Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Something I thought of, when considering classical temperament theory and how some temperaments are described regarding the way they handle rejection.
(By "mature", I mean "preferred ⦅dominant or auxiliary⦆, and "immature" would be "unpreferred" ⦅tertiary or inferior⦆).


Mature Fe: “if others reject me, I must be out of sync with their values”.
Ji will be used to determine whether those values are legitimate enough to consider adopting (Fe types won’t [necessarily] follow just any set of “external” local values).

Immature Fe: “if others reject me, I must be out of sync with their values”.
Their values will be assessed by Ti to see whether they are logical enough for consideration.

Mature Fi: “if others reject me, I may be out of sync with a universal value”.
Fi will then try to infer what's likely being violated to the other person, and “weigh” the values with ego’s own values to see whether to give in or not. Many times it will be a difficult dilemma, and so the FP's may seem easily impressionable at times.

Immature Fi: “if others reject me, they must be out of sync with universal values”.
Hence, the TJ's take a tough stand. If becoming more mature, or otherwise depending on the situation, Fi may reasess the matter and be more willing to admit one’s own shortcoming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,860 Posts
I find that how I take rejection is kind of contextual. It depends on how invested my ego is in the matter. If it's something involving finding work or progressing at an intellectual endeavor I tend to start taking it personally. If someone doesn't want to be friends with me, whatever, sorry I wasted my time on them.
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,344 Posts
hrm.... I don't know about that... I feel like in my limited experience of people both FJs and TJs can do the 'they are out of sync with universal values' reaction. I feel like FJs can take for granted that some of their values aren't universally recognized or applicable so when others reject those values they will get offended by this 'bad' person and can also get kinda bossy and self-righteous about how the other person is just wrong, rather than reflecting on themselves.

Also I'm not sure Fi always thinks of it as a universal value. It seems to me like Fi likes to think of everyone as their own little island of values, so they would be more likely to think they're just out of sync with that particular individual, not assuming that individual's disagreement is universally held (not until they run into a lot of individuals who have the same value...then they might think the whole world is like that). I dunno... that's just more what it seems like to me.

but maybe I'm not properly following the idea here.... and I may not be thinking of examples from properly typed people, so.... I'm not positive on this, it's just my impressions


I kind of feel like Fi tends to react as 'hurt' when rejected, and Fe tends to react as 'offended' when rejected, though here I'm mainly thinking of it in 1st or 2nd position. It just seems like Fi dom/aux will tend to react with 'woe is me I'm alone in the world' and Fe dom/aux will react more with 'that person is mean and horrible and I hate them' the inward vs. ourward direction of the brooding - does that make sense. So I guess in that sense I can see the Fi connection with looking at a universal perspective, but... I dunno...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
According to the MBTI Manual stats, INFJs are the types most likely to be priests or other clergymen, with INFPs substantially less likely.

Somewhat consistent with @Aelthwyn's post, I think that, in general, both TPs and FPs have a greater personality-based leaning to be relativistic ("my truths" vs. "your truths" and "my values" vs. "your values") and that, conversely, both TJs and FJs have a greater tendency to want their truths/values to have a universal quality — nothwithstanding the fact that they may rationally understand (and concede), at least in some cases, that their truths/values may not be as universal as they wish they were.

The J/P table in Gifts Differing includes, on the J side, "Aim to be right." And I think the reason that differentiates a typical J from a typical P (to the extent that it does) isn't that P's "aim to be wrong"; nor is it that P's "don't care if they're wrong." I think the salient difference is that, on a lot of issues, a J is more inclined to think there is a right and wrong, so it's important to make the "right" choice, whereas a P (as I said) is somewhat more prone to be relativistic and feel like, "this is my (current) position, and if somebody disagrees, that's fine, and it doesn't necessarily mean either one of us is wrong."
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,344 Posts
@reckful I agree

this comes up a lot in my friendship with an INTJ (and this is one of the reasons we think she is J not P) where she has a strong inner need or compulsion for there to be a single right answer to everything, and even though she knows that with things like taste in food or architectural style etc. is not really a right or wrong scenario, she finds it to some extent frustrating that it is and her knee-jerk reaction is to pronounce other people 'wrong' when they disagree with her even on these trivial things. Whereas, for me even on 'big' things that may have a great deal of importance I'm very inclined to 'agree to disagree' with someone and leave it at 'this is a complicated topic and I may not know everything and what you experience as true may differ from what I experience as true, and how can anyone really know anyways....?' Which grates on her something terrible, heh. It's like, when someone disagrees with her she neeeeeeeds to reach consensus by making them see her truth, or hearing all their rationalization and finding it compelling. While I tend to just think, hm that's an interesting perspective and I file it away, with no real bother about whether I agree or disagree, except perhaps on a few select subjects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,860 Posts
@reckful I agree

this comes up a lot in my friendship with an INTJ (and this is one of the reasons we think she is J not P) where she has a strong inner need or compulsion for there to be a single right answer to everything, and even though she knows that with things like taste in food or architectural style etc. is not really a right or wrong scenario, she finds it to some extent frustrating that it is and her knee-jerk reaction is to pronounce other people 'wrong' when they disagree with her even on these trivial things. Whereas, for me even on 'big' things that may have a great deal of importance I'm very inclined to 'agree to disagree' with someone and leave it at 'this is a complicated topic and I may not know everything and what you experience as true may differ from what I experience as true, and how can anyone really know anyways....?' Which grates on her something terrible, heh. It's like, when someone disagrees with her she neeeeeeeds to reach consensus by making them see her truth, or hearing all their rationalization and finding it compelling. While I tend to just think, hm that's an interesting perspective and I file it away, with no real bother about whether I agree or disagree, except perhaps on a few select subjects.
I've learned as an INTJ to let go of certain scenarios where there aren't really absolute right/wrong answers, because I've realized I'd just go in circles looking for an answer that isn't there. Better to focus on contexts where that type of thinking is actually a good fit. The downside to this, for me, is it makes those scenarios less inherently interesting so it's a bit harder to find interests in common with people. Basically it kind of narrows my interests at least as far as social interaction goes... because so many topics can come up in conversation and I just kind of go straight to "yeah well who the hell knows?" which I suppose is why INTJ's are known to become passionate about/develop expertise in some specific (solution-driven) area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
hrm.... I don't know about that... I feel like in my limited experience of people both FJs and TJs can do the 'they are out of sync with universal values' reaction. I feel like FJs can take for granted that some of their values aren't universally recognized or applicable so when others reject those values they will get offended by this 'bad' person and can also get kinda bossy and self-righteous about how the other person is just wrong, rather than reflecting on themselves.

Also I'm not sure Fi always thinks of it as a universal value. It seems to me like Fi likes to think of everyone as their own little island of values, so they would be more likely to think they're just out of sync with that particular individual, not assuming that individual's disagreement is universally held (not until they run into a lot of individuals who have the same value...then they might think the whole world is like that). I dunno... that's just more what it seems like to me.

but maybe I'm not properly following the idea here.... and I may not be thinking of examples from properly typed people, so.... I'm not positive on this, it's just my impressions


I kind of feel like Fi tends to react as 'hurt' when rejected, and Fe tends to react as 'offended' when rejected, though here I'm mainly thinking of it in 1st or 2nd position. It just seems like Fi dom/aux will tend to react with 'woe is me I'm alone in the world' and Fe dom/aux will react more with 'that person is mean and horrible and I hate them' the inward vs. ourward direction of the brooding - does that make sense. So I guess in that sense I can see the Fi connection with looking at a universal perspective, but... I dunno...
OK, I was going by some of the descriptions I had seen, where introverted functions (especially the judging ones) are said to be "universalistic", and then trying to figure that in reaction to rejection. This was really an extension of an old blog article I did on the fifhth temperament, Supine Supine “service”: introverted or extraverted Feeling? | "ERIPEDIA", which I believe would be best embodied by an INFP, but because it's often described in terms of "service", people might think it was an FJ type (If mixed with Melancholy, then it would be an IxFJ, and ENFJ would also be part Supine, but I'm thinking of the "pure" temperament). Supporting this was Fi or FP type descriptions mentioning that they sometimes do give in a lot to people. Conventional Fi descriptions often portray it as being so "standoffish", but I came to realize that was likely the less mature Fi of TJ's.
Meanwhile, it's the inferior Te that actually leads to the temperament's "service". They "use tasks for people's sake".

I think the "woe is me, I am alone in the world" captures what I was trying to convey, and it is sort of universalistic (where Fe's "local area" focus would dwell more on the other person, as in your example). "Everyone is their own little island" may be how they see it, but then there are common streams of values assumed to run through everyone.
I mention Charlie Brown, who most seem to agree is INFP. Perhaps the "everyone is their own little island" view is something
else that leads him to keep trying with the other kids. I point out I would never have put up with all of that.

With me, I too tend to feel "woe is me; I'm alone in the world", but it's more aout belonging to a group than seeing everyone as their own little island. (Which I would think would help one deal with isolation. Again, perhaps why they will keep trying). Also, I'm operating off of an internal logical approach (which is a rather unusual perspective in my environment), so I end up with a “torn” mix of feeling bad, while protesting “what’s wrong with people?!” It’s “if others are rejecting me, I must be doing something wrong by them, but many of their values are illogical or too much for me to try and change in myself, so why should I give in?”
This sounds like what you describe for Fe, but just like with Fi, I think it's more likely a less mature form of it, but of course, depending on the circumstance, a preferred perspective might do it as well. So it might be a less mature Ti under the surface deeming the offended person as "illogical". As I pointed out, I think it's likely their Pi that will determine whether to judge their values favorably or not.

I never considered a distinction between "hurt" and "offended". Perhaps FP's are more tolerant of feeling "hurt", where "offense" is more reactive and less tolerant (especially for my inferior brand)?
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,344 Posts
I never considered a distinction between "hurt" and "offended". Perhaps FP's are more tolerant of feeling "hurt", where "offense" is more reactive and less tolerant (especially for my inferior brand)?
something like that.

at least to me 'offended' has the connotation of 'how dare you', focusing on how the other person has stepped out of line, there is hurt but that is underneath the conviction that the other person is wrong. The focus seems to be more on how wrong the other person is than how you personally feel. The negative energy of an offended person tends to be funneled into correcting the wrong-doer, whether it is through confronting them, through critiquing them to others, or through passive aggressive 'getting back at them' actions, etc. Something like: She ignored me -> she is rude -> I will ignore her next time.

while to me, when someone feels 'hurt' they may believe the other person has done wrong (though they may also see it as not really wrong just an inevitablility of being different) but that is underneath or in the background while they focus on how they themselves feel - lonely, misunderstood, unappreciated, unseen, etc. The negative energy of a hurt person tends to be funneled into something like "ow ow ow ow" and tearing down their self-esteem, applying the disapproval or lack of care that one person has shown for them onto their idea of how other people view them. Something like: She ignored me -> actually she probably didn't even notice me -> I'm not interesting to anyone but myself -> I feel so lame -> my life sucks etc....

Of course this is my personal interpretation of the words and how I would make a distinction, obviously not everyone will think of these in exactly the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
That makes a lot of sense. One is clearly focused "outwward", and the other, inward. Nice way of elaborating the difference.
(Of course, there are usually elements of both in anyone's disappointment, but it will be expressed more of one way or the other, especially the more conscious Feeling is.
When less differentiated, like in inferior, it may seem like a mixture of both, because of the fact Feeling is not as much under control. When tertiary, Fi may be mixed with the auxiliary and come off like the "offense" description, as that thought process can be more of a logical "if-then" course of efficient action as well, in additon to my description of Fi in that position as assuming the other person is out of step with values. That's one way ITJ's may appear to "use" Fe at times. But, deep down inside, unconsciously, they may be feeling the "hurt" thought proccess. They just don't usually show it under their tough exterior).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
So is the immature Fe going to be found it someone like an ENTP or an INTP since it's not as developed? What about the mature Fe?

EDIT: Never mind. I didn't notice the top bit you had, sorry. Very interesting post. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,980 Posts
I'm definitely mature Fe and I'm so afraid of rejection that I don't even try most of the time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Mature Fi sounds like a reworded Fe description. In short, it's not accurate.

Immature Fi says "screw everyone else, they're wrong."

Mature Fi says "I agree that everyone has their differences. We don't agree, but that doesn't make their values less or more than mine. Only different."

Fi does not generally compromise or seek compromise of values because it doesn't consider personal values anybody's damn business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Retsu and Aelthwyn

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
That makes a lot of sense. One is clearly focused "outwward", and the other, inward. Nice way of elaborating the difference.
(Of course, there are usually elements of both in anyone's disappointment, but it will be expressed more of one way or the other, especially the more conscious Feeling is.
When less differentiated, like in inferior, it may seem like a mixture of both, because of the fact Feeling is not as much under control. When tertiary, Fi may be mixed with the auxiliary and come off like the "offense" description, as that thought process can be more of a logical "if-then" course of efficient action as well, in additon to my description of Fi in that position as assuming the other person is out of step with values. That's one way ITJ's may appear to "use" Fe at times. But, deep down inside, unconsciously, they may be feeling the "hurt" thought proccess. They just don't usually show it under their tough exterior).
I'm glad you brought this up, because I was just thinking about ESTJ. INFP and ESTJ share all the same functions (including Fi), but in reverse. But an ESTJ has an outward response to rejection, not the inward response an INFP has.

Mature Fi sounds like a reworded Fe description. In short, it's not accurate.

Immature Fi says "screw everyone else, they're wrong."

Mature Fi says "I agree that everyone has their differences. We don't agree, but that doesn't make their values less or more than mine. Only different."

Fi does not generally compromise or seek compromise of values because it doesn't consider personal values anybody's damn business.
Actually, the descriptions you cite above for Immature Fi and Mature Fi are spot on (take it from someone that uses Fi first and foremost). And if you want to see it in action, watch an ESTJ and INFP disagree. ;) The ESTJ will try to change the INFP viewpoint and won't compromise, while the INFP will vainly try to show the ESTJ that neither viewpoint is wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
I'm glad you brought this up, because I was just thinking about ESTJ. INFP and ESTJ share all the same functions (including Fi), but in reverse. But an ESTJ has an outward response to rejection, not the inward response an INFP has.



Actually, the descriptions you cite above for Immature Fi and Mature Fi are spot on (take it from someone that uses Fi first and foremost). And if you want to see it in action, watch an ESTJ and INFP disagree. ;) The ESTJ will try to change the INFP viewpoint and won't compromise, while the INFP will vainly try to show the ESTJ that neither viewpoint is wrong.
Stacking order =/= maturity.

EDIT: also, it seems you missed my point. Ultimately, Fi is an inwardly focused function. It is subjective, devotedly so. An immature Fi user doesn't always feel the need to convince the other person they're wrong, because they ultimately believe everybody's values are a personal, subjective choice. The immature Fi user will, however, be more focused on the fact that the other person's values, although personal, are still wrong. A mature Fi user, by contrast, doesn't always accept that nobody is wrong (like your INFP example). A mature Fi user is just more comfortable with the differences (it's possible they'll still think you're wrong, they just tolerate it better).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Mature Fi sounds like a reworded Fe description. In short, it's not accurate.

Immature Fi says "screw everyone else, they're wrong."

Mature Fi says "I agree that everyone has their differences. We don't agree, but that doesn't make their values less or more than mine. Only different."

Fi does not generally compromise or seek compromise of values because it doesn't consider personal values anybody's damn business.
Stacking order =/= maturity.

EDIT: also, it seems you missed my point. Ultimately, Fi is an inwardly focused function. It is subjective, devotedly so. An immature Fi user doesn't always feel the need to convince the other person they're wrong, because they ultimately believe everybody's values are a personal, subjective choice. The immature Fi user will, however, be more focused on the fact that the other person's values, although personal, are still wrong. A mature Fi user, by contrast, doesn't always accept that nobody is wrong (like your INFP example). A mature Fi user is just more comfortable with the differences (it's possible they'll still think you're wrong, they just tolerate it better).
OK, when I speak of "mature"; i'm using it "operationally" regarding the "stacking order"; meaning it indicates "un-preferred" (or "less preferred, meaning it's not a total shadow, but is still what has been initially deprecated in favor of the diametrically opposite "preferred" function), and so will likely be less "developed", to use the common term.

So in a TJ, the Fi will be of a less developed (and possibly "primitive" form, to use Jung's term), and is more likely to come off in that "standoffish" way. It's really the Te that will try to convince the other person, and that's the true preferred function. The Fi will just support it, and supporting the totally opposite function, it will come off in the "immature" way.

So what I was trying to convey was the sense that Fi-preferrers often get "hurt" when rejected, and then often possibly allow others to control them. I guess it's true that they believe "we don't agree but we all have our differences", and this may allow them to allow whatever is going on, but still, how would you explain this part. I believe what you said for "mature Fi" is a part of the Fi character, that I sort of glossed over when putting this together, but there is this apparent other part to their response to rejection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
A mature Fi user, by contrast, doesn't always accept that nobody is wrong (like your INFP example). A mature Fi user is just more comfortable with the differences (it's possible they'll still think you're wrong, they just tolerate it better).
Just to throw a monkey wrench (spanner) into the works, it should be reminded that an Fi-dom in the grip the inferior Te will also come across like a TJ, trying to convince the other of their position. In such a case, however, what will happen is that the Fi-dom will use odd or faulty logic, and be obsessive about being logical and correct, and may not let go of the issue until it just wears him out. It's not pretty, and I bet it looks far worse than an ETJ resorting to the inferior Fi, or a true TJ discussing an issue (they not losing their cool so much as just being smug and intolerant in an infuriating manner).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Just to throw a monkey wrench (spanner) into the works, it should be reminded that an Fi-dom in the grip the inferior Te will also come across like a TJ, trying to convince the other of their position. In such a case, however, what will happen is that the Fi-dom will use odd or faulty logic, and be obsessive about being logical and correct, and may not let go of the issue until it just wears him out. It's not pretty, and I bet it looks far worse than an ETJ resorting to the inferior Fi, or a true TJ discussing an issue (they not losing their cool so much as just being smug and intolerant in an infuriating manner).
The bolded is the kind of blanket statement crap that ruins your point.

There is no "like a TJ." Trying to convince others of your reasoning is not a fucking TJ behavior. People trying to convince others of their points are not acting "like a TJ." They're acting like people with beliefs they care about.

Also, a TJ discussing a matter =/= "smug and intolerant." That's your bias talking.

There's no monkey wrench so much as you attempting to create a one size fits all box for all TJ types so you can make a rather faulty point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyrimorchestra

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
OK, when I speak of "mature"; i'm using it "operationally" regarding the "stacking order"; meaning it indicates "un-preferred" (or "less preferred, meaning it's not a total shadow, but is still what has been initially deprecated in favor of the diametrically opposite "preferred" function), and so will likely be less "developed", to use the common term.

So in a TJ, the Fi will be of a less developed (and possibly "primitive" form, to use Jung's term), and is more likely to come off in that "standoffish" way. It's really the Te that will try to convince the other person, and that's the true preferred function. The Fi will just support it, and supporting the totally opposite function, it will come off in the "immature" way.

So what I was trying to convey was the sense that Fi-preferrers often get "hurt" when rejected, and then often possibly allow others to control them. I guess it's true that they believe "we don't agree but we all have our differences", and this may allow them to allow whatever is going on, but still, how would you explain this part. I believe what you said for "mature Fi" is a part of the Fi character, that I sort of glossed over when putting this together, but there is this apparent other part to their response to rejection.
I'm short on time, so let me break this down:

Standoffish-ness is not an indicator of Fi stacking. Standoffishness is simply how Fi often comes across to Fe users because it's doesn't acknowledge an external standard. It's like a Ti user telling a Te user that third party sources don't matter. It's pretty much a "cut you off at the knees" move to an external oriented function. It's not usually intended to be perceived as hurtful, but that's how is comes across.

Standoffishness is not Fi being rejected. It's Fe interpreting rejection due to a refusal to compromise.

This is talking, of course, abstractly. Standoffishness in any individual can also just be a sign of shaky self esteem, which is applicable to all types.

As I stated below, trying to convince others of your position is not a TJ thing. It's not even a Te-dom thing (although Te-doms are probably going to be more vocal about why you've chosen to ignore the facts).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Let's make this simpler: if immature Fi is referring to inferior stacking and mature Fi refers to a Fi-dom, then

I'm not a Fi dom so I can't comment authoritatively on how Fi doms perceive rejection.

That said, my example of a mature and immature Fi (not referring to stacking order) IS applicable to a Fi inferior acting on Fi.

That said, Fi inferior is not usually that overt in most day-to-day interactions. It's inferior or a reason. So I think Fi inferior, on the whole, doesn't interact like you've suggested because that's not the kind of scenario is (disagreeing with someone) where Fi inferior really manifests (unless it's a very heated conversation).
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top