# Fi and Fe: Differences in what offends them personally



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Disclaimer: This is largely based on personal experience. My ISFP twin sister and I (an ENTP) would get into a lot of fights when we were kids.

Fe users will get more offended with regards to whether they perceive something to be intended as an insult. They look to see if something was said jokingly or not. If a Fe user perceives the intentions to be negative, they will be inclined to be insulted.. But if they perceive it to be in good fun, it won't be an insult.

Fi users are more offended if something offends one of their values regardless of intent of the perceived offense. If a Fi user views it as contradictory to personal values - the intent/tone of the insult doesn't matter as much. If it's a violation, it's a violation.

Example 1: A Fe user and a Fi user are both pro-choice and believe in it strongly. An ENTP friend knows this and tells them facetiously, "I'm offended that you're for killing babies."

The Fe user won't consider this an insult and be cordial/humorous about it.
The Fi user may not show any reaction at all but will likely be butthurt over the insult to their values. Or will show that they were offended.

Example 2: A Fe and Fi user are both pro-choice and believe in it strongly. An INTJ friend expresses "agreement" with them but in a way that could be perceived as negative/sarcastic but in a very subtle way that requires attention to tone and facial expressions.

The Fe user will pick up on the tone very easily and actually feel offended by the INTJ since he is kind of insulting them in a backhanded/condescending way and is actually being negative.
The Fi user will not be as insulted personally by this since the INTJ didn't say anything that was insulting to their values. Since the focus isn't in others' emotions, the Fi user won't be offended since the INTJ didn't say anything that directly offended their values.


Thoughts?

I found that I'd be more offended by how something was said and my ISFP sister would be more offended by what was said which led to many fights especially as we became aware of the other's weakness.


----------



## Lunaena (Nov 16, 2013)

I don't think being Fi means you're incapable of taking a joke though. But I see your point.


----------



## Tom Soy Sauce (Jul 25, 2013)

I've noticed Fi users also tend to get really offended if you joke or talk critically about _anything_ they're passionate about, not just morals. For example my ESFP friend and I have a lot of music discussions, and he basically worships the ground Kanye West walks on. I like Kanye a lot too, but that doesn't stop me from saying his last album Yeezus was really sloppily put together and rushed with really crappy lyrics. Since my friend adores him he refuses to see that it's merely constructive criticism, he defends it to death with nothing more than "I like it so it must be good." You can still like something and know it's objectively lacking in certain aspects. At least I can and frankly enjoy doing it. I personally love constructive criticism. I like to know where I stand and what people think of the things I like. It's interesting building mental constructs through general consensus and how you personally feel about something and how it differs.

I think it's also worth noting that where a person's Fi/Fe lies in their cognitive function stack could also play into this. Surely an ENTP/INTP wouldn't be as offended by the same joke an ESFJ/ISFJ would, and if it did offend them they probably wouldn't be as quick to show it.


----------



## The Hungry One (Jan 26, 2011)

I also don't think Fi means you can't pick up on sarcasm...

I think what Fi gets offended by is fairly straightforward: disagreement with things they value. I agree with Tom's point; when I was younger, I'd be like, "OMG I love this song, listen to it!" and if someone said, "I hate it," I'd get offended because I'd feel like they were saying they hated part of my identity. 

What Fe users get offended by that doesn't offend Fi users, I have no idea. Maybe perceived affront to their desire for social harmony, or behaviors that appear selfish and inconsiderate of the group...

But that's all based on stereotypes...


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

It was tough thinking of an example but I'm not saying that Fi users can't take jokes or pick up on sarcasm but rather that is less relevant with regards to whether they are offended or not. It also has to be something they strongly value to be offended.
In fact, Fe users probably have a wider and more unpredictable range of things which will offend them. If Person A, a Fe user, is offended by something Person B says since Person A thinks it's offensive to Person C for example.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

I disagree here (tho who knows if I am right  )

For one, I think _anyone_ would get offended if they're being insulted... additionally (I don't know how well-respected and accepted his research is around here) Dario Nardi actually said that INFPs are _"good listeners"_ and are hyper-sensitive to tone when somebody is talking - moreso than other types, which leads me to believe that picking up on sarcasm and getting offended by it is *not* a Fe/Fi thing. 

I think any F type is likely to be really sensitive, but I don't think perceiving an insult and getting mad about it is exclusive between Fe/Fi. I don't think anybody likes being disrespected. 




Tom Soy Sauce said:


> I've noticed Fi users also tend to get really offended if you joke or talk critically about _anything_ they're passionate about, not just morals. For example my ESFP friend and I have a lot of music discussions, and he basically worships the ground Kanye West walks on. I like Kanye a lot too, but that doesn't stop me from saying his last album Yeezus was really sloppily put together and rushed with really crappy lyrics. Since my friend adores him he refuses to see that it's merely constructive criticism, he defends it to death with nothing more than "I like it so it must be good." You can still like something and know it's objectively lacking in certain aspects. At least I can and frankly enjoy doing it. I personally love constructive criticism. I like to know where I stand and what people think of the things I like. It's interesting building mental constructs through general consensus and how you personally feel about something and how it differs.
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that where a person's Fi/Fe lies in their cognitive function stack could also play into this. Surely an ENTP/INTP wouldn't be as offended by the same joke an ESFJ/ISFJ would, and if it did offend them they probably wouldn't be as quick to show it.


This might be some Ti vs Fi here... 
I mean... my following anecdote may be useless a year from now because I don't actually know my type for sure, BUT...

A lot of the time I'm a private person, but I also like sharing things with people... I get excited and want to show my friends something. 

A certain INTP I know will flat out say _"I don't care. I don't want to see it. Stop talking about it."_ And that really hurts my feelings... (though I'm sure it would hurt anyone's feelings?)

Like... it kind of feels like I'm allowing myself the possibility to be attacked by reaching out and showing something I like to someone, so if it gets stomped on it really hurts my feelings because I made the emotional effort to show it, and it ended up being pointless.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Oprah said:


> I disagree here (tho who knows if I am right  )
> 
> For one, I think _anyone_ would get offended if they're being insulted... additionally (I don't know how well-respected and accepted his research is around here) Dario Nardi actually said that INFPs are _"good listeners"_ and are hyper-sensitive to tone when somebody is talking - moreso than other types, which leads me to believe that picking up on sarcasm and getting offended by it is *not* a Fe/Fi thing.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I will comment that if that INTP reacted like that to me, I'd probably write-off the person as an asshole who I probably wouldn't want to associate with. I have cut people out of my life in the past who were total dicks to me. I can't say I ever met an INTP with such little tact though..

Also perhaps the Fe I am describing is more how TP types would use it, which is why there isn't that much which offends me.

I think I get offended by complete irrationality and total disrespect. I also take intentions into effect. If the INTP you mentioned doesn't mean to be an asshole but just lacks emotional awareness, I'd probably still be willing to associate myself with the person. I have an INTJ friend who can be a jerk a lot of the time, but he also has Aspergers and lacks a lot of the awareness of other's emotions, so I wouldn't cut him off unless he deliberately acted like a douchebag just to make me miserable.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Tom Soy Sauce said:


> I've noticed Fi users also tend to get really offended if you joke or talk critically about _anything_ they're passionate about, not just morals. For example my ESFP friend and I have a lot of music discussions, and he basically worships the ground Kanye West walks on. I like Kanye a lot too, but that doesn't stop me from saying his last album Yeezus was really sloppily put together and rushed with really crappy lyrics. Since my friend adores him he refuses to see that it's merely constructive criticism, he defends it to death with nothing more than "I like it so it must be good." You can still like something and know it's objectively lacking in certain aspects. At least I can and frankly enjoy doing it. I personally love constructive criticism. I like to know where I stand and what people think of the things I like. It's interesting building mental constructs through general consensus and how you personally feel about something and how it differs.
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that where a person's Fi/Fe lies in their cognitive function stack could also play into this. Surely an ENTP/INTP wouldn't be as offended by the same joke an ESFJ/ISFJ would, and if it did offend them they probably wouldn't be as quick to show it.


I agree with you that position in the cognitive function stack would play a role. I am beginning to think that the Fe I was describing is the tertiary/inferior position.

I don't have problems with people who dislike what I like. Everyone has different preferences and tastes - art is so subjective. I'm not going to force a Taylor Swift fan to listen to Blind Guardian for instance.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Tom Soy Sauce said:


> I've noticed Fi users also tend to get really offended if you joke or talk critically about _anything_ they're passionate about, not just morals. For example my ESFP friend and I have a lot of music discussions, and he basically worships the ground Kanye West walks on. I like Kanye a lot too, but that doesn't stop me from saying his last album Yeezus was really sloppily put together and rushed with really crappy lyrics. Since my friend adores him he refuses to see that it's merely constructive criticism, he defends it to death with nothing more than "I like it so it must be good." You can still like something and know it's objectively lacking in certain aspects. At least I can and frankly enjoy doing it. I personally love constructive criticism. I like to know where I stand and what people think of the things I like. It's interesting building mental constructs through general consensus and how you personally feel about something and how it differs.
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that where a person's Fi/Fe lies in their cognitive function stack could also play into this. Surely an ENTP/INTP wouldn't be as offended by the same joke an ESFJ/ISFJ would, and if it did offend them they probably wouldn't be as quick to show it.


Yes.


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

My Fi is strong and I don't get offended easily, even if it was intended. I may get hurt if I were intentionally insulted by someone I consider close to me, but it would make me question the person more than make me question the validity of my beliefs.

I'm personally less inclined to take insults seriously if they're petty insults with no real evidence behind them, but I take it more as criticism if the insult has a lot of truth to it. Most of the time, ill intended insults just roll off my back.


----------



## Tom Soy Sauce (Jul 25, 2013)

Oprah said:


> A lot of the time I'm a private person, but I also like sharing things with people... I get excited and want to show my friends something.
> 
> A certain INTP I know will flat out say _"I don't care. I don't want to see it. Stop talking about it."_ And that really hurts my feelings... (though I'm sure it would hurt anyone's feelings?)
> 
> Like... it kind of feels like I'm allowing myself the possibility to be attacked by reaching out and showing something I like to someone, so if it gets stomped on it really hurts my feelings because I made the emotional effort to show it, and it ended up being pointless.



I actually understand this completely. I have pretty obscure tastes in just about everything, they're not exactly accessible so more often than not I don't really talk about them unless I know for a fact or have a hunch that a particular person would in fact like what I like to, or at least give it a chance. I'm used to getting lukewarm responses from others so I guess I handle it well.

In regards to your INTP, I admit I can be that way too at times. More often than not I'm very accepting and open to the sharing of new ideas, but I do dismiss things. I'll give you an example. I have one friend who is really into fashion and clothes, and I couldn't be more disinterested. He frequently sends me links to clothes and shoes and asks my opinion and tries to give me tips. I always tell him I don't care but he keeps doing it and gets offended and passive aggressive. It gets to the point where I don't know how else I can word it that I genuinely do not give a shit. Sometimes you have to be blunt.

Not saying your bothersome to your friend I'm just saying I can be like that too if my patience is wearing thin. maybe your friend is in a bad mood so he's more dismissive? If he's always like that why are you even friends him?


----------



## cheapsunglasses (May 13, 2014)

BroNerd said:


> In fact, Fe users probably have a wider and more unpredictable range of things which will offend them.


I think this is very true. Although Fe is my auxiliary, my dominant Si is mostly expressed through Fe. I'm much more quickly offended *for* someone else, than I am for myself, be it words, attitude, or tone. While I am mostly conflict averse, jumping in to defend or protect someone else that seems unable to defend themselves is when you'll see my anger. Otherwise, I generally stuff anger, disappointment, and hurt down and don't express it around other people. Having more than a bit of the burden called perfectionism drives me hard and makes me sensitive to criticism too. I _do_ think those reactions correspond to Fe.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

This may be all to separate of a dichotomy, but I've always seen Fi as intent and Fe as action. 

Fe users, in particular, Fe doms are notorious for being, well, *ahem* a little overdramatic and exaggerated. The whole stereotypical mantra of "you're doing X, Y, and Z wrong, you're a bad father" (sorry, no examples are coming to my mind). As an ENFP, I can't _understand_ why my mother, an ESFJ, gets so easily angered when we negotiate with her to try to be fair, and such. And, to me, the fact that we're not being obedient to her is problematic. She is the mother, and any dissent is the manifestation of discord and chaos. 

Sorry. ^ is a bit of a mess. Let me try again. Fe users, are Je, meaning, they'll pay attention to emotive content from an objective fashion. The action: words, hand movements, etc. That's why my mother is ready to call the person who cut her off "an asshole" when in all reality, he could just be late, having a bad day, a new driver--anything but an asshole. They focus on the action and believe that action is a good representation of character. It's also why they don't see through "fake" people as clearly, while I can spot them a mile away--those individuals are emitting all the "correct" indicators of a "good" person.

Fi users are a little different. As I said above, they focus on intent. This can have the same consequences as Fe, but for different reasons. When people don't text me back, for instance, I take it as a symbolization that they don't like me, because I ALWAYS text back. So, in some sense, Fi deals intent as defined by the user. I don't think it's hard to respond to a simple text, so, to me, when the individual doesn't respond, I take it as silence or ignorance. "They probably dlslike me" (if I don't know them that well) Granted, texting is not the best example, though, I think it illustrates my point.

I know that the above covers a whole mess of concepts within Fe/Fi debate, but hopefully this helps clarify it.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Raawx said:


> This may be all to separate of a dichotomy, but I've always seen Fi as intent and Fe as action.
> 
> Fe users, in particular, Fe doms are notorious for being, well, *ahem* a little overdramatic and exaggerated. The whole stereotypical mantra of "you're doing X, Y, and Z wrong, you're a bad father" (sorry, no examples are coming to my mind). As an ENFP, I can't _understand_ why my mother, an ESFJ, gets so easily angered when we negotiate with her to try to be fair, and such. And, to me, the fact that we're not being obedient to her is problematic. She is the mother, and any dissent is the manifestation of discord and chaos.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say those are good examples of how you would describe the separation between Fi and Fe, because frankly an Fe or Fi user could come to the same conclusions that you've listed. I have an ESFJ and ENFP friend that both feel about the same way that you do if I don't get a hold of them within a certain amount of time. My INFP friend would gladly call somebody who cut her off an asshole, and my ENFP friend has road rage. You're too focused on the end result and not the process.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

fishlolly said:


> I wouldn't say those are good examples of how you would describe the separation between Fi and Fe, because frankly an Fe or Fi user could come to the same conclusions that you've listed. I have an ESFJ and ENFP friend that both feel about the same way that you do if I don't get a hold of them within a certain amount of time. My INFP friend would gladly call somebody who cut her off an asshole, and my ENFP friend has road rage. You're too focused on the end result and not the process.


Unsure why you need to be so disparaging, but aside from that, I actually forgot one thing. The difference between Fi dom and Fe dom expression.

Fi users exaggerate the meaning: "This is the worst thing on the planet. Those fucking misogynistic assholes!"
Fe users exaggerate what happened: "You're SO unhelpful! You NEVER clean up after yourself! You're ALWAYS making thinks horrible and miserable for the rest of us!"

Plus, there is always the possibility that one of your friends is mistyped. And since you have little credibility, I suppose thats the explanation I'm going to go with.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I'm not sure what I'm offended by. Not that I never get offended because I'm NT :tongue:, but I have a hard time pinpointing exactly what offends me. I mean sometimes compliments offend me, sometimes insults are ego-boosting. Usually I'm only offended if it's something I'm insecure about myself. But I do feel like what offends me is very different from the general social trends of what's "offensive."


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Unsure why you need to be so disparaging, but aside from that, I actually forgot one thing. The difference between Fi dom and Fe dom expression.
> 
> Fi users exaggerate the meaning: "This is the worst thing on the planet. Those fucking misogynistic assholes!"
> Fe users exaggerate what happened: "You're SO unhelpful! You NEVER clean up after yourself! You're ALWAYS making thinks horrible and miserable for the rest of us!"
> ...


Fair enough to question my credibility with having a low post count and being a fairly new member, but don’t mistake that for me having a lack of information. Although, I’ve seen some of your posts around these sub-forums, and I don’t know how credible you are with using fictional characters as examples of healthy types while mocking people for using Typology as equivalent to horoscopes. A good portion of your posts as of recently have consisted of you talking about your “well-developed Te” and how intelligent you are. You seem to have a wide collection of information, but that’s as far as it seems to go. I value honestly over bullshit, so with that said, a lot of your post seem to come from unhealthy Fi and low level Te. From an Fi user to another, the point of these forums are to share information and to learn the system better. It’s not your personal playground to play power games. Also, being brash or condescending doesn’t make you look like a thinker or smarter, but rather it makes you appear rather unhealthy and insecure. I guess the saying is true, “Fake it until you make it”.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Raawx said:


> Fi users exaggerate the meaning: "This is the worst thing on the planet. Those fucking misogynistic assholes!"
> Fe users exaggerate what happened: "You're SO unhelpful! You NEVER clean up after yourself! You're ALWAYS making thinks horrible and miserable for the rest of us!"
> 
> .


This is a good way diffentiating. Thank you.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

fishlolly said:


> Fair enough to question my credibility with having a low post count and being a fairly new member, but don’t mistake that for me having a lack of information. Although, I’ve seen some of your posts around these sub-forums, and I don’t know how credible you are with using *fictional characters as examples of healthy types *while *mocking people for using Typology as equivalent to horoscopes*. A good portion of your posts as of recently have consisted of you talking about your* “well-developed Te” and how intelligent you are*. You seem to have a wide collection of information, but that’s as far as it seems to go. I *value honestly over bullshit*, so with that said, *a lot of your post seem to come from unhealthy Fi and low level Te.* From an Fi user to another, the point of these forums are to share information and to learn the system better. It’s not your *personal playground to play power games*. Also, *being brash or condescending doesn’t make you look like a thinker or smarter, but rather it makes you appear rather unhealthy and insecure.* I guess the saying is true, *“Fake it until you make it”.*


Alright. You've clearly got a vendetta against me (or you just decided to do your research!!), so I'll take your points one-by-one.



Fictional characters are usually fairly good "manifestations" of characters. I tend to naturally type other people, so whenever I watch movies/TV shows, I'm typing constantly. It's more of an outlet. That said, just because they aren't "real" doesn't mean they aren't fair comparisons.
Eh, that's a personal preference. For me, MBTI is something real, thus comparing it to horoscopes is condescending.
I consider myself intelligent, yes. I'm not sure why that bothers or concerns you. I say I'm "intelligent" because unlike most other xxFP's, I'm actually willing to deal with the less pleasant things in a more mature fashion, i.e. responding to this post.
As do I, and I consider myself to be an honest, candid person. If you don't see that, then your observations of me are clearly floating heavily in the negative.
Eh, that's likely true.
I've never conceived my participation here as a collection of power games. In general, I don't play power games. What you're seeing is my confidence in my understanding of MBTI and such. No, I don't pretend to be perfect, but after spending so much mental effort and time, I feel like I've learned a few things here and there.
Neither my intention or desire. I've been typed by others as an "INTJ". Oh, wow! A desirable type! Sure, I could put on a pretty label and pretend I'm super-special, wearing my neat little badge and all. But I don't. I am an ENFP and I don't want to be anything else.
Hah. If you knew me, you would know that I practice the reverse.

Are we done or do we need a round two? I'm not sure why you're throwing in all these ad hominem's, where they are just completely unnecessary.

EDIT: Also pretty sure you're an ISTP. Sensing some Ti and low Fe. Hmm.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

@BroNerd

Fi users have other extroverted functions to compensate and understand if something is meant as a joke. What annoys the Fi user in your example isn't the bad joke in itself, but the purpose to trigger their reaction by being deliberately a bit abrasive or offensive. Fi hates being prompted to react, no Fi user likes to whine or make a fuss, it just kind of overcharges itself from the inside, and you have to discharge that frustration somewhere. And the smart ass with the stupid joke might be the perfect target for that.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I don't think so. I agree with The Hungry One.
Well if you're speaking about sarcasm that is directly linked to me I admit I'd get butthurt.
For example: if I was talking about how much I like cats, someone made a sarcastic joke about it I'd get very offended. It's like they are taking my likes/dislikes and opinion very lightly. I would also start to question my values, and get very conscious about it.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Alright. You've clearly got a vendetta against me (or you just decided to do your research!!), so I'll take your points one-by-one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fictional characters don’t process naturally to be able to fully type them. There are too many influential factors by the writer or sometimes even writers. While you can get a “manifestation”, you’re also going to run into a problem with boxing people into a framework that may not be true. You’re now telling me that you can tell the difference between a Fi and Fe user simply by their use of words, which this is the type of nonsense that people pick up on and use to type people inaccurately.

The point I’m making to you is that your typing is similar to using behavior, because you’re expecting a type to act within a framework that you think is true. This person does x action, so they must be this type. It can work sometimes, but other times it’s not going to. All 16 personality types have different levels of development and circumstances to help them reach different conclusion. I know a couple of mature INTJs that are fairly ethical, relaxed and the friendliest people that I’ve met, yet most people would type them as a feeler.

The point of cognition is not to give you the answer or the conclusion of a person, but how a person processes information through perceiving and judging. Many people mainly mistype because they don’t match the very system you use to type others.

No. I’m not an ISTP. Also, I don’t have a personal problem with you, but rather I was calling it how I saw it.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

I have started to think that I might get more offended when person x does something that annoys person y. Example time Person x drops trash on the floor, I get annoyed bc others have to clean the room. X" Whats the problem, it is not my problem." etcWell, if Fi gets annoyed when somebody hurts their values whereas Fe gets annoyed when it has a negative impact on others, what does it mean for the functions to value not impacting others negatively?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

fishlolly said:


> Fictional characters don’t process naturally to be able to fully type them. There are too many influential factors by the writer or sometimes even writers. While you can get a “manifestation”, you’re also going to run into a problem with boxing people into a framework that may not be true. You’re now telling me that you can tell the difference between a Fi and Fe user simply by their use of words, which this is the type of nonsense that people pick up on and use to type people inaccurately.
> 
> The point I’m making to you is that your typing is similar to using behavior, because you’re expecting a type to act within a framework that you think is true. This person does x action, so they must be this type. It can work sometimes, but other times it’s not going to. All 16 personality types have different levels of development and circumstances to help them reach different conclusion. I know a couple of mature INTJs that are fairly ethical, relaxed and the friendliest people that I’ve met, yet most people would type them as a feeler.
> 
> ...


Okay. You're fucking kidding me right now. You're fucking kidding me.



Believe me, I caution against typism, stereotypical behavior, etc. The assumption that you made that I type based off stereotypes that are comparable to typing off behavior is utter bullshit. You don't know how I type. At all. You don't understand the length to which I try to circumscribe traditional typist behaviors. I'm pretty sure I call them out.
I'm not sure if you cared to pick up that in my explanation I said: (1) the explanation is messy and gross (2) the explanation fundamentally deals with cognition. How one phrases the way they speak, the way they organize information, etc. says much more about cognition than behavior or anything else can.
Do not talk about me in certainty. Do. Not. You don't fucking know me and are superfluously unqualified to make any such assertion. "I've noticed..." is a start.

Now, kindly fuck off.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Okay. You're fucking kidding me right now. You're fucking kidding me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to offend you the slightest. But, I think my point was accurate when you came to the conclusion that I was an ISTP without first understanding what functions I use and how I process information. But yes, I'll kindly go away now.



> 3.I consider myself intelligent, yes. I'm not sure why that bothers or concerns you. I say I'm "intelligent" because unlike most other xxFP's, I'm actually willing to deal with the less pleasant things in a more mature fashion, i.e. responding to this post.


You've really displayed that here, I would say.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

^lol entertaining


----------



## kannbrown (Oct 3, 2014)

I'm trying to figure out where 'offended' fits on the emotional scale, but it's not easy for me. If it's like insulted, or if it is like being protective over a concept and its....feelings? like for a person. I really don't recall being actually offended by disagreement, or someone mocking my logic. If I think they are wrong, I either debate or shrug it off. (Believe it or not, shrugging it off is more an insult. Either I think they won't understand, or it's not worth the time.) If they're right, it's more embarrassed. If it's taste or belief, I file under 'to each their own'. Maybe an INTP thing?


----------



## WeirdRaptor28 (Aug 25, 2014)

I agree. It took time before I got over a certain class clown's harsh jokes towards me and then I learned to counter them so... we're kind of like best buds now because we're assholes to each other. Haha. Oh, and it was his tone that offended me. Then I learned to analyze people's motives behind their tone and facial expression by getting to know them more. I hate being pranked. 

Come to think of it, I judge the meaning of almost everything by the way people say it, from their tone and facial expression. Probably why I'm so naive. People must have noticed and used it to play jokes on me. 

Oh man, what you discover about yourself here... :laughing:

Wait. Tone. Tone...

Random thought: Maybe this is why I can learn to play songs by ear!


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I like rough humor that violates my values sometimes, only if I feel confident in the intentions though.

And I don't feel like sorting through my thoughts right now, so I'm just going to talk about what me and an ESFJ co-worker used to offend each other with.

She would sometimes offend me when she took a stand against something I valued. So like one time I collected a bunch of baby bugs in a cup to move them somewhere safe. And she was like, "if those bugs come out of the cup...I'm going to smash them!" Then, when I went over to the cup later I saw the outside was a little too clean and was shocked...like..."did she KILL BABY BUGS???" She also took to killing spiders in front of me, though she knew I didn't like it--and told long stories about hunting down and killing spiders in her house with details about what the spiders were thinking, and how she outsmarted them. : /

Now, she usually got offended when I didn't show a lot of emotions, and so she couldn't tell if I was silently judging her. She sometimes seemed to interpret my straight face to mean that I was looking down on her morally, when often I was just kind of tired or worried about something. I don't actually hate people that easily. So sometimes she would become defensive or even offensive for no reason.

We really didn't have a problem with humor. I think she might be more likely to get offended if I say something stupid or inappropriate (to her inconsiderate of others feelings), and perhaps it made her uncomfortable when I did not laugh or smile to mirror, when I didn't feel like it. Overall we got along fine, but I did have to get into conflict with her sometimes because she simply didn't understand some of my values.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

mikan said:


> ^lol entertaining


Illustrative--in a very literal sense. ;-)


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

BroNerd said:


> I agree with you that position in the cognitive function stack would play a role. I am beginning to think that the Fe I was describing is the tertiary/inferior position.
> 
> I don't have problems with people who dislike what I like. Everyone has different preferences and tastes - art is so subjective. I'm not going to force a Taylor Swift fan to listen to Blind Guardian for instance.


I agree with this. I'm inferior Fe and I'm practically impossible to offend. Even when I know the person is trying to be offensive, I have some sort of perverse pleasure in pretending I'm oblivious just so the other person feels aggravated by the lack of reaction, and then I just forget about it, and I will probably continue to talk to you in a friendly way whenever I see you. Mainly because I don't care about most people, thus their commentary is meaningless and I don't waste time feeling offended. I'm more interested in analyzing the ridiculousness of how people choose to interact than anything else. People who try to offend me just become my guinea pigs in a sense. Then I can experiment saying or doing various things and see how they react.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@BroNerd

I think the issue with threads like this in general is that you never get good information because you're hearing personal anecdotes from people who may or may not be typed correctly, and regardless of that fact, you're hearing a one sided story full of assumptions. Another issue is that functions are represented in some way in all types. If anything there are functions outside your top four that you have a closer relationship, especially with your inferior. So when people talk about Fe and Fi it's going to be different depending on what type they have. If you want a more complete picture you should really be looking at Fe/Ti vs. Te/Fi.

Check this out: Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomies: Research Results


*MERRY | SERIOUS*

*Merry/Subjectivists (Alpha, Beta: Ti/Fe):


Subjectivists are good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (as, probably, every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspects of activity (to a question "what were you doing" they can answer "we were having fun"—they perceive emotional engagement as a separate type of activity)
Subjectivist types do not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity, in contrast to Serious types, for whom it is a kind of a ritual. They know very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance is interest, business, travel, and so on). In contrast to the Objectivist types, they do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages. They immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it as needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group they amp up the emotional tone—this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The "name" of the person is of secondary relevance for them. Interest towards the person and relations is primary here, thus Merry types do not consider formality as a necessary part of becoming acquainted with someone.
The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else's actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his "subjective" view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, "his system", his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation. When they feel something was done incorrectly, they will likely ask: "What are you doing?" (In contrast to Objectivists who are likely to ask "Who does it this way?"). When they speak of optimality, they mean optimality within the framework of their idea or concept, within the framework of their subjective approach (from which point of view is it most optimal and in comparison to what). Therefore they strive to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (to verify concepts): "If this is what is meant, we do this, if something else is meant, we do it differently."
"Comparison and verification of concepts" is a common phenomenon among Subjectivists. It concerns not only their methods, but also their understanding, terminology, and so on. Subjectivists are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as a part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall call it this way". In contrast to Objectivists who perceive terminology as "objective", Subjectivists understand personal differences behind terminilogy (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them ("Well you say this, but I think it's not so, but so-and-so").
Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions such as "From my point of view", "According to my understanding", "To my knowledge", "personal criteria", "it corresponds to my understanding" "I have concluded" "he insisted" and so on. They describe verbal communication in detail—how their intervention in the situation is transpiring or why it's not happening.


Serious/Objectivists (Gamma, Delta: Te/Fi):


Serious types poorly recognize common emotional background; they do not perceive emotionally infused conceptions (for example "fun") as separate and substitute them with interpretations that have no direct emotional elements. (Instead of the word "fun" they may use "entertainment", "leisure", "pleasure", and so on). They do not perceive emotional exchange as a separate occurrence and are inclined to mix it with other mutual matters (They can have fun while working, or engage in serious affairs while having fun.)
For Serious types, becoming acquainted with a new person constitutes a special ritual necessary for bridging the distance (If this ritual did not take place, then Serious types do not consider themselves to be acquainted, for example: "We did not introduce ourselves"). In such situations, for the Serious types it is easier if the degree of emotional distance was externally predetermined i.e. if it was set by some sort of "mediator", whether this be a person or circumstances of a given situation—this allows them to skip the first stages of becoming acquainted and move on to a closer dialogue and contact. For bridging the distance between strangers, Serious types create certain rules or rituals (or they use already existing ones) for the step-by-step association. They know the process of becoming acquainted very well (how a stranger becomes a familiar). For association, Serious type needs to know the name, title, any other information that describes the new person—therefore formal introduction for them is a very important stage of getting acquainted with someone.
Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes "objectively known" facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct". They suppose that other people can have their own views and positions, but do not consider that any action can be viewed as correct/incorrect only from a certain point of view (they allow for the existence of "objectively correct" actions). Therefore, from the point of view of an Objectivist, actions can be different—subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective, where there is only one "correct", "most effective" way to do something. Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (not their views or concepts like Subjectivists) which they think are the best: "No, do it the right way". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general—"objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "generally optimal" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they do not compare and verify concepts, but instead check whether the other person knows the "correct", "generally accepted", "established" concepts and terms.
In contrast to Subjectivists, Objectivists are not inclined to compare and verify concepts. They assume that these can have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one)—often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework. They operate with concepts such as "objective reality", "unequivocal facts", and do not attempt to verify concepts: "This is called with this term". They consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "really is" (they acknowledge only a certain picture of the world, one that is "objectively true"): "You say it's like this, while in reality is like that".
In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give a lot of examples (all "correct" and "incorrect" modes of actions are depicted in these examples).

Notes:
In this research, the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people of Serious types will not publicly display and behave in a "childish" manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (for example when adult people roll themselves down a snow hill), the situation serves as an intermediary and relaxes the existing interpersonal boundaries.

Hypotheses:
Dichotomy Ethics-Logic strengthens one of the attributes of this trait: Ethics strengthens Subjectivism, while Logic—Objectivism.

Examples:
Merry/Subjectivists: "Fun is a lot of emotion... company of friends, where we can exchange news, possibly go have something to eat, sing a song" "Fun is getting involved, when you actively participate. When you watch or read something, this is educational, but fun is an active state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure (restful state)... perhaps fun for me is an animated dialogue that (as opposed to a fight, quarrel, etc.) is pleasant" "Reading books, opera - this is not fun... fun is heightened vitality" "Fun is a state of liberation when everyone is not being very serious" "Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, some boundaries may get crossed" "If I'm in a company of new people and nobody introduces me, for me it is not a problem to introduce myself" "The majority of people with whom I chat, I may not know their full name" "The process of coming into contact can consist of any steps, becoming acquainted is not necessary" "For me, in company, the names of others are not important" "I remembered what his name was only after a week, even though we had already passionately kissed (about meeting her future husband)" "When I see that someone doing something wrong, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction is to step back and let him have enough... I have my own criteria for how things should be. Other people may have their own criteria" "First, put down the axe, then explain why you are doing that" "I assumed that I have said all that was relevant to the given theme/topic"
Serious/Objectivists: "It is difficult for me to distinguish work activities apart from fun. Fun is difficult to define ..." "I approach everything seriously, even rest" "It is always possible to find something entertaining/zany in the serious, and vice versa" "Studying should be fun. Work without an entertaining element is impossible" "What constitutes "fun" to me is not clear, what is leisure - that is clear, what is entertainment - that is also clear" "It is important that I get introduced when I'm in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself" "I engage another person on conditions that he/she has proposed, I do not engage the person if I do not know whether the contact will be "pleasant" for him/her" "I do not like it when other people "thrust" themselves upon me or when it is done to others, for example, if suddenly my aunt whom I'm seeing for the first time starts calling me "honey" or use some other endearing expression" "The name is important. If a person does not state their name, it often means that they do not want to have a conversation" "If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself than to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to "hammer a nail"" "There are things with which it is clear that some methods are futile/fruitless and that there are more effective ways of doing it. It's very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and keeps choosing inappropriate methods" "When I see something performed ineffectively it makes my stomach churn" "It is painful for me to see something that contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation, I will do so regardless of whether or not it concerns me" "The methods habitual to the person within the framework of his/her experience are not the same thing as objective method of doing things (this is evident by the results)".*


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

BroNerd said:


> Fe users will get more offended with regards to whether they perceive something to be intended as an insult. They look to see if something was said jokingly or not. If a Fe user perceives the intentions to be negative, they will be inclined to be insulted.. But if they perceive it to be in good fun, it won't be an insult.
> 
> Fi users are more offended if something offends one of their values regardless of intent of the perceived offense. If a Fi user views it as contradictory to personal values - the intent/tone of the insult doesn't matter as much. If it's a violation, it's a violation.


Personally, I find it difficult to know what offends me. There is something to what you describe as being Fi, but I suspect that this would be true for most people. What offends is that somebody transgressed some value. I think that I would know if someone was just joking or not, and, depending on the value, react poorly or not. But part of the problem is how do you define being "offended"? How does one take offense? Or how does one express taking offense? 

Typically, if some one tries to offend me, I will not respond in kind. Why give them the satisfaction of knowing thy offended me? I recognize the source, and disrespect that. It's that simple. 

But just guessing at what you said, that Fe would look deeper, and Fi not. Judging by the nature of Fe vs Fi, I would suggest that it would be the opposite. Fe is externally focused. It judges behavior. Fi is internally focused, and judges intent. Here's an illustration. A few weeks ago, I bought some guy friends some pizza. A couple of them, when it came, complained about the lack of free sauce, and about the seemingly short-shrift on toppings, totally overlooking the fact that it was free for them. I told my wife, and her first thought was that that they should have just not said anything--as it was rude/offensive. But my thinking was completely different. I would rather, if they are going to think it, to say it. That way I know what their true feelings are. Even if it does sadden me, I would rather know what they truly think, than hide it. At least, that gives me insight into their mind, their attitude towards me, and in the future, I will remember this. So, for her (INTP--inferior Fe), it was the behavior that mattered, but for me, intent. 

And I've frequently seen this sort of behavior among Fe types. Of course, there will always be situations where some one's behavior will set off anybody, regardless of type. All of us experience such things--someone cuts in line, or talks loudly on the phone during a movie, etc. I don't think that sort of thing is type related, nor are our reactions--upset someone enough, and they are bound to act out, regardless of type--if pushed hard enough. However, as a general rule, Fe is behavior-oriented, and Fi is intent-oriented as I see the differences.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I think a good way to compare might be to look at the weaknesses of an Fi-Dom (INFP, ISFP) vs. Fe-dom (ESFJ, ENFJ), relevant to their dominant function: 

INFP Personality Description


> If their feelings are hurt they may just react very emotionally at first and this could confuse some other people that might not understand that. INFPs that develop their Extraverted Intuition may realize they are taking the situation out of context.
> They can also have an extreme dislike of criticism. Any type obviously does not particularly enjoy criticism, but INFPs could have a tendency to take it more personally than some others. They may see someone’s comment as a personal attack on them when the other person may be just trying to suggest a way to help.
> 
> 
> The INFP may also have a tendency to blame themselves for situations that go wrong, thinking it is because of something they did.


ISFP Personal Growth


> -May be extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism
> -May perceive criticism where none was intended
> -May be unable to acknowledge or hear anything that goes against their personal ideas and opinions
> -May blame their problems on other people, seeing themselves as victims who are treated unfairly
> ...


ENFJ Personality Description


> One weakness could be that they can become overprotective and somewhat overwhelming with people that they’re close to
> ...but sometimes they can be a little too much for some people looking for some personal space.
> ...might have a hard time understanding that others don’t want them always to be there.
> 
> ...


ESFJ Personal Growth


> -May be unable to acknowledge anything that goes against their certainty about the "correct" or "right" way to do things
> -May attribute their own problems to arbitrary and unprovable notions about the way people "ought" to behave


The fundamental difference is supposedly that Fi is directed to the subject and Fe is directed to the object. This makes sense with the weaknesses that are listed because the Fi ones, for the most part, outline the "Fi butthurt" response, and the Fe ones refer to taking offense at others' behaviors or towards those who don't want their help. Fi seems to take criticisms more personally, as well as "values" such as dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. Fe seems to take behaviors more seriously, feel rejected by not being wanted, etc. 

Also notice Fi is takes more of a "victimization" stance in being offended.

Edit: Hopefully no one gets offended at this long post pointing out weaknesses.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

I'm REALLY sensitive, so I get offended by practically anything anyone says or does to me.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

^sorry, double post


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

BroNerd said:


> Fe users will get more offended with regards to whether they perceive something to be intended as an insult. They look to see if something was said jokingly or not. If a Fe user perceives the intentions to be negative, they will be inclined to be insulted.. But if they perceive it to be in good fun, it won't be an insult.
> 
> Fi users are more offended if something offends one of their values regardless of intent of the perceived offense. If a Fi user views it as contradictory to personal values - the intent/tone of the insult doesn't matter as much. If it's a violation, it's a violation.
> 
> I found that I'd be more offended by how something was said and my ISFP sister would be more offended by what was said which led to many fights especially as we became aware of the other's weakness.


That is exactly the problem I run into with Fi users. Condescension really irks me, which is something I've noticed Fi-Te users do a lot of. 
I also enjoy crass jokes (that are obviously jokes) and have been perplexed why some people get extremely offended and don't realize there's nothing personal behind it. 

Thank you for explaining this so well!


----------



## visionaryspirit (Nov 24, 2014)

If something is said about my values in a condescending or sarcastic tone, that can get me pissed. Moments like that I'll either disregard the comment or assertively correct the person.

It's ok to joke or disagree with me or my values. I'll usually respond lightheartedly as long as there isn't a belittling connotation to it.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Arya said:


> I agree with this. I'm inferior Fe and I'm practically impossible to offend. Even when I know the person is trying to be offensive, I have some sort of perverse pleasure in pretending I'm oblivious just so the other person feels aggravated by the lack of reaction, and then I just forget about it, and I will probably continue to talk to you in a friendly way whenever I see you.


i don't know how you do this but i respect you a lot for being able to


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't get offended if someone intends to offend me - I get offended if someone carelessly says something untrue and then doesn't apologize when I tell them that that might offend someone.

Example: I was at a party of a Dutch girl who lived in Germany (I'm German). Some friends wanted to go ding-dong ditch at the neighbours, but she told them not to, as 'Germans aren't nice to cats'. (they own a cat) I thought that this was a really stupid thing to say, and got a bit sad, but I didn't get offended because she admitted that it was not true.

A guy at my student union who was know to make misogynistic jokes took it to the next level: He handed in a motion for the general meeting that stated that women shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, just men, because that's in the bible. Several women (including me) did warn him that this was very offensive, since several people in the student union had only just left churches where this was actual practice. He didn't care, because he thought it was funny, and it wouldn't be voted in anyway. I was offended by that.

I only really get offended if someone offends a group that I belong to - but I also look down on people who think in untrue terms about other races or gays for example.

Now, which function is this?


----------

