Love and Fe POLR

[reyn_til_runa]

Would a person with Fe POLr be more apt to mistake things for love, refuse to call anything love, or none of the above?

[Phaedrus]

Both mistaking things for love and refusing to call anything love are rather likely, I think.

[Expat]

Would a person with Fe POLr be more apt to mistake things for love, refuse to call anything love, or none of the above?

- Mistake things for love - yes
- refuse to call anything love - do you mean in terms of saying it openly, or in terms of refusing to believe it?

[Phaedrus]

- refuse to call anything love - do you mean in terms of saying it openly, or in terms of refusing to believe it?

I am inclined to say "both" again.

[Expat]

- refuse to call anything love - do you mean in terms of saying it openly, or in terms of refusing to believe it?

I am inclined to say "both" again.

In a situational context - as in "I have difficulty believing that person loves me" - or in a broader context, as in "I think that probably love doesn't really exist?"

[Phaedrus]

- refuse to call anything love - do you mean in terms of saying it openly, or in terms of refusing to believe it?

I am inclined to say "both" again.

In a situational context - as in "I have difficulty believing that person loves me" - or in a broader context, as in "I think that probably love doesn't really exist?"

Both thoughts have crossed my mind more than once ... (I have a natural preference for explanations of the falling in love phenomenon in terms of increased levels of cortisol, phenylethylamine, and endorphins. Love is a stress reaction.)

[BLauritson]

I get the feeling that mistaking things for love would apply to me, but I don't have any examples to hand of how that would manifest itself.

[flower]

mistaking things for love ..... yes
have difficulty believing that person loves me .... yes
think that probably love doesn't really exist?" ..... it does exist, but its not special, its just an emotion like the rest

I generally have a lot of trouble telling what other people think of me, its sooo hard to tell, Fe polr sucks!

[FDG]

I generally have a lot of trouble telling what other people think of me, its sooo hard to tell, Fe polr sucks!

we clearly all like you, of course

[BLauritson]

Wait, I'm confused.. I thought comprehending people's attitudes towards you was Fi? Or am I misunderstanding the entire thing completely?

[force my hand]

Wait, I'm confused.. I thought comprehending people's attitudes towards you was Fi? Or am I misunderstanding the entire thing completely?

That's my question as well.

Wrong or right, to this point I've operated on the notion that a Fe-polr is essentially being unable to 'match' the prevailing mood, be it positive (getting caught up in a party atmosphere) or negative (a "get over it" response where sympathy may be required).

[Expat]

You're quite right to raise the Fi-Fe distinction, but I also think that a Fe PoLR person may have difficulties in the Fi area.

Not in the "not believing love exists", though; that strikes me as a low-Fi thing rather than low-Fe thing.

[Kristiina]

I generally have a lot of trouble telling what other people think of me, its sooo hard to tell, Fe polr sucks!

Well... Fe program is not much better but in a different way, at least when combined with negativism. I can tell the difference between expressions etc, but I tend to exagerate the possible negative interpretations. "GAAH! Did you notice the frown he had when he looked towards me?! I bet it means he dislikes me."

[flower]

I generally have a lot of trouble telling what other people think of me, its sooo hard to tell, Fe polr sucks!

we clearly all like you, of course

lol, even when people tell me directly where I stand, i still dont feel entirely sure because they might not mean it or might just be in the moment. It works the other way too though, if someone says I dont like you in some form or another, I can often take that to also be in the moment or that person dosent really mean it.
Thanks tho Im all happy now!! lol

Well... Fe program is not much better but in a different way, at least when combined with negativism. I can tell the difference between expressions etc, but I tend to exagerate the possible negative interpretations. "GAAH! Did you notice the frown he had when he looked towards me?! I bet it means he dislikes me."

Hmm, im guessing the difference is that you have a good degree of conviction in what you believe other people think about you or how they see you, whether its actually right or wrong, whereas I might have an idea, but it feels really uncertain and easily changeable .

[reyn_til_runa]

- refuse to call anything love - do you mean in terms of saying it openly, or in terms of refusing to believe it?

I am inclined to say "both" again.

In a situational context - as in "I have difficulty believing that person loves me" - or in a broader context, as in "I think that probably love doesn't really exist?"

I'm with Phaedrus.

In my mind, the concepts of being loved and loving are difficult to separate. I think love is sort of like a meme, meaning it must be received in order to be replicated. You can see, perhaps, why I have difficulty determining which is my weaker function - Fi or Fe.

[Expat]

I'm with Phaedrus.

In my mind, the concepts of being loved and loving are difficult to separate. I think love is sort of like a meme, meaning it must be received in order to be replicated. You can see, perhaps, why I have difficulty determining which is my weaker function - Fi or Fe.

But that's something else from doubting the existence of love itself.

To say that being loved and loving is difficult to separate, depending on the definition, is consistent with having Fi in the superid, or Fe.

[reyn_til_runa]

I'm with Phaedrus.

In my mind, the concepts of being loved and loving are difficult to separate. I think love is sort of like a meme, meaning it must be received in order to be replicated. You can see, perhaps, why I have difficulty determining which is my weaker function - Fi or Fe.

But that's something else from doubting the existence of love itself.

To say that being loved and loving is difficult to separate, depending on the definition, is consistent with having Fi in the superid, or Fe.

Well, I'm not sure it is all that different, although i'm agnostic when it comes to these matters.

Love is just a word people use to describe a feeling. Saying it is a cultural meme -- that its properties can be passed on like genes -- is a bit like saying, yes "it" exists and is transmitted between people and generations, but certainly not in the form most people discuss it ( which means I may not even be talking about "Love" anymore).

[Phaedrus]

I'm with Phaedrus.

In my mind, the concepts of being loved and loving are difficult to separate. I think love is sort of like a meme, meaning it must be received in order to be replicated. You can see, perhaps, why I have difficulty determining which is my weaker function - Fi or Fe.

But that's something else from doubting the existence of love itself.

Yes, it's something different. But I agree with reyn-til-runa's observation that it is very difficult for an INTp to determine directly which function -- Fi or Fe -- is the weakest. Both are usually so weak that we are not aware of having them. Though which is weakest (at least according to the model) can be determined indirectly, for example by contemplating such examples as Rick is discussing on his site regarding differences between group behaviours.

[Expat]

Well I don't mean it badly but if you understand the functions, it should not be so complicated. In fact, that is precisely what makes the ESFp the INTp's dual and the ESFj, its conflictor. And it is one thing (if we stick only to those functional orderings, of course) that is totally reverted in relation to the ENTp or ESTp, who have as PoLR and as hidden agenda.

So, if an INTp truly understands what makes an ESFp an ESFp, and what makes an ESFj an ESFj, not just theoretically, but why the ESFp makes him go "wow" and an ESFj makes him go "blargh", at gut level, then he also understands whether or is his PoLR.

Rather than a collection of 16 types, socionics is a matrix of 16 types. The moment that it is obvious (not only from looking at model A) why (still using INTp as an example) the ENFj and only the ENFj could possibly be the INTp's supervisor, and so on and so forth, and see those interactions in front of you, then you have truly understood the types.

[reyn_til_runa]

Well I don't mean it badly but if you understand the functions, it should not be so complicated. In fact, that is precisely what makes the ESFp the INTp's dual and the ESFj, its conflictor. And it is one thing (if we stick only to those functional orderings, of course) that is totally reverted in relation to the ENTp or ESTp, who have as PoLR and as hidden agenda.

So, if an INTp truly understands what makes an ESFp an ESFp, and what makes an ESFj an ESFj, not just theoretically, but why the ESFp makes him go "wow" and an ESFj makes him go "blargh", at gut level, then he also understands whether or is his PoLR.

Rather than a collection of 16 types, socionics is a matrix of 16 types. The moment that it is obvious (not only from looking at model A) why (still using INTp as an example) the ENFj and only the ENFj could possibly be the INTp's supervisor, and so on and so forth, and see those interactions in front of you, then you have truly understood the types.

This complication of finding it difficult to separate Fi and Fe does not seem directly related to my not fully understanding the functions though.

You are talking about understanding the functions, but I am talking about understanding the boundaries of the functions (and this necessitates sifting through of some pretty serious shit). That is really the only way I will achieve greater clarity.

You see, I don't think it's necessary or even possible for me to understand the boundaries of Fi/Fe in the real world, real time, as I experience whatever things may fall under the socionics categories (not real time, not real world).

I can try to understand the theoretical boundaries by reflecting upon the real sets of experiences, as I perceive them, but my point is that you should not expect the theoretical clarity to translate into practical clarity, especially in the muddiest fields of one's life.

[Blaze]

You are talking about understanding the functions, but I am talking about understanding the boundaries of the functions (and this necessitates sifting through of some pretty serious shit). That is really the only way I will achieve greater clarity.

You see, I don't think it's necessary or even possible for me to understand the boundaries of Fi/Fe in the real world, real time, as I experience whatever things may fall under the socionics categories (not real time, not real world).

well said, reyn.

the boundaries between Fe and Fi are very blurry. much more so than between Te and Ti.

i don't fully understand them myself. what we need is for some Fe and Fi dominant types to explain it better.

[Expat]

i don't fully understand them myself. what we need is for some Fe and Fi dominant types to explain it better.

I think that Fe and Fi dominants are the least able to separate one from the other, honestly (apart from understanding socionics). They tend to take for granted that they sort of go together.

[reyn_til_runa]

i don't fully understand them myself. what we need is for some Fe and Fi dominant types to explain it better.

I think that Fe and Fi dominants are the least able to separate one from the other, honestly (apart from understanding socionics). They tend to take for granted that they sort of go together.

I wonder if Incognita is Fe or Fi dominant. If not, he may be able to help. He did strike me as fairly objective.