Hey, Fidelia, I just wanted to say here that I really do appreciate the efforts that you've made to cross this weird Fe/Fi bridge. I thought I might bring my thoughts to bear on what is bothering you.
You know how it is not immediately obvious to Fe users why saying that someone's feelings aren't reasonable is felt as attacking them at their core? Well, in this particular case, I feel that I've gone to great measures to NOT dismiss Fi users' viewpoints as being invalid. I've worked like crazy on this in a number of threads, purposefully gone through conflict (which I dislike) so that I could find out where our communication styles or interpretations diverge, asked many questions (which to me is a sign that I respect the other person enough to try to understand them), and not stated my thoughts in the language that would initially be my first impulse to.
Yep, I see you doing this over and over, and adopting what you've learned.
O's responses felt to me that she did not take into account the fact that Fe users are all separate individuals, with different function orders, different experiences, and different levels of interest in bridging that gap. I believe understanding functions explains people's instinctive impulses, but does not conclusively define them. I see Fi users time and time again insisting that Fe users force them into an unfair one size fits all mold when I feel that that's what is being done right back. When I did express as politely, but directly as I could what kind of response that invokes in me (thus seeking further information or perspective rather than jumping to the conclusion that Fi users are selfish or hypocritical), it was mostly glossed over and attention turned back to how Fe users attack Orobas as well as that even though some progress has been made in these threads, it should not take as long as it has.
Actually, I think it's the Ne/Si, and not a little bit of Te, that is bothering you here far more than the Fi.
Ne is chopping things up into patterns and seeing what fits. It's rather analogous to the Fourier space I mention in an earlier post. Instead of looking at each person as an individual entity (the way in which Ni would prefer to analyze/perceive/intuit), Ne is finding the patterns between people. This is the space in which typology resides. Without the patterns of similarity between people, there is no typology, just a lot of individuals that have to be understood individually. So in the Fourier analogy, instead of seeing a single complex wave form, typology picks out the "frequencies and amplitudes" that "add up to" that wave form. Often, what pops out when looking at things this way is that certain frequencies are very loud and prominent within a certain type, and then there are a lot of other frequencies, which comprise all that make us individual and human.
When talking about the loud, prominent, typological frequencies, especially in Te mode, I imagine that's rather offensive to your Ti approach: so many details are being missed, it isn't just that one frequency. The thing is, the other details aren't being "missed" so much as they're "not the topic of discussion." The other details aren't part of the overall pattern. So they don't get mentioned, even in passing, and thus missing Ti-style qualification that "well, it's just typology, not a detailed psychological profile" - it offends you that the qualification isn't made.
I do understand that I need to pay more attention to the feelings behind those words rather than the words themselves. On the other hand, I find it very hard to continue on with discussion if I believe there's been a huge error made and also if I feel that my efforts are trivialized.
I don't think they're being trivialized. I think Highlander and I are seeing both sides, here, to a large degree (but not a complete degree). We see much of what you INFJs see because we share the Ni and we have a common approach, but we also see what Oro sees because we share that Te and Fi underlying logic.
Keep in mind that the "huge error" you are perceiving is a result of different communication styles. When I discuss things with Oro in person, I'll interject that it's more complicated than what she's saying, and she'll reply that she's aware of that, but that looking at it in that level of detail
hides the pattern.
Typology is
essentially about patterns, and the patterns give
huge clues about what is really going on underneath the hood. Imagine two mechanics, A saying that one needs to open the hood, take the engine apart and analyze it piece by piece to figure out what is wrong, and B saying that it's a Toyota Camry with a 4-cylinder engine, and it's making that particular ping that it makes when the spark plugs need cleaning. B isn't saying that the spark plug diagnosis is necessarily everything that needs fixing, nor is A saying that the spark plugs don't need fixing. It's two different starting points.
Similarly, NiFe and NeFi have
two different starting points. Eventually they converge at the truth, but there is a need for patience as one waits for that to happen. It's a good thing, actually: it covers a lot more ground, as you can tell by how much effort it takes to reach a meeting of the minds!
Maybe it's because a core value of Fe is trying to accommodate and understand. If I feel like I've worked hard to do both and someone basically walks in and says that my efforts don't count for anything, it is going to make me feel like no longer bothering to try or that the other person expects understanding without giving either the information or reciprocation for that to happen. It kind of feels like the person is telling me that something which is a significant part of my identity is something that I am terrible at, and not offering any constructive information beyond that.
To the
bold, I don't think anyone said that. What I hear both sides saying is, "You aren't listening." This is a typical crosstalk pattern: it means that the sides aren't fully translating from/to each others' "languages."
To the
red, this is useful to hear. Again, I don't think anyone is saying that. Rather, the terms and context are so different, one tends to hear things that aren't there.
I think from a Fi perspective, it is just that the person is saying how their own experience feels to them. From my perspective it does feel like a negative judgment and not recognizing how out of their way people already are going to try to better understand. I've also noticed in the past that when I bring up issues to Fi users of what really is bothering me, they tend to gloss over them because they are looking at the reason for communicating it as being the same as their own reason would be. In this case, I only bring something up if I need more information or if I feel like there is a roadblock in our communication that needs to be addressed before we can continue on effectively.
This is a good synopsis of the Fe/Fi conundrum, from the Fe point of view.
There is an old tradition of taking a Chinese fortune cookie saying, and adding the words, "in bed," to turn it into a funny joke. In a lot of the Fe/Fi crosstalk, it seems to my reading that both sides seem to add, "therefore you are a bad person," to whatever the other side said.
Always remember that it is difficult to see the genuine kindness in others' eyes through a computer screen.
Your next bit, here, is a VERY good analysis and start at how to help each other see that kindness:
You have no idea, highlander, how something as simple as recognizing the fact that a roadblock has been hit (at least from the other person's perspective) and validating that by asking about it dissipates a lot of the frustration or emotion that would otherwise be directed at you.
You said highlander that it is not as immediately obvious to you as to why something is a problem for us and then it is like stepping on landmines. I found that interesting with the INFJ Common Issues thread. INFJs were getting increasing frustrated, blunt and direct with an ENFP who in return felt hurt and attacked but wouldn't back off with Te suggestions that had not been invited in the first place and she kept making assertions about INFJs that seemed inaccurate and were lacking key pieces of information. To the INFJs, it seems painfully obvious what was wrong, in fact we thought we had stated and re-stated what was the issue. Someone else later on in the thread said something to her that was stated just slightly differently and all of the sudden, things seemed to come into focus for her. I am interested in investigating further what a few tweaks in language for either side would do in more effectively conveying in effectively translated language where problems are before they become big issues.
The primary thing I've noticed - and I've mentioned this before - is that Fe tends to talk in terms of "you" (or other third parties, never "I"), while Fi tends to talk in terms of "I".
Note how most of my posts are phrased: I use "one," as in "one might try this" for phrasing a suggestion, or "if one does X, then Y will certainly happen" as a more direct statement. I've noticed that "I" and "you" tend to strike certain Fe/Fi chords in a strong way, either very negative or very positive, which implies that using such phrasing is likely to alienate half of one's reading audience.
I still use "I" a bit, since once in a while, "I" am properly the subject of my sentence, but I almost
always avoid "you." I never want to imply that I'm saying something about "you" when I'm really just talking in "idea space" about my ideas, not about "you" or "me" or my opinion of "you" or "myself" as a person.
In this instance, however, I will use the "you" word, Fidelia: you have impressed me very greatly with your efforts at coming to an understanding of this awkward topic, which is so very very easy to take too personally.