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

[cascadeco]

Ti, and in particular, Ti + Ni, is quite capable of entering a mental space where words don't hurt. As an Ni-dom, I do the same thing. Very rarely, once in a while, some set of words might hit me in a painfully emotional way, but for whatever reason, I've learned not to hit back: not out of a sense of right and wrong, but rather because as much as I dislike emotional pain, I much more strongly dislike choosing a course of action that I regard as useless, pointless, unproductive.

To the bolded, this is why I tend not to respond back in a similar manner, even if provoked, esp. if doing that would simply make things more volatile. I also.. basically.. don't want to stoop to their level. I mean, if I'm annoyed about a certain behavior of theirs, why in the world would I then respond in the same way? Doesn't even make sense. Then I'm doing the same thing I have a problem with - I'm becoming the problem too.

As to entering a mental space where things don't hurt, absolutely. It's really a matter of choice, for me - I can choose how to look at things or react. So yeah, I'll decide not to take things personally, and put up a bit of armor, or whatever, and then I'm good. A lot of it for me too boils down to how I view the person. If I really respect them and their opinion, this isn't going to be easy and I might not be able to not care. However with most people I don't really put much stock in their view/opinion in particular, so I treat it and their words as I might any random person - so I could easily shrug off something from someone I'm not invested with. [ ... Some days I'm much better at this than others, though. Every now and then I AM in a hyper-sensitive place, where I just feel totally vulnerable and anxious about stuff, and typically I avoid much interaction when I'm like that.]

Ti/Fe does the same thing with "feelings." In the Ti/Fe perspective, it is the feelings/values/customs that are "objectively true" and derive their truth from empiricism and collaborative effort. It is "feelings" that are impersonal, as weird as that might sound. (I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.) So for Ti/Fe, it's one's ideas that are personal, and the feelings that are communal, while for Fi/Te, one's feelings are personal and the ideas are communal.

For me it's that I truly don't put much stock in my of-the-moment feelings and reactions. So if someone tells me I'm way out of line or am overreacting (as an example), I'll very likely start thinking I am. I'll probably be slightly embarrassed or will immediately start assessing why I might be overreacting. Since most feelings are ever-changing, I tend to not place much weight on them - and therefore am not 'offended' if someone would question me on them. If I have an ongoing, deep-rooted feeling, though, that's a sign of something that needs to be addressed.

And absolutely, my ideas/thoughts are basically ME. They're hands-down how I equate my sense of self/identity. So yeah, someone invalidating or questioning those... I'll very likely feel unaccepted and in a sense will feel that my core self - who I am - is not wanted or is at least not wanted as-is -- since my thoughts (self) are rejected.

What surprised me when I heard this: I'd been living like that for years, except with a slight twist. I don't assume that they're nice, per se, but I do assume they have their reasons, and most people aren't so stupid as to gratuitously verbally attack others "just to be mean," and those that are that stupid are not worth my time. So I assume it's just a misunderstanding until they prove that they really are that mean/stupid, at which point I don't attack, I ignore.*

For myself, I just know that everyone speaks their own 'language' and the same sentence/manner of speaking from one person is going to have an entirely different meaning from the same phrases from another. So I don't have an issue really with 'mean language' in and of itself... it totally depends on who it's coming from, and I interpret it differently from one to the other.

 

[skylights]

uumlau, your posts have been awesome, especially the radar/sonar analogies.

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.

yes.

Since Fi users primarily interact 1:1, when we get this sort of message above....we may promptly extrapolate that to the entire group. Because most of us are Fe-Blind, (not the learned social nicieties, but the ability to innately pick up on group mood), we cant seem to understand if it is just macGuffin saying we are being bad but bluffing about the others, if it is MacGuffin and three friends he chatted with in PM, or if it is MacGuffin and the other 1300 members of typology central.

In a thread if we start to see multiple people-say 3 to 5-attacking the same point, I suspect we start to assume it is a much larger group. It feels like you have been turned into a target for attack-like you are being singled out. ENFPs in particular are notorious for paranoia about what others think of us and assuming the worst, so to remain functional human beings, at some point we learn to just ignore the Ne negative feedback that is subtle in nature. I cant properly interpret it or trust the interpretations thus it is disregarded as it would make me a fucking basket case to do otherwise. I realize some people hate me as a result and I regret this, but I dont really have an alternate path.

yeah. this is an excellent point. my read on groups sucks ass.

This forum has a pernicious tendency towards inane conflict.

proteanmix, I don't really understand why the number of Fi users here has any bearing people's feelings regarding the expression of Fi. It's not a battle, which is what you seem to be saying, but then undermine your argument by saying:

What of it? Is Fe now the one victimised? So now Fi is "bad"? The answer is that it doesn't really matter at all. This argument/situation strikes me as very petty from both sides. We're not (or, at least, I'm not) attempting to laud Fi over Fe, or denigrate Fe, or Te, or anything else.

i feel this way too. proteanmix, your post made me very upset, though i imagine that was not the intention. it's everything that we've been arguing against. you imply that Fi users don't have anything in particular to bring to the table; you imply that it's ridiculous to assume that we could. you say for us not to do the unsafe, victim thing, but that's exactly what you just did. in my opinion, it seems like there are continuous Fi threads because Fi users keep having to try to start over to get it right for once, because in just a few more pages the ship is going to go under. just because Fe users don't blab about Fe like Fi users do about Fi doesn't mean that the Fi communication style isn't continually attacked. i would love Fe users to talk more about Fe. it still doesn't address the issue.

Regarding the Fe Quick Reference Guide, go back and check. Within the first 10 posts of the thread, there were Fi users complaining about the Fi Quick Reference in the Fe thread. Keep your complaints about your Quick Reference in your Quick Reference. Why contaminate two threads? Yes that is my Fe talking, it looks it was necessary to ruin someone's else because you didn't like yours. I looked again at the Fi QR and it wasn't Fe users in there complaining about the Fe QR, which is the parallel.

I did wonder why the Fi QR soured, fermented, and exploded so quickly, when the other QR's came and went without much fanfare. The question that comes to me is why were the others so neutrally received and commented on, while the Fi QR was totally wrong, nothing was right about it, completely off-base and unrepresentative of Fi. If the author was accurate enough to get the others right, why was the Fi one so wrong?

it's a good question. why was it so wrong? we think it's the author's problem, and so we were trying to address it. you seem to think it's our problem, and that we should just quit whining.

but what i have to point out, is that Fi users alone in discussion don't seem to identify this victim problem in one another. sure, we have other points of contention because we're not all the same type or the same person and have different points of view, but there's none of this constant accusation and underlying irritation. i mean, it sounds like you're dismissing that the Fi guide could have been wrong just because the others are right. that doesn't make logical sense, though. it's a fallacy... to speak in logical terms, the truth of each individual statement (each guide) has no bearing on the truth of the other statements. they're independent of one another. and i do get that you see a long pattern of Fi complaining, but if we're going to talk about external patterns, i also see the connection of the author having Fi as 6th in her function order. the two functions i'd expect someone to have the hardest time describing would be Ni and Fi, but fortunately she's a Ni dom. and unless i remember incorrectly, i believe the person who posted the threads is also a Fe user. and you are a Fe user. to me, this looks like a pattern of Fe users not being able to see what the problem is.

but what if the Fi thread exploded because it was wrong? and the Fe thread got Fi comments because there's a consistent struggle between Fi and Fe and to us, Fi always seems to get dismissed as whining and complaining. it's exactly this:

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!

i agree that it was inappropriate for the Fi comments to leak into the Fe thread. however, i think the point, was this:

Fi original: neutral, negative, neutral, neutral
Fe original: neutral, positive, neutral, positive
Ne original: neutral, positive, neutral, positive

can be solved in one of two ways - either this:

Fi: neutral, negative, neutral, negative
Fe: neutral, negative, neutral, negative
Ne: neutral, negative, neutral, negative

or

Fi: neutral, positive, neutral, positive
Fe: neutral, positive, neutral, positive
Ne: neutral, positive, neutral, positive

the discrepancy in our eyes could have been fixed either by changing the Fi guide or changing the other guides. Ti wasn't posted, so the best option for comparison was Fe. i think that's why the comments leaked over. Ps also probably just see thread titles more loosely than Js. i don't see mixing subjects as cross-contamination as much as i see it a healthy blending of opinions.

but if what i hear you saying is right, that you don't think Fi users can have a separate truth to bring to the table, no wonder you just want us to not talk about it. it sounds like it's already been decided in your mind that we're wrong, and there's no sense in Fi users talking about it. is that true? if it's not true, how can we talk about the guide not seeming right in a way that's okay with you? that's what i don't understand. are we just not allowed to think the guide wasn't perfect? because if that's true, then to hell with trying to make peace between Fi and Fe. but i don't think it's true, if only because i really don't want it to be true. there has to be a way we can both feel heard and respected in conversation.

 

[cascadeco]

Since Fi users primarily interact 1:1, when we get this sort of message above....we may promptly extrapolate that to the entire group. Because most of us are Fe-Blind, (not the learned social nicieties, but the ability to innately pick up on group mood), we cant seem to understand if it is just macGuffin saying we are being bad but bluffing about the others, if it is MacGuffin and three friends he chatted with in PM, or if it is MacGuffin and the other 1300 members of typology central.

I think that I can very much pick up on group mood as well as predict pretty well how each person is going to react to a given comment from someone else, and therefore how many threads are going to go down as a result.

What I really *don't get*, though, is the implication that Fe users don't act 1:1. Now I'm kind of assuming, Orobas, that you're referring to something unique when it comes to 1:1, that Fi users do that you don't think Fe users do.... but for myself and other Fe users that I know, we operate very much on a 1:1 level. This is especially notable for introverts... in fact I would have been quicker to attribute a preference to 1:1 interaction/connection more to introversion than Fi. Can you elaborate?

 

[PeaceBaby]

What excellent contributions over the last few days ... allow me to work through them and share some more thoughts, I have much ground to cover.

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?

Well said William K, I think this echoes the sentiments of many Fi users here.

-----

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.

-----

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

-----

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.

Yes, the naked emperor is a interesting metaphor to explore in relation to the context of this thread. (And I see in further responses it's expanded on as well.)

When Fi chooses to "call out" what is sees as the truth, that 1% of the time OA points out above, it's typically not for something as obvious or easily agreed upon as the invisible clothing. What Fi users "see" as truth, however, can seem just as transparent as that lack of clothes, plus it can seem obvious that everyone should already "see" that truth. But Fi users wonder why no one else gives voice to it, especially when you can sense others have a whole variety of reactions revolving around that truth. Some people agree with the truth, and you can feel that, but others will be exploiting or capitalizing on either the emotionality or practicality of the situation, taking advantage of what's unspoken.

So let's assume for a moment that (most) Fi truths are not generally welcome to be brought out into the light. It starts when we are young, and we point out things like, "Grandma is sad," and we are told in reply, "No, that's not true, Grandma is fine." We wonder why few people talk about their true feelings or are dishonest about expressing them when they do. When we display our own emotions, feeling sad or hurt or frustrated, and are met with negative reactions, we are further hurt with comments like "Suck it up, stop being so sensitive, no one is interested in what you're feeling." This dissonance causes many Fi users to both hide their Fi truth and doubt the truth their Fi is revealing - after all, if no one is agreeing, or - when the Fi truth is verbalized, people react negatively, how accurate or welcome is our truth?

(And let me emphasize that it's right for us to learn to question it in order to learn how to validate it. What I am highlighting is that some of the process to get there can be emotionally challenging.)

So, years pass, experience accumulates, we "grow up". At a certain point in our lives, when enough confidence in our inner process has developed, Fi users generally tend to verbalize what we are "seeing" to others to affirm or refute our hypotheses. We have learned to place limits on what we believe via Fi until we obtain more empirical evidence to back it up, as in the parentheses above. Ne, to explore all possibilities. Si, to plumb the depths of our own history and that of others, throughout time. Te - Te is the "say it out loud" function. Not in the confident position of the first function, to assert "You are wrong" but in the fourth, "This seems wrong to me." We say it like this in order to acknowledge the truth of each individual person, and we await the replies we receive in order to obtain more data to enable us to more deeply analyze the situation and come to fuller, more complete conclusions. We already know from previous experience, reactions will vary. There will be defensiveness, anger, relief, happiness, and in amongst all that, hopefully a whole bunch of truthiness.

Realize too, it takes some maturity to unwind how emotions enter into the equation, different than "feeling tones" - our own emotions, and the emotions of others, and how both of these can play into Fi values. I could have a feeling tone as the underlying factor in an emotion I experience. They are distinct; separate, yet connected - and it too can take time to un-wend these. There is a great deal of interplay. To summarize that, Fi users DON'T expose "truth" with the impulsive innocence of a child, especially beyond a certain age prone to idealistic naivete. We know there are potential global and local ramifications - and in addition, personal repercussions will likely be heading our way.

In the case of the naked emperor, it didn't take much to get to the bare truth. One voice, speaking a plain truth. The multitude of voices that joined the voice of the child were the data ... the courage of those to actually open their eyes, see what's in plain sight, agree and spread the word.

-----

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.

That is the point of the thread, indeed. I have a whole post dedicated to values vs process, actually. It took me a little time to gain that insight, and when I did, I outlined the process of getting there, here.

-----

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!

Seems accurate in illustrating the difference in how we are perceived, yes I think so.

But there are so many reasons why INFP doesn't start off the hop with "You are wrong". 1.) We don't want to dishonor any other individual, so we don't presume to know the truth. 2.) We need to accumulate data in order to feel more confident about what is true. Thus, the more tentative exploration. 3.) We can tend to be fearful of just putting a bold statement out there, when we know via Ne that we might be wrong.

It's like my previous metaphor about the milk carton - we smell it, it seems sour, so we ask someone else to smell it too, to see if it smells bad to them before we decide to pour it down the sink. Can't change that action - once you've dumped the milk out, it's gone.

My ESTJ husband reminded me of a great truth - Te and Fe decisions ARE always right, unless proven otherwise. He's concise. Yet in that little nugget - so much wisdom. The vantage point provides one with an element of confidence, of surety, that other functions cannot replicate as readily.

-----

More to follow. Thanks all for your input.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm going to quickly add that proteanmix's post is imperative to examine here, and I respectfully wish for debate on it to pause for a moment, until I catch up to this point.

skylights, please do leave all of your post above intact as well. I apologize for being so behind in replies and acknowledgements.

Wonderful stuff here all. Excellent.

 

[skylights]

What I really *don't get*, though, is the implication that Fe users don't act 1:1. Now I'm kind of assuming, Orobas, that you're referring to something unique when it comes to 1:1, that Fi users do that you don't think Fe users do.... but for myself and other Fe users that I know, we operate very much on a 1:1 level. This is especially notable for introverts... in fact I would have been quicker to attribute a preference to 1:1 interaction/connection more to introversion than Fi. Can you elaborate?

i think the point was simply that Fi users suck at groups because we focus on intrapersonal issues. Fe users focus on interpersonal issues, which can mean either between themself and another person, or between themself and lots of other people, or between two other individuals, or between a group and an individual, or between two groups. Fi can focus on one person at a time: either oneself or someone else. and we ping-pong between ourselves and others, so we don't really see the connections Fe users see. i might have a good grip on how i feel, and how you feel, and a how PB feels, but not a very good grip on how we all feel about one another.

i agree that introversion and 1-on-1 probably correlate more - though personally i'm much better at handling things 1-on-1 even though i really like groups.

 

[cascadeco]

where do you see that implication? all i see is the statement that Fi users tend to act 1:1. that doesn't have anything to do with Fe users, and i agree with it probably being more related to introversion.

i think the point was simply that Fi users suck at groups because we focus on intrapersonal issues. Fe users focus on interpersonal issues, which can mean either between themself and another person, or between themself and lots of other people, or between two other individuals, or between a group and an individual, or between two groups. Fi can focus on one person at a time: either oneself or someone else.

Well I've seen it mentioned in other threads that Fi's are 1:1, so thought it was a good question to ask - wondering what that meant Fe's were, then. Thanks though for clarifying.

 

[skylights]

cascadeco you always catch me before i edit my unintended bitchy tone out

 

[Tallulah]

Fi/Te will talk about ideas in a "direct way", such that the ideas are their own entities. The statement isn't "I think that maybe thus and such might be the case," but rather "Thus and such is true!" Notice that the former contains the phrase "I think ...": the implication is that the idea is very much part of oneself. This is a typical Ti approach. Notice that the Te approach has removed the "I think" along with the "maybe" and the "might." The "I think" is removed because it's just an idea, do be discussed and debate as much as any other idea. Often, in the Te perspective, there is a good degree of empiricism and collaborative evaluation, so it isn't just "I think" but rather, "A lot of people have studied this, not just me, and even if it might be refined, this core of the idea is recognizably true." This Te perspective necessarily distances the idea from oneself, so the idea can be safely discussed, without fear of any sort of emotional (Fi) harm should the idea fail in some way.

Some very interesting stuff here, but I need to point out some stuff from the Ti perspective...when we say, "I think..." and "maybe," it's usually not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with. It's because we are aware that there could be a big blind spot and lots of other data to consider that we might not be aware of. So the qualifiers are to say, "hey, I'm not saying this is the be-all, end-all right here. This idea is a work in progress, and there could be something I'm missing." Now, no one wants to look like an idiot, and INTPs in particular hate looking stupid. So there might be a bit of a personal element there, but I think in general, Ti likes to be given information that could make it better-informed. I think Te bugs Ti because we go, "How could you possibly know that for sure? How do you know you haven't missed something crucial?" Is this how Fi feels about Fe?

Ti/Fe does the same thing with "feelings." In the Ti/Fe perspective, it is the feelings/values/customs that are "objectively true" and derive their truth from empiricism and collaborative effort. It is "feelings" that are impersonal, as weird as that might sound. (I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.) So for Ti/Fe, it's one's ideas that are personal, and the feelings that are communal, while for Fi/Te, one's feelings are personal and the ideas are communal.

Well, it's not that feelings are impersonal. It's that they're TOO personal. Ti/Fe tends to feel that since feelings are personal, easily manipulated, mercurial, they aren't reliable data. For us, leading with our emotions makes us do stupid stuff. (Maybe I should speak for myself.) Leading with feelings makes us project our feelings onto others, makes us act out of petulance, pettiness or revenge, makes us lose our ability to see clearly. Creates drama. Far too often, leading with my personal feelings would lead me to act selfishly. So, really, it's not that feelings are impersonal, it's that they're nearly irrelevant in the decision-making process, FOR US. We consult them, but we are also able to override them if necessary. I think this perception of how we might deal with feelings (and I can't really speak for INFJs--this is probably more of an INTP thing?) is based upon our own experience with our feelings and our observation of how personal feelings can impact a group.

So, when Ti is "being mean," so to speak, it is speaking tersely and directly, which will often come out as Fe: terse and direct Fe feels mean. Especially for a Ti dom/aux, Fe doesn't develop the skill to soften such blows until much later in life, and even then, old habits die hard. So when Ti hears something that it thinks is stupid or silly or otherwise "unreasonable," it comes out as kind of an Fe admonishment, "Stop being so unreasonable," rather than, "Could you please clarify that for me? I don't understand what you mean."

Yeah, even I have trouble dealing with young INTPs in person. I do think I can state my positions on things bluntly, but I also try to do it impersonally. I don't know if anyone has been offended or hurt by that; I hope not.

But not just that ...
When someone is disrespectful, be respectful.
When someone is being unreasonable, be reasonable.
When someone doesn't understand you, maybe it's YOU that doesn't understand THEM.

And in all cases, don't attack. Not even to "defend yourself." Such attacks do not defend your integrity, but rather violate it. If it's wrong for them to attack you, even assuming that they mean it, you commit as great a wrong by attacking in return.

This is fantastic.

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, for me I find that with the idea thing, it is not just that it is personal, but that I don't want to make incorrect assertions. There probably is a Fe element mixed into that too though - not wanting to be seen as abrasive, know it all, bossy or arrogant, particularly if I am not absolutely certain of the assertions I am making. I want others to view me as being credible and to start stating incorrect "facts" would damage that sense of credibility. An abrasive style of speech would make them closed to considering my ideas. Therefore it is in my best interests to try to put myself in other's shoes and qualify my statements slightly. (From my Fe/Ti perspective). I would never state it in certain terms unless I had verified and reverified so many times I was absolutely sure that it applied in 99.99999999999 percent of all cases.

I think the INFJ approach to our feelings is different than INTP, but still, I see them much like cascadeco described - too changeable to be of definitive value in decision-making. I put some stock in them and if I see that several incidents which provoked X feeling have an underlying cause that provoked that feeling, I remember that for next time. I usually need to figure out WHY I feel a certain way though and if it is valid, rather than just going with it. I tend to believe those around me if they tell me my feelings are unreasonable, simply because I use their reactions and responses to calibrate mine. I generally have a great sense of how everyone in the room will react to particular ideas or comments (Ni), but sometimes I do tend to over discount what my own reactions are until I have had time to think it over and decide whether I am being reasonable or not.

Therefore when Fi users act in certain ways, I am usually doing what I wish others would for me - giving me some sense of how others are reacting to my words so that I can recalibrate before any damage is done. I'm realizing that is very invalidating to them, but it isn't meant out of a sense of discounting their importance. Rather it was trying to protect them from losing face or credibility in front of their audience. As unsupportive as it is felt, it is actually seen as a rather supportive gesture. If I didn't care about them or about the outcome, I wouldn't be bothered to risk the conflict involved.

It's only been lately that I've realized that is what Te users are doing with me when they challenge my ideas quite bluntly without giving thought to them or listening to the details I want to add.

 

[uumlau]

Some very interesting stuff here, but I need to point out some stuff from the Ti perspective...when we say, "I think..." and "maybe," it's usually not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with. It's because we are aware that there could be a big blind spot and lots of other data to consider that we might not be aware of. So the qualifiers are to say, "hey, I'm not saying this is the be-all, end-all right here. This idea is a work in progress, and there could be something I'm missing."

I totally get that. Note that this is how Fi talks about "feelings."

As for "not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with," from what I've observed, it is that while there is a fear of looking stupid, the real value is a need to "be reasonable." That's where it gets personal. Other people being unreasonable or illogical or what have you, seems to be innately offensive to Ti, such that it is for all intents and purposes taken as a personal affront. (Not that it is felt as such, but it is shunned/rejected as such.)

That's what Fi is doing when other people are "being mean." Fi often tends to value tolerance, acceptance ... for lack of a better word, "niceness." So just the same way Ti gets riled and snippy when others are perceived as being unreasonable or illogical, Fi gets riled up when others are perceived as being mean, intolerant, etc.

My main point, in terms of the personal, is that it's almost instinctive, to the point that one wonders why it isn't obvious to others.

Now, no one wants to look like an idiot, and INTPs in particular hate looking stupid. So there might be a bit of a personal element there, but I think in general, Ti likes to be given information that could make it better-informed. I think Te bugs Ti because we go, "How could you possibly know that for sure? How do you know you haven't missed something crucial?" Is this how Fi feels about Fe?

Yes, that's how Fi feels about Fe.

As much as Ti has spent a lot of time considering things, so has Fi, in its terms. Imagine, Ti-wise, having thought through something in extensive detail, and then this Te guy comes along, asserting a half-assed theory that sort of deals with your subject matter, but it's SO WRONG!!!! So many details and nuances are left out. He doesn't understand anything, and when you try to explain it, he goes off with a brand new half-assed theory that only demonstrates his ignorance. Now replace Ti with Fi, and Te with Fe. Same thing.

Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.

Similarly, Fe doesn't mean one feels different emotions or assert substantially different truths, but rather than their mode of expression involves different underlying assumptions than the Fi mode.

Well, it's not that feelings are impersonal. It's that they're TOO personal. Ti/Fe tends to feel that since feelings are personal, easily manipulated, mercurial, they aren't reliable data. For us, leading with our emotions makes us do stupid stuff. (Maybe I should speak for myself.) Leading with feelings makes us project our feelings onto others, makes us act out of petulance, pettiness or revenge, makes us lose our ability to see clearly. Creates drama. Far too often, leading with my personal feelings would lead me to act selfishly. So, really, it's not that feelings are impersonal, it's that they're nearly irrelevant in the decision-making process, FOR US. We consult them, but we are also able to override them if necessary. I think this perception of how we might deal with feelings (and I can't really speak for INFJs--this is probably more of an INTP thing?) is based upon our own experience with our feelings and our observation of how personal feelings can impact a group.

I like this. You're saying essentially what I was saying, but with different emphasis. I emphasized that their expression is impersonal. Note that I mentioned the feelings are the same, where I said:

(I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.)​

Fe naturally sets "feelings" apart from oneself. As Fe/Ti, the preference is to subjectively delve into "logic and reason" and set "feelings" apart as unreliable. It's a feeling: it might be useful, it might not be useful, but its an entity unto itself, not an aspect of oneself.

Te sets "ideas" as apart from oneself. It's an idea: it might be true, it might not be true, but as an idea, it is an objective entity on its own, not an aspect of oneself.

Fi, if we continue to follow this pattern, naturally delves into "feelings," and with Te sets ideas apart. Now, keep in mind, it isn't that Fi/Te regards feelings as "reliable," but rather that its what one keeps intimate, close-to-the-chest, whose expressions are tentative because they're unreliable. ... Where Ti keeps its expression tentative because it might not be true.

Thank you for this, Tallulah. I've long been trying to figure out how to best encapsulate Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te. It's obviously there and I see it in everyday interactions, and applying that knowledge makes things SO MUCH smoother for me. But I'm still trying to delve into the how and the why. I'm wondering if that at some point one "just decides" how to regard "ideas" vs "feelings", that one is tentative and the other is asserted? I've had this ideas juggling around in my head for about a year, and they still haven't settled into an obvious pattern, so I think that I may have some piece or another slightly off. After your input, I still feel that something is missing, but you've clarified several specifics for me, so I feel a LOT closer to a real understanding than before.

 

[Tallulah]

That was awesome, uumlau! I think we're definitely on the same page, and you've given me a way to think about Fi that I can relate to.

This was also very helpful:

Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.

So maybe the extroverted judging functions are more nuanced than their modes of expression would have us believe? That often they know about certain data, have considered it, but are also trying to streamline and cut out the extraneous or (on a case-by-case basis) irrelevant thing, in a seemingly impersonal way?

I like this. You're saying essentially what I was saying, but with different emphasis. I emphasized that their expression is impersonal. Note that I mentioned the feelings are the same, where I said:

(I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is not how one feels feelings.)

Fe naturally sets "feelings" apart from oneself. As Fe/Ti, the preference is to subjectively delve into "logic and reason" and set "feelings" apart as unreliable. It's a feeling: it might be useful, it might not be useful, but its an entity unto itself, not an aspect of oneself.

Yeah--I was having trouble with the bolded, but after reading the rest, the explanation, I think the difference in our approaches is just semantic. I think we are saying the same thing. I was wanting to distinguish that we don't see feeling as separate from ourselves...we see it as too bound up in ourselves and hard to use without any external checks and balances, as fidelia was saying. I had a friend once who couldn't see that just because she had a feeling about something didn't make it true. She was often very paranoid and she projected her fears onto others. She would never wait to see if there was any basis in reality for feeling that way. Time and time again, experience would bear out that she hadn't needed to worry about that feeling--or at least not to give it much credence after checking. In her case, her feeling was very, very much a part of her, but not very useful as data. In fact, it was sometimes quite harmful, to herself and to others. So, yes, we regard the feeling as something that may or may not be true/useful, but I don't think we consider it not a part of us. We do try to detach ourselves from them. I like the way you described the objectification of the idea or feeling. It definitely explains the tendency of Fe or Te to come off as too blunt or directive.

Thanks for your thoughts, too! I feel like things are becoming more clear for me with these explanations.

 

[Fidelia]

I don't remember a point where I ever just decided how to regard feelings or ideas. In fact, it was so much a part of my landscape that I wasn't even aware that anyone else saw it differently until interacting more closely with people oriented the opposite way. Even then, I wasn't sure of where the hitch was in the way we saw the world, just that at times we spoke different languages and it was very frustrating. Both saw the other as demanding or annoying in some way, without realizing why. Through a few bouts of conflict with NFP types, the picture is emerging much more clearly for me not only of what the dynamic or difference in orientation of thought is, but also in where our priorities seem to diverge the most sharply. This is extremely useful information in trying to foster more productive discussion without it becoming all about accommodating one person or the other and without it escalating to the point where an outburst is needed to make the point that toes are being stepped upon. I emailed many Fi users on here asking how they see Fe Fi conflicts coming on and found that most had a hard time defining how they knew. They just knew what kind of statements would rub their fellow Fi users wrong. I knew what bothered Fe users, but it seems easier to define because it is more openly expressed, talked about and viewed similarly. Fi users are very reluctant to speak for others because of their need for precision and individuality. This however, gives much more of an overall map of how to avoid potential traffic jams and take a different route instead to get to the same destination. Rather than requiring a complete understanding of every Fi user out there, understanding what types of things are held near and dear and what are regarded as more fluid and flexible helps both with communicating a message accurately to them in the way I want it to be perceived, as well as perceiving their message more as intended.

 

[Southern Kross]

(EDIT: I took too long to post this so I missed the last few posts - that what you get for working and posting at the same time . Apologies if I repeat or appear off topic)

Another interesting post uumalau. I think that you should start a Ti-user/Fi-user discussion to try to further explore some of these points. When I learn such things about Ti, it makes me wonder how much I really understand it.

Just to respond to some particular points (again with the compressing):

So, when Ti is "being mean," so to speak, it is speaking tersely and directly, which will often come out as Fe: terse and direct Fe feels mean. Especially for a Ti dom/aux, Fe doesn't develop the skill to soften such blows until much later in life, and even then, old habits die hard. So when Ti hears something that it thinks is stupid or silly or otherwise "unreasonable," it comes out as kind of an Fe admonishment, "Stop being so unreasonable," rather than, "Could you please clarify that for me? I don't understand what you mean."

The trick for Fi to deal with this, especially with Ne, is to learn to recognize the pattern, such that one understands what is really going on: that usually someone criticizing an idea in a "mean way" is just employing a valid manner of expression, in a Ti/Fe sense. Other Ti/Fe types won't take it as "mean," but interpret it in their own context. The "attack" isn't "personal." It just feels that way. It's OK in the Ti/Fe sense to express oneself that way, because talking about your idea in that way is off limits. This is especially the case since usually Fi is expressing some kind of Fi-understanding, which linguistically maps to Fe, so Ti/Fe talks about it in Fe-ish terms, which turns around into feeling like an "attack" Fi-wise, even though it's just simple crosstalk: two people talking about the same thing with very different modes of speech.

In other words, when Ti/Fe expresses ideas in Fe mode, it ceases to sound objective or dispassionate to Fi/Te (in Te dispassionate mode), and it is rendered subjective (Fi) and therefore personal.

So in reaction to a confusing Fi/Te perspective, the Ti/Fe user thinks, "That makes no sense to me" and it comes out as, "That's just crazy talk"? And they don't consider this an attack on them or their ideas?

I confess I find this thought process rather baffling.

Where does the terseness come from? Is it an expression of annoyance with a perceived Te rigid, "why don't you prove it", know-it-all-ness?

The weird thing is that I rarely clash with Ti dom/auxs in real life over their bluntness and my stubborn beliefs, which makes me think this might be a result of the fact that the discussion is written and consequently, tone becomes interpretive.

A good NFP friend put it to me this way: it is best to assume that other people are nice and mean well, and that any harsh words are merely accidental. Yes, this means that once in a while, a real player with bad motives might come along and take advantage of one's kind spirit, but it does a world of good for avoiding the stupid fights that never needed to happen in the first place.

What surprised me when I heard this: I'd been living like that for years, except with a slight twist. I don't assume that they're nice, per se, but I do assume they have their reasons, and most people aren't so stupid as to gratuitously verbally attack others "just to be mean," and those that are that stupid are not worth my time. So I assume it's just a misunderstanding until they prove that they really are that mean/stupid, at which point I don't attack, I ignore.*

Fair enough. I do in fact tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in life. But I do recognise that many people simply don't care enough about others to check their behaviour and, for example, restrain themselves from making a inappropriate comment. My ISFP friend has a saying I really like: "a lot of people are nice but not necessarily kind".

You kind of hurt your own point, here. "I'm perfectly reasonable until someone else is unreasonable." Yeah, and so is everyone else, each with their own definition of "reasonable."

I am about to play with words, here, but there is a concept that is very much parallel to this: replace "reasonable" with "respectful."

One thing I've often heard, especially from younger folks, is that they'll show respect to someone IF that someone shows them respect.

Can you guess where that leads?

Some misunderstanding is interpreted as disrespect, so one becomes disrespectful in turn, at which point the original person, who intended no disrespect (though may not have been as overtly respectful as the subject demands), is now fully justified by this principle to become disrespectful
...
And in all cases, don't attack. Not even to "defend yourself." Such attacks do not defend your integrity, but rather violate it. If it's wrong for them to attack you, even assuming that they mean it, you commit as great a wrong by attacking in return.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "don't defend yourself," but answering an attack (real or imagined) with an attack changes the discussion into a fight, and the discussion of the original idea dies. By not attacking, by not entering the fight, you remain able to defend your ideas, refining their expression such that they are better understood. This is how you defend your integrity.

*After all, "ignorance is bliss!"

Oh, I agree. I don't wish to defend a position of "I'm nice to you as long as you're nice to me", nor that "lashing out at people is OK".

What I meant was that it has been repeatedly implied that a rational, dispassionate discussions with NFPs about emotion-based subject matter is impossible; that NFPs getting emotional and taking things personally is somehow inevitable in every situation. In reality our intentions are to have detached discussion, sometimes even for the expressive purpose of helping the NTs to better understand us by speaking their language. It can feel like a slap in the face when they don't pay us the same respect and instead respond with such attacks (perceived or otherwise) and negativity.

Of course it is better to be restrained and not engage in such conflict. We are actually attempting to understand others' perspectives, its just so much harder to empathize with another when they distance you with negative language.

I think Te bugs Ti because we go, "How could you possibly know that for sure? How do you know you haven't missed something crucial?" Is this how Fi feels about Fe?

I believe so. It may be a fair comparison however it isn't usually as overt as that.

 

[Seymour]

As for "not because the ideas are so precious and personal that we don't want them messed with," from what I've observed, it is that while there is a fear of looking stupid, the real value is a need to "be reasonable." That's where it gets personal. Other people being unreasonable or illogical or what have you, seems to be innately offensive to Ti, such that it is for all intents and purposes taken as a personal affront. (Not that it is felt as such, but it is shunned/rejected as such.)

My main point, in terms of the personal, is that it's almost instinctive, to the point that one wonders why it isn't obvious to others.

Definitely this! I think I personally run into problems when all that's given is the judgment affront, along with a subtext of "if you're too stupid to know already, you're not worth explaining it to." The assumptions (on both sides) that things are obvious really becomes deadly in these kinds of conflicts. It's really not obvious, and just giving the judgment "you're mean" or "that was stupid" (or whatever) just triggers reactivity that appears to come out of nowhere to the other side. Then it's all over except for the crying and recriminations.

Keep in mind, I'm not insulting Fe, and I'm Te aux, so I'm used to being the one doing the offending in this regard. The key to realize is that the verbal expressions of those who emphasize extroverted judging only SOUND half-assed. There is an introverted perceiving function that has also analyzed and collated and so on, but the extroverted verbal communication would be crippled if one tried to explain "the whole truth, omitting nothing." Just as Ti understands that no one knows the whole truth, so does Te. It is the mode of communication and its underlying assumptions that differ. Te people fully understand that, too, we just speak about it differently.

I think there's also a different weighting process... where Je favors some utility after a certain point. While Je doesn't make claims about capturing every detail, it does seem to make claims about "the truth that works." That doesn't necessarily indicate a shallowness of understanding, but it does seem to indicate some cross-contextual utility.

Similarly, Fe doesn't mean one feels different emotions or assert substantially different truths, but rather than their mode of expression involves different underlying assumptions than the Fi mode.

I think the mode of experience and attention are also different. Fe seems more likely to put aside inconvenient emotion, but Fi seems more likely to want to stop and explore it fully. To borrow from other threads, Fe seems to regard emotions as "the dangerous (and unreliable) dragon in the basement" where Fi regards them more as "the trusted pet or child." (more below)

Te sets "ideas" as apart from oneself. It's an idea: it might be true, it might not be true, but as an idea, it is an objective entity on its own, not an aspect of oneself.

I still think Ti is more obsessed with the integrity of the process of reasoning, not in the individual ideas themselves. The emotional investment (for INTPs, for example) seems to be more in the process (and their competence in it) than the exact outcome. I don't think you can say exactly the same thing about Fi and feeling.

Fi, if we continue to follow this pattern, naturally delves into "feelings," and with Te sets ideas apart. Now, keep in mind, it isn't that Fi/Te regards feelings as "reliable," but rather that its what one keeps intimate, close-to-the-chest, whose expressions are tentative because they're unreliable. ... Where Ti keeps its expression tentative because it might not be true.

Feelings are quite reliable in their way. They can be recalcitrant and inconvenient, but never meaningless. They (as mentioned above) can be like a trusted pet. Our emotional reactions are not rational, but they always have a cause. The cause may be something we aren't consciously aware of, but with experience and understanding those feelings become important pointers to critical pieces of information that might otherwise be missed. Emotions themselves are not appropriate or inappropriate... they simply are. Expressions of emotions are another matter, of course.

So maybe the extroverted judging functions are more nuanced than their modes of expression would have us believe? That often they know about certain data, have considered it, but are also trying to streamline and cut out the extraneous or (on a case-by-case basis) irrelevant thing, in a seemingly impersonal way?

I liked your earlier point about Je being more cross-contextual... the truths it asserts are broader in scope and have more utility. That can come across as ridiculous to Ji, since it's all about fine tuning understanding to a particular context and the truth of the specific out-weighs the truth of the general (which makes sense, since introverted functions are going to be narrower but deeper in scope).

 

[Tallulah]

I still think Ti is more obsessed with the integrity of the process of reasoning, not in the individual ideas themselves. The emotional investment (for INTPs, for example) seems to be more in the process (and their competence in it) than the exact outcome. I don't think you can say exactly the same thing about Fi and feeling.

Yessssssss! Absolutely. I am tempted to embroider that on a throw pillow. It's definitely more about the process than the individual idea. There is integrity in the process. The product is ever-changing with updated data. The process is what will eventually get you there, hopefully with minimal detours.

As an aside, my comp 1 students are writing their research papers on controversial current events. I am always asked if I'd be offended by a certain topic, as they don't want to step on a teacher's personal values system unknowingly and screw up their grade. I always tell them that I'm impossible to offend with information or stance; the only thing that offends me is a bad argument. If they can build a case for it, and support it with quality sources, I could care less what they argue.

 

[PeaceBaby]

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'.

You are great, cascadeco, and I have some extra thoughts that spring from your posts - not to be critical, but to explore more. I hope that's OK with you.

To try to tackle this, Fi users tend to 'trust' people who allow them the freedom to have a different POV and not feel threatened by it, nor invalidate their feelings off the hop. They get a click of resonance, kind of hard to explain I guess. Fe is (to my thinking) more about finding people who support a POV ... and that is what makes the click happen for Fe users. Thus, ideas, ergo the process of reasoning, are less challenged? Fe users are already Fe-ing each other, using the right words, the right tones, and then tentatively passing the idea around to see if it is right or not. Agreement with ideas over time make the space safe for the initial bonds of friendship to form.

I see it as Fi validate vs Fe support ... validate has more wiggle-room for a whole different bunch of opinions to exist within. What do you think?

I find this a bit offensive, honestly - the phrase 'group that I make a posse with'.

Indeed - I use certain words with intention, to evoke a response. It is a word that has some inferred connotation, and I apologize if it does since I am not using it to offend, I use it like a spark, to ignite more thoughts, feelings, conversation. Imagine it being offered over with a mischievous wink ... and what else you have shared here now is fabulous:

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.

Expand on that for me ... what feels anxious for you here? Why do you feel that way posting this particular post? Dig into that, really turn it over and over ... and I would love for you to share any conclusions, even preliminary thoughts; it has great potential to add to this thread.

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.

@bold: You make a great point, and obvious too, but what else the point, then, to make 8 threads? If for reference only, why not all 8 guides in one thread, as 8 distinct posts? Each having a thread was like an invitation, in my mind. Else, to just say - thanks - or, wow great guides? Saying that an aspect stood out as problematic is as valid a construct as praising them; in fact, both positions need to be received with an element of skepticism. How is it then, that agreement is easily accepted but criticism not?

-----

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."

"Detached" is the problematic word here I think ... maybe self-identify, trust instead ... ?

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 {Fe} 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.

I laughed out loud reading the OMG! ... thanks for that. The Fi underlayer seems totally invisible to Fe (in INTP's esp I think), then emotions and emotional motivations are inferred from the words & word construct they hear or read or see.

Maybe Fi posts should be read with that Pawz text-to-movie thingy ... that's about as emotional as I feel sometimes making an IRL Fi declaration, aside from feeling scared it will be negatively received. The emotions are the first clue and precede the exploration, then I work it 'til I can express it cogently and make it more detached.

Here of course, my point is that on the forum I let the first Fi thought get some air, but that's the hard part for people to deal with, isn't it?

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.

That's exactly what I wish everyone realized when they see / hear it happen ... since I work with so many Ti people IRL, I always have to rephrase my feeling tone ("This feels like the wrong idea ...") to something like: "Hmmm, have you considered a different platform upon which to base this application? Platform XYZ has a number of limitations that could inhibit our future development path, what else do you guys think we should explore?"

Ti users, at least in my experience, seem incapable of the opposite translation though. Ideas as to why are welcome ...

-----

I don't think it's offensive at all and it does explain a big challenge for Fi, in particular. Te and Ti are logically based, and so can be more easily communicated and separated from their context. You can validate them externally. Fe has a external social framework it uses for validation. Fi lacks any of that, and can be very difficult to articulate. Most of us are forced, by training and necessity, to learn to turn "something feels off here" into a "(semi)-detailed (perhaps metaphor laden) explanation of why things are wrong." But again, we are continually translating out of our native tongue to do so, and some of us are better at it than others.

Excellent point.

It's as though there's someone deliberately singing out of key during a choir practice. Yes, you can try to ignore them and keep singing ("no one is stopping you from singing, after all"), but the chances of actually getting anything worthwhile done drops to near zero.

Wonderful metaphor. The whole post is in fact, very resonant to me, interested to hear if other Fi-ers feel that way too.

The emotional tone created is part of why it's not just ignorable. It's disruptive and stops real communication and the sense of a shared Fi process (something relatively rare for us).

And I want to stress how much I treasure being able to share that Fi process around here, how precious it is, then when other posters try to cajole us beyond the discussion space we are creating, admittedly, it is hard to ignore.

-----

It's a lot of stuff to address here and I don't really have the energy to do so, but this whole "the emperor wears no clothes" metaphor comes across as disingenuous. To me (I speak for no group) it's implying that Fi holds some kind of truth that no one else recognizes or is so dangerous that it must be suppressed and squelched. Does that not seem over the top and stretching it a bit or is it me?

Fi hones in on inconsistencies in values, connotations and aesthetics. It can be a relatively small inconsistency (like noticing the connotation of a particular word choice is off) or a big, ethetical one.

I've put these two thoughts together with intention ... and in fact, every word in that whole OP of mine has an intention behind it. So let's explore.

proteanmix, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the topic in thread. It's very welcome here, and I would love to enter into more conversation with you.

Examining your first para in conjunction with Seymour's thoughts is where I would like to start. First - focus on a "small thing" that Fi would likely hone in on, like word choice, and second - a "large thing", such as a value-based ethical concern.

The "small thing" that immediately caught my attention was the choice to use the word "disingenous" ...

–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.​

Translation to Fi ears: You are insincere.

Now, I am not taking it that way, I know it's not likely you mean it like that, although I do think you are probing around the issue and seeing what strikes a chord. So, know that I am not offended.

Think about this for a minute though: if Fi users are here in a thread, wanting to create a space where we can speak honestly to our Fi and how we express it on the forum and amongst ourselves, what purpose would being insincere serve here? If Fi users feel somewhat marginalized already, uneasy to speak freely about Fi, how would being disingenuous serve to help further our exploration of ourselves? How would it benefit the group, how would more people feel "safe" if we weren't being frank? It would be patently illogical to be insincere at this moment, wouldn't you think?

And although you can likely think of multiple reasons for why a thread like this exists, what agenda it has, it only has one: to help Fi users feel like they can be themselves on this forum and be protected within the established rules of the forum. As a secondary benefit, I hope it is educational as well.

A phrase that's been tossed around in this thread is "my radar has gone off and I must investigate." So be it. I also think when "radar" goes off part of investigating it is checking to see if it's even functioning correctly. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but I'm going to say this plainly: checking with others who are likely to share your perspective isn't a very thorough, reliable, or trustworthy way of checking.

No, checking with others is not a statement that would piss me off, or likely any mature Fi user - yes, quality control checks are essential. Refer to my thoughts above too, about what I see as a common Fi maturation process, but quality control is itself one of the purposes of this thread. This is articulating a feeling I get from being on the forum for a while. I have witnessed how these discussions play out, I see Fi users' responses and reactions, it leads to a pattern that becomes more and more recognizable and one that is more and more troubling.

Since I have a more natural vantage point to see that Fi POV, and I feel myself impacted by forum dynamics as well, I raise the questions to all - is this a "safe" Fi place? And as I said above, I use the word "safe" with intention too ... it's a word that has potential to resonate with Fi users. I need as many people as possible to feel they can truly say how they feel right now, to show that opinion en masse, to help foster the potential for positive growth together as a community.

As for the radar metaphor, I liked how uumlau expanded it to radar vs sonar. Realize too that if we say Fe is radar, since Fe is visible to Fi users, we can function with rudimentary radar ourselves, because we can watch and study the rules of our world. But even the most practiced of us Fi users misread our radar from time to time. And our sonar too ... but it seems harder to convince non Fi users that sonar even exists.

How is your "voice" repressed? You certainly have the majority even if you don't use it. It seems to me that NFPs have very much taken advantage of having the mic, over and over again. Which is fine, no one is stopping you that's what makes the forum active and communal. Just please don't do the whole unsafe, victim thing. I definitely agree with orobas that your message is weakened when you come at it from this angle. And it's not even a matter of it being true, and no one being receptive to it and shut it down. I frankly don't see adequate foundation for the premise. I speak for myself and not any group.

Now, for the "large thing": Does one have to have personally experienced ethnic discrimination to acknowledge it exists and to try to help eradicate it? Does one need to have had a serious illness in order to feel compassion for another person who is struggling to overcome one? Oh, it's true you won't really understand ... but do you have to be in my shoes to believe what I say to you? Or can you take a leap of faith here and believe what I tell you? In fact, you don't even have to make any leap of faith. Take my hypothesis and gather your own empirical data - use the Se, see how things go down and really look at both sides, reserving judgement. There is an issue - I can assure you that Fi users don't feel protected to share their Fi vantage point on the forum. Heck, maybe it's true that it would be impossible to help make this a place where everyone feels equally represented, heard and safe. But is it not an aspiration worth reaching for?

If NFPs don't feel "safe" on this forum is it necessarily a problem with the forum or it a problem more central to yourself...that you don't feel comfortable not that some outside force is making you feel uncomfortable. Then I'd ask if others also felt uncomfortable to see if there are any similarities. But once again, I realize that's my Fe talking; figuring out is it just me or am I the only one is a big deal to me...I don't view my feelings as automatically justified and valid without seeking some external confirmation.

Remember, what Fi users find harassing is not the same as what Fe users do, and the evidence is all around us.

Yet that's an excellent point - Fi users do need to develop strategies to deal with their own internal discomfort, and most of us invest a great deal of time growing ourselves in order to maximize our successful interactions in the world. But, there are times here on the forum when comments from other users clearly add nothing to the debate and are intended to be at best distracting and at worst, personally vindictive. Is it enough to say, "Just ignore ignorant posts" or "Report people who harass you". If one doesn't have the same vantage point for what constitutes harassment, how can any actions be meted out with equity?

And talking to others is what I am doing here, as a huge nod of affirmation to Fe ... I am using Fe tools to try to make my point. The point is that there are a lot of people sharing a common POV in this thread, and I know of other people who just don't even bother trying to share it any more. This IS that external confirmation, one can see the common patterns, the common way of expressing it, all through this thread and over the forum, time and time again. I am not sure how else I could do this on the forum, since it is a written medium.

The question that comes to me is why were the others so neutrally received and commented on, while the Fi QR was totally wrong, nothing was right about it, completely off-base and unrepresentative of Fi. If the author was accurate enough to get the others right, why was the Fi one so wrong? Certainly, they would have gotten some of the others wrong as well? There did seem to me to be a Princess and the Pea/Goldilocks situation going on that it was never going to be right no matter what.

@bold: True, some folks said it felt wrong and proceeded to try to explore the why of that. It's what Fi does. It's how we explore. Thankfully, with enough time and effort, we do get to inner and outer consensus.

Once the princess found the pea, after all, she got a good night's sleep.

 

[Gabe]

If we really want a thread talking about Fi in an Fi way, it's easy enough to create a thread and ask that only Fi-doms (INFPs and ISFPs) contribute. Or whatever specific group we want to hear from.

But to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even read such a thread. I saw lots of those threads over at INFP-gc when that message board was still alive, and those threads were devastatingly bad. They were one-sided and simplistic. Frankly, it's the things that are "mocking, hurtful, and cruel" that add depth and keep us honest.

Look, here's how I see these things:

If you really want an in-depth discussion of Fi, I think it's imperative to include all types. Fifty percent of all types are going to have at least some direct, personal experience of Fi, and that experience is going to vary widely depending on whether they're experiencing their own Fi as Dom, Aux, Tert, or Inferior. (I think the Inferior experience can be especially invaluable, since inferior functions almost have to be consciously re-fashioned in order to bring them under control; I'm disappointed that the other thread didn't have more ENTJ/ESTJ input.) The other fifty percent of all types are probably going to have some experience of Fi from the outside; i.e., they'll have family or friends or co-workers who are Fi-Dom or Fi-Aux. To some extent, these latter fifty percent are going to have the best input on what constitutes Fi on a general or universal level.

To the extent that Fi has some universal traits or features, the latter fifty percent (the non-Fi types) are going to be best positioned to identify those things. We Fi-Doms are not opaque, after all. We actually wear much more of our hearts on our sleeves than we like to admit. I've mentioned that my wife and I are both INFPs; I also worked in an INFP-heavy field (translation). As such, I see INFPs from the outside and I agree with the latter 50 percent when they say that we're much more identifiable, homogeneous, and predictable than we like to admit.

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of shouting in a thread open to all types. Some possessors of Fi are going to take a very personal approach and say, "I experience my Fi as such-and-such, so the description of Fi should be such-and-such too." Other personality types are going to get frustrated at that kind of personalization of an objective thing--a cognitive function--and they're going to raise a fuss about it. And they're right to do so. As I said, their job is to keep us honest.

My solution: I've found that the non-Fi types are generally willing to back off and give us some room to discuss things when asked politely. But in return, we have to keep the discussion "honest." IOW, I can't individually personalize the function and try to make the thread specifically about how I manifest my own Fi personally. The thread shouldn't be about me. If I try to make it about me, the non-Fi types are going to object. And naturally, my feelings are going to get hurt, since I've made the thread about ME.

To make a comparison:

It's like having a thread to define what constitutes "a good and complete definition of the female face." Other threads will be devoted to what constitutes "a good and complete definition of the male face" (in place of Fe), "...the female body" (Ni), "...the male body" (Ne), "...the female reproductive system" (Ti), and so on. You get the picture.

So in the thread what constitutes the female face, let's say we have invited women, men, medical doctors, artists, beauticians, plastic surgeons, movie actresses and actors, transgender people, etc. Some are going to speak from an insider's (woman's) point of view, and some are going to speak from an outsider's (man's) point of view. Issues of beauty and ugliness are going to come up; issues of political correctness and gender politics are going to come up. There will be questions of what constitutes "femininity"--is it a synonym for female appearance? And so on. But the discussion can probably handle all of that.

So what's going to kill the discussion? It's when one or maybe several individuals try to turn the debate into a discussion of their own face and how it specifically embodies femininity. Sure, sometimes an individual example is illuminating, especially one that breaks all the rules (as in "the exception that proves the rule"). Still, the discussion has to return back to universal rules pretty quickly, or people are going to start objecting. And frankly, you're setting yourself up for some cattiness if you try to insist that you yourself exemplify the ideal of feminine looks. Also, some of the participants have seen it all, and they're going to get a little irritated if the discussion hangs up too long on features that may seem unique and individual to one person but really aren't all that uncommon to people who have seen a lot of cases.

Okay, getting back to Fi: What happens when someone personalizes the discussion, tries to make the thread about themselves and their relationship with their Fi, and they are dismissed by the other participants? What happens when, for example, I speak up and the other participants say things to me that that are "mocking, hurtful, and cruel"? I feel ashamed, and I learn a lesson.

Frankly, I think shame is a wonderful thing. As I grow older, I come to have more and more respect for it, both in receiving it and doling it out. When I feel ashamed, it's a good reality check. It almost always means that I'm relying too hard on one cognitive function (in my case Fi, usually) and that it's time to engage another cognitive function. I've gotten too wrapped up in my own needs, and it's time to look around me and recognize the needs of the other people sharing the room or the thread.

In the case of those who personalize the subject matter to the point of making the thread "about them"--and then end up feeling ashamed when the point they are making is dismissed or rejected--the lesson is simple enough: You need to put your point in other language that the other participants will respect. Use a little Te and research the subject. Find some indication that the phenomenon exists outside the single example of you alone; back up your assertions with a citation from experts, or point out where the phenomenon is visibly manifested on the message board itself.

Or use your Te to compartmentalize: Learn to discuss Fi only in threads where NFs can post, i.e., where you can create your perfect audience, and stay out of threads for the entire population of 16 types.

In other words, don't let your Fi get injured; bring in another function (usually Te for Fi-Doms, though sometimes Fe is useful too) for support and reinforcement. Be realistic about what the situation demands if you really want to win your point. Remember the cardinal rule for performers: Know your audience.

To sum up: If you really do want an open, freewheeling discussion about Fi with some real depth, then you need to invite in other types. Fifty percent of all types are going to have at least some direct, personal experience of Fi, and the other fifty percent of all types are probably going to have some experience of Fi from the outside. But that's a lot of variety of experience. You aren't going to get a free pass with that crowd.

In a freewheeling discussion venue like this one, there's no harm in bringing up a personal observation of whatever nature. But by the same token, there's no harm when others dismiss it or even ridicule it. If you really think your point has validity, then be realistic about what the debate situation demands. Don't let your Fi get injured; bring in another function to counterbalance your Fi and put your argument in language the other participants will respect.



I think it needs to be retitled, "Fi Gone Wild," and then we can post pictures of Fi-Doms on spring break pulling their shirts up over their heads. Both sexes are invited of course, in the name of political correctness. The "Quick Reference Guides" are all kind of dead in the water; at least with "Fi Gone Wild," we could get some additional mileage out of one of the threads...

(Hey it's all pop psychology in the end. Gotta have a sense of humor about it. )

What I remember in the history of this forum is rediculous levels of baiting from Bluewing and Blackwater and a few others, all under the guise that they were just making some kind of scientific statement about some type or function.

And in the long run, a few people being jerk-offs may be seem trivial to you, but in the short run, it wouldn't serve this forum to just push under the rug the obvious bias towards a certian form of communication...or the way that some groups of NTs* feed off each-others arrogance and turn some threads into an amen-chorus of how much ____type-or-function sucks. I'd say that within the micro-culture of this forum, the following functions have been marginalized and systematically belittled: both sensing functions and both feeling functions.

And there is definitely a line to be drawn...a point where repressing one's own preferences to please other people is not THE RIGHT THING to do.

**I don't even believe in type anymore, but if I did, i wouldn't be under any delusions about the NTs actually being NTs.

 

[Thalassa]

Ok, here's a genuine point I'd like to raise here: I keep seeing it being stated that Fe users have this group support for POV, and it's stated in an almost resentful tone of of THEM VS. ME...but here's the part I don't understand...if "Me" is so comfortable with having a seperate Fi morality, then why do you even want validation by the group?

And what makes you think that so-called Fe'ers have the support of EVERYONE on the forum, because surely they don't. The board can be observed to be have an overall cohesive whole of members of different types who are more well-known, and then can be broken down further into smaller groups of friends or like-minded people...what some people call "cliques"...and that overall cohesive whole isn't Fe dominant, and all of those "cliques" aren't made up of only Fe'ers, either.

Why isn't it enough for Fi people to be validated by other Fi'ers? Why do they even want the validation of Fe'ers? That makes no sense to me.

For example, the mods are a group of people who have a particular code of ethics they'd all like for us to follow. Some of those mods are FPs. Still, they represent a like-minded group, and it's perfectly obvious that not everyone on this board is going to "validate" their sense of morality, evidenced by the rash of threads in protest to various bannings.

I know I look for support from others, and I could never quite figure out if that was because I was an extrovert, because I had Fe, or simply because I'm an NF. Maybe it's just because I'm human!

I don't know if you understand what I'm driving at here, but it appears to me that Fi'ers want some kind of group support or validation, and it's apparently not enough for you to have the support and validation of other self-professed Fi'ers? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive of the entire basic nature of the value system of Fi?

It's not like anyone is getting banned or infracted for expressing their views on Fi. I feel that for the most part I've had pretty free reign to express myself on this forum.

 

[gromit]

I know I look for support from others, and I could never quite figure out if that was because I was an extrovert, because I had Fe, or simply because I'm an NF. Maybe it's just because I'm human!