate response.
Our goals are entirely different. Therefore it's not surprising that the method is different. Perhaps the issue is that Fe users assume that everyone would be concerned with the end result. I know that I certainly have and so this is what has puzzled me about the way Fi goes about handling some situations.
I don't know if we have different goals...I really think we have similar goals, but start from a different end. Interpersonal harmony will certainly help a person feel at peace internally, and internal peace tends to make a person more cooperative with others. Both are ideal, and Fe & Fi seem to focus on one end, which is why they have plenty of overlap & work very well together as long as communication is clear.
I don't know if I agree with you with some of what you said about Fe. I think it is essential to be honest about BOTH method and motive. I may not say everything that is in my head at once, but I sure as anything would not lie or manipulate other people people if I thought it served the greater good. I am just as sickened by that as any of you are. If I know that I am worlds apart from someone in opinion, yes I will look for common ground first, and I will also hold back some of the strength of what I feel, but that does not mean that I would lie about it or that I would be reluctant to say what I thought if the person solicited my opinion.
I agree that good results can come from something bad and bad results can come from something good, but to me morality is extremely important. I could not justify using bad methods of affecting people's opinions or actions, even if my motives were good. It puzzles me that Fi users often assume that all across the board Fe users do this. It is not a matter of "spinning" a reason that is more palatable to the audience. I believe a situation doesn't have to be win lose. If you can present your own motive ALONG WITH a reason why the other person may have an interest in doing something, it seems to me that you are being honest, but still giving the hearer more information to consider, which is needed to make an informed choice.
I said Fe can appear to be manipulative, but I didn't mean to imply it IS. I think I explained why having to appeal to another person's needs is somewhat invalidating of Fi, which says NO external reason is needed to validate the feeling. To do so can appear suspect to Fi - why is this person resorting to these "excuses"? Why do you need common ground to accept my viewpoint as valid?
I speak of Fi here in a pure form, which does not exist in a real person. In reality, Fi-ers use their other functions to perceive how to get a point across without diluting the message or needlessly offending people (which definitely can involve common ground), and inferior Te can be accessed to provide factual support where needed. I'll go into that later....
I think for an introvert, this is very tiring, which is why much of the time, a Fi-dom will probably choose to stay quiet and lead by example. I do realize that at worst, this comes across to Fe-ers as apathy, purposefully distancing yourself from people, or doing things in defiance of the group. This is why I often piss off ESFJs much more than they piss me off. I easily ignore them, but they have a harder time ignoring me. It drives them batty when I am unaffected by them & have no interest in affecting others. In my mind, I have done nothing, but lack of trying to affect seems like lack of Feeling to Fe. So once again, Fi is viewed as largely negative in its expressions or non-existant.
Again, I suppose though that it comes down to results. Even if your reason should be good enough and it is if you are examining it from a valid feeling point of view, it is often not enough to actually produce the outcome which could potentially be beneficial to everyone. Perhaps though the issue is that Fi objects to anyone deciding what might be beneficial, particularly if it applies to anyone other than themselves? I'm not sure about standing behind that statement, just am wondering if that's a factor.
Fi, like Ti, is less concerned with real world application than the principle being thoroughly sound. Unfortunately, yes, this sometimes means there is a pointing out of what is flawed without any solution. This is annoying when Ti-ers do it also. Fe & Te seem cool with something if it works in reality, even if it is a bit flawed. I think that's why in one individual, you have both a Je & Ji function - they are needed for balance. Fe sometimes will accept something very flawed if no other alternative is present - Fi says this method is unacceptable. Fi CAN provide a model of the concept to apply in the real world, but it requires those other function, and once again, it requires a lot of energy. This is why Fi often only appears to Fe to be negative, because it only shows its face in response to a violation, to offer its criticism and to make an attempt to right the wrong.
When Fe asks for external validation of feeling, it is not to stifle others. They are looking for a mirror to reflect how they appear to others and to help give them more information to take back inside as they sort out their own feelings/beliefs about something. They are not trying to force someone to give the right answer. However, if someone comes back with something that seems unexpectedly hostile or strident, they may react with either feelings that it is the other person's problem or their own rather than that they are feelings which are a whole commodity in itself. It will be felt personally in some way, particularly if it is presented in a manner which seems uncaring, hostile or ambushes them.
It is NOT any hallmark of a Fi-user to constantly be hostile in communication, IMO. I think I noted above why Fi may seem only negative to Fe, and that's because Fi works somewhat defensively while Fe seems to work offensively. Fe seeks to affect to promote peace & prevent discord, and Fi only responds in situations where some violation of a core value has occured. It makes Fe appear pro-acive, and Fi appear truculent, which leaves the Fi-dom feeling misunderstood.
Regarding Fe-ers misunderstanding Fi-ers reasons, I think part of the issue is that they often do not have enough information to work with. Like Te makes us feel, Fe seems to put Fi on the spot when they want more explanation to understand those deeper reasons. Yet without that information, it may appear to not make sense, similar to how Ti users seem rather illogical to Te users if they do not understand how Ti is framing the situation and the depth of thought that has gone into what they have considered.
This hits a nail on the head & wraps up what I've been leading to above.... YES, Fi-ers will feel put on the spot when asked to come up with an external validation for their reasoning. Now, the default way a Fi-dom will use to explain the deeper feeling is via the Pe function. For INFPs, this means Ne, and that means they often concoct some sort of metaphor to connect the conceptual feeling to something "real". INFPs run into trouble when this form of communication is dismissed. To Fe-ers credit, their Ti use often allows them to accept a concept as valid as long as it is logically consistent in itself - there does not need to be factual evidence. I communicate well with FeTi or TiFe people if they accept these "theories" I present them to explain my idealistic models. For NFJs, they also use Ni and are often comfortable with metaphors & concepts. So presenting the feeling through a metaphor or hypothetical situation is often the means a Fi-er will use.
For ISFPs, this is even more complicated as their iNtuition is tertiary & introverted. You'll find that many ISFPs are less articulate than INFPs (why INFPs may be associated with being writers & ISFPs with the visual arts), and when young/immature, they may simply give up on trying to communicate their feelings. Then, they appear to be a "rebel without a cause" because no one understands them, so they'll just do what they want, how they want, and screw everyone else. I've seen this attitude in varying degrees in ISFPs, and sometimes in INFPs, but less so. It's also the enneagram 4 tendency to embrace being "outcast"....whereas the enneagram 9 tends to do the opposite - deny their own feeling to maintain harmonious relations. They may come to believe the idea that their feelings are invalid & that everything is in their head, so why trust it? Sometimes this appears as sycophantic behavior, and the 9 may sacrifice too much of their own needs to keep peace, believing their needs are not legitimate anyway. This idea is spread by other people - I can't tell you how many times I've heard people IRL refer to Fi-doms as being "on their own planet" or "nut jobs" or whatever dismissive phrasing to imply their perspective & feelings are irrelevant. I see this with my ISFP e9 step-dad, who often ends arguments with people saying, "I don't know how to talk. I don't know what's right. I need other people to tell me what to do." - he just waves the white flag and resigns himself to the situation.
In Gifts Differing & many other MBTI books, it is noted how IMPORTANT intuition is to a Fi-dom when it comes to expressing themselves. Intuition allows them to create a NEW mode of expression, one which satisfies the external demands and their own feeling. Most of the time, the Fi-dom demonstrates this mode - they lead by example. When they communicate it verbally, an INFP will often go the metaphorical route, and if it's accepted by the other person, then great. If not, they will try out other ideas they have - refining the metaphor or creating new ones until it is acceptable to the other person as reasonable. ISFPs who develop Ni will often choose the most clear method and relate it via illustration - there's a clearer connection between the feeling & a real world example, but it's also more specific and limiting in a way because it has to fit the concept into something existing. You'll find ISFPs learn & teach via relating experiences & stories that are real & that people relate to, but they are actually illustrations of a concept. INFPs may do this also, but there is a greater tendency to use pure metaphor.
INFPs, however, will find themselves frustrated when their preferred form of communication is dismissed as invalid because it is not concrete. Or we become frustrated when we explain it over & over & over in as many ways as we can think of, and still no one gets it. I can't emphasize to you enough how DIFFICULT communicating Fi is. It is arguably the most subjective function, which means finding external validation is a real chore. You are almost forced to be creative, forced to be innovative, forced to be poetic, forced to utilize whatever abstractions other people will accept as valid in the real world. I'm sure Ni users grasp this difficulty - I know they do. Communication with them is often much easier for me than with an SFJ, although I give my ISFJ mom a LOT of credit in the lengths she goes to in trying to understand someone. It is useful when she mirror back also - there's a "am I getting this right?" approach which shows respect for my feeling & which makes an honest attempt to discern the underlying concept. I have a feeling that both IxFJs are somewhat easier for me to communicate with, as they "see" before they judge. They'll make a judgment, but be open to retracting it if you explain they did not see what you really meant. This causes a LOT of back & forth, as these threads demonstrate, but I do believe bridges are made. ENFJs have the advantage of Ni in communicating as well - there's less focus on details and a readiness to grasp the underlying meaning.
Interestingly, one of the most difficult people to communicate my feelings to is my ESFP sister, a fellow Fi-user. Things are fine & dandy when she agrees with my feeling, because she shares it. It's when she doesn't agree that the problems arise. Being a Se-dom, she rejects theory that cannot be clearly connected to something REAL. She will constantly dismiss my perspective as "irrelevant". She hates hypothetical situations & refuses to take metaphors seriously. It's not that she can't grasp them, it's that they are invalid to her because they are not real. So how must I prove my point? With Te, because she is not a Ti-user and could give a monkey's butt about how consistently logical my metaphor is. So I have to access my inferior Te, and that takes TIME & energy. Often, she wants an explanation or a solution NOW (Se can be rather impatient), and I become emotionally provoked, because I am allowed no time to process my feeling (best done alone) and so I react with emotion. This is when Fi gets "hostile". If you feel a Fi-er getting hostile, BACK OFF. Give them some time to think & come back to the topic later. I can accommodate a Fe-ers need to work out a feeling with someone else much better once I am emotionally calm.
I believe that feelings come and go and you can't always trust them to guide you. They are important not to ignore, they can propel you into action you wouldn't bother to take otherwise, but there have been times that it would have been very detrimental for me to unload everything I'm feeling. At the same time, I believe people need enough information to work with. Especially with Fe users, saying even a little bit can give them pause and cause them to go back within themselves and look at their own actions and feelings. I know that Fi would like them to do that on their own, but it just is not how they process information. Same reason Te needs something to interact with to look at an issue further. You can always step up the intensity and urgency of the message if needed.
I think I mostly addressed this above as far as Fi preferring to lead by example & often trying many many different ways to explain a feeling peacefully (via intuition) before launching a direct defense outburst (which is often on some Te basis, which is why it can seem abrasive to Fe).
We're talking LAST RESORT with Fi when it gets abrasive. It is IDEAL to both F types to have integrity across the board, but from my perspective, when something has to be sacrificed, then Fi-ers will sacrifice good relations to maintain internal harmony and Fe-ers will sacrifice underlying meaning to maintain external harmony. This is where you sometimes see Fe-ers out of touch with their own needs, feeling they have sacrificed themselves for the good of others. This is also where you see Fi-ers withdrawing from other people & basically displaying a "bad attitude". Not to say that either cannot choose a different element to sacrifice, but they will often feel worse if they do, or it's harder to do because its unnatural . In many, many situations, neither is forced to totally compromise, and a mature Feeling type will utilize their P function to keep these compromises in perspective. That's where the big picture (often Ns) or realistic view (often Ss) comes into play.
As far as feelings coming & going - that is NOT the case with Fi-doms. Not to say a feeling never changes or is never dismissed, but we're NOT talking emotion. All that changes in Fi-doms is the form a feeling appears in. The feeling itself is hold to be basic truth about humanity and right and wrong - really fundamental concepts like "love" and "peace". Everything is connected back to these feelings - now interpretations of the feeling may change, and these interpretations may vary wildly between Fi-ers. A Fi-dom may see some external mode as necessary to the fulfillment of the feeling judgment, then later retract it, realizing it was not accurate. It can take massive amounts of external proof to sway a Fi-dom's beliefs because of this. You need an extremely sound argument, and it needs to appeal to the core Fi principle and be supported by factual evidence (Te). Even then, I don't know if the very base feeling ever changes - I think they are just so broad & vague that they are viewed in a different light when related to the external - they take a different form, but are composed of the very same sentiment. Ne & Ni are very useful here (as mentioned above) - they allow the Fi-dom to perceive better, more accurate ways of meeting those basic ideas, so that the values & smaller ideas branching from them will adjust without too much pain. This touched on an inner turmoil that Fi-doms find themselves in a lot. New information has to be run through this value system & made to harmonize, and if it cannot be done, then some major examination has to take place which shuffles everything around, removes & adds parts, until it feels consistent again. I was going to use a tree metaphor involving diseased branches & cutting them off & sprouting new ones, with the trunk remaining intact, but this post is already ridiculously long-winded....
Is that seen by Fi though as a kind of manipulative tactic, trying to force someone to act in a certain way? Is that seen as using dishonest means to get a good outcome? I find that if someone helps me see the world through their eyes, it gives me some pause and I stop and re-evaluate. It may help me to better see things from the point of view of the person they are advocating for, or I end up with is some sort of synthesis of both of our thinking, or else I develop with stronger reasons for thinking the way that I did in the first place because I've examined it further. Any of those three outcomes seem to me to be better than what I came up with alone in the first place.
It seems manipulative if the motive is not PURE. The integrity of the motive is compromised when an additional reason is brought in to appeal to the other person. I'm not saying Fi-ers get totally hung up on purity of motive, it's just an explanation for why sometimes Fe seems manipulative to Fi, when Fe just sees themselves as reaching for win-win. I understand that you also refine your values through mirroring, or some kind of consensus. Fe finds reasons outside of itself, but Fi doesn't require that. I think I mentioned above how that Fe method IS appreciated when it's used to make an effort to understand Fi or to even appeal to the Fi value.
It sounds to me like Fi motives (my motives were good, and I didn't foresee that outcome) vs Fe outcome (this rotten outcome was preventable and I trusted you) might be what's at stake.
This occurs more when Fi has lost perspective, just as Fe loss of perspective can mean demanding one method as the only acceptable form. They both are more willing to adapt to the other when they gain perspective & focus again on the core value. For instance, I've learned to accept the "Fe ways" by seeing the adaption as only a minor compromise in the moment, but still maintaining the integrity of my value in the long-term. Concerning emotion, that can mean putting on a friendly face when I don't feel that way, because in the long-run, I am a friendly person & don't want to be judged based on one fleeting moment of crabbiness.
I'm sure he has to take crap for his Te because of.. someone's ESTJ dad or something.
i see what you mean, and this sheds some light on why others in my past have told me i don't own up to things and always try to excuse my way out of things. for me, i've always tried to explain my motives, because motives seem of paramount importance to me. understanding how others can see it differently is very helpful. 
