I think [MENTION=23222]Arcana[/MENTION] & [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head with why these descriptions are not appealing to some, especially to INFPs (who so far seem to almost unanimously dislike them). The emotional tone and language doesn’t match the type in every case, even if the details may technically be correct. That’s a big problem for INFPs, who will seek to be precise in the emotional tones, as they convey as much meaning as the words themselves. The Si description has so much metaphor it has an intuitive feel, yet what it’s describing is not entirely wrong for Si. It’s language and tone was more appealing to me than the Fi description (fantasizing, finding meaning in quiet but beautiful things like gardens and novels, a disconnect from reality and finding the outside world harsh at times - sounds a lot like many INFPs), but what is actually said is not right for me. I am very restless to explore novelty and have a great irritation with too much repetition unless something is important to me (then I may "repeat" it until adequately refined).
For me, the Fi described here is very simplistic and has some bizarre focus on expression of judgment (which always sounds like Ji through a Je lens, failing to grasp how Ji works). I see Fi in terms of creating/refining value concepts, not making a judgment. I very much know what I want, but I have trouble putting it into a form that can be communicated to others, and it’s not surprising that other INFPs are relating more to the Ni description because it has more of that flavor. There are these basic, pre-verbal concepts of value that you’ve determined, but they are hard to communicate in a way others will know exactly what you mean. Since Fi is more inwardly focused, this communication often doesn’t seem necessary except when something is threatened or you have a rare moment of deep fulfillment. Other than that, the focus is on creating congruency between the parts of yourself with these value-concepts. How you feel rationally (aka what you believe is truly important), how you feel emotionally, what you desire, how you act, what you say, etc - a harmony & consistency between these is sought. Without that is inner turmoil, and this is a constant problem because you don’t always know what a value-concept will look like in terms of emotions, desires, actions, words, etc. So you explore and adjust, refining your guage as you go.
My interpretation of Fi is also about meaning and significance in the human experience, and using the self as a sort of testing ground for discovering and creating that meaning (the self is the “guageâ€). This is done through fantasy, memory, direct experience, as well as through reasoning. Since the focus is on creating, refining and searching for the manifestation of value-concepts, it’s less about communicating and applying judgment directly. The passionate force of the Fe description is appealing, but I don’t have the directive style; I certainly have the passion though, which is apparent when those moments of violation or fulfillment occur. The Fi style is perhaps meant to sound more exploratory, but it comes off as weak and unsure. Fi is not weak nor unsure - the holding back is because something is not striking to you. It neither fulfills an ideal nor violates one, but if it does, that’s when it breaks out in expression.
If I am indecisive it’s because there are no options good enough (not close enough to an ideal that I am struggling to define in real terms) or too many options which seem good and I fear choosing the wrong one. Ne is what helps propel the exploratory process, otherwise, you get stuck in fear of choosing something that may not fulfill or could even violate an ideal. With FiSe types, they seem to hesitate too, but less so. They may only seeing the immediate options since everything else is too far-off to be valid, and I suppose they decide to just go with one rather than wait too long for something that's speculation at best. But this can make them get into things which stray from their values and creates that inner turmoil. In contrast, INFPs often don’t live enough, because we’re holding out for something great which is not yet here, which we haven't quite seen ever, but we know in our bones COULD exist.
The Ne description is too positive for me (sounds like an e7 on cocaine), but the basic idea of seeing a potential as totally possible, but then getting bored with the details of implementing it, is relatable. More than that, I get very restless when I feel “stuckâ€, as if the present reality is a cage to be escaped. I want things to always be changing, morphing into the next phase, to see potential emerging. This makes it hard to do the repetition necessary for refinement and implementation. I instead want to move onto another big change, to begin the next chapter, not to fill in the details. When I am in the middle of a possibility emerging as a reality, then I am most positive and energized. Perhaps because Ne-dom are more often in that state, being their dominant mindset, they are generally more upbeat. I am not as talented as they are at creating these changes, but I am possibly as unsatisfied with the status quo and driven towards some grand vision that could seem unrealistic to others.