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

[Z Buck McFate]

So it wasn't calling it fear that was the problem, just misunderstanding the source of that fear.

Well I can understand the reluctance to call it fear though. Calling it fear sort of presupposes that we feel a similar urge to get to know people faster but we're afraid to act on it. I don't think that's the case.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

There is TOO much F-ness in here.

 

[Amargith]

Actually I'd love to see a similar thread on Ti vs Te, as it would teach me more about how to use and comprehend Ti

 

[Jaguar]

There is TOO much F-ness in here.

That coming from someone who once said she was ENFP?
Am I rong or are you write?

 

[Usehername]

But if the way you do it doesn't work, you aren't throwing out the bacteria-filled ingredients, you're leaving them in the fridge for someone else to eat, possibly unknowingly or possibly someone that has no choice and might even have a weakened immune system. If you're going to put yourself through hell, why wouldn't you want to go to the trouble to actually get some results for your actions?

Or is it more of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction? I've certainly done those before myself because the injustice of a situation made me *so* angry that I couldn't force myself to be more calm and constructive.

But we're not dealing with children or intellectually challenged adults; we're dealing with adults here. They have all the resources available to them to decide what's important to them. All the cards were laid out on the table. No one was underinformed.

Everyone made their decisions like adults--PB, her employer with knowingly not meeting his legal obligation, and her co-workers, who could have seized the opportunity of making things better with PB taking the heat by being background support.

When adults make informed decisions I like to let them do that. But surely I'd also let these decisions inform me of their character and what they might decide to do when something even bigger was on the line (e.g. the Erin Brocovich story with the plant giving the town cancer and everyone turning their backs). Why on earth would I want to be spending 40 hours a week with people who don't demonstrate the kind of character I want to see and enact in this world?

I'm only human too, and being surrounded by people not willing to demonstrate good character is going to tempt me to take the easy road in life. I don't want the easy road. I want the road where I can be a good human that makes this world a better place. I'd rather surround myself with people of good character than give myself the baggage of dealing with people who not only are not stepping up to the plate for things they should be, but won't even back me up if I step out from the crowd to make things better.

I've got good things to do in this world. I'm not wasting time or energy on people that are holding me back.

 

[Totenkindly]

Actually I'd love to see a similar thread on Ti vs Te, as it would teach me more about how to use and comprehend Ti

Well, I think the issue there is that the Fi/Fe divide is far more heated than the Ti/Te divide. People typically don't get their toes stepped on when Ti/Te butts heads as much, it doesn't challenge identity and personal freedoms/values.

Thus, we don't much care to discuss it, except maybe academically. I figure such a thread is probably good for 50 posts before people get bored.

 

[Salomé]

Well I can understand the reluctance to call it fear though. Calling it fear sort of presupposes that we feel a similar urge to get to know people faster but we're afraid to act on it. I don't think that's the case.

Ah ok.
I guess I just assumed you wouldn't reject someone's friendly overtures (likely to hurt/offend them) other because you were afraid of getting hurt/put upon in some way yourself (hence the references to identity theft/burglary etc).
It didn't occur to me that you might not care about hurting them!
Or is it that you wouldn't find that kind of rejection hurtful yourself, and so fail to see why others might?

Can you explain what is so important about the pacing?

 

[Amargith]

Still..it would be interesting to see the inner mechanics of those two functions as well..especially Ti for me at least, so I have *some* idea of what it looks like. If you see what kind of info came out of these threads as to how people experience Fi and Fe and what kind of logic, mechanics, motivation etc contributes to these behaviors and how they fit together as a puzzle...and I still think we barely scratched the surface. It would be interesting to see the same kinda detail on Ti and Te.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ make a thread, make a thread (but it would be best to get doms and aux's discussing, not us so much I think)

 

[Amargith]

Exactly, which is why I won't start it.

 

[Fidelia]

Ah ok.
I guess I just assumed you wouldn't reject someone's friendly overtures (likely to hurt/offend them) other because you were afraid of getting hurt/put upon in some way yourself (hence the references to identity theft/burglary etc).
It didn't occur to me that you might not care about hurting them!
Or is it that you wouldn't find that kind of rejection hurtful yourself, and so fail to see why others might?

Can you explain what is so important about the pacing?

Well, I'm not out to hurt people. At the same time, just because they want to get to know me doesn't always mean there's a mutual interest in doing so, or in going about it the same way. When I do become friends, I invest. That's why I prefer to do it one stage at a time. Then I see if I want to take it further or not before I've held out false hopes for them or given away parts of myself that I deem valuable to me. I accept not everyone is going to reciprocate when I want to get to know other people, and therefore I tend to be overly careful in making sure that they want to get to know me before I take initiative. I've had to retrain myself because I didn't realize that their reason for not giving those signals sometimes is out of insecurity rather than disinterest. That only really hit home to me after my ESTJ and I broke up and our friends "picked" him. He was the one who took those kinds of chances, whereas I was more of a warm responder. Therefore, they assumed that they were better friends with him and that he had more interest than he actually even did. As part of putting myself out there more than I used to, I've also had to learn to not take it personally if they are disinterested or not free to develop a friendship at that time.

 

[cafe]

Ah ok.
I guess I just assumed you wouldn't reject someone's friendly overtures (likely to hurt/offend them) other because you were afraid of getting hurt/put upon in some way yourself (hence the references to identity theft/burglary etc).
It didn't occur to me that you might not care about hurting them!
Or is it that you wouldn't find that kind of rejection hurtful yourself, and so fail to see why others might?

Can you explain what is so important about the pacing?

I guess for me, every relationship holds a set of obligations and boundaries and I have limited resources to invest in them. Family and current friends take priority at varying levels.

I have an obligation to my fellow man to treat them with basic courtesy and respect unless they behave in such a way that shows they do not merit that kind of treatment. Beyond that, I have no obligation to provide any kind of access to myself unless I desire that access myself.

No one is obligated to give me that kind of access to themselves if they do not find it desirable to do so. That is their perfect right and unless they just go out of their way to be rude, I don't consider it a personal rejection.

I think my introversion actually causes me a lot more problems socially than my Fe because I don't reciprocate very well, even when I do want a friendship with someone. That isn't an issue of pacing or anything like that. It's more of my being self-absorbed and not thinking about doing anything or of thinking I should do something, but being unsure of what I should do or just feeling like I don't have the energy to do it.

 

[Tallulah]

I guess for me, every relationship holds a set of obligations and boundaries and I have limited resources to invest in them. Family and current friends take priority at varying levels.

I have an obligation to my fellow man to treat them with basic courtesy and respect unless they behave in such a way that shows they do not merit that kind of treatment. Beyond that, I have no obligation to provide any kind of access to myself unless I desire that access myself.

No one is obligated to give me that kind of access to themselves if they do not find it desirable to do so. That is their perfect right and unless they just go out of their way to be rude, I don't consider it a personal rejection.

I think my introversion actually causes me a lot more problems socially than my Fe because I don't reciprocate very well, even when I do want a friendship with someone. That isn't an issue of pacing or anything like that. It's more of my being self-absorbed and not thinking about doing anything or of thinking I should do something, but being unsure of what I should do or just feeling like I don't have the energy to do it.

This, for me, too. A lot of it is the introversion. I can't be friends with everyone who likes me. I can have a nice conversation with them, I can hang out with them casually from time to time, but I really only have a handful of close friends at any given time. That handful of close friends are people that I naturally connect with or have bonded with in some way, or something like that. I can't invest in friendships with a lot of people at once. It's a physical and mental energy drain. I also understand that others are not obligated to take me into their inner circle just because I like them, either. Also, just because I'm not friends with a person immediately, doesn't mean it won't happen as we get to know each other better.

 

[cafe]

But we're not dealing with children or intellectually challenged adults; we're dealing with adults here. They have all the resources available to them to decide what's important to them. All the cards were laid out on the table. No one was underinformed.

Everyone made their decisions like adults--PB, her employer with knowingly not meeting his legal obligation, and her co-workers, who could have seized the opportunity of making things better with PB taking the heat by being background support.

When adults make informed decisions I like to let them do that. But surely I'd also let these decisions inform me of their character and what they might decide to do when something even bigger was on the line (e.g. the Erin Brocovich story with the plant giving the town cancer and everyone turning their backs). Why on earth would I want to be spending 40 hours a week with people who don't demonstrate the kind of character I want to see and enact in this world?

I'm only human too, and being surrounded by people not willing to demonstrate good character is going to tempt me to take the easy road in life. I don't want the easy road. I want the road where I can be a good human that makes this world a better place. I'd rather surround myself with people of good character than give myself the baggage of dealing with people who not only are not stepping up to the plate for things they should be, but won't even back me up if I step out from the crowd to make things better.

I've got good things to do in this world. I'm not wasting time or energy on people that are holding me back.

I've forgotten the details of the situation, honestly. But I think I kind of understand.

Example -- my kids go to an inner city middle school that has been badly neglected by the school corporation, so now the building is in bad shape and is in need of expensive repairs. Instead of making those repairs or replacing the building, the superintendent has decided to divide the students up between two other middle schools (after making repairs and additions to those buildings) and it has been suggested that the current building become the new corporation administration building (because we can spend money on that ).

I'm involved with a group that is fighting to keep the school open. We made enough of a stink and with the recession cutting school budgets they could not justify spending money on expanding the other schools -- so they tabled the issue last year.

The superintendent told the teachers at the end of last school year that he intends to have the school closed as soon as the end of this school year if possible, so some of the best teachers have left and enrollment is going down.

I think what is being done is gross class discrimination and that it will have a negative impact on a group of kids that already have low graduation rates, etc. It's just wrong. And I'm willing to do what I can to fight it. But the thing is, we can't get much parental interest or involvement. Probably two thirds of the people I've talked to say that they don't want the school to close, that it stinks and it's wrong, but they don't want to get involved because they think it's a lost cause.

Now personally, I don't think this is going to be a good thing for the two of my children it might effect, but they will be fine because academics come easily to them and they have two parents who are very committed to their education. So I'm not primarily involved because of personal interest.

At this point, given the lackluster response by the folks that will actually be impacted I'm wondering if it's worth my time. I'll be visibly sticking my neck out while I still have kids in the school system -- it's even possible they might want to work in this system at a future date. I'll be taking time I could be spending doing something else to go to organizational meetings and school board meetings, etc. I mean, I can go and lodge a protest for the record because I feel very strongly about it, but beyond that? If the other parents don't care enough to make an effort for their kids and their neighborhood, why should I?

Truth be told, though, if I knew there was a way to get actual results, I would do my best to bite my tongue and work through whatever channels it would take to get the goal accomplished -- within reason. Not saying I would be able to bite my tongue, but I would try.

 

[skylights]

PB, i'm trying to tackle this issue, but let me know if you (or any other Fi dom/aux) don't agree with me.

But if the way you do it doesn't work, you aren't throwing out the bacteria-filled ingredients, you're leaving them in the fridge for someone else to eat, possibly unknowingly or possibly someone that has no choice and might even have a weakened immune system. If you're going to put yourself through hell, why wouldn't you want to go to the trouble to actually get some results for your actions?

Or is it more of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction? I've certainly done those before myself because the injustice of a situation made me *so* angry that I couldn't force myself to be more calm and constructive.

There is a mild arrogance here, not unlike the INTJ arrogance. You presume that she didn't look for a win-win solution; rather you assume that since it didn't work out optimally, that there must have been a better solution.

[...]

Rather, it was important enough to her that she not give up. It was important enough that she do the right thing, even if it cost her, personally. This is quintessential Fi.

in my eyes, PB's solution was optimal in some ways. it wasn't the preferred immediate outcome for her career, perhaps, but she did everything she reasonably could to fix this situation that was harmful to others, and to stop it as soon as possible. i guess a significant part of Fi evaluation is the act of weighing the benefits of keeping peace against the importance of your goal. and sometimes you just decide that it's worth it to sacrifice the potential benefits of diplomacy for the sake of the greater good. and even though outsiders may find it brazen, or unfortunate, or perhaps see a "better" way, for me, resonating, i believe, with PB, i feel a sense of deep satisfaction with this solution and great respect for her.

i don't mean to make it sound like a martyr complex - it's not really preferable to sacrifice anything - but the point is that in that moment, you make a quick but carefully calculated evaluation. our selves are resilient, and we will not live forever... there's a very temporal awareness that accompanies the decision to blatantly break social protocol, ime. so it's not a lack of awareness that one could handle things more diplomatically - Ne, after all, generates plenty of strategies - but a carefully weighed decision to not do so.

this is part of the "tipping point" and "rigidity" i think you tend to see with Fi dom/aux. which i totally understand can get on people's nerves, because you can't see it until we've hit that point, but perhaps this is a partial explanation of why. it's our trying to be accommodating for and open to others and their individual ways of being - until that tipping point is hit and at that point it becomes a necessity to act; typically my perception in this sort of scenario is that if i do not act, i will be a significant part of the system perpetuating harm. perhaps it has to do with internal consistency in itself - one must act in a way consistent with values, otherwise values mean nothing, and there is no reason to have them. which is not to say that i don't sometimes take the easy way out, or adjust to meet the situation, or just do a crappy job of the "right" thing, of course. nor is it to say that Fe dom/aux do not have values or act upon principle. however, i think there is a more clear dividing line in Fi dom/aux before which we are very open to individual ways of being, while past which we find certain ways of being incompatible, whereas with Fe dom/aux there seems to be more of a consistent external rigidity.

I realized later that the outcome wasn't her objective nearly as much as expressing her strong feelings about the issue to the right person. It was about whether it was Right or Wrong.

but it's really not about expression of feelings at all, at least not in the sense of "self-expression". the way i experience it is that i see something that breaks my acceptability threshold, and after that point it becomes necessary to stop a certain process as expediently as possible. if that's what you mean by "expression of feelings," then i suppose you're right, but that phrase connotes to me things like painting a picture or playing an instrument for the sake of defining oneself in the exterior world. yet when i'm in a moment of decision like this, it's so very much not about myself, even if the values are my personal values. like others have pointed out, if the values themselves are about others, then the issue becomes about others more than about oneself, to the point of sacrificing certain aspects of one's own wellbeing for what we perceive to be the sake of the greater good.

and the outcome does remain the objective... it just may be a slightly different outcome than the one you're envisioning... i generally don't mind a little temporary uproar or confusion, or the people perpetuating the harmful situation getting exposed, if it means that the situation will definitely be ameliorated. in this moment, i must choose to act, or i choose to lose my power to act as effectively as i can now. and i must choose to heal, or i choose to continue the harm. there's a definite balance to strike, weighing how much harm will be caused by action versus how much harm will be caused by lack of action. and really, we're making these calls all the time - but other people only see the results of the calls when we fall to the side of needing to act. most of the time we do, as PB demonstrated, choose to take a more peaceful route.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Edit: just saw your post above skylights, will read in a sec!

This is to cafe:

When my kids were in elementary school, we lived in a rural area, dotted with smaller rural schools. Like many school boards, money was declining, budgets shrinking and after a special enrollment "study" the board decided they were going to close 12 or so of these small rural schools, bus the kids to locations farther away.

Already being on the parent committee, I got my hands on the study, found it wanting, and got involved with the board's public meetings. I believed the projections in the plan to be in error, and really a whitewash report to justify closing a bunch of smaller schools to increase funding - a quick yet misguided solution IMO.

So I started a group within our school aptly titled "Save _______ School" ... I used all the resources at my disposal. I got myself interviewed in the paper, I contacted the parent committees at other schools to organize them, I studied the report in-depth and went to the school closure meetings, I held our own meetings and starting making all the liaising contacts necessary to take the "SOS - Save Our School" board-wise. A small but committed group was a part of this with me, but there were times when yes, it was me doing a lot of the leg and grunt work for a cause I believed in.

Never believe that one person cannot make a difference. This is the sentiment you must question, even rail against: "If the other parents don't care enough to make an effort for their kids and their neighborhood, why should I?"

Because you CAN make a difference!

The end result of those actions above saved 11 schools. And, affirming my instinct, the enrollment projections proved inaccurate over time as well. And the benefits: a whole bunch of kids didn't have to ride the bus for over 60 minutes to school each way every day, a bunch of communities kept their schools and thus their populations and heritage. Lots of win-win. It wasn't easy, but I am not disappointed to have participated for something I believed in.

Took about a year.

If you need ideas or inspiration, let me know.

P.S. This is an Fi example at work too.

P.P.S. You don't have to bear the weight of doing all this yourself either. Feel around and find the person in your situation who has the most promise or potential to be the spokesperson, the leader. Then throw support behind that person, and in effect you are magnifying the work and helping accomplish the greater goal. Hope that helps a little.

 

[Salomé]

This, for me, too. A lot of it is the introversion. I can't be friends with everyone who likes me.

It's not introversion though. And we're not talking about a committed friendship - that's the whole point (going back to Ivy's and PB's posts - both pretty solid introverts, as am I). But this tangent has probably gone too far already.

 

[Totenkindly]

This, for me, too. A lot of it is the introversion. I can't be friends with everyone who likes me. I can have a nice conversation with them, I can hang out with them casually from time to time, but I really only have a handful of close friends at any given time. That handful of close friends are people that I naturally connect with or have bonded with in some way, or something like that. I can't invest in friendships with a lot of people at once. It's a physical and mental energy drain. I also understand that others are not obligated to take me into their inner circle just because I like them, either. Also, just because I'm not friends with a person immediately, doesn't mean it won't happen as we get to know each other better.

All that. I found out the hard way I needed to allocate my energy better, because I ran myself into the ground and/or people were expecting more from me time and energy wise than I could realistically give.

I've had some people I liked and connected with but because of time and energy constraints they chose not to pursue it more deeply and I respect that... and I've done the same thing tacitly, I've realized. It has nothing to do with lack of interest.

Relationships are funny; sometimes they'll sit in one spot for a long time, then something will happen that will suddenly bounce them to the next level. But if you didn't invest to one level, it won't necessarily get triggered and get to the next.

 

[cafe]

It's not introversion though. And we're not talking about a committed friendship - that's the whole point (going back to Ivy's and PB's posts - both pretty solid introverts, as am I). But this tangent has probably gone too far already.

I am not completely closed off to such encounters and they happen occasionally -- I probably even seem more open than I am in some instances because I have an odd sense of what is private and what is not, but I generally just don't put myself in a position I consider vulnerable if it doesn't feel to me like a secure situation.

 

[Ivy]

It's not introversion though. And we're not talking about a committed friendship - that's the whole point (going back to Ivy's and PB's posts - both pretty solid introverts, as am I). But this tangent has probably gone too far already.

Is this about the "connecting with strangers" thing? Yeah, I agree with you- it's not introversion. I'm extremely introverted- it's actually the fact that it will NOT become a committed friendship that is somewhat freeing to me. I can't maintain a whole lot of friendships, either, so I'm often more reserved with people I know I will continue seeing in passing, or who are on the "friendship periphery," if that makes sense.

Edit: Read up the chain a bit- when it comes to "friendship periphery" I'm very much in line with what Tallulah and cafe said about not being good responders and needing to conserve energy. With the stranger thing, I don't have to project into the future how much energy I am likely to need to spend on that person, so I can just respond in the moment with the energy I have right then. It's strangely liberating, actually.