Question to Fi valuers

[Creepy-female]

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

Would you mind giving a few examples?

[strrrng]

For the most part I can generally deal with people who hold clashing values so long as both parties can respect each other's values. I like to try to see through the other person's eyes and come to understand why they hold those values in the first place, but if I can't come to that understanding then that's where real trouble sets in for me. To me, real communication deals with trying to find these points of irreconcilable contrast, and if I can find those specific points then I feel that a meeting with someone has been quite worthwhile.

But whether or not this is related to Fi kinda eludes me, because I feel like most pairings of people with clashing value systems can get on at least fairly well if there's mutual respect.

this makes sense to me, especially the bolded. obviously I can't input personal... sentiment; but, I tend to see Fi-valuers' style of 'relating' as based on some sort of implicit harmony, as in, even dissonant positions have internal alignment. this is in contrast to the more segregated way that Ti will denote people. but that seems to be an overall theme with internal field functions -- 'feeling' the interior of perceptions to maintain that coherence.

I generally don't feel any differently about Fi's with differing values than I do about any other type.
The point of contention generally lays more so in Se's (and some Ni's) whom, at times, may hold their values to be universal, and thus feel entitled to enforce them on others.
I find this causes a sort of defensive mechanism to go off in me where I'm less concerned about what their belief is and more so in their self-imposing of that belief

I think you're describing beta Ni more than gamma. extract underlying theme –> establish broader, ideological 'validity' -- this is the strength and vice of beta aristocracies...

gammas seem more unassuming to me than all other quadras, in this respect.

[717495]

Yes I like the bolded part too and I agree with your response to Arctures. I think anyone with respect can get along.

[strrrng]

yeah, that's the thing. anyone who isn't blind and presumptuous should be able to hear someone out and appreciate their viewpoint through disagreement. the point of emphasis, lies in their methodology.

a beta will be more concerned with assessing the 'solidity' of, most likely, an ideological standpoint, gauging how a person expresses it just as much as what is said; this is directed toward the end of... finding structural alignment or dissonance, i.e. establishing a clear position in their 'hierarchy'

deltas will divide people based on individual traits and how they resonate on an internal level; this kind of 'hierarchy' is stabilized via SiTe, i.e. establishing a common, objective understanding of the context which the respective parties are operating within.

delta assumes objective harmony in action to allow for individual difference in structure, and beta assumes individual direction in action to allow for broader coherence in structure.

aristocracies are easier to describe in this respect, because of the polarized attitudes.

[Marie84]

Would you mind giving a few examples?

Sure.
One is a particularly religious fundamentalist LSI who holds his belief as universal truths, and thus all should follow said beliefs in the way said LSI views as correct. This includes said LSI believing his beliefs should be instated in government
When attempting to reason with said LSI that his beliefs may be misinterpreted, or in anyway not factual, said LSI will either use his interpretation of certain scriptures to back-up his factualness or/and repeat an earlier argument in an imposing manner in order to force his opponent into submission.
The LSI will never compromise his position in an argument, as in, he can't except that not everyone will believe in the same thing and thus enforcing personal values on others is both unrealistic and block-headed

An SLE who "bullied" an LII guy. The SLE guy (co-worker) believes LII should be doing some project a certain way, while LII has some ideas he'd like to propose to his co-workers. SLE has already decided the he will only except EIE co-workers idea and that further suggestions for said project would be pointless. SLE makes it clear to LII that LII should go along with the plan of EIE and stfu. LII is now too scared to discuss his ideas with the rest of the group.

I have another good example of conversing with an ESI, though it's similar to the LSI one except the topic in question was on gay people

[Creepy-female]

Sure.
One is a particularly religious fundamentalist LSI who holds his belief as universal truths, and thus all should follow said beliefs in the way said LSI views as correct. This includes said LSI believing his beliefs should be instated in government
When attempting to reason with said LSI that his beliefs may be misinterpreted, or in anyway not factual, said LSI will either use his interpretation of certain scriptures to back-up his factualness or/and repeat an earlier argument in an imposing manner in order to force his opponent into submission.
The LSI will never compromise his position in an argument, as in, he can't except that not everyone will believe in the same thing and thus enforcing personal values on others is both unrealistic and block-headed

Maybe it is unrealistic but you know..I guess I don't see that as particularily negative. As far as bigots go, at least he's making his reasoning..challengeable. I mean even if he's not really interested in other's opinions, he's actively involved in "beating" them. Which attends to a sort of accountability. Even if he's trying to force people into submission, he's being open about doing it. Sure that can be annoying and maybe he's breaking some Fi related considerations along the way..but it's like I've seen an ISTp do this sort of thing..covertly. He won't talk about his views in large groups, and he won't go breaking down the doors in outright presentation if there's a sign that his view is contested, if it is, he'll simply shut down out of lack of close friends to express his complete opinion to. He won't express his views to anyone he can't dominate with them. Perhaps that's pragmatic if his views aren't changing. But his approach has the same authoritarian flavor. I don't think an Ne valuer would help him be more "open". They'd just have to adapt to him, or already be the same way. An INFj I know gets frustrated with his inability to be socially acquiescent, and complains about him. But that's the key. She's concerned with managing people's reactions and how they see her and that she is associated with being diplomatic. And it seems sometimes the only net result she had was just managing the reactions and not getting into fights. But in the end, no matter how seemingly accepting she is, she's implacable in views and pretty harshly judging, just like he is. Delta's don't put their views up for challenge as much as Betas, but to me they're both essentially pretty aristocratic and fixed. And to me there isn't much of a difference, cause there's a certain amount of just surviving without bombing yourself and others on a social basis from day to day. And there's a certain amount of "fuck that". And that's more honest to me. It kind of doesn't matter how Deltas aren't open about their views, because it's not always so diplomatic when it falls on the people that are close to them, which are the only people that matter anyway. Betas are cheapening their original insight by their flagrant emotional expression, compromising it into some fire and death presentation. And Deltas saved themselves some confrontation from the general public. Big deal lol.

An SLE who "bullied" an LII guy. The SLE guy (co-worker) believes LII should be doing some project a certain way, while LII has some ideas he'd like to propose to his co-workers. SLE has already decided the he will only except EIE co-workers idea and that further suggestions for said project would be pointless. SLE makes it clear to LII that LII should go along with the plan of EIE and stfu. LII is now too scared to discuss his ideas with the rest of the group.

Hmm I would just say in contrast Se polrs don't seem to be able to pare down their opinions very easily. They like shooting out a lot of ideas for how something is going to happen based on a very detailed negative progression of the focus in the environment. And it's like I'd rather just act, and deal with the negative consequences of the action later. And it's like if you had some SLE being pigheaded or whatever..it would be a relief if he told another Se valuer to stfu. Because now they have something concrete to deal with, instead of being paranoid about what boundary rules they're trampling on this time. And I don't exactly get the scared thing, I mean what is the SLE going to do? Maul the LII in a dark alley because he doesn't agree with his ideas?

[somavision]

Values are bonds that herd the sheep together, values are weakness, values are the stenched piss of the elderly. I prefer immediate sensory satisfaction and the taste of human flesh, everything else is neither here nor there.

[Park]

Values are bonds that herd the sheep together, values are weakness, values are the stenched piss of the elderly. I prefer immediate sensory satisfaction and the taste of human flesh, everything else is neither here nor there.

[Marie84]

Maybe it is unrealistic but you know..I guess I don't see that as particularily negative. As far as bigots go, at least he's making his reasoning..challengeable. I mean even if he's not really interested in other's opinions, he's actively involved in "beating" them. Which attends to a sort of accountability. Even if he's trying to force people into submission, he's being open about doing it. Sure that can be annoying and maybe he's breaking some Fi related considerations along the way..

I really don't have a problem with his beliefs, it's that he uses his beliefs to make excuses that hurt people, which is the difference between being a devoted believer and an extremists (he's the latter)

but it's like I've seen an ISTp do this sort of thing..covertly. He won't talk about his views in large groups, and he won't go breaking down the doors in outright presentation if there's a sign that his view is contested, if it is, he'll simply shut down out of lack of close friends to express his complete opinion to. He won't express his views to anyone he can't dominate with them. Perhaps that's pragmatic if his views aren't changing. But his approach has the same authoritarian flavor. I don't think an Ne valuer would help him be more "open". They'd just have to adapt to him, or already be the same way. An INFj I know gets frustrated with his inability to be socially acquiescent, and complains about him. But that's the key. She's concerned with managing people's reactions and how they see her and that she is associated with being diplomatic. And it seems sometimes the only net result she had was just managing the reactions and not getting into fights. But in the end, no matter how seemingly accepting she is, she's implacable in views and pretty harshly judging, just like he is. Delta's don't put their views up for challenge as much as Betas, but to me they're both essentially pretty aristocratic and fixed. And to me there isn't much of a difference, cause there's a certain amount of just surviving without bombing yourself and others on a social basis from day to day. And there's a certain amount of "fuck that". And that's more honest to me. It kind of doesn't matter how Deltas aren't open about their views, because it's not always so diplomatic when it falls on the people that are close to them, which are the only people that matter anyway. Betas are cheapening their original insight by their flagrant emotional expression, compromising it into some fire and death presentation. And Deltas saved themselves some confrontation from the general public. Big deal lol.

I can totally understand how this can be incredibly annoying to and valuers.
From experience, I find that when Deltas express their personal values among other Deltas, who may not share the same beliefs, there's a consensuses that you're entitled to those beliefs as long as you're not stepping on other peoples toes. The purpose of even discussing these issues is to gain an understanding of the other person and/or to learn about what it is they believe in and why.
Alphas are somewhat like this too, in terms of the passivness, except they sometimes mock or passively debate people rather than resort to confrontation like some Betas and Gammas do.
But yah, I'm not trying to say that one way is more obviously superior, it's just that I don't see any purpose in intimidating someone into believing in what you do, since a belief only has value when you willfully and honestly see things that way.

Hmm I would just say in contrast Se polrs don't seem to be able to pare down their opinions very easily. They like shooting out a lot of ideas for how something is going to happen based on a very detailed negative progression of the focus in the environment. And it's like I'd rather just act, and deal with the negative consequences of the action later. And it's like if you had some SLE being pigheaded or whatever..it would be a relief if he told another Se valuer to stfu. Because now they have something concrete to deal with, instead of being paranoid about what boundary rules they're trampling on this time. And I don't exactly get the scared thing, I mean what is the SLE going to do? Maul the LII in a dark alley because he doesn't agree with his ideas?

This, again, is just a difference in IE values. I see knocking down the LII's proposals as not just inconsiderate but also closing yourself off from the possibility that his idea(s) might be better and thus provide more fruitful results.
Though I'm interested in how people from other quadras see things from another different perspective than I do, so I found your reply to these examples rather fascinating