These codes are in a lot of ways dependent on circumstances, so it’s hard to talk about them in ways that will apply to every or most circumstances. But some general things are that it depends on are how close you are to the other person and what kind of information is being talked about in the Te-message. For instance, if the Te message is about things that are impersonal (such as a discussion on whether the current version of American English or the current version of British English is closer to the way British English was back in the 1700s), then you’re talking to the INFJ’s NiTi instead of Fe. (I feel like the rules/codes and how this all works will be a bit different for non-INFJ Fe-users, but I’ll speak from this perspective because that’s the one that I have the most knowledge about—hopefully most of what I’m saying will have some value in regards to other Fe-users as well.) This is I think where what Z Buck McFate was saying comes into play the most, in that it can feel like the Te message is demanding that we think a certain way when it speaks in definitive terms. If you want to soften that, try using terms like “I think,†“I believe,†“In my opinion,†“It seems like.†I understand that most of the time, the person using Te is expecting that if the other person disagrees that they will just say so, but I second the stadium blowhorn analogy in that it’s hard to have a discussion with a message that feels like that.
Yeah, the little ‘imo’ disclaimers are incredibly helpful in reminding me that it’s not like you’re trying to law down THE LAW.
I noticed when EW first posted the question about this, and I’ve had a hard time figuring out how to nutshell it too. I suppose my primary suggestion would be to ask questions/try to understand when it seems like someone is throwing something ‘unimportant’ into the convo before outright dismissing it as something that only interferes with the point you’re trying to make or the goal you’re trying to achieve. It’s one thing to understand what the other person is trying to communicate and to have the opinion that it doesn’t really apply (because then you can effectively explain the conflict you have with it), and it’s another thing to simply dismiss it because you don’t understand and it seems like a waste of time to bother trying- it just ‘clearly seems’ unimportant.
I think what Orobas refers to as ‘Fe nudges’ can be the same as Te steamrolling- that while they’re meant to be helpful, meant as suggestions to grease the wheels of social interaction to get things done/moving, they can actually be far more distracting than they are helpful because if they’re chocked full of Fi ‘violations’- it can send Fi into a tailspin of its own tangents, it’s hard to adhere to the directive nature of the nudges because all sorts of “but…†thoughts come up and *seem* too important to ignore. And just like I suspect one of the least productive things a Fe’er can do in such a situation is to get frustrated with a Fi’er for ‘talking a bunch of nonsense’, that applies to Te/Ti as well. Fe does it to expedite a state of ‘harmony’, and it can get lost in producing the ‘appearance’ of harmony and become counterproductive because it does not produce
actual harmony amongst the individuals involved. When a Fe’er can make the effort to incorporate those details which *seem* important to the individuals involved, THAT is when it expedites an
actual harmony that can be appreciated by a much wider range of people.
It’s an easy trap for Te or Fe to fall into- to make an assumption that whatever isn’t easily understandable or can’t be immediately and easily integrated in what has been said doesn’t apply to the situation and should be disregarded, and they’ll simply attempt to explain why it should be disregarded (if not ignoring it altogether) before even trying to incorporate it. This is the part that gets overwhelming- when someone demonstrates a knee-jerk reaction to consistently and automatically dismiss any contribution on my part that they can’t immediately understand or make sense of. I can tell when someone is trying to understand- they’ll ask how what I said applies to the problem at hand, or maybe ask me why they should give it any urgency, etc. But if someone has demonstrated the consistent habit of telling me, in so many words or suggestive actions, that what I’m saying is ‘beside the point’ without even understanding how it applies- then it’s like they’re simply blasting me with their own opinion stadium blow-horn style.
TJs who are doing this will tend to just repeat what they said a little more forcefully, as if what you’re saying has nothing to do with what they said- sometimes adding insults to vent their frustration at ‘not being heard’ (often oblivious to how they aren’t hearing the other person themselves). FPs, on the other hand, will persist by schmoozing- they’ll repeat what they said but they’ll tack on reasons for why the other person shouldn’t try to incorporate the ‘nonsense’/’excuses’/whatever into what is being said (but those ‘reasons’ won’t actually address what the Ti’er has said- they’re reasons for why the Ti’er should stop trying to say it). Both are attempts at drowning out another person’s input to expedite their own expectations/argument.
The key difference- between attempting to take the other person’s input into account and simply impulsively trying to drown that person’s input out- is whether or not that person can relate back to me (or if they’re even *trying* to relate back) the argument I’m presenting. If they can relate my argument back to me in a way that proves they understand, then- even if they still want to argue it shouldn’t be given urgency- at least I feel like they’re taking my input into account. But if they just give me a blank stare and re-assert their initial position over and over again, then I get frustrated and assume they’re not even trying to understand how what I’m saying fits into the picture: they simply want to be heard and have no intention of making the effort to hear anything in return.
So
. I guess, ask questions if you don’t understand someone’s response, don’t assume it’s a bunch of gobbledy-gook which interferes with productivity. I mean- sure, the Fi/Ti end of this sort of conflict can err as well and selfishly want to go down it’s own path with little or no regard for ‘expediting harmony’ or for ‘getting things done’…..but it’s not safe to assume that is what’s going on any time someone is trying to introduce ‘nonsense’ into the discussion. Both sides of this have something that *seems* important, and the extent to which a person is willing to incorporate the other person’s experience of something seeming ‘important’ is the extent to which they’re willing to find common ground- and people
do pick up on this. Attempts at understanding the Ji perspective will be recognized (and appreciated) by those who really want to find common ground. And just like Fi’ers can sort of feel like their transmissions are getting jammed by having some Fe’er impose an ‘appearance of harmony’ (<- which might feel like genuine harmony to that Fe’er, but will seriously lack that same benevolence for the Fi’er) on them because it doesn’t take their experience into account, if a Ti’er can’t raise issues that *seem* important (however unimportant they may seem to Te) then interaction becomes distracting and even overwhelming.
I really have no idea how common this particular conflict is between INFJ and ENFP, per se (bringing this back to op). I do know that I worked with an ESFP nurse who drove me crazy with it- she’d try to schmooze her way out of listening to any feedback I had to give, when I’d try to point out a problem, and I consistently felt like she never listened to me.
