A lot of the things I value go against the grain, both in my childhood and nowadays, but they are more acceptable now than they used to be. That's why I always get irritated when I read people saying things like Fe is just blindly accepting what society values.
It's not necessarily blind, but when its eyes are open it's through Ti--an analysis of whether the values currently held are consistent with each other. For instance, an Fe user might think that it's wrong not to care for other people in need. That might be inconsistent with not letting in refugees from Islamic countries. Therefore, the Fe user will either qualify one of the values (e.g. "Care for those in your nation" or "care for those who share your values"), find a way to explain how one of them isn't being violated (foreign aid argument) or drop one (deciding that they ought to support the letting in of refugees).
An intelligent Fe user will quite likely find a way to do this that doesn't seem hive-minded. Less intelligent ones, less so. But the
basis for those values is always going to be society, not themselves.
Their ability to act on the values that are transmitted to them also affects things--if they
can't be conventionally acceptable or find it extremely difficult, they might look to a different "society", so to speak, and for less "moral" values (values that instead are more about how much something is worth aesthetically or personally) things like Si or Ni can come into play alongside Ti and hold them to previous standards, so if everybody likes pop now they might still hate it because nobody liked pop
back in my day/nobody
important likes pop.
Anyway, the bottom line is, consensus-seeking+inability to venture outside that consensus without support kind of makes it difficult to hold values that are against the grain, I think. People would force you to question those values even if you
didn't mention them by saying and doing things contrary to those values. Speaking as someone who is Fe myself, that's not always easy to handle.
This may not be applicable to you, but then, you might not be an Fe type, and I've long thought that ISFJs use Fe differently to a certain degree (because they have Si first, they can use Fe-values acquired from sources far removed from the present--e.g. TV shows they watched as a kid)
I have a hard time understanding what Jung is talking about in that excerpt unless you can translate it into something easier for me to understand? I agree with "I can't think what I don't feel" but I'm not sure what the large bolded part is saying exactly because I'm stupid.
A'ight. Basically--Fe
dominant types feel like their group derived values are personal values, because the two don't feel any different to them. They're equally intense, equally inward-out, and so on. Something felt very deeply and personally to them could be a group feeling. To me this sort of differs from what you were saying about questioning yourself, because questioning yourself implies that it's not quite as "Real" to you, if that makes sense. This might be because your Fe isn't dominant and you've got stronger Ti though.
More arguably: They won't cave to thoughts that contradict their values (at least not
automatically--they might still be capable of doing that form of questioning, but if they
don't do that questioning consciously it won't necessarily nag at them unless they're stressed), per "I can't think what I don't feel"--that was
most likely said in response to a thought that contradicted their feelings--but instead cave more to emotional pressures--shaming, people of group A being given better treatment than group B and so on.