Dear Fe User,

[highlander]

Actually, I think it's the Ne/Si, and not a little bit of Te, that is bothering you here far more than the Fi.

When talking about the loud, prominent, typological frequencies, especially in Te mode, I imagine that's rather offensive to your Ti approach: so many details are being missed, it isn't just that one frequency. The thing is, the other details aren't being "missed" so much as they're "not the topic of discussion." The other details aren't part of the overall pattern. So they don't get mentioned, even in passing, and thus missing Ti-style qualification that "well, it's just typology, not a detailed psychological profile" - it offends you that the qualification isn't made.

Keep in mind that the "huge error" you are perceiving is a result of different communication styles. When I discuss things with Oro in person, I'll interject that it's more complicated than what she's saying, and she'll reply that she's aware of that, but that looking at it in that level of detail hides the pattern.

Similarly, NiFe and NeFi have two different starting points. Eventually they converge at the truth, but there is a need for patience as one waits for that to happen. It's a good thing, actually: it covers a lot more ground, as you can tell by how much effort it takes to reach a meeting of the minds!

In this instance, however, I will use the "you" word, Fidelia: you have impressed me very greatly with your efforts at coming to an understanding of this awkward topic, which is so very very easy to take too personally.

Yes - I thought the Ne/Te thing as well. All of these things seem right.

And Fidelia - You have some of the most astonishing depth of insight about people and human relations of anybody I know. It's very obvious how much time, energy, and effort you put into understanding both sides and communicating in a way to accomodate. There is no question that you have very much gone out of your way on this. It's important because I think it does facilitate the dialogue on some difficult subjects and has a significant impact on helping people to understand each other.

Totally!!!!


Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

Also - functions do not equal behavior. There are trends between function and behavior, but there's a lot of overlap. So it's not a 1:1 mapping of one function = one behavior, another function = opposite behavior.

So basically - mbti is useful, yes. But it may drastically miss the mark if one would depend on it to explain everything, and in doing so, would begin formulating all of ones' intuitions and interactions with people based on it alone. Might result in starting on a faulty premise. So when I read statements on the forum that begin 'INFJ's do this behavior', 'ISTP's do that', whatever... I immediately think of the ones who don't do that, and aren't represented by what is being said. What I DO find useful in terms of mbti discussion and application is purely cognitive - INFJ's tend to approach/think about these things this way (nothing to do with resultant behavior), Fe as a cognitive process is this, Fe approaching Te's should think of the fact that Te's approach and see the world in such and such way, Ni doms are similar in that they both xyz, when Ni doms interact with Si doms it should be remembered that Si doms instead assimilate information and view the world in abc way. It sounds like Orobas uses mbti in this way in some of her Examples, but in other examples, such as the one I questioned her on, I didn't understand what she was assuming or thinking. I realize I sound really soap-boxy and I apologize.

So again-just because the system will break down and points and fail to be complete-is that reason to not attempt to use the system at all? Is it okay to push the system to the breaking point? then fill in the gaps with understanding of the particular individual?

I think the danger is that when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It may not be a nail. That is the problem with MBTI. The concern relates to the application and appropriateness of use in the situation at hand. People who know MBTI very well and don't know other things tend to want to overuse it.

 

[Forever_Jung]

And Fidelia - You have some of the most astonishing depth of insight about people and human relations of anybody I know. It's very obvious how much time, energy, and effort you put into understanding both sides and communicating in a way to accomodate. There is no question that you have very much gone out of your way on this. It's important because I think it does facilitate the dialogue on some difficult subjects and has a significant impact on helping people to understand each other.

This

 

[cascadeco]

Hmmmm-check out the post about Ne above....I think this is poking at the diff between Ne-Si and Ni-Se. The people at large means apply what i learn to large groups -of individuals-so I MUST have generic things to apply-then remold to the individual. Te builds generic rules, Fi adapts to the individual. Perhaps for an INFJ-Fe builds generic rules and Ti adapts to the individual? I dunno...

First off - taking a step back, I just want to say that my understanding of how to interact with people - and knowledge of various types and that everyone has different approaches and such - hasn't changed upon learning of mbti. So, I already had my own tools and own idea of types prior to learning of mbti or slapping cognitive function names to these vague processes I already kinda observed irl. It was more intuitive, though. Mbti has been interesting in that I have a name to put onto these vague things.

Secondly, I'm not sure that in the end I'm approaching it a whole lot differently from you (although maybe I am)- although obviously we communicate these things really differently and misinterpret what we're saying. I too notice overarching patterns. So yeah, I have this high-level idea in the back of my mind - all of these various 'types' of people - and which is the one I'm interacting with at the moment? I'll learn more as I interact. But my 'types' go beyond just mbti types. There are subtypes, there are non-mbti-types (i.e. related to character traits, etc), there are interaction-style types, whatever. I don't even have a name for some of this, it's just fuzzy notions in my mind.. and I don't need a name. Mbti is just one of the things, in other words.

I don't know that I start out with some generic thing to apply, which I then tailor to the individual. I start out with all of these high level overlays/patterns in my mind - just awareness & information, really - and then see where the person might go. I might end up having to chuck some elements of mbti theory because they don't really pertain or other non-mbti 'types' pertain to them better. So mbti for me is useful information- it's another mode of describing people. But I don't go into things with only that mode in mind, nor with the drive to apply the theory to the person. The person might apply to the theory, though. Or not.

So anyway, I don't know how to see the world as a system of relationships because although relationships exist, they're "unique". Which isn't in the least bit true, is it? It's just that I'm not attending to the formal aspects of people related to people. I'm imposing a view of specialness on each person, that they have some significant affective subjective component... and it might be dangerous to suggest too much form inheres in the way people relate... one might start with faulty formalisms..........

Relationships are unique but relationships can also fall into various categories/types. Relationship dynamics fall into patterns too - not only how the two relate and interact with one another, but how they VIEW/perceive what the relationship is. It's like the relationship becomes a separate entity. You have Individual 1, Individual 2, and the Relationship. Three things going on.

Although each relationship has its unique nuances, there are themes. For example, I might have the same sort of 'dynamic' with an ENTP as I have with an INTJ or an INFJ. The manner in which we approach the relationship - what we want out of it, how we view it, how our needs are met, etc - might be identical so I interact pretty seamlessly with all three.

The possibility of faulty premises isn't going to bug me as much because I'm working from, more or less, a checklist. X premise is dumb if there is no way to say it describes the world, Y premise is good if there is some way, and so on.

One presumes then that Fe has a similar shortcut available. The whole Fi rigmarole of making all the subjective checks to determine the coherence of a given feeling is unnecessary because........ [something]

So what's a good way of finishing that sentence? I totally don't know because I normally assume other people are without determinate feeling relationships to one another. I mean, I expect people to be coherent, but I also expect them to be discrete.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this! For starters, I don't even know what 'determining the coherence of a given feeling' even means.

 

[Fidelia]

Umlauu and highlander - sorry I was out for the morning and now your comments are several pages back, but I wanted to say how much I appreciated them. Good summary highlander - that's one of the things I love about Te users. I have to talk all of it out before I am able to come to a concise distillation. It's like saying stuff helps me wade through what is relevant and what is extra. Also, umlauu - I had never ever considered how Ne could influence things. Typically there are very few Ne/Ni discussions and I'm still a little hazy about how Ne worked although I have a hazy general impression. I know how my own Ni seems to work, but it's fascinating for me to see how it helps me identify with INTJs while they also have those other functions thrown in there that change things up. I need to reread your comments a couple of times but when I read what you wrote it did resonate that this was a likely cause of the tangled up threads for me.

Thanks for your kind words. I was reluctant to say anything in a way since it sort of sounds like I'm saying I'm good or something, which was not my intention. It's more that I see this often being an issue for me when Fi users make sweeping statements about "the mods" but when we talk individually, I realize that they don't mean anything personal by it. Because it keeps coming up I wanted to understand where it is that we diverge and how I can see it in such a light that I don't react as strongly to it.

Cascadeco, I think you make a good point. For me, MBTI is a useful tool in terms of discussing some of the common places where people's viewpoints differ - a kind of shorthand for discussion. At the same time, I think I am more inclined to agree with you that the approach really needs to be tailored for each individual. I like the idea of finding observable patterns of how people are likely to approach things or how the world may look from their vantage point, but I think it is very important to remember that experiences, individual tendancies, and desire also shape the way that people relate. One size doesn't fit all. Even this forum is a great example of what a range of difference there is among individuals of any given type. The INFJs on here exhibit a wide range of varying characteristics and interaction styles, beliefs and emphasis, even though they may hold some approaches or values in common.

 

[FemMecha]

And Fidelia - You have some of the most astonishing depth of insight about people and human relations of anybody I know. It's very obvious how much time, energy, and effort you put into understanding both sides and communicating in a way to accomodate. There is no question that you have very much gone out of your way on this. It's important because I think it does facilitate the dialogue on some difficult subjects and has a significant impact on helping people to understand each other.

I notice this as well and it is an enormous help in communication for everyone.

I don't think actual Fe is something easily grasped either, although I've rarely read a comment to that effect. People usually assume they get it because it is socially based and everyone has social encounters on which they make judgments.

 

[BlackCat]

Hey, it's this thread again.

Basically, my thoughts on this issue-

1. Fi is only discussed in terms of NFPs. These posts about Fi and complaints about Fi reek of FiNe or FiSi.
2. A lot of the issues I observe in these threads seem to come from Fi vs Ti -OR- Fe vs Te. Not just Fi vs Fe.

My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.

It really doesn't seem to be as complicated as you guys make it to be imo. The issues themselves are complicated because it goes against our nature to understand the other side, but where it's coming from isn't that complicated.

 

[Fidelia]

Yes! Annwyn, you are the first person I've heard say that but I was thinking over that the other night. The more that I'm learning about Te, the more I think that it is largely oversimplified as well. I believe it takes into account more things than I originally gave it credit for. I don't think the extroverted/introverted functions are even a dichotomy of breadth/depth as I once maybe did. I believe they both cover a tremendous amount of both, but in different spheres or areas of information.

 

[Fidelia]

Hey, it's this thread again.

Basically, my thoughts on this issue-

1. Fi is only discussed in terms of NFPs. These posts about Fi and complaints about Fi reek of FiNe or FiSi.
2. A lot of the issues I observe in these threads seem to come from Fi vs Ti -OR- Fe vs Te. Not just Fi vs Fe.

My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.

It really doesn't seem to be as complicated as you guys make it to be imo. The issues themselves are complicated because it goes against our nature to understand the other side, but where it's coming from isn't that complicated.

Nice summary. I actually am interested in the other varieties of Fi too BC, but find that there are very few representatives of it that are interested in these kinds of threads.

 

[sculpting]

I think the danger is that when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It may not be a nail. That is the problem with MBTI. The concern relates to the application and appropriateness of use in the situation at hand. People who know MBTI very well and don't know other things tend to want to overuse it.

So first-wouldnt this be how you break the system-by pushing it to it's limits to see when it no longer provides a a sufficient answer to the problem at hand? Another factor-as an Ne dom I may be juggling multiple models at any moment-networks trying to connect them to each other in some way. They may never connect, but the natural incliniation is to expand the edges of each-until connections can be made. Ni doms can throw me off very badly as they take whole portions of my grid/lattice/network, pluck it out and drop in one of the revolving Ni contexts-destroying the Si foundation from which i expand off with Ne. MBTI is one such network, one significantly expanded-and on an MBTI forum i will be likely to expand as far as I possibly can looking for breakpoints. NLP is another and on an NLP forum I might desire to expand models there, neuroscience and pharmacology is another, crock pot cooking another. Ne wants them to all be interlinked-but they may never actually be-but I cant stop trying (..I've traveled so faaaarrr!!)

I am afraid that because I attempt application-and you guys see a big Si lattice-the assumption is that nothing else exists. I dunno though. Is it simple enough to simply state Jungian functions cant describe the world? That's obvious right?

First off - taking a step back, I just want to say that my understanding of how to interact with people - and knowledge of various types and that everyone has different approaches and such - hasn't changed upon learning of mbti. So, I already had my own tools and own idea of types prior to learning of mbti or slapping cognitive function names to these vague processes I already kinda observed irl. It was more intuitive, though. Mbti has been interesting in that I have a name to put onto these vague things

Secondly, I'm not sure that in the end I'm approaching it a whole lot differently from you (although maybe I am)- although obviously we communicate these things really differently and misinterpret what we're saying. I too notice overarching patterns. So yeah, I have this high-level idea in the back of my mind - all of these various 'types' of people - and which is the one I'm interacting with at the moment? I'll learn more as I interact. But my 'types' go beyond just mbti types. There are subtypes, there are non-mbti-types (i.e. related to character traits, etc), there are interaction-style types, whatever. I don't even have a name for some of this, it's just fuzzy notions in my mind.. and I don't need a name. Mbti is just one of the things, in other words.

When you approach another person you have never met-how do you know what portion of the above applies to them? How can (if you wanted to ) you transfer your understanding of the collection of fuzzy notions to another? How would you share this knowledge? What unifies all of the ideas?

 

[BlackCat]

Nice summary. I actually am interested in the other varieties of Fi too BC, but find that there are very few representatives of it that are interested in these kinds of threads.

I'm sure more SFPs and S's in general would be interested in these threads if there was a concrete set of questions we could answer, then get input on those. It makes my head explode trying to figure out how to contribute to these threads most of the time.

 

[cascadeco]

When you approach another person you have never met-how do you know what portion of the above applies to them?

How can (if you wanted to ) you transfer your understanding of the collection of fuzzy notions to another? How would you share this knowledge? What unifies all of the ideas?

Well, I'm attempting to transfer my understanding/approach in this thread, for example. I'm not sure what other words I can use to convey things. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'what unifies all of the ideas'. I don't think I need a wholly unified system, in the sense that I think you're referring to it - ONE system that predicts and accounts for everything. My ONE system - my 'ONE' unification of ideas - is a composite of various systems. It's the composite that creates the whole. I'm trying to say that I use a variety of systems and while there's 'truth' in one, in terms of what it's trying to capture, there's untruth in the sense that one individual system isn't factoring in other things. The other things are accounted for in another system/approach. Or in a third, or a fourth.

Now it's not like I walk around every day thinking of things in this light - I mean, I'm trying to illustrate this here, even though I've never thought of it this way before. But am trying to describe what I *think* I must be doing.

 

[sculpting]

Well, I'm attempting to transfer my understanding/approach in this thread, for example. I'm not sure what other words I can use to convey things. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'what unifies all of the ideas'. I don't think I need a wholly unified system, in the sense that I think you're referring to it - ONE system that predicts and accounts for everything. My ONE system - my 'ONE' unification of ideas - is a composite of various systems. It's the composite that creates the whole. I'm trying to say that I use a variety of systems and while there's 'truth' in one, in terms of what it's trying to capture, there's untruth in the sense that one individual system isn't factoring in other things. The other things are accounted for in another system/approach. Or in a third, or a fourth.

Now it's not like I walk around every day thinking of things in this light - I mean, I'm trying to illustrate this here, even though I've never thought of it this way before. But am trying to describe what I *think* I must be doing.

How do you apply this to specific problems directly requiring your attention? I suppose a specific example might be the relation in your response previously. How can you identify which aspects of which systems are applicable to an individual problem, if there is nothing universal that links them?? Sometimes in midanalysis, will you find yourself switching systems? It sounds as though you are okay with the systems not always being consistent within themselves, as long as portions being applied are applicable to the particular problem under study?

(I am in no way limiting this just to systems on this particular topic-mbti and pshychology at all-I would suggest you have just composed a beautiful description of Ni contexts-each "system" is a new perspective-a new context perhaps??)

EDIT-also please note-I am in no way critiquing the way you describing approaching the world or how you think. I suspect there are great strengths inherent in this approach. It differs from what I do, but I suspect it can be incredibly valuable and powerful as a way to solve problems.

 

[Kalach]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this! For starters, I don't even know what 'determining the coherence of a given feeling' even means.

It was an analogy. By way of explanation, how do you determine a truth? There's some procedure of categorisation, isn't there? And it depends a lot on what you already know, whether or not the new idea coheres with the existing body of knowledge. There's a fine tuning of the idea according to expression of principles. And how does an Fi person weigh feeling?

So, Te is evaluation of statements as true (matches the external world) and false (doesn't match), and Fe is another kind of evaluation, but one that still uses that same trick of matching, but the exact evaluation is...... Well, it does include positive and negative evaluation but it's not "true" and "false". It is instead..............

.....something produced by Ti? A adequate categorisation of the positive and negative, the proper word.

Et voila, we have the Fe value system.



Or...?

 

[cascadeco]

How do you apply this to specific problems directly requiring your attention? I suppose a specific example might be the relation in your response previously. How can you identify which aspects of which systems are applicable to an individual problem, if there is nothing universal that links them?? Sometimes in midanalysis, will you find yourself switching systems? It sounds as though you are okay with the systems not always being consistent within themselves, as long as portions being applied are applicable to the particular problem under study?

(I am in no way limiting this just to systems on this particular topic-mbti and pshychology at all-I would suggest you have just composed a beautiful description of Ni contexts-each "system" is a new perspective-a new context perhaps??)

Gah..I feel like my head is going to explode. It's just the nature of some of these questions - I almost can't even comprehend them, so I don't even know how to answer them. I don't think I can give you a specific example as to how I solve a problem or whatnot. I am being totally honest in that I really don't find any of this complicated in real life - I mean, I don't. You can take away from that however you choose, but I don't think I have a surefire way of solving problems. It's dependent on the problem at hand and I go from there. My notion of a person or idea or situation adjusts as more data comes in. I'm not affixing a given System/theory to a given person or situation-- my idea and concept of any overarching system/idea changes as I gain new info from the 'real world'. And yes, I would ideally like to come to some surefire definitive answer when it comes to most things - I probably aim for that - but the nature of many complex problems (psychology, for example) is such that one definitive answer might not, well, exist.

So, Te is evaluation of statements as true (matches the external world) and false (doesn't match), and Fe is another kind of evaluation, but one that still uses that same trick of matching, but the exact evaluation is...... Well, it does include positive and negative evaluation but it's not "true" or "false". It is instead..............

.....something produced by Ti? A adequate categorisation of the positive and negative, the proper word.

I finetune my idea of mbti or whatever other internal concept/framework I've decided/concluded upon based on new incoming feedback/info. New people/situations/whatever add more data -- to either support existing ideas, or to make me realize I need to finetune existing ideas or re-work everything completely.

As for what I evaluate...honestly... gah. I don't know what the hell I evaluate. If based on mbti, I'm supposed to be evaluating something, then I'll let you decide what I'm evaluating. (This is kind of tongue in cheek... but really.. these sorts of discussions sometimes make me feel like I have to explain everything about myself in a way such as to agree with the prescribed mbti function order that I must have according to theory).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Damn you, Kalach! You beat me to this. I was wondering if this is something of a Ti/Te thing. Just as (as it’s been expressed in this thread) Fi likes to have states of being acknowledged, whereas Fe’ers have expressed they think whatever feeling they are having in the moment isn’t of much consequence- Ti sees a nuance in the construct being discussed that Ti’ers want to acknowledge, and Te’ers think it isn’t of enough consequence to make a big deal of? (That’s kind of what you were saying, right?)

I agree with everything cascadeco has written. I find mbti useful, but constantly notice that it isn’t all encompassing. I’ve noticed a trend in Ti-heavy INFJs more or less agreeing on this point**- which in itself is an example of how it’s consistencies can shed light on useful information about understanding people. It’s just that there are inconsistencies that are distracting, and I can understand application of the word ‘dangerous’- though I’m also having a hard time explaining why. For me, it has to do with the tendency in our society to mistake all the speculation we’ve accumulated thus far as indisputable ‘facts’ about the human mind.

**To be clear: not all Ti-heavy INFJs, but the people who regularly comment in this direction are often Tish INFJs.

 

[sculpting]

Gah..I feel like my head is going to explode. It's just the nature of some of these questions - I almost can't even comprehend them, so I don't even know how to answer them. I don't think I can give you a specific example as to how I solve a problem or whatnot. I am being totally honest in that I really don't find any of this complicated in real life - I mean, I don't. You can take away from that however you choose, but I don't think I have a surefire way of solving problems. It's dependent on the problem at hand and I go from there. My notion of a person or idea or situation adjusts as more data comes in. I'm not affixing a given System/theory to a given person or situation-- my idea and concept of any overarching system/idea changes as I gain new info from the 'real world'. And yes, I would ideally like to come to some surefire definitive answer when it comes to most things - I probably aim for that - but the nature of many complex problems (psychology, for example) is such that one definitive answer might not, well, exist..

So each new person system can have a totally different set of rules form different systems applied to that individual? Do you find you seek some sort of universal truth-something more basic, more absolute perspective, if not on this topic but on other topics? That perhaps by taking the basic aspects of the systems you understand, with enough reperception, you can find something that is more absolute?

( I am sorry these questions seem so bizarre..I recall being surpised at reading protean and other Fe users descriptions of how they understand people. Questions like these are how I understand people....Sorry if they seem really weird. In the same way-the confusion you are feeling-the "huh" is what I feel when I get Fe feedback...I dont really understand how to respond to it ir what to say...it is very alien to me)

I agree with everything cascadeco has written. I find mbti useful, but constantly notice that it isn’t all encompassing. I’ve noticed a trend in Ti-heavy INFJs more or less agreeing on this point**- which in itself is an example of how it’s consistencies can shed light on useful information about understanding people. It’s just that there are inconsistencies that are distracting, and I can understand application of the word ‘dangerous’- though I’m also having a hard time explaining why. For me, it has to do with the tendency in our society to mistake all the speculation we’ve accumulated thus far as indisputable ‘facts’ about the human mind.

**To be clear: not all Ti-heavy INFJs, but the people who regularly comment in this direction are often Tish INFJs.

Why is this bad-what risks come to mind as a result of misassumption regarding the mind? Do you find it dangerous in that people may be hurt somehow? If the ideas are incorrect-the speculations incorrect-it seems they would only go so far in adoption before being quelled due to lack of supportive data or being rejected by other people's thoughts on the topic...thus I dont understand the feeling of danger?

 

[eclare]

Hope no one minds if I butt into this conversation.

My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.

You know, it's funny. I was just writing in another thread that at its core Fe was all about social efficiency and maximizing positivity for the sake of achieving an end goal - the idea being that happy people are productive people.

I can't speak for other INFJs, but I do have a strong sense of what's appropriate, but it occurs to me now to a certain extent the "rules" of appropriate behavior mostly apply in situations that require a lot of extraverted effort - large group settings or first time introductions. In contrast, when I'm around people I know very well, or when I have the opportunity to observe a small group of people, it's much easier to make split second decisions about the best way to move forward. Essentially, manners and etiquette provide a solid default for how to behave when you aren't able to figure out the best way to accomplish your goal. Rules of "approriate" conduct keep everything running smoothly enough that to avoid failure, even if the end result is only mediocre.

But when you have the ability to read the environment, you can set aside the default and choose the behaviors that best fit the particular situation. I can usually tell within 20 minutes of spending time with someone whether they are the kind of person that I can be wildly inappropriate around or whether they need to be handled with kid gloves. It seems to me that it's the NiFe combination that makes it easy to read a person and figure out how best to respond to set them at ease.

In a larger group of strangers, we cannot possibly take in enough information to tailor our responses to suit everyone. So we rely on the rules to keep things moving along. But at the same time, social harmony isn't necessarily the end goal. If a new alternative comes along and it presents a very good chance of achieving greater success, then we are OK with sacrificing social harmony in the short term so long as we see a strong possibility of even greater social harmony in the longer term. If the "whatever works" strategy only works in the short term, then it serves no lasting purpose.

I don't know how the other functions influence that process. Any thoughts?

 

[highlander]

So first-wouldnt this be how you break the system-by pushing it to it's limits to see when it no longer provides a a sufficient answer to the problem at hand?

I am afraid that because I attempt application-and you guys see a big Si lattice-the assumption is that nothing else exists. I dunno though. Is it simple enough to simply state Jungian functions cant describe the world? That's obvious right?

Well, at the end of the day, I'm all about the application of the theory. My inclination is to do exactly as you describe - to attempt to push the system to it's limits and to get things to fit this logical framework that I understand. However, I can very easily understand how someone else might view this as the child that is trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, put the triangle peg into the circle hole and so forth. It may appear clumsy and inept. I will tend to overuse it anyway because it is the richest method or framework that I have at my disposal. I will take it with a fairly large grain of salt though because in practical terms, it can be very hard to assess another individual's type and even if I can, people are different.

Hey, it's this thread again.

Basically, my thoughts on this issue-

1. Fi is only discussed in terms of NFPs. These posts about Fi and complaints about Fi reek of FiNe or FiSi.
2. A lot of the issues I observe in these threads seem to come from Fi vs Ti -OR- Fe vs Te. Not just Fi vs Fe.

My thoughts on Fe vs Fi-

When it comes to "rules," Fe users seem to be more concerned about rudeness than social efficiency. I think that this roots from Fe and Te. I think that both Fe and Fi are concerned with harmony, but the roots of desiring this harmony are what occasionally conflict. It seems like Fe users have this Ti standard of what's "appropriate" while Fi users have a Te standard of "whatever works" and this can conflict.

It really doesn't seem to be as complicated as you guys make it to be imo. The issues themselves are complicated because it goes against our nature to understand the other side, but where it's coming from isn't that complicated.

I agree that's a pretty good analysis.

I'm sure more SFPs and S's in general would be interested in these threads if there was a concrete set of questions we could answer, then get input on those. It makes my head explode trying to figure out how to contribute to these threads most of the time.

I can understand why that would be the case.

There is really one essential question. How are Fe and Fi different and how can those differences lead to conflict?

Subsequent to that then there is a question as to what can be done to bridge those perspectives.

 

[cascadeco]

So each new person system can have a totally different set of rules form different systems applied to that individual? Do you find you seek some sort of universal truth-something more basic, more absolute perspective, if not on this topic but on other topics? That perhaps by taking the basic aspects of the systems you understand, with enough reperception, you can find something that is more absolute?

Yeah, that might be accurate. Each person is a 'system', in a way, to figure out. But, again, I'm not saying there aren't patterns and commonalities between people and which can create larger groups. And yes, as I started to mention in my last post, I think I'm always trying to find some absolute truth and such -- it's just that sometimes that truth itself is so nuanced that that's where again, the 'truth' = multiple systems/approaches in conjunction with one another, or chopped up piecemeal, not just one.

( I am sorry these questions seem so bizarre..I recall being surpised at reading protean and other Fe users descriptions of how they understand people. Questions like these are how I understand people....Sorry if they seem really weird. In the same way-the confusion you are feeling-the "huh" is what I feel when I get Fe feedback...I dont really understand how to respond to it ir what to say...it is very alien to me)

It's ok, I just find some of the questions to be...irrelevant to how I approach to the world; therefore I don't have a single answer that fits them. But they're clearly relevant to how you do or might, which is why you ask them and are seeking the feedback.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Why is this bad-what risks come to mind as a result of misassumption regarding the mind? Do you find it dangerous in that people may be hurt somehow? If the ideas are incorrect-the speculations incorrect-it seems they would only go so far in adoption before being quelled due to lack of supportive data or being rejected by other people's thoughts on the topic...thus I dont understand the feeling of danger?

I don’t want to derail- so I’ll just quickly say they aren’t quelled. There’s ways of finding supporting data, and being convinced the data is conclusive when it isn’t (self-serving bias). There’s a lot of criticism out there for the DSM IV (the diagnostic statistic manual, used for diagnosing mental health disorders). There are values of society at large that effect the judgment of those conducting the research- values about what it means to be a happy, functioning individual- which don't necessarily represent sound quality of life for the individuals the research is supposed to help. And yeah, people are hurt by it.

Granted, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ‘dangerous’ when it happens in the confines of this forum. But it’s something that pops out at me when I see it happening nonetheless.