Fe Fakeness

[Ginkgo]

Bells, not balls. Cow bells, as all men know in this kingdom by the sea, are naturally bull balls. How utterly embarrassing for you.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8OBlq_svBY"][/YOUTUBE]

 

[Glycerine]

I wonder if the schmoozing that's done in the business world (e.g. business networking and stuff) is Fe fakeness?
You know like coworkers or associates acting pleased to see each or talk to each other, but in reality they don't care.
Or someone acting interested in what the boss is saying but they'd rather be doing something else.
Or a hiring manager giving hope to new grads by saying "Send me your resume" even though they have no intention of hiring them.

Is that Fe?

The majority of the people where I live are like that... we are known for our "nice" reputation. lol

 

[Nicodemus]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8OBlq_svBY"][/YOUTUBE]

'Under the Sea' rhymes with 'Annabel Lee'. You impress me, owl man.

 

[Giggly]

The majority of the people where I live are like that... we are known for our "nice" reputation. lol

Well, it's definitely like that here in the business world, but are you saying everyone is like that where you live, even outside of business or school?

 

[onemoretime]

This is because Ni/Se doesn't care whether a conclusion is universal, but Ne/Si does.

We're not talking about caring, though - that's Judging. We're talking about Perceiving function preferences. The preference for Ni/Se does not factor into any conclusion, beyond influencing the nature of the initial information that is later judged, nor does a preference for Ne/Si. Preferences for Fe/Ti and Fi/Te do, on the other hand, because that is the very nature of judgment itself.

xSFJs will classify an NFP as being weird, and put them in the weird box. Interestingly, NFPs don't seem to mind this.

xNFJs will tend to imply that the NFP is "feeling wrong," which actually annoys NFPs a lot.

I'd say that the both approaches ask the same question - "what's wrong with that person?" The distinction is that the one preferring Si may conclude that there is something wrong with that person, and perhaps stay away or even act unkindly toward that person because to do so follows the rules of that particular social context. Change that context, and that person might be very friendly and polite, and genuinely so. The person didn't change; the context did.

The person who prefers Ni, on the other hand, may tend toward concluding that something is wrong with that person, and not understand why that person does not change their behavior within the present context. So, a "gentle" reminder to shift one's perspective so as to respond to the context in a different way.

Context is Ni/Se. You're conflating Te with NTJs, just as you're conflating Fe with NFJs. It plays out differently for STJs and SFJs.

Once again, I disagree. Perception preferences only influences what kind of information we bring in, and how we prefer to access that information. Judgment preferences influence how we prefer to interpret that information. Context, and the relevance thereof, is a matter of interpretation.

Those preferring Si/Fe will do this - there may be a standard means of interacting within a group, but even the very smallest of changes (such as a person's birthday arriving) may invoke substantial changes in the way that they prefer to interact with others (for example, paying more attention to that person, or tolerating more self-interested behavior from them). Those preferring Si/Te tend to favor universal principles - stereotypically, "duty" "honor" "country" "diligence" "steadfastness" etc.

As a Te-aux, I must disagree. There is no "universal truth." You're talking about Te in Ne/Ti terms, here.

Perhaps I'm constrained by language here. "Universal truth" is a vague and abstract concept, so it may be hard for me to convey what I mean. What do you think I meant by "universal truth?"

More conflations. This is getting confusing.

I don't see the conflation. Please explain. I disagree, though, if you think that it is because perceptive function preferences determine how we judge the importance of information, and not simply what information we have to judge in the first place.

This is a nihilistic viewpoint that removes any common ground for discussion. Jung was very clear about his definitions of objective and subjective. They are orientations or attitudes, not Platonic ideals.

Sorry you see it that way. I don't see it as nihilistic, on the other hand. Does it not interest you that a result is an acceptable result, because you have determined it to be so, by whatever means you found important? That even if the determinant heuristic exists entirely separately from yourself, that you still accepted the heuristic itself as important and relevant, and thus made the judgment that this is an acceptable thing? These are the very interstices of what it means to exist as a human being, in my estimation. Perhaps you see differently, and I would like to know how so, and why.

Jung did not write much on the idea that the preferences themselves are subjective, because, simply enough, that wasn't his main focus. He distinguished between subjective and objective functions, though, in that the introvert would tend to prefer a function that dealt with the inner world over the outer, and that an extravert would tend to prefer the opposite. However, the greater phenomenological question remains - what of the preference itself? In my mind, this is indeed something that is subjective, relating to the being's unique experience of existence.

No, it isn't. People have different ideas of what is functional. Different use cases, if you will.

The difference is that the framework, task, or goal itself determines acceptability or insufficiency. It's universal in the sense that this sense of determinacy can persist external of circumstances, no matter what variables go into it. "It doesn't matter what you put in there, as long as you do it right, or get it right." "Garbage in, garbage out," i.e. there's nothing wrong with the answer, you just didn't ask it the right questions. The scientific method itself demonstrates this quality well - if one follows observable, repeatable methods in experimentation, one can determine whether a question is false or not. The idea of falsification itself is a universal principle.

That's the universality of the Te preference - that meaning or value absolutely does come from something outside of ourselves. The Fi underpinning holds that there can certainly be such a thing as absolute meaning or value.

The Ti preference, on the other hand, favors the interpretation that the meaning or value of something does not come from the thing itself (i.e. the object), but from the person's experience of understanding or accomplishment. I say that this is contextual, because once something is known or done, or occurs in a different context, it no longer has the same value or meaning as it did at another time, even if the task or goal itself is exactly the same. It's what makes a quarterback's first touchdown different from his 25th, and both of those different from his first in the Super Bowl. There is no certain answer to the question "what's it like to score a touchdown?" because it all depends on the context. The Fe oversheathing is that an accurate answer to this question is of relatively little value, because of the context, as well - the other person wants to share his own excitement of watching football with you, a person who he admires, and would enjoy feeling some sense of what that might be like. Of course, at a media presser, the answer would be different, talking about it with your wife would be different, talking about it to an audience of elementary school children would raise a different answer, as would a conversation with a disinterested person.

All of those answers have outcomes that affect the person differently depending on the circumstances, and yet, none of them have any value or meaning separate from that, separate from how the quarterback perceived the conversations to be, or separate from how the listeners interpreted the answers. It depends on the context.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, and certainly not how this follows from functionality somehow being a universal standard.

Dysfunctional organizations and communities often stay that way because it's useful to many, if not most, of the members for it to stay that way. Even if everyone recognizes that by all outside standards, it's a failure, it'll still persist, because of a tacit understanding that given the circumstances, it's good enough for each even if that's for entirely different reasons.

If a standard had to be met to maintain group acceptance, then there would possibly be people who did not meet it, and thus, the group would fracture.

 

[PeaceBaby]

well, I have to disagree on this point. ENFP Fi will not be displayed this way for the most part. Sometimes all it takes is a simple statement of "did you realize how this will effect these people if you do X?" to shift the dynamic when interacting with a TJ during a decision making process. As long as it is reasonable, and you arent playing a blame game or being overly dramatic, it just comes as another perspective and it is extremely effective. If I felt I was being carefully navigated (manipulated), I would not be keen on it. I dont mind direct requests, but indirect manuvering would bug me.

I agree, mostly, yes ... but I didn't frame it well either as to my meaning either ...

I am not talking about any kind of manipulation here, and it wouldn't be without an abundance of passion.

And this isn't for the small stuff, the little daily things that just need a gentle nudge here and there.

Anyhoodle, I'll try to explain later but for the moment, I just wanted to share that I somehow didn't explain myself well up there and will come back to this.

 

[Coriolis]

Am I the only person who, when he reads these things, is like, "Yeah, I totally know what you mean about interacting with that type!", but, despite coming to a better understanding of the intertype relation, still gets extremely flustered and annoyed by it?

Sometimes it feels like, even though I gain new knowledge, it doesn't actually lessen the frustration (at least not that much).

but, still, just having that conceptual understanding does not seem enough to necessarily mitigate my frustration, or give me an easy answer to fix the situation.

Not at all. My thoughts exactly. I find it very difficult to figure out how to apply all this "new" understanding to RL interactions, to make them more palatable and productive for all involved. It doesn't help that I don't get much opportunity for practice.

ENFP Fi will not be displayed this way for the most part. Sometimes all it takes is a simple statement of "did you realize how this will effect these people if you do X?" to shift the dynamic when interacting with a TJ during a decision making process. As long as it is reasonable, and you arent playing a blame game or being overly dramatic, it just comes as another perspective and it is extremely effective.

Yes. I respond well to this type of input. Trying to reach the same result using a Te-style argument will usually fail, since I have probably covered these bases already, and will immediately see the flaws in it. Show me a completely different perspective, however, something I have not considered at all, and I will incorporate it.

 

[Tiltyred]

Some people won't, though, you know. Your post brought to mind an ENTJ I know who devised a perfect-on-paper system for organizing staff under his authority, and the only one who has been able to stay in the job is an INFJ (not me) who has walked off the job twice in frustration of trying to make something work that won't work because of the problems it creates in the people's interactions and ended up going to a doctor and having her antidepressants doubled and an anti-anxiety med added to the mix to be taken as needed, to keep her from standing up, putting her purse on her arm, and walking off at 3 pm. The ENTJ thinks it is because he just has not hired the right people for the mix. He can't see that certain factors in the reporting structure etc. cause problems with interaction, and you can't tell him that. I think, because I was put in the position of mentoring some of these people, that if he had a steady stream of someone gently, quietly pointing out, "See how this happens as a result of that?" "See this happening like this again?" that he can be led to see it. But if you said flat out, "Do you realize how these changes will effect your staff?" he would not react well at all. *edit to add - He thinks his plan is perfect, it's that the people are not doing it right. So he keeps losing and re-hiring staff.* This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?

 

[Zarathustra]

This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, at least not in the part where you asked whether what you do is wrong or not.

Where you did kind of err, if anywhere, was before that part, when you basically put your preference over others' preferences.

I'm not saying you shouldn't take people's feelings into account -- ultimately, it's more efficient to do so -- but we all shouldn't be doing Fe, at least not as if it falls within all of our first two functions.

People need to do what feels right and natural (authentic) to them -- keeping in mind that other people have other preferences, and that these probably shouldn't be trampled over.

But, ultimately, we all have a finite amount of energy (libido), and if we use it in ways that are unnatural for us, that energy gets depleted faster, and we lose out on all the benefits that could've been derived from using the functions with which we are more efficient.

It's basically Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage: do what you're good at, let other people do what they're good at, and then trade.

To balance that out, though, the idea of marginal return should be considered: for any one function, eventually, if you're only using it, the marginal benefit derived from doing so will start to decline, and may even turn negative.

As such, you should develop your abilities (functions) that aren't too far out of your skill set; or, in other words: you should stretch, but not too far.

Do this throughout your life, especially when equipped with the knowledge of the functions, and, eventually, you should attain reasonable use of all the functions.

It won't necessarily turn you into some "omnitype" or anything, cuz, more likely than not, your first two functions will still be your most libido-efficient.

But you will do yourself the benefit of learning to utilize those 3rd and 4th, 5th and 6th, even 7th and 8th functions, when the time is right.

And learning to do so will maximize your results.

*tries to figure out how to be Fe fake*

 

[Tiltyred]

I've actually only got a point or so difference between my Fe and Fi -- I have good use of both. So the Fe/Fi threads are always interesting to me. Some of the stuff further down the line, though, yeah, that can use some work.

 

[Zarathustra]

That doesn't really suprise me, tbh.

I think it's really the 7th and 8th functions that get ignored the most.

And, in a lot of cases, the 5th and 6th functions are even more developed than the 3rd and 4th.

Someone with all Fe and no Fi would seem to be someone with little to no spine (imo), and you don't seem to be that kind of person.

Still, a natural Fe-user with well-developed Fi, and a natural Fi-user with well-developed Fe, will still prefer their natural function, imo.

 

[entropie]

Someone with all Fe and no Fi would seem to be someone with little to no spine (imo), and you don't seem to be that kind of person.

Lord Fecesness thinks, you are a squarehead. When you ever come around to Europe tell me in person that I have no spine, do me that favor will ya

 

[uumlau]

I've actually only got a point or so difference between my Fe and Fi -- I have good use of both. So the Fe/Fi threads are always interesting to me. Some of the stuff further down the line, though, yeah, that can use some work.

FWIW, I don't concur with Z's notes about 5th and 6th, etc., functions. I used to think that I had both good Te and Ti, until I realized that I don't think like a Ti person at all. It's fairly easy for Ni+Te to appear to oneself as exactly what Ti defined to be, since one is an "introverted thinker". I think this is a problem inherent with conflating skill sets (i.e., "what you know how to do") with cognitive functions ("how you figure out what needs to be done"). I can do "Ti-like" things effortlessly, but I'm not "using Ti" to do them. I would suggest that Ni+Fe has the same ability to do "Fi-like" things, but that the INFJ approach is generally not going to resemble that of an IxFP, even if the skillset is similar.

I suspect that the "5th and 6th" functions are associated with skillsets that come fairly easily for someone with one's 1st and 2nd functions. If one is an NT or NF, one's 5th and 6th functions are also "NT" or "NF", thus staying in the same Kiersey temperament, hence the strong similarities.

So I'm not so much saying that you aren't "good at Fi", that you don't have that skill set, so much as it's an imprecise statement - that if you look carefully at an INFP doing the same thing, the underlying approach is remarkably different. It's a useful distinction to note, that can make it less likely for you to be surprised as to when and where differences arise.

 

[highlander]

Some people won't, though, you know. Your post brought to mind an ENTJ I know who devised a perfect-on-paper system for organizing staff under his authority, and the only one who has been able to stay in the job is an INFJ (not me) who has walked off the job twice in frustration of trying to make something work that won't work because of the problems it creates in the people's interactions and ended up going to a doctor and having her antidepressants doubled and an anti-anxiety med added to the mix to be taken as needed, to keep her from standing up, putting her purse on her arm, and walking off at 3 pm. The ENTJ thinks it is because he just has not hired the right people for the mix. He can't see that certain factors in the reporting structure etc. cause problems with interaction, and you can't tell him that. I think, because I was put in the position of mentoring some of these people, that if he had a steady stream of someone gently, quietly pointing out, "See how this happens as a result of that?" "See this happening like this again?" that he can be led to see it. But if you said flat out, "Do you realize how these changes will effect your staff?" he would not react well at all. *edit to add - He thinks his plan is perfect, it's that the people are not doing it right. So he keeps losing and re-hiring staff.* This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?

I agree the indirect approach to calling out mistakes or directing someone can often be more effective. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it is better to be direct. Sometimes with a Te dom, it is good to communicate back in the same style that they do. Doesn't always work though if they take it as an affront to their authority or you push for a different direction and the results end up not being there.

FWIW, I don't concur with Z's notes about 5th and 6th, etc., functions. I used to think that I had both good Te and Ti, until I realized that I don't think like a Ti person at all. It's fairly easy for Ni+Te to appear to oneself as exactly what Ti defined to be, since one is an "introverted thinker". I think this is a problem inherent with conflating skill sets (i.e., "what you know how to do") with cognitive functions ("how you figure out what needs to be done"). I can do "Ti-like" things effortlessly, but I'm not "using Ti" to do them. I would suggest that Ni+Fe has the same ability to do "Fi-like" things, but that the INFJ approach is generally not going to resemble that of an IxFP, even if the skillset is similar.

I suspect that the "5th and 6th" functions are associated with skillsets that come fairly easily for someone with one's 1st and 2nd functions. If one is an NT or NF, one's 5th and 6th functions are also "NT" or "NF", thus staying in the same Kiersey temperament, hence the strong similarities.

So I'm not so much saying that you aren't "good at Fi", that you don't have that skill set, so much as it's an imprecise statement - that if you look carefully at an INFP doing the same thing, the underlying approach is remarkably different. It's a useful distinction to note, that can make it less likely for you to be surprised as to when and where differences arise.

I agree with this, I don't think being diplomatic necessarily equates with usage of Fe. There is a lot of "learned behavior". It doesn't mean you think that way naturally.

 

[Coriolis]

Some people won't, though, you know.

. . . The ENTJ thinks it is because he just has not hired the right people for the mix. He can't see that certain factors in the reporting structure etc. cause problems with interaction, and you can't tell him that. I think, because I was put in the position of mentoring some of these people, that if he had a steady stream of someone gently, quietly pointing out, "See how this happens as a result of that?" "See this happening like this again?" that he can be led to see it. But if you said flat out, "Do you realize how these changes will effect your staff?" he would not react well at all. *edit to add - He thinks his plan is perfect, it's that the people are not doing it right. So he keeps losing and re-hiring staff.* This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?

No, you're just emphasizing Fe rather than Te or something else. Funny you should mention this. I sometimes implement the Te equivalent, showing a manager or necessary collaborator how he/she can benefit from my idea, and get the credit for it. I don't care, as long as what I want is implemented.

You and Highlander are both right, of course, that different people respond better to different approaches. Choosing the best approach for a given person and being able to apply it, however, can be tricky. I can usually smell manipulation a mile away, which causes me to distrust and lose respect for the person doing it, making me less receptive to anything but verifiable facts. Anything involving nagging or repetition will be shut down quickly as well. Either make your case, or if you can't, go do some more homework and come back when you can.

Also, just because I consider a direct Fe (or Fi) based argument, doesn't mean I will do what the person is advocating. I may accept that they have identified a problem I overlooked, but may then address the problem in a completely different way. Perhaps the ENTJ you describe thought he had already considered the issue of personal interaction, and addressed it in his own way. The best option in this case would be to accumulate direct evidence that his way is not working, and present it all together, as in : "You implemented system X. We have been using it for 3 months, and can now identify the following problems . . . " Yes, some people still won't face facts even when they are staring them in the face. I find it hard myself to know what to do then.

 

[Glycerine]

[MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]'s evil plan worked.

 

[skylights]

Oh, yeah, I feel you on that one.

But that's more of an enneagram 4 thing, isn't it?

i would think so. ENFJ 3/4 friend of mine needs to vent about her suffering more than i do - she has a need for recognition, i think. probably doubly potent because she's a 3. generally i just want my damn situation fixed, i don't really want to talk about it. and i feel all flustered and exposed after talking about inner turmoil, anyway.

I also fully expect that the other person will notice I'm forcing myself to be nice and at least give me credit for trying, rather than condemnation that I'm being fake.

@bold: extremely well-said as an alternative POV to this thread, and worthy of consideration here.

yeah interesting to hear how it works from another line of reasoning. put like this it sounds totally reasonable to me, i just can't really see myself thinking that way.

The most annoying complaint I get from real life FJs (SFJs, mostly) is, "I shouldn't have to tell you ..." See, there's this hugely different attitude, where (from my INTJ perspective) FJs are very much focused on others and their emotional states, kind of "all up in their business" [...] and so when an INTJ doesn't react to all of their hints and nudges and cues, they get all huffy and insulted. If the INTJ "really loved" (or liked, in the case of friendships) them, then of course the INTJ would automatically pick up on these cues and carry them out.

yeah i feel this too. it seems like a burden i never asked for. like the other person decides to throw expectations on me and then chides me when i don't meet them. and i'm like, wait, what? i didn't even want to interact with you in the first place.

It added up to "You don't love/need/want me because you don't _________."

this!! so confusing!! Fe users see these rules that i just do not see.

This thread needs more cowbell.

i was wondering how long it would take before someone said this.

I agree with this, I don't think being diplomatic necessarily equates with usage of Fe. There is a lot of "learned behavior". It doesn't mean you think that way naturally.

i agree with this too. i interact in and assist in organizing several large social groups, and they tend to be ExFJ-heavy. i can run parallel to them in many ways behavior-wise and interact smoothly but cognitive strategy is almost always quite different. it's like reading tilty's comment - i get it and could behave like that, but it's not native to me in any sense.

 

[Mr. Cat]

So I read about Fe and it makes me imagine hypocritical people who talk behind anyone and everyone's back to anyone and everyone else but they are always smiling and happy.

 

[Giggly]

It isnt because we "hate" Fe, more than Fe can hurt us without you guys realizing it. Because it hurts, we push back defensively.

How it hurts? It hurts as each time I am told "you REALLY should feel THIS way", I feel initially pain that I did not feel THIS way, and that I have "saddened" someone I care for by not correctly having my values set to care for them in the way they needed, since my feelings are one with my self definition, then if my feelings are flawed, then I am flawed...thus I hurt. It is very ainful and I am filled with guilt...

I wonder if it has something to do with wanting to be appreciated for who you are and rejecting the values or expectations to be different that someone else is imposing on you - regardless as to whether or not that imposition is subtle in its manifestation.

I understand this now. I'm sorry you've had to go through that.

I just don't do these sorts of things to others in my real life (but it's done to me sometimes and it really hurts so I truly do understand) so I'm unable to help in any way here. I guess my Fe is just different than that. The other problem is I'm just not well versed in typology stuff, in order to help. The INFJs are better versed in it than me, so I just let them handle it. But yeah, I guess I am a little sensitive, and it doesn't help that I'm never thinking about typology or the fact that blanket judgments happen.

 

[Zarathustra]

I understand this now. I'm sorry you've had to go through that.

I just don't do these sorts of things to others in my real life (but it's done to me sometimes and it really hurts so I truly do understand) so I'm unable to help in any way here. I guess my Fe is just different than that. The other problem is I'm just not well versed in typology stuff, in order to help. The INFJs are better versed in it than me, so I just let them handle it. But yeah, I guess I am a little sensitive, and it doesn't help that I'm never thinking about typology or the fact that blanket judgments happen.

To be honest, I wouldn't expect it to happen or be anywhere nearly as overt if or when it does happen, if the Fe-user is an ISFJ.

I think you guys would be the least egregious when it comes to such things; you guys are calm and sensitive and sweet.

EFJs, on the other hand, can be awful, especially ESFJs (from my experience).

It reminds me of something hilarious I saw on facebook about a month ago:

It was a picture with one-line descriptions of all 16 types, and you were supposed to tag your friends to their particular type.

The ISFJs' description read: "The ISFJ really cares about how your day went."

The ESFJs' description read: "The ESFJ really cares that you really care about how their day went."