You know fidelia, there's something about the way you pepper questions in a post that makes me glaze over. Like, I can't look at all those questions in a long string. It's why I guess sometimes I don't address them all. But for you, I am going to dissect this, k?
Someone said something to me about how Fi users feel very dishonest discussing negative feelings about group dynamics in private.
Yes, we do. We process it all internally, so in order to be objective, such things needs as much external input as possible. If the offense occurred in a group, the group is part of the dynamic, and thus to "clear the air" the issue is best broached in the same environs.
I've noticed on here that Fi users (ENFPs especially) tend to want to discuss problems in public without going to the offending person first. My first reaction to that is that it creates a massive mess to clean up, rarely ends up resolving anything and usually spawns several more issues. I'm focussed on the end result it has. I'm understanding that they feel that anything less would be sweeping something public under the carpet instead of being transparent about it. I also suspect that the act of airing those thoughts and emotions and sticking up for someone is more important to them than the resulting outcome. The purpose of starting that kind of thread maybe has nothing to do with what happens in the end?
It has everything to do with the endpoint. Fi in these scenarios believes that public disclosure offers the best potential to ensure that even justice is dispensed. Public scrutiny is the only tool that Fi often has to try to be heard or effect change.
Quiet approaches generally make little or no difference in my experience. I mean really, even look at my example above. I would have had to make a huge Fi display if I were to have changed the course of those events. Me raising alarm bells privately only ensured that the agenda could continue, and alerted those who had the agenda that I was wise to it. So I was shut-out further.
Fi users don't surround ourselves with an Fi posse that comes to our aid no matter what we say; we say what we feel as individuals and then other Fi users will sweep in to weigh in too on the matter.
From a Fe standpoint, it seems like just as much damage as the initial offense is incurred by not allowing the person a chance to respond or remedy the situation in anyway by making them aware of it. It is possible to me (maybe this is Ni-Fe?) that there may be many reasons they acted as they did and perhaps not all of them were spawned with bad motivation or in an attempt to hurt someone or squash them. To me it seems unfair that instead of talking to the person in a way that isn't going to cause them to lose face (or face untrue accusations, especially when you may not have all the information), it jumps right away to public berating and generalizations. While an issue may have happened publicly, it may even be that a person may not be able to defend themselves without revealing information that would expose the other person or hurt them by having everyone know.
There have been some raw Fi outpourings recently. I'm not saying they are right, and they sure aren't often effective here. But OMG, can't someone try to diffuse them at least instead of performing the equivalent of a public stoning?
Active listening works on Fi and Fe. No one said, "Hey W, it looks to me like you're feeling frustrated and that lots of people are misinterpreting your motivations here. Is that right?" Heck, I didn't participate in those threads but I could see those threads devolving. I could have been a help there and I regret not jumping in to help temper both the Fi expression and the resultant backlash. IRL, it's so natural for me to help people understand each other's POV. Here on the forum, not so easy.
The best approach would have been for W to have his vent, and just help him get it out of his system. That means hearing without judging or coaching him on how to "better" get his message across. The fire would have burnt out much faster and he would have felt better and the forum wouldn't have had so much drama around them.
Active listening. I've said it before, and it's one of the best takeaways interacting here that I have realized - it's the only tool I have used that addresses both Fe and Fi. Whoever laid the foundations of it for fostering communication is a genius in my eyes.
Saving face is often a euphemism for simply maintaining fraudulent facades.
I think I understand the reasoning that a Fi person may use initially. What I'm fuzzy on is what is the outcome that you would foresee in ideal Fi world when you operate in this way? That everyone had a chance to say their say? That the public is aware that an offense happened? That you feel better having expressed your sentiments and now your conscience is clear?
Let's envision a scenario: your kid is bullied on the bus, constantly. Every day going to school is like a torture. You as the parent, are unaware. You know your kid is hurting about something, but you haven't found out why yet, you haven't found the right question to open that silence. Then one day, your child decides they aren't going to be bullied anymore, so they punch the bully kid in the face on the bus. Your kid is reported to the school office, and the bully kid appears to be innocent. Your kid is now the one in trouble!
That's why Fi goes public. To ensure the provocateur is duly recognized, rightly disciplined. Very few people pop their Fi cork for something to do. They do it because all of the data is vital to ensure a fair verdict. The bully kid should not be permitted to remain anonymous or appear innocent.
If you have done this and it hasn't turned out well for you (in a workplace setting, etc), does that affect what you do the next time? How would you see a person in charge ideally responding to that kind of outpouring? How would you see co-workers ideally responding?
It's a recurring theme in my life. I am required to do what I must do. I don't mean that in some holier than thou martyr way.
A person in charge could best address this via active listening, making sure the Fi person feels heard. Co-workers the same - the problem is many people shy away from outpourings of emotional expression, finding them somehow distasteful. But we all have emotions! Why not just honor them for what they are, without judging. It makes it far more likely they'll have less and less impact over time, because they have been heard.
To ignore Fi for me would be like knowing someone cut the brakes in your car but I let you go for a drive anyway. I see the problem, and will try to interact with you to ensure we're all going to be OK.