Fi thought processes ...
Fe and Fi users would start with the same problems, but come up with quite different solutions. I wonder at what point our thinking starts to diverge, what kinds of other things you take into account that we don't pay as much attention to (Ti is much more detailed that Te which tends to be more practical and works only with what is instead of what ought to be, so I'm assuming Fi also is like that in some sense. I think maybe it factors in the ought rather than only the is.) and how you arrive at your ultimate conclusion or decision to act. I'm wondering what goes into your mix that makes it right for you.
I've been considering this question for a stretch. What makes this challenging is that Fi thought processes
are all about feelings. Not emotions. Feelings. That is to say, I have a
feeling (value assessment) about probably everything I do and see in my world.
From the moment I wake up until I go to bed, if I pay attention, I could relate to you a value assessment about every aspect of my day. Here on the forums was where I first realized this to be true, and became aware it was not true for most other people.
So, what has that to do with thought processes you may ask ... for myself, it has everything to do with them. Every piece of data that I encounter is first filtered though the Fi lens. Things seem, at the most basic, rudimentary level, right or wrong. The clothes I wear will feel right or wrong, the steps I take along the sidewalk will feel right or wrong, the way the car drives will feel right or wrong ... you get the picture. From this initial discerning, further nuances of values are determined and the causative factors are analyzed. The clothes feel wrong because I'm cold and didn't dress properly for the weather, the steps along the sidewalk feel wrong because there's ice on the sidewalk and I didn't wear boots, the car feels right because the engine is revving smartly ... etc.
These are feelings about objects. People are similar, but there's a great deal more depth.
When it comes to people, they will feel right or wrong to me as well, and I sense their emotional tenor. It's as though they are a radio station and I am tuning into their broadcast. Too many broadcasts and I need to turn my radio volume way down, because their broadcasts are interfering with my ability to pay attention to my own feelings. This ties into previous analogies of the crying child or the barking dog ... my radio is always on, and this is the music I'm tuned into, and I have difficulty tuning it totally out.
With those thoughts in mind ...
Let's look at the work situation. I knew in my brain, intellectually, that climbing on shelving was not the safest task in my work-day. But after I fell, my thought was - "That was bad"! There's the Fi, at the elemental level. Digging deeper, I opened to the awareness that not only could I have been injured ...
anyone could be injured doing this. It seemed
wrong to me that we were asked to do our job without any provisions for safety. So, in reaction to that value assessment, I problem-solved a number of solutions to the issue (I suppose that's Ne at play) ... safety harnesses, ladders, stock reorganization etc. When I shared the story of what happened, along with possible solutions, to my bosses, and I was directly told nothing would change, I said to myself, "That's
wrong!" So, Ne takes over again, and looks at possible solutions to this new problem on top of the first problem. Ne says, go higher up the boss "food chain", talk to coworkers and find allegiance, write a letter etc.
Now, as part of that problem solving process, I was very aware of the people dynamic too, how their reactions felt to me, how "right or wrong" they seemed. I could sense the resistance, the irritation and annoyance - I knew that it would be prudent for me to shut up. Since at that time in my life, I didn't believe someone could get
fired for advocating safety, I didn't expect to be, but I knew if I kept pressing, I could get myself into some trouble. But at the same time, to ignore the problems would be
wrong. See, that feeling was constantly there; every day I went into work I looked at what I was being asked to do and knew it was
wrong ... but every approach I was taking to solve the problem was met with inaction.
Does that help you understand fidelia? It's not so much about
how I may have approached any particular person as it had to do with a wrong persisting, a wrong that had an easy fix to make right, and something that
already should have been made right.
In those situations, myself, as an individual, become almost irrelevant to the issue ... it's bigger than me, it's a matter of ethical concern that requires ACTION to correct. I feel like a light shining on the problem ... I see it, I cannot ignore it, and I have to help try and make it right.
EDIT: Please be aware that value assessments are not as "black and white" as the words "right and wrong" might suggest. I've used the polarity between the words to (hopefully) clearly illustrate what I mean and enhance understanding.