- Type: NeFi
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Seelie
“One idea that comes to mind is that perhaps Fi users don’t necessarily consider their contextual affiliations to be central to their essence, but the other way around; they make contextual affiliations as an expression of their essence.”
This is correct, as is much of what you say. Fi/Te works from the inside out, while Fe/Ti works from the outside in (Ti fills in what’s implied). When I’ve had to make diagrams of my self (thank you, junior high), I noticed that everyone included contextual affiliations, and I was doing that as well, but those things seems incidental and peripheral. However, I did realize our experience and circle shapes us.
I have noticed that the resistance you often meet form high Se and Fi users comes from the fact that your definitions seem to include correlations, which, I think a lot of people believe are incidental and not central. The definition of Fx by incidence/prevalence of x is an what I call “Fe isness,” or the taking of socially normative data and forming axioms from them. The axioms are formed unconsciously, taken as givens, and I believe it is Ti that challenges them. Higher Fe users formulate these axioms a bit differently, but they are nonetheless, as you say, behavioral.
Back to Fi. I’ll get to that perhaps this weekend, but you are correct about the assumption of intrinsic character. Whether it’s something we want to believe or not, we are constrained by that in our value judgments. There is a moral vector we can’t ignore with Fi->Te (much like Si), an assumption that “Good comes from Good.” And because likewise, “Bad comes from Bad,” I think the dark/extreme side of this is what we see with Hitler and Osama bin Laden, or the desire to eradicate evil – or ill form – from the root. There are healthier ways for Fi to deal with this, and I’ll address that later. We have some good examples from people on this forum.