Clash of the Feeling Functions

[Z Buck McFate]

I know it's a weird question if this is what you do naturally (it is basically unconscious then). I asked it because I suspect that it's so different to how I approach getting to know people.

Oh no, I didn't think it was weird- it was only a tentative yes because I've had the experience here of Fi users asking, "So is it like ____?" And then after getting some affirmative response, they additionally respond, "because it's more like ____ for me." And the second answer is actually even more accurate for me as well. It almost feels like someone asking "would you like a mediocre cookie?"; I say yes and accept the cookie (because COOKIE), and THEN they get out the good cookies for themselves.....and I'm left thinking "...why exactly didn't you offer the good cookie to begin with? ...you realize how this looks, right?" (And for the love of all things Holy- I'm NOT attacking anyone's 'motivations' here- I'm just saying this is how it often *feels* and *looks* to me when Fi types here ask about others' experiences.)

So is that a direct connection for you: compatible values correlates to reliable judgement? Is compatible judgement something Fe users really look for?

I wouldn't say "reliable" judgment, because that implies I think there's something objectively reliable or unreliable about it- and that's relative to individuals. I need something subjectively reliable to me, I need someone's judgment to make sense to me in order to get along with them well, to know communication won't be a constant uphill battle that takes more energy than it's worth. And yes, someone having different values can throw a wrench in communication/interaction. Often times we can isolate the way in which different values cause conflict, and simply avoid those kinds of situations with the person (and still interact well in the venues which sensibilities are compatible)- but with some people, there gets a point where there's just 'too much' that seems incompatible.

I doubt highly this is something Fe users look for, as the more Fe someone is (and the less Pi- especially Ni- they are) the more they seem to be able to plow through such differences with aplomb. But other (people-oriented) Ni doms have expressed the importance of compatible judgment many times in this forum- so it's very likely a (people-oriented) Ni thing.

I feel compelled to clarify that by "compatible judgment", I don't mean "people will affirm everything I think is correct so that I don't have to change." I personally thrive on interaction that makes me reconsider things and fosters growth. It's one thing to present an idea/concept that you believe to be true, to listen to the antithesis presented in turn and to slowly arrive at some kind of synthesis together- and it's entirely another thing to present one's own truth and to get angry and coercive when the other person doesn't immediately co-opt it as their own truth. The former is incredibly stimulating- and that's what I see as 'compatible judgment', when someone's reasoning is such that extended disagreements can take place without any coercion, without anything that seems like emotional manipulation (and cross-type projection often causes rifts in this regard), just dialogue (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) that helps one or both people see something in a new light. But the latter- where someone tries to appeal to a kind of logic that I simply don't share, and they just crank up the volume on their own (ineffective) logic instead of actually listening- that's what I'd call incompatible judgment.

Is this distinction between motivation and judgement significant to you? Do you feel that Fi users often wrongly conflate the two?

Yes to the first, and OMG I'm not touching that second question with a ten foot pole.

What part does Fi do in the other direction?

I kinda got a kick out of how VJ claimed that Fi moves away from people because of their values- because my own experience is that INFJs actually do this more than any other type, we distance people at the drop of a hat. I think we like having that kind of opposition in our purview- that we like to be able to observe it- so that we can slowly digest bits and pieces, picking and choosing what to moll over to see if there's any value in any of it for us personally. But actually interacting- where we can't effectively anticipate where something might potentially cause conflict, and we think potential (unforeseeable) conflict is very likely- that's difficult. We distance the people where we sense a conflict; because people are actually remarkably consistent- even if that consistency is a total lack of consistency. We distance ourselves from the source of distressing incoming information, and then process if from afar. But it seems like INFPs distance the incoming information itself? At least, that's what I gathered from [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION]'s post.

[eta: Again, ^that's not Fe, that's (people-oriented) Ni. Whilst Fe/Fi may have influence in this, I think this difference is largely Pi vs. Ji.]

Of course, there's a point where it crosses over- enough distressing information will likely cause the distancing of the source for INFPs, but it takes longer in INFPs than in INFJs. I ascribe this (at least in part) to least Pe in INFJs and having less of a general tolerance for interacting directly with the external world in the first place- people only get one or two strikes (unlike the four or five strikes that Pe can give) before we back away into the shadows to process why something/someone is distressing.

 

[Southern Kross]

Oh no, I didn't think it was weird- it was only a tentative yes because I've had the experience here of Fi users asking, "So is it like ____?" And then after getting some affirmative response, they additionally respond, "because it's more like ____ for me." And the second answer is actually even more accurate for me as well. It almost feels like someone asking "would you like a mediocre cookie?"; I say yes and accept the cookie (because COOKIE), and THEN they get out the good cookies for themselves.....and I'm left thinking "...why exactly didn't you offer the good cookie to begin with? ...you realize how this looks, right?" (And for the love of all things Holy- I'm NOT attacking anyone's 'motivations' here- I'm just saying this is how it often *feels* and *looks* to me when Fi types here ask about others' experiences.)

I see

I only offer the 'mediocre' cookie because I think that's what you prefer. If I get the impression that you really prefer fruit and nuts more than sweet things, I think that you'd really enjoy a cookie with that in it. It's an effort to cater to your preferences and to spare you the time and effort of looking through the entire catalogue of cookies on offer. I'm not deliberately withholding the delicious chocolate covered one and keeping it for myself. I'm just trying to avoid the assumption that just because I prefer the chocolate covered one (and dislike the fruit and nut one), that chocolate is objectively the more appealing choice, therefore everyone else must prefer it too. However, it might turn out that chocolate covered cookie only sounds good to you until you find out I have a caramel covered one available and then you wonder why you even considered chocolate*. Just tell which cookie you want dammit!

Also you realize you're not 100% held to that position. It's fine to give a tentative view and if the contrasting one ends up being more appealing then say so. It's just about finding the distinctions and narrowing and refining the ideas down. I just want to know so I make "if-then" statements.

*

Of course as a Je user, you probably don't have a strong sense of what you want until you survey the list of options, and dislike me having effectively chosen for you. You don't know that you want caramel unless you can compare it with the other options and judge it the preferred one. Correct?

I wouldn't say "reliable" judgment, because that implies I think there's something objectively reliable or unreliable about it- and that's relative to individuals. I need something subjectively reliable to me, I need someone's judgment to make sense to me in order to get along with them well, to know communication won't be a constant uphill battle that takes more energy than it's worth. And yes, someone having different values can throw a wrench in communication/interaction. Often times we can isolate the way in which different values cause conflict, and simply avoid those kinds of situations with the person (and still interact well in the venues which sensibilities are compatible)- but with some people, there gets a point where there's just 'too much' that seems incompatible.

So this is done without an emotional reaction or a value judgement placed on it? It's just a matter of fact evaluation of whether you're on the same wave length as someone or not? If so, that would be a hard thing for FPs to grasp - we can't really do this without it being personal (ie. a value judgement).

I doubt highly this is something Fe users look for, as the more Fe someone is (and the less Pi- especially Ni- they are) the more they seem to be able to plow through such differences with aplomb. But other (people-oriented) Ni doms have expressed the importance of compatible judgment many times in this forum- so it's very likely a (people-oriented) Ni thing.

I saw a video on ENTJs that was outlining their traits and making distinctions between them and INTJs. It boiled down to: INTJs strategize first, take action second; ENTJs take action first, strategize second. INTJs need to figure out what they're going to do before acting - aware that once they have a good plan in place, the subsequent necessary action will naturally reveal itself. OTOH ENTJs get things going knowing that they can skilfully adapt the plan as they go along - the plan revealing itself to them as a things go along.

I imagine it's a similar thing for NFJs, simply with a more interpersonal framework. INFJs simply start with an emphasis on compatible judgement as a strategy to maximize their interactions with others.

I feel compelled to clarify that by "compatible judgment", I don't mean "people will affirm everything I think is correct so that I don't have to change." I personally thrive on interaction that makes me reconsider things and fosters growth. It's one thing to present an idea/concept that you believe to be true, to listen to the antithesis presented in turn and to slowly arrive at some kind of synthesis together- and it's entirely another thing to present one's own truth and to get angry and coercive when the other person doesn't immediately co-opt it as their own truth. The former is incredibly stimulating- and that's what I see as 'compatible judgment', when someone's reasoning is such that extended disagreements can take place without any coercion, without anything that seems like emotional manipulation (and cross-type projection often causes rifts in this regard), just dialogue (thesis + antithesis = synthesis) that helps one or both people see something in a new light. But the latter- where someone tries to appeal to a kind of logic that I simply don't share, and they just crank up the volume on their own (ineffective) logic instead of actually listening- that's what I'd call incompatible judgment.

A good reminder thanks.

Yes to the first, and OMG I'm not touching that second question with a ten foot pole.

But I think it's just another one of those things, like how INFJs struggle to separate content from mode of expression. It's easy to confuse two different factors if you personally feel these things are naturally tied together. Even if others do make the distinction it isn't going to be be meaningful to you. Perhaps it's the same with Fi and motivation and compatible judgement.

I kinda got a kick out of how VJ claimed that Fi moves away from people because of their values- because my own experience is that INFJs actually do this more than any other type, we distance people at the drop of a hat. I think we like having that kind of opposition in our purview- that we like to be able to observe it- so that we can slowly digest bits and pieces, picking and choosing what to moll over to see if there's any value in any of it for us personally. But actually interacting- where we can't effectively anticipate where something might potentially cause conflict, and we think potential (unforeseeable) conflict is very likely- that's difficult. We distance the people where we sense a conflict; because people are actually remarkably consistent- even if that consistency is a total lack of consistency. We distance ourselves from the source of distressing incoming information, and then process if from afar. But it seems like INFPs distance the incoming information itself? At least, that's what I gathered from [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION]'s post.

[eta: Again, ^that's not Fe, that's (people-oriented) Ni. Whilst Fe/Fi may have influence in this, I think this difference is largely Pi vs. Ji.]

Hmm. Yes, that's right. The information and person are easily separated for me. Fe see the person as the source of (negative/positive) information; Fi see the person as a mere vessel for information. If there's repeated conflict with someone I usually try to offer alternative information (or a better framing of that same information) to them to change the situation. If that doesn't work (and it typically takes some time before I give up - but then maybe I'm just incredibly stubborn and optimistic), I try to switch myself off from the negative incoming information - I stop mentally engaging with it. I might still speak to the person but my mind is closed to them. Nardi speaks about Fi being related to deeply active listening and I think this is very accurate. Equally, once that listening is switched off, it's complete and total.

It's interesting that you find people remarkably consistent. I don't really see them like that. I suppose I think the context/environment/situation is more of a factor and that framework can change people dramatically - outwardly anyway. Parts of them remain consistent but those are not always easily perceptible. To me their essence is consistent, their behaviour is not.

Of course, there's a point where it crosses over- enough distressing information will likely cause the distancing of the source for INFPs, but it takes longer in INFPs than in INFJs. I ascribe this (at least in part) to least Pe in INFJs and having less of a general tolerance for interacting directly with the external world in the first place- people only get one or two strikes (unlike the four or five strikes that Pe can give) before we back away into the shadows to process why something/someone is distressing.

Interesting thought. That same video series I mentioned made some other distinctions that seem similar to this. For example:

- INFJs are Ni-Fe therefore are combative towards their outside world and more receptive to their inner experience
- INFPs are Fi-Ne therefore are receptive to their outside world and more combative to their inner experience

"Combative" meaning challenging, questioning, testing - actively engaging with it rather than simply accepting it (Judging = active and combative; Perceiving = passive and receptive).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

So this is done without an emotional reaction or a value judgement placed on it? It's just a matter of fact evaluation of whether you're on the same wave length as someone or not? If so, that would be a hard thing for FPs to grasp - we can't really do this without it being personal (ie. a value judgement).

I really like the way the guy in this video explains it- incoming information truly does go to a very non-emotional place in INFJs. This isn't to say it doesn't cause an emotional reaction- it can indeed cause a very strong emotional reaction, but that emotional reaction is not a part of the incoming information. So yes- whether we're on the same wave length as the person we're interacting with (whether they seem to actually effectively hear the concepts/ideas we are trying to convey, and vice versa) is a very matter of fact evaluation. Sometimes, with some people, communication is too much of an uphill climb: there's just not enough ROI to keep dishing out effort and it's not a value assessment of that person's character, it's just an incompatibility. (Now granted- the NF in me wants to point out that if we're talking about an individual who is lonely or who simply needs attention, that's a bit different. Basic compassion always provides self-sustaing ROI, so long as the person isn't like a black hole who expects/needs copious amounts of attention without giving a second thought about draining others dry. Though many INFJs do err in the direction of being compassionate and let themselves get drained, because NF.)

I saw a video on ENTJs that was outlining their traits and making distinctions between them and INTJs. It boiled down to: INTJs strategize first, take action second; ENTJs take action first, strategize second. INTJs need to figure out what they're going to do before acting - aware that once they have a good plan in place, the subsequent necessary action will naturally reveal itself. OTOH ENTJs get things going knowing that they can skilfully adapt the plan as they go along - the plan revealing itself to them as a things go along.

I imagine it's a similar thing for NFJs, simply with a more interpersonal framework. INFJs simply start with an emphasis on compatible judgement as a strategy to maximize their interactions with others.

Yes, I suppose it's like an interpersonal version of that.

It's interesting that you find people remarkably consistent. I don't really see them like that. I suppose I think the context/environment/situation is more of a factor and that framework can change people dramatically - outwardly anyway. Parts of them remain consistent but those are not always easily perceptible. To me their essence is consistent, their behaviour is not.

I absolutely agree with the bolded, and I suspect it's hard for P types to understand the sheer amount of experiential data that collects in our heads- the parts that are consistent do surface for us. I'm going to guess that what you mean by "essence" is more of what I'm referring to than is being understood here. Each person is unique- we all have different childhoods and experiences that shape us into incredibly specified beings with our own set of behaviors, addictions, inclinations, blind spots, habits and beliefs: no one wakes up a completely different person in the morning than they were the previous day. <- That's what I mean when I say people are remarkably consistent. We all wake up with the baggage of who we have always been, with most of what our entire life has taught us to that point in tow.

Interesting thought. That same video series I mentioned made some other distinctions that seem similar to this. For example:

- INFJs are Ni-Fe therefore are combative towards their outside world and more receptive to their inner experience
- INFPs are Fi-Ne therefore are receptive to their outside world and more combative to their inner experience

"Combative" meaning challenging, questioning, testing - actively engaging with it rather than simply accepting it (Judging = active and combative; Perceiving = passive and receptive).

I mean no offense in saying this, but whoever would put forth something like that^ sorta clearly has no clue about Ni. INFJs systematically question their perception in ways that most people don't understand- like, imagine having it occur to you that the ground you're about to step on might not actually be there every time you take a step. The rest of the world seems to be able to take their perception for granted way, way more than INFJs can. It's why we can be such Chicken Littles, or come across as paranoid. It's why we need to observe anything unfamiliar before directly interacting, and why emotional surprises are so unreasonably blown-out-of-proportion horrible. It's WHY we're so absolutely NOT mercurial with the external world.

[And I'm going to admit, it hits a nerve because it resembles the "FPs are inherently investigatory because Fi is *magically* more mindful- but FJs are inherently sheeplike and shouldn't trust their own perception because they are *magically* less mindful than 'Fi users' are" Fi delusions-of-grandeur that have quite often polluted these forum discussions. Ironically (in the incorrect, colloquial use of 'ironically'), it's precisely the repeated exposure to this bias that eventually makes INFJs such as myself either come across as combative (and the slowly-accumulated emotional charge that has built up around the topic adds an emotional tone that seems to routinely get mistaken for 'certainty') or stop participating altogether when this topic comes up. ]

I'll instead suggest that the aspect of a function that determines its proclivity for investigation is I/E rather than J/P. Having an introverted attitude makes incoming information expand as it enters the head (in internal investigation). For Pi dom/aux, the thing that expands is the information itself (Ni questions what 'is'); for Ji dom/aux, the thing that expands is one's own.....opinion (?, or maybe 'judgement'- it's not what 'is' so much as 'what do I think/feel about it'). (I suspect) This is why Ji dom/aux are able to 'take in' a great deal more information in the immediate moment to sift through (iow: interact more mercurially with the external world in real time).

 

[Cellmold]

Some form of chart is in order I presume?

 

[Southern Kross]

I mean no offense in saying this, but whoever would put forth something like that^ sorta clearly has no clue about Ni. INFJs systematically question their perception in ways that most people don't understand- like, imagine having it occur to you that the ground you're about to step on might not actually be there every time you take a step. The rest of the world seems to be able to take their perception for granted way, way more than INFJs can. It's why we can be such Chicken Littles, or come across as paranoid. It's why we need to observe anything unfamiliar before directly interacting, and why emotional surprises are so unreasonably blown-out-of-proportion horrible. It's WHY we're so absolutely NOT mercurial with the external world.

[And I'm going to admit, it hits a nerve because it resembles the "FPs are inherently investigatory because Fi is *magically* more mindful- but FJs are inherently sheeplike and shouldn't trust their own perception because they are *magically* less mindful than 'Fi users' are" Fi delusions-of-grandeur that have quite often polluted these forum discussions. Ironically (in the incorrect, colloquial use of 'ironically'), it's precisely the repeated exposure to this bias that eventually makes INFJs such as myself either come across as combative (and the slowly-accumulated emotional charge that has built up around the topic adds an emotional tone that seems to routinely get mistaken for 'certainty') or stop participating altogether when this topic comes up. ]

I'll instead suggest that the aspect of a function that determines its proclivity for investigation is I/E rather than J/P. Having an introverted attitude makes incoming information expand as it enters the head (in internal investigation). For Pi dom/aux, the thing that expands is the information itself (Ni questions what 'is'); for Ji dom/aux, the thing that expands is one's own.....opinion (?, or maybe 'judgement'- it's not what 'is' so much as 'what do I think/feel about it'). (I suspect) This is why Ji dom/aux are able to 'take in' a great deal more information in the immediate moment to sift through (iow: interact more mercurially with the external world in real time).

Woah, I think we're on the wrong track here. This guy has used this style of analysis across all types - it's not specific to the types I mentioned. It wasn't some attack on Ni. I don't think Judging is more mindful or special than Perceiving, nor do I think his ideas imply that. "Combative" is simply a word to describe the nature of Judging functions and is nothing to do with demeanour (I looked at the video again and he used the word "aggressive" actually). Perhaps you should watch the video for INFJ itself.**

I really sorry if this did hit a nerve but I assure you the way you are reading this differently to how it was intended. If you disagree with the ideas then that's fine, but I'm kinda bewildered and upset at the possibility that you may think this is some sort of underhand attempt to throw shade on you or your type.



**Note: the guy speaks in a major monotone, but he has mostly pretty good ideas and descriptions across the video series (even though I think his INFP description is missing some crucial elements - you may feel the same about his INFJ one).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Woah, I think we're on the wrong track here. This guy has used this style of analysis across all types - it's not specific to the types I mentioned. It wasn't some attack on Ni. I don't think Judging is more mindful or special than Perceiving, nor do I think his ideas imply that. "Combative" is simply a word to describe the nature of Judging functions and is nothing to do with demeanour (I looked at the video again and he used the word "aggressive" actually). Perhaps you should watch the video for INFJ itself.**

I really sorry if this did hit a nerve but I assure you the way you are reading this differently to how it was intended. If you disagree with the ideas then that's fine, but I'm kinda bewildered and upset at the possibility that you may think this is some sort of underhand attempt to throw shade on you or your type.



**Note: the guy speaks in a major monotone, but he has mostly pretty good ideas and descriptions across the video series (even though I think his INFP description is missing some crucial elements - you may feel the same about his INFJ one).

Sorry, I probably just haven't stayed away from these discussions long enough. It's very plausible to me that past forum experience interfered in how I read that. Fwiw, I totally didn't read it as an attack from you or as some underhanded attempt at something on your part. (I'm even kinda surprised it gave that impression- the tail end of my post must have more tone than I'm aware of- so yeah, sorry. I knew I was annoyed, and admitted it in attempt to reduce the 'background noise' I had a feeling it would create- but apparently it created even more 'background noise' than I thought. It wasn't about you though.)

I tried watching the video, and his voice really is too monotone for me to make out what he's saying (I'm hearing impaired).

 

[Southern Kross]

Sorry, I probably just haven't stayed away from these discussions long enough. It's very plausible to me that past forum experience interfered in how I read that. Fwiw, I totally didn't read it as an attack from you or as some underhanded attempt at something on your part. (I'm even kinda surprised it gave that impression- the tail end of my post must have more tone than I'm aware of- so yeah, sorry. I knew I was annoyed, and admitted it in attempt to reduce the 'background noise' I had a feeling it would create- but apparently it created even more 'background noise' than I thought. It wasn't about you though.)

I tried watching the video, and his voice really is too monotone for me to make out what he's saying (I'm hearing impaired).

OK. Just a misunderstanding then.

If you're still interested, there's a transcript of that video.

 

[draon9]

I think a good way to kind of tell an fe vs.fi in the way they are talking. Fi is a very down to earth function and I say this because most of puss in boots, he is man of morality, but he is going to be very down to earth and will always relate to you on a deeper level and the vibe that a lot of fps and even some unhealthy tjs will always be more of who they really are and you get the sense that they are showing themselves.
Fe users, epsecially dominant ones will always give you the vibe that there is something fake about them and you are not always going to get a direct answer.from them if they are freaking out, think of bill cosby and maybe martin luther King junior who would have gave an ndirect answer. Fe users do have the vibe of a moralist, but at the time, they are come across as teachers, wisemen and trainers in Tempe.

 

[aanule]

I think a good way to kind of tell an fe vs.fi in the way they are talking. Fi is a very down to earth function and I say this because most of puss in boots, he is man of morality, but he is going to be very down to earth and will always relate to you on a deeper level and the vibe that a lot of fps and even some unhealthy tjs will always be more of who they really are and you get the sense that they are showing themselves.
Fe users, epsecially dominant ones will always give you the vibe that there is something fake about them and you are not always going to get a direct answer.from them if they are freaking out, think of bill cosby and maybe martin luther King junior who would have gave an ndirect answer. Fe users do have the vibe of a moralist, but at the time, they are come across as teachers, wisemen and trainers in Tempe.

This, from a Fe user! But, yes... Definitely. The indirect answer thing is nuts. Avoiding lying by being evasive is still lying in my book!

I feel like I have a deep well of emotion, but that I parse it out thoughtfully. I *might* be crazy on occasion, but I don't let the crazy out, it stays in my head. Whereas, Fe users I know just let the crazy out willy nilly.

 

[draon9]

It is from what I have observe, a lot of reading and reaching my conclusion of what I have notice because I saw one of Bill Cosby's interview and it seems like he was trying to say that he did not raped those women, but he was freaking to the point where he said I do not such and such. If he was an fi user with bad te, he would just go off.
If you ask a weak ji user a question that makes them uncomfortable, it is like you are cutting their tongues and you literally shut them up for a while. If you ask me an uncomfortable question to me, I'm either not going to give a straightforward answer or not say anything due to me not knowing what to say at the moment,

 

[draon9]

Also when you are talking to someone who uses fe, you never felt as though they are above or below, you are not going to feel like you are an equal.

If someone uses, it feels like they are talking to you as an equal.