What would the world do without Fe?

[Jaguar]

Even if it tests as your lowest function, I think you use Fe. Everyone does.
Actually this whole idea that people use either X or Y function makes no sense. Cognitive functions are not like separate Leggo blocks that either you've got it or you haven't.

All true.

There isn't one single book that exists, which states we can't use all 8 functions. But there are plenty of books that do exist, which tell you we CAN use all 8 functions. Frankly, what is telling to me is not what someone claims as an MBTI type, but rather how they choose to utilize the theory itself. With some, I've never seen such an example of destructive use. Telling people their functions "suck" or they "use demonic functions" or "the world would be a better place without X," well, what they are really doing is subconsciously choosing to disown a part of themselves they simply do not like. I don't understand why all the hate. People can't hate a function, when that function is a mental process within everyone, including themselves.

The things that people don't like become their definitions of "the other," which in turn become their definitions of functions that they don't "use." Which in turn colors their perceptions of other people.

But then, to an extent, I guess it's sort of valid when it's actually well thought-out and not taken too far.

I hadn't seen your post yet, when I was replying to Annwn. Looks like you and I are of the same opinion. We just expressed it differently.

 

[FemMecha]

All true.

There isn't one single book that exists, which states we can't use all 8 functions. But there are plenty of books that do exist, which tell you we CAN use all 8 functions. Frankly, what is telling to me is not what someone claims as an MBTI type, but rather how they choose to utilize the theory itself. With some, I've never seen such an example of destructive use. Telling people their functions "suck" or they "use demonic functions" or "the world would be a better place without X," well, what they are really doing is subconsciously choosing to disown a part of themselves they simply do not like. I don't understand why all the hate. People can't hate a function, when that function is a mental process within everyone, including themselves.

^^
All eight of my functions agree with the above post.

 

[proteanmix]

But what I observe more and more often from Fe doms and auxs is that Fe gives them a very complex perspective of human interactions...thus making the jungian functional approach seem too simplistic. Instead of recognizing they are seeing the world in a way others do not, thus recognizing others can see things about the world, they cannot....The Fe users become morally offended that we would try and understand the world of human interactions in a way they cannot perceive it. What aspect of Fe values does this offend? Are we all supposed to view the world exactly the same way emotionally?

No we're not. I try to understand people through psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, (not so much art and literature ) things like that. I don't use MBTI and typology as my only reference. To me it seems like you use MBTI and typology as your only references because you so often try to map things that I believe are broad human behaviors as endemic to a specific function. I used a picture before already in the thread and asked people how do you untangle that? I doesn't mean it can't be untangled and I think we're trying to untangle it in our own ways.

What aspect of Fe values does this offend? I'm going to think about that. The strongest things I can identify is incomplete, oversimplified, and inaccurate.

...Why would it be morally offensive to an Fe user that they may not understand other people in the way they think they do?

I think this is a perfect example of you overextending a concept to Fe users. These are my interpretations of what you are saying here

• "Fe users don't understand people who think differently than them."
• "Fe users don't understand why people would think differently than them."
• "Fe users think they understand people when they don't."

I hope I'm not twisting your statement in my mind and pulling things out of it that aren't there. Please correct me if I am. Honestly that's how I play that question back to myself and I think anyone can do any of those things so why is it "Fe users"?

This seems to be how FiTe works....but this doesn't seem acceptable to Fe users. I adore many Fe users and care for them greatly and will bend myself to meet their needs...including learning Fe convo strategies....but I dont see that you guys can step away are recognize the validity of alternative approaches....

I suppose I'm not seeing what alternative approaches you're giving. I think it's interesting that throughout this thread, there has been an insistence (by you) that the communication problems you encounter are universal between Fe and Fi. I'm sorry, I don't see how this is at all universal. The only proof you have of this assertion is you interactions with coworkers in her dysfunctional job environment which brings out the worse in people it seems. I've been in a toxic workplace so I know how it is. Everyone is looking for a reason why it is the way it is and doing their best to make some reason out of it.

I have steadily insisted that is not the case, that the communication difficulties you encounter are not strictly due to or even be mapped to Fe/Ti Fi/Te differences. I have tried to break things down into possible alternatives to why you're seeing you are:

• office politics
• fear-based work environment
• indirect/direct communications
• Interaction Styles
• below I offer the economic climate

Do you consider those alternatives? IMO, all of those reasons supersede type and functions. Do you think those reasons supersede type and function? If you don't, then that's a communication gap right there: our definitions and examples of what constitute "alternatives" and where those reasons arise are vastly different. From what I can see, none of these have been addressed as stand alones on their own merit.

So yes, I can't really communicate with people who do this. If someone insists on saying Ti/Fe users cross their shoelaces to the right and Te/Fi cross theirs to the left and won't take into consideration the fact that it depends on if they're right-handed or left-handed or what method of shoe tying they were taught, or whether they have missing fingers, yes I am at a loss of what to say and it is frustrating. Additionally, I don't feel like I experience this as a problem in my real life interactions so to me yes, it does look like these issues are being exaggerated on the forum. I work with a mixture of FPs and TJs and for the most part, I feel like we're on the same page about things. Time will tell and as situations and problems crop up I'll see if that continues to be the case, but quite honestly EVERYONE seems quite invested on keeping things even-keeled and stable and ere towards overcommunication rather than undercommunication. Meaning things get restated five different ways and you feel like saying, "OK I get it!!"

I made a thread a while ago asking people when can you legitimately map a behavior or action to someone's type. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/1219-when-type.html (whoa that was different me!) I do believe that communication style can manifest through type, so I'm not arguing against that. I do argue against and disagree that type is the main determiner of communication style. I'm beginning to see that if it helps you, do what helps you to understand. I do wonder what happens when someone (or a whole lot of someones) don't fit and I hope that you can react to them without being confounded because they're not behaving according to your model.

When you gave your example of what constitutes indirect communication, someone says "We need help but we don't know who will do it" which is direct to me, I understood that you are probably more responsive to orders and directives and anything less than that is indirect to you. This is why once again I say that if you're in an office environment with very strict hierarchical structure and I believe this is more a result of the culture and structure of the organization and how people respond to that structure than the people themselves.

Also please take into consideration that in the current economic environment, people are very wary to do anything that would land their head on the chopping block. When people's livelihoods are at stake or they feel they're caught between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea, it's probably going to produce some reactions that are atypical. When people are under stress for an extended amount of time, you are going to see stressed personality traits and unnatural responses. A person who is typically very engaged and involved can become passive and apathetic (that's what happened to me). Frankly, I hope my old job burns to the ground without a brick left to speak of its existence, lol.

 

[Poki]

The things that people don't like become their definitions of "the other," which in turn become their definitions of functions that they don't "use." Which in turn colors their perceptions of other people.

But then, to an extent, I guess it's sort of valid when it's actually well thought-out and not taken too far.

So what would you say if someone pinned there negative qualities on others because they know that that person would look down upon that quality and that quality would be fought. Projection...yes...but for a purpose, not blindly. Just some food for thought Its interesting the many ways someone can seperate and "use" themselves.

 

[Glycerine]

No we're not. I try to understand people through psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, (not so much art and literature ) things like that. I don't use MBTI and typology as my only reference. To me it seems like you use MBTI and typology as your only references because you so often try to map things that I believe are broad human behaviors as endemic to a specific function. I used a picture before already in the thread and asked people how do you untangle that? I doesn't mean it can't be untangled and I think we're trying to untangle it in our own ways.

What aspect of Fe values does this offend? I'm going to think about that. The strongest things I can identify is incomplete, oversimplified, and inaccurate.



I think this is a perfect example of you overextending a concept to Fe users. These are my interpretations of what you are saying here

• "Fe users don't understand people who think differently than them."
• "Fe users don't understand why people would think differently than them."
• "Fe users think they understand people when they don't."

I hope I'm not twisting your statement in my mind and pulling things out of it that aren't there. Please correct me if I am. Honestly that's how I play that question back to myself and I think anyone can do any of those things so why is it "Fe users"?



I suppose I'm not seeing what alternative approaches you're giving. I think it's interesting that throughout this thread, there has been an insistence (by you) that the communication problems you encounter are universal between Fe and Fi. I'm sorry, I don't see how this is at all universal. The only proof you have of this assertion is you interactions with coworkers in her dysfunctional job environment which brings out the worse in people it seems. I've been in a toxic workplace so I know how it is. Everyone is looking for a reason why it is the way it is and doing their best to make some reason out of it.

I have steadily insisted that is not the case, that the communication difficulties you encounter are not strictly due to or even be mapped to Fe/Ti Fi/Te differences. I have tried to break things down into possible alternatives to why you're seeing you are:

• office politics
• fear-based work environment
• indirect/direct communications
• Interaction Styles
• below I offer the economic climate

Do you consider those alternatives? IMO, all of those reasons supersede type and functions. Do you think those reasons supersede type and function? If you don't, then that's a communication gap right there: our definitions and examples of what constitute "alternatives" and where those reasons arise are vastly different. From what I can see, none of these have been addressed as stand alones on their own merit.

So yes, I can't really communicate with people who do this. If someone insists on saying Ti/Fe users cross their shoelaces to the right and Te/Fi cross theirs to the left and won't take into consideration the fact that it depends on if they're right-handed or left-handed or what method of shoe tying they were taught, or whether they have missing fingers, yes I am at a loss of what to say and it is frustrating. Additionally, I don't feel like I experience this as a problem in my real life interactions so to me yes, it does look like these issues are being exaggerated on the forum. I work with a mixture of FPs and TJs and for the most part, I feel like we're on the same page about things. Time will tell and as situations and problems crop up I'll see if that continues to be the case, but quite honestly EVERYONE seems quite invested on keeping things even-keeled and stable and ere towards overcommunication rather than undercommunication. Meaning things get restated five different ways and you feel like saying, "OK I get it!!"

I made a thread a while ago asking people when can you legitimately map a behavior or action to someone's type. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/1219-when-type.html (whoa that was different me!) I do believe that communication style can manifest through type, so I'm not arguing against that. I do argue against and disagree that type is the main determiner of communication style. I'm beginning to see that if it helps you, do what helps you to understand. I do wonder what happens when someone (or a whole lot of someones) don't fit and I hope that you can react to them without being confounded because they're not behaving according to your model.

When you gave your example of what constitutes indirect communication, someone says "We need help but we don't know who will do it" which is direct to me, I understood that you are probably more responsive to orders and directives and anything less than that is indirect to you. This is why once again I say that if you're in an office environment with very strict hierarchical structure and I believe this is more a result of the culture and structure of the organization and how people respond to that structure than the people themselves.

Also please take into consideration that in the current economic environment, people are very wary to do anything that would land their head on the chopping block. When people's livelihoods are at stake or they feel they're caught between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea, it's probably going to produce some reactions that are atypical. When people are under stress for an extended amount of time, you are going to see stressed personality traits and unnatural responses. A person who is typically very engaged and involved can become passive and apathetic (that's what happened to me). Frankly, I hope my old job burns to the ground without a brick left to speak of its existence, lol.

AMEN TO THAT! I know that for the most part, I get along fine with FPs in real life but some people on here keep insisting that FPs and FJs are destined to be in conflict. What are YOU doing to cause the conflict? It's usually a two way street.

 

[garbage]

I hadn't seen your post yet, when I was replying to Annwn. Looks like you and I are of the same opinion. We just expressed it differently.

I think multiple phrasings of the same phenomenon/idea are good, if one of them better reaches the target audience.

So what would you say if someone pinned there negative qualities on others because they know that that person would look down upon that quality and that quality would be fought. Projection...yes...but for a purpose, not blindly. Just some food for thought Its interesting the many ways someone can seperate and "use" themselves.

To the extent that it's blind, it's bad.

Labeling stuff can be good, in order to characterize it, gain a clearer understanding of it, and draw patterns. Labels all have their blind spots, though, and those have to be recognized.


well... I guess they don't have to be..

 

[miss fortune]

wow... people are kind of off in some weird stereotype land here...

my Fe allows me to understand and respect others enough to let them do as they desire as long as they aren't harming others, and it makes me feel enough sympathy when they fuck up that I'm willing to lend them a hand... unless you explicitly enjoy seeing others in pain how could you think THAT'S evil?!

 

[sculpting]

nobody said fe was evil...it was an attempt to describe it in a Te sorta way..Fe is beautiful.

My idea was incorrect and overgeneralized and was flawed. It was rude of me to have put forth an idea that might have implied how another person thinks or feels. I respect that I am projecting my own problem onto other people. Each person is an isolated beautiful individual, and thus to imply they follow a pattern is incorrect. There is not truth to the patterns discussed within this thread. Please accept my apologies for the disruption of the thread flow. I will assume responsibility for the fact that all burdens of communication are mine to carry, and that my own flaws have prevented my clear understanding of the scenario at hand. If I can merge and flow with the group more in a more adequate fashion, then I shall have no problems in communication moving forward.

 

[garbage]

No we're not. I try to understand people through psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, (not so much art and literature ) things like that. I don't use MBTI and typology as my only reference.

Hello

I use MBTI and typology in a similar way, primarily as a tool to understand myself and others. It's a valuable reference, but to the extent that it doesn't do that, I don't really care about it.

There are also other valuable frameworks out there, such as the sciences that you listed.

And thus spake my own personal priorities

 

[onemoretime]

nobody said fe was evil...it was an attempt to describe it in a Te sorta way..Fe is beautiful.

My idea was incorrect and overgeneralized and was flawed. It was rude of me to have put forth an idea that might have implied how another person thinks or feels. I respect that I am projecting my own problem onto other people. Each person is an isolated beautiful individual, and thus to imply they follow a pattern is incorrect. There is not truth to the patterns discussed within this thread. Please accept my apologies for the disruption of the thread flow. I will assume responsibility for the fact that all burdens of communication are mine to carry, and that my own flaws have prevented my clear understanding of the scenario at hand. If I can merge and flow with the group more in a more adequate fashion, then I shall have no problems in communication moving forward.

Understand - we're not saying that there aren't patterns. Of course there are. What we're saying is that they're not necessarily tied to functions in the way that you were asserting, that's all.

It's not because you're flawed that you might have a skewed perspective of the scenario - it's because you're caught up in it! Your ego is responding to the situation in so many different, and often conflicting ways, that of course you're trying to make sense of it. Everyone does this, regardless of type. If anything, you're having problems because you are merged and flowing with the group. The group's just flowing through a never-ending set of rocky rapids and waterfalls, and constantly chaotic and panicky as a result.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with you - that's what we're getting at.

 

[proteanmix]

nobody said fe was evil...it was an attempt to describe it in a Te sorta way..Fe is beautiful.

My idea was incorrect and overgeneralized and was flawed. It was rude of me to have put forth an idea that might have implied how another person thinks or feels. I respect that I am projecting my own problem onto other people. Each person is an isolated beautiful individual, and thus to imply they follow a pattern is incorrect. There is not truth to the patterns discussed within this thread. Please accept my apologies for the disruption of the thread flow. I will assume responsibility for the fact that all burdens of communication are mine to carry, and that my own flaws have prevented my clear understanding of the scenario at hand. If I can merge and flow with the group more in a more adequate fashion, then I shall have no problems in communication moving forward.

I'm glad you've finally decided to join us. I think you'll like it here. This is indeed the more beautiful way.

 

[Poki]

To the extent that it's blind, it's bad.

Labeling stuff can be good, in order to characterize it, gain a clearer understanding of it, and draw patterns. Labels all have their blind spots, though, and those have to be recognized.


well... I guess they don't have to be..

It seems like the people that label are also the people that are steered by the labels. They cause each others demise. Yes this can be flipped around for the other functions. I am not trying to label the labelers as wrong. When this general concept of introversion plays onto itself whether within a single person or across a group setting we lose the world around us. But it doesnt mean that this introversion is wrong, its how we learn.

Our body has defense mechanisms that we "cannot" control. Projection is a defense mechanism. Its a defense machanism to defend us from ourselves, to project our own fault, our own problems onto others so we can "see" them. Introversion is how we learn so the purpose is to learn and it can remain true to itself while we end up remaining blind to it.

Makes me wonder can a function NOT be true to itself.

 

[Zarathustra]

nobody said fe was evil...it was an attempt to describe it in a Te sorta way..Fe is beautiful.

My idea was incorrect and overgeneralized and was flawed. It was rude of me to have put forth an idea that might have implied how another person thinks or feels. I respect that I am projecting my own problem onto other people. Each person is an isolated beautiful individual, and thus to imply they follow a pattern is incorrect. There is not truth to the patterns discussed within this thread. Please accept my apologies for the disruption of the thread flow. I will assume responsibility for the fact that all burdens of communication are mine to carry, and that my own flaws have prevented my clear understanding of the scenario at hand. If I can merge and flow with the group more in a more adequate fashion, then I shall have no problems in communication moving forward.

I'm glad you've finally decided to join us. I think you'll like it here. This is indeed the more beautiful way.

 

[Amargith]

I'm mystified. Don't take this the wrong way but what is the big deal and reason that it was so important for O to bend over backwards, and jump through 1000 hoops in order to regain grace with Fe-users? What was *so* wrong about her way? And why is it *such* a big deal and fuss, instead of a simple misunderstanding that we can move past once demystified?

Honestly, someone explain this to me, coz it's one of those things I've been dying to understand for like my entire life.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm mystified. Don't take this the wrong way but what is the big deal and reason that it was so important for O to bend over backwards, and jump through 1000 hoops in order to regain grace with Fe-users? What was *so* wrong about her way? And why is it *such* a big deal and fuss, instead of a simple misunderstanding that we can move past once demystified?

Honestly, someone explain this to me, coz it's one of those things I've been dying to understand for like my entire life.

It's called herd mentality.

It's disgusting.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8"]:hi:[/YOUTUBE]

 

[garbage]

Sanctimony after apologies is not cool vv


proteanmix did express something that acknowledges the worth of other viewpoints in general, the merit of individual understanding, and the specific viewpoint that ""the other side"" expresses:

I do argue against and disagree that type is the main determiner of communication style. I'm beginning to see that if it helps you, do what helps you to understand.

so please don't miss things like this

thanks

 

[PeaceBaby]

Just as preamble, I believe trying to ascribe behaviour to functions is like trying to un-bake a cake. All of the ingredients that make the "PB" cake are blended together to a homogeneous mixture, and then are chemically altered by the baking process. Can you see all the ingredients in isolation again? Nah, I'm a cake. Not bowlfuls of sugar, flour, butter Fe, Fi etc.

I think people on this forum EXAGGERATE miscommunications.

Protean, I think on the forum we actually uncover the acute severity of the issue.

I tend to think that the forum does uncover blind spots in our communications, and occasionally grossly so. Sometimes it seems that the closer we come to uncovering a truth, the farther away understanding becomes. It almost seems ... impossible.

I think many miscommunications here (on the forum) originate out of reaction rather than response, regardless of type; out of a failure to reflect prior to posting.

But that being said, I have noted miscommunication patterns that do seem to exist along typological lines, and they do tend to occur over and over again without resolution, without true comprehension between parties.

For example, a generic conclusion recently reached in the INFJ threads ... Fe users appear to use data over time to decide whether to trust someone and let them in close, but Fi users appear to trust an individual until data consistently over-rules that misplaced sentiment. How can this difference ever truly be reconciled by either party? Intellectually perhaps, but not at the core of the heart.

...I believe the miscommunications become more apparent BECAUSE of the forums.

In some ways, yes. The written word lacks all of the nuances body language can convey to prevent others from mistaking our message or taking offense. And the chasm does seem wide sometimes, since we go deeper than regular conversation generally permits.

A certain TypeC moderator doesn't want to have sex with me, what function shall I blame?

Blame it on the fact that you don't have a P-ness.

I'm glad you've finally decided to join us. I think you'll like it here. This is indeed the more beautiful way.

protean, I think you make a lot of great points and I am taking your quote above tongue-in-cheek, as I don't believe my interpretation is your intent - but it could be read in an offensive, condescending way. Like you've brow-beaten Orobas down and now nod approvingly at her new compliance.

 

[proteanmix]

protean, I think you make a lot of great points and I am taking this tongue-in-cheek, as I don't believe my interpretation is your intent, but it could be read in an offensive, condescending way. Like you've brow-beaten Orobas down and now nod approvingly at her new compliance.

Gosh, it was a JOKE. Sorry, I'll use more smiley's next time. I was alluding to the Herd Mentality Zara so eloquently pointed out. I did think about that, but I trusted that people would get it. Guess not. I thought O's reply was overwrought and didn't at all accurately portray or address the points I made but whatever.

You know, Oro made two lengthy replies to my post (which I thought were interesting), deleted both of them and left the most melodramatic, why-is-everybody-picking-on-me post for everyone to read as her grand exit.

Well played. *golf clap*

 

[Zarathustra]

You know, Oro made two lengthy replies to my post (which I thought were interesting), deleted both of them and left the most melodramatic, why-is-everybody-picking-on-me post for everyone to read as her grand exit.

Well played. *golf clap*

:horor:

 

[Zarathustra]

:horor: