It's irresponsible to float a possible (even if probable) hypothesis for someone else's behaviour without stating it as being an hypothesis only. Like any opinion, it should be clearly labelled and disclaimed as such. And any good hypothesis should be tested to see indeed if it is true.
The danger is personal projection and lack of real world facts lead you to offer what looks like a conclusion rather than an hypothesis. And someone could act on your hypothesis believing it to be a conclusion.
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.
Yes, as outlined above, it does seem like judgement. And it doesn't seem most probable to me. But if it is to you, and you want to present it "Fi style" you need to throw a whole whack of disclaimers in there. That IS Fi style in a situation like this. Not a grandiose and verbose verbal wailing to the soul.
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.
@bold: you don't have a handle on the situation though. You're not there, you're not able to read the parameters on interaction, you don't see and feel the body language and you have no relationship with these people. So what you say is conjecture at best, and you have to disclaim it as such. Do you see what I mean here? As I said above, there are many, many more possible interpretations than what you have offered, and what you have offered contains a decided lack of nuance. I realize there's likely more in your mind than what you've alluded to here. And I respect that.
And as to the rest of your post: It's a topic I'll speak with authority to, sure. If you want to read parent / child into it, that's your own projection.
This might be hard for you to hear, but I have to tell you this stuff.
-----
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.
@bold: exactly. If I were to speak in this manner, it would be way WAY more than venting. It would be a condemnation. And just saying it out loud would feel dirty, BAD. If I say something about other people just because I feel annoyed at them, I feel like I have violated my own personal ethics to treat people as I would wish to be treated. So when I need to vent I am very, very careful how and what I choose to say.
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.)
Yes, lovely. Bear in mind my comments are also reflective of an enneagram 9 here ... my Fi + 9'ness attunes to a process whereby one tries to work through emotions to understanding and thus dissipation. Maintain peace of mind. A close examination of the self will always yield a reason, given enough reflection, time and attention. I can look outside myself, and see contributing factors, but how I feel and react is about me, and me alone.
So saying this another way, at this point in my life, I tend to look at emotions as something that arise within me, that they are not given to me, and no one else is to blame for how I feel (although, it's important to be mindful that
lots of people try to dump off their emotions onto other people, and one needs to learn how to shield oneself from that).
Thus, if I can understand what has evoked an emotional response, I can take the next step to releasing it or taking steps in the outer world to solving the problem, affecting the outer factors at play. Some of the hardest situations involve understanding the why of feeling something, but having no way to immediately solve the emotional issue in the outer world.
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.
Ha, that sounds fun. No, I can't toss them out the window. Until they are solved, they are present. Someone else's rationalizations bear less weight than my own comprehensive analysis. I don't (or can't) rely on bouncing this off another person and them telling me I am overreacting (for example), because that doesn't actually make the emotion go away. Only my internal process and understanding leads there. When I talk about my feelings, that lets me get further faster sometimes.
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.
I agree that there are fleeting things that aren't worth examining. But often patterns start to develop that do bear analysis. Little irritations can be a signal to wider issues.
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.
Ya, again no, no such luck accepting the good but leaving the bad in the waste bin. They are hand in hand. Don't get me wrong though, one can try to ignore. There's always a price to pay for emotional suppression I have found though. Long term suppression of negative emotion can lead to all sorts of physical complaints, anxiety, depression, you name it. I believe your body
will get your attention at some point if you're not listening to all the other signals.
-----
That's because ANY of the functions can result in the same behaviors. And I maintain that this thread has nothing to do with Fe or Fi (or Ti or Ni, or whatever other nonsense is being offered up now.)
Well, this is true too. I've often thought this in various threads -- just that one could 'justify' (for lack of a better word) any behavior as being the result of any combo of functions.
This whole thing is one sided to begin with. Oro trying to understand without the other person present which means you can only guess and estimate at best, come up with something that could possibly be right and hold on to it realizing it may not be true.
^ ^ This is a pattern I have noted here and in other threads - the Fe / Ti or Ti / Fe vantage point is the one that stresses this too. So, me pointing out the obvious, that the functions do not control behaviour per se,
is patently obvious, yet here we are, presented with similar patterns time and time again.
I ask then, why? Can you explain the pattern outside functions? Because the pattern seems somewhat defined by them.
-----
Yes, I'm also beginning to see just how divided they are. The strange thing is, this divide is often disguised because we often come to similar conclusions through totally different means. The disagreements here seem to stem from the fact that we are detailing and analysing our thought processes, whereas IRL we tend to focus more on defining our conclusions and there is less division. And it is the thought process that seems to really emphasize our differences.
Yes, that's well said.
I don't think that's a useful perspective, especially given how the users of the functions have aligned themselves. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that this thread DOES have to do with the functions. All your perspective does is leave us in the dark... just tells us that there are two groups forming, and not giving us any clue about what they represent or why they're forming. It leaves us to just have a dispute without gaining any understanding.
Why do you think it's better to refuse to look at it from a functional perspective, and dismiss functions as irrelevant in determining people's behaviors?
Agreed; well said. There is an alignment, and it happens time and time again in these discussions.
I don't think functions are necessarily irrelevant in determining people's behaviors; I think they're irrelevant in interpreting them.
Then this is just a chicken and egg scenario ... what came first?
-----
Great post. Agreed with most of the Fi "understand" parts. Interested to hear the Fe side's response.
EDIT:
I see there's some posts above - shall review!
Is this simply that INxJ's (well, all IxxJ's) internal judging function is tertiary, so in the end isn't that 'major' when it comes to issues such as being discussed in this thread? So the OP becomes a battle of the Internal Judging Functions because those are the primary internal for those two?? 
Just my opinion. Dont get a good vibe from the way the ISTP came across so from the beginning I pretty much dismissed the whole thing. To many possibilities, to many ways to read into it.
