[NF] When Fe & Fi Go Awry: The Definitive NF guide to F-ness (Let the Antics Ensue)

[PeaceBaby]

How does Fi get anything done if it's rejected the idea of group dynamics?

I can't stress enough how far off the mark this is for me. No offence intended Tallulah, but I don't understand how this is a logical conclusion - who is rejecting group dynamics?

Here's how I would handle a situation in which we're all trying to come to a compromise. I would listen to all perspectives, trying to figure out which would suit the needs of the most people, or failing that, the intended purposes of the group. I would realize that this means I myself might not get exactly what I need from the compromise, but that it might be better for the group overall. I will make a suggestion as to the best solution, and if that goes over well, I'll work on making everyone happy and refining the solution, possibly including a plan to accommodate other members more fully the next time. If someone pipes up with a better alternative solution, I'm absolutely open to that. Fe, for me, is not about excluding good alternative ideas. It IS, however, about making the majority of people happy, or at least being fair.

Sounds like a fine approach to me. But, the last time I felt really heard by Fe ... ?

I'll share a personal story, NOT with the intent for you all to tell me what I could have done better.

A couple of years ago we went on an extended family vakay, including my family, my ENFJ sister-in-law (we'll call her 'N') and her husband & kids, and my MIL. As usual, I do the research, finding out what everyone wants to do and where we can best meet all those needs and wants, and then plan & book the trip; my MIL has confidence (I suppose) that I can sort out all the details plus take care of all the people issues in the process. Fair enough, and true that. Plus it can be fun looking at all the possibilities! (And I know I could just say NO at this point because I know what kind of issues to expect and I could avoid having to get saddled with the tasks, but I don't. OK? I try to be a help.)

Anyways, I find this great deal early on in my research, but to do due diligence, I check out some additional resorts, compare prices, wheel & deal to get us the best price. Everyone is happy, MIL approves, but just before booking the trip, I mean, same day I am about to PAY and less than two weeks before we leave, the sis-in-law decides she wants to change countries we are looking at. Countries! And my MIL doesn't say no, she says, "Well, if that's what 'N' wants ..." Because, no one wants to pi** off 'N'!

So, OK fine, to keep everyone happy, I look at the new country, and behold - I see this great deal where we could all be in a 5 bedroom 4000 sq ft beachside villa, same cost - the most unique and best value of everything I have found so far! So, I get excited about that! But, sis-in-law doesn't like it because there's not unlimited drinks, so OF COURSE we are not going to choose that, and I feel annoyed to have my time thusly wasted, and my previous and present rational analyses discarded on a whim. (We ended up going to the first option I recommended anyway btw, and it was a great resort, so I had back-up plans crafted to suit these kinds of last-minute problems.)

But, I was annoyed with sis-in-law being over-represented, and at this point in my life I am not prepared to just swallow all my feelings on the matter. So, after I gather the courage to face her Fe fire and say I hadn't felt equally heard by her, that my opinion seemed to somehow matter less, you know what she said to me? "This was a democracy PB, and I didn't think your idea was what we wanted to do, so I guess YOU LOST." So, I am heard, but dismissed; majority rules, and my feelings don't matter either, apparently. I lost. Nice.

Fe does work like this AT TIMES, believing it knows what is best for all but really it's just best for the Fe user (not all the time of course, but sometimes.)

This is an extreme example to illustrate that point.

I would not say this is expecting some "special snowflake treatment" on my part, it's just the decency to treat someone on an even & equal level. My SIL would even believe she was being open and fair, which compounds the issue because she doesn't see how her own preferences already bias finding a fair solution for all! She has already made up her mind on several key factors and will not budge. So who is really making everyone happy, who is forced to flex? Usually I don't mind, because broaching the subject is hardly worth the trouble. But sometimes ... you know, I matter. I am important too. I have opinions, even if I am not as vocal about them. Don't pretend we live in a democracy when we really don't.

But let's imagine a work scenario instead now, where the construct of the environment lends itself to clearer examination than situations with baggage attached (with family, etc.) Fe-er holds a meeting, asks for input. Often this is ALL that happens ... it can appear as lip service to the task to see what's "good" for everyone; it's a different matter to actually create an environment where even the introverts comfortably share, where you are really tapped into everyone on a personal level. Where you sense the inner dissension and probe further to find where you are losing people along the way. I know that's not always practical, but it sure can be affirming and provide a team that's behind you as the leader 100%.

-----

Is it genuinely difficult to accept not getting your ideal desired outcome?

No. If I am not asked, or am asked but dismissed, I will feel annoyed though.

Does compromise of any sort lead you to feel this way?

No. I try for win-win, but it's not always practical. Unless it is a clear moral matter. Then, compromise is not acceptable.

What would you consider to be a good outcome with a Fe user? One where you felt valued. Are you okay with a compromise outcome if the Fe user heard you out and explored the possibilities, but ultimately felt that it wouldn't best suit the needs of the group?

Yes, generally, unless it is a clear moral matter. Then again, compromise is not acceptable.

I think what's hard for me to understand is that I can't imagine there ever being a situation in which each and every member of the group felt like every shade and nuance of their opinion was validated and a solution emerged in which everyone was 100% happy.

It takes a lot of work, yes. It's not about making everyone 100% happy, so much as making people feeling validated, like they matter too even if the decision is not their favored outcome.

We just haven't cared about you MORE than the other person.

We know.

 

[Thalassa]

Fe people will take more time to nurture you and give you exactly what you need if they favor you. In fact, it is part of their MO to know how to give other people exactly what they want or need...when they want to. Otherwise it can very well look like button pushing, manipulation, or just more neutral compromise for the sake of the group.

I don't have as much problem with Fe as some Fi users do (in fact I score pretty high on Fe on functions tests, and have questioned being an INFJ in the past) especially in IxFJ types. In fact, I think the only time I really HATE Fe is when I really clash with the individual and the particular way they are weilding Fe, and often times that's been with other women, often older women, or women in positions of authority, though I wouldn't apply it at all to my ENFJ bff from high school, nor to my ESFJ close friend who was once my neighbor.

So it really comes down to individual.

 

[Thalassa]

^ Thanks Tallulah. I don't have anything to add to what you've said, but I do think I understand the nuances you are emphasizing here.

I was just finishing dinner and contemplating that if the result is all that matters in the end, what purpose then is introverted feeling after all?

Somehow, intentions must matter. A person's interior state has some bearing. If you act from a place of insincerity and it can be detected ..... ahh, I don't know. Just rambling a bit.

Some of this discussion is difficult to unwind for me because I am an SO dominant. I work hard to help people get along, and I can see how important outcomes are; in some ways I undoubtedly look like Fe IRL. The overlap makes it tough to be completely objective and discerning.

It's called "yeah yeah yeah-ing" people and it's actually an extremely effective tool if you don't have the time or the energy to fight with people and don't want to hurt people's feelings. It's really more practical to do this in some relationships, and actually I think this is frequently adopted by Fi/Te or Te/Fi users as "pseudo-Fe" just to get annoying or draining people to shut up or go away.

It's the idea that what matters in the end is how you are treating people, even if inside you are bored or annoyed.

 

[Southern Kross]

In my band, for instance, we often disagree about what places we want to play, what songs we want to play, how often we want to gig, etc. In order for us to function well, we have to realize a) what's good for the band as a whole might not be good for one or more of us individually at the time, but b) we might get our way the next time, on a different issue, because we care about each other and want everyone to ultimately be happy/heard. One of my friends in the band sometimes wants me to stick up for her so she'll have more leverage and get what she wants. But in doing so, she's negating the fact that I also have a perspective that needs consideration.

I guess I don't understand not caring about other people's needs. Paying attention only to one's internal state and not caring about the group at all seems counterproductive, to me. How does Fi get anything done if it's rejected the idea of group dynamics?

I think you'll find an INFP won't necessarily will create dissent in group situations nor are we unable to get past our own needs. We don't think in terms of the group as a whole but as a group of individuals. We respect that others have different needs than us and seek to create harmony by giving each person an opportunity to express their different perspectives and finding a common ground we can move forward from. However we also recognize that what one individual believes to be for the good of the group can differ greatly from what another deems to be best. And just because everyone else agrees on something doesn't necessarily mean that its for the good of the group. I have been in creative group situations where I have tried express myself only to be continually shot down. It can be a very lonely and overwhelming position to be told with annoyance, "no one else wants to do that", especially when my ideas have some worth.

I do agree with you that rocking the boat for the selfish reasons isn't usually appropriate. However, this can be merely a false perception: what can seem to be selfish and unnecessary dissent can in fact be the great idea that you refuse to hear. Not that I'm saying that your bandmate is an Fi user or that this is simply a case of misunderstanding (she might just be a naggy bitch ).

 

[Seymour]

This is meant as a serious question, because it strikes at the heart of the breakdown in Fe/Fi interaction in many cases. Many Fe users see the above reaction as sort of a "special snowflake syndrome." Is it genuinely difficult to accept not getting your ideal desired outcome? Does compromise of any sort lead you to feel this way? This is what Fe doesn't understand. We're generally fine with not getting our ultimate desired outcome if the compromise is fair. To us, not being willing to accept any perspective but your own seems, for lack of a better word, immature. I know that's not where you're coming from, but that's what it seems like to an Fe user, so I realize there's a disconnect thing happening here. What would you consider to be a good outcome with a Fe user? One where you felt valued. Are you okay with a compromise outcome if the Fe user heard you out and explored the possibilities, but ultimately felt that it wouldn't best suit the needs of the group?

This turned out a little long and rambly. Therefore, headings will fix everything.

Parallel with Te/Ti

I find a parallel with the Te/Ti divide is sometimes illuminating.

Suppose you work for an organization (say a software company) and there is a policy in place which is the "standard" for the organization. Now, suppose there is a particular area (say a software project) in which you are an INTP expert with tons of depth-knowledge. Further, you see that the policy makes no sense in this particular case. In fact, it's actively bad in this particular case and will tromp all over the what clarity and precision you've worked hard to build up. Perhaps your project has been "flying under the radar," and management only recently became aware that you weren't following the company policy.

Now, the INTP's I work with are unlikely to say "it's consistent with what management generally does, so my project being mangled is an acceptable trade-off." Instead, I hear things like "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." and complaints about "stupid management" that lacks anything but the most shallow of understandings of the issues in question.

The underlying complaint is usually about the imprecision and bluntness of Te (especially as wielded by people removed from the specifics) and how inefficient and just plain wrong it can be given the specifics of the situation. It's even worse if the INTPs must personally implement the "stupidity" themselves. Their Ti-based judgments tell them how wrong and non-optimal the policy is every step of the way... so it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to them.

So, that's the kind of subjective reaction an INFP may have in an equivalent Fe/Fi scenario. Plus, we tend to be tuned into the ways the needs of others that may be trampled upon by the group... so we tend to speak up not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of others.

That isn't to say than we can't be selfish, or that Fe-folk can't be sensitive, obliging and creative in finding ways to get everyone's needs met and maximize the common good. It's just that Fi-users tends to experience social expectations as arbitrary and oppressive, whereas Fe tends to see non-conforming individuals as arbitrary and selfish. A full appreciation of the other's perspective is lacking on both sides.

Groups and me

(Some of this may be influenced by the intersection of my enneagram type and not being an SO instinctual type... so not claiming any INFP universality)

I personally find that groups tend to be not terribly real or important for me on the whole—only individuals are. It's odd, because as someone who is fairly Ne-oriented I'm all about abstraction and generalization. Somehow that intuitive tendency to generalize flies out the window when it come to people. It's almost as though each person is their own self-contained theoretical universe and the group has little reality or worth by comparison. So, for me it can take an active effort to remind myself that the group, itself, may have value and represent something of worth.

Meanwhile, I do find value in my relationships with individuals, having positive interactions with others, and trying to contribute to a positive emotional environment. I value getting along when possible (as long as my ethics are uncompromised) and usually am very easy going. I will, however, opt out of things that don't meet my needs if I feel like my contribution won't add much.

I think, ironically, that the sometimes utilitarian nature of Fe combined with my externally easygoing nature means that my needs often get ignored by Fe users. There's not much utility in seeing to my needs, since I'm okay with most reasonable outcomes in many situations. This can sometimes leads to a pattern in which the only times I get Fe attention is when I do finally balk and draw a line. I think this dynamic can add to a negative perception of Fe, since some of us get more personal experience of the stick than the carrot.

 

[Thalassa]

Plus, it can be apparent when Fe-ers are "going through the motions" believing their actions a sufficient concealment of their true feelings or intent. I have observed Fe-ers in conversation, displaying the finest, most congenial smiles, head nods and eye contact, coming across like the following to me: "I will look like I am interested in what 'Joe' has to say because that's what I am supposed to do here, BUT I THINK HE'S AN IDIOT AND JUST WISH HE WOULD SHUT UP." As an FYI, the caps is what an Fi-er is likely hearing you "say" too, and this data has meaning to us. Thus, Fe actions can appear contrived well beyond the necessity of social convention. Fi, at times like this, feels like a kind of sincerity filter. Believe me, 'Joe' may very well be a tool, and I probably wish 'Joe' would shut up too, and I could easily see myself getting trapped in a conversation with him, but just looking like you care about what someone has to say is not enough to convince the whole audience. Sometimes I don't think Fe-ers "get" that fact. It's the root I suppose of why some people can accuse Fe of being "fake", even though in Fe hearts I know, there often reside wonderful, pure feelings and motives.

Yes, and this is how Fe is thus deceived; I can play the role and do good works or what's socially expected of me, even if my heart is contrary. Fe doesn't seem to know or care otherwise sometimes, assuming more often that because I am being good my actions are coming from a good place in my heart.

Well, it is good to be kind to people. There is something to be said for someone who thinks in the end of the consequence of their actions toward others. There is a definite goodness in it, though it may not comprise the entirety of what "goodness" is.

Also, I can tell you that if you're intimate or very close friends with someone with a lot of Fe, they'll sit and tell you what they really think, or admit people or situations where they are just going through the motions, and tell you what they really feel. Sometimes I think they just reserve this for people they know well.

I can understand that and relate to it in some cases, actually. With some situations and some people there's just no freakin' common sense in being totally honest, or compromising the way you treat people for the sake of internal feelings.

 

[Adasta]

I'm going to try and tackle some of the problems that have cropped up with Fe/Fi. The major caveat is that I'm going to be speaking from an INFP perspective since it is also my own perspective; therefore, it is the one which I feel most capable of describing. You will have to extract the "Fi-ness" from the "INFPness" yourselves!

Group Dynamics

As an INFP, I have no problem with being in a group. As has been previously pointed out, people are often mistaken in thinking that, because I am not screaming and shouting my ideas up front, like an E-type may do, I am obviously shy/scared/lacking in confidence. Far from it. In fact, I'm quite confident in what I believe, to the extent that I don't need to show other people that I believe what I believe through outward display. If I'm really confident about something then, through my silence, I am actually exuding my confidence. Although a man, I identify with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's ideological retort: "You turn if you want to; the lady's not for turning." This is perhaps how one should view an INFP within a group situation: completely at ease and a genial member of the team until s/he is transgressed, or his/her ideals are transgressed. For an INFP, an ideological transgression is tantamount to a personal attack.

With regards to others in a group: I do not prioritise harmony in the same way I do "rightness", or moral fortitude. This is often where INFP "arrogance" or "self-righteous" creeps in. I do not reject group dynamics, but I see it as expendable in the face of another's ideological duplicity. I can tolerate those who views differ from my own - indeed, I have many friends with whom I do not agree on some subjects - but it is when a person contravenes an "integral quality" (honesty, for example) that group dynamics becomes meaningless. At that point, loyalty to my own beliefs is paramount; I wouldn't care if a crowd of people at a party saw as I launched into a verbal attack on someone who was lying to me or trying to deceive me. To me, the primary of ideological fastidiousness (i.e. I am an honest man; lying is deceitful) takes precedence above all. I would not seek to accommodate this person any longer; having shown themselves to be completely other to me in this way, s/he no longer warrants my attention.

Personality

INFPs can work well in groups, but hate being considered part of a group. This is paradoxical to others, but makes perfect sense to us. Even if there were to be a group of INFPs working together, I'm sure we would feel as if we were a collection of individuals working towards a shared goal; "group mentality" would not apply in the same way as to others, who would form a "team". Anyone who watches programmes like The Apprentice would notice that those (Extroverts) who want to win will form a "team" to achieve that goal. INFPs would probably try to assign the most applicable role to each person, and then all be off on their merry way carrying out their tasks. I am not saying this would make it a successful group per se, but rather use this example to illustrate how the INFP personality could work.

Now, Fe are here presented as "group managers". This is all well and good until you get a tricky INFP to deal with! While Fe likes to hear everyone's side of the story and attempt to aggregate a solution that benefits all, INFPs lose interest once they feel slighted in some way. The ways in which this may occur are multifarious: someone could consider what we feel to be important as banal; someone could be unjust; someone could be cruel; someone could be a brat. Once this occurs, it's hard to bring an INFP round because the overriding feeling becomes one of pointlessness and, eventually, of withdrawal. INFPs are usually aware that they could be excellent contributors and offer something genuinely unique/different, but if they feel as if this won't be appreciated, they will not try: it seems pointless to do so.

People can easily look at an INFP and see them as a whiny child who wants special attention. But in these situations, you reap what you sow. If you treat INFPs in a cursory fashion, expect that to be returned to you. If Fe is trying to make sure everyone's happy and, for whatever reason, the INFP is not, unless you recognise this the INFP will you treat as s/he will treat the others: as a member of a group to which s/he feels no affiliation. This is not a case of throwing one's toys out of the pram, but rather a case of treating the INFP as individual in a collection of people and not as a "group member". In a group of 12, an INFP would not be content with simply being "No. 7", for example. It's not that the INFP desperately wants to stand out; it's more that we don't want to blend in.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm going to try and tackle some of the problems that have cropped up with Fe/Fi. The major caveat is that I'm going to be speaking from an INFP perspective since it is also my own perspective; therefore, it is the one which I feel most capable of describing. You will have to extract the "Fi-ness" from the "INFPness" yourselves!

Group Dynamics

As an INFP, I have no problem with being in a group. As has been previously pointed out, people are often mistaken in thinking that, because I am not screaming and shouting my ideas up front, like an E-type may do, I am obviously shy/scared/lacking in confidence. Far from it. In fact, I'm quite confident in what I believe, to the extent that I don't need to show other people that I believe what I believe through outward display. If I'm really confident about something then, through my silence, I am actually exuding my confidence. Although a man, I identify with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's ideological retort: "You turn if you want to; the lady's not for turning." This is perhaps how one should view an INFP within a group situation: completely at ease and a genial member of the team until s/he is transgressed, or his/her ideals are transgressed. For an INFP, an ideological transgression is tantamount to a personal attack.

With regards to others in a group: I do not prioritise harmony in the same way I do "rightness", or moral fortitude. This is often where INFP "arrogance" or "self-righteous" creeps in. I do not reject group dynamics, but I see it as expendable in the face of another's ideological duplicity. I can tolerate those who views differ from my own - indeed, I have many friends with whom I do not agree on some subjects - but it is when a person contravenes an "integral quality" (honesty, for example) that group dynamics becomes meaningless. At that point, loyalty to my own beliefs is paramount; I wouldn't care if a crowd of people at a party saw as I launched into a verbal attack on someone who was lying to me or trying to deceive me. To me, the primary of ideological fastidiousness (i.e. I am an honest man; lying is deceitful) takes precedence above all. I would not seek to accommodate this person any longer; having shown themselves to be completely other to me in this way, s/he no longer warrants my attention.

Personality

INFPs can work well in groups, but hate being considered part of a group. This is paradoxical to others, but makes perfect sense to us. Even if there were to be a group of INFPs working together, I'm sure we would feel as if we were a collection of individuals working towards a shared goal; "group mentality" would not apply in the same way as to others, who would form a "team". Anyone who watches programmes like The Apprentice would notice that those (Extroverts) who want to win will form a "team" to achieve that goal. INFPs would probably try to assign the most applicable role to each person, and then all be off on their merry way carrying out their tasks. I am not saying this would make it a successful group per se, but rather use this example to illustrate how the INFP personality could work.

Now, Fe are here presented as "group managers". This is all well and good until you get a tricky INFP to deal with! While Fe likes to hear everyone's side of the story and attempt to aggregate a solution that benefits all, INFPs lose interest once they feel slighted in some way. The ways in which this may occur are multifarious: someone could consider what we feel to be important as banal; someone could be unjust; someone could be cruel; someone could be a brat. Once this occurs, it's hard to bring an INFP round because the overriding feeling becomes one of pointlessness and, eventually, of withdrawal. INFPs are usually aware that they could be excellent contributors and offer something genuinely unique/different, but if they feel as if this won't be appreciated, they will not try: it seems pointless to do so.

People can easily look at an INFP and see them as a whiny child who wants special attention. But in these situations, you reap what you sow. If you treat INFPs in a cursory fashion, expect that to be returned to you. If Fe is trying to make sure everyone's happy and, for whatever reason, the INFP is not, unless you recognise this the INFP will you treat as s/he will treat the others: as a member of a group to which s/he feels no affiliation. This is not a case of throwing one's toys out of the pram, but rather a case of treating the INFP as individual in a collection of people and not as a "group member". In a group of 12, an INFP would not be content with simply being "No. 7", for example. It's not that the INFP desperately wants to stand out; it's more that we don't want to blend in.

Ok. Thanks for this. I'm definitely not an INFP. Moving along.

 

[Adasta]

Ok. Thanks for this. I'm definitely not an INFP. Moving along.

Yeah and I'm definitely not Fe.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah and I'm definitely not Fe.

Well, I was considering INFP because of the strength of my Si and also because I test INFP or INFJ quite a bit, and also because apparently INFPs *should* have a stronger grasp of Fe according to shadow function theory, but there's just no way. I love being part of a group or accepted by a group, and a lot of times when I read some of these descriptions of INFP needs I have that little tinge of annoyance that other people report, what you were referencing to as children throwing toys out the pram, that's how it strikes me.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Here's how I would handle a situation in which we're all trying to come to a compromise. I would listen to all perspectives, trying to figure out which would suit the needs of the most people, or failing that, the intended purposes of the group. I would realize that this means I myself might not get exactly what I need from the compromise, but that it might be better for the group overall. I will make a suggestion as to the best solution, and if that goes over well, I'll work on making everyone happy and refining the solution, possibly including a plan to accommodate other members more fully the next time. If someone pipes up with a better alternative solution, I'm absolutely open to that. Fe, for me, is not about excluding good alternative ideas. It IS, however, about making the majority of people happy, or at least being fair.

How does a Fi-dom NOT do this also? I don't understand how you got the impression that INFPs insist on their own way without caring about what others feel & need. INFPs are usually VERY diplomatic in group situations; I'd argue far more so than the average person with tert or inferior Feeling... I find Fe tends to go with the loudest voices at times, and Fi people will make a special effort to draw out those who seem to be steamrolled over, that way a TRUE consensus can be made. There is also the matter of the consensus not being good in itself, which has been touched on by other posters. Mob mentality is dangerous, and that's what Fe feels like to a Fi-dom sometimes. It's the whole "everyone is jumping off a bridge, so you should too" attitude that will make a Fi-er suddenly be the voice of dissent; otherwise, we're probably some of the most easy-going & flexible group members, happy to accommodate other people's needs/ideas to an extent others are not.

This is meant as a serious question, because it strikes at the heart of the breakdown in Fe/Fi interaction in many cases. Many Fe users see the above reaction as sort of a "special snowflake syndrome." Is it genuinely difficult to accept not getting your ideal desired outcome? Does compromise of any sort lead you to feel this way? This is what Fe doesn't understand. We're generally fine with not getting our ultimate desired outcome if the compromise is fair. To us, not being willing to accept any perspective but your own seems, for lack of a better word, immature. I know that's not where you're coming from, but that's what it seems like to an Fe user, so I realize there's a disconnect thing happening here. What would you consider to be a good outcome with a Fe user? One where you felt valued. Are you okay with a compromise outcome if the Fe user heard you out and explored the possibilities, but ultimately felt that it wouldn't best suit the needs of the group?

You're putting this in a context which entirely twists the point into something else that was not implied by me (or others from what I can tell). It's not a matter of Fi-doms selfishly pushing for their own ideal & pouting when not heard. The ideal is NOT all about the Fi-doms personal values at all. An INFP is very likely to be acutely aware of how much other people's needs differ & that there is often no blanket standard that works for everyone. The INFP is NOT just looking out for their own needs, but those of the other individuals also. The Ne possibilities works both ways - to both conceive of a variety of acceptable solutions and to accept a variety from others, able to see how other people's ideas fit the basic value at stake. In this sense, the INFP adapts more to the individuals involved & the specific context, where Fe seems to want to implement rules for everyone to adapt to & make every context "standardized". Of course, the Fe method promotes stability by bringing in a measure of predictability & asking people to compromise. The Fi method works on the premise that nothing is fully predictable, so it's better to be flexible & adapt as you go. It's a form of compromise also, so that Fi is not that threatened by Fe. Fe seems MUCH more threatened by Fi, from my perspective, but Fi feels more repressed. It's pretty classic J vs P stuff in that respect.

I think what's hard for me to understand is that I can't imagine there ever being a situation in which each and every member of the group felt like every shade and nuance of their opinion was validated and a solution emerged in which everyone was 100% happy. Making one person 100% happy is inevitably going to make the next person 50% happy or 2% happy or 0% happy. (Also, "happy" looks weird when you type it over and over.)

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the ideal outcome. It's more of a general win-win than a 100% perfect goal. A strength of FiNe IS seeing new, better ways to meet individual needs of the group without trampling group needs. It is a strength of FiNe (or NeFi also) to be innovative in dealing with people instead of adhering to shared values. I'd argue that many Fe values have roots in Fi ideals, and Fi is the force which continues to seek refinement of these, just as Fe seeks to make them as workable & encompassing of as many people as possible. Sometimes when Fe is trying to stabilize, Fi (via Ne in this case) is trying to innovate, and that can cause a clash, but much of the time it can be complementary.

It's an uphill battle though when there is an automatic rejection of a new approach simply because it is not the Fe standard approach. It can begin to feel that the rules violate their own principles when there is not enough flexibility for the individual's needs (that individual being other people too, not just the NFP). I realize this has shades of Si in it, but there are some aspects which seem to occur in NFJs also, as far as their having very singular visions at times.

I think you'll find an INFP won't necessarily will create dissent in group situations nor are we unable to get past our own needs. We don't think in terms of the group as a whole but as a group of individuals. We respect that others have different needs than us and seek to create harmony by giving each person an opportunity to express their different perspectives and finding a common ground we can move forward from. However we also recognize that what one individual believes to be for the good of the group can differ greatly from what another deems to be best. And just because everyone else agrees on something doesn't necessarily mean that its for the good of the group. I have been in creative group situations where I have tried express myself only to be continually shot down. It can be a very lonely and overwhelming position to be told with annoyance, "no one else wants to do that", especially when my ideas have some worth.

I do agree with you that rocking the boat for the selfish reasons isn't usually appropriate. However, this can be merely a false perception: what can seem to be selfish and unnecessary dissent can in fact be the great idea that you refuse to hear. Not that I'm saying that your bandmate is an Fi user or that this is simply a case of misunderstanding (she might just be a naggy bitch ).

 

[Adasta]

Well, I was considering INFP because of the strength of my Si and also because I test INFP or INFJ quite a bit, and also because apparently INFPs *should* have a stronger grasp of Fe according to shadow function theory, but there's just no way. I love being part of a group or accepted by a group, and a lot of times when I read some of these descriptions of INFP needs I have that little tinge of annoyance that other people report, what you were referencing to as children throwing toys out the pram, that's how it strikes me.

So be it. There are pros and cons to each type. Group acceptance isn't a big thing to me, which I feel to be a pro.

 

[Tallulah]

Still processing y'all's responses about INFPs in groups. Might take a while to sink in. Meanwhile, I'll say this: I have definitely been on the receiving end of the Fe battering ram. The ENFJ bandmate I was talking about can definitely run roughshod over the others in the group, and I have had to stand my ground more forcefully than I usually do. It's frustrating when you are compromising and thinking of making someone happy, and they just take it for granted, then don't seem to take your opinions into consideration when it's important to you. It seems like they're not living up to their end of the bargain. She's not like that all the time, but when she is, it's exhausting and infuriating. Your SIL, PeaceBaby, sounds like a real piece of work, and she probably is taking advantage of the fact that you'll keep the peace and/or go with the flow. She is probably the type with whom you'll have to get forceful. Show her you matter.

 

[Ginkgo]

Nobody wants to talk about how Fi and Fe love each other? :sad:

 

[Unkindloving]

Nobody wants to talk about how Fi and Fe love each other? :sad:

 

[Thalassa]

Nobody wants to talk about how Fi and Fe love each other? :sad:

I do!!!!

 

[cafe]

I love my INFP and INTJ daughters and they use Fi. The INFP and I had to sort of learn how to navigate emotion around one another a fair bit. Not perfect, but functional. She is really quite easy to please contrary to how Fi is sounding to me in this thread right now. The INTJ has been known to scold me for dishonoring her by carrying heavy things while she is present -- I should let her do it because she is 'manlier.' The INTJ is sardonic and the INFP is fierce.

They are both delightful and precious the majority of the time . . . but now I have to ask the INFP if she put away the dishes and she might growl at me and then I will tell her that I will color her hair when she gets done if she hasn't already done it.

 

[OrangeAppled]

It is the "gone awry" thread after all...

 

[skylights]

brace yourselves, long post ahead

This is meant as a serious question, because it strikes at the heart of the breakdown in Fe/Fi interaction in many cases. Many Fe users see the above reaction as sort of a "special snowflake syndrome." Is it genuinely difficult to accept not getting your ideal desired outcome?

it is if people have purposely neglected to acknowledge all the options.

like OrangeAppled has has pointed out, Ne is tailored to finding new solutions. so when you say "it's not possible" to meet everyone's needs, on some level i know that's true, but on another level, i feel like with a little thought, we can meet each person's basic needs and rights and find a solution that is not harmful to anyone. the issue that i see with some compromises is that there are many different sorts of concessions that can be made in a compromise. the fact that you are 50% happy and i am 50% happy doesn't mean that we're winning and losing equally in terms of what really matters. there are so many different shades of meaning that i can't even begin to picture a real 50/50 situation. it's another example of how Fi is extremely subjective and person-specific. combine Ne and Fi and you get a talent for adapting people to situations, and situations to people. just like NFJs see into the future where NFPs don't, NFPs see present options that NFJs do not - and both of these talents should be taken advantage of if we want the best for everyone.

i'll give a real-life example - in a social club i'm in (mostly Fe doms, no question), we have a certain number of offices that need to be held. several of them are senior offices, with more responsibility and more influence, and a few in particular are subject to dealing with a lot of criticism by the nature of their role. we were electing people several years ago when we were short one senior officer, and a very new person stepped forward. she was quiet, sweet, naive, and was already having some trouble fitting in. i could see it already - she would get destroyed in that office. normally new people aren't allowed to hold that office for precisely that reason, but the majority of the group acknowledged that she volunteered and they didn't want to discuss (essentially ruled out the possibility of) other options, and elected her in. and, at no surprise to me, she got destroyed in that office: low self-confidence, ostracization, people not taking the office seriously. that compromise was like 90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-90-10(her).

what i don't agree with is the idea that it's okay that she got the short end of the stick because it worked well enough for everyone else. she also volunteered because she thought she could handle it, but the senior officers were full well aware that she really wasn't ready. so it looked like she was happy with the decision - we had "group consensus" at the time - but it wasn't good for her as an individual, and there were other paths that could have been pursued: her duties could have been split into two lesser offices, two people could have taken the office together, etc. it was "best for the group" that she take the office, in the words of one senior officer, but in the end, it was quite harmful to her, and the group didn't make a concerted effort to prevent that. the worst part is that many, if not most, people could see it coming, and just chalked it up to an unfortunate sacrifice.

and if we treat her like that, it stands to reason that eventually we will treat everyone like that. everyone in turn will be hurt because we keep sacrificing one another for the sake of the group. the kicker was that ultimately, the fact that she had such a hard time meant that she couldn't fulfill the role she was supposed to fill, so others had to put in extra work that they technically weren't supposed to, so there was additional confusion and upset, which ended up damaging the whole group. and that's what Fi sees - that each individual must be fundamentally just as important as the group because there is no group without each individual.

it's shitty math, sure, that the parts equal the whole... but then, that's why we're not Ts!

and seriously, IRL, that's how you wind up with people seemingly spontaneously but consistently dropping out. they join the group and get attention, everyone agrees, things seem awesome for a while... and then they disagree with the group about something. suddenly the group isn't so interested in what they have to say, and they begin to wonder if the group really ever cared about them at all (which it did!) the secret to preventing that is to have group consensus but also to make sure each individual feels like they are considered and valued. Fe and Fi.

Does compromise of any sort lead you to feel this way?

compromise is essential to relationships. i do not begrudge it as a general rule (though some compromises are particularly unpleasant!), and it helps us see beyond the limitations of our own perspectives.

To us, not being willing to accept any perspective but your own seems, for lack of a better word, immature.

oh yes. but it's the same with Fe users. Ni and Si can be incredibly narrow, especially in group consensus.

What would you consider to be a good outcome with a Fe user? One where you felt valued. Are you okay with a compromise outcome if the Fe user heard you out and explored the possibilities, but ultimately felt that it wouldn't best suit the needs of the group?

sure, and i think Fe users generally make better group leaders anyway. still, i would want a Fi person somewhere high in the ranking, lest anyone get willfully ignored, or the Fe user start to take the group down their own personal path. Fe is persuasive, and i've clearly seen before where a Fe user decides that their personal opinion is the consensus of the group. or they decide to consistently overlook a specific person they don't like, especially if (and often because) that person moves in a bit of a different direction than the rest of the group.

But what about in groups that are important to you, where the individual members are your friends? What about in groups where harmony is important for the sake of staying together long term, like in a band, a family, or a marriage?

i am in several groups like this. i do feel like balance is essential. imo, let a Fe be pilot and a Fi be copilot. i feel like both Fe and Fi users will attend to their personal "favorites", and both can help balance the other out. Fe will sway group consensus to attend to their favorites' opinions, and Fi will give more attention to spending more time with the favorites and hearing their ideas out more. it's not like Fe users don't show individuals preference either, but i feel like they do it in an opposite way. if you're on Fi's good side, you're included. if you're on Fe's good side, you're not excluded.

Paying attention only to one's internal state and not caring about the group at all seems counterproductive, to me. How does Fi get anything done if it's rejected the idea of group dynamics?

Fi does not reject group dynamics. after all, interpersonal relations are built off the basis of two or more individuals, plus we wouldn't have more individuals if we did not have group relations read: sex. Fi simply does not attend to group dynamics. fortunately, we all have both Fe and Fi.

If you saw a chess board and had never played chess before, would you point to each square and ask which pieces can move there, or figure out what each piece is and how it can move?

the pieces. is that the right Fi answer?

I think, ironically, that the sometimes utilitarian nature of Fe combined with my externally easygoing nature means that my needs often get ignored by them. There's not much utility in seeing to my needs, since I'm okay with most reasonable outcomes in many situations. This can sometimes leads to a pattern in which the only times I get Fe attention is when I do finally balk and draw a line. I think this dynamic can add to a negative perception of Fe, since some of us get more personal experience of the stick than the carrot.

YES. i am a group junkie but simultaneously have a slight fear of groups. i always feel like i expect that i will be accepted by an individual, but rejected by a group. i've had the same experience of conceding often, so when i finally speak up because i see something as very important, people think it's unreasonable of me.

it's actually really funny to hear all of these implications that Fi users don't like compromise. i compromise all the time. i'm usually happy to let a Fe user take the lead we're together, because they have a more directed agenda than myself. and that's totally fine with me, but it shouldn't be overlooked that i'm often rearranging my own priorities to meet their needs, so on the few occasions that i do have strong feelings, i expect that they will be willing to consider subverting their personal priorities for me as well. that's a compromise in and of itself: i let Fe take the wheel the vast majority of the time, provided that when i see a pressing reason to want to take it, i can take it. ime, it ends up that Fe is a better leader when things are going right and Fi is a better leader when things aren't. ideally, we can both optimize our individual Ni-Fe and Ne-Fi skills to meet the needs of ourselves, one another, and the people around us.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

This turned out a little long and rambly. Therefore, headings will fix everything.

I am going to shamelessly steal this for my facebook status update. Fantastic.