• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] An Fe-Fi negative convo

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Complainer's Behavior Lacked Congruity with Her Feelings:
Fi Likes Authenticity and Truthiness

If my Fi/Te driven opinion is at all representative of other Fi/Te users, I found it DEEPLY offensive that the complainer would act one way around the subject of her complaints and another way in her absence. This incongruity in her behavior felt disingenuous at best and backstabbing and unnecessarily cruel at worst.

Not All Fi Values are Created Equal:
What Is the Most Important Value in this Situation?

What seemed of primary importance to me was that the complainer was morally in the wrong to publicly talk about the object of her complaints to Orobas. Only after this point is agreed upon, then would I begin to sort through the veracity of the complainer's statements.
See the 'backstabbing' didn't really bother me, but then I define the word differently to most people. When you find someone annoying, it is natural to complain about them, and venting about someone when they're not around to hear it is infinitely better than just abusing them to their face. I don't think it disingenuous to be civil to someone you don't like - in fact, I think it virtuous to control your emotional response to them and treat them with respect, regardless. I see backstabbing as having more of an intention to publicly discredit someone while feigning warmth and friendship towards them - and because I don't wish to speculate on whether this is the case, I will give the ISTP the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a rant.

I do believe you are right about the importance of 'authenticity' and that we Fi users are focusing on quite different issues but we are simply applying the values differently to this situation :)

I think to Fe-Ti, the veracity of the claims (or lack thereof, depending) is very relevant to the conversation that took place. To determine whether the ISTP was being overly harsh or not, it seems important to know whether the claims were valid.

I think in Fi-Te terms that perhaps is a separate issue. For me, it is one and the same issue, and that is maybe why there seems to be a disconnect.
Yes, I do see that as a secondary issue; not because I consider it unimportant whether there is neglect or not but because I draw a conclusion on this based on the claims made by the accusor. I find what the ISTP says to be quite telling and that it negates the whole neglect issue.

It is possible that she really is seeing neglect and is failing to properly articulate it but from the limited information that she gave there is little to no evidence of it. Additionally, I believe that the way in which she justifies her argument (ie. clouded with emotions and logical fallacies), actually discredits any real evidence that she provided. As she is the primary source of information on this issue (and being now discredited in my eyes), this leads me to conclude there is no reliable evidence of neglect, and until there is, I will presume the ISFP to be innocent of it. Following this conclusion, I then evaluate the fact that the ISTP has made (as OA said) slanderous remarks she can't back up. This is where I begin to think her spiteful and judgemental, because she has callously made an unjustifiable accusation about the ISFP over so serious an issue as child neglect. Note: irrelevant to this opinion of her behaviour, is the fact that she vented about the ISFP, and whether or not she is compassionate in her attempts to help her. I am only focused on what the ISTP herself said about the situation, everything else is unreasonable speculation.

Hopefully this makes sense...
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
...
Thanks Tilty ... what is it about being right? I have said before that Te and Fe always need to be or think they are right, so maybe this ties into that. It's never just about feeling though, eh? It's about determining whether those feelings are justified.

Owning feelings means that you accept that you are the originator of them and don't attribute them to being caused by anything outside yourself. It's not like other people dump a whole bag of annoyance on you if they show up late for example, you choose to feel angry. Since you choose to be angry, you can also choose not to be. Now, I am grossly simplifying the idea of choosing how to feel and I am not saying you let other people walk all over you, nor am I saying you don't pay attention to those emotional message prompts. But if you don't vent off those feelings, what will happen? Will you "blow up" on the other person or yourself?

... I find a certain delightful irony that we (Fi and Fe) both need to vent from time to time, but the causes of that and the contents of the venting are oh so different. :)

I think Fe seems to believe that there is some objective truth in how to see a situation like this, whereas I think Fi is more likely to see everyone as having their own set of truth which is equally valid and real to them. I don't like to be unreasonable, and if there are reasons I haven't considered before that would explain certain behaviours in a more positive light, I am grateful to the person who offers that perspective.

As far as feelings go, I think I would make a distinction. I would agree with you that no one can impose certain responses on you and that you have some control in how you choose to handle your emotions. However, I would argue that my emotions come and go quite unbidden. I don't trust them as anything other than signposts that there is something there to look at. Therefore, when I vent, I am trying to rid myself of emotions that are not useful, that cause me to see people in an unfair light or that could result in damaging behaviours. Many Fi users see this as dumping a judgement on someone, or being two-faced (saying stuff behind a person's back and then acting sweet to their face). I feel that by getting rid of the toxic stuff in a safe place where I can sort through it and figure out why those emotions have sprung up within me, I can better deal with the source of them and also shrink them down to a manageable size where I can do something productive with them. It allows me to behave compassionately to someone rather than hurtfully. The trick is that it is important to do that venting with someone who knows my character well enough that they understand I am not trying to be hurtful and that I am in-process (this isn't my final judgement). They also need to be able to help me work through it all by asking questions, rather than springing to my defense or to become the devil's advocate. Finally, they need to be someone that I find trustworthy, who will not disclose potentially hurtful stuff to other people that is not really representative of how I actually feel.

One other difference I might mention is this. I have Quebecois friends who came to Alberta to teach. They said that at first they found Westerners incredibly two-faced - nice to you in person and then they would air frustrations behind your back. In contrast, they would in the middle of a larger discussion involving quite a few people who were not close friends with each other disagree or call someone out on something. They came across to westerners as being blunt and making them look bad in front of others. Both found the other's behaviour somewhat hurtful and rude, when both were just doing what they would most appreciate themselves. Perhaps this is a similar case. I think Fi tends to be more live and let live generally but vocal if it feels something is important to be said. Fe struggles to stay composed and if it is losing it's composure, goes somewhere else and vents until it can come back and be kind or until it has a handle on how to bring up a discussion that will have a productive result. This may seem disengenuous to Fi, but they are really doing what they would appreciate someone else to do for them. They want a clear delineation of where the problem lies and some possible ideas for how to change it for the better, and if any discussion is made, they'd like it to be private and not emotional in a didn't see that coming sort of way.

If I don't vent off those emotions, I feel that I will either act overly harsh in person to the person in question (and yes I know that Fiers are going to say they can feel those harsh feelings whether stated directly or no), or that I will say something I regret, or that I will keep overaccommodating and end up feeling resentful or really not being true to my principles. I really do need others' reflections of me to be able to weigh my options and choose a course of action that I feel is appropriate. I understand that I cannot affect other people's behaviour, so the only person I can control is myself. If I am going to do that, I want to make my decisions from as informed and uncoloured by temporarily passing emotions a standpoint as possible.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
My ENTP friend gave me very good feedback on this thread. She read it and said she never really understood how much pain I could be in around MIL until she read the OP. I dont think she has ever seen my Fi displayed so obviously. She also noted that I distanced myself from the Fi judgment and instead just kept analyzing the issue with Te from a distance analytically in a detached manner-treating it like a puzzle. Then I just dropped the pain and began having fun with the people puzzle, trying to put the pieces together.

She is spot on in that by doing so I distance myself form the pain inflicted by the MIL-I explained this was how I spent time w MIL to avoid being hurt. She said wasnt I hiding myself away in doing so and it seemed unhealthy to do so. Well yes, but how else can I be around someone who commits actions that so deeply violate my values-except by establishing a distance which protects my emotions?
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Have you ever explained this to your MIL?
Is she causing you more pain than benefit from interacting?
Does she generally vent this kind of stuff to you? How have you reacted in the past?
 

BAJ

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
626
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w5
My ENTP friend gave me very good feedback on this thread. She read it and said she never really understood how much pain I could be in around MIL until she read the OP. I dont think she has ever seen my Fi displayed so obviously. She also noted that I distanced myself from the Fi judgment and instead just kept analyzing the issue with Te from a distance analytically in a detached manner-treating it like a puzzle. Then I just dropped the pain and began having fun with the people puzzle, trying to put the pieces together.

She is spot on in that by doing so I distance myself form the pain inflicted by the MIL-I explained this was how I spent time w MIL to avoid being hurt. She said wasnt I hiding myself away in doing so and it seemed unhealthy to do so. Well yes, but how else can I be around someone who commits actions that so deeply violate my values-except by establishing a distance which protects my emotions?

Ah, thank you. I was confused by the whole thread. People went on so many tangents, it seems. I did too. I was confused.

Though my family has absolutely no interest in the MBTI, I believe my father is ISTJ. He is definitely T. He has no tact. He says very mean things. For example, he once said to me, "You're a f**king slob. Nobody will ever love you", to give a taste. He never said one positive thing to me probably until I was about 28 years old.

I also live about 220 miles from my family. He's in his 70's now and he has somewhat mellowed out and humbled. However, he frequently says things that offend me. He makes racist comments or whatever. He makes hateful comments about the current family scapegoat. And he still has a beer for breakfast every day.

One of the great things is that I do live 200 miles away. I try to write a blank check for forgiveness if I go. However, he knows if he goes too far that I will LEAVE, and possibly not come back for an entire year. Also, my Te is not a complete baby. I will (maybe) argue back. I might say those kinds of things you thought, or in between what you thought and what you actually said.

Fortunately my mom is probably definitely F, and she will help mitigate the situation. However, it is a fact that I will leave. Sometimes I believe that I will never go back, but I do end up going back. But he knows I will leave and he'd have to get someone else to help cut the firewood. That said, he rarely ever goes so far anymore; he's much more careful with criticism. I think he likes for me to visit even if I don't end up helping with the firewood.

I once left for a year and a half and did not explain where I was, even though I was in the same town.

I guess the first time I ran away, I was six years old. I ran away again when I was 12. I was picked up by the sheriff when I was 12 since I had the classic bandanna on a stick hobo luggage. I ran away when I was 15 or so for like a day. I can understand running away to protect my emotions. I do NOT think it is the unhealthy thing. Two things. I believe that the skin thickness and ability to process in real time can be improved: forward reaching forgiveness or setting up a forgiveness credit account for them (which has limits). Second, I think it's only unhealthy if it is made permanent.
 

BAJ

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
626
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w5
Have you ever explained this to your MIL?
Is she causing you more pain than benefit from interacting?
Does she generally vent this kind of stuff to you? How have you reacted in the past?

Ah, I was typing when this post was made. Very good. I'm interested as well.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
It is possible that she really is seeing neglect and is failing to properly articulate it but from the limited information that she gave there is little to no evidence of it. Additionally, I believe that the way in which she justifies her argument (ie. clouded with emotions and logical fallacies), actually discredits any real evidence that she provided. As she is the primary source of information on this issue (and being now discredited in my eyes), this leads me to conclude there is no reliable evidence of neglect, and until there is, I will presume the ISFP to be innocent of it. Following this conclusion, I then evaluate the fact that the ISTP has made (as OA said) slanderous remarks she can't back up. This is where I begin to think her spiteful and judgemental, because she has callously made an unjustifiable accusation about the ISFP over so serious an issue as child neglect. Note: irrelevant to this opinion of her behaviour, is the fact that she vented about the ISFP, and whether or not she is compassionate in her attempts to help her. I am only focused on what the ISTP herself said about the situation, everything else is unreasonable speculation.

Hopefully this makes sense...

All I'm hearing here is "ignoring all other information regarding the situation, which I acknowledge I don't know, she sounded really mean, therefore nothing she says is true or justified, and she is being a bitch."

You know, just because she destroyed her ethos (in your estimation) by having a harsh opinion doesn't mean that the factual claims she makes are not true. It makes no sense to presume that what she's saying is false simply because you think she sounds too mean to be telling the truth. To make judgments about her character on such a presumption is like continuing to build a house on top of a flawed foundation.

I honestly don't think this has anything to do with Fi or Fe. I think it has more to do with self-righteousness and holier-than-thou thinking, which can belong to anybody regardless of their functions.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
All I'm hearing here is "ignoring all other information regarding the situation, which I acknowledge I don't know, she sounded really mean, therefore nothing she says is true or justified, and she is being a bitch."

You know, just because she destroyed her ethos (in your estimation) by having a harsh opinion doesn't mean that the factual claims she makes are not true. It makes no sense to presume that what she's saying is false simply because you think she sounds too mean to be telling the truth. To make judgments about her character on such a presumption is like continuing to build a house on top of a flawed foundation.

I honestly don't think this has anything to do with Fi or Fe. I think it has more to do with self-righteousness and holier-than-thou thinking, which can belong to anybody regardless of their functions.
OK, so it seems I didn't explain myself well if you are thinking this. Allow me to clarify:

- The reason I ignore the other information I deemed 'irrelevant' is because I believe it speculative, prejudicial and non-essential (although you may disagree); I disregard it because I fear it might negatively colour my perception of her, not because I wish to ignore things that might conflict with my view. I do this not for myself but out of respect for the ISTP, so that I judge her argument, based on her argument and nothing else.

- I didn't form an opinion (which is the operative word) on her behaviour until after I found her statements to be consistantly illogical. I deemed her 'mean' only after I concluded she rashly made unfounded accusations (see earlier posts of mine and OA for why I came to this conclusion - it takes too long to repeat) predominantly using unrelated complaints about the ISFP behaviour in general, as justification. Neglect is not the sort of accusation to be made lightly and this is the main thing I find reprehensible about her behaviour. I never said she was a bitch. Actually, I earlier said that any criticism of her conduct (in this single situation), is by no means necessarily a reflection on her overall character. People are complicated creatures. Good people do, and say, not so nice things. It would be foolish that a few harsh words, which I'm receiving second hand at that, should damn her in my eyes - and they certainly don't. Orobas has said the ISTP is a good person in general and I believe her.

- I do not deny that she may be justified in her annoyance of the ISFP's behaviour but the evidence of neglect that she provides (and here is the crux of my argument) does not add up logically and thus isn't justifiable. Therefore, I deem her an unreliable person to judge the ISFP's parental fitness. Saying the ISFP is an unfit mother because her children run around, she's messy and she sleeps in on the weekend are not convincing arguments whatsoever. And let me be clear, she may be right, there may be neglect, but if this was a witness statement in court and the sole piece of evidence, I would certainly have reasonable doubt. One thing we can surely agree upon is that we don't know enough to determine whether the mother is neglectful or not.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
OK, so it seems I didn't explain myself well if you are thinking this. Allow me to clarify:

- The reason I ignore the other information I deemed 'irrelevant' is because I believe it speculative, prejudicial and non-essential (although you may disagree); I disregard it because I fear it might negatively colour my perception of her, not because I wish to ignore things that might conflict with my view. I do this not for myself but out of respect for the ISTP, so that I judge her argument, based on her argument and nothing else.

This is the thing, though. I don't think she was making an argument. If she was venting or ranting or simply being angry, there is no reason why she should have been expected to engage in proper argumentation. And even if her words in the OP were the extent of her case, properly made, all that would tell us is that her testimony is not to be trusted on its own (which, let's be honest, for claims like child neglect, her arguments and evidence could have been perfect and there would STILL need to be third-party investigation.) It would not give us license to dismiss her claims as unwarranted.

- I didn't form an opinion (which is the operative word) on her behaviour until after I found her statements to be consistantly illogical.

Again with the logic thing. She was certainly not being logical at the time of her conversation with Orobas, so to point out that she said illogical things seems trivial to me. And anyway, the only thing one can conclude from pointing out her lack of logic is that she was being illogical. No further judgment about her or her behavior can be made without the aid of further information. Or are you saying that her "consistently illogical" statements are evidence that she was, at the time, engaging in cruel behavior? (yes, yes, I KNOW you don't mean to say that she is a cruel or bad person.)

I deemed her 'mean' only after I concluded she rashly made unfounded accusations (see earlier posts of mine and OA for why I came to this conclusion - it takes too long to repeat) predominantly using unrelated complaints about the ISFP behaviour in general, as justification. Neglect is not the sort of accusation to be made lightly and this is the main thing I find reprehensible about her behaviour.

But what if neglect is actually occurring? Sure, her "arguments" may not stand, in and of themselves, as good support for the conclusion of neglect, but that doesn't mean it's an unfounded accusation. The accusation is only reprehensible IF it's the case that there is no neglect and she just made it up. All her lack of good argumentation means is that her ethos is put into question. That doesn't mean she's not ultimately correct, as the truth of her claims can and would be ascertained independently of her words. Even if we take what she's saying at face value, and her lack of ethos cast doubt on the veracity of her claims, that does not mean that we are entitled to jump to the other conclusion that she is wrong.

I never said she was a bitch. Actually, I earlier said that any criticism of her conduct (in this single situation), is by no means necessarily a reflection on her overall character. People are complicated creatures. Good people do, and say, not so nice things. It would be foolish that a few harsh words, which I'm receiving second hand at that, should damn her in my eyes - and they certainly don't. Orobas has said the ISTP is a good person in general and I believe her.

Like I said, I'm not worried about defending her character. When I said "she's being a bitch" in my last post, I meant to constrain it to the one instance of bitchery. I didn't mean to imply that you're saying she IS a bitch because of it.

- I do not deny that she may be justified in her annoyance of the ISFP's behaviour but the evidence of neglect that she provides (and here is the crux of my argument) does not add up logically and thus isn't justifiable. Therefore, I deem her an unreliable person to judge the ISFP's parental fitness. Saying the ISFP is an unfit mother because her children run around, she's messy and she sleeps in on the weekend are not convincing arguments whatsoever.

Again, you are judging her statements in this context as one would an argument. Wouldn't it only be appropriate to judge someone's statements in terms of their logical correctness IF that is what they were trying/prepared to present? I mean, say your friend was in a fight with their SO and they called you over to rant about it over drinks. During this rant, they made such outrageous and clearly unreasonable claims as "he's so stupid, lazy, and worthless" because they were clearly angry. Would you judge their rant as one would an academic paper? Wouldn't that be the height of context-inappropriate behavior? And wouldn't it be kind of useless?

And let me be clear, she may be right, there may be neglect, but if this was a witness statement in court and the sole piece of evidence, I would certainly have reasonable doubt. One thing we can surely agree upon is that we don't know enough to determine whether the mother is neglectful or not.

Well, if this were an actual defamation case, the claims of neglect would certainly be investigated independently by a third-party. And I'm sure, if she were actually willing to keep on defending her claims, that she would prepare better testimony than what she did in the context of an informal, rant-style exchange with a confidante.


I guess I'm just confused about what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to critique the logic of her statements alone? And if so, what do you think her lack of logic says about the truth of her claims? About her behavior?

I am misunderstanding you because I cannot fathom what the purpose of critiquing her logic is at this point. We know simply from reading the OP that the ISTP was certainly not saying these things in the spirit of objectivity. Pointing out how the specific things she said were not logical, or that she did not adduce enough evidence in favor of her conclusions, is therefore an exercise in redundancy. It's obvious that the things she were saying were vague and laden with emotional judgment. All this tells us is that her judgment, as indicated by her words in that conversation, is not to be trusted as an accurate indicator of the reality of the situation.

It does NOT, however, tell us that what she's saying is not true. And it does NOT tell us whether her behavior in this instance is "cruel" or "mean." To determine the former, the facts of the situation would have to be ascertained. If neglect DID happen, she would be off of the hook; she would not have defamed the mother by saying that she neglected her kids (and whatever else.) To determine the latter, we would have to know two things: (1) in what spirit she made those statements (i.e., whether she was ranting or venting, and to whom she was speaking), and (2) the extent to which her factual claims are true. Because if she said those things during a rant, or while she was venting, then how could she be held accountable for her tone? But if she had said those things TO the ISFP mother, then certainly she would be at fault for some form of insensitivity (whether cruelty or not would be up for debate.) And if most or all of the things she said turned out to be false, then we would know that she was being mean-spirited towards the ISFP.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Thanks Tilty ... what is it about being right? I have said before that Te and Fe always need to be or think they are right, so maybe this ties into that. It's never just about feeling though, eh? It's about determining whether those feelings are justified.

Owning feelings means that you accept that you are the originator of them and don't attribute them to being caused by anything outside yourself. It's not like other people dump a whole bag of annoyance on you if they show up late for example, you choose to feel angry. Since you choose to be angry, you can also choose not to be. ....

But if you don't vent off those feelings, what will happen? Will you "blow up" on the other person or yourself?

It's not that I have to be right -- but yes, my feelings have to be justifiable to myself. THAT first of all. Even, then, I might want to bounce them off someone else before I show them to the person who's involved in them. Oddly enough, the more I care about the relationship, the more likely it is I will talk to someone else about my feelings first. But anyway, no, it's never just about feeling. It's about doing something, Peacebaby, c'mon now, get with me, will ya? Feelings mean Do Something.

I cannot choose to be angry or not to be angry. My body releases chemicals instantaneously whether I even like it or not. I have zero choice.

Oh yes indeedy, if I can't work it out, there will be blowup.
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Yes, this! I totally identify with what Tilty is saying here. Do feelings work differently for Fi users? I know your reaction to them tends to be different, so I'm wondering if your control over them may also be different than it is for me.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Just like Te and Ti seek to make the non-human world predictable through imposition of predetermined rationalization, or through rule-creation by analytical rationalization, Fe and Fi seek to make human relations predictable and communities safe and unified. Fe does this through the imposition of norms and rules of human behavior that satisfies the person's need for regularity in others' reactions to certain situations. Fi does this through "emotive analysis" of certain behaviors and situations, so as to understand how a person will feel in this circumstance, or how they would in another circumstance.

Fe gets into trouble when it imposes regularity for regularity's sake, instead of first developing the emotional rationale behind the norms further, then implementing those rules. It also gets into trouble when it interprets anothers' chafing at the norms, or disregard thereof, as antisocial behavior, rather than exploring why that person reacts to the rule in that particular way. As Fe develops, the rules become fewer and fewer, until they converge with Fi's focus on how the other person will react in the situation, rather than what the established rule is. Eventually, the rule becomes the simple rule of reciprocity - treat others as you yourself would be treated. At this point, Fe begins its process of transcendence, sung so eloquently by The Beatles: "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Fi gets into trouble when it fails to recognize the immense complexity of emotional reactions, sacrificing an empathy of understanding for an empathy of response. What this means is that Fi can only work properly when a person has enough experience and emotional resilience to understand that others' reactions are fundamentally influenced by the impact of events and emotions outside the person's immediate knowledge, and what's more, acting upon an inaccurate reading of a person can significantly harm the relationship. As Fi develops, it comes to understand that some rules arose for very good reasons, and what's more, a person cannot ignore the comfort that many people take in having rules of social interaction. At its pinnacle, it converges with Fe, and begins the spiritual experience of knowing the transcendent meaning of being human - that no matter how much pain and suffering there is in the world, one may always triumph over it through following one simple rule: love thy neighbor as thyself.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
She said wasnt I hiding myself away in doing so and it seemed unhealthy to do so. Well yes, but how else can I be around someone who commits actions that so deeply violate my values-except by establishing a distance which protects my emotions?

Speak up. Share your values.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
As far as the actual scenario: how much of your MIL's earlier life are you familiar with, O? Her reaction may seem incredibly harsh, but do you know what experience she is speaking from? You don't get that sort of thing from a happy background.

Second thing - perhaps there is an additional way to interpret the pain and outrage that you felt upon her words. Along with it being about her insensitivity, maybe you were mirroring her own anguish arising from a similar situation. The tricky thing is, you can't know for sure unless you ask, and when you ask, you have to be prepared for her to say no.

You never engage a person on an instantaneous basis. You're always interacting with a timeline, some apparent, some deeply hidden, and some repressed by that person. This is where the act of loving comes in: you harbor that indignation with patience, temper that harshness with kindness, assuage that outrage with humility, subdue the desire for an outburst with grace, and comfort the hurt you feel with unselfishness. The transcendent love referred to earlier? That's what the Greeks called agape. That could very well be what you're looking for.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I guess I'm just confused about what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to critique the logic of her statements alone? And if so, what do you think her lack of logic says about the truth of her claims? About her behavior?

I am misunderstanding you because I cannot fathom what the purpose of critiquing her logic is at this point. We know simply from reading the OP that the ISTP was certainly not saying these things in the spirit of objectivity. Pointing out how the specific things she said were not logical, or that she did not adduce enough evidence in favor of her conclusions, is therefore an exercise in redundancy. It's obvious that the things she were saying were vague and laden with emotional judgment. All this tells us is that her judgment, as indicated by her words in that conversation, is not to be trusted as an accurate indicator of the reality of the situation.
This is my point exactly. And I assume the ISFP innocent until proven otherwise. This is not a concrete position, though. This merely means her guilt is unproven, not that she is completely off the hook. If more people raised concerns or more negative information came to light I would definitely begin to question that innocence.

It does NOT, however, tell us that what she's saying is not true. And it does NOT tell us whether her behavior in this instance is "cruel" or "mean." To determine the former, the facts of the situation would have to be ascertained. If neglect DID happen, she would be off of the hook; she would not have defamed the mother by saying that she neglected her kids (and whatever else.) To determine the latter, we would have to know two things: (1) in what spirit she made those statements (i.e., whether she was ranting or venting, and to whom she was speaking), and (2) the extent to which her factual claims are true. Because if she said those things during a rant, or while she was venting, then how could she be held accountable for her tone? But if she had said those things TO the ISFP mother, then certainly she would be at fault for some form of insensitivity (whether cruelty or not would be up for debate.) And if most or all of the things she said turned out to be false, then we would know that she was being mean-spirited towards the ISFP.
I do see your point and it is fair. Nonetheless, I think her behaviour judgmental (and therefore unkind) because almost all the evidence she provided of neglect was based on her annoyance with the ISFP. In other words she assumed the ISFP was a bad person because she doesn't like her, and this is remarkably unfair. If she truly wishes her concerns to be taken seriously, she needs to provide better grounds for them. Based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen), if ISTP was indeed correct about the ISFP being neglectful, it would prove her rant as more good luck, than a demonstration of her powers of discernment.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
This is my point exactly. And I assume the ISFP innocent until proven otherwise. This is not a concrete position, though. This merely means her guilt is unproven, not that she is completely off the hook. If more people raised concerns or more negative information came to light I would definitely begin to question that innocence.

I see. That is fair, though I think it unlikely that the ISTP's reactions were entirely unprovoked.

I do see your point and it is fair. Nonetheless, I think her behaviour judgmental (and therefore unkind) because almost all the evidence she provided of neglect was based on her annoyance with the ISFP.

I think it's certainly fair to say that her words were not kind.

In other words she assumed the ISFP was a bad person because she doesn't like her, and this is remarkably unfair.

I don't know if this is necessarily indicated by the things she said. As was mentioned by several members earlier in the thread, it seemed more like she was talking about what the ISFP did/didn't do, and how those things were dumb/ridiculous/awful. There was never any statement made directly about the ISFP herself (e.g., "she is such a bad/ignorant/irredeemable person, and I hate her.")

If she truly wishes her concerns to be taken seriously, she needs to provide better grounds for them. Based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen), if ISTP was indeed correct about the ISFP being neglectful, it would prove her rant as more good luck, than a demonstration of her powers of discernment.

I agree that her "evidence" was quite insufficient on its own to convince anybody of the truth of her claims.

I disagree with the bolded, though, because I still believe context should be taken into account when evaluating her words. It's clear, at least to me, that she said the things she did to Orobas because she thought she was in the company of someone who would agree. Therefore, she was not trying to persuade anyone. She was not putting her best foot forth because, if she believed her audience to already be in agreement with her, then she wouldn't feel the need to expend the energy to make convincing arguments. Further, as I have stated before, I do think that she was probably ranting/venting. And if she was venting/ranting, I don't think it's appropriate to evaluate her words the same way one would evaluate them if they came from a clear-headed person. Stated differently, I think that her words here are not a good indication of her powers of discernment, and I would want to hold off judgment on that until I had spoken to her in a different context. That is, I wouldn't think that a judgment about her behavior/powers of discernment could reasonably be made "based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen)."

That's my opinion, though, and I can see how someone might not want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Doesn't it strike you as "incongruous," though, that you would give the ISFP lady the benefit of the doubt and not the ISTP lady? I mean, it's sort of the same as mediating between two kids fighting; you take them aside one at a time, starting with little Billy, and you ask him why he's fighting with little Bob. Little Billy replies angrily, "because Bob is so stupid. He has a stupid face." Without finding out anything else about the situation, and without talking to the other kid, would you assume that little Billy was just being a bully to little Bob, simply because (1) he's your first and only source of information, and (2) his "evidence" for little Bob's stupidity is not convincing?
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
orangey, i think perhaps why some Fi users have seemed to side more with the ISFP is because it looks like the ISTP is more the one who has launched the "attack".

coming from a neutral standpoint, to our knowledge, the ISFP has not done anything with the intention of negativity towards the ISTP, whereas the ISTP has made statements specifically assigning negativity towards the actions of the ISFP and her family.

the way i see it, is a bit like a balance. right now the ISTP has the upper hand because she is attacking, so it makes sense to see if she has messed up as well, and to consider how valid her claims are, before looking at the interaction of both parties - especially because we are really going off the information the ISTP has provided us. we don't treat them both equally because the ISTP is the one who has made the first claims - perhaps it is somewhat a Te thing, but we need to check her claims first. are they reasonable? are they internally consistent? (in this case, they do not seem to be, which is what personally made me respond as i did.)

so that is not to say the ISFP has not made poor decisions or been negative herself - i mean, if the ISTP is right, she may well have a whole lot of issues that need addressing - and nor is it to say the ISTP is not a good person or has not done good things - she sounds like she is a generally charitable person, even if she is not always gung ho for it (though really, who ever is) - but assessing the ISTP herself is simply a first step in a rebalancing to get to a point of equality where we can assess how both parties are responsible for their contributions to the issue.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
orangey, i think perhaps why some Fi users have seemed to side more with the ISFP is because it looks like the ISTP is more the one who has launched the "attack".

coming from a neutral standpoint, to our knowledge, the ISFP has not done anything with the intention of negativity towards the ISTP, whereas the ISTP has made statements specifically assigning negativity towards the actions of the ISFP and her family.

the way i see it, is a bit like a balance. right now the ISTP has the upper hand because she is attacking, so it makes sense to see if she has messed up as well, and to consider how valid her claims are, before looking at the interaction of both parties - especially because we are really going off the information the ISTP has provided us. we don't treat them both equally because the ISTP is the one who has made the first claims - perhaps it is somewhat a Te thing, but we need to check her claims first. are they reasonable? are they internally consistent? (in this case, they do not seem to be, which is what personally made me respond as i did.)

so that is not to say the ISFP has not made poor decisions or been negative herself - i mean, if the ISTP is right, she may well have a whole lot of issues that need addressing - and nor is it to say the ISTP is not a good person - she sounds like she is a generally charitable person, even if her heart is not always in it - or has not done good things, but reviewing the ISTP's claims is simply a first step in a rebalancing to get to a point of equality where we can assess how both parties are responsible for their contributions to the issue.

That's looking at it backwards. You feel the pain and anguish in her words. That's the important part, because that's how you're going to explain why she's saying the things she did. It may seem otherwise often, but people are rarely mean for the sake of being mean - there's usually some sort of positive intention, warped as it may be.

In this case, and this is pure speculation, it would not surprise me if the M-I-L's own mother were similar to the woman being criticized, and that you're hearing the M-I-L's anger, resentment, pain and sadness at the way she was neglected growing up manifesting in her charged concern for the children.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
hello all! I am trying to de-forum but I really wanted to thank the TPs and FJs for the insights shared in this thread. I actually felt really bad after staring this thread as it seemed to create so much frustration and discord. But I suspect the results and understandings that were exposed were very important to discuss.
MIL and I spoke and she apologized for venting. I explained it was perfectly okay to vent and that she had been under a great deal of emotional stress, so not to worry about it and we spoke of ways to help the family as they complete their move this weekend.

Have you ever explained this to your MIL?
Is she causing you more pain than benefit from interacting?
Does she generally vent this kind of stuff to you? How have you reacted in the past?

MIL is a TP-part of accepting MIL is giving her the freedom to be authentic to who she really is. I desire to be authentic to who I am, thus I also desire for others to be allowed to be authentic to who they are-even if I don’t like it. So in general, with all of my TP friends and relatives, I tolerate behavior which I would not do myself as I realize they are just “different”. Even before MBTI-they were just different and I always have felt they deserve the freedom to be so.

Historically-I Lived with MIL and DIL after their son left me with a 1 week old baby. I lived there for four years during my undergrad. I worked the whole time and never accepted money. Their kindness allowed me to finish my undergrad degree. I love them both very much. However MIL has always been a little Fe-ish and always sort of nagged me about little weird things raising my children. Understanding Fe has been a huge help in learning that her Fe nudges were signs of love.

This situation was different-because it was aimed at a potential innocent, not me. The harsh language used during Ti/Fe venting translates VERY badly to be honest. Exceptionally so. I know and hear you guys saying it is not meant to be condemnatory-but that IS how it translates. It is VERY valuable to hear your internal perspective and viewpoint here.

I don't know if this is necessarily indicated by the things she said. As was mentioned by several members earlier in the thread, it seemed more like she was talking about what the ISFP did/didn't do, and how those things were dumb/ridiculous/awful. There was never any statement made directly about the ISFP herself (e.g., "she is such a bad/ignorant/irredeemable person, and I hate her.")

But almost all of the Fi users see what was said-and they are “reading” it as condemnatory….As I mentioned earlier in the thread, likely it is not a case of “what” is being said but instead “how” it is being said-linguistically perhaps?
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Doesn't it strike you as "incongruous," though, that you would give the ISFP lady the benefit of the doubt and not the ISTP lady? I mean, it's sort of the same as mediating between two kids fighting; you take them aside one at a time, starting with little Billy, and you ask him why he's fighting with little Bob. Little Billy replies angrily, "because Bob is so stupid. He has a stupid face." Without finding out anything else about the situation, and without talking to the other kid, would you assume that little Billy was just being a bully to little Bob, simply because (1) he's your first and only source of information, and (2) his "evidence" for little Bob's stupidity is not convincing?

“Billy it isn’t nice to say ugly things about another person. To say mean things hurts others and is not nice. Now lets talk about what actually happened-why are you mad at Bob? What happened?”

The two events are treated as separate and the actual issue between the two is treated in as objective a manner as possible-I would not pass judgment without speaking to Bob-I remain almost totally neutral…but it still isn’t okay for Billy to say mean things.

I hear you saying that the words were not spoken to Bob-thus why do they matter that they were mean? Because 1) I will feel the pain Bob will feel upon hearing the words, 2) an Fi user will often be able to see past a surface façade of civility to the underlying feelings of disgust (?) thus it doesn’t matter what you say-but rather what you mean, what you really feel about them. This seems unfair, I am sorry, it isn’t meant to be judgmental. It just seems to be how we may be, although perhaps other Fiusers can add commentary.

Randominity raised a very good point-when will an Fi user actually condemn another and speak harshly about another? For me, It is truly condemnation. Note how we gravitate towards the term “cruel”.

I will critique another-“You are acting like an asshole. You are being obnoxious. You are hurting another person. Why would you think that is okay to do that?” Notice 1) all of these are directed at behavioral actions, not the individual’s essence and 2) all of these are delivered to the actual person. When younger I talked trash now and then, but always felt REALLY shitty, guilty, and mean later on.

I will comment about the skills/competence/efficiency of another behind their back. “Bob is really nice and has good intents, BUT is totally incompetent at the tasks he has been assigned. Sally is totally not able to do her job, because she cant understand logistical planning. ” Ideally though someone would confront Bob and give him direct feedback so he knows what to improve upon. If it was my place I would willingly do so.

To speak harshly about another, using the terms the MIL used? They must be beyond redemption and beyond forgiveness. ” You are an evil, broken, twisted, mean person. There is something very wrong and broken with in you. There is nothing that can be done to fix you. I hate you. You are trash” It is to be put in a place that is outside of my empathy. I no longer feel your pain and would gladly remove you as your have hurt other s enough that you are a threat to everyone around you. If I used the words, tone and terms my MIL did-I would be seeking to have the ISFP imprisoned for child abuse and would have long ago called CPS. I do speak this way about an aunt and uncle I had who shot up meth and left their children to starve. “you are dead to me”. It sounds silly-but that is when I would say such harsh things about another. They have become nothing and are cut out of my world.

I can recognize a split here-personal hatred-which needs to be set aside as....nonprofessional? hehe, I dunno, personal hatred for a personal hurt is a Te fail, although it is nice to rail on these motherfuckers in the moment.. :) Then there is a hatred/coldness for someone who is dangerous to everyone around them-their removal becomes a planned event with little emotion. I have met very, very few people who fall into this category.

NOTE: The above is all me...I dont understand how much of this translates to other Fi users, as I can be an exceptionally harsh Te judge, but am very forgiving when i use Fi...Everyone seems able to be saved or forgiven? Yeah, I dunno....
 
Top