Fe as a 7th function

[eunice]

I recently wrote a paragraph under wikisocion about it, but it is now deleted by niffweed as he thought that it was incorrect. It goes something like this:

"On first impression, EIIs might not appear "friendly" in a Fe sense. They tend to treat others according to the type of relationships they have with them. For instance, when the EII bump into an acquaintance whom they met only once or a few times, they tend not to acknowledge them because the EII feel that they do not know each other well and she is unsure about how to present herself to someone whom she isn't familiar with. Moreover, the EII is also not keen and adept in having small talks. As such, the EII's behaviour can give the others the wrong impression that the EII is been "cold" and reserved. Given that EIIs tend not to be proactive in getting to know new people, they can be slow in forming friendships at the beginning. However, as others get to know them better in the long run, they tend to form steady and long-lasting friendships."

Another paragraph which I wanted to add before I realize that niffweed deleted my previous paragraph:

"When arguing with people, the EII is not afraid to step down just to please others. She hates to be misunderstood and she feels a strong need to defend herself when she feels that she has been wronged. Even when the other party is at the verge of anger, she still insists on fighting for her own rights and to prove that she is right. To put it negatively, she can be considered stubborn. However, the EII ultimately finds it more important to justify that something is right rather than leave a matter rest and uncorrected."

I have discussed both descriptions with niffweed before and he finds that these are behaviours which are characteristic of IEI. However, I don't see how these behaviours are inconsistent with Fe been a 7th function. Admittedly, I wrote these descriptions partly with myself in mind.

I am not trying to dispute niffweed and said that he is downright wrong since I believe that he definitely reads up more about socionics than I do. I am interested to know why this isn't Fe as a 7th function.

[marooned]

The part of it I'm unsure about is I think that both EII and IEI could relate to that... and possibly ESI and SEI as well. I don't know how accurate or not it is to EII specifically. ?

[eunice]

The part of it I'm unsure about is I think that both EII and IEI could relate to that... and possibly ESI and SEI as well. I don't know how accurate or not it is to EII specifically. ?

Hmmm, on my second paragraph about EIIs in an argument, I would expect an IEI to react differently in such a situation. By successfully reading the signals (eg. body language, tone of voice, language used) of someone seething in anger, an IEI is very adept in reacting in a more diplomatic manner to prevent the argument from taking a worse turn. EIIs note all these things, but they are less flexible in changing their gears to suit what the occassion calls for.

[marooned]

Hmmm, on my second paragraph about EIIs in an argument, I would expect an IEI to react differently in such a situation. By successfully reading the signals (eg. body language, tone of voice, language used) of someone seething in anger, an IEI is very adept in reacting in a more diplomatic manner to prevent the argument from taking a worse turn. EIIs note all these things, but they are less flexible in changing their gears to suit what the occassion calls for.

This is why this sort of thing is hard because it eventually becomes so general it doesn't mean much... Would every IEI react the same way in any argument? Would every EII? You could for instance say that the EII is so adverse to confrontation (weak, unvalued Se) that they'll do anything to prevent an argument (just as an example of an overgeneralization that could be made). With EII and IEI it's also difficult because although their quadra values are opposite... they have the same strong functions/(IM elements) - if you'll forgive my stating of the obvious .

[Expat]

I am interested to know why this isn't Fe as a 7th function.

Why don't you start by explaining why you think that is Fe as a 7h function? Rather than "prove that I'm wrong", start with "here's why I'm right". That makes sense, doesn't it?

[munenori2]

I thought the first paragraph was quite nice as an example of EII behavior. The second bit seemed somewhat more unclear (though it's worth noting that these observations are purely from the standpoint of using myself as the example).

My critique of the second paragraph would mostly revolve around what is worth arguing for and what isn't. This is somewhat difficult to nail down because I think EII's naturally gravitate towards a somewhat relativized perspective. That's not to say that the things ultimately valued aren't strongly held. Nothing could be further from the truth.

However, their views are softened more than most via the inclination to consider systems of value in an emotively imaginative and vicarious sense. Basically, that's a very obtuse way of saying one is capable of (the degree to which they actually attempt to do so is another issue) assembling or envisioning moral perspectives outside their own.

There are a few assumptions I'm making about the psychological experience of morality of an individual person. Put vaguely, these are that morality is an 'emotional' enterprise (though not to confused as a 'non-rational' one), whereby judgements are accompanied by feelings of some sort or another (for the moment I'll remain mum on whether or not those feelings serve to motivate the judgements themselves) which can be most abstractly expressed as attraction or repulsion from some object. A great deal of understanding one another then revolves around a sense of sympathy (being able to grasp these emotional 'feels' of those around us) and, for the sake of being coupled with Ne, some ability to conceptualize a myriad of possibilities which 'make sense' of that feeling for this other person.

I'm losing sight of the point here quite a bit, but I think the background context makes my further claims a little more comprehensible. Or so I hope.

When it comes to arguments, my own experience leads me to pose that it's really only the issues which enter into conflict with an EII's moral or ethical perspective that bring out that sense of 'stubbornness' that you were describing, eunice. Matters peripheral to that are pretty typically handled with an immense amount of tolerance and loose-handedness. Perhaps niffweed perceived the resistance implied in your description as being more of an Se variety (a flawed guess, I'm sure).

I know I've pretty much failed to address the main point in contention (what is limited Fe like?) and I've already made a gargantuan post. Probably I'll end up posting more in this topic, simply because it feels good to get these things I've been thinking of lately off my chest. Also, for the sake of not being a plagiarist, the bit about moral psychology draws very heavily on David Hume (I'm not that smart)!

at my Ti role. I try to explain these things but it ends up not orderly at all! Maybe I'll try to work on this in my free time and make it not so rough, especially the imprecision I'm sure I've committed in my use of the socionic concepts.

[marooned]

When it comes to arguments, my own experience leads me to pose that it's really only the issues which enter into conflict with an EII's moral or ethical perspective that bring out that sense of 'stubbornness' that you were describing, eunice. Matters peripheral to that are pretty typically handled with an immense amount of tolerance and loose-handedness.

That makes sense. I sort of had the impression that the EII comes off as very accepting and tolerant, until they reach a "snapping point," i.e. there is something being said or going on around them that is *strongly* unacceptable to them, and that conflicts very stongly with their value system... then this before seemingly quiet, even gentle person, becomes a force to be reckoned with, not willing to bend until the situation is set right. I don't see it as having anything to do with as the EII doesn't value . It arises primarily out of strong, valued . can be extremely "morally" unyielding, where as is more willing to bend, and does bend.

[aestrivex]

basically, when i looked at this, i thought that parts of it were fairly ok, but that on the whole i was very skeptical about it. rather than try to play with it i think that overall it needs to be restructured.

[aestrivex]

For instance, when the EII bump into an acquaintance whom they met only once or a few times, they tend not to acknowledge them because the EII feel that they do not know each other well and she is unsure about how to present herself to someone whom she isn't familiar with. Moreover, the EII is also not keen and adept in having small talks. As such, the EII's behaviour can give the others the wrong impression that the EII is been "cold" and reserved. Given that EIIs tend not to be proactive in getting to know new people, they can be slow in forming friendships at the beginning.

...

"When arguing with people, the EII is not afraid to step down just to please others. She hates to be misunderstood and she feels a strong need to defend herself when she feels that she has been wronged. Even when the other party is at the verge of anger, she still insists on fighting for her own rights and to prove that she is right. To put it negatively, she can be considered stubborn. However, the EII ultimately finds it more important to justify that something is right rather than leave a matter rest and uncorrected."

all of this stuff really doesn't sound like somebody with a great interest in Fi. there's an aspect of introversion and reservedness in it -- that's part of it, but it overall sounds more like somebody who lacks confidence in social situations and doesn't care about dealing with other people in a "friendly" and respectful manner at all.


overall, given that eunice wrote this with respect to herself, it makes perfect sense to me; what she sees in the aspect of reservedness and "appearing cold" is more about not making the first move socially; here a characteristic of Se dual-seeking. and what she says about being stubborn with respect to one's personal values is a mesh of enneagram 4 and beta values.

[FDG]

I don't think we can "prove" anything is any function... this is a subjective topic with little to no consensus.

Eunice has typed herself as EII and post her estimation of her as the 7th function. I think it's not outlandishly off base by any stretch of the imagination. And if we were to put the burden of proof on the poster for every little snippet of Wikisocion, you might as well delete the entire collection of type description pages. If you want to apply this standard of moderation to wikisocion, you might not like the results.

And Niffweed is not the most educate or erudite of posters, he has problems relating his knowledge in a constructive manner and resorts to more "forceful" mechanism, such as deleting things, telling people to die, ignoring people and generally acting in a intolerant manner.

+1

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't think we can "prove" anything is any function... this is a subjective topic with little to no consensus.

Eunice has typed herself as EII and post her estimation of her as the 7th function. I think it's not outlandishly off base by any stretch of the imagination. And if we were to put the burden of proof on the poster for every little snippet of Wikisocion, you might as well delete the entire collection of type description pages. If you want to apply this standard of moderation to wikisocion, you might not like the results.

And Niffweed is not the most educate or erudite of posters, he has problems relating his knowledge in a constructive manner and resorts to more "forceful" mechanism, such as deleting things, telling people to die, ignoring people and generally acting in a intolerant manner.

Yeah.


My mind went something along this process. I don't see whats wrong with it, as essentially wiki is a work in progress. To place the burden of proof for such a thing seems somewhat unreasonable, if not impossible.

[Mea]

No. I think that that description shows introversion and I can't really see how it shows Fe as 7th function well. Not taking the initiative in establishing new relations is more of an introvert thing (i'm not saying introverts don't do this at all). People can appear cold and reserved in certain circumstances.

Many types would be able to relate to fighting for their rights, and appearing stubborn in what they believe in. That description is too vague IMO.
IxFps can appear stubborn when defending their moral values, we've seen that several times on the forums. They try to show that what they believe in is correct, and thus appear stubborn.
IxTps can also appear that way, I remember slackermom giving an example of her husband refusing to buy things from walmart(?) because he felt that they don't treat their staff well.

Overall, that description (IMO) is not very convincing of Fe as 7th function.
Some ask what's wrong with it? But how is that description defining of Fe as 7th function? Seriously.

[aestrivex]

to those who say "burden of proof" -- i don't, but i don't think the flavor of that description is generally very reflective of a person with dominant delta Fi at all.

[ScarlettLux]

Uh... this thread confuses me for some reason.

[Slacker]

The description doesn't sound like it strongly points to any particular type to me, except an introverted feeling type of some sort.

I agree though that she seems to have a requirement for a higher burden of proof than anyone else, and it feels like it's because you disagree with her self-typing more than for any other reason.

[hellothere]

for what it's worth (probably not much, since Eunice types me as SLI), I identify with both paragraphs - with the first paragraph I felt a general, across-all-situations resonance (though I agree it could probably apply to most introverts). The second paragraph I identified with very strongly, but I'm only like that around people I know very well - i.e. close friends and family. Mostly it occurs when my honesty or integrity is questioned. Though if the other person is "on the verge of anger", well, I'd like to think that I'd be reasonable enough to drop it before it escalated into something far worse and then discuss it later once they had calmed down.

[Expat]

Some ask what's wrong with it? But how is that description defining of Fe as 7th function? Seriously.

Yes.

I agree though that she seems to have a requirement for a higher burden of proof than anyone else, and it feels like it's because you disagree with her self-typing more than for any other reason.

As far as I'm concerned, that's not it at all.

Her type doesn't matter. Anyone could write a correct description of Fe as 7th function in EIIs. But the thing is, even if what she described is consistent with being EII, it's not clear why that should be described as related to Fe as 7th function and not something else.

Regarding the "burden of proof": it is tiresome when people make an assertion - such as "this is Fe as 7th function" but then can't, or won't, explain how they reached their conclusion, but rather expect others to explain to them how they're wrong - and if you can't be bothered to, they go "aha it means I'm right!" when they themselves can't explain how they are right.

For instance, as Mea also said: how is "being stubborn in defending what they believe in" characteristic of Fe as a 7th function? Besides, what kind of stuff "do they believe in"?

Also: the wiki is meant to be a reference to others on socionics. So, if you are going to put something there that you think is correct, so that others can learn from it, is it not reasonable to expect that you can explain to others how you reached that conclusion? If you write something on the main topics of the wiki, you are indirectly assuming the role of a teacher. What kind of teacher goes "I don't know why I'm right, tell me why I'm wrong?"

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yes.




As far as I'm concerned, that's not it at all.

Her type doesn't matter. Anyone could write a correct description of Fe as 7th function in EIIs. But the thing is, even if what she described is consistent with being EII, it's not clear why that should be described as related to Fe as 7th function and not something else.

Regarding the "burden of proof": it is tiresome when people make an assertion - such as "this is Fe as 7th function" but then can't, or won't, explain how they reached their conclusion, but rather expect others to explain to them how they're wrong - and if you can't be bothered to, they go "aha it means I'm right!" when they themselves can't explain how they are right.

For instance, as Mea also said: how is "being stubborn in defending what they believe in" characteristic of Fe as a 7th function? Besides, what kind of stuff "do they believe in"?

Also: the wiki is meant to be a reference to others on socionics. So, if you are going to put something there that you think is correct, so that others can learn from it, is it not reasonable to expect that you can explain to others how you reached that conclusion? If you write something on the main topics of the wiki, you are indirectly assuming the role of a teacher. What kind of teacher goes "I don't know why I'm right, tell me why I'm wrong?"

On 2 recent occasions, you have had this same attitude - for instance on the Ezra/gamma thread where you categorically stated a sentence was Ti, with no explanation, despite me asking you twice. And also on the Prince Charles thread - where you stated it is Fe seeking, and again why?

It seems we are all subject to this type of behaviour.

[Expat]

On 2 recent occasions, you have had this same attitude - for instance on the Ezra/gamma thread where you categorically stated a sentence was Ti, with no explanation, despite me asking you twice. And also on the Prince Charles thread - where you stated it is Fe seeking, and again why?

First, I did not write the point on Prince Charles on the wiki; this is a discussion forum, so everyone writes half-baked thoughts.

Second, in this forum, I decline to take the time to explain all my thoughts to everyone a thousand times over and over again. Here, in this forum, I will answer questions to you, or anyone else, as I feel inclined to, or not.

Third, you want to know why that is Fe-dual seeking, the wiki has the answer. That is one reason why it's being written.

The bottom line is: niffweed, Rick, myself, and others, take what is written in the main topics of the wiki very seriously. If you think you know enough socionics to write something there, you should be able to explain why - or it will get edited.

In this forum, anyone can write all the rubbish they want, within minimal rules, and no need to explain anything.

[tcaudilllg]

-Fe: "You'd do anything to be liked, wouldn't you?"
+Fe: (some kind of criticism over someone's PoV)

Regarding the "burden of proof": it is tiresome when people make an assertion - such as "this is Fe as 7th function" but then can't, or won't, explain how they reached their conclusion, but rather expect others to explain to them how they're wrong - and if you can't be bothered to, they go "aha it means I'm right!" when they themselves can't explain how they are right.

Supersocion theory explains this in detail. I understand so well your motives that your objections rarely even surprise me anymore.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

First, I did not write the point on Prince Charles on the wiki; this is a discussion forum, so everyone writes half-baked thoughts.

Second, in this forum, I decline to take the time to explain all my thoughts to everyone a thousand times over and over again. Here, in this forum, I will answer questions to you, or anyone else, as I feel inclined to, or not.

Then it is not a discussion forum. It is a statement forum

Third, you want to know why that is Fe-dual seeking, the wiki has the answer. That is one reason why it's being written.

I can see why it could be viewed as Fe seeking, however I can see why it could be many other things, some functional related, some not. You are too quick to assign properties to a function, when it could be another function, or something else.

And of course you don't have to explain yourself, just as others do not have to give credence to what you state as fact, without an explanation.

The bottom line is: niffweed, Rick, myself, and others, take what is written in the main topics of the wiki very seriously. If you think you know enough socionics to write something there, you should be able to explain why - or it will get edited.

I might do.

How does wiki work then, do you debate what you write on wiki, on wiki?

[Expat]

Then it is not a discussion forum. It is a statement forum

Sorry. I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to answer questions I can't be bothered to, especially as I can see it will get nowhere and nothing will be accomplished except wasting my time. Call it "a statement forum" all you want, it changes absolutely nothing. Do you mean I have the obligation to answer every single inane question put to me in this forum? Get real.

How does wiki work then, do you debate what you write on wiki, on wiki?

Basically:

1) If you create your own userpages, you can write anything you want.
2) Every page has a "talk" page, there you can also write anything you want.
3) If you have your own theory of socionics, you can write it in the "hypothesis" section, and there you can also write what you want.
4) Then there are the main pages of the wiki itself, like the topics on "quadras" or "SEEs" etc. There you can also add to, or edit. If there is disagreement, then we use the "talk" pages to debate. Be warned, a degree of fair play is expected, and the wiki has an owner, Rick. If you'd, say, decide that the page on (for instance) Sergei Ganin is a lot of rubbish and totally re-edit it, after it has been put together by Rick, myself and others, you'd better be able to explain why. "Edit wars" are not tolerated and will be seen as vandalism.

[tcaudilllg]

Then it is not a discussion forum. It is a statement forum

I can see why it could be viewed as Fe seeking, however I can see why it could be many other things, some functional related, some not. You are too quick to assign properties to a function, when it could be another function, or something else.

And of course you don't have to explain yourself, just as others do not have to give credence to what you state as fact, without an explanation.

I might do.

How does wiki work then, do you debate what you write on wiki, on wiki?

It's made pretty plain: aggressive motive = id. Therefore, all agression is the 7th function putting the 8th to work in its favor. "I wanted you to join me... but you wouldn't see my side of the story!"

As for +Fe/-Fi 7th, let's break it down:
"To resist temptation (-Fi), I must have X frame of mind. I will journey alongside my fellow man (-Ni) to learn that which is truely valuable in life. (+Fe) As I journey I must resist temptations to exploit my own potential (+Ne) in ways that would be inequitable to others. (-Fi)"

In sum, the temptation of Jesus in the desert was a test of EII 7th function.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Sorry. I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to answer questions I can't be bothered to, especially as I can see it will get nowhere and nothing will be accomplished except wasting my time. Call it "a statement forum" all you want, it changes absolutely nothing. Do you mean I have the obligation to answer every single inane question put to me in this forum? Get real.

Of course not, but if you think that asking a question and giving an explanation as to why something is dual seeking or ego block for instance is inane, then you should get real. I think I see why it wouldn't go anywhere, your mind is made up?

Basically:

1) If you create your own userpages, you can write anything you want.
2) Every page has a "talk" page, there you can also write anything you want.
3) If you have your own theory of socionics, you can write it in the "hypothesis" section, and there you can also write what you want.
4) Then there are the main pages of the wiki itself, like the topics on "quadras" or "SEEs" etc. There you can also add to, or edit. If there is disagreement, then we use the "talk" pages to debate. Be warned, a degree of fair play is expected, and the wiki has an owner, Rick. If you'd, say, decide that the page on (for instance) Sergei Ganin is a lot of rubbish and totally re-edit it, after it has been put together by Rick, myself and others, you'd better be able to explain why. "Edit wars" are not tolerated and will be seen as vandalism.

lol. Does that sort of thing go on? How amusing. But don't worry, if there is something I would look to edit, then it will be with good reason.

Thank you for the information re the wiki.

[Expat]

Of course not, but if you think that asking a question and giving an explanation as to why something is dual seeking or ego block for instance is inane, then you should get real. I think I see why it wouldn't go anywhere, your mind is made up?

In that particular example: I have a clear view of Prince Charles as LII - for many reasons. You say you think he's IEI. Fine, then the discussion becomes Prince Charles's type. Perhaps it could be an interesting discussion but it's one I can't be bothered to pursue right now because it's a matter of secondary importance to me. The only reason I posted that thread is because I thought that my SEE boss's impressions were interesting.

lol. Does that sort of thing go on? How amusing. But don't worry, if there is something I would look to edit, then it will be with good reason.

Cool. As for "edit wars", they don't go on anymore, precisely because those who did that were banned.

Something that must be clear: Rick is a very easy-going and open-minded guy, but he also has clear ideas as to what classical socionics is. That's his wiki, he created it, he pays for it. So it's fair that at the end of the day he decides what stays there or not.

[Slacker]

I just think before something is flat-out deleted, there should be some level of discussion on the talk page, and at least one other person (if not two others) should agree before it actually gets deleted. It isn't specifically about that entry (IMO it was too vague to describe much of anything) but the standards for how things are deleted.

And this isn't an anti-Niffweed thing at all because I genuinely like him and think he does a good job keeping the wiki in order. If he had put "I don't think this is describing Fe as a 7th function - it should be deleted" on the talk page and you'd seen it and said "I agree - I'll delete it" (or vice versa) then it would feel more reasonable to me.

[aestrivex]

for one thing -- i'll admit this freely -- i am holding eunice to a higher standard here. this is because i am very skeptical of her understanding and i think that what she wrote is not generally compatible.

for certain types, it would be easier for me to describe them accurately in terms of writing a type description. for other types, my understanding might be somewhat more limited. i will get around to starting to work on some of the type pages other than ILI... eventually. basically i think that a great deal of the information on the wiki presently on the type pages needs to be overhauled and rewritten, and i hope to get around to that eventually.

however, in the meantime, i don't think eunice's additions are very good at all.

[marooned]

Then it is not a discussion forum. It is a statement forum

Erm, I reserve my right to make statements that I don't explain on the forum... I will not relinquish this right for the sake of semantics.

If I were to post anything on the wiki in actual pages designed to be instructional to others, it wouldn't be too far a stretch of the imagination to expect that I would have to explain myself. If I am unwilling to or unable to, then there would be little point in placing anything on the wiki in the first place... i.e. if I can't back up my statements in an environment where statements need to be backed up, there is no point in making them. There is also the matter of experience (or my lack of), which though I don't prize it highly, is still relevant. On the forum if I say something and don't explain it and someone else wants an explanation, I am not required to provide one. But on the wiki, it would be fair that I be expected to, and also then reasonable (even if not polite) if whatever I posted there was removed in the event that others found it questionable and I didn't provide an explanation.

All that aside, I can understand that it might go more smoothly or be more "civil" if Eunice's contribution to the EII page was actually discussed rather than outright deleted (with no discussion). And there is the question of had it been someone else posting something like that (like perhaps hellothere or munonori whose name is apparently too complex for me ) if it would have been deleted outright...?

Still, it is true that the description doesn't seem to bear much (if any) of a connection to Fe as the 7th function specifically (or without further explanation, I don't see how)... though it may bear a connection to EII in general.

[tcaudilllg]

All that aside, I can understand that it might go more smoothly or be more "civil" if Eunice's contribution to the EII page was actually discussed rather than outright deleted (with no discussion). And there is the question of had it been someone else posting something like that (like perhaps hellothere or munonori whose name is apparently too complex for me ) if it would have been deleted outright...?

That's the problem with wiki format. When you have one person determined to sit at the computer all day and week just to make sure their opinion of what the article should be is all that is shown, you end up with a lot of stifled views that don't even get a hearing.

Supposedly this is supposed to represent "consensus". No one stands up to the nut dominating the article, so their refrain from criticism (more like their having productive lives, unlike the dominator) is interpreted as the "will" of the "community".

More examples of 7th +Fe:
- Jesus' words to Judas: "what you do, do quickly." Jesus had penetrated his mind somewhat (we don't know the details), made clear when he mentions that one of his desciples would betray him. (I don't think he could have known that without +Fe).

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Loki: You can of course say what you want. It's up to you if you want to say things that require no back up, unless your forced to.

In general tho; Why do people question Eunices type more than others? Is it really objective or is it fashionable? I have no opinion on her type, but why would she want to believe she's something that she isn't?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

there are too many answers to that question

also..I re-enabled the signature section on my preferences..and that quote by Mach you have is actually quite funny. It made me laugh

[aestrivex]

the reason that i don't say "i think these edits are wrong and should be removed" on the talk page is largely because -- given the number of who you actually look at wikisocion -- nobody would be likely to give a damn.

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD



@ tcaud: feel free to make your own stuff on a different wiki or under hypotheses; nobody will mess with that.

[eunice]

Another example of low Fe (not necessarily as a 7th function):

An IT director and I are interviewing a candidate for an IT Analyst position. Her expected salary was a little higher than what the organization could offer her. I was upfront about that and added that we could not match her expected salary, but we could match something close to that, and her overall annual salary package (including bonus) would be more than her basic salary (i.e. basic monthly salary X 12 months).

The director felt that i was not been diplomatic about the salary aspect because I was disappointing her that I couldn't meet her expectations. However, I thought it was more "cruel" if we don't give her a complete picture and then disappoint her later over the phone with what we can offer her as her salary.

[tcaudilllg]

If this is Fe 7th, then I would be that! I don't know about the -Ni part though.

The -Ni is the 8th function. The 8th asks what will happen when different instincts clash, so to speak. -Ni is history, therefore -Ni would probably be critical of what a person has done in the past as a means of aggression -- think of it as, one person's potential (or ambition) can be detrimental to the path of history as a whole. The prospect of prosperous history can encourage the mind to stand up against encroaching injustice. You might call it "the judgment of history".