In fact, this topic merits a thread of its own as i believe it to be the crux of the Ti vs Fi problem.
I presume this post is directed at me?
Mocking reads as inherent disrespect for who the person is and what they have to offer to Fi. It can feel extremely humiliating - which is clearly the opposite of what you intend it to do.
Of course, it’s a skillset; someone with only meagre ability will often times more resemble a bull in a chinaware shop then someone offering a helping hand. I think at that level it is harder to measure the intentions of the individual; are they simply unskilled or are they deriding for the sake of an ego boost?
I personally only respond well to it if i know for sure where i stand with the perdon and they clearly mean it in a playful way as we re horsing around. Id even say that that tactic without a good handle on Fe is lethal to your bond with the other person though id love to hear that confirmed or refuted by other FeTi users.
Do you mean FJs? Then yes (in my life) for SFJs the phrasing seems to be important. They can react very negatively to it; the ESFJs are prone to throw an obvious huff, while ISFJs will simply give you the silent treatment. If done with a measure of tact; ESFJs will view it as annoyingly abstract, and gloss over it; perhaps to think upon later. ISFJs seem to absorb it, and move on. I do not know any NFJs so cannot speak to their reaction.
At the same time i recognize the structure as i use it with Fi. I dont guide, i just point out things that amuse me and ask odd seeming questions about their values' consistency before leaving them to their thoughts. And if done with too much trickster energy, people do believe im mocking them, instead of being amused at the irony in the situation or process, so i have to watch that. I do that for the same reason you do -to respect their pov while putting question marks next to the perceived inconsistencies. Which is why Fe can be oppressive to us - like Te is for you, no doubt.
When it comes to Te it really depends; when we’re working towards a deadline, then I don’t really mind it, my goal is usually to develop the project fully, while allowing the Te user to set the parameters. It’s when it comes to matters that have no pertinent time scale that I find such behaviour odd, if you have the time you might as well use it. That is more directed at the EXTJs I know; Te in ENFPs can look a little odd to me perhaps a tad arbitrary.
As Ti is my blindspot, i have no clue what you mock me for other than your own entertainment and i often end up feeling mobbed if you do it in public. Does my Fi feel the same to you?
I honestly don’t know I haven’t spent enough time corresponding with people online to say. Perhaps you could give an example of what Fi mobbing would look like?
Would you stop, if the person asked you to?
Absolutely; because that would mean that the method is not working. It would be entirely irrational to continue; if your intent is to help.
Or explain what you did why?
This is dependent on a case by case basis. If the individual is angry and offended, and reducing concepts to a very personal nature chances are an explanation would be pointless; as would be further conversation. Or alternatively you disagree on even the most fundamental of points; an explanation would not be worth it. If on the other hand the individual is slightly confused, or suffering from information overload; then yes I probably would explain.
Even guide them, and converse instead the way you just did with EJCC?
EJCC wasn’t so much wrong as she had a simple answer for a more complicated situation. One in which the perspective of the other side of the coin was necessary to complete the picture. As for the question in a more general term, it has to do with agitating minds. So often people seem to slip into carefully constructed mental prisms, a kind of mental death where in old ideas are repurposed for new problems. A still mind is such a waste; in a world where it is becoming increasingly easy to be genuinely creative, so many people still have such mentally static existences. By shattering the prism I’m asking them to revaluate who they are, and what’s more where they are going, to press past the “what ought to beâ€, to the †what could beâ€. A small step perhaps, but all journeys begin such.