[Fi] INFP/ENFP: Do you feel "safe" to openly & freely share your thoughts about Fi here?

[Tallulah]

If possible, could you give a example with no names involved? I think I know what you mean, but I do not think I have seen it done here in the discussions. However I'm willing to concede that I may be blind. I've seen individuals attack, but not in an attempt to turn a group against the victim. I also know that giving an example may inflame this thread, so if not comfortable, don't worry about it. As for the bold, what's the difference? Both Fe and Fi users have to justify the attack otherwise others won't see it as justifiable. If there is no justification why do it?

You took the words out of my mouth. I think I have seen this happen, but I don't think it's the standard way of Fe operation. It's kind of a manipulative move that to me, shows disrespect to the people in the group, so it irks me when I see people marshalling the troops. It's kind of a "mean girls" mode of operation. But I think unless you already control the group in an unhealthy way, or unless the group is intimidated by you, you wouldn't be able to turn anyone against anyone else. I back up ideas, not people, most of the time. It's not about shaming or who I like better. I do think examples would help to illustrate what you (skylights) mean, though.

I guess I cannot say I relate to this; I prefer critiques of both feelings and thoughts done privately; but can withstand critique of thoughts publicly. However I do not expect myself to be perfectly congruent with all Fe users all the time, so I can see it being true. Differing background histories can change a perspective easily.

Me, too. I'd much rather do the critiquing one-on-one. I don't really relate to protecting my thoughts, though? In fact, I'm always aware that there might be some side of an issue I haven't seen yet. But I'd prefer that the person do it in a respectful way. It's disrespectful to just call someone out, rather than suggest they consider another idea or ask them for clarification. If I felt like someone was trying to make me look stupid in front of a group, that would piss me off.

 

[cascadeco]

And let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. When the Fi users are having a discussion of interest to us, and we're all acting like grown-ups and enjoying ourselves; if our posts are so annoying to Fe users, why don't said Fe users just ignore those posts and move on? The advice works both ways. It reads to me that you are requiring Fi users to bend and accept; if that's so, where is the reciprocation? Where's the win-win?

Ah... the vast majority of Fe users DO in fact ignore most threads or posts that annoy them. There are only a handful who engage. I know for myself that if I'm highly annoyed, I'll often decide, 'What's the point?', and then not bother posting or whatever.

The problem here is Fe users only check with certain people, ones they "trust". Of course, those people are thus most likely to contribute to confirmation bias.

And do Fi users not have close and trusted friends that they respect and that they will speak to if they need another perspective or need to talk something out and see if they're off base or whatnot? I mean with what you're saying, everyone on this planet is going to have 'confirmation basis' if they have any sort of relationships in which they seek input or feedback/advice. Are you saying Fi users are different and they will talk to people they don't 'trust'? I don't think that's what you're saying.. but I also don't think Fi-ers lack in their own trusted relationships - so would be just as subject to this 'confirmation bias'.

See, it doesn't bother me to make this kind of stuff public. I know the Fe users find all this rather drama-inducing, but I don't have a group that I make a posse with. So, I take it out to to the group as a whole, and let the chips fall where they may.

I find this a bit offensive, honestly - the phrase 'group that I make a posse with'. While I tend to think I'm *aware* of all of the group dynamics on here, and the various relationships/bonds that people have formed (and Fi-ers are no stranger to this and have their own 'posse' of people they relate to moreso than others), I've also always felt like a bit of a lone ranger. I am not on here for the social element... I'm on here to discuss intellectual things that interest me. Now the exception is that, through my blog mostly, I have 'met' people who I would now consider friends. Well, I know they would have the potential to be good friends if we interacted irl. But for the most part I don't have a 'group', and I've often felt like I'm totally on my own. And as some know, I am incredibly *anxious* half the time I post my actual thoughts, simply because I don't know the types of responses I might get or the challenges I might encounter. So the fear factor is not unique to dom-Fi. I mean.. this post itself... I'm very anxious about it. So it is 'unsafe' in the sense that it's wholly out of my control how others will react/respond, but no more unsafe than it is for anyone else who chooses to be more open on the boards in any of the threads on here.

Anyway, that paragraph doesn't exactly address what you were saying. So back on track - imo, I'm having a hard time understanding your suggestion that making things public rubs an Fe the wrong way because the Fe's are all concerned about some group of mysterious people they're 'in' with and are therefore ganging up on everyone else. That makes no sense to me. I will say though that I think FineLine articulated very well the reasons I think all were miffed by the threads that prompted this thread, and why those degenerated into what they did. Additionally, on my own end, I viewed those threads as quite straightforward: General, high level descriptions of the functions, the purpose of both to be generic and objective *definitions*, not subjective personal experiences with the functions. And since they were published, there wasn't a 'point' per se, in those threads per the intent of the OP, to nitpick. No point, because they were simply outlines of an already published thing, and it's not like it was going to change what was already 'out there', published. Now, opening a new thread discussing what WE think each of the functions are? Sure. Fair game, absolutely. But to be honest there are a gazillion threads already out there doing that very thing, and while interesting from a personal perspective, don't really get to universal definitions/concepts. Just personal flavors.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Back-tracking to acknowledge previous contributions. Must be concise, so forgive the lack of expansion on some points:

-----

I can talk about Fi-as long as I dont use Fi as the tool of communication. As long as I use Te to discuss Fi, then I have a barrier between me and the other person.

Yes, very interesting and well said. It's an irony that one cannot discuss Fi in an Fi way ... this can only seem to be done with a limited audience, generally I would say other attuned Fi users.

Note that Fi/Te users assume the idea is an objective thing....the idea is not me. Thus the idea is fully open for critique.

It is projection on our part, to assume that the Fe/Ti users feel the same way about the sharing of ideas.

Agreed; the recent clarity on this point has been evolving to a tremendous degree.

The conflicts actually are more about how ideas are shared, who has a right to share ideas, how social acceptance influences the sharing of the idea, and how each us responds to our ideas being critiqued.

What's fascinating is that I see ideas as separate from my being, who I am; if I can extrapolate, Fe-ers see emotions as separate from who they are?

If I said "It's just an idea, chill out..." I would offend Ti users, just as if you said to me, "It's just a feeling, chill out..." - that would offend me.

After watching groups of NTPs at work-they dont openly poke ideas. They are not highly questioning in public. Instead they use "we" almost exclusively, they pose critique as questions, or discuss critique of ideas one-on-one offline.

And that's problematic too - in a meeting for example, you can feel them disagreeing with the idea, but no one will say anything about it. You have to approach them one on one to find out where the dissonance is.

I think it may be an irresolvable issue, but the value may be in learning about this here-recognizing we will never, ever agree, then using the tool in the real world to smooth our communication skills with those we care for or interact with.

I tend to agree with you on this, although I am always hopeful. Thanks for the thoughts Orobas.

-----

When we were children, we learned that certain things were not accepted by others and we modified our behaviors to conform. Everybody does this and I am not sure anybody is ever really truly safe to be themselves except with those who are very close to them.

Agreed. Re-quoting this to highlight the obvious common-sense component of the statement.

-----

Fi can be dismissed or viewed with skepticism simply based upon its premise. At times even by virtue of the terms that I feel are best used, its validity is invariably questioned at some point and may mark the beginning of the listener's comparing it with other 'mystical' or New Agey things that have little justifiable basis in reality in their own eyes, or otherwise simply not taking it too seriously. For some reason, it's not as easy to stay firmly grounded in the realm of cognition when it's Fi. So many other things like emotion and faith and spirituality always come creeping up as well. People need something "real" to tie it to, but in the process we can end up discussing that "real" thing instead of reeling it back in toward Fi. Or sometimes we have returned to Fi, but the "real" thing has colored the lens so much that the listener may still be using it as an overlay.

I think it's safe to say that there's no easy leapfrog comparison for Fi to the others. It can of course be compared to Ti, but it still takes more effort to bridge them when considering both processing as well as conclusion. After I have drilled in that Fi isn't emotion, reactions can range from 'Fi-ers are difficult and melodramatic teenagers' to 'Fi-ers are misguided with their priorities'. In both cases, character is drawn under equal scrutiny. The "solution" can be a suggestion to 'grow up', 'focus on real problems', 'be thankful for -these- things instead of focusing on -those-'... All operate around a presumption of silliness and immaturity on the part of the Fi-er. Most listeners who see the validity are self-typed Fi users (even ESFP) or Fe users who are committed to tolerance [even if in the absence of acceptance]. Self-typed Ti-ers tend to think both Feeling functions are silly.

Very measured and insightful Noon. A pleasure to read and reflect on your ideas here. Thanks for this.

-----

For one thing we aren't as practiced in framing our such inner thoughts and feelings in an effective manner externally and can misrepresent ourselves without realising, but also we could be more sensitive to having this, normally concealed (possibly intimate) piece of ourselves, come under scrutiny.

Perhaps our relative frankness here, in comparison to real life, is confusing and deceptive to others. And maybe we don't sufficiently communicate how personal and close to our heart some of the things we are expressing really are.

All excellent points that resonate. Thanks Southern Kross.

-----

As a whole, I've been made to "follow" the footsteps of other people for quite a big chunk of my life. I don't see it as me being defective, but it makes it harder on myself on knowing what I want to do rather than what others want me to do. Because of this, I'm rather indecisive unless something evokes a strong response.

Thanks for your whole post Takeru - I especially focussed on the last sentence; I think it's a reason why Fi in general is seen in a negative light, because those tend to be our strongest outward responses, the things that others get to see.

-----

The problem with Fi is that its process is inherently subjective. This subjectivity is augmented by the inclination towards the primacy of emotional intensity, represented so well by INFPs.

I can appreciate another's Fi-ness because I relate to it, albeit indirectly. Since feelings are the filter through which Fi analyses data, they become sacrosanct; a hostile criticism of feeling is considered a transgression against the feelings' originator.

Yes, as Orobas pointed out above: you can critique or even make fun of an Fi-ers ideas without too much negative impact, but the feelings ... eh, not so flexible there. I guess the issue lies in the fact that I feel something about almost everything; it's the core operating system that everything else relies on.

Maybe Fi is a Mac; Fe is Windows ... the two operating systems are incompatible, BUT, I have machines with both platforms and there are ways to bridge the gap by running Parallels on my Mac. Hey, that's not a bad metaphor ... Apple markets more to the individual, Apple makes more effort to be Windows-friendly, Apple is considered the underdog ... haha, I should flesh that metaphor out more.

-----

It was like, "agree or GTFO".

Agreed; now we are getting somewhere ... let's work again from the premise that Ti holds the idea as sacrosanct. The author of the quoted works presumably holds a higher level authority (education, experience, is published) than any of us individuals participating in thread. So, challenging that person is akin to undermining her authority. Lovely.

And OA, you whole post is full of "win", but I am going to focus here on the last para:

So it seems to me, the other types are the ones being overly sensitive & unwilling to reassess their own viewpoint, not open to having their ideas/thoughts challenged & questioned. It would be GREAT if they actually joined in a discussion & debated ideas; but they often don't. They just make scornful comments instead of actually addressing points made by the Fi people and creating a valid argument. It's devaluing the poster instead of attacking their argument. These are the ones who don't want a real discussion; the pattern is to mock or accuse, likely to get a reaction, then to invalidate the poster(s) based on the reaction, and then to comment on how ridiculous the thread is so as to perpetuate the propaganda that Fi types are hysterical, irrational people. Even though, looking back on these threads, the whiniest, most unreasonable posters are often not even F types.

This - it's the reason why the Fe/Ti users cannot be as objective in these situations.

Again let's use the premise that Fe holds ideas as sacrosanct and Fi feelings. We Fi-ers don't challenge how one another feels, we challenge how each other thinks. We realize that our feelings are messengers guiding us to truth (well, eventually we have to come to terms with them, and we all take unique paths to find this wisdom.)

Fe-ers don't challenge other people's ideas readily, they challenge the feelings - because for them, feelings are transient and fickle, ready to deceive. Their truth is found in ideas and this leads to the "right" feelings. Thus, Fe more readily projects intentions and motivations especially into negatively expressed emotions that in reality don't even exist for Fi-ers.

Ironically, Fi-ers are the least "emotional" discussing ideas and Fe perhaps when discussing feelings. The problem lies in that my ability to discuss ideas can only take place through a feeling filter - the feeling is the FIRST signal something is right or wrong, so when I say it out loud, Fe gets stuck on that hurdle, can't hear anything else I am saying. Plus, in challenging the ideas, I am pressing on the most sensitive Fe places.

Someone examine and refine even those last paras I wrote; what do you think? Does that stand up as accurate? Does that resonate with truthiness?

-----

More to come ...

 

[Tallulah]

I think it's more like, Fe doesn't like a challenge to an idea that we perceive is "only" based upon a feeling. Not that the challenging of the idea itself is offensive. You can challenge my idea all you like. I also hate it when I'm presenting an idea that I'm fairly detached from, and someone wants to assign ME a feeling to it. It's just an idea. I don't see myself as highly connected to my ideas, because I'm always open to being proven wrong. But I do have to be convinced that I'm wrong.

 

[JocktheMotie]

My perception of the thread was essentially this:

This here thread seems to be about writing an epitaph for the "Quick Reference Guide" threads, so let's go back to those. I don't want to pick out individual posts or posters as an example, so I'll just try to keep everything general. But I followed and posted in the "Quick Reference Guide" threads almost from their first appearance. (My first post was in the Fi thread less than 24 hours after its inception.) So here's just one example of what I saw:

Fi-Dom posters were already over posting in the Fe thread complaining about the Fi guide within the first two posts following the OP over there. And in fact the Fe thread almost never even had a chance to discuss the Fe guide; Fi-Doms were complaining in both the Fe and Fi threads about the Fi guide. Any boundaries between the two threads quickly broke down; Fe-users and Fi-users were all over each other's threads; by 48 hours after the OP, Fi-Dom posters were clashing in the Fe thread with madmins about the issue of the Fi guide.

I can certainly understand disagreeing with a functional description, as Lenore's Ti description is, in my mind, awful, so there's understanding there. What I found to be absurd was how concerned a lot of the Fi users were regarding the Fe thread. If you want to talk about Fi, and dissect Fi, "in a Fi way," then why bother with Fe at all? To me, the concept of Fe sounding "too good" or not having any kind of balance in the description is such a ridiculous thing to be concerned about, so it appears petty and whiny. Like Fe was somehow drinking Fi's milkshake. Fi didn’t seem to be concerned with just Fi, Fe needed to be dragged through the mud too, for things to be “fair.” Laughable. Then for some posters to paint the Fi description as the result of some kind of Fe agenda, and be surprised when it's perceived as the expression of a victim complex, well...the hilarity continues, from my point of view.

Naturally, there's going to be a good amount of overlap when you compare F functions, a lot of the times, output will look identical and the only difference is the direction of the process and where that process originates from. Same with Ni and Ne, how many times do each N dom/user maintain they can do both? I thought it'd be interesting to see the process broken down by some of the users since they thought the original description was lacking, but alas, it was one big pity party and became tedious for me.

Yes, very interesting and well said. It's an irony that one cannot discuss Fi in an Fi way ... this can only seem to be done with a limited audience, generally I would say other attuned Fi users.

I think you can. I typically discuss Ti in a Ti way. The thing is...I view Ti as separate from myself. It's a process. It's a worldview. It's not my ideas. It's not my thoughts. I see a lot of people discuss Fi, as NOT separate from themselves. The way I see Fi is that it’s not your feelings, it's not your values...it's how you process and work with those values. I think this causes a lot of disconnect, since Fi does work with feelings and impressions, which are inherently personal. So maybe it does feel close to home.

What I’ve noticed with Fi descriptions, as that because Fi has such a large range of how one can personally identify with it, the description has to be pretty general to try to get everybody in. But because of the generality, Fi sees the description as incomplete and lacking both precision and depth of their own intricate self understanding. It’s the downfall of personal, subjectively operating decision making function. It’s going to be so unique to you, that any general overview is always going to be missing, so you need to fill in the blanks.

With regards to the OP…I probably shouldn’t get into it. But I find the concept of Fi being unsafe to display, also laughable. It reads to me, that Fi wants to be able to say anything and have it be accepted without any kind of criticism, or without being told “no,” which is just not going to happen. To say that Fi is being suppressed by the Ti/Fe crowd's supreme agenda, is a bit extreme.

 

[Seymour]

So, while it does seem neat and tidy, I'm having a hard time buying the "Te/Fi are more detached from their ideas", while "Fe/Ti more detached from their feelings."

I think I have a few reasons for this:

• I work with my INTPs, and they have to problem critiquing one another's ideas and ripping them to shreds. It's not done in a personally attacking kind of way, but it can be shockingly blunt to my INFP ears. From one INTP description "To an observer, INTPs can seem emotionally cold and overly critical. From the INTPs' perspective, they are simply applying logical principles to their own behavior and to the behavior of others. If they criticize, it is only to correct what they see as an inconsistency or flaw in logic. They intend to be objective, not hurtful." To me, it seems like they are invested in the process/thinking/logic being good, not that their ideas avoid critique.
  
• Secondly, it's not just INTPs that go around and try to critique/resolve things privately with people. INFPs do it, too. (It's all the types that use the "behind the scenes" interaction style, really.) I certainly always try to solve things in private when at all possible. Critiquing in public tends to be my last choice, especially if someone has an emotional investment.
  
• Thirdly, I personally have a hard time not taking critiques on my ideas and efforts personally—it's not just my feelings. In fact, that's a common complaint leveled at INFPs. In books like "Nurture by Nature" learning to take criticism impersonally (or dealing with one's emotional response and moving on) is one of the primary challenges for INFPs in childhood and adolescence.

So, to my mind it's as much a communication style, as anything. For example, someone makes an starts a thread with an OP, and an NFP (for example) posts, "The OP sounds off to me. It evokes a particular feeling (or sense of wrongness/dissonance/whatever)." For an Fi-er, that's an invitation to take a closer look at what the underlying cause might be, not a complete judgment of the OP. Then, suppose another NFP says, "Yes, it evoked emotion/feeling X in me as well." And pretty soon NFPs start analyzing and picking things apart.

But I think that's not all how it falls on the ears of others (especially the NTPs). They simply hear someone inserting their emotions (note it comes across as pure emotion, not as a valuable input into an Fi-based Feeling judgement). From their perspective, it's as though someone stands up in the middle of a lecture and says, "OMG! I just bit my lip because I was chewing gum." Followed by another person saying, "Yeah, that happens to me, too! What's up with that?!?" Immediate emotional/feeling responses are not something to be aired in public and discussed. Instead, the idiots who start talking about a ridiculous personal issue disruptively should be shot down and taught how not to be disruptive.

So, to me the underlying issue is partially about the somewhat unique relationship Fi-ers have with their emotions. Their emotions are not, themselves, Feeling judgments but they do point the way. They are our "early warning detection system," and so have worth in and of themselves. So, when we share our subjective feeling-based response to something, we are sharing potentially valuable information

I think this sets off the NTPs in particular, since they, being Ti-ers, have no patience for fools and don't have the same primacy of concern for the feelings of others as a Feeling type. Tertiary and inferior Fe are tend to express themselves negatively as well. Other Fe types may be set off by the inappropriateness of the emotional response in the Fi-ers' posts, not appreciating why an emotional response is a valuable clue to an underlying inconsistency.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ok, next:

FineLine, I am assuming that you self-reporting as an Fi dom is accurate, so as such, I am going to debate with you Fi style. All other users, FineLine should be able to handle this, and it's not intended to undermine him in any way.

In this post, you mainly reiterated your earlier primary points, which I will summarize:

1.) Sometimes we need to "man-up" and put that Fi back in the back-pockets, where it rightly belongs in mixed company.

2.) If you want to play in the big sandbox, you need to accept that sometimes the other kids will push you around and you need to learn how to get along best with them to avoid having that happen to you. If you can't handle it, head back to the pre-school room.

3.) If you find yourself the target of negative commentary or attack, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself to see how you are equally to blame for that happening to you.

There's so much that's right about all that, and so much that's wrong too.

2. As a corollary to my point above: In my previous post I put the words "mocking, hurtful, and cruel" in quotes as much for irony as anything else. Frankly I didn't see much in the earlier thread that was genuinely mocking, hurtful and cruel. What I saw was some personalization of the issue by INFPs, some push-back by non-INFPs, then a lot of stressed-out inferior Te from INFPs along the line of "I am Fi! Hear me roar! You have no right to disrespect me!", and finally a whole lot of irritation from non-INFPs.

The problem is, you don't know the history there. If you did, you would see how pointed and specific it was. I have avoided using that thread as an example and I won't publically discuss it, but it certainly isn't the only reason for the existence of this one.

Why do I have to prove to you that I have a reason to be offended? It's not enough to believe I have a rational reason for that, eh?

Just because it was a thread about Fi didn't mean that the Fi-Doms owned it.

Naturally.

And yes, I asked a question in the Fe thread, that had the potential for "heat" - the great part though was that cascadeco explored that "feeling tone" with me and it led to a great new insight on the whole dynamic behind the issue for me. She wasn't threatened by it, she used it to dig deeper, it was excellent.

That's what I probe for - I just don't ask questions or post to seem all pissy or whiny - sometimes emotion is what's needed to spark a reaction, because reactions dig under the pretty surface material to the inner places. Emotions are not in place to cause disruption and fear, they exist to teach, and what you feel teaches you about yourself. If other people feel all annoyed, they should be looking at themselves and asking themselves WHY.

It's not about me being oversensitive and needing to check my emotions at the door - nor is it about using different tools to more effectively communicate with the home audience - nor is about wanting some special VIP treatment. It's about pursuing the feeling tones to a conclusion that enables one to learn more about oneself and other people. My goal is to respect everyone in the process, as I have all my life, but here on the forum, I dare to try more direct Fi ways. It meets with variable success, but when it's successful, it's so successful!

And it's important for other types to realize that when an Fi user (heck if anyone) has a "feeling tone" it's for a reason. I don't believe that only Fi users get them, but I think it's true since we get them all the time we thus have to figure out what they mean and not conveniently shove them aside. I did that for years and years already! It doesn't work, I can't ignore them, so let's bring them to the big sandbox, and hey, maybe together, we can all play and get along. Without me having to consistently pretend to be something else in order to do so!

My hubs is an ESTJ - he is so refreshingly himself all the time, it's wonderful. He knows his Te can come across harsh and strives for balance. Fi does need to measure itself similarly in order to be most effective, I know this - I just get tired that on the forum, where we're most supposed to understand each other and potentially respect those differences, it doesn't play out that way.

Furthermore, all this talk about needing a "safe environment" for expressing our Fi strikes my own Fi as bogus. We're all adults here; we shouldn't need safety nets.

I do see your point, but you and I know that's not entirely accurate. If we have a minority of anything we need to foster an environment that honors everyone's POV. There's a reason why freedom of speech is a first amendment right, and that the exceptions to it are defamation & harassment, amongst others.

3. Just to wrap things up, I'll reiterate one more thing: Shame is good. Shame is a reality check. Everyone is subject to it equally. Shame teaches us lessons.

KDude's post was helpful to see what you mean by shame ... so I'll leave it at that.

-----

For the best result, know thy context!

thanks for your thoughts as always. Obviously, I agree, but in a thread about Fi, is that not the proper context. ??

-----

In short, the Fi-users conflated a few incidents to a widespread attack, and non-Fi-users (let's see if I can add another hyphen) threw out the baby with the bathwater by combining legitimate complaints with some overly dramatic whinging and dismissing it all.

The problem I have is the part @bold. Fi escalates via Te. Te just gets louder. Key to deflation is not dismissal, it's asking something like "I don't get why the Fi users are speaking up here, but hey, there might be something to this. Why is their "spidey-sense" tingling, so many of them too? And why do I feel upset and annoyed by that?"

How can Fi users better phrase what they need? How can Fi best exist and still be heard, and still be Fi?

-----

See here's the problem; it was not self-absorption at all. You're attempting to undermine the perfectly reasonable arguments of the Fi users with another unjustified swipe at us. What I saw was Fi-users expressing their difference in opinion and engaging in polite debate, and a bunch of (predominantly) NTs getting pissy with them because they weren't playing according to their unspoken rules (ironic isn't it, that it was the Thinkers and not the Feelers, using irrational, emotional-driven arguments). Any attempt by the Fi-ers to explain themselves only lead to further, uncalled for, ad hominem type-based attacks on them. It was close to total derailment of the thread by lashing out with, what clearly seems to be, a personal prejudice against a type among many here.

See, that's what I see too. What other Fi user wants to be the next to step up and share their POV. Umm, that would be no one!

-----

In a group setting, Fe is going to be more commonly supported over Fi. It may seem unfair, but Fi's very individuality, privacy, retiscence and outspokenness makes it hard to wield effectively in a large group. In personal settings, Fi is a superstar and can be much more insightful and precise than Fe.
...
Fe users will be much more likely to respect the Fi users' feelings if they allow space and don't try to use force through Te. When we disengage for a bit, we may even be able to look for the parts that we do agree with, or try to find a way of compromising or meeting in the middle. Without that, we will become increasingly blunt.
...
Because our feelings/values are not our main area of vulnerability, a Fi user striking back at our intentions/motivations/feelings is more likely to annoy than hurt us. Criticize our thoughts or something that matters greatly to us and that is where we are more likely to react. Unfortunately, this often leaves Fi users in a position of feeling attacked where it hurts most, without a way to respond that will impact the other person as deeply and make them rethink their way of engaging.

The whole post is well-done fidelia; your thoughts and ideas are well-expressed. Personally, I find it troubling that a whole bunch of Fi data is dismissed and ignored, because the irony is that the data is valuable to the group as a whole. Remember my church story? They are operating in a negative budget now. Because ... they didn't want to listen, to hear what people had to say, to trust the vibes that people tried to share, for two years! "Danger, Danger!" What a waste!

-----

You got it right. As you described, I was talking about getting by on what you're good at (your Dom function), and then one day failing badly and realizing that you need more tools if you want to handle more complex roles.

I think for many INFP's the flip-side is true. We learn very early that Fi is unwelcome at the table, and we overcompensate with other functions, leaving our Fi largely ignored and untrusted. It's really only the last 5 years or so, now in my 40's, that I am listening more and more, really trusting those feeling tones to guide my life, instead of trying to push them aside and let other functions fill the gaps. The over-riding message from my teens was that no one cares how you feel, they care how you think. So that's what I developed. And Fe ... that was my 20's ... trying to "go along to get along" via learning all the Fe tools in the toolbox.

Fi doesn't make you go all emo out the door, it means you pay attention to every feeling tone and permit it to exist, and try to pick apart all the nuances of why you have it in the first place. I used to shove them all aside in the name of being practical and dutiful. There's a balance point one must strive for. I'm a 9 in the enneagram after all; I desire peaceful coexistence. I don't go looking to make my life this emo-burst of drama. So peace is what I hope is the end result of discussing this topic.

To put it simply: our emotionality and lack of boundaries have the ability to superheat a thread. And after we've trashed and tangled up a thread with our complaining and emoting, frankly it sounds fake when we sit around and play the victim afterwards.

I agree, but I disagree that expressing an emotion is deserving of a smack-down. Nor am I playing victim. "Feeling tones" are valuable data. That's all I am saying.

I'm just reporting what I saw in those threads. Where you come from and where you're going is of no concern to me. I really couldn't care less.

I'm looking at the threads and showing how they match a typical pattern for INFP posting. But don't ask me to crawl into the heads of all the various participants and concern myself about their motivations or their past or their future or why they posted exactly what they did. That's not my job.

Fineline, your F is showing ...

-----

FineLine I appreciate your attempts to create balance in the debate. I certainly don't believe we are entirely blameless and if you look back in the thread I made several posts regarding this. But please don't mistake my, at times, passionate language as being indicative of my perspectives being black and white or lacking balance. Just because I have a strong view doesn't mean I haven't considered the issues you and others have raised. Don't belittle my views or those of the other XNFPs here as being simplistic and ignorant just because you disagree with them.

And regarding your last post: PeaceBaby's statement wasn't aggressive in any way and there was no need for such snarky abrasiveness. Please don't add unnecessary fuel to the fire.

Ya, that!

-----

It's really easy to blame the introverted function. As it does not tend to have a group for assertiveness. In a way a group is also just one opinion. There is just more power, not necessarily more true.

Very wise!

-----

Are you saying Fi users are different and they will talk to people they don't 'trust'? I don't think that's what you're saying.. but I also don't think Fi-ers lack in their own trusted relationships - so would be just as subject to this 'confirmation bias'.

Indeed; it's different though ..... although my brain is frying out on how to best express that and respond further. Will come back to it.

 

[Rail Tracer]

The whole post is well-done fidelia; your thoughts and ideas are well-expressed. Personally, I find it troubling that a whole bunch of Fi data is dismissed and ignored, because the irony is that the data is valuable to the group as a whole. Remember my church story? They are operating in a negative budget now. Because ... they didn't want to listen, to hear what people had to say, to trust the vibes that people tried to share, for two years! "Danger, Danger!" What a waste!

It's the top-down approach not looking at the bottom-up approach! . But really, that is how many companies fail.

 

[Southern Kross]

I'm gonna squish these quotes down a little so I don't take up too much space. No offence to the posters.

I can certainly understand disagreeing with a functional description, as Lenore's Ti description is, in my mind, awful, so there's understanding there. What I found to be absurd was how concerned a lot of the Fi users were regarding the Fe thread. If you want to talk about Fi, and dissect Fi, "in a Fi way," then why bother with Fe at all? To me, the concept of Fe sounding "too good" or not having any kind of balance in the description is such a ridiculous thing to be concerned about, so it appears petty and whiny. Like Fe was somehow drinking Fi's milkshake. Fi didn’t seem to be concerned with just Fi, Fe needed to be dragged through the mud too, for things to be “fair.” Laughable. Then for some posters to paint the Fi description as the result of some kind of Fe agenda, and be surprised when it's perceived as the expression of a victim complex, well...the hilarity continues, from my point of view.

Naturally, there's going to be a good amount of overlap when you compare F functions, a lot of the times, output will look identical and the only difference is the direction of the process and where that process originates from. Same with Ni and Ne, how many times do each N dom/user maintain they can do both? I thought it'd be interesting to see the process broken down by some of the users since they thought the original description was lacking, but alas, it was one big pity party and became tedious for me.

I admit I didn't read the Fe thread and don't know all the circumstances. If it played out as you say then this was inappropriate. To explain: we Fi doms/aux often like to talk about and define things using negative contrast - particularly with their own behaviour (eg. "this is what I'm not"). This can be wrongly perceived to be (and at times can genuinely be) an attempt to take down others to bolster one's position. I think in this case the frustration with the comparatively half-assed description of Fi, in contrast to the Fe one, was enough to set people off in this direction. I get Fi is hard to describe, but it is irritating when minimal effort, especially by experts in MBTI, is made to grasp it.

I'm sorry our behaviour comes off as a pity party to you. I can assure you it is not necessarily our intention to engage in one. When we want to work something out we like to ruminate and take our time to talking/thinking it out, where as others want to move on more quickly. Its not necessarily a ploy for sympathy and attention.

What I’ve noticed with Fi descriptions, as that because Fi has such a large range of how one can personally identify with it, the description has to be pretty general to try to get everybody in. But because of the generality, Fi sees the description as incomplete and lacking both precision and depth of their own intricate self understanding. It’s the downfall of personal, subjectively operating decision making function. It’s going to be so unique to you, that any general overview is always going to be missing, so you need to fill in the blanks.

With regards to the OP…I probably shouldn’t get into it. But I find the concept of Fi being unsafe to display, also laughable. It reads to me, that Fi wants to be able to say anything and have it be accepted without any kind of criticism, or without being told “no,” which is just not going to happen. To say that Fi is being suppressed by the Ti/Fe crowd's supreme agenda, is a bit extreme.

I think a decent general description for Fi that Fi-users will agree with is very possible (I have read several that I very much do) but like I said the efforts are often insultingly half-assed. Whatever leads an individual Fi user to make a certain decision comes from a deeper driving force. Unfortunately the descriptions are often preoccupied with the surface decision-making process of Fi, instead of digging deeper and finding the core attributes and underlying factors at play. Anything less than this will be too specific and will relate only to certain individuals, in certain situations. And as you have observed, Fi dom/aux are always quick to call them on this bullshit.

So, while it does seem neat and tidy, I'm having a hard time buying the "Te/Fi are more detached from their ideas", while "Fe/Ti more detached from their feelings."

I think I have a few reasons for this:

• I work with my INTPs, and they have to problem critiquing one another's ideas and ripping them to shreds. It's not done in a personally attacking kind of way, but it can be shockingly blunt to my INFP ears. From one INTP description "To an observer, INTPs can seem emotionally cold and overly critical. From the INTPs' perspective, they are simply applying logical principles to their own behavior and to the behavior of others. If they criticize, it is only to correct what they see as an inconsistency or flaw in logic. They intend to be objective, not hurtful." To me, it seems like they are invested in the process/thinking/logic being good, not that their ideas avoid critique.
  
• Secondly, it's not just INTPs that go around and try to critique/resolve things privately with people. INFPs do it, too. (It's all the types that use the "behind the scenes" interaction style, really.) I certainly always try to solve things in private when at all possible. Critiquing in public tends to be my last choice, especially if someone has an emotional investment.
  
• Thirdly, I personally have a hard time not taking critiques on my ideas and efforts personally—it's not just my feelings. In fact, that's a common complaint leveled at INFPs. In books like "Nurture by Nature" learning to take criticism impersonally (or dealing with one's emotional response and moving on) is one of the primary challenges for INFPs in childhood and adolescence.

So, to my mind it's as much a communication style, as anything. For example, someone makes an starts a thread with an OP, and an NFP (for example) posts, "The OP sounds off to me. It evokes a particular feeling (or sense of wrongness/dissonance/whatever)." For an Fi-er, that's an invitation to take a closer look at what the underlying cause might be, not a complete judgment of the OP. Then, suppose another NFP says, "Yes, it evoked emotion/feeling X in me as well." And pretty soon NFPs start analyzing and picking things apart.

But I think that's not all how it falls on the ears of others (especially the NTPs). They simply hear someone inserting their emotions (note it comes across as pure emotion, not as a valuable input into an Fi-based Feeling judgement). From their perspective, it's as though someone stands up in the middle of a lecture and says, "OMG! I just bit my lip because I was chewing gum." Followed by another person saying, "Yeah, that happens to me, too! What's up with that?!?" Immediate emotional/feeling responses are not something to be aired in public and discussed. Instead, the idiots who start talking about a ridiculous personal issue disruptively should be shot down and taught how not to be disruptive.

So, to me the underlying issue is partially about the somewhat unique relationship Fi-ers have with their emotions. Their emotions are not, themselves, Feeling judgments but they do point the way. They are our "early warning detection system," and so have worth in and of themselves. So, when we share our subjective feeling-based response to something, we are sharing potentially valuable information

I think this sets off the NTPs in particular, since they, being Ti-ers, have no patience for fools and don't have the same level of concern for the feelings of other as a Feeling type. Tertiary and inferior Fe are tend to express themselves negatively as well. Other Fe types may be set off by the inappropriateness of the emotional response in the Fi-ers' posts, not appreciating why an emotional response is a valuable clue to an underlying inconsistency.

Hell yes

Nice explanation and insights.

 

[RDF]

[...] And yes, I asked a question in the Fe thread, that had the potential for "heat" - the great part though was that cascadeco explored that "feeling tone" with me and it led to a great new insight on the whole dynamic behind the issue for me. She wasn't threatened by it, she used it to dig deeper, it was excellent.

That's what I probe for - I just don't ask questions or post to seem all pissy or whiny - sometimes emotion is what's needed to spark a reaction, because reactions dig under the pretty surface material to the inner places. Emotions are not in place to cause disruption and fear, they exist to teach, and what you feel teaches you about yourself. If other people feel all annoyed, they should be looking at themselves and asking themselves WHY.

It's not about me being oversensitive and needing to check my emotions at the door - nor is it about using different tools to more effectively communicate with the home audience - nor is about wanting some special VIP treatment. It's about pursuing the feeling tones to a conclusion that enables one to learn more about oneself and other people. My goal is to respect everyone in the process, as I have all my life, but here on the forum, I dare to try more direct Fi ways. It meets with variable success, but when it's successful, it's so successful!

Okay, fine. You've personalized what happened in the thread. That's part of what Fi does--it personalizes things. More specifically, you have isolated out and relayed to us your own impressions of your own participation in the thread. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not objecting. But there's not much I can do with it. It's neither right or wrong. It's simply yours. As such there's nothing I can do with it but shrug my shoulders and say, "Fine."

Just for comparison, here's my Fi version of what happened in that thread: "...I want to emphasize that blaming INFPs for the thread isn't a big deal for me personally one way or the other. I didn't raise any recriminations in the thread at the time, and I'm comfortable with what happened overall. Emotionality and lack of boundaries is what we do, and I understand where it comes from..."

In other words, I didn't think it was a big deal one way or the other. It was just one more "Fi Gone Wild" thread out of many. I tried to intervene at the end mainly out of courtesy to ProteanMix (though at my own initiative), but otherwise I was pretty unmoved by the whole thing. When it was graveyarded, I shrugged my shoulders. I knew what was going on and what dynamics were at play, but it really had nothing to do with me. I've seen many such threads, and at first I chuckle at them and then I get bored with them. It's just the same-old-same-old. It's what happens when a few INFPs get together and start insisting that "they're not going to take it anymore."

That's my personalized, Fi view of the thread. That's a description of how the thread subjectively impacted me personally. I'm not saying it's a right or wrong view; it's just mine.

Nonetheless, our comments elicited some views from Fe-users about how these things look from the outside:

...We are going to have to disagree on the interpretation of the events. Just know I'm not the only one that sees them in that way.

I've found this is a huge blind spot for Fi-users: they believe they are being positive and healthy, where others seem them as negative and disruptive. It's strange, for group that is so good at relating to others one-on-one and analyzing their own emotional states/feelings, they are disadvantaged when addressing larger groups and trying to convey their inner states/beliefs in a way that doesn't grate on others...

...I actually think MacGuffin is fairly accurate in speaking for a lot of Fe users. While those inclined to do so can even recognize that the intent is not to create unrest or to seem negative, the way it is expressed does tend to rub the wrong way...

...I have to back Mac and fidelia up on that. I'd say Fi can/often does come off as self-absorbed and/or unnecessarily disruptive to Fe users...

I know I'm taking these comments out of context, and I apologize to MacGuffin, Fidelia, and Tallulah. But I think these excerpts deserve attention. Fi isn't the only way to look at this issue. There's also the Te/Fe view of the thread and us, i.e. a view of the thread and its participants as an objective entity. And in general I would say that MacGuffin, Fidelia, and Tallulah are fairly sympathetic observers. They have been around Fi-users a long time on this message board and have cut us a lot of slack in the past.

Personally, I can kind of see where those three are coming from, so I attempted my own Te/Fe view of the thread, i.e. a view of the thread as an objective entity:

...To put it simply: our emotionality and lack of boundaries have the ability to superheat a thread. And after we've trashed and tangled up a thread with our complaining and emoting, frankly it sounds fake when we sit around and play the victim afterwards. [...]

But in any case I certainly wasn't surprised when the Fi thread degenerated into mutual recriminations and got trashed. Right from the start it had been superheated with emotionality and tangled together in boundaryless fashion with the Fe thread; the madmins had issued warnings and were expressing their disgust; it was just a matter of time till that thread came to a bad end.

My Te/Fe view of the thread is riddled with hyperbole and colorful expression; I don't blame Southern Kross for her objections to my mode of expression.

Nonetheless, I think that at some point we INFPs have to climb out of our personalized Fi world and agree on some labels on what happened at the objective Te/Fe level too. After all, this isn't just impacting us alone. We have to develop some vocabulary in common with outsiders (non-Fi-users) as to what happened. That was my aim in posting my observations on how INFPs "superheat" threads.

Sure, the Fi viewpoint has something to offer the world; it's a source of useful primary data. It's the viewpoint of the first-hand participant or the empathetic observer. But at some point the personalized and subjective viewpoint has to be synched up in some fashion with the objective viewpoint as well. We share the world with other people; it can't just be about us sitting around and insisting on our Fi personal values.

********************************************

And it's important for other types to realize that when an Fi user (heck if anyone) has a "feeling tone" it's for a reason. I don't believe that only Fi users get them, but I think it's true since we get them all the time we thus have to figure out what they mean and not conveniently shove them aside. I did that for years and years already! It doesn't work, I can't ignore them, so let's bring them to the big sandbox, and hey, maybe together, we can all play and get along. Without me having to consistently pretend to be something else in order to do so!

I understand the importance of Fi. The trouble is that some Fi-users go on about nothing but their Fi. And frankly it gets old. Not every Fi value is a jewel to be treasured by the world. Fi values are highly personalized. Every Fi-user generates a different set of values. That means that any given Fi value is going to work best for the Fi individual who has it; meanwhile it may be a good, mediocre, or even bad match for the rest of the world or even other Fi-users.

I think the non-Fi-users in this particular thread have bent over backwards to try to understand Fi in general and your values in particular. They have dialogued with you quite a bit and tried to integrate your Fi values into their world view. Occasionally it has led to new insights; on the other hand, sometimes your viewpoint was simply too personalized to be applicable much outside your own particular life. Meantime, when the non-Fi-users in this thread raise objective real-world (Te/Fe) limitations and objections, you say that you have been living according to those rules for a lifetime, you're tired of living according to those real-world restrictions, and that you want the real world to accommodate your Fi instead.

Once again, my feelings on that issue:

Sure, the Fi viewpoint has something to offer the world; it's a source of useful primary data. It's the viewpoint of the first-hand participant or the empathetic observer. But at some point the personalized and subjective viewpoint has to be synched up in some fashion with the objective viewpoint as well. We share the world with other people; it can't just be about us sitting around and insisting on our Fi personal values.

****************************
Oh well, I'm done with this thread and this issue. I feel like I'm talking about things that should be taken for granted, i.e., the need for Fi-users to accommodate objective realities and real-world considerations. I had this same debate many times over at INFP-GC, and it gets old fast.

Go ahead and provide a rebuttal if you want; I'll look back here and read your response. But I'm done typing up long responses on fairly basic questions of balancing Fi values against real-world limitations.

 

[MacGuffin]

LOL, this is slightly OT, but what fineline wrote reminded me of

 

[RDF]

That's about the sum of it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

But at some point the personalized and subjective viewpoint has to be synched up in some fashion with the objective viewpoint as well. We share the world with other people; it can't just be about us sitting around and insisting on our Fi personal values. {...} I feel like I'm talking about things that should be taken for granted, i.e., the need for Fi-users to accommodate objective realities and real-world considerations. I had this same debate many times over at INFP-GC, and it gets old fast.

I see this as a statement of the obvious. Of course we all know this; we all live in the real world and make accommodation to it every day.

However, when the collective viewpoints of Fi users synch up, it becomes more than just isolated subjective information, do you not agree?

Or are you saying that every Fi participant is so subjective that any collective opinions they bear have no relevance to the group as a whole?

Curious to know your thoughts, for if that is so, we must toss your opinion in the waste bin as well.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Meantime, when the non-Fi-users in this thread raise objective real-world (Te/Fe) limitations and objections, you say that you have been living according to those rules for a lifetime, you're tired of living according to those real-world restrictions, and that you want the real world to accommodate your Fi instead.

And to clarify, actually no, I don't expect this. BUT I expect a forum about typology to accommodate my Fi from time to time. Here I get to be Fi, don't I? (16 types, we're all important and special?) Especially in a thread about Fi, where I was having such a nice nit-picky conversation with other lovely Fi users about it.

-----

If someone doesn't want to read my Fi nit-picking, they are free to put me on ignore or go elsewhere instead of making fun of it. And apparently 50% of all Fi users agree. Add to the discussion or go elsewhere.

 

[William K]

And to clarify, actually no, I don't expect this. BUT I expect a forum about typology to accommodate my Fi from time to time. Here I get to be Fi, don't I? (16 types, we're all important and special?) Especially in a thread about Fi, where I was having such a nice nit-picky conversation with other lovely Fi users about it.

Yeah, this is a major source of frustration. I expect my colleagues to look at me as if I have grown another head if I go full Fi-mode, but that is the reason to haunt this forum no? If we can't lower at least a part of our inhibitions to discuss things and act freely here, where else is left for us to be ourselves but in our heads?

 

[Random Ness]

To all the Fi users who don't feel safe talking about Fi, gain comfort in this: with Fe, I always have the fear of people calling my Fe shallow and fake or getting insanely jealous of my Fe. I feel more safe talking about Ni.

 

[Arclight]

Obviously it's not safe for non Fi Doms and Aux's to speak their mind

 

[OrangeAppled]

This is an assumption, that only FiPe users are adjusting or adjusting more. It could easily be argued back and forth.

It's not an assumption.....it's an observation. It's not the same in reverse. This is why: Fe is more about consensus in these cases, and Fi is about integrity (I'm not saying these are mutually exclusive; I'm talking about what is dominant in motive in such situations). That makes Fe types operate from the standpoint that anything out of line with their Fe consensus is a threat. Fe types seek to maintain their consensus - a form of integrity really - hence, requiring others to accommodate it & adapt to it; so yes, they adapt, but it's still on their terms. 99% of the time Fi types do this on their, Fe, terms also, but not when it's a threat to integrity. Then we'll point out the elephant in the room, the naked emperor, and begin a process to explore what the truth really is.

Even in this thread, the Fe types seem to assert that consensus = truth. It doesn't matter if a gazillion people agree on something, that does not make it true. PB clearly set up a poll to appeal to this need for consensus Fe types have. I am convinced that what was most threatening in that quick guide Fi thread was that a Fi consensus was forming, one that asked to be acknowledged. After initial questioning of the integrity of the author and a comparison to the other F function, the discussion was mostly about how Fi as a process works, and as the Fi types began to put together a picture they agreed on, the NTs were simply antagonistic.

To me, this suggests good points were being made, truth was being hit on, & the crux of the issue had emerged (that the OP failed to describe Fi as a process). However, it was easier to invalidate the FPs than to address their arguments, and the chief means of dismissal was, "we didn't like the attitude you started off with". There was no effort to accommodate another communication style....

I have to back Mac and fidelia up on that. I'd say Fi can/often does come off as self-absorbed and/or unnecessarily disruptive to Fe users.

Eh, and Fe can seem the same from another perspective; although I see this as stemming more from inferior & tertiary Fe users, who have a poor guage in these situations. One only has to witness the pedantic squabbles of INTPc - oh the double standard; it's like INFPs complaining about inefficiency (inferior Te).

It is also selfish to demand others to constantly adapt to the group style with no give in return, especially when a large chunk of the group participating prefers another style. It is unnecessarily disruptive to conveniently ignore thoughtful posts to harp on one or two that you've arbitrarily deemed invalid based on type bias & willful misunderstanding of its points. That disrupts an otherwise productive discussion that others find stimulating. That was the case with the thread in question, concerning the conduct of the NTs in particular.

I would also like to note that in the recent, long Ni thread, the majority of the non NJ types taking great interest in the discussion were FPs. The same method of exploration was applied towards something not "personal" to us, but I suppose since we were mainly dealing with INTJs & their tert Fi, it was not misinterpreted. So much for "self-absorption".

But in fact our emoting and fussing and complaining is like fingernails on a chalkboard to many other types. And as much as NTs (for example) say that they aren't affected by emotions, they still get plenty irritated if they have to listen to big doses of it.

It's nails on a chalkboard to me to hear a poor definition of something touted as unquestionable truth to those who dare to explore alternatives. It's nails on a chalkboard when said description has emotional overtones that suggest a lack of integrity on the part of the author. It's nails on a chalkboard when a similar emotional overtone comes through in posters who do little more than mock valid attempts to explore those alternatives.

To put it simply: our emotionality and lack of boundaries have the ability to superheat a thread. And after we've trashed and tangled up a thread with our complaining and emoting, frankly it sounds fake when we sit around and play the victim afterwards.

I'm seeing Fe victimhood. "Things were so peaceful until Fi types disrupted it by questioning a supposed authority" - yeah right. The questioning started with trepidation & slight suspicions, but then quickly cut to the core of the matter, until the NT posters attempted & apparently succeeded at undermining it. Now they're pretending they were the sufferers of some Fi outburst. No one is ever blameless in these situations, but that does not change the fact that the other types handled themselves very poorly also, and they exacerbated a small thing into something larger than it needed to be, and the ones who actually tried to put the thread back on track were the FPs. An effort to accommodate another communication style could have prevented all of that.

I can certainly understand disagreeing with a functional description, as Lenore's Ti description is, in my mind, awful, so there's understanding there. What I found to be absurd was how concerned a lot of the Fi users were regarding the Fe thread. If you want to talk about Fi, and dissect Fi, "in a Fi way," then why bother with Fe at all? To me, the concept of Fe sounding "too good" or not having any kind of balance in the description is such a ridiculous thing to be concerned about, so it appears petty and whiny. Like Fe was somehow drinking Fi's milkshake. Fi didn’t seem to be concerned with just Fi, Fe needed to be dragged through the mud too, for things to be “fair.” Laughable. Then for some posters to paint the Fi description as the result of some kind of Fe agenda, and be surprised when it's perceived as the expression of a victim complex, well...the hilarity continues, from my point of view.

Naturally, there's going to be a good amount of overlap when you compare F functions, a lot of the times, output will look identical and the only difference is the direction of the process and where that process originates from. Same with Ni and Ne, how many times do each N dom/user maintain they can do both? I thought it'd be interesting to see the process broken down by some of the users since they thought the original description was lacking, but alas, it was one big pity party and became tedious for me.

No, the bolded is exactly what was being attempted to discuss. You simply chose to dismiss it because it was not done to your personal liking.

As I said above: After the initial questioning of the integrity of the author and a comparison to the other F function (valid positions to start from; the motivations of the author are fair game, as are comparing the tones of the other descriptions to verify the author's potential bias), the discussion was mostly about how Fi as a process works, and as the Fi types began to put together a picture they agreed on, the NTs were simply antagonistic.

I see a lot of people discuss Fi, as NOT separate from themselves. The way I see Fi is that it’s not your feelings, it's not your values...it's how you process and work with those values. I think this causes a lot of disconnect, since Fi does work with feelings and impressions, which are inherently personal. So maybe it does feel close to home.

What I’ve noticed with Fi descriptions, as that because Fi has such a large range of how one can personally identify with it, the description has to be pretty general to try to get everybody in. But because of the generality, Fi sees the description as incomplete and lacking both precision and depth of their own intricate self understanding. It’s the downfall of personal, subjectively operating decision making function. It’s going to be so unique to you, that any general overview is always going to be missing, so you need to fill in the blanks.

The entire crux of the FPs' complaints of the Fi quick guide description was that it did not describe a general process, but was focused on too specific, personal values. What you're arguing here is what the FPs were arguing. If you hadn't dismissed it because you did not like the communication style, you might have actually gotten the point. And that is the point of this thread.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

^^^ Epic post OrangeAppled. Loved it.

 

[uumlau]

Sure, the Fi viewpoint has something to offer the world; it's a source of useful primary data. It's the viewpoint of the first-hand participant or the empathetic observer. But at some point the personalized and subjective viewpoint has to be synched up in some fashion with the objective viewpoint as well. We share the world with other people; it can't just be about us sitting around and insisting on our Fi personal values.

^^^ This.

It's not an assumption.....it's an observation. It's not the same in reverse. This is why: Fe is more about consensus in these cases, and Fi is about integrity (I'm not saying these are mutually exclusive; I'm talking about what is dominant in motive in such situations). That makes Fe types operate from the standpoint that anything out of line with their Fe consensus is a threat. Fe types seek to maintain their consensus - a form of integrity really - hence, requiring others to accommodate it & adapt to it; so yes, they adapt, but it's still on their terms. 99% of the time Fi types do this on their, Fe, terms also, but not when it's a threat to integrity. Then we'll point out the elephant in the room, the naked emperor, and begin a process to explore what the truth really is.

@bold: Wow! Nicely said.

Even in this thread, the Fe types seem to assert that consensus = truth. It doesn't matter if a gazillion people agree on something, that does not make it true.

Interesting. I didn't read that in any of the "Fe" statements.

I did note a few accusations of "hypocrisy" which is a typical of the Ti/Fe mode of communication: lack of logical self-consistency (whether real or imagined) is reason enough to question others' assertions. What I think is missed is that Fi "hypocrisy" is not of similar value to Fi ... or rather that the analogous Fi(Te) notion is "lack of integrity," not "hypocrisy." That when Fi says, "Hey, wait, there's something wrong here," it doesn't mean "logically wrong," but rather wwwrrroooooonnnng.

PB clearly set up a poll to appeal to this need for consensus Fe types have. I am convinced that what was most threatening in that quick guide Fi thread was that a Fi consensus was forming, one that asked to be acknowledged. After initial questioning of the integrity of the author and a comparison to the other F function, the discussion was mostly about how Fi as a process works, and as the Fi types began to put together a picture they agreed on, the NTs were simply antagonistic.

*ahem* "NTs" you say?

To me, this suggests good points were being made, truth was being hit on, & the crux of the issue had emerged (that the OP failed to describe Fi as a process). However, it was easier to invalidate the FPs than to address their arguments, and the chief means of dismissal was, "we didn't like the attitude you started off with". There was no effort to accommodate another communication style....

Agreed.

This might explain how the INTJ approach doesn't seem to run into the same crash and burn as the NFP approach.

INTJ: You're wrong. <explains in detail why you're wrong>
non-INTJ: We don't like your attitude.
INTJ: Um, you're still wrong.
non-INTJ: You're so f-cking arrogant and you don't even know it.
INTJ: Uh huh. You're still wrong.
non-INTJ: Well, you might have a point, but you're still arrogant.
INTJ: Well, if by "arrogant" you mean that I always seem to be right, I must agree.

versus

NFP: There's something wrong here.
non-NFP: What are you complaining about now?
NFP: This isn't right.
non-NFP: It's perfectly fine.
NFP: What do you mean it's perfectly fine? I just explained what was wrong with it.
non-NFP: There you go getting all emotional and sensitive again.
NFP: <now upset> I am NOT getting emotional! And it's unfair of you to change the topic like that!
non-NFP: You're proving my point for me.
NFP: Arrrrgggghhhh!

[The above is not meant to be insulting to INTJs or NFPs or non-INTJs or non-NFPs, but is intended solely as tongue-in-cheek humor to demonstrate a point.]

I believe this is where FineLine has made a very meaningful distinction. It is well and good to point out the emperor has no clothes, but at some point Fi needs to have a bit more of an iron will and not buckle in to intimidation or be distracted by jabs and taunts. Every post that says no more than "Stop being so mean!" ends up saying/meaning/implying/communicating A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MESSAGE THAN YOU INTEND!!!!! The intended message is "the emperor has no clothes" not "you're mean."

The way to get others to "accommodate another communication style ..." is to stick to your main message, ignoring distractions. The communication style to emphasize is pointing out those things that Fi is so good and understanding and pointing out.

The kind of things Fi points out are big. They have to be pretty darn big in the first place to get meek Fi to speak up at all. They're so big in fact, that a lot of people don't want to hear them in the first place. This is why I like the "emperor has no clothes" metaphor: the whole point of the story is that a LOT of people had a vested interest in ignoring that truth. Those people will not simply just say, "Oh darn, the jig is up," and throw in the towel. No, they're going to fight and disagree and say all sorts of mean things.

Those arguing from an Fi perspective say that they're fighting for their integrity, and I believe that is an accurate statement. Note, however, that people saying mean things is no threat to anyone's integrity! It is the denial of the truth that is the threat to integrity. So if you're going to take a stand for truth, fight for the truth. Don't fight for your ego. Don't fight for your bruised feelings. To "defend" against such "attacks" is a disservice to your integrity.

This is one of the hardest Fi-lessons to learn.

[A brief aside ... There is a reason I use hands-holding-the-sun as a metaphor for Fi in my own experience. There is a kind of light, a kind of warmth, a kind of truthiness emulated by the sun. Nothing dims its light. It might be night, but that's just cuz the sun is lighting up someplace else. Clouds might hide the sun momentarily, but even so, the sun's light penetrates, makes them glow: heck, it makes the silver lining, too! The sun has been shining for 5 billion years, and it's got another 5 billion or so to go. Every evening we go to sleep fully confident that the sun will rise in the morning. We know it's absurd to issue it orders to move at the whim of a king or a legislature. What better model for integrity? What better model for staying true to oneself?]

I would also like to note that in the recent, long Ni thread, the majority of the non NJ types taking great interest in the discussion were FPs. The same method of exploration was applied towards something not "personal" to us, but I suppose since we were mainly dealing with INTJs & their tert Fi, it was not misinterpreted. So much for "self-absorption".

Agreed.

It's nails on a chalkboard to me to hear a poor definition of something touted as unquestionable truth to those who dare to explore alternatives. It's nails on a chalkboard when said description has emotional overtones that suggest a lack of integrity on the part of the author. It's nails on a chalkboard when a similar emotional overtone comes through in posters who do little more than mock valid attempts to explore those alternatives.

Perhaps this is why the Fi-objections get characterized as "whining." The "reason" that is heard for it being wrong is the emotional tone of the objection when the real reason is, "it's wrong."

The entire crux of the FPs' complaints of the Fi quick guide description was that it did not describe a general process, but was focused on too specific, personal values. What you're arguing here is what the FPs were arguing. If you hadn't dismissed it because you did not like the communication style, you might have actually gotten the point. And that is the point of this thread.

Agreed.