Dear Fe User,

[Randomnity]

It is something I was hoping would lead to discussion though - not just pure venting. The fact that a group's norms and values are a certain way does not mean those are right. That is a big part of what I'm saying.

Ok, in that case I'll continue...

It's not better. It's different.

I agree sooo what's the frustration? Is the point that Fe is saying that individual feelings are less important than the feelings of the majority, and this is frustrating? How does Fi reconcile meeting the needs of one individual with meeting the needs of all the individuals (with contradictory feelings), or does the latter just not happen?

It comes from experience and observation. The fact that the judgment is often expressed in a subtle way to maintain harmony does not mean that it is not there. Strong Fe users are judging all of the time whether you know it or not.

Interesting. It's true that if I say something, I believe it to be true or well, I wouldn't be saying it! But I would never mean to imply that my opinion on something is worth more than anyone else's opinion (if roughly equal experience/expertise in the area). That's why all the hemming and hawing and imo's. Do Fi users say things they don't believe are true? That doesn't make sense to me. I must be misunderstanding you.

Is it maybe that....Fe sees it as many opinions, with a "best" answer somewhere (note: not necessarily its own answer), while Fi sees it as many opinions, with no "best" answers anywhere?

I don't see it as much different but I'm sure some artful application of Ti would find find flaws in the nuances of the wording. It's close enough in my opinion.

I'm more interested in the second half - why is something automatically suspect because people agree with it? Is there a sense that it's inauthentic and has been formulated specifically to please people, rather than stating the truth? Given a random statement by an Fe user that 75% of people agree with: If a Fi user agrees with that opinion, is it because it's popular? If a Fe user agrees with it, is it because it's popular? Does people agreeing with it alter the accuracy of the statement, and if so, why?

Fe users generally value harmony and group values. Fe is focused on the object (the feelings of others). Fi users are focused on what they personally feel is important or to the extent something is good or bad. It is their personal appraisal based on their own beliefs, sense of integrity, right and wrong, etc. It is subjective - it comes from within vs. influence of the object. Therefore, by definition, it is less likely to be susceptible to group think/feelings.

Your logic is sound, so I'm not sure why I'm still feeling myself disagree. Nobody really likes to think they would participate in mindless conformity, even though the vast majority of people actually do so in studies (surely not all Fe if we assume the proportions are roughly 50:50 - what they are I have no idea). Even if an Fi user firmly believes something, it doesn't mean they'll speak up about it. Even if an Fe user considers the feelings of the group, it doesn't mean they won't speak up about their objections in a polite way. So, I'm not sure I've seen evidence in my experience that the theory here actually pans out in real life.

Just trying to increase my limited understanding here. Not trying to defend Fe or attack Fi or anything like that.

 

[highlander]

Ok, in that case I'll continue...

I agree sooo what's the frustration? Is the point that Fe is saying that individual feelings are less important than the feelings of the majority, and this is frustrating? How does Fi reconcile meeting the needs of one individual with meeting the needs of all the individuals (with contradictory feelings), or does the latter just not happen?

Fi is not necessarily about meeting the needs of one individual or any group of individuals. It is about one person's beliefs. It is a useful compliment to Fe but can also be drowned out.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." Charles McKay from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

Interesting. It's true that if I say something, I believe it to be true or well, I wouldn't be saying it! But I would never mean to imply that my opinion on something is worth more than anyone else's opinion (if roughly equal experience/expertise in the area). That's why all the hemming and hawing and imo's. Do Fi users say things they don't believe are true? That doesn't make sense to me. I must be misunderstanding you.

Is it maybe that....Fe sees it as many opinions, with a "best" answer somewhere (note: not necessarily its own answer), while Fi sees it as many opinions, with no "best" answers anywhere?

Fi users don't say things they believe are not true and I'm not sure where you get that. I believe that Fe sees a collective set of values and feelings from those it has exposure to and it expresses a judgement which represents the collective value that leads towards harmony - or something like that. It is hesitant to directly express these judgments because it leads to confrontation which opposes the very harmony it seeks.

I'm more interested in the second half - why is something automatically suspect because people agree with it? Is there a sense that it's inauthentic and has been formulated specifically to please people, rather than stating the truth? Given a random statement by an Fe user that 75% of people agree with: If a Fi user agrees with that opinion, is it because it's popular? If a Fe user agrees with it, is it because it's popular? Does people agreeing with it alter the accuracy of the statement, and if so, why?

I don't think it is automatically suspect or inauthentic at all. It is simply a form of judgment that has flaws which must be recognized.

Your logic is sound, so I'm not sure why I'm still feeling myself disagree. Nobody really likes to think they would participate in mindless conformity, even though the vast majority of people actually do so in studies (surely not all Fe if we assume the proportions are roughly 50:50 - what they are I have no idea). Even if an Fi user firmly believes something, it doesn't mean they'll speak up about it. Even if an Fe user considers the feelings of the group, it doesn't mean they won't speak up about their objections in a polite way. So, I'm not sure I've seen evidence in my experience that the theory here actually pans out in real life.

Just trying to increase my limited understanding here. Not trying to defend Fe or attack Fi or anything like that.

I don't think it is "mindless conformity" in any way. When coupled with Si or Ni, the result is a highly sophisticated manner or process of arriving at conclusions. However, as one considers that Te judgment is "brutal" at times, I believe Fe can in it's own way be similarly "brutal," as a form of judgment.

 

[Randomnity]

Fi users don't say things they believe are not true and I'm not sure where you get that. I believe that Fe sees a collective set of values and feelings from those it has exposure to and it expresses a judgement which represents the collective value that leads towards harmony - or something like that. It is hesitant to directly express these judgments because it leads to confrontation which opposes the very harmony it seeks.

To elaborate on this a bit more, you originally were commenting about Fe's "arrogance that its perspective is right", and I was struggling to understand this statement. I guess I'm wondering what Fi is like, if it isn't like that, because I had thought everyone had that "arrogance"! Are you saying that Fi is less certain that it's right, because it's more individualistic? I'm just unsure what the perception of arrogance is tied to. Or are you saying it comes off as arrogant some other way that's unconnected to its message?

I don't think it is automatically suspect or inauthentic at all. It is simply a form of judgment that has flaws which must be recognized.

Just to return to your original statement which I've probably misunderstood:

Also, there is the particular challenge that when the Fe perspective is voiced, others quickly pile on, because of course it reflects a popular view - even if that perspective is wrong.

You seemed to be implying here that people (not sure if everyone or just Fe-people) are agreeing just to be agreeable, or perhaps because of the Fe-polite way it was said, or because they think everyone else agrees...even if they would ordinarily disagree with that perspective. Am I understanding somewhat correctly or way off-base here?

 

[FemMecha]

Based on the theoretical definitions it would be impossible to use only Fi or Fe. I realize that is well-known - that every person uses every function to greater or lesser degrees, but how consistent are preferences? I wonder this especially when they fill such different roles. Everyone has to deal with groups and with personal beliefs, etc. Perhaps it has more to do with how a person integrates the inner and outer subjective realms, rather than which always dominates in its theoretical sense.

My point is questioning the dichotomy created by Fi vs. Fe. I can't see them applied in an isolated manner, although people often identify with one or the other as defining their subjective realm of thought. People say "I am a Fe-user" or "I am a Fi-user". I suppose I read it as "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligences which are not by nature opposing, but two aspects of how a person interacts with the world. Does one have to be a preference or does it change depending on context?

Edit: I guess the question is, if they are not applied in an isolated way, but are more the result of how the two aspects integrate within a person, is it possible to say "Fe does this", and "Fi does this". Or is Fe completely reinterpreted based on how it interacts with a person's Fi, and vice versa?

 

[highlander]

To elaborate on this a bit more, you originally were commenting about Fe's "arrogance that its perspective is right", and I was struggling to understand this statement. I guess I'm wondering what Fi is like, if it isn't like that, because I had thought everyone had that "arrogance"! Are you saying that Fi is less certain that it's right, because it's more individualistic? I'm just unsure what the perception of arrogance is tied to. Or are you saying it comes off as arrogant some other way that's unconnected to its message?

You seemed to be implying here that people (not sure if everyone or just Fe-people) are agreeing just to be agreeable, or perhaps because of the Fe-polite way it was said, or because they think everyone else agrees...even if they would ordinarily disagree with that perspective. Am I understanding somewhat correctly or way off-base here?

I must really not be communicating very well here. I'm a bit stuck on your second comment as to how to better articulate myself.

On the first point - fair point on the arrogance thing. I suppose either an Fe or Fi user could equally think they are right. The thing is that Fe wins over Fi in the short term under almost any scenario unless the Fi user is the one in power. Maybe that is what is frustrating because it does not mean that it is right.

 

[cascadeco]

I must really not be communicating very well here. I'm a bit stuck on your second comment as to how to better articulate myself.

On the first point - fair point on the arrogance thing. I suppose either an Fe or Fi user could equally think they are right. The thing is that Fe wins over Fi in the short term under almost any scenario unless the Fi user is the one in power. Maybe that is what is frustrating because it does not mean that it is right.

An Fi user in power may not be 'right' either, though, but it ends up being kind of a moot point because 'rightness' is in the eye of the beholder/ can be subjective in and of itself, and no one's ever going to agree on what is 'right' and what isn't.

Anyway, as far as Fe winning in almost any scenario, is that due to the fact that Fe will tend to put weight on the majority, because doing so appeases the greatest number of people? I think this is where we enter tricky ground, only because like I just said, we could argue that pretty much any persons' viewpoint is in fact just a viewpoint, and you can't really argue 'rightness' when it comes to most things. So let's say in almost any scenario, the process would be to instead appease the minority and reject the viewpoints' of everyone in the majority. It would then be rather the same thing, it's just that now the minority would be appeased and the majority would be protesting. Someone is always going to get the short end of the stick; I suppose the Fe's 'tactic' is simply to try to account for the most number of people, because it's a given that it's an impossibility to please everyone.

In a sense... yes... the 'majority' will tend to view the minorities views as selfish/insert negative label. I mean I've been in that position too, with my family. Just in simple, everyday situations where three of them want to do one thing and I don't particularly want to and would prefer the other thing. I end up being labeled selfish because my true desires end up not lining up with the desires of everyone else, even though on the same token you could spin it around and say they're being just as selfish, because they're prioritizing their views over mine. Neither is good or bad, right or wrong, it's just that, yes, in the end whatever way ends up fulfilling the needs of the greatest number of people (greatest number of individual opinions) will tend to 'win'.

 

[highlander]

An additional thought - Someone who prefers Fi, I believe, can face continued points of frustration throughout their lives in those situations where what they believe is not in alignment with the collective values of the majority. As one example, I have seen so many situations throughout my life - where an individual is unpopular, ganged up on, not viewed as "a fit', etc. Sometimes, the judgements that are imposed feel unfair though they no doubt do reflect the values and feelings of a majority or a larger group. In a situation where someone is not treated fairly, I can become motivated to protect this person. It is the principle that is important - not so much about what other people think or feel. I think an Fe user looks at the situation very differently. It's bottom line oriented and understands the reality of what others feel or value. That is how in some sense how it is like Te because Te is very much about what is practical and what works.

 

[Randomnity]

Yes, exactly what cascade said. Definitely Fe will tend to be considering the effects of its proposal on the majority, if not their actual opinions of it (which may be different). So it's more likely to be popular (than a proposal benefiting a minority) because its goal will usually be to benefit the most people. If "winning" is by popularity, it makes sense that Fe will "win" more often. I'm honestly having trouble seeing the downside of this, barring of course human rights violations to the minority. Does it not make more sense for everyone (or realistically, most people) to be happy, rather than just one person? Assuming there does have to be a "winner", that is - ideally we would all just get along in peace, I suppose.

So highlander, when you said others would "pile on [to an Fe viewpoint rather than an Fi view], because...it expresses a popular view", why do you think others are piling on?

 

[highlander]

Based on the theoretical definitions it would be impossible to use only Fi or Fe. I realize that is well-known - that every person uses every function to greater or lesser degrees, but how consistent are preferences? I wonder this especially when they fill such different roles. Everyone has to deal with groups and with personal beliefs, etc. Perhaps it has more to do with how a person integrates the inner and outer subjective realms, rather than which always dominates in its theoretical sense.

My point is questioning the dichotomy created by Fi vs. Fe. I can't see them applied in an isolated manner, although people often identify with one or the other as defining their subjective realm of thought. People say "I am a Fe-user" or "I am a Fi-user". I suppose I read it as "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligences which are not by nature opposing, but two aspects of how a person interacts with the world. Does one have to be a preference or does it change depending on context?

Edit: I guess the question is, if they are not applied in an isolated way, but are more the result of how the two aspects integrate within a person, is it possible to say "Fe does this", and "Fi does this". Or is Fe completely reinterpreted based on how it interacts with a person's Fi, and vice versa?

It seems there is a lot of confusion on the overlap between the two functions. Can you elaborate more on why it is impossible to use them in isolation from one another? I actually view them as quite different but am not an Fe or Fi dom or aux.

 

[OrangeAppled]

To elaborate on this a bit more, you originally were commenting about Fe's "arrogance that its perspective is right", and I was struggling to understand this statement. I guess I'm wondering what Fi is like, if it isn't like that, because I had thought everyone had that "arrogance"! Are you saying that Fi is less certain that it's right, because it's more individualistic? I'm just unsure what the perception of arrogance is tied to. Or are you saying it comes off as arrogant some other way that's unconnected to its message?

Of course everyone can be arrogant. If we're talking patterns, then I'd say yes, Fi is less arrogant in this regard exactly because there is an acute awareness that their Feeling is individual, which Fe sometimes lacks. Fe seems to be sure of its rightness, and that's often because, as mentioned, it has the benefit of consensus. It casts a wide net to include as many as possible, but in the process can also alienate some. Fe seeks to affect others, which Fi usually does not. A Fi type affecting its environment or other people is more the effect of Pe, which is IFPs seem to take a casual approach & are not inclined to create much structure when in a leadership role.

A Fi type will almost try to validate all individual feelings, even if they contradict each other; it's very much a "live and let live" attitude. Only occasionally will Fi really assert rightness, and then it's over something felt to be representative of a larger, almost universal issue, something beyond themselves, and it's still often asserted indirectly through personal example or resistance to the percieved violation, rather than pro-actively getting others to act for/against this "cause". Fe seeks to be more directly influential more often, which is partly why it seems to assume it is right, and will assert so more confidently.

When Fi is arrogant, then you'll find it more "elitist". Instead of trying to impose its standards on others, it tries to set its standards apart as superior, and excludes people who don't meet their standard.

And as usual, I speak of rather pure types, as individuals have their P function for balance and it can greatly influence their F function.

 

[IZthe411]

Fe can be exercised through a point that is not popular. Fe is based on a perceived judgement- to act in the interests of what is perceived to be the best way that will satisfy the majority. So a Fe-er can feel that their judgement will satisfy the majority but be totally wrong. "They can feel that everyone loves chocolate ice cream" and bring that to the office party, only to find out that most people don't like it. When they learn that, then they either feel bad or hustle to find out what everyone really likes, and make it right.

 

[Randomnity]

Of course everyone can be arrogant. If we're talking patterns, then I'd say yes, Fi is less arrogant in this regard exactly because there is an acute awareness that their Feeling is individual, which Fe sometimes lacks. Fe seems to be sure of its rightness, and that's often because, as mentioned, it has the benefit of consensus.
...
When Fi is arrogant, then you'll find it more "elitist". Instead of trying to impose its standards on others, it tries to set its standards apart as superior, and excludes people who don't meet their standard.

I wonder if there's an element of different types detecting arrogance differently, too? I see the second ("Fi" in your example) type of arrogance as far more arrogant than the first type. It occurs to me that perhaps Fi users would see it the reverse?

Iz has a good point, too. I'd add to it that Fe can be unpopular in another way, too: if what's (perceived to be) best for the individuals isn't necessarily what they would prefer. So Fe taking a parental or teaching role, I guess.

 

[FemMecha]

It seems there is a lot of confusion on the overlap between the two functions. Can you elaborate more on why it is impossible to use them in isolation from one another? I actually view them as quite different but am not an Fe or Fi dom or aux.

I might be able to give better thought to it on another day, but will do my best. I also am not the best direct source of an example of either since I'm an INFJ that scores higher in Fi on cognitive function tests.

I can see from theory exactly why one could say Fe unites groups in negative emotion and punishment like the proverbial witch hunt. I've also been said to have too much Fe the times I've pushed back against the crowd in defense of a person. Would that then be Fi because of the principle of not ganging up? Or is it Fe because I care about the other person's feelings and being singled out? - or maybe am even trying to restore group cohesion? The motivation to stand up for an ostracized person could be either function, and I'm not even sure that every time I've done it from the same motivation.

I made a post a long time ago that looked at a second pole in addition to intrapersonal vs. interpersonal (either understanding the internal workings of self or the external social dynamics of a group). I suggest that an internal vs. external focus can form a second axis - this second axis has to do with which vantage point the person views a sense of self. I think these are separate axis which could align in the following ways:

Intrapersonal and Internal = This is a person who focuses on their internal subjective realm and gains an understanding of humanity through their own self. This person might express insights in artistic or creative contribution, but the primary connection is not to the outside world.

Intrapersonal and External = This is the person who focuses on individuals outside themselves, but not on how those individuals interrelate. Identity could be formed in terms of relationships to specific individuals, but group identity is insignificant. This focus could produce a deeper form of empathy because its focus is on the actual external person, not projection of self onto that person.

Interpersonal and Internal = Focus is on self in relationship to the group. This person would choose to stand out or maybe influence a group, but never sacrificing personal identity. This person can strongly influence social consciousness. Their identity is formed by their individual relationship to a group and is depending on group dynamics.

Interpersonal and External = Focus is on the relationships among a group. This person sees self as a member of a larger group and places social identity over individual. They work to keep the peace and may work in anonymity with a lot of sacrifice.

I think there are even more poles, and I'm not sure if you can categorize the above two for two with Fi and Fe. The relationship between the point of focus being where identity is viewed from, internal or external; and the understanding of the dynamics that exist within a system, either intrapersonal or interpersonal, can take on many forms. I really think this only scratches the surface and there are many, many more poles that could be deconstructed from a person's sense of identity and relationship. Maybe even systems motivated by harmony or conflict could create another pole, because those are subjective core concepts, and both can produce positive results (it's not a positive and negative, but just contrasting systems).

 

[Thalassa]

I wonder if there's an element of different types detecting arrogance differently, too? I see the second ("Fi" in your example) type of arrogance as far more arrogant than the first type. It occurs to me that perhaps Fi users would see it the reverse?

Iz has a good point, too. I'd add to it that Fe can be unpopular in another way, too: if what's (perceived to be) best for the individuals isn't necessarily what they would prefer. So Fe taking a parental or teaching role, I guess.

FWIW if there is such a thing as Fi (ha) I don't think it's less arrogant than Fe. My ISTJ grandfather was deeply rooted in his convictions of right/wrong, good/bad, although ethics wasn't usually his first priority, he was much more practical, anti-social, and TJ-ish (also a pretty extreme introvert, maybe an ISTJ with just a touch of aspergers I've come to think recently). But when it did come down to moral questions, he was sure to tell you whether or not he thought you were a decent human being or a piece of shit. He was also one of those gay-hating Christians, unfortunately. The weirdest part was that he wasn't even extremely religious, didn't attend church regularly...

Um but yeah I think NFPs can get pretty self-righteous at times, too. I've been told I seem more ENFJ than ENFP because of my need to be "right" vs. "understood" and so maybe I am NFJ after all...but it's really hard to tell sometimes. I do know I get annoyed with some of the self-proclaimed Fi users on this site because I feel like they're being blindly self-absorbed but then turn around and say people with Fe are so righteous and arrogant.

It's one of the reasons for choosing to avoid function theory for the most part.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I wonder if there's an element of different types detecting arrogance differently, too? I see the second ("Fi" in your example) type of arrogance as far more arrogant than the first type. It occurs to me that perhaps Fi users would see it the reverse?

Iz has a good point, too. I'd add to it that Fe can be unpopular in another way, too: if what's (perceived to be) best for the individuals isn't necessarily what they would prefer. So Fe taking a parental or teaching role, I guess.

Probably. The bolded is a good example of what seems "arrogant" about Fe; it's assuming they know what is best for others, despite how others actually feel. They can sometimes do this to the point where they victimize themselves, so they will not see they were wrong or pushy, but they will claim that the other person just didn't "appreciate" their efforts. They don't stop to think that maybe their efforts were not correct or considerate & that they were projecting their own feeling too much. They may even imply that they were right, and that what the other person feels is wrong, which justifies their action & puts blame on the response of the other person. In this sense, Fe is less adaptable to individuals, allowing for less variance in feeling. It's almost like they can't imagine not knowing what is best for people, which is definitely an over-confidence that can become arrogant.

This arrogance is not detected by many IRL; they're often successful in painting themselves the victim of those who are being unresponsive to their efforts. This is why Fe is often viewed more positively in reality than Fi. You'll see Fi types more readily admit flaws in general; we'll pretty much hand you the ammunition that we're sometimes too sensitive or self-absorbed or whatever, without justification for them. Fe sometimes types puts this positive, "I'm too perfect & caring for my own good" spin on their flaws, and it works.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Hi Annwn,

Interesting post - I see what you are defining above as interactions well-described through the enneagram.

Myself, I score as high in Fe as Fi and almost the same Ne & Ni on those cognitive function tests, but I *know* I am not an Fe user. I tell you though, before I used to come to this site and really go deep on these Fe / Fi discussions, I saw myself as pretty darn proficient in Fe ... thought I had much more insight into the structural components of that "way of thinking". I don't; I just don't think the same way. Oh, I can pass myself off as one fair enough. (I agree the terms "Fe user" and "Fi user" are imprecise and lack sophistication ... and no one uses functions in isolation, but time and time again there are two sides to this fence, and the views of Fe are generally on one, and Fi on the other.)

I have not once come across a thread where an Fi user is trying to explain Fi and an Fe user say "OH I GET IT NOW!" Has not happened. Ever. So to me that's becoming a pretty powerful, replicated pattern. And I have given it my best shot too, and have not met with success either. There's this point where we can get oh so close, but like two poles of magnetic force, at some point we push away, we just don't seem to connect.

The point? I don't know; just that if this discussion bears fruit it would be pretty amazing. I am still hopeful.

 

[JoSunshine]

Probably. The bolded is a good example of what seems "arrogant" about Fe; it's assuming they know what is best for others, despite how others actually feel.

This is something I used to be terribly guilty of doing...and have to constantly remind myself NOT to do it now...although I am sure I sometimes fail. I walk amongst Fe users and it is indeed a common thread that I have observed. It's a really unappealing quality However, I can say that I believe the intentions to always be good...just at times misguided. It's the flip side of what is usually a good quality (among healthy Fe users).

 

[Thalassa]

This is something I used to be terribly guilty of doing...and have to constantly remind myself NOT to do it now...although I am sure I sometimes fail. I walk amongst Fe users and it is indeed a common thread that I have observed. It's a really unappealing quality However, I can say that I believe the intentions to always be good...just at times misguided. It's the flip side of what is usually a good quality (among healthy Fe users).

This is like "fixing" people, amirite? I used to do that when I was much younger. But then again I've heard ENFPs will take on people as unsuspecting projects...see? This is why I find all of this so confusing.

I can spot an ESFJ far away because I find them to be the most likely to push things on people with good intentions, because those things are the standard norm, and they sincerely don't see why anyone wouldn't be thrilled to have a [insert decorative holiday item or similar object]. I know they have good intentions though, so it doesn't bug me.

What does bug me is the easily offendable morality police, and I've seen this just as much in Fi users as Fe users, at least on this forum. I'd say it's a really even split.

Let me give another example: if someone is basically a nice person but is totally inconsiderate of others, think they have different rules that apply to them for whatever reason they can dream up, they see any kind of Fe as infringement upon that? Because that really isn't fair. Tactical example: a roommate who hoards dirty dishes and routinely doesn't wash their own dishes or even make dishes available to other roommates, and/or spreads their crap out everywhere, but has the audacity to become offended if someone touches their stuff to move it out of the way in consideration of others.

To me, this is a situation where Fe is absolutely correct to intrude, and Fi is just being unbelievably childish and selfish. On the other hand, I think bombarding people with Fe structure can really be a pain in the butt, like it's just plain bothersome and unnecessary, and in that case is wrong to intrude.

 

[JoSunshine]

This is like "fixing" people, amirite?

Yep...I would say that sums it up. I don't know any other ENFJ's (and have never known any well), so I can only speak for myself when I say this. My ESFJ cohorts tend to be much more likely to get people to conform to "norms" than me. I actually encourage people to march to the beat of their own drummer. I would say my "fixing" comes more in the form of trying to get people to be authentic and true to themselves and to live out their dreams...however this means that sometimes I overstep my bounds and try to push people to do things they aren't ready to do and may never want to do. I'm the one trying to get my friend to wear the stupid hat she loves, but won't do it because she is self-conscious or trying to get someone to go back to school because it is what they ultimately want to do. But in either case, I need to be mindful to be respectful of the feelings and opinions that prevent people from doing the things they really want.

 

[Tiltyred]

I always have the feeling like I'm talking to people raised by wolves when it's an Fi/Fe discussion. Here's what I think: There are certain social conventions that you learn, growing up, hopefully, and these are a symbol language. We have these conventions of behavior so we can understand each other beyond our own individual peculiarities. So if someone is sick, perhaps you send flowers, or you visit and bring soup, or you send a card. Any of those things is a gesture expressing good will. It boggles my mind that someone's gesture toward another person's good would be spurned because it's not exactly what was wanted. IT'S THE THOUGHT THAT COUNTS.

The idea is that unless someone else is your intimate, they are not expected to know what you as an individual might prefer. This is where, after you get to know the person, you gently indicate that your appreciation for chicken soup is somewhat limited and actually you're a vegan, and you both laugh, and the next time you're sick, they send flowers instead.

Or is this the kind of thing you're even talking about? (What ARE you talking about, specifically?)