I just don't think the functions and such allign seamlessly when it comes to the individual level, nor that people necessarily HAVE to fall definitively in one place or the other. The places are real/valid in terms of a framework and 'starting point', if you will - a framework of 16 varying possibilities/trends. And conceptually that's very cut and dry and pretty and nice. And useful for discussing differences in personality - absolutely. And certainly some people fall quite solidly in one place. I just think it's dangerous ground when it comes to *applying* all of this in real life -- applying these nice crisp theoretical differences to everyone in real life. That's all. And I think it's especially easy to forget that, again, there's a myriad of other things that impact human behavior and interaction - various neuroses, individual life experiences, etc. So what people may throw off as 'Fe' when trying to showcase what Fe is, theoretically, may instead be codependency due to various things, and have nothing to do with Fe. You know, stuff like that.
I agree. I suspect everyone in thread agrees with this. If no one says anything in response to your post, cascadeco, it may be because they take what you've written there as fact and for granted; myself, I assume those boundaries are already obvious within the context of discussing typology. Behaviour cannot be explained only by typology, nor likely should it be ... but there are patterns of thinking, patterns in the way people interpret the world. The patterns are interesting to examine, to discover.
This is entirely the source of differences. What is all-too-often missing is the Fe-Fi transformation of the raw data. At least one of the two people involved in a conversation has to do the work of the transformation, and it's best if both do it. The "transformation" is, in simple terms, the ability to think in both spaces, that is to say, hear the Fi-raw-data in one's own Fi-space, and the Fe-raw-data in one's own Fe-space. The human brain is quite amazing: if one can switch gears, and listen to others in their own spaces, the transformation to the alternative space isn't that difficult. It's not unlike learning and thinking in a foreign language, or learning to play a new musical instrument: it's not a one-to-one mapping, and it's possible to have entities in one space that simply cannot exist in the other, but mostly it translates over.
@bold: as the Fi-user, I feel like I am the one primarily burdened with this task. I think in another thread I said I feel like a universal translator IRL. Te and Fe both speak with such authority that one must enter
that space; it's also why, when I try to talk Fi here and get pounced all over, it is so darn frustrating. Like, can't I talk the way I think
anywhere? lol
I would suggest that while one certainly has one's preferred mode of thinking, it is something of a character flaw to refuse to recognize the validity of the alternative mode of thinking, especially for communication and interpersonal harmony. That means being able to recognize the alternate mode, and making an effort to understand it in its own terms, before applying one's preferred thinking-space.
I don't know how easy it is for the Te or Fe user to do this though. It's contrary somehow to what's perceived as objectivity, even about subjective things. Fe users seem to be the ones saying there's less of a difference than Fi users insist there is. And I, as an Fi-user, do insist there's a difference. IRL, it wouldn't look very obvious though.
Where these threads tend to break down appears to be when a failure to successfully understand/transform the information between thinking-spaces is interpreted as an attack or a willful insistence that information is only properly evaluated in one's preferred thinking space.
I agree with this.
Moreover the question isn't whether Fe vs Fi plays a role in misunderstandings of this nature, but rather how and to what degree. People will occasionally misapply or mislabel aspects of these misunderstandings, but that shouldn't be taken as evidence that Fe vs Fi considerations don't apply, but rather should be understood as a failure of understanding in that particular instance.
Agreed.
I suspect that part of the problem is that the Fe-Fi transformation is drastically limited by text communication. Body language, tone of voice, awareness of other contexts only visible to those present in person, all contribute to one's ability to do this transformation. One needs to learn new, text-based, cues to properly transform the understandings, e.g., "if someone is speaking in terms of how-I-feel, then one should read the words in Fi-space, not in Fe-space."
Yes, well said. Generally though, I just get a feeling of who gets it and who doesn't (for example - who is enthusiastic or who seems annoyed, guarded etc) and work more from those feelings.
Difficult though, yes, in writing, because the Fe-users are trying very hard to keep emotional expression out of their posts and that is the info I need. IRL, I can read a whole lot more, including all of the body language cues etc. Speaking reveals more too because the spontaneous nature of verbal communication demands a much brisker pace.
A problem I have with that video is that there's a difference between those two that seems to me more accountable by instinct variants than mbti. The guy seems very SP, probably least SO; the woman seems very SO, probably least SP. I relate a lot more to the guy at times, as far as the way he describes the kind of boundaries he needs.
Yes, I see variants at play there too - and I agree there is more than typology going on, which is why when VJ talks about things like party behaviours, it all falls apart IMO. (And she touches him all the time ... poor guy, invading his space. This video is just *ugh*.)
When you figure it out let me know. The only suggestion I have is to not care. Live, let live, and go seperate ways on that situation, value, etc.
chococat. I used to have Chococat chapstick and a Chococat lunchbox.
