[NF] When Fe & Fi Go Awry: The Definitive NF guide to F-ness (Let the Antics Ensue)

[PeaceBaby]

When you have a problem in public with one of your friends, you do not start yelling and crying and screaming for everyone to hear.

I think most of us are adults in this thread, and regardless of Fe or Fi orientation, hardly start running around "yelling and crying and screaming" when upset or affronted.

If you are upset with the way your teacher runs a class, you can be assured that you will not get results by challenging them publicly.

Interestingly, I would rather have a kid challenge me directly and openly than one who foments undercurrents of subterfuge. I kind of love the big mouth ones; at least I know where they are and can address that. I am not employed as a teacher, but have worked with teens in several capacities over the years of my own kids growing up (coaching, volunteering, working with teen moms etc). The ones who whisper in secrets, and put on a pleasant face, are the more dangerous IMO. Those are the harder ones to reach.

I agree that - of course - there's a time for privacy. "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" - we all know that. The teen years though are hardly a time to expect some kind of nuanced Fe style approach, wouldn't you agree?

I lived in a community for five years that didn't have newspapers to report crime or corruption. I agree that this was detrimental. However, you might agree that publishing something in a newspaper without checking the facts or getting the story from several people first privately might be unethical.

It's a huge reason why newspapers were created, to give voice to things unseen and unheard. It's why too journalists have a code of ethics, to verify sources and stories prior to publishing.

Journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would rather err on the side of brash openness than allowing harmful secrets to remain hidden.

Some one once described me as the little mouse who turns into a lion. It always kinda tickled me pink (it was meant as compliment), but now I'm not so sure.

Don't change.

Why should she care? Because it is still putting her coworkers at danger, which is why she spoke up in the first place. ..... I just don't understand why Fi has kind of a "screw them anyway" kind of perspective. If it's a value that made them stand up in the first place, why not look at the best way of effecting change in the end.

Perhaps you didn't read the whole post - I know it was on the edge of tl;dr.

There is nothing "screw them anyway" about what happened next. Of course I still cared about everyone.

See, it was a surprise to me that when I was doing the "right thing" I was asked to leave. There wasn't a moment that I thought that would be the outcome! It seemed so obvious and easy to address the issue.

I did write a letter to the corporate offices after though - and from reports I heard, they leased a whole new storage area in the back of the mall so that stock wouldn't be crammed in so unsafely.

So, the thanks I got - nothing. But I was pleased that even though things didn't perhaps work out best for me, that change did start to happen.

 

[PeaceBaby]

This is a good point. I do feel like lots of times, though, Fe is the average of Fi. Everyone gets their say, and then you sort through the opinions and decide what's best for everyone.

Hey Tallulah, nice to see you share your thoughts here!

I don't believe that Fe is the average of Fi. I feel like Fe users don't have or see or take into account all the data points to make an accurate average. No offense intended saying that.

To illustrate, I'm gong to contrast Ti and Te through a personal story.

My brother is an INTP. My Dad, an ISTJ. They don't get along well. Last Christmas, my brother visited my home briefly before heading back to his. In front of our couch is a very rustic coffee table my Dad made from a giant old barn board. What my brother said encapsulates to me the differences between a Ti and Te vantage point. With a whiff of disdain he commented: "See this table Dad made? I look at it and just shake my head. This could have been a beautiful table, but he didn't take the time to make it properly. See this joint here; it doesn't fit. The legs aren't perfect lengths, I don't even think this is level. And you can't put a drink on this old barn board without it tipping one way or another. He could have placed glass over the top, so you could still see the board and your drink wouldn't fall over and you wouldn't damage the board with liquid. Why couldn't he have taken more time, why didn't he see all the better possibilities, to make this more functional and more attractive?"

See, my Dad is so focussed on Te, on getting it done (the result) that for him, 80% is good enough. Those suggestions from my brother, as practical and creative and as lovely as they may be, either don't occur to him or are not worth the trouble. My Dad takes shortcuts. But, my Dad gets stuff done; he's rebuilt many old archival houses and structures now.

For Fe, let's say that the same 80% is all that is seen, and it seems good enough too. (To me, Fe doesn't seem to have an awareness of the things it is missing.) Then, if it takes the averages of what it sees, the Fe user leaves out even more possibilities, more voices. Then, we reduce to a (let's say) 60% solution. It still works for the majority and the group can press forward and get stuff done. But Fe (to me) seems to miss the nuances, the options, the opportunities. And when does it stand up for itself? When does it have an opinion that belongs to an individual? Why can't all the voices mix together to one great chorus? Why must some be ostracized to the "betterment" of all?

I'm not out to knock Fe here. But if we accept Ti has a depth of focus on options and details and Te on getting work done, why can't we accept that perhaps Fi has a depth of focus on values and personal integrity and Fe on maximizing group harmonics?

Why does the depth vs breadth descriptor seem so much harder to accept when we are talking about Fi vs Fe? We all seem to get emotional about it from time to time. When emotions isn't what this is (supposed to be) about?

 

[Wonkavision]

I'm not out to knock Fe here. But if we accept Ti has a depth of focus on options and details and Te on getting work done, why can't we accept that perhaps Fi has a depth of focus on values and personal integrity and Fe on maximizing group harmonics?

Why does the depth vs breadth descriptor seem so much harder to accept when we are talking about Fi vs Fe? We all seem to get emotional about it from time to time. When emotions isn't what this is (supposed to be) about?

Yeah, some people just can't accept that Fi is a RATIONAL function.

 

[PeaceBaby]

You know, Te thinks it's right all the time. As does Fe. It makes it a big hurdle to overcome.

 

[Wonkavision]

You want to see the clash between Fi and Fe values in a relationship between two people who genuinely love each other?

Watch "Jesus Christ Superstar."****




(****No, it's not a silly farce, it's actually a really good movie!

And NO---I'm not in any way suggesting that "Jesus Christ Superstar" is an accurate portrayal of biblical figures or events. )

 

[Tiltyred]

For Fe, let's say that the same 80% is all that is seen, and it seems good enough too. (To me, Fe doesn't seem to have an awareness of the things it is missing.) Then, if it takes the averages of what it sees, the Fe user leaves out even more possibilities, more voices. Then, we reduce to a (let's say) 60% solution. It still works for the majority and the group can press forward and get stuff done. But Fe (to me) seems to miss the nuances, the options, the opportunities. And when does it stand up for itself? When does it have an opinion that belongs to an individual? Why can't all the voices mix together to one great chorus? Why must some be ostracized to the "betterment" of all?

What is Fe missing?

 

[KDude]

Why must some be ostracized to the "betterment" of all?

That's not what I want to do. If there was an individual who had a good idea, I would just help the group listen to them. Not completely lean towards the idea of group betterment in a strict manner. It's not beyond me to side with one person, and try speak to the group in a reverse fashion. And if it didn't work, I wouldn't move on without telling that person I was sorry about it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

What is Fe missing?

Thanks Tilty - you know, it's a great question. I'm trying to draw analogies between the functions, because I know I miss Ti details. When my Dad gave us that coffee table, I didn't analyze it like my brother did. I just chalked it up to being "rustic" and although I could see the evidence of hasty construction, I didn't "see" it like my brother did. I didn't question what it was; I just saw it for what I saw.

Let me think of some Fi / Fe examples from real life. They might illustrate the point.

You know in the movie "Avatar"? When Neytiri says "I see you" meaning "I see into you" ... to the truth, the essence, that's what Fi feels like.

Anyway, let me think on that more and like I said, have some real life anecdotes.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think too, for INFJ - we are really looking at Ni / Fe, where the Ni focusses in so deep on the dynamics between people, that it can "see" outcomes when others aren't picking up those kinds of nuances ...

Still thinking ...

 

[Tiltyred]

Thanks Tilty - you know, it's a great question. I'm trying to draw analogies between the functions, because I know I miss Ti details. When my Dad gave us that coffee table, I didn't analyze it like my brother did. I just chalked it up to being "rustic" and although I could see the evidence of hasty construction, I didn't "see" it like my brother did. I didn't question what it was; I just saw it for what I saw.

Let me think of some Fi / Fe examples from real life. They might illustrate the point.

You know in the movie "Avatar"? When Neytiri says "I see you" meaning "I see into you" ... to the truth, the essence, that's what Fi feels like.

Anyway, let me think on that more and like I said, have some real life anecdotes.

I think y'all are high, that's what I think.

 

[onemoretime]

I also expect that the reason Te users find the meandering and many shaded thoughts of Ti puzzling is the same reason we find Fi puzzling: we can't imagine not having it readily available to express what you feel. Te users can't understand not being able to readily express your logic without getting all quanitifying and rabbit trailey about it.

Explaining things in terms of introverted judging functions is really hard, because you have to recreate your inner world externally in order to do so. It's one of the areas where this sort of theory becomes of limited use.

Explaining things in terms of extraverted judging functions is easy, because things are expressed in terms of shared external sensory values.

 

[Wonkavision]

Explaining things in terms of introverted judging functions is really hard, because you have to recreate your inner world externally in order to do so. It's one of the areas where this sort of theory becomes of limited use.

Explaining things in terms of extraverted judging functions is easy, because things are expressed in terms of shared external sensory values.

Right.

That's the reason that Fe values/perspective always trumps Fi values/perspective in FORMAL conflict resolution---and the reason that Fi-users often address such issues in a NON-FORMAL way (i.e. on this forum, through personal "rants" rather than through the "proper channels"/chain of command).

In a sense, the only way you really CAN address Fi concerns is through personal, subjective statements.

They can't really be demonstrated or "proven."

You can't really make a "case" for them. You can only express them as you see them.

Isn't that obvious?

 

[onemoretime]

You know, Te thinks it's right all the time. As does Fe. It makes it a big hurdle to overcome.

I think there's a slight distinction to be made - it's not a question of "right vs. wrong" (which is always ascribed to people by others, because of the inherent value judgment of childishness that goes along with it). The issue is that everyone thinks their way "works better." Getting to the point is more efficient, and smoothing things over with everyone produces better long-term results. So, which one works better?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm not out to knock Fe here. But if we accept Ti has a depth of focus on options and details and Te on getting work done, why can't we accept that perhaps Fi has a depth of focus on values and personal integrity and Fe on maximizing group harmonics?

Why does the depth vs breadth descriptor seem so much harder to accept when we are talking about Fi vs Fe? We all seem to get emotional about it from time to time. When emotions isn't what this is (supposed to be) about?

I think a lot of the problem isn’t so much unwillingness to allow depth as it is an inability to understand it. Personally I get confused because every time people describe their Fi, more often than not they describe qualities that I actually have myself- and not just have, but I actually make them a priority. I refuse to brown-nose, pretend to be something that I’m not, lie- or anything like that- simply to get ‘results’.


But I will be diplomatic to get results. I’ll pause and evaluate the best way to approach a person- considering what that individual will respond to, taking that person’s perceivable priorities into account- but I’ll do it while keeping my personal values and integrity intact. Honestly, I think a lot of us are stumped as to how employing some diplomacy- whilst keeping integrity intact, and just to better the chances of getting results- is, in itself, so antithetical to Fi values. How is Fi being compromised if one simply pauses to consider how to deliver the message, as long as the content of the message stays true?


If I stop to consider how to appeal to another person’s set of priorities to get the RIGHT thing done- but in addition to listing the reasons it’s RIGHT for me, I point out how it benefits the other person as well- how is that shady? I can understand that doing this without also listing the reasons it’s RIGHT for me is shady- but if I’m forthcoming about all of it, then how does it go against Fi values to deal with other people this way?


How does it belittle Fi’s depth to suggest changing the form of the message (to add breadth), as long as the content of the message stays true? In other words: does any suggestion to add breadth to an idea necessarily take away some of its depth? If yes- then how? Is Fi being stifled or smothered by Fe here? Because that’s what I’m not seeing, and I think others are having a problem seeing it as well.

(I'm not saying this about you specifically. It's just a common Fi issue I see coming up in staff meetings etc. If they had spun their issue a slightly different way, the results would have been much better for everyone involved. They weren't wrong to speak up, but they didn't end up getting heard because of the way they went about it). I'd like to understand this better.

All I'm seeing in this^ is the suggestion to add some breadth to the depth (for the sake of bringing that depth to actualization), but not any suggestion to remove the depth. Am I missing something?

 

[Esoteric Wench]

I'm curious to see some Fe users posts some examples of their Fe going awry... because it does happen.

 

[Tallulah]

Hey Tallulah, nice to see you share your thoughts here!

I don't believe that Fe is the average of Fi. I feel like Fe users don't have or see or take into account all the data points to make an accurate average. No offense intended saying that.

To illustrate, I'm gong to contrast Ti and Te through a personal story.

My brother is an INTP. My Dad, an ISTJ. They don't get along well. Last Christmas, my brother visited my home briefly before heading back to his. In front of our couch is a very rustic coffee table my Dad made from a giant old barn board. What my brother said encapsulates to me the differences between a Ti and Te vantage point. With a whiff of disdain he commented: "See this table Dad made? I look at it and just shake my head. This could have been a beautiful table, but he didn't take the time to make it properly. See this joint here; it doesn't fit. The legs aren't perfect lengths, I don't even think this is level. And you can't put a drink on this old barn board without it tipping one way or another. He could have placed glass over the top, so you could still see the board and your drink wouldn't fall over and you wouldn't damage the board with liquid. Why couldn't he have taken more time, why didn't he see all the better possibilities, to make this more functional and more attractive?"

See, my Dad is so focussed on Te, on getting it done (the result) that for him, 80% is good enough. Those suggestions from my brother, as practical and creative and as lovely as they may be, either don't occur to him or are not worth the trouble. My Dad takes shortcuts. But, my Dad gets stuff done; he's rebuilt many old archival houses and structures now.

For Fe, let's say that the same 80% is all that is seen, and it seems good enough too. (To me, Fe doesn't seem to have an awareness of the things it is missing.) Then, if it takes the averages of what it sees, the Fe user leaves out even more possibilities, more voices. Then, we reduce to a (let's say) 60% solution. It still works for the majority and the group can press forward and get stuff done. But Fe (to me) seems to miss the nuances, the options, the opportunities. And when does it stand up for itself? When does it have an opinion that belongs to an individual? Why can't all the voices mix together to one great chorus? Why must some be ostracized to the "betterment" of all?

I'm not out to knock Fe here. But if we accept Ti has a depth of focus on options and details and Te on getting work done, why can't we accept that perhaps Fi has a depth of focus on values and personal integrity and Fe on maximizing group harmonics?

Why does the depth vs breadth descriptor seem so much harder to accept when we are talking about Fi vs Fe? We all seem to get emotional about it from time to time. When emotions isn't what this is (supposed to be) about?

I liked this very much. Thanks for the illustration! I would definitely be interested in understanding what Fi is like, so I can understand how hearing every single voice is important in order to make a group decision, though the Ti/Te example does help. The thing is, though, as a Ti user, and one who has lived a while, I would tend to appreciate your dad's table for what it is, too. I wouldn't nitpick, because hey, he made me a table, and it's from him and I will appreciate that he did something for me. Do Fi users do similiarly in certain situations, where you understand there's a lot more nuance, but in that instance, maybe it's not entirely necessary to bring it up? I tend to pick and choose where I apply the rigorous Ti, and let it go other times.

I think a lot of the problem isn’t so much unwillingness to allow depth as it is an inability to understand it. Personally I get confused because every time people describe their Fi, more often than not they describe qualities that I actually have myself- and not just have, but I actually make them a priority. I refuse to brown-nose, pretend to be something that I’m not, lie- or anything like that- simply to get ‘results’.


But I will be diplomatic to get results. I’ll pause and evaluate the best way to approach a person- considering what that individual will respond to, taking that person’s perceivable priorities into account- but I’ll do it while keeping my personal values and integrity intact. Honestly, I think a lot of us are stumped as to how employing some diplomacy- whilst keeping integrity intact, and just to better the chances of getting results- is, in itself, so antithetical to Fi values. How is Fi being compromised if one simply pauses to consider how to deliver the message, as long as the content of the message stays true?

Yeah, and maybe it's the combination of Fe/Ti--but diplomacy is just downright logical to me. If a change needs to occur, I'm going to make sure I've done everything I can to make that change palatable to others, so they feel receptive to my ideas. Otherwise, they might feel like I'm forcing my ideas on them. The Fe/Ti combination is usually pretty skilled in showing individuals how the new idea would benefit everyone individually, not just the majority. Then they're free to make up their minds for themselves.

Now, I will say that my ENFJ friend sometimes will sell her ideas to me as if they're what I wanted in the first place. Like, "I'm doing this for you, because I know you like x, or always wanted to do y..." When I know good and well it's something she wants to do but doesn't want to broach the subject directly because she thinks I might get upset. That kind of Fe manipulation, I'm not a fan of. I fortunately always see right through it, so it's a non-issue. I usually just kind of gently tease her about it.

If I stop to consider how to appeal to another person’s set of priorities to get the RIGHT thing done- but in addition to listing the reasons it’s RIGHT for me, I point out how it benefits the other person as well- how is that shady? I can understand that doing this without also listing the reasons it’s RIGHT for me is shady- but if I’m forthcoming about all of it, then how does it go against Fi values to deal with other people this way?

Is it like having information to use against someone unfairly? Like knowing what buttons to push to get the desired result, ala PUA stuff? Because I know I'm personally completely disgusted by the idea of PUA manipulation, and if that's what Fe feels like to an Fi user, I can understand that.

 

[Salomé]

At the same time, it makes me wonder how things ever change for the better, if people continually clamp down on the lone voices that say "hang on, this isn't right."

Very, very slowly. That's how.
Fe reactions are often knee-jerk, like all extraverted functions. One has to get past that.

But I will be diplomatic to get results. I’ll pause and evaluate the best way to approach a person- considering what that individual will respond to, taking that person’s perceivable priorities into account- but I’ll do it while keeping my personal values and integrity intact. Honestly, I think a lot of us are stumped as to how employing some diplomacy- whilst keeping integrity intact, and just to better the chances of getting results- is, in itself, so antithetical to Fi values. How is Fi being compromised if one simply pauses to consider how to deliver the message, as long as the content of the message stays true?

How does it belittle Fi’s depth to suggest changing the form of the message (to add breadth), as long as the content of the message stays true? In other words: does any suggestion to add breadth to an idea necessarily take away some of its depth? If yes- then how? Is Fi being stifled or smothered by Fe here? Because that’s what I’m not seeing, and I think others are having a problem seeing it as well.

I can only speak for myself, but incongruity feels like a loss of integrity to me. My beliefs and my attitude and my actions have to be congruous or I can't stand myself.

BC's example reminds me of a sleazebag I worked for who sexually harassed a couple of women in the dept but who was tolerated by everyone (fuck knows why, he was useless at his job). They didn't report him because they didn't want to jeopardize their own jobs. When he came after me, not only did I report him, but I persuaded the other girls to let me report their experiences too. I made it clear to HR that I would take legal action if necessary. He lost his job. Ultimately, his buddy and second-in-command made things very difficult for me and I was forced to leave, but it was more than worth it to me that justice was done.

Of course, I could have ignored it or spoken to him privately to diffuse the situation - but I didn't want to diffuse it. I wanted it to blow him the fuck up and stop him doing it to anyone else. And it worked.
Actually, I doubt I could have remained civil to a scumbag like that even if I really, really wanted to. I'm not that good at deception.
And often not wanting to rock the boat or cause a scene is nothing more than cowardice. There is nothing inherently noble about getting on with everyone.

 

[Sparrow]

When [Fe/Fi] Went Awry: Explain situation you personally experienced when Fe or Fi caused problems. It can be your F function, or someone else’s.

-My new boss is an INTP. She was the kind of person who thought she knew everything about everyone, and thought she knew how to deal with people so well. My team confided in me, telling me they thought she was trying to get rid of them. I liked her at first so I told them to give her a chance, and that she probably wasnt trying to get rid of them. Then I find out that the higher ups were trying slowly get rid of our shift. Anyway, I finally experienced what my teammates were talking about and I let my Fe get the best of me. I cut the b*tch off and said "I dont want to hear it anymore, I QUIT!!!!" I stormed out of her office like a mad woman.

Why Did [Fe/Fi] Do That?: What was [Fe/Fi]’s justification for doing what it did?

-My thought: Her way of handling things was totally inappropriate and disrespectful.

-Her thought: She "thinks" she is always right because she is "older, wiser, and the supervisor". Pshhhht, NOT! She SUCKS with people big time.

How Were Others Inconvenienced? : How did this display of [Fe/Fi] affect the other parties involved?

-She is now under investigation with HR.

-She thinks Im crazy and Im out of a job, but at least I have my integrity.

Theres more to the story, On my last day of work she asked me:

Her: IF YOU HAVE TIME, can you meet me in the small conference room?"
Me: No, Im sorry. (I did not have time)

I honestly didnt want to meet with her because I didnt want to deal with her b*tch ass, but I was also really busy. I knew that if I met with her, I wouldnt be able to concentrate on my work anymore. She is an emotional vampire.

She ends up emailing me 5 minutes later, cc'ing all of the HR department (condescending bitch!) She tried to make it look like I refused to meet with her (in a bad way) and went on tangent about me trying to make me look like the bad guy, I honestly thought she was giving me a choice....she did say "If you have time, Can you meet me"! She made herself look like a damn idiot by cc'ing HR. I replied back to her explaining why I couldnt meet with her, I was cordial and wished them well. Then I replied back to HR letting them know that her email was an example of why I had to quit, I spilled all the beans and gave them statistics in workplace bullying. 80% of bullying are from Supervisors. Now the dumb ass is under investigation. I left out a lot of the details here, it would take up 2 pages if I did. Bla bla bla...Anyway, hope she gets fired.

I do wish that I could go back in time, I could have handled it way better. I let my emotions get the best of me. :steam:

 

[PeaceBaby]

But I will be diplomatic to get results. I’ll pause and evaluate the best way to approach a person- considering what that individual will respond to, taking that person’s perceivable priorities into account- but I’ll do it while keeping my personal values and integrity intact.

Again, I am wondering why the assumption here is that I or other Fi users are not being diplomatic.

So I just asked my husband (he's a Te dom folks; you're only going to get the straight answer from him) if I am diplomatic. He said ... sure. I noted his hesitation, and pressed on that. He said, "What do you mean by diplomatic? If it means being fair to everyone and being unbiased, absolutely. If it means you use tactics to navigate around people to get what you want, no. You would tend to sublimate your needs, you're more likely to capitulate and try to help everyone else get along." Ok, I asked ...

So are we differing on what we mean by the word? When I say I am diplomatic, it means I will take your feelings into account before I respond. That I know people have sensitivities to certain topics and comments and I will take them into consideration too. If it means I take all that data and orchestrate and advance everyone together to achieve some goal, then no.

The hubs then said, "You're a mediator. You can hear everyone's POV and find the commonality, without your own agenda getting in the way." That's not exactly a diplomat I suppose. Is that the tripping point here?

How does it belittle Fi’s depth to suggest changing the form of the message (to add breadth), as long as the content of the message stays true? In other words: does any suggestion to add breadth to an idea necessarily take away some of its depth? If yes- then how? Is Fi being stifled or smothered by Fe here? Because that’s what I’m not seeing, and I think others are having a problem seeing it as well.

Z-Buck, why are you assuming I don't know how to use Fe tools? I am perplexed by this. I can see Fe rules and I observe Fe rules in order to make life easier for myself, even if I feel curtailed by them from time to time. I guess I didn't expect to feel inhibited by them so much here on the forum, but I do. See, when you break Fe rules you get ostracized. And I don't want to be ostracized, so I try to work within the systems. IRL, I am friendly and smooth and can get along with nearly anyone.

But there are times when you must go further than that, you have to put your a** on the line (so to speak) and stand up for the right. Does Fe ever feel like that? That for a matter of honor they must go against the established order and stand up, no matter the cost?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thanks for your reply here too Tallulah ... great stuff.

I liked this very much. Thanks for the illustration! I would definitely be interested in understanding what Fi is like, so I can understand how hearing every single voice is important in order to make a group decision, though the Ti/Te example does help. The thing is, though, as a Ti user, and one who has lived a while, I would tend to appreciate your dad's table for what it is, too. I wouldn't nitpick, because hey, he made me a table, and it's from him and I will appreciate that he did something for me. Do Fi users do similiarly in certain situations, where you understand there's a lot more nuance, but in that instance, maybe it's not entirely necessary to bring it up? I tend to pick and choose where I apply the rigorous Ti, and let it go other times.

@ bold, absolutely. Probably most of the time actually.

Of course, my Dad and brother have history. Usually my bro would never articulate that stuff. He's 40-something now though and I think really starting to get in touch with his Fe; we had some good conversations about some old issues. Maybe those two can find some peace and common ground together.

That kind of Fe manipulation, I'm not a fan of. I fortunately always see right through it, so it's a non-issue. I usually just kind of gently tease her about it.

I would see through it too, but I would go a step farther, knowing not only that she's doing it more for her, but then I will have to play the Fe game and reciprocate or else I'll get in "trouble" with her. I find that ... distasteful I guess.

Is it like having information to use against someone unfairly? Like knowing what buttons to push to get the desired result, ala PUA stuff? Because I know I'm personally completely disgusted by the idea of PUA manipulation, and if that's what Fe feels like to an Fi user, I can understand that.

It's like, I will watch an Fe user in action, and I see how others are being directed, like a dance, and sometimes when the motives are impure, I find that crosses over into manipulation. That's the part I have trouble with. I admire Fe doms and aux's really ... they can effectively work a group towards a common goal. Be sometimes, the wires get crossed and people become the means to the Fe user's end, towards a personal agenda. That's what I object to most.