# Is this a good example of Fi vs. Fe?



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm an ISFJ (so I use Fe) and I have an INFP friend (who uses Fi). Before we even knew anything about type or functions, we had this conversation, and in retrospect, it seems like to me a really good example of the differences between Fi and Fe, and I just wanted to get others' thoughts on it.


I was telling him about one of my friends from college. I was extremely close to this friend and I loved being around her...we were very close.

However, not only did she herself not cuss, she preferred others around her not to cuss when in her company. Now, she wasn't pushy about this...it's not like she treated anyone who cussed around her differently. But, if the topic came up, she expressed that she would prefer it if those around her did not cuss.


In that situation, my Fe took over. Even though I cuss whenever I feel like it and it was sometimes my natural urge to do so around her, I refrained from doing it because I valued our friendship. I put her preference above mine because I didn't think it was that big of a deal to be careful not to cuss around her. She never pushed me into it, but I felt that because we were friends, part of me being her friend was to honor her wishes by not doing something she didn't like me to do. It wasn't that big of a deal to me...I put our friendship over my own small natural inclination.


When I told my INFP friend about it, this sounded preposterous to him. In his mind, he felt that she was being completely unreasonable and uptight. He felt that if she was truly my friend, she shouldn't care at all about whether or not I cussed. He said that I should be free to do whatever I wanted and it was up to her to decide if that was worth still being my friend. His point was that if the friendship hinged on me cussing or not, then it wasn't worth having. For his friends, if anyone ever mentioned that to him, he would have ignored it because he found it unreasonable...he felt no need to change what was true for him and if someone else didn't like it, there was no point in even being friends.


Looking back on it now, to me this seems like a perfect illustration of Fe vs. Fi. My Fe believes that in a friendship, both friends should make personal sacrifices in order to keep harmony between the two friends. His Fi believes that if the friendship is truly valuable, both friends shouldn't ever have to feel like they have to sacrifice anything...they should be free to do whatever they want and the other should be ok with it because they're friends.



Now, this isn't to say that both he and I don't agree to a degree with both of these perspectives. I'm sure there are times where he sacrifices things for friends, and there are times when I won't back down from who I am. But, I still think this conversation kind of illustrates how an Fe user and an Fi user might view a friendship. I know from my experience talking with some INTJs that they tend to feel pretty similar to how my INFP friend does.


Any thoughts on this?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I would guess your Fi friend is more put-off by her _giving orders_ to people to not cuss than anything. It's not that a Fi type would not respect the feelings of a friend & adjust their behavior to do so (In fact, I'd venture to say we EASILY do that as much as any Fe type, especially as generally our feelings are not in accordance with those around us; we often adjust & adapt & accommodate in ways others have no idea we even do because to them such ways are "normal". Fi adjusts to Fe waaay more than vice versa, IMO). Instead, it's a matter of feeling _forced_ or _judged negatively_ by someone else's _personal standards_. Do you see the distinction?

Plus, Fi types often know a person doesn't even need to give orders to have their feelings accommodated. A quiet example goes a long way. I don't cuss a lot & prefer to not hear a lot of it (although I am not totally uptight). I never say anything to anyone about it though. Many co-workers & friends would comment on how I almost never cuss & then they'd clean up their language around me, but it was _with no request_ from me, _no mention of the topic at all_. They simply noted my behavior & took it as a guide for my preferences & feelings. People can gauge what is appropriate & respectful themselves; they don't need some mandate. To me, it is treating friends like children to give them such rules.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

As long as the request is a legitimate emotional boundary, I do everything I can not to cross it. I believe we are all responsible for not intentionally hurting each other. I take that responsibility seriously.

However, If I consider the other person's request evil, or believe it is based on something invalid, I likely won't follow it.

For example, if a friend said she didn't like cussing, I wouldn't cuss around her. I don't like making people feel uncomfortable without a good reason. Cussing, while probably morally neutral, isn't something I do for an important purpose, and if there were something I didn't like her saying around me, I would expect her to show the same courtesy.

However, if a friend said "shave your legs when you go out in public with me" that would feel like a violation, and would be a matter of her imposing unrealistic, socially harmful restrictions on me. I feel that shaving my legs would set a bad example, and would validate other people's superficiality. Rather than succumbing to inappropriate social pressures, I choose to live my life as a statement against the kinds of people who would require such things. This is because I consider superficiality seriously evil, and I am opposed to meaningless conformity. I would probably tell her to go fuck herself (unless she didn't like cussing, in which case I would tell her to stop promoting oppression.)

I hope that clarifies how my Fi processes the situation. It is all according to what I value. I value other people's sensitivity about the words I say, and I go out of my way to be gentle with their feelings, as I expect them to do for me, but I don't believe others have the right to impose certain kinds of unreasonable restrictions on me, if those restrictions sabotage something meaningful I am trying to accomplish.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> I would guess your Fi friend is more put-off by her _giving orders_ to people to not cuss than anything. It's not that a Fi type would not respect the feelings of a friend & adjust their behavior to do so (In fact, I'd venture to say we EASILY do that as much as any Fe type, especially as generally our feelings are not in accordance with those around us; we often adjust & adapt & accommodate in ways others have no idea we even do because to them such ways are "normal". Fi adjusts to Fe waaay more than vice versa, IMO). Instead, it's a matter of feeling _forced_ or _judged negatively_ by someone else's _personal standards_. Do you see the distinction?


See, here's the thing though...I didn't view her as "giving orders". For me, she was just stating what made her uncomfortable. It's not like she told me "I don't want you to cuss around me." She wasn't telling me what I could and could not do in her presence. Like I said, if I had completely ignored how she felt and cussed whenever I felt like it, she wouldn't have treated me any differently. To me, it was more of a matter for her standing up for herself and saying what made her uncomfortable...it wasn't dogmatic.

So I don't know if Fi and Fe perceive a situation like this differently, or if you're picturing the situation I'm describing differently than it actually happened. It's possible that what's "giving orders" to you is not "giving orders" to me. It's hard to say.






OrangeAppled said:


> Plus, Fi types often know a person doesn't even need to give orders to have their feelings accommodated. A quiet example goes a long way. I don't cuss a lot & prefer to not hear a lot of it (although I am not totally uptight). I never say anything to anyone about it though. Many co-workers & friends would comment on how I almost never cuss & then they'd clean up their language around me, but it was _with no request_ from me, _no mention of the topic at all_. They simply noted my behavior & took it as a guide for my preferences & feelings. People can gauge what is appropriate & respectful themselves; they don't need some mandate. To me, it is treating friends like children to give them such rules.


I might be wrong because I don't know as much about Fi as you do, but part of this sounds like an N vs. S thing to me. Being an N, you seem to want to express your preferences implicitly rather than explicitly and you would want others to pick up on that because that's the way you communicate.

Perhaps not; maybe your S friends pick up on your preferences through your actions just as much as your N friends do. 

For me, I would not be able to make the jump that if another person prefers not to cuss, then they aren't comfortable with others cussing. I don't really connect the two. I may not even notice that one person never cusses. For me, I would *want* them to tell me that they have an issue with it so I would know and so I could adjust my behavior. 

To me, that's laying everything out on the table so I we can establish clear communication. I don't find people sharing their preferences to be pushy or overbearing.

Of course, I'm an SJ, and you're and NP. How we view these situations can be quite different.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't think it's an NP vs SJ thing, in this case, because I am definitely an NP, but I also prefer knowing how others are feeling, so I can act accordingly. Likewise, I express my feelings openly and clearly because I expect others to take them seriously and alter their behaviors accordingly. I don't expect people to just be able to tell how I am feeling unless I give some kind of indication. 

If someone else isn't direct about their own feelings, I might not even notice that something is bothering them until it is too late. I rarely look at people when I am talking to them, and I'm bad at catching subtle clues. However, if someone is showing signs of obvious distress, I react appropriately by avoiding the behavior that causes it, unless I believe that altering my behavior in the required manner would be a greater evil.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

snail said:


> I don't think it's an NP vs SJ thing, in this case, because I am definitely an NP, but I also prefer knowing how others are feeling, so I can act accordingly. Likewise, I express my feelings openly and clearly because I expect others to take them seriously and alter their behaviors accordingly. I don't expect people to just be able to tell how I am feeling unless I give some kind of indication.
> 
> If someone else isn't direct about their own feelings, I might not even notice that something is bothering them until it is too late. I rarely look at people when I am talking to them, and I'm bad at catching subtle clues. However, if someone is showing signs of obvious distress, I react appropriately by avoiding the behavior that causes it, unless I believe that altering my behavior in the required manner would be a greater evil.



If this is the case, then perhaps the situation is more complicated and can't be summed up by type or cognitive functions. Two different INFPs have given two answers that are quite different.

It's possible Fe and Fi aren't quite as different as I may have been initially picturing them; in all fairness, most of my discussions about Fi have been with INTJs, who use it as their tertiary function. Their use of it is quite different than INFPs, and I've seen some of that pop up in some of the conflicts between INFPs and INTJs.

I guess what tends to confuse me sometimes is how auxiliary and tertiary functions are always opposites. I can see how Te is the opposite of Fi (and Ti being the opposite of Fe), and that tends to make more sense to me rather than viewing Fi and Fe as opposites. I also understand how they can be at odds when one function is dominant and the other is inferior (and I understand that relationship for my Si and Ne very well). I guess I just don't see how it works in auxiliary and tertiary situations.



I guess the main difference that I can see between my Fe and the Fi in Fi users is that I don't think I feel nearly as passionate about of a lot of the societal issues that you've mentioned. Part of this is N vs S, too, I would imagine....but I guess I don't see as much that violates my values in a social relationship. I guess for me this pops up more with my Ti, because there are certain things that bother me when they they mess up my logical values.


I don't know, now I'm starting to confuse myself a bit...I guess I just see a lot of overlap in Fe and Fi, despite there being differences as well. I think it's mainly that I don't see my Fe as valuing pointless social rules like some descriptions of Fe seem to describe. For me, it's more of a desire to establish harmony between people in a group.


----------



## ozu (Apr 28, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> Like I said, if I had completely ignored how she felt and cussed whenever I felt like it, she wouldn't have treated me any differently. To me, it was more of a matter for her standing up for herself and saying what made her uncomfortable...


So much Fe. 

The behavior you expect from your friend is based on what you yourself would do, and how you yourself would feel in her shoes. Your friend stating her own interests so forthrightly is Fi, a function that seems kinda rude to you, but is worth using to stand up for oneself when needs must.

One of my closest friends is an ESFJ and I just. I become a different person around her. What @OrangeAppled said about "Fi adjusting to Fe waaay more than vice versa" holds true there. She doesn't demand anything from me verbally, so it's up to me figure out what she needs. And that's what she usually needs! My respecting her needs no matter what. Which is Fe.  But while for her it seems like this should cost hardly anything, Fe being perfectly comfortable and right for her, for me Fe costs a lot to give. It takes energy for me not to say outright, "Stop wasting time and tell me what you're beating around!" haha, and it takes energy for me to feel one way, but convince everybody I am feeling a different way. Whereas to my ESFJ friend Fi seems mean and cruel where to me it seems clean and honest. 

Regarding the OP, it's a really great example of the exact sort of tuff my friend and I get into. 



teddy564339 said:


> She never pushed me into it, but I felt that because we were friends, part of me being her friend was to honor her wishes by not doing something she didn't like me to do.


Fe



teddy564339 said:


> He said that I should be free to do whatever I wanted and it was up to her to decide if that was worth still being my friend.


Fi

Lol in fact that above is more or less the exact wording I've used to soothe that same ESFJ friend whenever she felt like she was only giving thanklessly and others were only taking advantage of how much she gave without returning the Fe for her.


----------



## TheWaffle (Aug 4, 2010)

I tried explaining it all through text, but it didn't come out right, so I made a simple chart.










Explanation
In regards to *how it's brought up*, I'm much more willing to consider it if the person is reasonable. If they come to me with guns blazing with the intent of "changing" me, then no. 

*Level of adjustment:* If the issue is something as minor as swearing or not bringing up a certain topic around them, I'm usually fine with yielding, and I'd be glad that the person mentioned it because it's better than passive-aggression and resentment. If it's something hat requires me to drastically change my behavior or personality, then I'd have to think hard about it. If it's really important to me, no. Of course, this would probably have me contemplating about the relationship and whether the hassle is worth it and the person is really a friend if they refuse to accept me as is.


This also depends on how close I am to the person, but that's a given.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

ozu said:


> So much Fe.
> 
> The behavior you expect from your friend is based on what you yourself would do, and how you yourself would feel in her shoes. Your friend stating her own interests so forthrightly is Fi, a function that seems kinda rude to you, but is worth using to stand up for oneself when needs must.
> 
> ...




Ok, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, here's what I'm gathering that I don't think I thought of before making this post.


And this the idea that Fi users don't care much about social conflict or agreement. What I'm gathering is that Fi users don't really care if they're on the same page with people...in fact, maybe they would prefer not to be on the same page with people. What you're saying is that to an Fi user, if two friends have things that are different about each other, neither one should make an effort to adapt to the other one's desires. Instead of focusing on what they have in common, they should just do whatever they feel, and if the other person doesn't like it, then doesn't matter. They should just keep doing whatever it is they want because that's being true to themselves. What matters more is that the two people are being straight up with what they like and what they don't, and that there's no need to agree on things...they should just let the other do whatever, even if that creates conflicts.

So in that regard, friendships are more individualistic...the two friends don't necessarily need to connect. They can be friends even if they aren't on the same page a lot of the times.

I've heard INTJs mention this idea before, but I thought this was more of a T thing rather than an Fi thing.


If this is the case, then it would explain a lot, because to be honest, this idea is completely foreign to me. 


For me, friendship is based on those connections. Even though I can value and appreciate the differences between my friends and myself, my biggest desire in a friendship is to connect and relate with someone. I center around the common ground. I want to be able to be with someone where we're enjoying the same thing. When we go out to eat somewhere or go out to do something, I want us both to like what we're doing. If one of my friends wants to do something, I want to like the same thing. I want us to have this in common because I feel like we're connecting. So, sometimes, I'll put aside my own personal interests in order to do what they want to do in order to get that connection. 

I would rather put aside my own personal wants in order to establish that connection, because for me that connection outweighs my own interests. I would rather go out to eat with a friend at a restaurant they like (but that I can't stand) so we can enjoy it together instead of me saying that I can't stand it, because if we go somewhere else the whole time I'm going to be thinking that they didn't get what they wanted and that I'm keeping us from having that harmony and connection.


So it sounds like you're saying that an Fi user *wouldn't want* me to do this? You're saying that an Fi user would want me to just say what I want every time, and if we happen to disagree on it, that the conflict that results is better than me caving in? Basically, an Fi user wants the Fe user to be completely open and clear about all of their own personal desires, no matter how much disconnect it creates?


If that's the case, it would really explain a whole lot (though it would also seem to go against a lot of what snail was saying, which makes this even more confusing to me). I guess it just feels so...bitchy for me to do this. It feels so petty. I guess I just feel like it's causing unnecessary waves and friction. 

But it would also explain where a lot of my confidence issues come from. Because I'm always looking for that connection, I guess I just feel so lonely when it's not there. I feel like the only way to get that connection is to put aside my own interests, and sometimes it feels like this makes my own interests inferior (particularly if the other person is an Fi user and doesn't back down).


In addition, it would also explain why both Fi and Fe users feel like they're sacrificing more in the relationship. I honestly don't think it can be said who's sacrificing more because neither side knows what it feels like to be on the other side. For example, I read your description of what an Fi user is sacrificing, and I have a hard time understanding it exactly. Likewise, you may have a hard time understanding what I described about my feeling to connect, and how if that connection isn't there, it doesn't even feel like there's a friendship...how I can't even enjoy it at all. Maybe that's just as foreign of a concept to you as the Fi user's sacrifice is to me.

It's funny, because I've had this same conversation with INTJs before, but I honestly didn't know the same thing held true for ENFPs and INFPs. 


It's very complicated.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Having Fe, wouldn't you want people to be straight forward with what they want just as a Fi user would? Doesn't it make it easier to connect and make sure there is harmony? I'm confused because it seems to me Fi and Fe think similarly.


----------



## ozu (Apr 28, 2011)

Ok this is gold. This is exactly the sort of conflict I experience with my Fe-friends, and now I get to write it down! ;___; happy tearssss




teddy564339 said:


> What you're saying is that to an Fi user, if two friends have things that are different about each other, neither one should make an effort to adapt to the other one's desires. Instead of focusing on what they have in common, they should just do whatever they feel, and if the other person doesn't like it, then doesn't matter.
> 
> So in that regard, friendships are more individualistic...the two friends don't necessarily need to connect. They can be friends even if they aren't on the same page a lot of the times.



This is half true. The other half is that no, it does matter. Fi doesn't like stepping on the toes of Fi. It merely believes that everyone should get what they want, within reason, and feels its happiest when this happens.

Fi is all about individualism. Too much difference simply means, Maybe this friendship hurts more than it helps. Fi seeks out friends who inspire and support it, but who are just different enough to be interesting. Give Fi some exercise from time to time; new points of view, open opinions, etc. 




teddy564339 said:


> I center around the common ground. I want to be able to be with someone where we're enjoying the same thing. When we go out to eat somewhere or go out to do something, I want us both to like what we're doing.
> 
> If one of my friends wants to do something, I want to like the same thing. I want us to have this in common because I feel like we're connecting. So, sometimes, I'll put aside my own personal interests in order to do what they want to do in order to get that connection.
> 
> I would rather go out to eat with a friend at a restaurant they like (but that I can't stand) so we can enjoy it together instead of me saying that I can't stand it, because if we go somewhere else the whole time I'm going to be thinking that they didn't get what they wanted and that I'm keeping us from having that harmony and connection.



Let's stay with this restaurant scenario. You can't stand the restaurant but I like it. I don't pick up on your dislike right away, because your dislike is subtle. But I do sense something is the matter. You affably tell me it's all good, no worries, but to me it's not all good because I sense that your Fi is not all good. This secretly frustrates me; I know you are not telling me the truth, but we're already here and eating food, it's too late to bring this up, and how to bring it up so you will understand? Fi worries you don't trust me enough to be honest. The only time MY Fi hides itself like this is when I'm angry or uncomfortable.

Fi-types hate stepping on the toes of a friend's Fi; it makes them feel like bad, selfish people. In scenarios like this I think, "Unneccessary sacrifice, not going to get food YOU like for ME, I don't think I can repay this....." Because repaying it in the same way feels wrong for all of the reasons above.

But for you, it's natural. And maybe when you say, "Let's go eat at this place next," and I say, "Ah I don't really like the food there.... how about this other place?" I'm trying to be a good and honest friend to you, but I'm probably just looking all selfish. 




teddy564339 said:


> So it sounds like you're saying that an Fi user wouldn't want me to do this? You're saying that an Fi user would want me to just say what I want every time, and if we happen to disagree on it, that the conflict that results is better than me caving in? Basically, an Fi user wants the Fe user to be completely open and clear about all of their own personal desires, no matter how much disconnect it creates?
> 
> I guess it just feels so...bitchy for me to do this. It feels so petty. I guess I just feel like it's causing unnecessary waves and friction.



Yeah. Exactlyyyy

The thing is, 80% of the time I don't care what restaurant we go to. You're the Si-type, I want you to pick one you like. I'll probably just talk through the meal while eating absentmindedly, lol.

Of course there are good ways and bad ways to say what you want, as in the chart above  I find with IxxJ especially it takes a little practice to get the cadence right, because it's easy to sound critical and hurt your Fi friends with too much bluntness. Be really soft about it, and use "I'm not really sure if" and "Why don't we instead" type of phrasing.




teddy564339 said:


> But it would also explain where a lot of my confidence issues come from. Because I'm always looking for that connection, I guess I just feel so lonely when it's not there.


My ESFJ friend has told me this exact thing. It's like, I need Fi from her just as she needs Fe from me, I want us to be honest and she wants us to go along with one-another out of courtesy. I hope that once that's clear to both parties, they can establish a serviceable middle ground.


----------



## journeytoforever (Mar 28, 2010)

Hm... I don't know, as an Fi auxiliary user, I definitely feel the desire to connect with people and I don't feel close with them unless there is a connection.

However, I don't ever change the way I am in order to attempt to connect with someone - I want connections to happen naturally. If one party or the other deliberately alters themselves in order to try to connect, it doesn't feel authentic to me... And therefore not worthwhile.

This doesn't mean that I won't alter aspects of my behavior, though. It's just all about whether I feel obligated to modify my actions or not. If I feel as though someone would not be my friend if I didn't do a certain thing, or would distance themselves from me because I wouldn't do something, I won't do it. There is no natural underlying friendship there that I would be doing it for. But if a friend simply desires that I do something because it means a lot to them, but their opinion of me does not depend on it, then I would do it in a heartbeat.

However, I don't know if this applies to all Fi users or not :/ You're right, this stuff is definitely tricky haha.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

teddy564339 said:


> See, here's the thing though...I didn't view her as "giving orders". For me, she was just stating what made her uncomfortable. It's not like she told me "I don't want you to cuss around me." She wasn't telling me what I could and could not do in her presence. Like I said, if I had completely ignored how she felt and cussed whenever I felt like it, she wouldn't have treated me any differently. To me, it was more of a matter for her standing up for herself and saying what made her uncomfortable...it wasn't dogmatic.
> 
> So I don't know if Fi and Fe perceive a situation like this differently, or if you're picturing the situation I'm describing differently than it actually happened. It's possible that what's "giving orders" to you is not "giving orders" to me. It's hard to say.


Yes, I was picturing the situation differently. In the OP, it sounded like a direct request was made that bordered on an ultimatum (ie. "When people cuss it makes me uncomfortable, so I don't hang out with people who cuss. I'd prefer it if you don't cuss".). Again, I wouldn't be surprised if your Fi friend interpreted it similarly, based upon how you describe his reaction. 

If she indeed simply stated that something made her uncomfortable & there was no implication of an ultimatum or undertone of self-righteousness, then it's not an issue to me. But it sounded like a "my way or the highway" attitude.



> I might be wrong because I don't know as much about Fi as you do, but part of this sounds like an N vs. S thing to me. Being an N, you seem to want to express your preferences implicitly rather than explicitly and you would want others to pick up on that because that's the way you communicate.
> 
> Perhaps not; maybe your S friends pick up on your preferences through your actions just as much as your N friends do.


Yes, they often do pick it up clearly, especially if they are Ps. Indirect communication may be more of a Pe thing than an N ting. That was pretty much my point. I never have to set rules, give orders or make ultimatums with people. There's a natural give-&-take. Of course if I felt truly violated or that I was being taken advantage of by giving more than my fair share, then I may speak up directly (as anyone should).

An ESFP friend of mine recently had a scuffle with a mutual ENFJ friend & it boiled down to the ENFJ being annoyed by the ESFP, then expressing it & her future expectations. The ESFP interpreted this to mean, "You have to change your personality if you want to stay friends with me". To the ESFP, adjusting for friends means you overlook minor things, you don't ask THEM to change. Frankly, while the ESFP was being sensitive, I saw her view better. The ENFJ seemed nitpicky, petty & ridiculous in her demands. 

I suppose I see things as: the Fe types seem to ask OTHERS to changes to suit them because they seem to assume their feelings are the standard for what is good, but Fi types will just quietly & automatically adjust to others, recognizing that individuals feel differently. In these cases, Fe people can seem demanding & judgmental & unwilling to compromise.



teddy564339 said:


> It's possible Fe and Fi aren't quite as different as I may have been initially picturing them; in all fairness, most of my discussions about Fi have been with INTJs, who use it as their tertiary function. Their use of it is quite different than INFPs, and I've seen some of that pop up in some of the conflicts between INFPs and INTJs.


The tertiary is "childish", often serving the interests of the individual first & foremost, a sort of "yes-man" to the dom function.



> I guess what tends to confuse me sometimes is how auxiliary and tertiary functions are always opposites. I can see how Te is the opposite of Fi (and Ti being the opposite of Fe), and that tends to make more sense to me rather than viewing Fi and Fe as opposites.


Fe & Fi are not opposites; they both judge to determine value. There is certainly "overlap".
Te is the true the opposite of Fi; I'm not of the mind of that it's necessarily positive for anyone to develop their inferior (opposite function) either. Different function models present many different ideas about that....




> I guess the main difference that I can see between my Fe and the Fi in Fi users is that I don't think I feel nearly as passionate about of a lot of the societal issues that you've mentioned. Part of this is N vs S, too, I would imagine....but I guess I don't see as much that violates my values in a social relationship. I guess for me this pops up more with my Ti, because there are certain things that bother me when they they mess up my logical values.


Fi mostly surfaces in response to violation. This is noted by Jung... In most day to day life activities, this does not happen a lot, and when it does, the situation is more symbolic; the events themselves are not the problem so much as the attitude they represent in others which amounts to a devaluation of the Fi individual.




teddy564339 said:


> And this the idea that Fi users don't care much about social conflict or agreement. What I'm gathering is that Fi users don't really care if they're on the same page with people...in fact, maybe they would prefer not to be on the same page with people. What you're saying is that to an Fi user, if two friends have things that are different about each other, neither one should make an effort to adapt to the other one's desires. Instead of focusing on what they have in common, they should just do whatever they feel, and if the other person doesn't like it, then doesn't matter. They should just keep doing whatever it is they want because that's being true to themselves. What matters more is that the two people are being straight up with what they like and what they don't, and that there's no need to agree on things...they should just let the other do whatever, even if that creates conflicts.


You're taking this to an extreme, which people who don't use Fi tend to do when describing it. If this were true, then all of the statements from FPs about adjusting to friends possibly more than FJs do wouldn't have been made by FPs. To FPs, you certainly don't need to be on the same page about small things, and a lot of what Fe fusses over can seem petty & minor in the big picture. Because these things are small, the FP is more often than not happy to adapt because they too desire peace.



> So in that regard, friendships are more individualistic...the two friends don't necessarily need to connect. They can be friends even if they aren't on the same page a lot of the times.


I would heartily disagree about the connecting part. To me, you're not even describing connecting, you're describing agreeing. Now often you agree with someone you connect with, but you don't necessarily connect with someone you agree with. This makes connecting NOT a product of agreeing, but rather agreeing often a byproduct of someone who understands you well, with connecting being the main result. 

You can still be individuals, you can have your own preferences, without any unusual conflict, and this may actually draw you closer to someone because they open up a new perspective to you & inspire new feelings. It's not just reinforcement of what you feel/know already. 

The FP is mostly looking for someone who understands how they feel, who they are at core, not someone who likes the same _stuff_ (because that stuff seems shallow).




> For me, friendship is based on those connections. Even though I can value and appreciate the differences between my friends and myself, my biggest desire in a friendship is to connect and relate with someone. I center around the common ground. I want to be able to be with someone where we're enjoying the same thing. When we go out to eat somewhere or go out to do something, I want us both to like what we're doing. If one of my friends wants to do something, I want to like the same thing. I want us to have this in common because I feel like we're connecting. So, sometimes, I'll put aside my own personal interests in order to do what they want to do in order to get that connection.
> 
> I would rather put aside my own personal wants in order to establish that connection, because for me that connection outweighs my own interests. I would rather go out to eat with a friend at a restaurant they like (but that I can't stand) so we can enjoy it together instead of me saying that I can't stand it, because if we go somewhere else the whole time I'm going to be thinking that they didn't get what they wanted and that I'm keeping us from having that harmony and connection.


You'll be hard pressed to find an FP who doesn't exhibit similar behavior. The idea is not that they need to AGREE to connect, but the idea is that most things are too small to make a fuss over, so why not adapt to others & make the connection the priority.

What's funny is, to me, this seems to contradict my impression of the FJ friend in the OP, or at least my initial impression. If FJs are so ready to please & agree, then why make a fuss over friends cussing sometimes? Why lay guilt trips to get them to change? Clearly, the FJ is the one expecting others to adapt to THEM. EDIT: I just realized I assumed the no-cussing friend was an FJ...regardless, is not her behavior contradictory to what you think is preferable? 




> So it sounds like you're saying that an Fi user *wouldn't want* me to do this? You're saying that an Fi user would want me to just say what I want every time, and if we happen to disagree on it, that the conflict that results is better than me caving in? Basically, an Fi user wants the Fe user to be completely open and clear about all of their own personal desires, no matter how much disconnect it creates?


No, this would entirely contradict MY first answer, which is an annoyance with those who push their preferences on others like they're God.

A mutual & moderate comprising to get along with people & not trample their needs by insisting on your way every time is one thing, a desirable thing. But being entirely without your own opinion or needs because you're so eager to get along is another thing, an undesirable thing.

I wouldn't want a friend to eat sushi with me if they hate it; if I found out, then I'd feel BAD & I'd feel like they were not honest with me. I'd feel like they were faking a personality just to be liked by people. On the other hand, if the person always insisted on where they want to eat, and never cared to ask my opinion, then I'd feel like I was the one being a doormat. It's about balance & _mutual_ compromise. But this should be entered into voluntarily, not with ultimatums or demands, unless it's a SERIOUS issue.




ozu said:


> One of my closest friends is an ESFJ and I just. I become a different person around her. What _OrangeAppled_ said about "Fi adjusting to Fe waaay more than vice versa" holds true there. She doesn't demand anything from me verbally, so it's up to me figure out what she needs. And that's what she usually needs! My respecting her needs no matter what. Which is Fe.  *But while for her it seems like this should cost hardly anything, Fe being perfectly comfortable and right for her, for me Fe costs a lot to give*. It takes energy for me not to say outright, "Stop wasting time and tell me what you're beating around!" haha, and it takes energy for me to feel one way, but convince everybody I am feeling a different way. Whereas to my ESFJ friend Fi seems mean and cruel where to me it seems clean and honest.


I definitely agree with the bolded. Fe tends to be justified in its demands because its viewed as how "everyone feels", but Fi is dismissed because it's only how YOU feel. This makes Fi adjusting to Fe go unappreciated, because it's assumed this is what everyone wants.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

snail said:


> As long as the request is a legitimate emotional boundary, I do everything I can not to cross it. I believe we are all responsible for not intentionally hurting each other. I take that responsibility seriously.
> 
> However, If I consider the other person's request evil, or believe it is based on something invalid, I likely won't follow it.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. I would compromise on certain issues, like cursing, but not on issues that are personal to me. I have never shaved in my life, and if a friend asked me to, I might tell her to shove off. Ditto for make-up.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> I would rather put aside my own personal wants in order to establish that connection, because for me that connection outweighs my own interests. I would rather go out to eat with a friend at a restaurant they like (but that I can't stand) so we can enjoy it together instead of me saying that I can't stand it, because if we go somewhere else the whole time I'm going to be thinking that they didn't get what they wanted and that I'm keeping us from having that harmony and connection.


Once, my ISFP friend (Fi-user) and I went out and we couldn't decide on what place to eat. We ended up going in and out of every food place we saw. Finally, I decided for us. I guess I should have done that in the first place. Honestly though, I think connection is less about agreeing on things like where to eat, and more on connection on thought processes/topics/interests and so on. Sometimes, when my friend and I are talking over a meal, the food disappears and our topic becomes paramount. (this is huge coming from a foodie like me!). 



> So it sounds like you're saying that an Fi user *wouldn't want* me to do this? You're saying that an Fi user would want me to just say what I want every time, and if we happen to disagree on it, that the conflict that results is better than me caving in? Basically, an Fi user wants the Fe user to be completely open and clear about all of their own personal desires, no matter how much disconnect it creates?


I think Fi-users just want mutual agreement. They don't want to cave in all the time to us, but they also don't want us to cave in all the time to them.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The difference between both perspectives, is that one frees the objective content of the situation from irrelevant elements (leaving the [rational] function to deal with the emergent variables of the situation rather than a set procedure), while the other merges the subject with the object (and thus takes on its set standards).

Cursing basically carries a negative connotation. It indicates something is wrong, and even when used just for pleasant casual talk, it still retains its negative association often (used to give a sort of "kick" to one's words).

Fe might be more likely to oppose it, knowing that its is still seen as inappropriate in many settings. Like no matter how much society and pop-culture accepts it, it is still not acceptable in doing business, especially when one party is trying to sell itself to the other (like in an employment interview), or in political speeches. It's only done among those already close to each other, behind closed doors (And it's always been that way. We sometimes hear all the cursing, up to the F word, used by presidents and military leaders generations ago in their phone conversations and such that have been released to the public now).
Fe on the other hand might accept it, if the group accepts it.

Fi might be a bit more likely to focus on the individual's freedom. 
It might also oppose it from a "spiritual" (religious) perspective, such as quoting Jesus "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". This, rather than appealing to an external group, instead looks within, at the person's humane state to find fault with it. What the group does then becomes irrelevant, for if they all do it, then that just means that something must be wrong in all of their hearts. (This is a bit of a generalization projected onto others, though).

In either case, it will also be shaped by the person's experience, such as what they were taught.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> I suppose I see things as: the Fe types seem to ask OTHERS to changes to suit them because they seem to assume their feelings are the standard for what is good, but Fi types will just quietly & automatically adjust to others, recognizing that individuals feel differently. In these cases, Fe people can seem demanding & judgmental & unwilling to compromise.



Ha ha...this is pretty much the *exact* conversation that I had about Fe with a few INTJs in the past....they were saying pretty much the exact same thing you are here. However, there's still so much about the topic that was unresolved, and there's still a lot that I don't understand and am trying to sort through.

I can't speak for other Fe users, only myself, and maybe that's part of the problem. The only way I can really look at this is how I myself go through a situation, and maybe that's not the same as a lot or even most Fe users. But there are also a lot of similarities.


I guess it's a matter of adaptability and organization...this almost sounds like a P vs J thing (which it is in the regard that all Fi dom and aux users are Ps and all Fe dom and aux users are Js). 

For me...I'm not trying to be controlling. I'm not trying to make things more stressful on any other type. I'm trying to make other people comfortable and happy. So that's why it's frustrating to hear an Fi perspective of Fe in this manner. Even though I think I know it's not your intent, your description of the perception of Fe just makes Fe sound selfish to me. And in my use of Fe, I'm trying to be the exact opposite of that.


What came up in my conversation with INTJs is that they were saying what you were...that people should be able to view everyone else as individuals and adapt to their needs on a case by case basis. I got the impression that they felt that Fe users were self-serving in the aspect that they were asking others to change to be like them.


But from my perspective, it's more that it's about categorizing things into "group" interests vs. "individual" interests. I think in an Fe user's mind, they're not asking other people to adapt to their needs....they're asking everyone, including themselves, to adapt to the entire group's needs. They view themselves as sacrificing and giving up just as much as anyone else. It's still uncomfortable to give in and put aside your own interests...it's not like I want everyone to be like me. Rather, it's that I feel like I want all of us to have to change and adapt so that we can all be on the same page.


So I think it's moreso in an Fe user's mind that we're coming up with one set of rules and guidelines that's best designed to serve everyone. Everyone has to give up something in order for this to happen. I think for an Fe user, they see the Fi user as being unwilling to budge because they're not willing to make that sacrifice.


I can see it from the P angle that Js can strike Ps as stubborn and unwilling to budge (and that seems to fit in with you description of Fe). 

So I think the problem comes from the fact that Fi users are happiest when everyone is left to be themselves, and Fe users are happiest when everyone finds a way to agree. Both sides are miserable if they ever can't get that to happen.

I'll go into this more later, but this is why I think both sides tend to view the other as "more selfish" or that they feel like their own side is sacrificing more than the other. I honestly don't think either one is, I just think it's very difficult for them to understand the other's needs.










OrangeAppled said:


> You're taking this to an extreme, which people who don't use Fi tend to do when describing it. If this were true, then all of the statements from FPs about adjusting to friends possibly more than FJs do wouldn't have been made by FPs. To FPs, you certainly don't need to be on the same page about small things, and a lot of what Fe fusses over can seem petty & minor in the big picture. Because these things are small, the FP is more often than not happy to adapt because they too desire peace.


That might be true, but I think I was just posting what came to my mind after reading ozu's post. If it is an extreme example, then I think it suggests that there is a lot of overlap between Fi and Fe. Because just like you say that FPs don't have a problem adjusting to FJs, likewise FJs don't have a problem letting little things go (at least I don't). I'm not saying that I have to be on the same page with my friends about every single little thing....that would be boring. There'd be no point in having friends if they were all exactly like me. 

But at the same time, I think I always have to live and feel that disconnect with things we don't agree upon. I think that's something that an Fe user always has to live with and feel constantly, and it's not something that bothers an Fi user. So I guess what I'm saying is that accepting differences is probably just as hard for an Fe user as getting on the same page is for an Fi user. That's why I don't think either side is really giving up more than the other, but they both feel like they're giving up more than the other side.



OrangeAppled said:


> I would heartily disagree about the connecting part. To me, you're not even describing connecting, you're describing agreeing. Now often you agree with someone you connect with, but you don't necessarily connect with someone you agree with. This makes connecting NOT a product of agreeing, but rather agreeing often a byproduct of someone who understands you well, with connecting being the main result.
> 
> You can still be individuals, you can have your own preferences, without any unusual conflict, and this may actually draw you closer to someone because they open up a new perspective to you & inspire new feelings. It's not just reinforcement of what you feel/know already.




I don't know if other Fe users feel the same as I do, but if they do, then this right here sums up this whole entire topic. Because my natural inclinations disagree with what you're saying very strongly, just like you disagree with what I posted.


I'm not saying it's not a good thing for friends to have individual differences....that makes friendships more interesting, it makes them fun, it can lead to some bonding, and it can be a learning opportunity. 

However, for me, the agreement is what the whole friendship is built on. The friendship starts from the common ground. If it's not there, there can be no true friendship, only acquaintance-ship. So for me, connecting is a product of agreeing....I can't see how I can connect with someone if I can't agree with them and relate to them. 


If this is true, it's incredibly fascinating.....you view agreeing as a result of connecting, I view connecting as a result of agreeing. 




OrangeAppled said:


> The FP is mostly looking for someone who understands how they feel, who they are at core, not someone who likes the same _stuff_ (because that stuff seems shallow).


As far as the "liking the same stuff" thing goes...I think the S/N difference plays into this some. I've had conversations with Ns about this. Even with INFJs, I think there's a strong difference. I connect with someone more if we're doing some activity we both enjoy, like playing a game/sport, watching a movie, or having a conversation about family/jobs/pets/past experiences, etc....way moreso than if I had some "deep" political, philosophical or religious conversation. I would imagine Ns connect more through these more introspective bond.

So if that's true, I see where you're coming from, though I don't know if "shallow" is a word that I like, just because it has negative connotations (like superficial). I think because my Si tends to remember and focus so much on these sensory experiences and memories, they are very deep for me...much moreso than abstract conversations. 





OrangeAppled said:


> You'll be hard pressed to find an FP who doesn't exhibit similar behavior. The idea is not that they need to AGREE to connect, but the idea is that most things are too small to make a fuss over, so why not adapt to others & make the connection the priority.
> 
> What's funny is, to me, this seems to contradict my impression of the FJ friend in the OP, or at least my initial impression. If FJs are so ready to please & agree, then why make a fuss over friends cussing sometimes? Why lay guilt trips to get them to change? Clearly, the FJ is the one expecting others to adapt to THEM. EDIT: I just realized I assumed the no-cussing friend was an FJ...regardless, is not her behavior contradictory to what you think is preferable?


I really don't know if she's an Fi or Fe user (her feeling function might even be her inferior). 

I think how big or small something is may also be a J vs. P thing. I always remind myself that what Ps find comfort in is what stresses out Js, and what Js find comfort in stresses out Ps. So while adapting to these "little things" may be easy for a P, it may be very difficult for a J because they feel unsettled.

So I almost think this is more about the formality of the agreement than it is the actual topic. It's interesting and funny to me that you view this conversation about cussing as a big, huge issue. I didn't view her as "making a fuss" about it, "giving orders", "laying a guilt trip" or anything else. Making the adaptation to her preference was an easy thing for me. But to you and my INFP friend it sounds like you see what she was asking as being very unreasonable. 

So I think the difference is that maybe my friend and I kind of established some clear "rules" because that made it easier for us to understand each other and get along. The rule is you don't do something that makes the other uncomfortable. 

So I guess maybe it's like this: Fi users (in typical P fashion) feel bound by adhering to these rules because they feel like they're forced not to be themselves. They feel like they always have rules to follow, and that Fe users don't appreciate how hard it is for them to have to follow these rules.

Fe users (in typical J fashion) feel extremely stressed and unsettled when there are no rules. They feel like they can't voice what makes them uncomfortable because they'd be stepping on someone else's toes. They feel like there aren't enough rules to follow and they're constantly in flux and confused by everything being up in the air, and they feel that Fi users don't appreciate how hard it is when there are no rules.....because that creates a feeling of disconnect and loneliness.






OrangeAppled said:


> A mutual & moderate comprising to get along with people & not trample their needs by insisting on your way every time is one thing, a desirable thing. But being entirely without your own opinion or needs because you're so eager to get along is another thing, an undesirable thing.


I think this sounds like a fair compromise between Fe and Fi. I think Fe and Fi users both probably desire this same thing. 



OrangeAppled said:


> I wouldn't want a friend to eat sushi with me if they hate it; if I found out, then I'd feel BAD & I'd feel like they were not honest with me. I'd feel like they were faking a personality just to be liked by people. On the other hand, if the person always insisted on where they want to eat, and never cared to ask my opinion, then I'd feel like I was the one being a doormat. It's about balance & _mutual_ compromise. But this should be entered into voluntarily, not with ultimatums or demands, unless it's a SERIOUS issue.


I think this is another example of everything discussed earlier. Fe users don't feel like the "rules" being established are ultimatums or demands. Without these rules, it feels like there's chaos to them because they can't understand the relationship.






OrangeAppled said:


> I definitely agree with the bolded. Fe tends to be justified in its demands because its viewed as how "everyone feels", but Fi is dismissed because it's only how YOU feel. This makes Fi adjusting to Fe go unappreciated, because it's assumed this is what everyone wants.


I think I see what you're saying, and I think I have a better idea of why Fi users feel so much frustration...because they feel like they constantly have to change to fit some standard, and that this is easier for Fe users to do than it is for Fi users. They feel like Fe users judge them for not adapting to this standard, but that Fe users are never judged for coming up with the standard in the first place. I will try to keep this in mind.


However, I hate the idea of it being a competition of who has to adapt more. Because from an Fe perspective, I think it's frustrating every time there's *not* any kind of standard. For the most part I think people are told that it's good to be unique, that everyone is an individual, that everyone should be appreciated for their own particular talents, etc. While I certainly agree with this mentality, sometimes it makes it very difficult to keep relationships organized in my mind.




I guess what I'm taking away from this is that it's just really hard for Fe users to understand how Fi users feel and vice versa. I don't think either group truly understands how the other feels, and as a result, there's a lot of conflict because both feel like the other is pushing them to do and be something out of their comfort zone. I think both feel like they constantly have to adapt to be out of that comfort zone, and I really think it's true, because it's a part of these relationships. Any relationship has similarities and differences, and each group has a harder or easier time dealing with either one.



All of this is just based on my own experiences and perceptions, I know I could be wrong about some of it regarding Fe users. But this is just the honest impression that I get. Fe and Fi users just have to communicate all of this with one another, because like Js and Ps, we're just about opposite in what we're most naturally comfortable with. 

It's like we said before...both sides have to compromise evenly. Fi users will sometimes have to abide by rules, Fe users will sometimes have to live without them.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Teddy, I wanted to say that you're always someone I really enjoy hearing from. When you talk about Fe, I think you're very understandable. Fe is the one function I constantly get confused by, so it's great to read about it from FJs like you. Thanks :happy:

On Fe vs Fi:
I would like to say--and I have a feeling that other Fi-users have said this--is that the only time my Fi gets insulted is when Fe imposes upon it. If someone told me, "Will you please not swear?" and that's one of their only complaints, then I'd be fine with it... it doesn't infringe upon any of my values, it's not a huge thing, so whatever. However, if someone told me, "I'd love you to get along with my friend," and I _hated_ that friend, then my reaction would basically be like, "screw you, I'm not doing that just so you're happy." Basically, if an Fe user asks me to _change internally_ or _'_put on a face' (that is, violate who I am and my values) for them, then I get insulted and stubborn.

Basically, I'm not opposed to adapting to the little things, but I am opposed to changing the big things. I'd like to say it works on a give-give basis: I'd do the same for them if they did the same for me. Of course, I can't say it works like that all the time... I don't presume to be so perfect XD

EDIT:
Oh... I don't mind getting along with someone on a one-time basis, since it's pretty much a life requirement _anyway_ to be polite to someone if they're a rarity in your life. The point I was trying to make is if someone asked me to always be a friend to their friend, then I'd be all, "No, that's not my job, it's one you took on for yourself."


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> But from my perspective, it's more that it's about categorizing things into "group" interests vs. "individual" interests. I think in an Fe user's mind, they're not asking other people to adapt to their needs....they're asking everyone, including themselves, to adapt to the entire group's needs. They view themselves as sacrificing and giving up just as much as anyone else. It's still uncomfortable to give in and put aside your own interests...it's not like I want everyone to be like me. Rather, it's that I feel like I want all of us to have to change and adapt so that we can all be on the same page.
> 
> So I think it's moreso in an Fe user's mind that we're coming up with one set of rules and guidelines that's best designed to serve everyone. Everyone has to give up something in order for this to happen. I think for an Fe user, they see the Fi user as being unwilling to budge because they're not willing to make that sacrifice.
> 
> ...However, I hate the idea of it being a competition of who has to adapt more. Because from an Fe perspective, I think it's frustrating every time there's not any kind of standard. For the most part I think people are told that it's good to be unique, that everyone is an individual, that everyone should be appreciated for their own particular talents, that everyone


I just have to say, THANK YOU for this post. It improved my understanding of fe dramatically. There were some aspects that rung true to te, and so I thought, "Fe understands feeling the same way te understands thinking!" :shocked:


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> Teddy, I wanted to say that you're always someone I really enjoy hearing from. When you talk about Fe, I think you're very understandable. Fe is the one function I constantly get confused by, so it's great to read about it from FJs like you. Thanks :happy:
> 
> On Fe vs Fi:
> I would like to say--and I have a feeling that other Fi-users have said this--is that the only time my Fi gets insulted is when Fe imposes upon it. If someone told me, "Will you please not swear?" and that's one of their only complaints, then I'd be fine with it... it doesn't infringe upon any of my values, it's not a huge thing, so whatever. However, if someone told me, "I'd love you to get along with my friend," and I _hated_ that friend, then my reaction would basically be like, "screw you, I'm not doing that just so you're happy." Basically, if an Fe user asks me to _change internally_ or _'_put on a face' (that is, violate who I am and my values) for them, then I get insulted and stubborn.
> ...



I think I understand that.


I will say that I know there are times when I lose control of my Fe and I've done things that others have probably viewed as too domineering. Even on PerC, I've made the mistake of offering advice when it's been unwanted. Sometimes I'll see a post describing a conflict, but not really looking for advice on how to resolve it...just wanting more information so that the person can resolve it themselves. My natural instinct is to do everything I can to remove the conflict, since I can't stand conflict at all and it makes me feel better to know I helped to resolve one...but I know that most often my unwanted advice only makes things worse.

It does take a lot of self-control for me not to offer that input when it's not asked, and it is something I continue to work on. So I honestly do understand how Fe can be very domineering to an Fi user. It helps me a lot when someone is honest about telling me this, though...that they would rather resolve the situation on their own and they would prefer for me to just listen rather than offer input. 




Owfin said:


> I just have to say, THANK YOU for this post. It improved my understanding of fe dramatically. There were some aspects that rung true to te, and so I thought, "Fe understands feeling the same way te understands thinking!" :shocked:


Interestingly enough, I've found that I really don't have many conflicts with ISTJs or ISFPs. With ISFPs, it's because I don't know any IRL, but I've always liked the ones on PerC a lot and can relate to them in a lot of ways.

With ISTJs...I think the Si connection is so strong for me that the Te/Fe conflict seems to be pretty minimal. I guess it helps that my mom is an ISTJ, and I'm closer with her than I am anyone else in my whole life. 

So I'm always fascinated by how for me, the Fe/Fi conflict only arises in certain situations. I think part of it is the S/N difference, where communication becomes more of a barrier.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I think I understand that.
> 
> I will say that I know there are times when I lose control of my Fe and I've done things that others have probably viewed as too domineering. Even on PerC, I've made the mistake of offering advice when it's been unwanted. Sometimes I'll see a post describing a conflict, but not really looking for advice on how to resolve it...just wanting more information so that the person can resolve it themselves. My natural instinct is to do everything I can to remove the conflict, since I can't stand conflict at all and it makes me feel better to know I helped to resolve one...but I know that most often my unwanted advice only makes things worse.
> 
> It does take a lot of self-control for me not to offer that input when it's not asked, and it is something I continue to work on. So I honestly do understand how Fe can be very domineering to an Fi user. It helps me a lot when someone is honest about telling me this, though...that they would rather resolve the situation on their own and they would prefer for me to just listen rather than offer input.


See, it's not even trying to solve something or giving advice. I do that too, because I enjoy solving problems. I'm crap at sympathy, when it's said and done; I have to literally remind myself that people aren't coming to me with problems because they want a solution, they're coming to me because they feel hurt/vulnerable and they trust me. (But that's a TJ thing, I think.) So on that level, I understand your feeling.

But yes, Fe is/feels domineering when it asks Fi to change. We're selfish in that regard; we're not going to change just for an Fe-user. Heck, I don't even understand why an Fe user changes themselves just for the sake of making people happy. It relates to a previous statement you made:



> So it sounds like you're saying that an Fi user wouldn't want me to do this? You're saying that an Fi user would want me to just say what I want every time, and if we happen to disagree on it, that the conflict that results is better than me caving in? *Basically, an Fi user wants the Fe user to be completely open and clear about all of their own personal desires, no matter how much disconnect it creates?*


 To an Fi-user, disagreement doesn't always equal conflict; truth equals understanding. It's not that we say what we think all the time, because that's mean. There's a difference between being clear about personal preferences and deliberately being rude or self-absorbed. 

I'm around Fe users a lot and the second-biggest problem I get is that I ask them for their thoughts and they tell me what they think I want to hear. This sort of reaction makes me angry and feel like they don't trust me enough to be mature and understand that we all like different things. And then they get mad because I don't do the same; I say what I think because I both trust them to be mature _and _to tell me their own opinion if it's different. It's honestly confusing to me... If I wanted to be around "yes-people" then, frankly, I wouldn't be around anyone at all.

Is there any way to make an Fe-user feel comfortable expressing their opinions in the same manner an Fi-user does? Would I have to curb my reactions to always be understanding or nice? 
In a way, I feel this is unfair since no one can be 100% patient or accepting... So what happens if I get an Fe-user comfortable to do this sort of sharing, and I feel the need to "create conflict?" Is there a way to make an Fe user understand that, "Just because I disagree with this one thing doesn't mean I'm angry at you"?

On the other hand, I also understand that it's rude of me to expect an Fe-user to always do this... So I would truly like to know if there's anything I can do that still allows me to be myself? Do I just, for example, make a decision when they ask me what I want or do I have to guess at what they want? My experience is that turning the question back on them, such as "Did you have something in mind?" just gets a negative response.

---



> So in that regard, friendships are more individualistic...the two friends don't necessarily need to connect. *They can be friends even if they aren't on the same page a lot of the times.*


I wanted to mention that this is a bit inaccurate, but it's still true to an extent. 

Friendships are more like... Creating a connection _despite_ differences. Each friend has their own quirks because they're an individual. We might adopt each others behavior because it feels like it fits us. I like them either because of in spite of these quirks; I don't ask them to change around me. I expect them to tell me what they need and I try to tell them what I need.

If neither of us can meet each other's needs (for the reasons mentioned previously), then it might be possible we shouldn't be friends.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> See, it's not even trying to solve something or giving advice. I do that too, because I enjoy solving problems. I'm crap at sympathy, when it's said and done; I have to literally remind myself that people aren't coming to me with problems because they want a solution, they're coming to me because they feel hurt/vulnerable and they trust me. (But that's a TJ thing, I think.) So on that level, I understand your feeling.


Here's what's interesting about this....I think this is an example of how the relationship of Te/Ti and Fe/Fi might be parallel.

I think what you're referring to is a situation where someone is talking about a problem that would fall more into the..."logical" realm, I guess. Your Te leads you to want to solve the problem. However, if the person is a Ti user, they may want to solve the problem on their own, and someone else offering their input when asked is very disruptive, because that outside take is not wanted.

I say this because this is how I feel sometimes. Sometimes when I have a problem, I really just feel like I need someone to listen...it's my way of letting out my emotions, clearing my head, and blowing off steam. I don't really want advice, I just want someone to listen. Me telling them about the problem is just part of me working my way through the problem on my own...if I start getting input when I don't ask for it, I feel like they're not really listening....so it puts a stall on the process of me working through it on my own, which is frustrating.


That's why I get so frustrated with myself if I offer advice when it's not needed in a more "social" (or F) related situation. Me using my Fe to offer unwanted advice is very hypocritical, because it's doing the same thing I don't like when a Te user does the same to me. So that's why it's something I really need to work on.

Of course, this may be stronger when Fi or Ti is in the tertiary position. That's what's so interesting...it seems like INTJs with tertiary Fi are bothered by dominant Fe types because of this (especially ESFJs, who also have the S factor), while ISFJs like me, with tertiary Ti, are bothered by dominant Te types because of this (especially ENTJs. I've noticed that for some reason, I really get along better with ESTJs than I do with ENTJs).


I may be wrong, but I do see an interesting parallel there.




Paradigm said:


> But yes, Fe is/feels domineering when it asks Fi to change. We're selfish in that regard; we're not going to change just for an Fe-user. Heck, *I don't even understand why an Fe user changes themselves just for the sake of making people happy. *It relates to a previous statement you made:
> 
> To an Fi-user, disagreement doesn't always equal conflict; truth equals understanding. It's not that we say what we think all the time, because that's mean. There's a difference between being clear about personal preferences and deliberately being rude or self-absorbed.



A lot of this is dependent upon the depth of the relationship. I'll talk about this more below, but I think the deeper the relationship is, the less I feel a need to change to make others happy. I think it's easier to establish harmony when I have a strong relationship with someone and I know that relationship is stable and won't change. If it's more of a shallow, acquaintanceship relationship, it's harder to gauge where people stand, so it takes more work to establish harmony. So, I feel the need to change more.




Paradigm said:


> I'm around Fe users a lot and the second-biggest problem I get is that I ask them for their thoughts and they tell me what they think I want to hear. This sort of reaction makes me angry and feel like they don't trust me enough to be mature and understand that we all like different things. And then they get mad because I don't do the same; I say what I think because I both trust them to be mature _and _to tell me their own opinion if it's different. It's honestly confusing to me... If I wanted to be around "yes-people" then, frankly, I wouldn't be around anyone at all.


Here's a case where I don't think I can speak for other Fe users, because I see a lot of this being related to me being an ISFJ. My dom Si has a very big impact on this, so I don't know how it works for the NFJs or even the ESFJs.

For me, the key word in your post is trust. For me, I only feel comfortable being completely open and honest with those that I trust. If I don't trust someone completely, I'm only going to share certain information with them....I'm not going to say everything. I also won't vocalize my disagreements nearly as much.

There are a lot of things going on here. The first problem is that I don't know what the other person is thinking, or what they think of me. I think this is where the SF and NT differences play into this a lot....my full explanation of this situation is a description of my interactions with ENTJs about debates, which is in this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/72065-another-can-other-isfjs-relate.html


So in my mind, it's not like I'm viewing the other person as immature when I'm scared of what they'll think of me. It's that it's so hard to gauge what they really think about me. With ENTJs (and even ENTPs), when they pick apart a position or topic, they completely separate it from their view of a person. For me, my views and positions are personally tied to me. I've learned that NTs separate the realm of beliefs with what they think about people. For me, it's all connected.

So I get scared what other people will think of me and where our relationship will be headed. I'm afraid that if I open up about what I really think, there might be disagreement, and that this will eliminate our relationship (or make it awkward). It goes back to what I said in my last post...for me, agreement is the first step of forming a relationship. If I don't have some point of consistency to start from, I won't know where to build things from there. 


I guess part of it too is that it feels good to be understood. I like knowing that whatever it is I'm feeling is being shared by the other person. If I have a problem, it makes me feel better if I know someone else is experiencing something similar, because I don't feel as alone and isolated about it. If there's something I enjoy, it's more fun if I can enjoy it with someone else. 

Now, this doesn't mean that we have to be on the same page about everything....it's nice to hear different perspectives and to be able to learn from each other. But I don't want that to be happening more often than us being on the same page.


I'm also very averse to conflict. Conflict just really stresses me out emotionally. If someone is saying something I really disagree with, a lot of times I won't feel like it's worth the stress of voicing my disagreement. Again, this depends upon the relationship I have with the person. But if the relationship is very shallow, I won't want to bother getting into a conflict with the person...I'll just walk away and ignore it.



Paradigm said:


> Is there any way to make an Fe-user feel comfortable expressing their opinions in the same manner an Fi-user does? Would I have to curb my reactions to always be understanding or nice?
> In a way, I feel this is unfair since no one can be 100% patient or accepting... So what happens if I get an Fe-user comfortable to do this sort of sharing, and I feel the need to "create conflict?" Is there a way to make an Fe user understand that, "Just because I disagree with this one thing doesn't mean I'm angry at you"?


My post in that other thread I mentioned talks about this some, at least from an ISFJ's perspective. I think the key thing for me to understand is that your disagreement with a topic isn't a personal judgment. 

It's taken me a lot of work to even allow myself to make this separation. Even in my mind I have to forcefully ignore it sometimes. If I know someone believes differently about me about something, I basically just have to make myself ignore it and focus instead where we have things in common. If I do decide to get into a conversation where we disagree, it's like I have to go into another mode and kind of pretend like they're a different person, not the same person that I was enjoying myself with a while ago.

It's kind of like they have to fall into one category or another. I know it sounds weird, but I think this is how my mind functions. I have trouble viewing people as a big mix of a lot of different things together. It's easier if I can organize things into different groups and focus on them one at a time.


I hate talking like this because it sounds really shallow and judgmental, and I don't think I'm explaining it in a good light. I never feel like I can represent Fe in a good way, and there's still a lot of it I don't understand.




Paradigm said:


> On the other hand, I also understand that it's rude of me to expect an Fe-user to always do this... So I would truly like to know if there's anything I can do that still allows me to be myself? Do I just, for example, make a decision when they ask me what I want or do I have to guess at what they want? My experience is that turning the question back on them, such as "Did you have something in mind?" just gets a negative response.


I think the key thing is understanding and communication. If they trust you and understand that your opinion of them won't be any lower based on any disagreements, I think they'll be more comfortable being honest and open.

If you're talking about SFJs, then part of it is the S/N communication system. I know I have trouble understanding people unless they're being very clear with me about what they mean. If I have to infer things, or if they're making jumps that I don't understand, then I'll misinterpret what they're saying. 

So I think letting them know a lot of the things that you've said in this thread is helpful. If you let them know that you're completely accepting of them as a person and that you disagreeing with them has no negative impact on how you view them, then they may be more likely to relax.




Sometimes it's hard for me even to not feel bad about a topic like this. I honestly don't want to be judgmental of people....I don't want to be irrational, I don't want to assume things about people, I don't want to keep them from being individuals...it's just that so often without a connection everything just feels so lonely. If I can't clearly understand my relationships with people and separate the conflicts, then I find I can't enjoy my time with them and all I feel is disconnect.






Paradigm said:


> Friendships are more like... Creating a connection _despite_ differences. Each friend has their own quirks because they're an individual. We might adopt each others behavior because it feels like it fits us. I like them either because of in spite of these quirks; *I don't ask them to change around me. I expect them to tell me what they need and I try to tell them what I need.*


Well, I feel the same thing about the part before the bolded part. I understand that me and my friends won't have everything in common and that the quirks and differences make it interesting. I also feel like I can relax a lot more once I trust them and know they accept me for exactly who I am. Then the differences don't bother me that much.

But the bolded part....I guess I view these things as the same thing. Sometimes I feel like the two people's needs involve the other one changing.

Now, this isn't true for everything. I don't expect my friends to change who they are when they're around me, and I don't want to feel like I have to change who I am when I'm around them. But that doesn't mean that we don't change what we *do*. If there's something that I naturally feel like doing that I know really grates on them, I won't do it....and I like it when they do the same for me. But this depends on what it is, too.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

I have noticed that dealing with friends that use Fi mainly differs depending on the person even though they have things in common. I know a not so mature INFP and he always wants to do and talk about things he is interested in regardless of what I want to talk about or do. This would not be a problem if he didn’t cut me off when I am sharing something and says he is not interested in it. This to me seems unfair, I am supposed to listen or do what he wants but we never do or talk about what I want. In this case because we have very little in common the friendship is suffering. I don't think it is my place to tell him to change but at the same time I will not adjust to his wants all the time even if I am a main Fe user.

With an ENFP friend the Fe vs. Fi thing only arises when we are talking about life goals or family because we have different ways of dealing with the topics. She thinks I am not being true to myself and I insist that I am even if it is different than what she does.

Across the friendships I have had whether with main Fe or Fi users I didn’t feel like when I have to adjust to the other person very much that it was a true friendship. I felt comfortable in ones I could express myself without the other person judging me or getting upset. As a main Fe user I do dislike conflict but I don't mind disagreement. I do look for people have more in common with than not for friends but it is ok if we disagree on some things. 

I think a main Fe user will feel comfortable to adjust less if he/she is able to tell that the other person would not be upset, hurt and they will not be judged for sharing (as mentioned before it does have to do with trust also).


----------



## pneumoceptor (Aug 25, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> However, for me, the agreement is what the whole friendship is built on. The friendship starts from the common ground. If it's not there, there can be no true friendship, only acquaintance-ship. So for me, connecting is a product of agreeing....I can't see how I can connect with someone if I can't agree with them and relate to them.
> 
> If this is true, it's incredibly fascinating.....you view agreeing as a result of connecting, I view connecting as a result of agreeing.


I think you're onto something here about Fe vs Fi. This plays out the same for me and my best friend. Connection is the foundation for her (INPF, Fi)... and agreement can arise from it. Agreement is the foundation for me (INFJ, Fe)... and connection can arise from it. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## WhatIMeantToSayWas (Jun 14, 2011)

Oh the OP reminded me of something that im doing at the moment. I'm an INFP and have a friend who doesn't like swearing... well **** him lol. Ive been trying to catch him swearing for a long time and he knows, i think he accepts it because ive made a running joke of it, getting more and more profane just to get to him.

I resent the feeling of obligation to change how i normally act - who i am - because of a change in social atmosphere. I'd rather be an outcast - and frequently am as a holder of unpopular views - than a changeling.

If Fe is only about creating agreement, wouldn't Fe be shaped by the average Fi of a group?


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

WhatIMeantToSayWas said:


> Oh the OP reminded me of something that im doing at the moment. I'm an INFP and have a friend who doesn't like swearing... well **** him lol. Ive been trying to catch him swearing for a long time and he knows, i think he accepts it because ive made a running joke of it, getting more and more profane just to get to him.
> 
> I resent the feeling of obligation to change how i normally act - who i am - because of a change in social atmosphere. I'd rather be an outcast - and frequently am as a holder of unpopular views - than a changeling.
> 
> If Fe is only about creating agreement, wouldn't Fe be shaped by the average Fi of a group?


Ironic how, as a result, you're _not _acting how you normally act around him.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Fi is more selfish, were Fe is more about other people.


----------



## WhatIMeantToSayWas (Jun 14, 2011)

Hmm i guess. But i think that is how i would normally act in that situation.
If you're trying to suggest that the way a person acts doesn't depend on situation, id take a little convincing.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

WhatIMeantToSayWas said:


> If Fe is only about creating agreement, wouldn't Fe be shaped by the average Fi of a group?


That could very well be so. If a person who is important to me is assertive about what they feel is right or wrong, then I will definitely be influenced by him or her. I think the fact that Fi users tend to keep their morals to themselves might lead to some resentment towards my tendency to be pushy about what I think is right or wrong, but no one really speaks up until I have really upset a person.

The concept of following ones heart makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry, but it just does not. Everything has to rationalized somehow. Morality can be determined after the complaining that follows from doing something. It can also be determined by knowing what I don't like other people doing, especially if it is to me and thus the Golden Rule from Christianity to "do unto others as you would do unto them" works very well.

I have gained a little bit more respect towards people who believe that figuring out what is morally right should be figured out for oneself. Because of this, I don't snap at people so much anymore for smoking.


----------



## DonCoryon (Sep 16, 2011)

snail said:


> As long as the request is a legitimate emotional boundary, I do everything I can not to cross it. I believe we are all responsible for not intentionally hurting each other. I take that responsibility seriously.
> 
> However, If I consider the other person's request evil, or believe it is based on something invalid, I likely won't follow it.


I think this statement pretty sums up my understanding of introverted judgement (Ji). Ji makes a decision heavily influenced by the person's value system. When the request aligns with the Ji's value system the request is honored and when the request doesn't line up with the Ji's value system the request is seen as unreasonable or invalid. 

I think extroverted judgement (Je) is more accommodating. As a Ti user I would respond the same way as Snail and the other Ji's.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm an Fi user and I'm a pretty laid back and accommodating person. I am also very apathetic about many things, so I have no problem meeting the requests from my friends...I enjoy making other people happy if it's not too troublesome and adjust my behavior accordingly in an effort to not step on people's toes. The way I act varies depending on the group of people I am around. I might tell a joke to a certain group of people but realize that the same joke will bother another group. Many times if I know something is going to offend people I see no purpose in doing it...Over the years I have realized that people simply have different standards of what they deem acceptable and don't seem too open to changing their views. For that reason I see no purpose to potentially inflame. Of course this is assuming I have an inkling as to what would offend them, but I usually wait to see how they would act before I can display some of my more morally? or ethically? questionable behavior. I don't feel as though I'm losing myself by restraining myself in the process. I see it more as this *how I feel about things* vs. *how you feel about things (or how I think you feel)* and more likely than not I will respect your wishes. In the event that I feel someone's request is a little too drastic, I might say something along the lines of *How would you feel if someone asked you to stop (insert equally ridiculous demand)?* I may or may not abide depending on the request. But if I do, I may still try and attack their position on the matter in an attempt to help them realize how insignificant this value really is in the larger scheme of things. 

Luckily my closest friends are all pretty laid back like me so I generally have no problem being my full self. I guess it worked out the way it was supposed to 

So generally my Fi tells me: Feel free to act how you want to, but with freedom comes responsibility. Exercise both. I hold everyone to these standards.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

allisreal said:


> I'm an Fi user and I'm a pretty laid back and accommodating person. I am also very apathetic about many things, so I have no problem meeting the requests from my friends...I enjoy making other people happy if it's not too troublesome and adjust my behavior accordingly in an effort to not step on people's toes. The way I act varies depending on the group of people I am around. I might tell a joke to a certain group of people but realize that the same joke will bother another group. Many times if I know something is going to offend people I see no purpose in doing it...Over the years I have realized that people simply have different standards of what they deem acceptable and don't seem too open to changing their views. For that reason I see no purpose to potentially inflame. Of course this is assuming I have an inkling as to what would offend them, but I usually wait to see how they would act before I can display some of my more morally? or ethically? questionable behavior. I don't feel as though I'm losing myself by restraining myself in the process. I see it more as this *how I feel about things* vs. *how you feel about things (or how I think you feel)* and more likely than not I will respect your wishes. In the event that I feel someone's request is a little too drastic, I might say something along the lines of *How would you feel if someone asked you to stop (insert equally ridiculous demand)?* I may or may not abide depending on the request. But if I do, I may still try and attack their position on the matter in an attempt to help them realize how insignificant this value really is in the larger scheme of things.
> 
> Luckily my closest friends are all pretty laid back like me so I generally have no problem being my full self. I guess it worked out the way it was supposed to


I'm sorry, your post seemed to awkwardly stop a really good discussion going on here when it really shouldn't have.

Whenever I think of Fi, I think of a "live and let live" attitude which you clearly explain when describing yourself. Do you believe that morality is something that must be found under one's own terms?

The thing is, I see no point in morality unless everyone is on the same page in beliefs. As a result, if you were to place me in any debate, my motivation would be to get out my opinion, even if it is a trivial one, and then resolve the arguing so that a consensus is arrived at. If a consensus ends up doing something that I really do not like, I say "Screw these people." and do whatever I want on my own. The goal of a debate is to resolve conflicts (not exactly differences) and make change because with conflict and arguing, there is no progression.




> So generally my Fi tells me: Feel free to act how you want to, but with freedom comes responsibility. Exercise both. I hold everyone to these standards.


Can you explain the responsibility part? What do you believe that you are responsible for?


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

HandiAce said:


> I'm sorry, your post seemed to awkwardly stop a really good discussion going on here when it really shouldn't have.
> 
> Whenever I think of Fi, I think of a "live and let live" attitude which you clearly explain when describing yourself. Do you believe that morality is something that must be found under one's own terms?
> 
> The thing is, I see no point in morality unless everyone is on the same page in beliefs. As a result, if you were to place me in any debate, my motivation would be to get out my opinion, even if it is a trivial one, and then resolve the arguing so that a consensus is arrived at. If a consensus ends up doing something that I really do not like, I say "Screw these people." and do whatever I want on my own. The goal of a debate is to resolve conflicts (not exactly differences) and make change because with conflict and arguing, there is no progression.


Yeah, I was wondering why no one had responded. Thanks for responding. I think you're exactly right about the "live and let live" attitude and you describe perfectly my view on morality. I feel as though people are on different pages. I guess I'm just very cynical about bringing around change to their opinion, because in many cases I can guess what they are going to say/how they'll respond to my criticism so it will just prove futile and awkward in the end (no progression). I try to avoid such confrontations, although sometimes I just can't help myself. I view it as behaving around your parents or grandparents the way you normally do when you are with your friends then trying to rationalize your behavior (if they deem it inappropriate) to them. I know how the conversation will turn out and I just don't have the time and energy. If it's something that I don't think people have given good thought to, I am definitely more likely to debate them on the issue. I prefer to point out novel incongruencies in morality 





HandiAce said:


> Can you explain the responsibility part? What do you believe that you are responsible for?


All I meant here is that there's limitations to how one should act. It shouldn't interfere with others well-being I guess this could be simply be put as the "let live" part of "live and let live". We all do to a certain extent feel inclined respect the wishes of others hoping they would do the same for you


----------

