The idea of Squidward being "unhealthy" enough to be an Si-Fi looper, or even a pseudo-dominant-Fi type, seems to me a convenient way to ignore that ISTJs -- even unhealthy ones -- structurally prefer Te to Fi. In addition, most of what I posted refers to dominant Fi specifically. Tertiary Fi presents a little differently and certainly in a less pronounced way. That aside, I don't see any good evidence for dominant Si in Squidward. He doesn't make a good adaptation to routine (just the opposite), he isn't particularly stable, and he doesn't align himself with substantive things in the real world. He's more inwardly idealistic in an Fi sense than anything Si-related. All in all, I see a lot of evidence for Fi, weak evidence for Si, and almost no evidence for a Te preference.  

That's probably also where the ENFP votes are coming from. But do you really think the Joker has an inner sensitivity that he protects and cherishes? What? Even in a secondary position, that's not right. But I'm preaching to the choir a bit, seeing as ENTP is dominating the consensus vote.

Fe isn’t slavish adaptation to external sentiment in the same way Te isn’t slavish adaptation to external data. (If it was, how could MLK, Jr. have been an ENFJ?) It’s more an *awareness* of this external sentiment. Fe-users view ‘objective values’ as something outside of themselves, mediated between people, and they tend to be conversant with them. Fi-users aren’t as attuned to the external feeling environment. Fi is about internal sentiment; it often wants to keep these internal sentiments to itself and to experience them to the purest extent, without regard for what others believe. Fi, according to Jung, “has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way.” (Kurt Cobain is a good example.) You can already see how Marilyn Manson breaks down in regards to Fi, no? He definitely wanted to affect others, to impress, influence, and change them. His sentiment wasn’t kept to himself and purified but put out into the world in a more preachy way. Fi-users can talk about “a brotherhood of man” in the way John Lennon did. Fe-users can talk about individuality in the way Marilyn Manson did. It’s not about the content but the context; anyone of any type can believe anything. John Lennon had internal sentiments he mostly kept to himself and kept pure, and apparently believing humankind could live together in peace was one of these. Marilyn Manson had external sentiments he was conversant with, and apparently believing people should be free to pursue and express their individuality was one of them.

You’re right that John Lennon (and other FP types) wanted to influence people. In those cases, their Fi was still fundamentally the same. Fi keeps to itself much of the time, purified and kept away from outside influence, but can spring up and make itself heard when something violates it. When it does, it’s not so much about policing the way others live as putting an end to something they consider to be wrong. Preferring Fi to Te, FPs tend to not find it natural to implement real-world change, often involving compromises and trade-offs that don’t line up with their internal sentiment. They’re often at their best as advocates for their ideals. (Of course, this is all truer of IFPs than EFPs.) Fe does not often keep to itself, mediated between people and taking into consideration others’ views, using fellow-feeling as a tool for its (often benevolent) ends. Not every FJ is going to want to police others, but they do have a set standard for values they’d prefer everyone live in accordance with. This standard is not kept “pure” from outside influence but rather informed by it. Preferring Fe to Ti, FJs tend to find it more natural to implement real-world change, being less encumbered by subjective evaluation. (Of course, this is all truer of EFJs than IFJs.) It's the same dynamic as with Ti/Te, just with sentiment instead of mechanics. Both FPs and FJs, of course, can feel deeply about things and want to enact change in the world, but one way of distinguishing them is to question how they’re advocating for their ideals. Do they advocate for them in a more purified way, staying true to their internal sentiments at the expense of the external world, or do they advocate for them in a more unified way, using fellow-feeling to work towards a consensus? One way of conceptualizing it is to think of Fi and Fe as the same thing (Feeling), oriented either inwards or outwards.

 

Social and intellectual flexibility is really different from being a social chameleon, who changes the fabric of themselves to match the surroundings.
Our Fi means we're basically unable to do that even if it would make life easier. That's why ENTP and ENFJ would be better at that.

I would add his agenda/message came first, with self-expression following after, rather than the other way around.