Dear Fe User,

[Southern Kross]

I don't know - for me it's not so much to elicit a certain response from another person. I mean I may show a certain amount of emotion towards my boyfriend (positive or negative), but it's not to manipulate him into responding a certain way so much as that I am expressing or not expressing a certain percentage of what I'm feeling because I deem that it will be more useful than not to the practical solution of us interacting optimally together over the long term

I get it! See this is where the Fi/Fe misunderstanding comes from! Fi still reads this as manipulation simply because you factor in the response or net result when deciding how to express yourself. The only factor Fi users (well, doms anyway) consider is "do I feel comfortable to express myself or not".

 

[Fidelia]

Yes! And I think the reason it is seen as disengenuous is that Fi is applying the same purpose for expressing emotions to Fe users as they would use and then feeling that they are going about it in completely the wrong way! Similarly, Fe assumes that Fi users express their emotions to get some kind of outcome, in the way that Fe users do and feel that Fi goes about it in a way that is not only inefficient, but often is even at cross purposes at what Fe judges their ultimate goal for outcome would be.

Both parties do not realize that the purposes or goals of Fe users and Fi users are completely different. They may use some of the same tools, but for very different ends. It's kind of like how one person may use a rock as part of a stone wall they are building, while another may use it as a stand in for a hammer. Both are valid uses for rocks, but if an onlooker were to judge the effectiveness of the person using the rock to hammer with by how well their wall was coming along, they'd think there was something wrong with the person. Conversely, if the hammer user were looking at the rock wall builder by how effectively they wielded the rock as a makeshift tool, they would judge that they were doing quite poorly.

 

[Forever_Jung]

 

[Glycerine]

Am I really the only person who will admit that making certain facial expressions or behaving in a certain manner is sometimes very much intended to elicit a particular response in other people?

Maybe I'm the only one with a background in theater. However, I'd honestly say I partially learned to do this from my grandfather's wife. I still can't say whether or not she's ESFJ or ESTJ...seems harsher, more ordered, more like ESTJ...

I have a hard time controlling some strong emotions at times, though, I'm completely overcome by them, and my tears are always genuine. I can't cry on command.

Very true. I learned it from my ISFP friend (she's incredibly expressive) and learn more and more about the art of facial expressions from my EXTJ friends. lol

 

[highlander]

I get it! See this is where the Fi/Fe misunderstanding comes from! Fi still reads this as manipulation simply because you factor in the response or net result when deciding how to express yourself. The only factor Fi users (well, doms anyway) consider is "do I feel comfortable to express myself or not".

Does this have to do with the fact that a person who prefers Fi is extremely perceptive and sensitive to what it believes as "phoniness"? I heard that somewhere once.

The "manipulation" reference does seem unfair to me. It's just being practical I think.

Yes! And I think the reason it is seen as disengenuous is that Fi is applying the same purpose for expressing emotions to Fe users as they would use and then feeling that they are going about it in completely the wrong way! Similarly, Fe assumes that Fi users express their emotions to get some kind of outcome, in the way that Fe users do and feel that Fi goes about it in a way that is not only inefficient, but often is even at cross purposes at what Fe judges their ultimate goal for outcome would be.

Both parties do not realize that the purposes or goals of Fe users and Fi users are completely different. They may use some of the same tools, but for very different ends. It's kind of like how one person may use a rock as part of a stone wall they are building, while another may use it as a stand in for a hammer. Both are valid uses for rocks, but if an onlooker were to judge the effectiveness of the person using the rock to hammer with by how well their wall was coming along, they'd think there was something wrong with the person. Conversely, if the hammer user were looking at the rock wall builder by how effectively they wielded the rock as a makeshift tool, they would judge that they were doing quite poorly.

So, it's what Orobas said a while back then.

 

[Fidelia]

I would see it as manipulative if I faked emotion that wasn't there or actively made pretense about my emotion. In these cases though, it's more a matter of deciding how safe I feel and how much is prudent and expedient to uncover to another person. It's not adding anything or even denying something. If someone were to ask me about my true emotions and I really thought they wanted to know and it wouldn't cause them more problems to know, then I'd spill pretty easily.

The issue comes in more when I'm imposing my emotional state on someone. It either reads as criticism to them of their own actions or a call to action, so I'd like to be really sure that I have understood the situation sufficiently and am not jumping the gun before I bother them or potentially offend/hurt them by making my feelings and thoughts known. I also want to understand what it is that I need from them or are requesting of them by sharing my problem. I want to fully understand what kind of reaction from them is likely so that I can weigh whether I am just adding to the obstacles to wade through or if I am clearing a path for a solution by airing what I have to say.

 

[Synapse]

Just was thinking about one point mentioned above - I think when I allow anger or frustration to show, it is either because I have weighed the consequences and decided that there is some merit in the possibly resulting conflict or else I genuinely think I've got it under control and misjudge at what point I ought to bring things up before they come out in less solution-oriented forms. Sometimes it doesn't seem like any one thing is significant enough to bring up, but collectively they form a larger picture that denotes an underlying issue. If I wait until I absolutely have a complete, annotated and irrefutable list of behaviours backing up my hypothesis and have ruled out other possible motives etc, usually I feel rather emotionally involved. If I don't wait until then, I feel that I may be being hasty and that my emotions may ebb and flow unreliably or that I am missing something important that would put the other person's behaviour in context. I am learning now though that it is probably better to speak a little sooner before my feelings towards the other person are affected and so that I can get their take on it, so that my information is more accurate. I've found this forum very helpful in realizing that conflict (as long as it is solution-oriented) can be very useful and isn't always to be avoided. I would naturally tend to withdraw from conflict if it didn't seem necessary for carrying on the level of relationship I enjoy with someone close to me or if it is not required to continue working effectively with someone or if it would threaten my relationship to someone. I'm finding though that sometimes conflict brings out divergence in perspective that was not apparent to me when speaking more casually. In nearly every case here, it has resulted in a better mutual understanding of each other, and I usually come away with something useful to take into my future interactions.

I guess the point I'm making is that even though Fe may more deliberately display emotion or cover it up than Fi does, it is not in an attempt to be manipulative. Again, it is with the end goal in mind for what is the most productive to achieve the desired outcome. I find it extremely embarrassing if I display unexpected negative emotions in front of someone that I am not very close to. I don't like to burden other people with something if I have not put some thought into what my purpose is in sharing it. I also don't like spilling emotion unexpectedly because at that moment I can't express what it is I need (but do not have the resources available to me) to help me better deal with the situation at hand. It seems to me like that is unfair and selfish of me if I just expect them to solve my problem without me thinking it out first and trying to look at it from a variety of perspectives.

That reads like insecurity?

 

[Fidelia]

I don't think it does to Fe users. I really don't identify my emotions as an integral part of my identity. It's more like symptoms or information that may direct me to look at factors I may not otherwise give as much weight to.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I don't know - for me the purpose of expressing certain behaviours or emotions are not exactly to elicit a certain response from another person. I mean I may show a certain amount of emotion towards my boyfriend (positive or negative), but it's not to manipulate him into responding a certain way. Instead, it is that I am expressing or not expressing a certain percentage of what I'm feeling because I deem that it will be more useful than not to the practical solution of us interacting optimally together over the long term.

However, I think IAJ is right that over time, the process becomes second nature enough that some of those nuances are just taken in as part of the big picture (like looking at a scene and perceiving the colours in it) rather than each part being individually considered and analyzed necessarily. It's an overall picture of what you are seeing.

To me Te looks incredibly competent and complicated but I imagine that to you highlander, it is much more a part of your natural way of looking at the world. I admire your interest and tenacity in seeking out or verifying information, checking on facts, doing research, putting systems in place and so on. I find that difficult and overwhelming to do at times. I greatly dislike record keeping and get itchy just thinking about some of the things that I have forgotten to regularly keep track of. However, keeping track of information within a people system is not only easy for me, but is stimulating and pleasant because I'm better at that. It seems to me that you find Te tasks/outlooks not just something you see as necessary, but even enjoyable, because it is a strength of yours and a natural part of your general outlook.

It seems to me to be a mistake to assume that either of the extraverted functions are somehow more blind or superficial than their introverted function counterparts. I think both have great breadth and depth of information, but their purposes are for very different, although complementary ends.

i hope you don't think i was try to belittle or over simplify. i understand well what you mean... i guess i just lacked the ability to regurgitate the information in a clear way. also, my sister's an ESFJ, and from watching her that was one of the easier examples i could come up with.

also, i didn't know if the last statement you made was in response to what i wrote earlier or not. i agree, the extroverted functions aren't shallow to any degree. you basically just clarified where i was going with my post from earlier. the introverted and extroverted functions of each type are complimentary, and it's the two together that make us who we are.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I don't think it does to Fe users. I really don't identify my emotions as an integral part of my identity. It's more like symptoms or information that may direct me to look at factors I may not otherwise give as much weight to.

i suppose this may also be one of the key differences between Fi and Fe users. i suppose to Fe users, emotions are more of a tool for understanding others? i think with all Fi users, our emotions are a big part of our identity.

 

[Southern Kross]

Yes! And I think the reason it is seen as disengenuous is that Fi is applying the same purpose for expressing emotions to Fe users as they would use and then feeling that they are going about it in completely the wrong way! Similarly, Fe assumes that Fi users express their emotions to get some kind of outcome, in the way that Fe users do and feel that Fi goes about it in a way that is not only inefficient, but often is even at cross purposes at what Fe judges their ultimate goal for outcome would be.

Both parties do not realize that the purposes or goals of Fe users and Fi users are completely different. They may use some of the same equipment, but for very different ends.

No wonder there is confusion. Fe users are spending all their time trying to work out what outcome I'm trying to achieve, oblivious to the fact that most of the time I'm just blathering on about the things that pop into my head, without even the vaguest intentions attached to them.

Stop overthinking it Fe-ers! I'm not trying to play to complicated double-bluff/use reverse-psychology to deviously undermine your position or bully you about - just assume I'm just raving on about stuff!

Does this have to do with the fact that a person who prefers Fi is extremely perceptive and sensitive to what it believes as "phoniness"? I head that somewhere once

Yes, good point. This probably contributes to the whole misunderstanding.

I suppose Fi-users believe that doing something for any reason other than for the value in of itself is inauthentic and wrong. Dare I say, Fe is more about 'the end' and Fi is more about 'the means'?

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I would see it as manipulative if I faked emotion that wasn't there or actively made pretense about my emotion. In these cases though, it's more a matter of deciding how safe I feel and how much is prudent and expedient to uncover to another person. It's not adding anything or even denying something. If someone were to ask me about my true emotions and I really thought they wanted to know and it wouldn't cause them more problems to know, then I'd spill pretty easily.

The issue comes in more when I'm imposing my emotional state on someone. It either reads as criticism to them of their own actions or a call to action, so I'd like to be really sure that I have understood the situation sufficiently and am not jumping the gun before I bother them or potentially offend/hurt them by making my feelings and thoughts known. I also want to understand what it is that I need from them or are requesting of them by sharing my problem. I want to fully understand what kind of reaction from them is likely so that I can weigh whether I am just adding to the obstacles to wade through or if I am clearing a path for a solution by airing what I have to say.

i think a lot of Fe users are misconscruing what others mean when they say "manipulative." manipulate in the Fe sense isn't necessarily a negative thing... but it's along the same lines of trying to reach a certain outcome.

earlier, you wrote:

Instead, it is that I am expressing or not expressing a certain percentage of what I'm feeling because I deem that it will be more useful than not to the practical solution of us interacting optimally together over the long term.

No matter how you put it, it's a manipulative behavior. but it doesn't mean it has to always be deemed as negative.

 

[Fidelia]

Not disagreeing, just fleshing out what you said, from my perspective! I'm still not sure what emotions are for me. Partially, yes, a tool for understanding others, partly a tool for understanding myself (I find my emotions tend to sneak up on me and sometimes I don't realize how strongly I feel about something until a reaction comes out that I didn't expect). Maybe also as a pointer to indicate that I need to put more weight or focus on a certain aspect that I may otherwise trivialize or ignore. It generally compells me to check my reactions against several other trusted people's to see if I am way off base or if they confirm this as being a valid feeling or reaction. I don't really trust my emotions to remain consistent or stable and since they are usually a catalyst for me taking action, I need to ensure that I am not just reacting, but that my emotions just have served as an alert system. I usually need other people to reflect back what they see to me before I will trust it.

 

[Fidelia]

i think a lot of Fe users are misconscruing what others mean when they say "manipulative." manipulate in the Fe sense isn't necessarily a negative thing... but it's along the same lines of trying to reach a certain outcome.

earlier, you wrote:
No matter how you put it, it's a manipulative behavior. but it doesn't mean it has to always be deemed as negative.

Manipulative for me always carries negative connotations and I just have assumed it does for all people. When you describe a person as being manipulative, it is not assumed to be a good thing. It implies deceitful craftiness and using a person's weaknesses against them. Maybe it doesn't mean that to everyone?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Manipulation for good just means you've assumed that you know whats better for them than they do.

There are a few cases where this is OK. Such as a child of yours or someone mentally incapable of knowing whats in their best interest.

I know I don't want to be manipulated whether for good intentions or ill.

 

[Southern Kross]

The issue comes in more when I'm imposing my emotional state on someone. It either reads as criticism to them of their own actions or a call to action, so I'd like to be really sure that I have understood the situation sufficiently and am not jumping the gun before I bother them or potentially offend/hurt them by making my feelings and thoughts known. I also want to understand what it is that I need from them or are requesting of them by sharing my problem. I want to fully understand what kind of reaction from them is likely so that I can weigh whether I am just adding to the obstacles to wade through or if I am clearing a path for a solution by airing what I have to say.

Interesting.

Does it feel like Fi-users are often being inconsiderately emotionally imposing and/or being overly critical to you, even when it isn't in the form of an emotional outburst?

 

[highlander]

Manipulative for me always carries negative connotations and I just have assumed it does for all people. When you describe a person as being manipulative, it is not assumed to be a good thing. It implies deceitful craftiness and using a person's weaknesses against them.

Yes, I agree with that. That is what most people would perceive it to mean.

And by the way, I know several ENFPs who are quite capable of engaging in manipulative behavior. But don't worry - it is all for your own good

 

[Fidelia]

No wonder there is confusion. Fe users are spending all their time trying to work out what outcome I'm trying to achieve, oblivious to the fact that most of the time I'm just blathering on about the things that pop into my head, without even the vaguest intentions attached to them.

Stop overthinking it Fe-ers! I'm not trying to play to complicated double-bluff/use reverse-psychology to deviously undermine your position or bully you about - just assume I'm just raving on about stuff! ...


Yes, good point. This probably contributes to the whole misunderstanding.

I suppose Fi-users believe that doing something for any reason other than for the value in of itself is inauthentic and wrong. Dare I say, Fe is more about 'the end' and Fi is more about 'the means'?

SK, would Fi users be comfortable prefacing their comments as just "raving on about stuff"? I ask that because I think that it would help Fe users be a lto less defensive and prescriptive if they understood that you are expressing yourself, thinking aloud (much in the way I vent so that I can come to an effective solution to my problem), and that you have no particular aim you are trying to achieve by doing so other than that as an end in itself. This was totally new news to me a couple of weeks ago. Seriously!

Similarly, Fi users should understand that when Fe users bring something up, it is because they are implying that the action that needs to be taken cannot be accomplished by them alone or they are trying to bring to someone's attention a serious problem that they have. They don't like to rock the boat needlessly because they assume their comments could be taken as a criticm or as conflict inducing. So you'll only hear those comments under extreme provokation, after a lot of thought, or if the consequences have been weighed and the potential good to be accomplished outweighs the potential bad. A lot of thought has gone into them bringing something up and it should not be trivialized or dismissed as thinking aloud. If it is, the Fe user will react in a way that seems very harsh and unpredictable to the Fi user. The issue is really that the Fe user thinks that the Fi user 1) Did not get the message for some reason - obliviousness? choosing to ignore? Fe user not being clear enough? 2) Is purposely being obtuse and is trying to upset them. This means that the Fe user will keep stating their case in stronger and stronger terms in such a way that the Fi user feels personally judged and rejected when they don't see what it was that they even did in the first place.

I very much agree with your last sentence.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

No wonder there is confusion. Fe users are spending all their time trying to work out what outcome I'm trying to achieve, oblivious to the fact that most of the time I'm just blathering on about the things that pop into my head, without even the vaguest intentions attached to them.

Stop overthinking it Fe-ers! I'm not trying to play to complicated double-bluff/use reverse-psychology to deviously undermine your position or bully you about - just assume I'm just raving on about stuff!


Yes, good point. This probably contributes to the whole misunderstanding.

I suppose Fi-users believe that doing something for any reason other than for the value in of itself is inauthentic and wrong. Dare I say, Fe is more about 'the end' and Fi is more about 'the means'?

man, this particular thread is moving too fast for me. i keep missing certain posts.

i, too, keep feeling as though some of the thoughts i'm bringing up are being misconstrued. i have nothing but love for Fe users! i promise, guys.
and i'm able to... can i say, "feel" how Fe-users work... it's just hard for me to put into proper words... as working with feelings, it's often hard to associate the words i'm looking for.

i think your last sentence is also adequate.

 

[Thalassa]

Manipulation for good just means you've assumed that you know whats better for them than they do.

There are a few cases where this is OK. Such as a child of yours or someone mentally incapable of knowing whats in their best interest.

I know I don't want to be manipulated whether for good intentions or ill.

I don't think she necessarily means manipulated for good intentions (though that does happen). I think she means you express your emotions (or don't) with the thought in mind of how it will affect others and what it means to the relationship or the situation in the long run.

"Manipulation for good" can include behaving in an appropriate manner to make people feel better, I don't see that as being classically manipulative, not in the way that you describe in terms of a mentally challenged person or child.

When I say I am conscious of how my facial expressions and behavior affect people, I mean I'm careful to keep certain things under control, I smile at people when I want them to like me, and I know a certain facial expression can make a child stop and behave themselves.

You were speaking about giving people a "fuck off" vibe in another thread. This is a form of emotional manipulation, whether or not you think of it as such.