Ok here is a quote which contains some analysis and such. Do you think this is accurate and if not then why not? Do you relate to this in any way?
Oh and if you think this is completely wrong way to see it then please explain what is the right way If you can give examples all the better.So is Fe more about "behaviour" and Fi is more about "character". Character is of course manifested in behaviour but it is an abstract perception of a person. So when a Fi type has established a firm view of someone's character then temporary changes in behaviour are not likely to affect much their evaluation of the "character" where a Fe type would be more quickly "put off" by bad behaviour and be quicker to re-evaluate their relationships with that person in question. It works in another way too where a Fe-type would be quick to forgive someone's bad behaviour when they start behaving good again where a Fi-type, after having evaluated someone's character bad, would be unlikely to change their mind about the person even if they started behaving well. At least it would be a long process.
Does this interpretation make any sense? I might be more to the Fe-side because I tend to dislike people who hold grudges or negative judgments for longer than necessary and who are unable to forgive and make peace with their former enemies and such (hey, I used the word dislike). For example I know a sister-brother pair where the brother is somehow so totally pissed off to the sister because of something that happened a long time ago that he has pretty much decided to never forgive no matter what the sister does. I find that kind of behavior just childish and immature and close to being "evil". But is that something a "pathological" Fi could cause? The brother has evaluated the sister's character as pathologically bad and nothing can change that perception. Somekind of permanent state of unforgiveness. Or is that more a personal feature not related to functions?
Then again I do occasionally judge some people as "evil" and so on i.e. make character judgments. However I would think I am always prepared to change my mind in light of new evidence.
Another thing...I might hold somewhat absolute views of "good" and "evil" (but prepared to change them in light of new evidence). This would be more Ti value then where Fi would be more about relative good and evil applied on individual level or? I do find the "relative truth" idea somewhat repulsive (in theory) but of course in practice you have to evaluate each situation separately.
So let's say that even if I do like absolute truths I think that they should be evaluated in relation to the current context (but does that make them relative truths in the end...urgh). Perhaps I should say that in theory I like absolute truths but I tend to apply them in a context-sensitive way. So even if I think something is "evil" in absolute sense in some context I might not judge a person who does it if their actions just _make sense_ in that context and thus form an exception to the absolute rule. If there are too many exceptions then the rule is apparently faulty and the "absolute truth" should be evolved. Is this a Ti approach to evaluating values?