[NiDBiLD]

That's also correct.



I have problems with doing work related things, or rather, things having to do with carrying out any kind of plans together with Fe people. The same guys can be wonderful as company at a party, except for their tendency to brag and their conformity. A few beers with a nice Fe user is great fun, but trying to accomplish anything real together with them just won't work. They are too fickle.

[Neobick]

Deleted-Deleted

[Aizar]

I wonder...here comes an INFJ's attempt at being logical (Fe supposedly being our secondary function, I'm not sure where it lies for me, personally.)

Say humans are social animals, like wolves in a pack. A wolf pack comes together to hunt and to defend themselves, which they can't do as well alone. Simple matter of two heads are better than one. Now say humans come together for the same reason.

Now throw in there this emotional phenomenon. Emotions are not useless, but instead, on a very basic level, are survival instincts. Fear tells us when to hightail it out of there, anger tells us when to stand and fight, pleasure tells us when we're doing something to our greater benefit. All this to keep our bodies working like a well-oiled machine in a dangerous world.

These emotions have their uses in group settings for the same above reasons--surviving and thriving. However, in a group setting, they are amplified, to make sure all of a group does whatever needs to be done to survive, to make sure everyone gets the message loud and clear (groupthink). But there's also an anomaly: a threat that is dangerous for one member of a pack, alone, is not necessarily dangerous for fifteen members of a pack standing together. Taking out the emotion instincts or switching them out for something more friendly to group settings isn't always viable. After all, even if you are a social animal, there are times you get caught in dangerous situations all by your lonesome (especially as predators, as predator animals are not as sustainable in large numbers). Instead, this is where rational planning comes in. The two approaches often butt heads because they're working towards slightly different aims--group vs. individual. (I'm oversimplifying it a little by saying logical thinking only occurs in groups and emotions only occur in individuals. That's flat-out not true, as the two blend in both situations. I will say, however, that social animals tend to be more intelligent than their solitary counterparts, possibly because of the above line of reasoning.)

Now for a slightly different take: throw in the modern world. The modern world is not particularly dangerous. Needed resources like food and shelter are plentiful, but not quite plentiful enough to make sure everyone can get their share. Unless you're on the fringes, you're fighting against other humans for your survival, not against "nature". You have to be able to prove you're worth wasting the resources on, by whatever means necessary.

Like a wolf pack, we still naturally try to band together in this situation (whether from outdated instincts or because there still is enough danger to warrant it--you decide), but we're now also banding together against other humans. Two instincts now fight each other--that to conform in a group for more resources, and that to defend your own access to the resources. One of the results of this is a mix of the two--appear to be working for the group while in reality working for yourself. Fool with the others' thinking to do so! Manipulation, lying, passive-aggression, all those wonderful things...

Now back to Fe. Basically, in my view, Fe is the instinct to conform to a group for protection and easier "hunting", and to make that banding together as smooth as possible so the pack can actually do what they came together for in the first place instead of fighting amongst themselves.

Where the problem runs in is when the pack isn't all on the same page of what is important to do, or that need to defend against someone is turned against others of the pack, such as how I described above when social jockeying for position becomes the means for survival. Either situation can make Fe go haywire, and have to contradict itself (morals like honesty = good for pack cohesion, but at the same time, makes competing against others in the pack really difficult).

Maybe? Yes? No? I at least succeeded in confusing myself, so your mileage may vary.

[phantom_cat]

Fe is like "you tell me a secret, because if I had a secret to tell, I would tell you." let's say one person is rather private, while the other is an open book. each person's values are different. so let's say person B (open book) has no secrets, and says too much. ooh, you now know everything about them, now you must tell them everything too according to this person. you say "I'm not doing that." now they get pissed, because it's not equal. this is group harmony in action, Fe. to me, Fe is like one huge brain, everyone works as one. or let's say you have a disadvantage, so you're working on something to give you an advantage. oooh, you must give this to everyone (even if no one knows you have it), to give everyone a "level playing field". why? well, if they had it, they would tell you is their claim. I don't know if this is all Fe users, or just the unhealthy ones.

[teddy564339]

to me, Fe is like one huge brain, everyone works as one. or let's say you have a disadvantage, so you're working on something to give you an advantage. oooh, you must give this to everyone (even if no one knows you have it), to give everyone a "level playing field". why? well, if they had it, they would tell you is their claim. I don't know if this is all Fe users, or just the unhealthy ones.

While I don't know if I quite agree with your "secret" analogy, I find this second one quite interesting. I find it particularly interesting because you seem to view it as a negative rather than a positive.

Because to me, maybe this is an oversimplification, but it almost sounds like a situation of cooperation vs. competition.

If someone is viewing a situation as "every man for himself", they're going to see that situation as a very competitive one, where they need every advantage they've got. They don't view themselves as needing or wanting help, nor do they expect anyone to give it to them. They expect everyone to fend for themselves and everyone has to earn whatever they get. So, everyone would keep their "advantage" to themselves.

If someone is viewing it as a cooperative situation, everyone will be sharing everything that they've got so everyone can benefit. The idea would be that everyone needs to be on this "level playing field" as you call it, because that would make things most fair so that everyone can work together and cooperate.

And here's where I think your example missed out on something when you described Fe. You said "let's say you have a disadvantage". Well, under this cooperative Fe mentality, others would want to know about this disadvantage so they could help you through it. They expect you to share your "advantage", but they also expect everyone to help you out with your disadvantage in the first place. The idea isn't to take away from any individual, it's to help the whole group.


So to me, I would always imagine there are some situations where the first is more appropriate and some where the second is more appropriate. It almost strikes me as the age old arguments of people making choices to benefit the individual or benefiting society as a whole. I honestly think there are cases where either one may be the best....I don't see it as universally one way or another.

[phantom_cat]

While I don't know if I quite agree with your "secret" analogy, I find this second one quite interesting. I find it particularly interesting because you seem to view it as a negative rather than a positive.

Because to me, maybe this is an oversimplification, but it almost sounds like a situation of cooperation vs. competition.

If someone is viewing a situation as "every man for himself", they're going to see that situation as a very competitive one, where they need every advantage they've got. They don't view themselves as needing or wanting help, nor do they expect anyone to give it to them. They expect everyone to fend for themselves and everyone has to earn whatever they get. So, everyone would keep their "advantage" to themselves.

If someone is viewing it as a cooperative situation, everyone will be sharing everything that they've got so everyone can benefit. The idea would be that everyone needs to be on this "level playing field" as you call it, because that would make things most fair so that everyone can work together and cooperate.

And here's where I think your example missed out on something when you described Fe. You said "let's say you have a disadvantage". Well, under this cooperative Fe mentality, others would want to know about this disadvantage so they could help you through it. They expect you to share your "advantage", but they also expect everyone to help you out with your disadvantage in the first place. The idea isn't to take away from any individual, it's to help the whole group.


So to me, I would always imagine there are some situations where the first is more appropriate and some where the second is more appropriate. It almost strikes me as the age old arguments of people making choices to benefit the individual or benefiting society as a whole. I honestly think there are cases where either one may be the best....I don't see it as universally one way or another.

no, what I said was accurate. the values are different. the reason it's flawed is because one can trick the other person to giving up information. that person could never be able to figure something out, yet they'll claim they would tell you if they knew. that's a huge flaw in their "thinking". that one advantage you may have will be stolen, and you get nothing from it. it's just gonna dig yourself a deeper hole. that secret analogy is accurate. if they give it out freely, they expect everyone too, otherwise that's not fair. it is actually fair. one thinks it's not private, while the other thinks that is private. one's values is personal while the other is shared. so let's say one person gives out too much information, and the other person realizes this isn't good (and would refuse to do it), the Fe user says something like "but you know this about me" or whatever. then add the secret analogy to this. it is accurate. but I'm not a Fe user (definitely more Te/Fi), so I won't see/agree with your point of view. again, maybe what I've seen is unhealthy Fe users.

added: read that example with calculus and keeping it for 20 years.

[phantom_cat]

Fe is using shared values, while Fi is using personal values, therefore both are not equal. it's only cooperation when both sides agree. if one is using Fe, and you're blindly trusting that the other person is using the same shared value (but you don't realize that they're not), you now just gave up info that you shouldn't have. this is why Fe users tend to give up info more easily, and Fi users will do so only when they trust the other person and is comfortable.

[teddy564339]

no, what I said was accurate. the values are different. the reason it's flawed is because one can trick the other person to giving up information. that person could never be able to figure something out, yet they'll claim they would tell you if they knew. that's a huge flaw in their "thinking". that one advantage you may have will be stolen, and you get nothing from it. it's just gonna dig yourself a deeper hole. that secret analogy is accurate. if they give it out freely, they expect everyone too, otherwise that's not fair. it is actually fair. one thinks it's not private, while the other thinks that is private. one's values is personal while the other is shared. so let's say one person gives out too much information, and the other person realizes this isn't good (and would refuse to do it), the Fe user says something like "but you know this about me" or whatever. then add the secret analogy to this. it is accurate. but I'm not a Fe user (definitely more Te/Fi), so I won't see/agree with your point of view. again, maybe what I've seen is unhealthy Fe users.

added: read that example with calculus and keeping it for 20 years.

It is possible that the Fe users you've been dealing with are unhealthy, or maybe it's the fact that I have auxiliary Fe, because I can't relate to your "secret" situation at all. I also only tell things I believe to be secret to those that I trust very well, and when I do that, I never expect them to tell me a secret in return. To me doing that is very manipulative and in no way helps support group dynamics. I also don't see its connection to the external social values that Fe relies upon.

Fe is using shared values, while Fi is using personal values, therefore both are not equal. it's only cooperation when both sides agree. if one is using Fe, and you're blindly trusting that the other person is using the same shared value (but you don't realize that they're not), you now just gave up info that you shouldn't have. this is why Fe users tend to give up info more easily, and Fi users will do so only when they trust the other person and is comfortable.

But I think it's possible for both sides to agree, and to me, a Fe user only tends to use those values once they're agreed upon. There are all kinds of social rituals that people of all types adhere to, not just Fe users. I just think Fe users have an easier time adhering to them because they see more value in their purpose.


However, it's possible that in all of these situations you and I are picturing very different situations and that might be part of our disagreement. Being an S myself, sometimes I have trouble picturing exactly what N's are referring to when they speak more generally and I picture a different situation than they are.

[Monkey King]

[RANT]

I have a bad relationship with Fe.

Fe users perpetually misunderstand me and my purpose. It's like they can't understand where I am coming from, and why I do what I do.

I could not care any less about social rituals, commonly held values and other such stuff. I phase out almost instantly when I hear people going into Fe mode. It's just that uninteresting, leads nowhere and deals only with made up stuff like ethics. It's like comparing air castles.

There is a pattern of Fe communication that I find especially worthless: The self justifying holier-than-thou complex:

Fe user 1: "Have you heard. This person whom we know did this action that we consider to be wrong. He is therefore a bad person. Let's evaluate him according to our perception of right and wrong."
Fe user 2: "Yes, that was bad of him. This person is immoral."
Fe user 1: "I would never do such a thing."
Fe user 2: "Me neither."
Fe user 1: "This guy is obviously lacking in values. We are much more righteous than he"
Fe user 1: "Yes. We are righteous, and he is not."

... And then repeat the last two steps for at least 15 minutes until both involved parties are confident that they are really, really righteous. Then they proceed to the next action and do the same thing. Review of action > ethical judgment > review of action > ethical judgment.

It's so blatantly purposeless. Shit has already happened, so what's the use of moralizing about it?

There is also another loathsome pattern of Fe communication: The mental group masturbation spiral:

Fe user 1: (Delivers a validation of relationship) "You're such a good person because you inherit this quality X"
Fe user 2: (Returns the favor) "But you are an even better person because you also inherit this quality X to even a larger extent than me"
Fe user 1: (Finds common ground) "WE are such good people because we both display this quality X"
Fe user 2: (Agrees in order to uphold social harmony and to keep aligned with the "we" of the group) "Oh yes we are. We are so good because we together have this remarkable quality X"

Repeat the last two steps until one of the guys reaches ego-orgasm and comes all over the place.

I fucking loath it. It's just an orgy of validation, bragging, social conformity, group-think, lack of self-distance and everything else that's the root of all things that are bad in this world. It's a worthless waste of oxygen and we'd do better without it.

Phew. [/RANT]

I feel yah on this one. Was invited to be an interviewer for a mock-job-interview trial for 16-18 years old teens in some greenwork force training program.

Anyway, it was a panel interview thing. It was a contest for the teens and so we as the panel, had to pick a winner in the end.

The other 3 other interviewers were my co-workers in my internship pool and we all had to be tested because our supervisor is into MBTI.

I wanted to pick a guy that showed his dedication to the job, ability to learn and do things outside the job description, and had certificates to back up his knowledge. One problem: He had a pompous attitude.

The Fe users wrote him off immediately because he was pompous and during the interview he had his chin up. They said someone arrogant couldn't do the job.

And I was like: Ummmmmmmmmm-no. The guy was prepared for this mock-job interview--- he alone was the only teen who brought certificates and had the job experience to do this type of work. Also, according to his past employment he had done more than necessary for what his job description requires of him. His arrogance comes off as confidence in my book and I like that.

Fe users follow with: Um no. This is a team, his arrogance or confidence as you say it might be too abrasive for other people. He may cause conflict.

I followed with: That's not an issue that can't be fixed. And his show of confidence does not mean he will not be a team player.

In the end I was outnumbered in the vote so yeh. But that was, irritating. I wanted the person who can do work and do work outside of their scope of work. Teamwork is a factor for me but that's not something that can't be abated. They seemed to neglect his merits once they saw his arrogance... as they said it "He had his chin up like he was the shit. That's not a good employee."

[SyndiCat]

[RANT]

I have a bad relationship with Fe.

Fe users perpetually misunderstand me and my purpose. It's like they can't understand where I am coming from, and why I do what I do.

I could not care any less about social rituals, commonly held values and other such stuff. I phase out almost instantly when I hear people going into Fe mode. It's just that uninteresting, leads nowhere and deals only with made up stuff like ethics. It's like comparing air castles.

There is a pattern of Fe communication that I find especially worthless: The self justifying holier-than-thou complex:

Fe user 1: "Have you heard. This person whom we know did this action that we consider to be wrong. He is therefore a bad person. Let's evaluate him according to our perception of right and wrong."
Fe user 2: "Yes, that was bad of him. This person is immoral."
Fe user 1: "I would never do such a thing."
Fe user 2: "Me neither."
Fe user 1: "This guy is obviously lacking in values. We are much more righteous than he"
Fe user 1: "Yes. We are righteous, and he is not."

... And then repeat the last two steps for at least 15 minutes until both involved parties are confident that they are really, really righteous. Then they proceed to the next action and do the same thing. Review of action > ethical judgment > review of action > ethical judgment.

It's so blatantly purposeless. Shit has already happened, so what's the use of moralizing about it?

There is also another loathsome pattern of Fe communication: The mental group masturbation spiral:

Fe user 1: (Delivers a validation of relationship) "You're such a good person because you inherit this quality X"
Fe user 2: (Returns the favor) "But you are an even better person because you also inherit this quality X to even a larger extent than me"
Fe user 1: (Finds common ground) "WE are such good people because we both display this quality X"
Fe user 2: (Agrees in order to uphold social harmony and to keep aligned with the "we" of the group) "Oh yes we are. We are so good because we together have this remarkable quality X"

Repeat the last two steps until one of the guys reaches ego-orgasm and comes all over the place.

I fucking loath it. It's just an orgy of validation, bragging, social conformity, group-think, lack of self-distance and everything else that's the root of all things that are bad in this world. It's a worthless waste of oxygen and we'd do better without it.

Phew. [/RANT]

Your view on Fe is skewed because you don't know analytical psychology very well, that is all. Little if nothing of what you have written is Fe.