On Beta Extraverted Ethics Fe

[bibliophile8]

I couldn't agree more.

However, a few of the louder recent threads suggest that quite a few people don't.

+1

[Megan]

I don't know which "people" think that, but if one says that "loud obnoxius party atmospheres" are clearly , that by no means necessarily suggests that this is all that is about. In fact, I don't think that anyone here hs ever said that. Just like nobody ever said that is only about being aggressive, etc.

In light of the fact that several threads have indicated that some or even most types in beta appear to dislike like loud, [obnoxious], party atmospheres if it is reasonably to keep associating or /with it at all.
I maybe wrong but I think dolphin is concerned about why this type of behavior is associated with , not that it is the sole manifestation of that function as far as "people" are concerned. It is just one of them but one that perhaps needs to be questioned for accuracy.

[aestrivex]

In light of the fact that several threads have indicated that some or even most types in beta appear to dislike like loud, [obnoxious], party atmospheres if it is reasonably to keep associating or /with it at all.

some Se and Si people have no interest in sports. i don't think sports or physical activity should be associated with sensory functions.

I maybe wrong but I think dolphin is concerned about why this type of behavior is associated with , not that it is the sole manifestation of that function as far as "people" are concerned. It is just one of them but one that perhaps needs to be questioned for accuracy.

that's a far cry from saying that it isn't related to Fe at all.

[Jonathan]

Did you actually read the bits about the Lytov study?

By the way, I never responded to this and figured I might as well since it's the key point of what you said. (There were other things you said about how considering what one is trying to achieve could be more Te than Se...I don't think we're much in disagreement there, so I won't focus on that...and thanks for the kind words.)

Anyhow, when I posted the other day, I admit I only had time to read the end portion of the thread, as you had said that had the clearest indication of what you were talking about.

So, re-reading it from the beginning, I think it's clear what you were talking about. There is an ongoing theme that Phaedrus seemed to be pointing to various piece of evidence...different people, the Lytov study, etc. ...to bolster his point, and when challenged, it seemed evident that either they didn't really help him, or that he didn't clearly articulate what about the study, etc., bolstered his point. And debating against someone very good, this led him into quite a bit of a tangle (despite him being clearly smart and making some good points...kind of interesting).

So it was this that caused people to conclude that Te must be weak, he seems Ni, so IEI then.

I see the point; it's not quite like Michael Moore's focus on emotional arguments or on some cases I've observed where people use evidence completely and obviously haphazardly. It's rather more subtle in that if he were debating someone else who was less able to challenge him, it could very easily appear to others that he was using Te well (i.e., putting together the evidence well to make a solid case). We might liken this to an arm wrestle.

Another issue here is that whereas in most cases I've seen where Fe-oriented types use "any old argument" and thus "violate Te" as you say, that's usually when they're put into a situation where they have to use external evidence....whereas Phaedrus seems to have a greater inclination to want to use external evidence even when he isn't in a situation that forces him to.

Overall, I have to say that his basic idea that there's some sort of external "ideal" type that the various theories are merely "discovering" is interesting and indicates some potentially valid intuition and thinking on his part....and it seems consistently his emphasis on that "vision" rather than on putting it into exactly the right words or carefully finding the right evidence (the extraverted part) is what makes it seem from his perspective that any of the battles you may feel he has "lost" don't matter.

Really, this brings out something I've noticed before about acc-Te vs. acc-Ni types. Acc-Te types tend to focus on what was said, the explicit statements, the evidence, etc., whereas acc-Ni types often tend to focus (and expect others to focus) on whether they agree with (or at least understand) someone's vision. That's, possibly, why I can read the conversation and think "I know what he's trying to say....why can't people just focus on that?"

So, bottom line...I see why you consider it bad , I see why you're seeing +...but I also see some ambiguities, and I can see how someone like this may actually be able to play the role of a few different types in different situations. Furthermore, I still think that a consistent tendency to emphasize a function, even if it doesn't appear "competent" to someone else's perspective, could still indicate a creative function (e.g., more emphasis on directing towards -style arguments than towards ). But I can also envision a certain sort of "philosophical" type who emphasizes and and yet seems to express in a way that appears more like a dual-seeking function than an ego-block function, while still being over , and who tends to use at times like a creative function....I know that's speculative.

I guess this just brings out some of the complexities in people.

[Megan]

that's a far cry from saying that it isn't related to Fe at all.

Yes but if it is related to then why is it that so many beta types object to it and just can't see themselves being comfortable with it at all?
What we are discussing is a different thing from the sports example IMO. This behaviour has been attributed solely or linked closely to Fe/Ni and beta, while being good at sports has never really been solely attributed to Si or Se types.

I do wonder if it is more connected to Fe/Si or again maybe liking that type of atmosphere is really an individual and a non quadra related thing.

[Expat]

So it was this that caused people to conclude that Te must be weak, he seems Ni, so IEI then.

That's making it too simple.

Another issue here is that whereas in most cases I've seen where Fe-oriented types use "any old argument" and thus "violate Te" as you say, that's usually when they're put into a situation where they have to use external evidence....whereas Phaedrus seems to have a greater inclination to want to use external evidence even when he isn't in a situation that forces him to.

No! We're back to our discussion on Michael Moore. Phaedrus - according to his own words a couple of times - simply chooses whatever external evidence that will support what he already believes in. His problem in that discussion is that he mentioned the Lytov study without really remembering, or understanding, what the study was actually showing. He quoted it because he took for granted that it supported the ABCD=ABCd thesis, or at least that it "didn't contradict it".

When confronted with what the study actually showed, he went into a sort of short-circuit, trying to first explain away the study by his point-by-point analysis; then saying that the study "in no way contradicted the thesis" (which is self-evidently absurd), then finally, shifting gears, saying that we were all wasting our time with a study that was "irrelevant".

And that was obvious not only to me but to most people participating in the discussion, I daresay.

[Expat]

Yes but if it is related to then why is it that so many beta types object to it and just can't see themselves being comfortable with it at all?

The simple answer - and accurate imo - is that those Beta types care a lot about how they appear in the eyes of others. So if someone suggests "I think that you may engage, sometimes, in group behavior that is loud and obnoxious", rather than going "hmm, perhaps? I don't think so, but maybe others might see it that way?", they go, "no! How dare you! Me loud and obnoxious? Gah, this place really has a thing against Betas". Etc etc.

I am exaggerating a bit for effect, but that is the idea. Some Betas are fond of saying, "this forum is anti-Beta". I think it is equally valid to say, "some Betas object to anything that might conceivably make them appear less than perfect".

[Phaedrus]

No! We're back to our discussion on Michael Moore. Phaedrus - according to his own words a couple of times - simply chooses whatever external evidence that will support what he already believes in.

And the explanation for this phenomenon, and why it looks like that seen from your perspective, is given to you by Jonathan in his recent post. He and I think exactly alike here. He understands perfectly what it is about. And one of the most important aspects that I wish people would make some effort to try to understand, but one that Expat unfortunately has seemed to be almost blind to on more than one occasion in our debates, is this one, pointed out by Jonathan:

Acc-Te types tend to focus on what was said, the explicit statements, the evidence, etc., whereas acc-Ni types often tend to focus (and expect others to focus) on whether they agree with (or at least understand) someone's vision. That's, possibly, why I can read the conversation and think "I know what he's trying to say....why can't people just focus on that?"

This is exactly what it is about. This is the cause of many of the misunderstandings and disputes between Expat and me and one of the main reasons it is so difficult to overcome the barriers.

[Jonathan]

His problem in that discussion is that he mentioned the Lytov study without really remembering, or understanding, what the study was actually showing. He quoted it because he took for granted that it supported the ABCD=ABCd thesis, or at least that it "didn't contradict it".

When confronted with what the study actually showed, he went into a sort of short-circuit....

And that was obvious not only to me but to most people participating in the discussion, I daresay.

I wasn't disputing any of this. I was just pointing out that despite these problems in making a strong case with the evidence, he seems more intent on trying to do so than the typical clear-cut IEI would.

(The evidence he brought up failed, I think, because not only did he perhaps not remember the study well enough, but also because his main point was that there's some external reality or "ideal" typing that at some level exists independent of the two theories...sort of the way a blood type is an external fact that's independent of any theories that developed along the road to discovering how blood types work. So if he was making this very abstract argument, a lot of the evidence brought up really was irrelevant.)

I understand what you're saying though...The use of evidence only to support (rather than to influence) a position seems to you to be how an IEI would use . This is an interesting theoretical point that deserves examining, and maybe we can focus on that more, since it seems to be the critical point in what you're saying, if I'm understanding you properly.

Separating this a bit from the discussion of any specific individual, I would tend to think that the creative function is used to support the base function....so it would be very natural for an LIE to think that an ILI is a bit backwards using evidence merely to document and explain his vision ( -> ), and to believe that the more correct way would be to start with the evidence to form and influence the position ( -> ).

In contrast, your analysis seems to be that an ego-block function perhaps should appear more "two way" ( <-> ), and that if it appears to be one-way ( -> ), that indicates a weakness suggesting the person is really IEI, even if the person is constantly explaining his/her points on turf.

If that is true, then it would be interesting to see if we could generalize to other types...i.e., is the vulnerable function characterized by use to bolster but not influence the base function? Would we expect that an IEE would tend to make up lots of systems and formulations to explain his ideas, and that the difference between an ILE and an IEE would be that the ILE would be influenced by the (i.e., changing his intuition if he sees that the corresponding system isn't internally consistent), whereas the IEE would just keep making up systems and ignore the internal contradictions?

Personally, I think there's something to the idea that a creative function is and should be "two way," and that people should strive for this in their intellectual development. But I'm not convinced that it's normal behavior for people to habitually emphasize their vulnerable function. Also, I think that it could in certain circumstances be the case that a creative function will appear to be overly "one-way" to one's mirror type for the reasons mentioned above.

[Jonathan]

(PS...you may also be arguing that "valuing " is somehow related to the directionality, because is sometimes associated with focusing on one's own beliefs rather than accepting external information, but I'm inclined to see that could just as easily be viewed as a focus on one's own internal belief in the form of a "vision." In any case, the directionality of functions argument I put forth above seems to me to be a better model here than presuming that a particular IM element inherently makes people closed off to external information.)

[snegledmaca]

The simple answer - and accurate imo - is that those Beta types care a lot about how they appear in the eyes of others. So if someone suggests "I think that you may engage, sometimes, in group behavior that is loud and obnoxious", rather than going "hmm, perhaps? I don't think so, but maybe others might see it that way?", they go, "no! How dare you! Me loud and obnoxious? Gah, this place really has a thing against Betas". Etc etc.

I am exaggerating a bit for effect, but that is the idea. Some Betas are fond of saying, "this forum is anti-Beta". I think it is equally valid to say, "some Betas object to anything that might conceivably make them appear less than perfect".

Could you explain exactly why this is so. I wish to counter argument it.

[misutii]

I was wondering when this topic would come up again!

I still believe Phaedrus is an ILI. I read the Michael Moore article on Wikisocion as well and wasn't convinced that he was IEI, in fact I think he's ILI too. It seems to me that the main proponents of both these people/characters being IEI are Te-based Gamma types (Expat,Niffweed, correct me if I'm wrong) and the recurring theme seems to be that these people consistently show weak/misuse of the Te function, thus disqualifying them from beings ILIs. Being that both of you (Expat & Niffweed) have weak and unvalued Fe, I can't help but get the impression that you both show a weakness in properly identifying and expressing Fe, particularly how a strong and valued Fe would exemplify itself and prove useful in the real world.

While I can see why Expat would view Michael Moore's manipulation of facts as a poor use of Te I don't think that's the whole picture. To people acquainted with the material that Moore covers in his documentaries it's reasonable that they'd frown upon his use of facts. But I think Moore does this intentionally, thus if anything showing comfort in the use of Te. While others may scold him for "poor Te-use" I think if anything he's used his Te quite well. Proof of this is in the popularity of his ideas, how he's convinced so many of his views whilst providing minimum facts. He chooses the information and presents it the way he does because he's not providing indepth analysis on subject matter, he's not a university professor, he's merely creating a short documentary that will appeal to a mass audience. (edit: so purposefully expressing factual information in an obnoxious manner is a trait that can be tied to creative Te in an ILI, in an IEI weak factual expression is not on purpose)

His films show a powerful understanding of the use of images to steer the audience's emotional response towards accepting the general point he is making in his films, a point which he himself seems to see as obviously true, notwithstanding factual evidence that suggests that the truth may be more complex, or more difficult to prove. This has made him vulnerable to repeated criticism as to the factual information his films contain, leading to several revisions for the DVD versions; Moore himself seems to see such criticisms as irrelevant, misguided, and politically motivated. The focus on emotionally loaded images to convey what he sees as an obvious truth suggest strong emphasis on , and . His bafflement as to why anyone would care about the accuracy of factual details when presenting a more important greater truth shows that is a very unvalued function, probably his vulnerable one. All of the above fits the functional preference of the IEI.

His use of images on an audience, throughout his documentaries, does not point to a strong Fe function IMO. I've seen his documentaries, the images and scenes revolve more so on shock factor than on the use of any developed emotion. His blatant lack of tact has incited those that disagree with his views against him again and again. We're talking pop-culture here, he's appealing to his liberal-young-trendy-american-niche throughout his documentaries. He's not 'persuading' people through any sense of sensitive creativity, rather he's purposefully inciting controversy and then using that controversy to garner attention. He seems quite indifferent to whether that attention is good or bad. His emphasis on shock value and "in your face" facts is actually more indicative of undeveloped (immature) Fe if you're going to label it 'emotional'. I'd wager he's quite oblivious to the emotional impact he has on others. He doesn't seem capable of controlling his behaviour in front of others and quite frankly doesn't know how to not come off as "uncouth" -this is demonstrative of Fe-PoLR and it is one of the primary differences between ILI and IEI - IEI's tend to naturally show an aptitude towards adapting/conforming (on the surface) to people and the environment. The fact that Moore seeks to showcase his work in the public spotlight, regardless of whether it attracts praise or criticism, contradicts him having a Te PoLR:

Inability to act effectively, incomprehension of principles which lead to success. Absence of business activity and accumen. The tendency to avoid situations where it is necessary to work much. Unwillingness to demonstrate the process of his work. Negative attitude toward any criticism, and also toward any praise, of how he carries out his activities. Work contingent upon mood, the tendency to avoid responsibility.

Notice that although he does use imagery to a degree there is a certain lack of confidence in his personal presentation. He's always dressed in a mundane manner. In "Sicko", for example, he goes to France and you see him walking down the street wearing the same grungy clothes he wears in America, he sticks out like a sore thumb, whilst praising French culture. Beta Fe types on the other hand would present themselves in a more culturally astute/refined manner, either naturally being able to take advantage/conform the way they look, so as not to appear 'trashy', or if they want to stand out they do so in a much more dramatic fashion (i.e. David Bowie).

The political and mainstream bias of his work means that it doesn't aspire to express "pure Te", the idealized Te that is sometimes referred to on this forum. Look through any political campaign, look on cable TV, look at any mainstream/politicized media and you'll be hard pressed to find anything that rassembles "pure clean Te", this doesn't mean that Te-types don't help create and participate in mainstream TV/programs/media, but perhaps that it's simply a waste of their time to look-up/re-look-up all the facts because they're just doing their job so they can make some money. Moore defects criticisms (of his factual data) the same way that FOX News does. He's not taking them personally, but trying to tuck them away with rhetoric for he's not seeking to "inform" people in an enlightened manner, he's selling his ideas as a product. Ni > Te, time is more important than absolute factual accuracy. Time is money. I bet Moore got his moneysworth relative the time he spent working, that's business logic, IEIs don't have that.

In conclusion people are very capable of mis-using functions that are strong and valued IMO. In ILIs this could be manipulation of facts, in IEIs this could be manipulation of emotions(hystrionics), in LSIs the misuse of force etc. etc.

[Jonathan]

@misutii: These are great points. I think it makes a lot of sense to see the creative function as serving the aims of the base function (rather than as primarily an input into the base function, which would be backwards except for those who believe in a backwards order in "result" types, which wouldn't even apply to ILI)....and furthermore to recognize that people can and do use their ego functions "badly" (reminds me of how so many Socionists consider Nixon ESI and don't bring up his moral problems as president as a reason that he couldn't be an Fi type...but that's another issue).

Another example is the stereotypical "space cadet" type of ILE who has wacky ideas that are directed towards Ti but it's not really great Ti. Rather than seeing such a person as an IEE who is consistently obsessed with his using his vulnerable function as much as possible, it makes more sense to say the person is an ineffective ILE who just needs to work more on his creative function.

Incidentally, in the broader field of Jungian typology, the idea that a person's 2nd function needs to be "developed" and nurtured is a very common one.

[Jonathan]

Could you explain exactly why this is so. I wish to counter argument it.

Why...do you think he's being "anti-Beta" to say so?

(Personally, I think the whole "the rest of the world doesn't understand my type" idea isn't really a quadra thing. I've seen Alphas say similar stuff about how their professors are anti-Alpha because they want everything to be . The whole "the rest of the world doesn't understand me" thing also seems more prevalent in introverted types than in extraverted ones.)

[Megan]

The simple answer - and accurate imo - is that those Beta types care a lot about how they appear in the eyes of others. So if someone suggests "I think that you may engage, sometimes, in group behavior that is loud and obnoxious", rather than going "hmm, perhaps? I don't think so, but maybe others might see it that way?", they go, "no! How dare you! Me loud and obnoxious? Gah, this place really has a thing against Betas". Etc etc.

I am exaggerating a bit for effect, but that is the idea. Some Betas are fond of saying, "this forum is anti-Beta". I think it is equally valid to say, "some Betas object to anything that might conceivably make them appear less than perfect".

Expat, I have to be blunt, the above is rather offensive and worst I doubt that it is true. Are Fe types really more image conscious than ENTjs or any other quadra type? I personally do not think so. Why would that be unless is some sort of shitty, shallow function with a bunch of people with no real depth or feelings?
Maybe the forum really is anti beta and it does seem that way to several people who are not even beta. I personally dislike when people's feelings are invalidated, if you don't understand why the betas think that the forum is anti-beta it is better to just say you do not understand or cannot actually see it yourself but to say it does not exist and that they care only about their image or are only concerned with being seen as less perfect and that is the reason why some are bothered does not make sense to me. I think it is not so much that negatives are said about beta or , just that these things are probably not accurate and are just based on your opinion and that of a few others and nothing more than that, we all need to be clear on this because opinions really are not facts...not even your opinion.
Has it occurred to you that some betas may just honestly and genuinely prefer a quiet, intimate atmosphere rather than a loud, boisterous one and that some types may even like that type of loudness and activity more than some types do?
Where does this idea that types are more image conscious than types come from? I truly see no support for it.

Is it just me because I know an awful lot of quadra types mostly gammas who are very into their image and a lot of types who could not care less.

Again, I wonder if more indivual traits should not be acknowledged rather than putting a whole group of people into a category that they truly do not fit in and then say that they do fit in it but are just too image conscious or unaware to admit it.

[aestrivex]

megan: you truly have no understanding of what Fe is.

[Megan]

megan: you truly have no understanding of what Fe is.

and you apparently have this understanding I take it?

Maybe you should go a step further and share your detailed knowledge of this function, it is afterall your polr. Then maybe you can add some information about why these Fe people are so loud and image conscious yet will just not admit it.

[aestrivex]

image-consciousness is a typical consequence and not a predefined trait of Fe. nonetheless, what you are saying is basically contrary to every definition of Fe that there is. i am not here to explain to you basic concepts. look at the Fe page at wikisocion.

[Megan]

image-consciousness is a typical consequence and not a predefined trait of Fe. nonetheless, what you are saying is basically contrary to every definition of Fe that there is. i am not here to explain to you basic concepts. look at the Fe page at wikisocion.

I really do not get you. I see no reason why image consciousnes should arises as a consequence of Fe. What aspects of Fe leads to image consciousness?

Also, no disrespect to you and most of the other people who worked on the wiki but that is about the last place I would go for any sort of credible information on socionics. From a brief visit there it seems mainly the same sort of thing that is repeated here and taken as "fact".

[Minde]

I really do not get you. I see no reason why image consciousnes should arises as a consequence of Fe. What aspects of Fe leads to image consciousness?

Also, no disrespect to you and most of the other people who worked on the wiki but that is about the last place I would go for any sort of credible information on socionics. From a brief visit there it seems mainly the same sort of thing that is repeated here and taken as "fact".

Out of curiosity, where do you go to learn more?

[aestrivex]

I really do not get you. I see no reason why image consciousnes should arises as a consequence of Fe. What aspects of Fe leads to image consciousness?

Also, no disrespect to you and most of the other people who worked on the wiki but that is about the last place I would go for any sort of credible information on socionics. From a brief visit there it seems mainly the same sort of thing that is repeated here and taken as "fact".

then you have already rejected everything that there is to say and i see no reason to talk to you further.

[Megan]

then you have already rejected everything that there is to say and i see no reason to talk to you further.

I agree that if everything that you have to say is that which is on the wiki then our discourse is pointless. Perhaps finding out which parts are attributable to you would make it easier to ascertain your perspective and reach on understanding of how you have arrived at your conclusions that somehow image consciousness is a consequence of Fe. If that type of image consciousness is attributable to Fe then I too would have to declare Fe a shallow, superficial, meaningless function.


@ Minde,
I think you have to use your own judgement in assessing which sources you deem to be credible and what you think makes seem so. I cannot speak confidently on the matter but it is my sense that wide reading from various sources/articles rather than one source is the best course of action.
Then too it is relevant to consider the opinions of the people who have the function as a valued strength... if many of them just honestly are not making sense of some information then it is worth reconsidering if the information relating to them really is accurate and not just assume that they are being fake by not agreeing to it. Also, not allowing your own powers of observation and reasoning to be overcome by some else's without good reason in a largely non reseached and un-tested area like socionics is important I think.

[aestrivex]

Perhaps finding out which parts are attributable to you would make it easier to ascertain your perspective and reach on understanding of how you have arrived at your conclusions that somehow image consciousness is a consequence of Fe. If that type of image consciousness is attributable to Fe then I too would have to declare Fe a shallow, superficial, meaningless function.

what? the definition of Fe is not remotely based on my experience with Fe.


the impression that i'm getting from what you're saying about sources of information is that you are not able to recognize what socionics is in reality. and you think that everybody else's interpretation is correct. in short, you're really naive.

[Megan]

what? the definition of Fe is not remotely based on my experience with Fe.


the impression that i'm getting from what you're saying about sources of information is that you are not able to recognize what socionics is in reality. and you think that everybody else's interpretation is correct. in short, you're really naive.

I spoke of one specific source of information and that was the wikisocion. I have no high regard for it personally. I do not see why I should, others consider it credible, I largely don't and that is fine. I cannot see how reading widely and reflecting upon the information from various sources takes away from the reality of what socionics is. You spoke first of the descriptions of Fe. I am sure you have a far greater amount of knowledge of socionics than myself, the question is is it really correct and credible knowledge in all cases. I have to question this because what you understand to be Fe related is at odds with what others are saying about it and you are making it seem like a cheap ass, fake, image conscious function in general or having what amounts to fakenes arise as a consequence of its presence. With even absolutely no knowledge of socionics, my instincts would question the correctness of that.

I will not disregard Fe types understanding and experience of their own functions in favor of yours or any other person who understands the functions through their own strong function...mainly Te.

[misutii]

For the record I don't see this forum as being "anti-beta", if certain posters seem inclined against certain functions it's because their types are so inclined and they're just being honest , which is good because we'll learn faster that way. People need to stop taking remarks personally and instead understand that nothing anyone writes here is written in stone, so if you think something is incorrect you're free to provide an argument and have an impact.

The reason Fe keeps coming up is because it seems quite difficult to identify it online in others and (in my opinion) this coupled with it being a weak and unvalued function in many of our theorists here leads them to make impetuous, albeit innocent, judgments on who uses this function and how they use it on the forum.

It needs to be understood that, for example, when typing a male between the age of 20-30, if Fe is his primary/creative function, thus strong and valued, then it will very likely not manifest itself in sudden emotional outbursts/pleas/whines - such a lack of control over emotion is actually a logical-type trait - logical types are simply less aware of not only the emotional states in others but also within themselves...
So, for example, take me for instance, if I decided to turn my Fe on right !!!!!!now!!!!!!lol the results would be much different then what is exhibitied by certain "supposed IEI" posters, it wouldn't be some mere "annoyance" - no it would have an impact and not only that but the impact it would have would have been decided by me beforehand - that's strong, valued Fe. On the one hand it's not directly that great of a skill in an intellectual debate, on the other it can make up for this by inciting sympathy and support in Fe-seeking types, (who can handle the logic parts lol)

If Fe-seeking types find a "supposed IEI"'s use of Fe to be inherently repulsive then I strongly doubt it's an IEI.

[aestrivex]

If Fe-seeking types find a "supposed IEI"'s use of Fe to be inherently repulsive then I strongly doubt it's an IEI.

point taken, but find me any type that wants to be phaedrus' dual.

a large part of this is that we don't know who phaedrus is IRL. maybe his behavior is very different IRL and might not be so offensive to SLEs as it is here (or ESEs, or whatever type he is; this is a totally hypothetical example).


for example, even though we can't see him IRL, even hitta's videos show a very, very different person than the structuralist moron that infiltrates with this forum with his crap, and to whom ashton (SLE by my book, even though some say EIE; that just sounds strange) has reacted very negatively.

[misutii]

point taken, but find me any type that wants to be phaedrus' dual.

a large part of this is that we don't know who phaedrus is IRL. maybe his behavior is very different IRL and might not be so offensive to SLEs as it is here (or ESEs, or whatever type he is; this is a totally hypothetical example).


for example, even though we can't see him IRL, even hitta's videos show a very, very different person than the structuralist moron that infiltrates with this forum with his crap, and to whom ashton (SLE by my book, even though some say EIE; that just sounds strange) has reacted very negatively.

lol, we need more data. I don't think hitta is IEI but I'm not sure what type he is. His use of Ti is very different than that of mine or snegledmaca's. If it ever seems like I'm confidently using Ti then it's an illusion I've learned through formal education and tons of essay writing. For example when there seems to be Ti in my posts you'll notice that it's not real Ti (it's not an end in itself), not only that but I'm aware my logic has holes so it's almost as if I'm expecting a stronger logical type to come in and take whatever insights I may be trying to express and make use of such in their better developed theory/argument...(like how Johnathan did earlier in this thread, if he hadn't re-inforced what I was trying to say I likely wouldn't even be bothering typing any more in this thread as i'd be doubting what i'd already said lol) I guess this is Ti-seeking in action, weak but valued. Hitta's Ti doesn't seem to be imitated in this way though, it's actually more inherent and so he goes ahead and does giant sociological projects on his own - confident enough not to actively seek logical guidance

[Megan]

Misutii
On the subject of the anti beta thing I have said before that there is no need to be reactive to it but it is just annoying when the same people come on here with the whole "my function is better than yours attitude" childish atitude. So you are a Te type and you think Fe is the shitty, does that mean you have to come up on here harping on about it everyday, what the hell is that suppose to accomplish socionics wise? I disagree that anything useful can be learnt from that atitude by anyone, I think it will just cause people to understand Fe as inferior, emotional and fake, especially since the people who hold this thinking about Fe are the Te types on the forum with the most intellectual influence. The Fe types hardly do anything to explain themselves and some just resort to being self-shaming and placating.

[Minde]

@ Minde,
I think you have to use your own judgement in assessing which sources you deem to be credible and what you think makes seem so. I cannot speak confidently on the matter but it is my sense that wide reading from various sources/articles rather than one source is the best course of action.
Then too it is relevant to consider the opinions of the people who have the function as a valued strength... if many of them just honestly are not making sense of some information then it is worth reconsidering if the information relating to them really is accurate and not just assume that they are being fake by not agreeing to it. Also, not allowing your own powers of observation and reasoning to be overcome by some else's without good reason in a largely non reseached and un-tested area like socionics is important I think.

Ok, that's fine. I wasn't talking about right and wrong or critical thinking or questioning your choices. I just asked what other sources of info you use. Kind of a... resource sharing thing, I guess. There aren't a lot of English resources out there, so I was wondering if you had any ideas of where to look.

So, where do you go to read up on socionics?

[misutii]

Misutii
I disagree that anything useful can be learnt from that atitude by anyone, I think it will just cause people to understand Fe as inferior, emotional and fake, especially since the people who hold this thinking about Fe are the Te types on the forum with the most intellectual influence. The Fe types hardly do anything to explain themselves and some just resort to being self-shaming and placating.

But the Fe types don't really need to explain themselves if they understand the situation - that Fe emotion may be seen as a threat to logical types less aware of its potential and effects. Knowing this means that putting up any Fe guerilla warfare is just going to piss logical types off more. So what's wrong with having the strength to show compassion instead? lol, it's what the world really needs!

[Megan]

Ok, that's fine. I wasn't talking about right and wrong or critical thinking or questioning your choices. I just asked what other sources of info you use. Kind of a... resource sharing thing, I guess. There aren't a lot of English resources out there, so I was wondering if you had any ideas of where to look.

So, where do you go to read up on socionics?

My answer reflected that I am not into socionics big time. I think there are a lot of decent stuff in the articles section which seems under-utilized and I have some of the things from other socionics english sites that I searched for using google and when I see any thing here from the russian sites that are well translated I might read those too, my best friend's husband is Russian and he has some socionics stuff written in russian that we talk about sometimes, he was the one who first told me about socionics when I was telling him about MBTI but he is not very much into it anymore so I do not get much from him now. Basically the same place where most of the people here get their things really.

[Megan]

But the Fe types don't really need to explain themselves if they understand the situation - that Fe emotion may be seen as a threat to logical types less aware of its potential and effects. Knowing this means that putting up any Fe guerilla warfare is just going to piss logical types off more. So what's wrong with having the strength to show compassion instead? lol, it's what the world really needs!

I think maybe the world needs other things as well as compassion and then Fe is not emotion or necessarily emotional. I really doubt that any Te type here feels threatened by Fe. They mostly seem to see it as useless.

[XoX]

I really doubt that any Te type here feels threatened by Fe. They mostly seem to see it as useless.

I'm not sure. There could be a fear component involved because has the potential to challenge our perception of the objective world. Even if objectively speaking A > B by skillful usage of it is possible to make people believe that B > A. That's pretty fearful for a type. is qualitative and subjective, is quantitative and objective, but both work in the realm of concrete. Thus has the capability to replace quantitative and objective with the qualitative and subjective and distort our understanding of "what is real". What could be more fearful to an INTp who completely lacks the skills to debate in the area of qualitative and subjective?

Edit: the fear doesn't come from the fact that they personally fear , instead they find it useless. The fear comes from the fact that "others" might listen to qualitative and subjective argument more than quantitative and objective and thus follow the Fe-type instead of them. is a leadership function where is management function.

Edit: I may have to be more careful about using "objective" and "subjective" but don't debate on that This is because can be seen as "objectifying emotions". Anyways, can input our brain with subjective and qualitative information which creates a real world effect. For example by using you can create "happiness". is also very good at perceiving these real world effects. "I give "information", it makes the person happy, I can perceive that from the concrete changes in their facial expression".

[marooned]

The simple answer - and accurate imo - is that those Beta types care a lot about how they appear in the eyes of others. So if someone suggests "I think that you may engage, sometimes, in group behavior that is loud and obnoxious", rather than going "hmm, perhaps? I don't think so, but maybe others might see it that way?", they go, "no! How dare you! Me loud and obnoxious? Gah, this place really has a thing against Betas". Etc etc.

I am exaggerating a bit for effect, but that is the idea. Some Betas are fond of saying, "this forum is anti-Beta". I think it is equally valid to say, "some Betas object to anything that might conceivably make them appear less than perfect".

I don't know if this is what's being suggested... but if this sort of behavior is something that defines Beta, I wouldn't say that is the only "culprit." Surely contributes its fair share of loud obnoxiousness. Could we say it's the plus the rather than just the . ?

Another suggestion... is it possible that this loud obnoxious behavior is only the tip of the Beta iceberg? Sort of in the way that when you see this sort of behavior you think to yourself "oh, that's just so Beta," but that it isn't necessarily the majority of Beta behaviors.

Or maybe some of the Betas who don't identify with it just don't identify with it, plain and simple. I can see how or -valuing might have something to do with being self-conscious about how one appears to others, but I don't think it's fair to say that any Beta who complains/objects about this conception of the supposedly loud and riley Beta group atmosphere is just trying to save face. I know you were not saying this, but that area has been opened up by what you did say.

Obnoxious is also a subjective matter. Maybe valuers find particularly obnoxious, I don't know. Frankly, I've found obnoxious when taken to certain extremes (but that would be true of any IM element).

I think it's possible your perspective is a bit on the extreme end (just slightly so).

[FDG]

I'm not sure. There could be a fear component involved because has the potential to challenge our perception of the objective world. Even if objectively speaking A > B by skillful usage of it is possible to make people believe that B > A. That's pretty fearful for a type. is qualitative and subjective, is quantitative and objective, but both work in the realm of concrete. Thus has the capability to replace quantitative and objective with the qualitative and subjective and distort our understanding of "what is real". What could be more fearful to an INTp who completely lacks the skills to debate in the area of qualitative and subjective?

Edit: the fear doesn't come from the fact that they personally fear , instead they find it useless. The fear comes from the fact that "others" might listen to qualitative and subjective argument more than quantitative and objective and thus follow the Fe-type instead of them. is a leadership function where is management function.

I completely agree with this, and that is also why I think I'm a Te type as opposed to say an ESTp or ESFp (which I doubt would feel threatened by the way ENFjs argument things for example).

[snegledmaca]

Why...do you think he's being "anti-Beta" to say so?

Ha, no, I just think he is wrong. He has not shown, extrapolated, or proved in any way his (wild) assertions. I really have no idea from where he pulled all of that.

[misutii]

I really doubt that any Te type here feels threatened by Fe. They mostly seem to see it as useless.

While I see why you'd come to that conclusion by viewing this as a separate incident I've been here a while and observed many contrived "Beta Fe vs. Gamma Te" contests and have to disagree. The fact is that Fe can be used irresponsibly and in the past has been used irresponsibly (i.e. without good intent) towards Gamma Te members of the forum. Gamma Te members of the forum also happen to be humans and also happen to have feelings and all these mutually abusive rows have really accomplished nothing. It's like the Israel vs. Palestine conflict, choose a side choose a side! .... it's bullshit. The tension's merely made Beta Fes indulge in victim complexes and Gamma Tes indulge in "Game Theory" fantasy, both are bullshit. If Gamma Tes on the forum see Fe as useless it's probably because when they think of Fe they think of it's misuse. In actuality it's illogical and doesn't make sense to see Fe as useless because regardless of whether its attractive, or does anything, for you, personally, it more importantly can, does, and will harbor the potential to positively effect those around you (i.e. as a motivational tool to inspire others to share brilliant ideas/insights that they're hesitant to explore publicly.)

Really having an Fe type in a group can make a Te-type's life a lot easier. Likewise if Te-types don't have to worry about emotional maelstrom's every 15 minutes they'll be more inclined to use their strong functions in a more socially responsible manner (i.e. instead of lazily using Te to tell an Fe type, "No, your wrong, you don't know what you're talking about", they'll have the patience to explain why (which from personal experience with Te types here I know they're capable of)

The only way to accomplish this is for individual Te-types and individual Fe-types to stop acting like irresponsible morons because they're masochistically cock-blocking the free flow if ideas and making me want to flagellate myself for having to make a hippy world peace choose love not war post like this, lol

[aestrivex]

Really having an Fe type in a group can make a Te-type's life a lot easier. Likewise if Te-types don't have to worry about emotional maelstrom's every 15 minutes they'll be more inclined to use their strong functions in a more socially responsible manner (i.e. instead of lazily using Te to tell an Fe type, "No, your wrong, you don't know what you're talking about", they'll have the patience to explain why (which from personal experience with Te types here I know they're capable of)

The only way to accomplish this is for individual Te-types and individual Fe-types to stop acting like irresponsible morons because they're masochistically cock-blocking the free flow if ideas and making me want to flagellate myself for having to make a hippy world peace choose love not war post like this, lol

actually no. socionics basically defines Fe and Te as being diametrically opposed and entirely incompatible. to say that Fe and Te types can and should get along simply doesn't make sense, at least in accordance with what socionics says; thats why the Fi/Te and Fe/Ti axes exist.


now you can say that Fe and Te people do and can get along, and that has to do with them being people. people generally have an uncanny propensity for being able to sit down in the same room without killing each other. and this is the real problem with people that say "OMG OMG ITS MY CONFLICTOR HEY CONFLICTOR FUCK YOU I CAN NEVER GET ALONG WITH YOU." these people ignore the reality of daily life and the existence of people as people rather than types that fit into lots of little boxes.

however, i do think that the idea that conflicting types should try to avoid each other and naturally can't click as well as types of the same quadra due to an interest in absolutely different kinds of information has some legitimacy to it.

[Jonathan]

actually no. socionics basically defines Fe and Te as being diametrically opposed and entirely incompatible. to say that Fe and Te types can and should get along simply doesn't make sense, at least in accordance with what socionics says; thats why the Fi/Te and Fe/Ti axes exist.


now you can say that Fe and Te people do and can get along, and that has to do with them being people. people generally have an uncanny propensity for being able to sit down in the same room without killing each other. ....

however, i do think that the idea that conflicting types should try to avoid each other and naturally can't click as well as types of the same quadra due to an interest in absolutely different kinds of information has some legitimacy to it.

The other part of the equation is that people do not fit the prototypical 16 types exactly. A person who pretty much focuses on two ego block functions and fits the description of his/her type more or less perfectly will probably have more conflict with the opposing quadra than someone who, while technically still being in a type, is nevertheless broader in his/her use of functions.

As to the idea that one should avoid people of the opposing quadra...I don't even think Socionics says that. Socionics, as I understand it, says don't form long-term relationships where there will be mutual expectations, etc., with certain people. In other words, don't live with someone you're just going to conflict with.

But does that mean one must avoid these people, stay away from them at parties, minimize contact with them at work, move to the opposite side of the bus when they board, refuse to say hi, etc.? Absolutely not.

The idea that one should distance oneself from any information aspect is sort of like distancing oneself from part of one's own brain, because one's brain includes and uses all the functions, and every information aspect is important and valuable.

[aestrivex]

The other part of the equation is that people do not fit the prototypical 16 types exactly. A person who pretty much focuses on two ego block functions and fits the description of his/her type more or less perfectly will probably have more conflict with the opposing quadra than someone who, while technically still being in a type, is nevertheless broader in his/her use of functions.

yeah, there's that too.

As to the idea that one should avoid people of the opposing quadra...I don't even think Socionics says that. Socionics, as I understand it, says don't form long-term relationships where there will be mutual expectations, etc., with certain people. In other words, don't live with someone you're just going to conflict with.

But does that mean one must avoid these people, stay away from them at parties, minimize contact with them at work, move to the opposite side of the bus when they board, refuse to say hi, etc.? Absolutely not.

The idea that one should distance oneself from any information aspect is sort of like distancing oneself from part of one's own brain, because one's brain includes and uses all the functions, and every information aspect is important and valuable.

i think you're reading a tad too much into the relatively innocuous "avoid each other." i wouldn't advocate completely avoiding these people. in fact, exactly how one wants to "avoid" one's opposing quadra or unfavorable relations can only be determined by that person, and nobody else has any real right to tell them otherwise.

the point is that there is some legitimacy behind the notion that, on the whole, people will be less able to get along with their conflicting types at a "close psychological distance."