Quote Originally Posted by Expat
Quote Originally Posted by diamond8
i'm following i guess, but perhaps you could give a refresher on the difference between Fi polr and Fe polr. pretty please? :-)
Fe PoLR, in this case, is about making remarks that go against what would be emotionally and socially acceptable in a given ethical situation -- it's about being "rude", even though his intentions may not be such. In the example of the number of dead people in that uprising in India, for instance, he may be factually right, but if the people there have an emotional attachment to that event, for the husband of the British queen to say that may be seen as extremely tactless, even if his intention was just to say, "hmm, this number is not correct".

Fi PoLR is about not really understanding, or taking into consideration, someone else's ethical PoV it it's not stated -- for instance, a typical example would be a guy telling a joke about you, in your presence, and in presence of others, for the sake of making everyone else laugh, even if it's hurtful for you personally and s/he should be aware of it. He (I'll say he) is focusing on optimizing the Fe mood of the people around, not taking into account (not even occurring to him) that you, individually, might be hurt. That is Fi PoLR. Fi in relation of an individual person is not really considered when focusing on Fe.

That doesn't apply to Hitchens in the example above because he wasn't focusing on the other people at all -- he was simply saying what he thought to a particular individual.
I think it's right to say that one isn't really thinking about the polr when they're using their creative function. I don't understand the second example of Fi polr though. maybe it is my own weak Fi, but how could anyone know what (a stranger's) particular point of view is if it's not stated? Maybe if you say an INTp is focusing only on factual accuracy and is oblivious to the mood it would create to state that accuracy, you could say an ExTp is only focusing on Ti. Or, you could say how an INTp would be neglecting his polr in favor of his Fi HA, to match the example you've given. It strikes me as off, but I probably don't understand it. Does anyone else want to agree or disagree with that example?

Quote Originally Posted by Expat

At the time, in an interview, Philip was basically warning against banning "everything" because of such events. He said, more or less, "suppose a madman with a cricket bat would invade a school and start killing children with it, which he could do very easily -- are we going to ban cricket bats?"

He was using Ni, Te, and not caring about Fe. Classic INTp remark.
How is Te used in this example? He is forcasting on the basis of the factual event of a ban? I relate to this reaction but perhaps the difference in type would affect what was actually done. I could see myself saying the same thing but maybe in a "considerate" tone? But if someone chastized me I would likely feel defensive as well.