[Jungian Cognitive Functions] An Fe-Fi negative convo

[skylights]

good points uumlau

i was thinking... Fi reads emotional cuing. we look in language for words that speak to emotion and value. this has been a constant source of tension between myself and my INTP dad, because we do not so easily speak one another's languages. he listens to my exact words, when my primary meaning is in the nuances of tone, and i listen to his emotionality, when his primary meaning is in specific word choice. actually this site has been invaluable to me in beginning to cross that bridge, because i understand what's going on between us.

for instance, when he has expressed frustration because i got a bad grade on something (fortunately this is an old scenario, lol), he would tend to say things like "i don't know who you're kidding thinking that you'll be able to do ____ after you graduate with grades like this; if you keep this up, you're never going to get into ____ school; i don't understand how you would let your grades go down the drain like this; you need to shape up or ship out; etc." what i needed to do was block out the message i would hear of "you are a failure and will not amount to anything", which just made me hurt and angry, because his actual message was probably generally more like "if you do not get good grades, you will not be able to get what you want in the future", which is a decent point. he would be baffled by how upset i would get, because i interpreted his words as a devaluation - that he did not like me or really care about me, and that he expected my grades to be bad - even though now i know that he was just afraid that i would end up blocking off opportunities for myself that he and my mom had worked hard to create. but it's funny, because he could have said to me, "you know, you did really shitty on that test, i'm disappointed in you and next time i'm going to make sure you study more", or "you understand that if you want to get into ____ school, you're going to need to work harder" - neither of which are ooey gooey sweet, but they're not devaluing either, because they doesn't suggest that my poor performance was a reflection of who i am.

now, i don't know how accurate to the Ti/Fi split that is, but i suspect that it is in some ways similar to the communication gap that has occurred here. one main group is reading fairly legitimate criticism based in fear - venting - and the other main group is reading a personal attack on the value of the family.

But almost all of the Fi users see what was said-and they are “reading” it as condemnatory….As I mentioned earlier in the thread, likely it is not a case of “what” is being said but instead “how” it is being said-linguistically perhaps?

yeah. i suspect that there are certain words she used that "cue" us as Fi users to read this as an attack on the ISFP. my suspicion is that there are phrases - "like dogs" probably being one of them - that cause us to interpret her rant as a devaluation of the person rather than simple venting.

 

[onemoretime]

I wonder if there's a way for anyone to step back and see the elephant? Or move around and feel the elephant?

We may all be blind, but we can hear. The solution is to listen to one another, and trust that their judgment of the situation is true and competent. We can then take those perspectives together to create a fuller picture.

 

[Randomnity]

yeah. i suspect that there are certain words she used that "cue" us as Fi users to read this as an attack on the ISFP. my suspicion is that there are phrases - "like dogs" probably being one of them - that cause us to interpret her rant as a devaluation of the person rather than simple venting.

So.....do you think it is fair to interpret Ti venting in a Fi way? After all, the Ti user is interpreting the Fi user (isfp) in a Ti way, which seems to be the whole problem. Isn't interpreting a Ti user in a Fi way the same thing?

Again, I don't see any problem with using the phrase "like dogs" and I would do it myself where it best describes a given situation, without "devaluing the person". Why is Fi given more weight than Ti in interpreting the actions of a Ti user?

edit: Of course, O will have the most information of all (other than the original istp) since she was actually there to hear tone of voice, see body language, etc. I mostly mean the other Fi interpretations, which can only be based on the words, like all of us.

 

[skylights]

^ i don't mean to imply any rightness or wrongness, randomnity, just a communication gap.

i'm explaining things from the Fi side because that is the side i understand better and naturally start at, not because i think it is more correct.

and i don't think it's any more either person's fault, really. just a misunderstanding on both sides - the misunderstanding on the ISTP's part that using the language she did would convey her message appropriately to orobas, and the misunderstanding on orobas' part that the ISTP was intending to be fundamentally hurtful to the ISFP. ideally we could all understand one another for what we're trying to say, instead of how it appears to us...

what i'm getting from this thread, and what i have gotten from my own experience in general, is that if Fi users can try to understand TP venting language in a Ti light, then we will understand that there is not usually an intent to devalue, even though we might hear one if we are not paying enough attention to the specific language - eg like dogs, instead of "they are dogs". big difference to a Ti user, i suspect - "like dogs" suggesting how they are behaving - though both phrasings could potentially come off as crude to a Fi user because of the value-weighting of dogs being lesser than humans. perhaps the ISTP is simply thinking of how the children are running around and making messes, but it comes off to me with the implication of them being, in a way, less than human.

i think that's what orobas' OP was after, anyway, isn't it? understanding why the ISTP said something that sounded very cruel, even though her actions are kind. the confusion lies partially in the Fi interpretation of the language as mean.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It's not the disapproval of the situation that suggests a childhood origin, but the level of vitriol within the reaction.

See, I didn't really feel the lady was being that vitriolic though. I mean for venting (which isn't meant to reflect truth with perfect accuracy), it just didn't seem to me that it was that horrific. I just read it as frustration.

And that is the whole point. Personally, off the hop, I identify more with O's read on the situation, but I also know that the ISTP MIL is doing what she needs to do here, albeit in a way that is offensive to a certain percentage of the population! However, I don't see anything in this thread that would suggest to me the MIL had some specific childhood event as a trigger, a supposed "butterfly effect" to the present. That being said, very few of us emerge from childhood without some trauma, so it's not hard to use it here as some sort of justification. But to suggest it is extremely presumptuous indeed.

IRL, although I would be concerned with the level of criticism being leveled at the ISFP and know the ISTP MIL's attitude will visibly color her interactions with this young mom, I would hear through the ISTP's words and attempt to identify the truer concerns, while helping the ISTP come to a better balance point on the situation. And come to a plan for the future too ... that's what emotions are for, to interpret, to read, to give signal that action is necessary. BUT, regardless of who's POV you lean towards or sympathize with, the MIL is still in the power position in this situation. No matter how hurt or frustrated or legitimate her concerns are. And the ISFP is in a life situation where she could benefit from guidance. Period.

I'm trusting O's judgment as to how the conversation went. From words alone, I'm missing a good 60% of conversation, the part that came from body language. If O was reacting the way she was, I prefer not to dismiss her read on the situation as her being oversensitive..

I appreciate the attempt, and the "benefit of the doubt" to O's OP.

I'm talking to her in a way that I think she can understand me best.

I hear you talking in a way that makes me want to throw cheese doodles at you. I hear much emotional illogic in what you are saying. You have extrapolated well beyond the parameters of even speculative assumption. I would take my inner sense only so far, then would be researching to find all the facts. I get an instinctive interpretation of the emotional undertones, but to take it to the extreme you have assumes far, far too much. It's dangerous, in my opinion. It is exceedingly unwise to use this language unless you have an internal certainty in what you are saying coupled with some real world data to ensure your quality control checks are in place. Unless you are feeling the truth to this degree ... and if you are, I ask, what makes you this sure? It's not the read I get at all.

Fi is a flashlight ... it can see a certain distance and illuminate certain truths, realities - and ones that are often shielded from view or shrouded in darkness. But then, one's feet have to start walking so they can visit the places one has only seen, and then Fi can see farther yet. Can you appreciate that?

Now I get it... you're trying to use NFP language in a way that communicates the importance of your own worldview. That's why I was so confused. Looking at it that way, I think I can make sense of what you're saying. Especially given the fact that you've had long conversations with the OP in the past, so your assumptions might hold some weight.

To me this is taking Fi language where wise Fi people tread lightly. That's all.

 

[Athenian200]

That's what makes this pattern fascinating.

Aside from the possibility that people are engaging in confirmation bias -- that is, reading the title of the thread about Fe/Fi, and choosing sides in that manner -- I don't see any alternative explanation than a cognitive one. Actually I don't think it's "Fe/Fi", but Ti/Fi. The Ti and Fe peeps are reading what the ISTP is saying, and getting it in a way the Fi folks don't, in TEXT format, without any personal cues than word choice. By and large, the Ti respondents do not get the OP's Fi reaction at all, while the Fe respondents are split, some seeing both sides and others only seeing the Ti side. There is an inherent sympathy for the ISTP that is expressed in both Ti and Fe responses, combined with an inherent skepticism or reserved judgment toward the Fi version of events.

And the Fi responses are equal and opposite to the Ti responses: they get the OP's perspective, and are baffled or offended by the ISTP's behavior. I'm the only Te person in this thread, and I'm not your typical INTJ, so we don't have a set of data for the Te reaction, but I suspect it would mirror the Fe reaction: not so quick to judge the ISTP's behavior, but completely understanding the Fi perspective on the matter.

The question for me is not which version is right, ISTP or OP, but why do we have a clear dividing line on who naturally identifies with each side. My usual approach is along the lines of finding a perspective that recognizes both ISTP and OP versions as valid and "true," granting the benefit of the doubt to both. Such a truth is usually not "somewhere between" as is often suggested, but rather very different from either personal version. This is the story of the blind men and the elephant all over again: no one sees the elephant, but the elephant is the core truth that is interpreted in so many ways.

The cognitive functions are the blind men, each seeing a piece of the elephantine truth, but collapsing it into something unrecognizable as an elephant.

I wonder if there's a way for anyone to step back and see the elephant? Or move around and feel the elephant?

I essentially agree with your interpretation of the situation. While I may think the Fi users have a valid perspective, it isn't my perspective. It doesn't make sense to me at all, but I thought about how Fi works, and I can sort of understand why they came to that conclusion using Fi processing.

I'm not certain that all Js would judge the same way, though. For instance, most (if not all) of the FJs here were NFJs. We don't know if ISFJs or ESFJs would tend to see both sides of the issue. They might, but there's a chance that in the case of the single INTJ and INFJs in this thread, it's just a matter of the Ni tendency to switch perspectives partially overriding our judgment functions. Trying to switch between multiple points of view to see the big picture, is essentially what Ni is designed to do, so that could be a huge factor in why the INJs responded that way. It could also be the FJ desire for harmony, though that doesn't explain why the INTJs (there was one I spoke to other than you who hasn't posted) are doing the same thing. I think that we need more SJ responses before we can be certain that leniency/mistrust for the Fi perspective is a consistent pattern among FJs, or that it's mirrored in TJs via leniency/mistrust for the Ti perspective.

Although, I have to say, I can't really imagine the SJs being MORE accepting towards Ti or Fi that isn't part of their functional make-up.

What is clear, though, is that there is a divide between the Ti/Fe users, and the Fi/Te users, that seems to be very difficult to bridge. Also, when I see two large groups of people holding differing perspectives, I feel very strongly inclined to try and understand both, even if I'm most inclined towards one or the other.

We may all be blind, but we can hear. The solution is to listen to one another, and trust that their judgment of the situation is true and competent. We can then take those perspectives together to create a fuller picture.

I totally agree with you on this one.

 

[onemoretime]

I hear you talking in a way that makes me want to throw cheese doodles at you. I hear much emotional illogic in what you are saying. You have extrapolated well beyond the parameters of even speculative assumption. I would take my inner sense only so far, then would be researching to find all the facts. I get an instinctive interpretation of the emotional undertones, but to take it to the extreme you have assumes far, far too much. It's dangerous, in my opinion. It is exceedingly unwise to use this language unless you have an internal certainty in what you are saying coupled with some real world data to ensure your quality control checks are in place. Unless you are feeling the truth to this degree ... and if you are, I ask, what makes you this sure? It's not the read I get at all.

Fi is a flashlight ... it can see a certain distance and illuminate certain truths, realities - and ones that are often shielded from view or shrouded in darkness. But then, one's feet have to start walking so they can visit the places one has only seen, and then Fi can see farther yet. Can you appreciate that?

What extremes am I going to? I am offering a hypothesis of what is going on, and what the implications of that hypothesis being true would be. If O told me "no, that doesn't sound anything like what she went through growing up," then I'd happily change my idea of what may be going on. What's dangerous, in my opinion, is to simply react to a situation such as this, without any curiosity into the bigger picture. O was asking that question. I gave my assessment, admittedly based on limited data, as a potential explanation.

There's nothing wrong with making assessments based on limited data. We always have to, because no one can know everything about everything. If you get caught in the data, you'll never learn anything new.

What makes me so sure? It's that this sort of reaction sounds really damn familiar, if you catch my drift.

 

[Randomnity]

^ i don't mean to imply any rightness or wrongness, randomnity, just a communication gap.

i'm explaining things from the Fi side because that is the side i understand better and naturally start at, not because i think it is more correct.

and i don't think it's any more either person's fault, really. just a misunderstanding on both sides - the misunderstanding on the ISTP's part that using the language she did would convey her message appropriately to orobas, and the misunderstanding on orobas' part that the ISTP was intending to be fundamentally hurtful to the ISFP. ideally we could all understand one another for what we're trying to say, instead of how it appears to us...

what i'm getting from this thread, and what i have gotten from my own experience in general, is that if Fi users can try to understand TP venting language in a Ti light, then we will understand that there is not usually an intent to devalue, even though we might hear one if we are not paying enough attention to the specific language - eg like dogs, instead of "they are dogs". big difference to a Ti user, i suspect - "like dogs" suggesting how they are behaving - though both phrasings could potentially come off as crude to a Fi user because of the value-weighting of dogs being lesser than humans. perhaps the ISTP is simply thinking of how the children are running around and making messes, but it comes off to me with the implication of them being, in a way, less than human.

i think that's what orobas' OP was after, anyway, isn't it? understanding why the ISTP said something that sounded very cruel, even though her actions are kind. the confusion lies partially in the Fi interpretation of the language as mean.

I agree completely.

 

[PeaceBaby]

OMT: No, I don't catch your "drift" and if you don't know what extreme you are going to, I cannot explain it any better. Your hypothesis is way too broad, and way too dangerous. It really, really is. I apologize if you find me annoying or offensive, and I certainly doubted you could hear that post and not take it personally, but I had to share my thoughts on your read of one possible scenario out of oh, thousands of possibilities.

Thousands.

So yes, I think there is a problem with making assumptions on limited data. You cannot speak to an authority you do not possess. I don't find your overall sentiments a problem, there are lots of hurting and broken people in this world. I just find your presumption pretty shocking. And me saying that, whooo, I pretty much accept most people as I find them and hey, what you feel is what you feel. But you are going to an unsafe place ...

And I still want to know, since you haven't answered me twice: If you are feeling the truth about a childhood problem to this degree of certainty ... what makes you this sure?

 

[Amargith]

Peacebaby...take a step back and appreciate his attempt to communicate in our language..it's unique and I'd love to have that capacity for Ti.

You're Fi-dom, to you this is natural, and I understand what you're trying to communicate to him, and you have a point...but first..applaud him on what he did right

OMT: she's saying that the very thing that NTPs are often on our case about (aka potentially jumping to conclusions about other peoples feelings without fulfilling the 4 criteria to do so), is what you're dangerously close to. You're walking the edge, so to speak. And while I'm in awe at what you've just demonstrated, you're still fairly new at this and would do well to listen to the Fi-dom. Meanwhile...your progress is nothign short of amazing. Peacebaby is just looking out for you though

 

[Poki]

"i don't know who you're kidding thinking that you'll be able to do ____ after you graduate with grades like this; if you keep this up, you're never going to get into ____ school; i don't understand how you would let your grades go down the drain like this; you need to shape up or ship out; etc."

When someone says whats above...I hear

he was just afraid that i would end up blocking off opportunities for myself

Then its up to me to judge my actions based on what I wanted later in life. Most of what he said is logic and goes in one ear and out the other because its 100% completely understood and accepted no questions asked.

What I picked when I read what was posted is someone forcing there internal drive and wants onto another person. I generally dont respond to that unless I decide to.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yes, PB is looking out for you OMT.

I am just Te'ing you over the head atm. So I shall step back from the yellow line and sincerely send you one thousand for the attempt to speak Fi. It is deeply, deeply appreciated.

JUST BE CAREFUL! It's like not wearing a condom or something ... it's making me jumpy!

 

[PeaceBaby]

BTW, what type are you OMT? You and I have never had much interaction in the past. Haven't you changed your thoughts on that a couple of times? Refresh my memory! (on my wall since it's a derail I suppose ...)

 

[onemoretime]

OMT: No, I don't catch your "drift" and if you don't know what extreme you are going to, I cannot explain it any better. Your hypothesis is way too broad, and way too dangerous. It really, really is. I apologize if you find me annoying or offensive, and I certainly doubted you could hear that post and not take it personally, but I had to share my thoughts on your read of one possible scenario out of oh, thousands of possibilities.

Thousands.

So yes, I think there is a problem with making assumptions on limited data. You cannot speak to an authority you do not possess. I don't find your overall sentiments a problem, there are lots of hurting and broken people in this world. I just find your presumption pretty shocking. And me saying that, whooo, I pretty much accept most people as I find them and hey, what you feel is what you feel. But you are going to an unsafe place ...

And I still want to know, since you haven't answered me twice: If you are feeling the truth about a childhood problem to this degree of certainty ... what makes you this sure?

What's the danger? That O looks at this from a different perspective? That even if this is wrong, it restrains us from demonizing a person simply because they act in a distasteful way? The only authority that I'm speaking from is "this is what it sounds like to me, tell me if I'm right; if not, explain to me why I'm wrong." That's it. If she decides that my judgment is inappropriate for this scenario, I won't take any offense, because that's her prerogative. That being said, if she decides to continue conversing with me about the subject, it's entirely inappropriate to criticize the means of judgment, as you are doing. It's fully appropriate to criticize the lack of data - in fact, being somewhat provocative with my statement, in part, was intended to search for more data.

If you want to put it in functional terms, here you go - when you're Ne dominant, synthesis of ideas and creation of working models is an ongoing, and uncontrollable process. I'm going to make a judgment about how something works with limited data, and have little to no control over that. The only way for the model to improve is to engage other functions, by trying to make sense of the current data, depending on whether your priority is object predictability, or social interactions. Once these reserves are exhausted, the only way to keep improving is through searching for more data. At no point, though, does the model creation stop, until the problem is solved.

What makes me so sure? It's what makes the most sense based both on personal experience, and what can be reasoned out from the many possibilities available. You have to remember - this is where Ti becomes defensive in the same way that Fi does if someone tries to invalidate their emotional state.

 

[onemoretime]

OMT: she's saying that the very thing that NTPs are often on our case about (aka potentially jumping to conclusions about other peoples feelings without fulfilling the 4 criteria to do so), is what you're dangerously close to. You're walking the edge, so to speak. And while I'm in awe at what you've just demonstrated, you're still fairly new at this and would do well to listen to the Fi-dom. Meanwhile...your progress is nothign short of amazing. Peacebaby is just looking out for you though

I understand what she's saying. I think the disconnect is that I'm not making any sort of pat judgment on the matter. I'm simply giving my opinion as to what possibility seems most likely, based on what I know and what she's told me. However, I know that sometimes, I don't word things in a way that suggests that - in functional terms, that's the self-confidence brought upon by Ti.

I don't think PB is wrong for reacting the way she did. What's frustrating to me, however, is that she is telling me that I don't have a handle on the situation, without demonstrating what factors lead her to believe this. Her tone is more akin to a parent scolding a child, than two adults having a conversation with one another.

 

[onemoretime]

When someone says whats above...I hear

Then its up to me to judge my actions based on what I wanted later in life. Most of what he said is logic and goes in one ear and out the other because its 100% completely understood and accepted no questions asked.

What I picked when I read what was posted is someone forcing there internal drive and wants onto another person. I generally dont respond to that unless I decide to.

Yeah, I don't hear logic there. I hear "I'm going to berate you, because I'm mad about your grades, I'm afraid that I'm not doing a good enough job as a parent, I feel helpless because I don't know what to do to assist you in improving academic performance, etc." One of the things I've learned is that people don't launch into tirades solely for others' sake. They do it because they're bothered at a very personal level, feel defensive in some way, and attack to feel safe once again. Conversations that are truly about the other person's interest come from a place of respect, engaging them as is appropriate for their age and the relationship of the people involved.

That conversation, done respectfully, would sound like this (coming from me, at the least): "Look - I know this was a tough semester, but you've told me many times that you want to do _____. If you don't improve your academic performance, you're putting that at risk. I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it." "I'm worried about your grades this semester. I know your dream is to go to ____ school, but you know that admissions requires ____ GPA to get in. I don't want to see your dream vanish - we need to work together to get those grades up." "Is there something wrong? These grades are very unlike you. If something's the issue, let me know, and I'll work with you to fix it. However, you know that the reason I'm letting you stay here is because I want you to focus on your academic performance. If you've decided that your priorities are elsewhere, then you need to find another place to stay. I won't toss you out into the cold though - I'll help you find a place."

 

[Tiltyred]

Oh dear, if I acted every time I felt intensely well then I’d be an ENFP. Oh wait, I am an ENFP-. Part of growing up with Fi is learning that it is internally calibrated for me-thus I must act judiciously. I may feel strongly, but it is really important to put a lot of thought into those feelings-or I may act out about things that don’t matter, thus not be taken seriously when things do matter. Feeling does not equal immediate action-unless another person is in a great deal of immediate pain-which results in the greatest amount of feeling. Interestingly-in contract to what you mention-I do have the choice to suppress feelings with Te. I quell them. This could be unhealthy, but allows a more measured, reasoned response. If uncertain in a situation I withdraw, retreat.

OMG, you're so marvelous! I want to be just like you. Except you're totally misunderstanding me. I have repeatedly said that I stop and think before I do and say. But I repeat that feelings for me immediate, like seeing is immediate when I open my eyes, and I do not have a choice about how I feel them. And for me, they are not something to just "own" in the way that PB suggested. For me, they are something to analyze and then act or don't act on (which in both cases is "doing something).

 

[uumlau]

OMG, you're so marvelous! I want to be just like you. Except you're totally misunderstanding me. I have repeatedly said that I stop and think before I do and say. But I repeat that feelings for me immediate, like seeing is immediate when I open my eyes, and I do not have a choice about how I feel them. And for me, they are not something to just "own" in the way that PB suggested. For me, they are something to analyze and then act or don't act on (which in both cases is "doing something).

I think this is a key insight.

If one regards feelings as "something to analyze and then act or don't act" on, then the ISTP's statements are easily seen as venting. It's "just feelings."

If one regards feelings as something one "owns" (that they comprise who one is and one's attitude towards life in general), then the ISTP's statements are easily seen as horrifyingly appalling. It isn't "just feelings" any more, but rather a state of being. Everything the ISTP says is, in Fi terms, a reflection of her own character, not the character of the ISFP.

One of the main reasons I'm careful in what I say and how I say it, why I don't like to speak ill of people, is precisely the latter point of view, a kind of a "anything I say can and will be held against me" perspective. What I say and how I say it reflects the kind of person that I am, especially in matters involving value judgments (Fi). Not that Fi doesn't also have/express negative feelings: it most certainly does. The reaction is different though. The Fi reaction is more like, "what is wrong with me?" (In simple terms - it's far more complex and PB can probably add nuances.) Note how O is trying to contain her own reaction, and the purpose of her post is to achieve a level of understanding so that she doesn't react that way. She knows the ISTP very well, and thus knows that her own reaction is excessive, but she wasn't able to easily overcome the cognitive dissonance between her own immediate Fi reaction and her understanding of the ISTP.

 

[cascadeco]

I think this is a key insight.

If one regards feelings as "something to analyze and then act or don't act" on, then the ISTP's statements are easily seen as venting. It's "just feelings."

If one regards feelings as something one "owns" (that they comprise who one is and one's attitude towards life in general), then the ISTP's statements are easily seen as horrifyingly appalling. It isn't "just feelings" any more, but rather a state of being. Everything the ISTP says is, in Fi terms, a reflection of her own character, not the character of the ISFP.

One of the main reasons I'm careful in what I say and how I say it, why I don't like to speak ill of people, is precisely the latter point of view, a kind of a "anything I say can and will be held against me" perspective. What I say and how I say it reflects the kind of person that I am, especially in matters involving value judgments (Fi). Not that Fi doesn't also have/express negative feelings: it most certainly does. The reaction is different though. The Fi reaction is more like, "what is wrong with me?" (In simple terms - it's far more complex and PB can probably add nuances.) Note how O is trying to contain her own reaction, and the purpose of her post is to achieve a level of understanding so that she doesn't react that way. She knows the ISTP very well, and thus knows that her own reaction is excessive, but she wasn't able to easily overcome the cognitive dissonance between her own immediate Fi reaction and her understanding of the ISTP.

I'm not sure where I fall when it comes to this.

I very much analyze my feelings and why I'm feeling what I'm feeling. I have a desire to resolve and work my way out of prolonged negative feelings/mindsets, but I 'roll' with more positive mindsets and feelings and enjoy them for what they are. However, I also very much relate to the concept of being 'justified' when it comes to my more negative feelings /reactions if they involve other people especially. So yeah, absolutely, I don't have much issue if someone points out that I'm overreacting (as one example), or if someone says I'm missing something. I'm more like..oh, ok..I can see that.. and that helps because now I can just toss this negative emotion out the window because I don't like it anyway. And, I definitely like getting more feedback so I know whether or not what I'm thinking or feeling lines up with reality and the situation at hand. I don't want to be irritated, or show that I'm irritated, if in the end I have no reason to be irritated because I'm missing key information that would remove the existence of my irritation if I knew of it!!!

But the example I just cited ties to emotions as they're directly related to situations. When it comes to what I'll call baseline emotions - my personal gauge and where I'm at on a given day, just generally speaking, in terms of outlooks or what have you - that's something I've had to figure out and it took several years of my mid-20's to come to terms with that and 'figure it out', if you will. So with more of those baseline emotions, sometimes it's best to just roll because there's nothing exactly to DO, or I know through knowing myself that they're part of a larger cycle/pattern (I'm not talking hormones, btw ) so again, nothing to DO per se but be aware and adjust accordingly - not let them factor too much in decisions or perceptions, depending. So I guess even if I roll in these cases, I do tend to view them to a degree as 'just feelings' - always knowing that they'll change at some point down the road and that many of them - especially contextual - aren't constant. So many times I don't place a huge amount of weight on them alone - or use them to define me - just because I know by their nature they are often short-lived. It's another reason I don't show many of these more short-lived ones - seems almost pointless because they might be irrelevant a day or two later or at any point when I learn more. It's why those longterm, deep-rooted feelings are the ones I really hone in on and try to solve for - assuming they're impacting me negatively.

I also relate very much to what I've bolded, though. I'm very careful with what I say, and recognize that what/how I say something can and will be judged by people depending on how they go about perceiving and judging things as individuals.

 

[uumlau]

I'm not sure where I fall when it comes to this.

I very much analyze my feelings and why I'm feeling what I'm feeling. I have a desire to resolve and work my way out of prolonged negative feelings/mindsets, but I 'roll' with more positive mindsets and feelings and enjoy them for what they are. However, I also very much relate to the concept of being 'justified' when it comes to my more negative feelings /reactions if they involve other people especially. So yeah, absolutely, I don't have much issue if someone points out that I'm overreacting (as one example), or if someone says I'm missing something. I'm more like..oh, ok..I can see that.. and that helps because now I can just toss this negative emotion out the window because I don't like it anyway. And, I definitely like getting more feedback so I know whether or not what I'm thinking or feeling lines up with reality and the situation at hand. I don't want to be irritated, or show that I'm irritated, if in the end I have no reason to be irritated because I'm missing key information that would remove the existence of my irritation if I knew of it!!!

But the example I just cited ties to emotions as they're directly related to situations. When it comes to what I'll call baseline emotions - my personal gauge and where I'm at on a given day, just generally speaking, in terms of outlooks or what have you - that's something I've had to figure out and it took several years of my mid-20's to come to terms with that and 'figure it out', if you will. So with more of those baseline emotions, sometimes it's best to just roll because there's nothing exactly to DO, or I know through knowing myself that they're part of a larger cycle/pattern (I'm not talking hormones, btw ) so again, nothing to DO per se but be aware and adjust accordingly - not let them factor too much in decisions or perceptions, depending. So I guess even if I roll in these cases, I do tend to view them to a degree as 'just feelings' - always knowing that they'll change at some point down the road and that many of them - especially contextual - aren't constant. So many times I don't place a huge amount of weight on them alone - or use them to define me - just because I know by their nature they are often short-lived. It's another reason I don't show many of these more short-lived ones - seems almost pointless because they might be irrelevant a day or two later or at any point when I learn more. It's why those longterm, deep-rooted feelings are the ones I really hone in on and try to solve for - assuming they're impacting me negatively.

I also relate very much to what I've bolded, though. I'm very careful with what I say, and recognize that what/how I say something can and will be judged by people depending on how they go about perceiving and judging things as individuals.

I think I see where you're coming from. I would suspect you identify with the bolded because of Ni. Ni likes to really delve in and understand things and get them right the first time, often being very risk-averse. Note how you can just toss out the negative emotion.

Fi cannot, but Ni can.

It's one of the main things that Oro has helped me to understand w/r to Fi and Ni. Once I have a proper "Ni-perspective" on a situation, the bad feelings go away.

Fi, however, doesn't easy change perspective, especially if Si is also in the picture. It's much more visceral and elemental. The analogous Ti version would be like Einstein's reaction to quantum mechanics: that it couldn't possibly be true that it was random, that God does not throw dice. One has to change one's own attitude about what one can accept or not accept (on Fi or Ti terms), and that's always a major change.

Ni, on the other hand, just "wiggles" and magically the matter is perceived in acceptable terms. The terms didn't change, the perspective did. To "update" Fi or Ti, the terms have to change, and it can be a painful process.