[Fi] Fi communication and “evil” TPs

[Rasofy]

On a very concrete level, Ive found that the words 'you' and 'i' make a really big difference. With a Fe user you can go: 'You need to put yourself together now, look at what damage your actions have caused! => shame ensues, Fe-user shapes up.

With a Fi-user you go: What about (insert person being hurt by actions)? Because of all this (Te, not Fe!), he is facing (insert consequences) => impresses upon Fi users that their actions are impacting the freedom and space of another individual (NOT GROUP), something most of us hold sacred.

That's a very interesting breakdown, and the Fe approach would definitely work best with me.

The Fi approach would likely make me think ''well, since I didn't do anything inappropriate, it's not my fault he reacted badly''. I'd likely apologize, but it wouldn't be a very genuine response in comparison, as I'd consider that person wasn't supposed to have reacted badly.

I mean, if I didn't violate the widely accepted social protocol, having to apologize without first acknowledging that I did something wrong would be like putting his standards not only above the conventional protocol, but also above my own standards. Objectively, that's kind of an unfair situation.

Mostly random thoughts. I still think Fi values are pretty weird.

 

[cascadeco]

On a very concrete level, Ive found that the words 'you' and 'i' make a really big difference. With a Fe user you can go: 'You need to put yourself together now, look at what damage your actions have caused! => shame ensues, Fe-user shapes up.

With a Fi-user you go: What about (insert person being hurt by actions)? Because of all this (Te, not Fe!), he is facing (insert consequences) => impresses upon Fi users that their actions are impacting the freedom and space of another individual (NOT GROUP), something most of us hold sacred.

Then continue if you want: I think this mess (notice the impersonal Te here) needs to be cleaned up right now. I know you probably didnt mean for it to turn out this way (validate that they arent evil as a person), but that person right there did not deserve to have this happen to him (third party, no YOU did this to this). I would handlie the situation this way: (blabla). And I think an apology might do some good, to start with. Then (insert Te sequence of problem solving tactics).

The cherry on top is to end with (the only place where you is allowed as it is a positive you):

However, it is your decision as to how you want to deal with this. Let me know if you need any help

See, this is interesting, because I would never say the Fe statement, as I don't think it would be effective with most people. It comes across to me as kind of high-and-mighty and teacher-ish, actually. Like...what place do I have to actually tell someone that?

I guess I always try to personalize things a bit more and see things from their pov. Maybe with SOME people, if I know them well, I might intuitively think something along the lines of the first approach would work better, but I just can't think of an example irl where I've used that sort of message/tone. I'm not really out there trying to get people to do what I want them to do, or scolding them like a child, and I've always felt, with anyone/everyone, that they have to want to see value in doing something, of their own accord.

 

[Southern Kross]

I'm not really sure I owe TPs a global apology.

I don't think global apologies are needed on either side. There's plenty of Ti doms on this forum whom I find to be among the best communicators and are generally very sensitive (and sensible) in their posts. I think the younger and more immature TPs can give the type a bad rep for nastiness. Internet anonymity also doesn't seem to do favours for TP bad behaviour either.

There does seem to be a tendency for friction between Fi and Ti, though. I have to say the vast majority of the arguments I've had here, have been with TPs; and probably all of my more involved conflicts here have been with them. Not that I'm necessarily blaming them entirely for it.

I do think sometimes Fi users project on to Ti users in the way you mention

Yes. The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realise how much conflict is caused by interpreting the same information based on completely different yardsticks.

Admittedly, my threshold for personal insults and passive-aggressive sarcasm is pretty low. It's rather hard for me to look past this and persevere.

See, I don't like to really hurt people, not innocent people. And I perceive some T types as actively enjoying inflicting pain on others, honestly.

Yeah, I see this sometimes too. That's why it really bugs the hell out of me when some Ts basically claim they are logic embodied, untainted by frivolous emotions. And all the while they engage in irrational overreactions and emotion-based attacks on a regular basis - and then refuse to accept the fact that they are doing this. Grrr!

 

[MacGuffin]

It is because of the way it is communicated that it gets brushed aside. Often it is laced with the shame technique that gets other Fe users to pick themselves up and realize the bigger picture, aka, they are harming the goal of the group/ standards of the society they belong to. That to us is meaningless, usually, as we put more stock in individual connection. Telling us we are being selfish (coz that is how it feels) makes us feel neglected and like you dont understand us at all, which only gets reinforced afterwards with the whole need of the many outweighing the need of the few. It sucks to be the few,for sure. And it definitely will build resentment and disloyalty.

On a very concrete level, Ive found that the words 'you' and 'i' make a really big difference. With a Fe user you can go: 'You need to put yourself together now, look at what damage your actions have caused! => shame ensues, Fe-user shapes up.

With a Fi-user you go: What about (insert person being hurt by actions)? Because of all this (Te, not Fe!), he is facing (insert consequences) => impresses upon Fi users that their actions are impacting the freedom and space of another individual (NOT GROUP), something most of us hold sacred.

Then continue if you want: I think this mess (notice the impersonal Te here) needs to be cleaned up right now. I know you probably didnt mean for it to turn out this way (validate that they arent evil as a person), but that person right there did not deserve to have this happen to him (third party, no YOU did this to this). I would handlie the situation this way: (blabla). And I think an apology might do some good, to start with. Then (insert Te sequence of problem solving tactics).

The cherry on top is to end with (the only place where you is allowed as it is a positive you):

However, it is your decision as to how you want to deal with this. Let me know if you need any help

(this puts the power back with them, and makes them realise that they can redeem themselves should they choose to do so (and most of us want to, as we dont want to be evil to others), and that they can do it on our their terms, the way they think would be the best way to go about it. As wel as that they arent truly hated by others and that others still stand by them, despite this little mistake. Which, if we are utterly shame-ridden on our own already and punishing ourselves (despite being defensive to others), can really help us to get out of that self-doubt prison it causes.)

I can see how that would work, but I'm afraid if I tried this: "I think this mess (notice the impersonal Te here) needs to be cleaned up right now. I know you probably didnt mean for it to turn out this way (validate that they arent evil as a person), but that person right there did not deserve to have this happen to him (third party, no YOU did this to this)." I would sound really condescending.

And as [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] said, I don't generally start with a "you" statement if there is a general problem. I talk about a larger problem without much reference to individual people (Fe? Ti?). It's only when the Fi-users come in do I become personal with the Fe "you" shaming, because it looks like the general approach has failed and now I need to get specific.

 

[Philosorapteuse]

Yeah, I see this sometimes too. That's why it really bugs the hell out of me when some Ts basically claim they are logic embodied, untainted by frivolous emotions. And all the while they engage in irrational overreactions and emotion-based attacks on a regular basis - and then refuse to accept the fact that they are doing this. Grrr!

It can be a problem, yeah. At least 50% of the time, it's not even that we refuse to accept the fact (though that certainly happens - guilty here!) - it's that we don't even realise or understand that our reactions are rooted in emotions. I'm certainly very good at layering logic over something which, at its core, is an emotion-based stance. That's dead hard to relate to on a conscious level. It's difficult and painful to mine through that logic shell and then stick your pickaxe right into something squishy, alien and sensitive. Nobody wants to find out their logic mine has been infested with Feelings. Scary amorphous things that scream and bleed everywhere. It's hell to mop up. Also it corrodes your pickaxe. Best not to go there at all.

... That kind of got away from me, didn't it. But yeah, feelings, not our strong suit. Maybe it's not surprising that we don't see/don't want to see when something we consider our great strength (argument) is founded on our biggest weakness which we don't really understand.

 

[KDude]

This whole thread gives me a brainfart.

And I'm not being sarcastic. It's hard to examine all of these issues, like NFs do.

You know why I'm not evil? Because I'll probably just stay away entirely. Out of your hair.

 

[Seymour]

Seems to me that level of emotional reactivity is a separate dimension from type. However, FPs and TPs are more likely to express their emotional reactions. TJs and FJs seem to be more grounded by external value systems, so their evaluative processes are a little less (visibly) thrown by emotional upset. Plus, they tend to be more about purpose and goal, and so are less likely to emotionally vent if it won't get them anything.

None of that contradicts that most human decision making is emotionally based... and we all generally engage in confirmatory reasoning.

 

[Rasofy]

This whole thread gives me a brainfart.

And I'm not being sarcastic. It's hard to examine all of these issues, like NFs do.

I feel you, bro.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I can see how that would work, but I'm afraid if I tried this: "I think this mess (notice the impersonal Te here) needs to be cleaned up right now. I know you probably didnt mean for it to turn out this way (validate that they arent evil as a person), but that person right there did not deserve to have this happen to him (third party, no YOU did this to this)." I would sound really condescending.

The "general approach" then, to talk in vague uncertainties that something needs to get magically done by someone, that someone likely being in the room, who we won't name, but who should be socially savvy enough to know we're talking about them, is just as sadly condescending to my ears too.



Therein the rub.

I would say Amar's statement is too declarative for my taste. Just as you wouldn't start your sentence with "you" I would be unlikely to start mine with "I". As an example, I would likely say, "The whole house is a mess right now (Te declaration) and since we all made this mess, I don't think it's fair that person X is the only person taking care of the problem. (Fi value) Could you please do task XYZ?"

My husband (Te dom) would just simply say, "The house is a mess and you made it (Te declaration). Get cleaning it up. Now." (less obviously stated Fi value that folks should own their own messes...)

It's only when the Fi-users come in do I become personal with the Fe "you" shaming, because it looks like the general approach has failed and now I need to get specific.

It's kind of like an alpha dog coming in and doing a little biting though. Have we evolved a little beyond that at all after all of these discussions?

The most difficult part for me is to communicate to an Fe audience that the Fe way, although perceived by Fe-ers as the "right" way, is just another way. "Right" being purportedly "objective" but just as subjective as anything else in play. I actually find it MUCH easier to show a Te user that their way is sometimes mistaken. The reason being of course is that there are usually real world examples, concrete things, that provide evidence. Fe, being objective (concrete) about things subjective (ephemeral) makes it a massive challenge.

As often as I have engaged in these conversations, it always, always, always boils down to that point. I have to prove I'm "right" to get a little street cred. Just like the Te-ers think they are always "right" so too do the Fe-ers, just as openly and just as plainly. It's just the way it is. Just think though Mac, whenever you are about to start with a little Fe-shaming, you sound the same to an Fi-er as a directive Te-er getting in your face to you. Ugh. Not pretty. But, it's just the way it is I guess.

Have I ever seen a strong Fe-user say "Wow, Fi-er, you are different but I can live with that, and be comfortable with that!" whenever any of this gets discussed, really? It's a rule most INFP's I've seen here appear to live by, so we hope to get the same offered in return. But it's always about turning back to one's own native tongue, and that's OK. I mean, what else can anybody really do anyway?

I think the best thing is to at least realize there are these alternative perspectives, be conscious of them, and respect them for what they are. Sort of a "count to ten" strategy before using the tools that one is most liable to reach for. Try a different tool, once in a while for fun or as relevant.

to any Fe-er annoyed by my post. Undoubtedly it will be a few of you. If you are offended though, look inside yourself, you own that, not me.

 

[cascadeco]

^Not offended at all, Peacebaby, but I guess I'm an Fe-tard, because what exactly IS the 'Fe way'? If I do it,I would need to be told what I do and why it's offensive or condescending, etc, as I really don't feel like I do the shaming thing, or tell people what to do or tell people there's a 'right way' or tell people they're wrong to feel x, etc. I'm not saying I don't do this, I just don't really understand what's being talked about. And this is usually how I feel about most Fe/Fi threads (or even most cognitive functions threads), tbh... I just don't think I naturally translate things into cog. functions.

Re. your house example, I'd probably just ask the person who made the mess to please clean it up.

 

[Mal12345]

Pretty long OP. I just want to say that when I first came here I ran into a wall of Fi-doms who kept telling me I was doing this or that wrong. But as far as I'm concerned, that's their opinion. Their feelings and personal value aren't The Truth, and I am not one to be dictated to by a bunch of nattering ninnies.

 

[Randomnity]

The "general approach" then, to talk in vague uncertainties that something needs to get magically done by someone, that someone likely being in the room, who we won't name, but who should be socially savvy enough to know we're talking about them, is just as sadly condescending to my ears too.



Therein the rub.

I would say Amar's statement is too declarative for my taste. Just as you wouldn't start your sentence with "you" I would be unlikely to start mine with "I". As an example, I would likely say, "The whole house is a mess right now (Te declaration) and since we all made this mess, I don't think it's fair that person X is the only person taking care of the problem. (Fi value) Could you please do task XYZ?"

This is exactly how I prefer to phrase things (and have done so, many times, almost with those exact words in cleaning situations). Not convinced it really reflects Fi or Te at all, since those are my weakest functions. Both the Fi and Fe phrasings of Amargith sound utterly bizarre and condescending to me, both to give or to receive - maybe they're just for Feeling-oriented types.

My husband (Te dom) would just simply say, "The house is a mess and you made it (Te declaration). Get cleaning it up. Now." (less obviously stated Fi value that folks should own their own messes...)

This sounds so very disrespectful to me that I'd probably have a hissy fit followed by a conversation about ordering people around like slaves. ymmv, I guess.

Have I ever seen a strong Fe-user say "Wow, Fi-er, you are different but I can live with that, and be comfortable with that!" whenever any of this gets discussed, really? It's a rule most INFP's I've seen here appear to live by, so we hope to get the same offered in return.

In my experience Fe-users don't say that because it's just accepted that differences are totally okay - until those differences start to hurt other people. So the validation of your personal feelings isn't seen to be as important as the impacts on everyone else.

to any Fe-er annoyed by my post. Undoubtedly it will be a few of you. If you are offended though, look inside yourself, you own that, not me.

lol, I'm guessing you will think that I'm annoyed, but I'm not.

 

[MacGuffin]

The "general approach" then, to talk in vague uncertainties that something needs to get magically done by someone, that someone likely being in the room, who we won't name, but who should be socially savvy enough to know we're talking about them, is just as sadly condescending to my ears too.

I don't understand because:

I would say Amar's statement is too declarative for my taste. Just as you wouldn't start your sentence with "you" I would be unlikely to start mine with "I". As an example, I would likely say, "The whole house is a mess right now (Te declaration) and since we all made this mess, I don't think it's fair that person X is the only person taking care of the problem. (Fi value) Could you please do task XYZ?"

that's pretty much my Fe approach. The only difference might be is I will leave off the final sentence because I'm not proposing a specific solution just yet. The declaration there is a problem is my initial goal. I'm not really caring about who is to blame, sometimes I'm part of the problem myself. Hell, most of the time I don't care about blame at all. I want to fix a problem.

Take the autoplay discussion in Feedback. I had no idea who does or does not use it. But I knew who would throw the hissy fit about changing it.

Who always arrives, charging up the hill, screaming with bayonet fixed? The Fi users. They never seem to care about the groups and associations they affect. Can hardly ever get them to admit others have a problem to begin with.

This is the frustration I have, and I believe many other Fe users have, that the Fi user is too self-centered to care about the group.

 

[gromit]

Is it Fe/Fi or just people being immature?

 

[MacGuffin]

Is it Fe/Fi or just people being immature?

I don't know. Since I believe looking beyond oneself is a sign of maturity, I may naturally assign the "mature" label to Fe, which isn't always correct.

 

[Randomnity]

Who always arrives, charging up the hill, screaming with bayonet fixed? The Fi users. They never seem to care about the groups and associations they affect. Can hardly ever get them to admit others have a problem to begin with.

This is the frustration I have, and I believe many other Fe users have, that the Fi user is too self-centered to care about the group.

To be fair, it's usually only a few Fi users who do this. But they tend to make enough noise that they're easily mistaken for a horde of angry Fi.

 

[MacGuffin]

To be fair, it's usually only a few Fi users who do this. But they tend to make enough noise that they're easily mistaken for a horde of angry Fi.

True.

Though they sometimes seem to rotate the front lines duty!

 

[gromit]

I don't know. Since I believe looking beyond oneself is a sign of maturity, I may naturally assign the "mature" label to Fe, which isn't always correct.

Yeah I guess both Fi and Fe (if I even understand the difference at all) can be immature in their ways...

 

[Impact Calculus]

•First: Fi judgments can be the most hateful, spiteful things ever, if used to protect one’s ego. This is when a TJ or FP degenerates to name calling or saying direct hurtful comments about another-either to them or to others. It is when an FP begins to start sounding nasty and vindictive and come close to some of the barbs that TPs can throw at one another out of fun.

Those could just as easily be made through either of the Je functions. Furthermore, this type of judgement is probably skewed by the likes of anger, consciously acclaimed insecurities and other psychological phenomenon. Trapping it into the vacuum that is jung would probably lead to only lightly correlated results.

Although it is clearly possible to describe relationships with jungian and similar forms of language, you'd probably be better off looking to the likes of socionics - which better fulfills the context of relationships, rather than individual personality.

Yes, the ego does defend against certain things and promote others; but you can't just cut and paste jung's work and pretend that they fit this context, let alone anger and other reactions.

I'd quote other parts of your post, but this message should cross apply just as well to the rest of it.

 

[Redbone]

Is it Fe/Fi or just people being immature?

Probably immature. The differences in approaches concerning intent, actions, and goals can make things messy enough already. Immaturity can take it to the nth degree.