On Beta Extraverted Ethics Fe

[UDP]

I've only read the first 1/3 of the posts in this thread so far..... but it is very well written. It is nice to see real discussion.

[Kristiina]

I stop coming to the forum for a few days and when I read up on what I've missed, I get angry again. I should stop coming to the forum altogether.

First, Expat, you do not understand . Stop explaining it to people and read what people in beta really say about Fe.
Second, Niffweed, you don't know anything about even if you are able to "write a definition".
Stop badmouthing because you don't know anything about it!

I agree that Fe is image-conscious by nature. But the most image-conscious people in the entire socion are ESTjs! Second most image-conscious people are ESFps, from what I hear. ENTjs can go around asking questions like, "did I do the morally right thing?!" while ENFj asks, "Did I do the socially expected thing?". It doesn't mean that ENTjs are any more moral than any other type and it doesn't mean that ENFjs are living by the social rules more than anyone else! I want to be seen as a pleasant person, which doesn't stop me from being moral, unique, interesting, original, polite, calm, somewhat shy, etc! Why do you low-Fe people say that image-conscious people have no personality and are loud and obnoxious group-oriented jerks? Like Niffweed - the only way you can show you're unique is by showing how different you are from everyone else and showing that the social rules don't apply to you and you can be a jerk whenever you want to whomever you want. And Expat, at least when I offend people, I do it on purpose for a good reason. Being moral on the inside has no value if you keep making people unhappy on the outside. Memorize this and use this as Fe>Fi in stead of the typical, "You value Fe if you like the loud and obnoxious groups and you value Fi if you like nice and friendly people.".

There is a true conflict within the things people say about Fe. There is nothing socially acceptable about being loud and obnoxious! How can socially inclined people act "loud and obnoxious" on purpose all the time? Fe is about group party atmosphere, but a fun party is when the group has active fast dialogue. There is nothing fun about loud and obnoxious. The entire beta keeps saying that and no one hears it.

[hellothere]

"You value Fe if you like the loud and obnoxious groups and you value Fi if you like nice and friendly people."

hahaha that was hilarious!

[snegledmaca]

The thing I was going to note was that loud and obnoxious are personal assessments. As in, the opposite of an objective assessment. As in, what is loud and obnoxious to one person is tranquil and delightful to another so the claim that beta type behavior is characterized by loudness and obnoxiousness shows nothing more then trying to propagate a subjective opinion as objective truth. Which I now think should become a standard characterization of , trying to propagate subjective assessments as the objective truth as a result of low focus on , which by contrast is hyper aware of subjective assessment and would attempt to portray the objective truth as a subjective assessment.

[Phaedrus]

Expat, you do not understand . Stop explaining it to people and read what people in beta really say about Fe.

Very good point.

[FDG]

I stop coming to the forum for a few days and when I read up on what I've missed, I get angry again. I should stop coming to the forum altogether.

First, Expat, you do not understand . Stop explaining it to people and read what people in beta really say about Fe.
Second, Niffweed, you don't know anything about even if you are able to "write a definition".
Stop badmouthing because you don't know anything about it!

I agree that Fe is image-conscious by nature. But the most image-conscious people in the entire socion are ESTjs! Second most image-conscious people are ESFps, from what I hear. ENTjs can go around asking questions like, "did I do the morally right thing?!" while ENFj asks, "Did I do the socially expected thing?". It doesn't mean that ENTjs are any more moral than any other type and it doesn't mean that ENFjs are living by the social rules more than anyone else! I want to be seen as a pleasant person, which doesn't stop me from being moral, unique, interesting, original, polite, calm, somewhat shy, etc! Why do you low-Fe people say that image-conscious people have no personality and are loud and obnoxious group-oriented jerks? Like Niffweed - the only way you can show you're unique is by showing how different you are from everyone else and showing that the social rules don't apply to you and you can be a jerk whenever you want to whomever you want. And Expat, at least when I offend people, I do it on purpose for a good reason. Being moral on the inside has no value if you keep making people unhappy on the outside. Memorize this and use this as Fe>Fi in stead of the typical, "You value Fe if you like the loud and obnoxious groups and you value Fi if you like nice and friendly people.".

There is a true conflict within the things people say about Fe. There is nothing socially acceptable about being loud and obnoxious! How can socially inclined people act "loud and obnoxious" on purpose all the time? Fe is about group party atmosphere, but a fun party is when the group has active fast dialogue. There is nothing fun about loud and obnoxious. The entire beta keeps saying that and no one hears it.

+1 agree entirely

[Kristiina]

Very good point.

Phaedrus, I don't approve of you using my criticism towards Expat to point your finger at him and go "Nanana-naa-naaa".

[Expat]

There are many things I want to address here, although I'm really wondering if it's worth the bother.

But, for the moment:

@Kristiina: it's pointless for you to tell me "stop explaining Fe to others". As long as I choose to write here, I will say that what I think is correct. I may be totally wrong, or I may write things without explaining them well, whatever. But you can say 1000 times that I should not write about Fe, and I will continue to do so nonetheless. If you think that what I say about Fe is wrong, then you say what you think is correct, and others can decide for themselves. Is that clear? Even if it isn't, it changes nothing.

Also, where did you get the idea that "the most image-conscious people in the whole socion are ESTjs?" Based on what? It seems to me that you understand ESTjs even less than I understand Fe. But, please, do go on talking about ESTjs. It would not cross my mind to tell you to stop writing about them.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I don't approve of you using my criticism towards Expat to point your finger at him and go "Nanana-naa-naaa".

I don't care what you think about that. I was only stating the truth about your comment on Expat's understanding of Fe, and maybe I should have accentuated where the real value of your post was -- namely to pinpoint the fact that the people in Beta know themselves and their types better than others do. This is a common and irritating phenomenon on this forum -- that people with totally different types think that they know and understand the differences between for example to other types better than the representatives of those two types themselves do.

If many people of a certain type honestly say that they don't think that a certain person is a member of their type because they don't recognize themselves in that person's behaviour and attitudes, then people should take that fact into much more consideration. The real INFps on this forum realize that I am not the same type as they are, and yet people like Expat continue to suggest that I am an INFp. Such idiotic behaviour prevents a deeper understanding of the differences between the types, and I am frustrated by the fact that the discussions on this forum tend to be so low level, that people are so unwilling to learn the types correctly, and that we never seem to make much progress.

[aestrivex]

i am just going to stop reading any more posts that accuse me of "bad-mouthing" Fe. it's getting ridiculous.

There is a true conflict within the things people say about Fe. There is nothing socially acceptable about being loud and obnoxious! How can socially inclined people act "loud and obnoxious" on purpose all the time? Fe is about group party atmosphere, but a fun party is when the group has active fast dialogue. There is nothing fun about loud and obnoxious. The entire beta keeps saying that and no one hears it.

here's a challenge. find me any post within the last six months in which expat or I (i would include it up to other members, but we are the ones that seem to be under attack here) have seriously suggested that beta Fe is unequivocally "loud and rowdy" by nature, or something similar. It can be that way, but nobody here is seriously suggesting that it's necessarily like that. similarly, nothing whatsoever has been said suggesting that beta Fe is superficial and that all betas are jerks.

read expat's post again: it said something along the lines of "sometimes betas in group atmosphere act in a manner that other people see as obnoxious." this is a pretty damn innocuous statement and one that you would be pretty hard-pressed to argue against.

Saying that Fe is image-conscious is, obviously quite different. I agree wholeheartedly with expat about LSEs being image conscious: WTF??

most of the disagreement here is that you are looking at "image-consciousness" from an entirely different perspective. i really don't disagree with anything kristiina has written here about Fe. would an LIE be "image-conscious" in the sense that he wants the people close to him whom he cares about to respect him as a trustworthy/moral person? you could argue that, but i think that's highly dubious.

[Mea]

I think the main problem here is perspective.

I agree with kriistina about being loud and obnoxious as not being socially accepted.
Though it kinda fails to consider what other quadras might think.
It's exactly the same as why some might think that gammas SFs think themselves to be overly righteous and others that disagree are scum.

[Logos]

I do not think that Expat is anti-Fe as much as it is that he has a clear pro-Fi bias, which he has admitted on numerous occasions in threads dealing with Fi and Fe. And this preference for Fi, as well as having a Fe role function, affects his understanding of Fe. The proper response is not to tell him that he is wrong and to stop talking about Fe, but to be responsive and to simply acknowledge what he has said, tell him that he still has a few misconceptions about Fe, and then provide your pro-Fe perspective on the issue.

[XoX]

Beta Fe...I think it can be rather calm. Like a still ocean with a strong current underneath. Occasional exchange of jokes with a short lasting common laughter. Then the stillness gets back. I would call Alpha Fe "surface Fe" and Beta Fe "deep Fe". Beta Fe is often more about showing respect and politeness than making a lot of noise. Feeling of being in the same "frequency" without having to shout it out loud. Connecting. The expressiveness of Beta Fe comes from the occasional dramatic outbursts which, however, are not the norm. I guess Beta Fe can also be rather physical. Physical expression of emotions. Showing it not saying it. More likely living it. Passion and devotion in everything you do.

Is that anywhere close? How would you redefine it? It is just adhoc based a lot on one recent situation. Might be completely off.

[Wittmont]

That is excellent XoX.

[Kristiina]

There are many things I want to address here, although I'm really wondering if it's worth the bother.

But, for the moment:

@Kristiina: it's pointless for you to tell me "stop explaining Fe to others". As long as I choose to write here, I will say that what I think is correct. I may be totally wrong, or I may write things without explaining them well, whatever. But you can say 1000 times that I should not write about Fe, and I will continue to do so nonetheless. If you think that what I say about Fe is wrong, then you say what you think is correct, and others can decide for themselves. Is that clear? Even if it isn't, it changes nothing.

Also, where did you get the idea that "the most image-conscious people in the whole socion are ESTjs?" Based on what? It seems to me that you understand ESTjs even less than I understand Fe. But, please, do go on talking about ESTjs. It would not cross my mind to tell you to stop writing about them.

You should keep talking about it, reading about it, learning new information. Except teaching/explaining it as if you know it all. When other people say they don't agree with your observations on Fe, pay attention. This thread and Elena's threads, and threads about accused INFps (Phaedrus & co) have long discussions where you describe the reality through your vision of Fe. And the world immidiately looks like a horrible place because of the Fe types. People can argue all you want, but you will be the most listened because you know you're right (even if you aren't) and you have a high degree of respect in the forum. And it seems there's so many people who hint/say that you have misunderstood Fe in some way, but you quote some online socionics textbook or you explain how you understand it and you continue with the game. I do not regret telling you what I did. It might play it's part in the forum's future overall understanding of Fe. Right now it was a standstill - gamma NT's were teaching to beta NFs in "Beta NF" thread. No new information, false information being rooted into people's minds.

And as for ESTjs. Personal observation. With a few rare exceptions, all the ESTjs wear well-chosen freshly ironed clothes, they have the best car they can possibly afford and when they post a picture in some online portal (Facebook), they are leaning on their car, legs spread like they can't fit their equipment anywhere, posing, photo done from a lower angle. They measure themselves accordingly, "oh look, I have all that a guy needs, so why don't all girls love me? They're all stupid sluts, that's why." I'm not exaggerating. True story. Plus all STs in those internet portals are delta, and almost all ESTjs have at least one photo with a car.

[Slacker]

My fear is that we'll continually have people who might be Beta NFs not consider Beta NF as a potential type because they think Beta NFs are loud and obnoxious, which is an overall idea of them generally here, regardless of where that started.

[aestrivex]

And as for ESTjs. Personal observation. With a few rare exceptions, all the ESTjs wear well-chosen freshly ironed clothes, they have the best car they can possibly afford and when they post a picture in some online portal (Facebook), they are leaning on their car, legs spread like they can't fit their equipment anywhere, posing, photo done from a lower angle. They measure themselves accordingly, "oh look, I have all that a guy needs, so why don't all girls love me? They're all stupid sluts, that's why." I'm not exaggerating. True story. Plus all STs in those internet portals are delta, and almost all ESTjs have at least one photo with a car.

you really don't have a clue.

[Kristiina]

you really don't have a clue.

ESTjs are image-conscious because ESTjs have the classic understanding that a man has to provide for the family. They think they have to be rich to impress people. They buy expensive stuff and show it off. There's absolutely nothing I can say about ESTjs wanting moral/trustworthy people around them, because that doesn't seem to be the case. They look for a perfect wife who is pretty to look at and who is a good cook/cleaner. Only moral/trustworthy people would ignore their asshole-moments and love them because they "mean well".

And Niffweed, it doesn't matter that is was, "sometimes betas in group atmosphere act in a manner that other people see as obnoxious.". Who are the other people? Some creepy old people will look at ANY group as obnoxious. So I could say that "sometimes gammas can be seen as horribly mean and stupid and totally lacking morals" and that would be okay? because the sentence had "sometimes" and "can be seen (by some other people)"? Is that okay? Not an insult anymore, right? Totally perfectly grammatically accurate because with so many people in the world, SOME people will definitely see gammas that way? And because it's now objectively accurate, I can say it and it's completely fair to gammas?

Betas don't act obnoxious as a rule, so stop using it as a way to describe what Fe is about. And if you must write about about beta groups, descibe the active becavior as "energetic", not as "obnoxious".

[Expat]

Kristiina

I will be the judge of what subjects I will talk about as a know-it-all. I have no reason whatsoever to take lectures from you on which subjects I should speak or not. I have never, ever, told you anything of this sort, and I expect the same. I have told you you were wrong, and you can tell me I'm wrong.

As for this:

ESTjs are image-conscious because ESTjs have the classic understanding that a man has to provide for the family. They think they have to be rich to impress people.

This is your interpretation of their actions, because you are seeing it through your eyes. To use an over-used word, projection. This is how you yourself described your understanding of the Se HA, ages ago. It applies to you but not necessarily to others.

You'll just have to accept that "impressing people" is not a driving motivation in everyone else, and not in ESTjs in particular.

There's absolutely nothing I can say about ESTjs wanting moral/trustworthy people around them, because that doesn't seem to be the case. They look for a perfect wife who is pretty to look at and who is a good cook/cleaner. Only moral/trustworthy people would ignore their asshole-moments and love them because they "mean well".

So -- you think that it makes sense for a Si creative type, a caregiver, to expect a Si-HA type to "cook and clean" for them?

And that is your understanding of what Fi dual-seeking is? "To need a moral/trustworthy person who will ignore my asshole moments"?

[Expat]

Now, to underline what I see as the foolishness of many people here, let me remind you how this discussion started.

Dolphin said:

People somehow think 's all about loud obnoxious party atmospheres. It's grossly exaggerated. To me, is more subtle, low key, kind of like you're trying to explain.

To which I replied:

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.

I wonder what kind of twisted sense of justice and fairness would conclude from that that I have said "yes, I think it's about being loud and obnoxious".

[aestrivex]

ESTjs are image-conscious because ESTjs have the classic understanding that a man has to provide for the family. They think they have to be rich to impress people. They buy expensive stuff and show it off. There's absolutely nothing I can say about ESTjs wanting moral/trustworthy people around them, because that doesn't seem to be the case. They look for a perfect wife who is pretty to look at and who is a good cook/cleaner. Only moral/trustworthy people would ignore their asshole-moments and love them because they "mean well".

LSEs have Fi dual-seeking and Ni polr and demonstrative Se. a very brief analysis: perhaps they desire a clear sense of ethics and don't make random assumptions about "having to be rich to impress people" like people in an Fe and Se valuing quadra might. geez.

you are clueless.

And Niffweed, it doesn't matter that is was, "sometimes betas in group atmosphere act in a manner that other people see as obnoxious.". Who are the other people? Some creepy old people will look at ANY group as obnoxious. So I could say that "sometimes gammas can be seen as horribly mean and stupid and totally lacking morals" and that would be okay? because the sentence had "sometimes" and "can be seen (by some other people)"? Is that okay? Not an insult anymore, right? Totally perfectly grammatically accurate because with so many people in the world, SOME people will definitely see gammas that way? And because it's now objectively accurate, I can say it and it's completely fair to gammas?

what you have written is precisely the point. other people who see betas as obnoxious are generally NOT BETAS. consider the following statement: delta types may sometimes dislike the ways of the beta quadra and vice versa. would you deign to argue the veracity of that?

And because it's now objectively accurate, I can say it and it's completely fair to gammas?

yes, of course it is. if you say something like "gammas are unequivocally evil," it's very different from a statement like "some people find gammas to be obnoxious, materialistic assholes" (or something similar). the latter is perfectly correct.

Betas don't act obnoxious as a rule, so stop using it as a way to describe what Fe is about. And if you must write about about beta groups, descibe the active becavior as "energetic", not as "obnoxious".

here we have Fe ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly. please try to look at this thing sensibly, will you?

[snegledmaca]

here we have Fe ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly. please try to look at this thing sensibly, will you?

Well, would you then be so kind as to precisely phrase the truth for us.

[aestrivex]

Well, would you then be so kind as to precisely phrase the truth for us.

just did.

[snegledmaca]

just did.

So you are saying that when kristiina says beta's don't act obnoxious as a rule she is ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly? Or the truth is that beta's *do* act obnoxious as a rule?

[Gilly]

The first is true; the second is a silly attempt at trapping anyone as prone as yourself to making categorical statements.

[Slacker]

It's not just what you've said, Expat. It's a theme here, not limited to one person or one thread.

[snegledmaca]

The first is true; the second is a silly attempt at trapping anyone as prone as yourself to making categorical statements.

Is this at me? If it is, there is no "trapping" involved, he says he's stated it clearly and yet he did not so I'm asking is that the "the truth" he is trying to portray?

The statement that kristiina is ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly is debatable at best and cannot be considered to be the truth because he did not prove or show it in any way. He just proclaimed it as such.

[Expat]

It's not just what you've said, Expat. It's a theme here, not limited to one person or one thread.

Well let me rant for a bit longer then.

1) Nobody's perfect. Just like some people are quick to say "you're an idiot", others are quick to make statements about half-baked thoughts, including about Betas or whatever.
2) As far as I'm concerned, the "official" line on Betas or anything else, from the point of view of those here who - perhaps naively - find some satisfaction in contributing to the understanding of classical socionics - is in the wiki. For the record - especially regarding those who dismiss the wiki as biased or whatever - I made a point of asking Kristiina, in particular, to check the Beta quadra description. She wrote a bit on it. We also tried to write how each quadra sees other quadras - to be fair to each quadra's point of view.
3) Quite a few of very admirable - and not obnoxious at all - people have been typed as Beta NFs, in the writings of the "classical socionics gang" here: in Rick's sites, in the wiki, or in the pages of famous people here. I went to considerable trouble to make cases for Nelson Mandela, and Ronald Reagan - not usually seen as "obnoxious", are they? - as ENFjs.
4) Likewise, there is an extensive case for Richard Nixon as ISFj - not someone usually seen as "nice and friendly" as Kristiina foolishly said that it is claimed that Fi types are.
5) On this, discojoe is typed as ISFj, he's hardly "nice and friendly" all the time, is he? One of my frequent examples of famous ISFj is Christopher Hitchens - again, the same.

Now, some would say "that doesn't change the impression that there is a bias against Beta NFs" - if so, then, I say that those who have this impression are the ones who have to have a reality check. Get a grip.

[Gilly]

Is this at me? If it is, there is no "trapping" involved, he says he's stated it clearly and yet he did not so I'm asking is that the "the truth" he is trying to portray?

The statement that kristiina is ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly is debatable at best and cannot be considered to be the truth because he did not prove or show it in any way. He just proclaimed it as such.

If Kri states categorically that "Betas aren't/don't do x," then there's nothing debatable about the fact that she is, in fact, ignoring the truth in favor of what she finds more palatable. This is undebatable.

You are quite clearly trying to make a trap. You're trying to get someone to make an equally categorical judgment to kristiina's in order to even the playing field.

That, or you're just plain stupid and completely neglect the idea of observing tendencies rather than fixed traits and reject the idea that people don't behave like robots.

[Gilly]

And, people, the fact of the matter is, there are simply more Betas who stand out as being insane or annoying; likewise, there are probably more Beta NFs who stand out as being refined, classy, or otherwise upstanding; off the top of my head I'll say Bono, David Bowie, Oprah, Angelina Jolie, Salvador Dali, Shakespeare, Lord Byron...I could go on. The point is, Betas tend to be controversial, so whether they're holier-than-thou or the second coming of Satan, odds are, they're more likely to be known for it than most other types.

[Slacker]

Well let me rant for a bit longer then.

1) Nobody's perfect. Just like some people are quick to say "you're an idiot", others are quick to make statements about half-baked thoughts, including about Betas or whatever.
2) As far as I'm concerned, the "official" line on Betas or anything else, from the point of view of those here who - perhaps naively - find some satisfaction in contributing to the understanding of classical socionics - is in the wiki. For the record - especially regarding those who dismiss the wiki as biased or whatever - I made a point of asking Kristiina, in particular, to check the Beta quadra description. She wrote a bit on it. We also tried to write how each quadra sees other quadras - to be fair to each quadra's point of view.
3) Quite a few of very admirable - and not obnoxious at all - people have been typed as Beta NFs, in the writings of the "classical socionics gang" here: in Rick's sites, in the wiki, or in the pages of famous people here. I went to considerable trouble to make cases for Nelson Mandela, and Ronald Reagan - not usually seen as "obnoxious", are they? - as ENFjs.
4) Likewise, there is an extensive case for Richard Nixon as ISFj - not someone usually seen as "nice and friendly" as Kristiina foolishly said that it is claimed that Fi types are.
5) On this, discojoe is typed as ISFj, he's hardly "nice and friendly" all the time, is he? One of my frequent examples of famous ISFj is Christopher Hitchens - again, the same.

Now, some would say "that doesn't change the impression that there is a bias against Beta NFs" - if so, then, I say that those who have this impression are the ones who have to have a reality check. Get a grip.

I don't think it's an overwhelming theme, and I do think that most people are generally good about not falling into those kinds of traps when typing famous people. Or at least people try to be. However, when someone new comes here, there is some level of "he/she's giving us a hard time. Beta NF" thought. Why is it when people are super warm and friendly we assume Alpha NF instead of Beta NF? It's like there's this thought that emotional + good = Alpha NF and emotional + bad = Beta NF. And I'm not excluding myself from this, although I think my tendency is more toward thinking people I don't like must be Beta ST instead of Beta NF. I recognize it though and I really do continually check myself on it.

Don't you think that if a large number of people are seeing the same thing - people who aren't all buddies or anything - that there's probably *something* to it and it probably isn't just foolishness?

[Slacker]

Alpha SF :wink:

LOL yes, typo, thanks.

[aestrivex]

So you are saying that when kristiina says beta's don't act obnoxious as a rule she is ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly? Or the truth is that beta's *do* act obnoxious as a rule?

kristiina did not refute that "beta's act obnoxious as a rule" because no such claim was made.


the following claim was made:

"some people believe that betas sometimes act obnoxious."

i believe this is true and obvious. kristiina basically gave me lots of shit for this, saying something along the lines of "you should say that betas are energetic" (a positive term) rather than obnoxious. i think that's absurd.

[Kristiina]

kristiina did not refute that "beta's act obnoxious as a rule" because no such claim was made.


the following claim was made:

"some people believe that betas sometimes act obnoxious."

i believe this is true and obvious. kristiina basically gave me lots of shit for this, saying something along the lines of "you should say that betas are energetic" (a positive term) rather than obnoxious. i think that's absurd.

Indeed. I did not say you were WRONG, because technically there's no way you could be wrong when you say something as accurately phrased as that. You'd do great in tabloid newspapers. You'd be able to say whatever you want and never get sued because it would all be true. You could also use phrases like "Some would say that..." and "It is possible that...". Sometimes the > preference produces such absurdly "accurate" but internally false results that it just makes me wonder if the person is serious or if he's deliberately trying to spread false information.

[Kristiina]

Well let me rant for a bit longer then.

1) Nobody's perfect. Just like some people are quick to say "you're an idiot", others are quick to make statements about half-baked thoughts, including about Betas or whatever.
2) As far as I'm concerned, the "official" line on Betas or anything else, from the point of view of those here who - perhaps naively - find some satisfaction in contributing to the understanding of classical socionics - is in the wiki. For the record - especially regarding those who dismiss the wiki as biased or whatever - I made a point of asking Kristiina, in particular, to check the Beta quadra description. She wrote a bit on it. We also tried to write how each quadra sees other quadras - to be fair to each quadra's point of view.
3) Quite a few of very admirable - and not obnoxious at all - people have been typed as Beta NFs, in the writings of the "classical socionics gang" here: in Rick's sites, in the wiki, or in the pages of famous people here. I went to considerable trouble to make cases for Nelson Mandela, and Ronald Reagan - not usually seen as "obnoxious", are they? - as ENFjs.
4) Likewise, there is an extensive case for Richard Nixon as ISFj - not someone usually seen as "nice and friendly" as Kristiina foolishly said that it is claimed that Fi types are.
5) On this, discojoe is typed as ISFj, he's hardly "nice and friendly" all the time, is he? One of my frequent examples of famous ISFj is Christopher Hitchens - again, the same.

Now, some would say "that doesn't change the impression that there is a bias against Beta NFs" - if so, then, I say that those who have this impression are the ones who have to have a reality check. Get a grip.

1) true, but no one is protected against critizism, not even you.The people who are quick to make statements about half-baked thoughts ALSO receive critizism. And when you're wrong, so should you.
2)wiki is still mainly written by only a handful of people. It's not the whole truth. It shouldn't be treated as the whole truth. It is easy to get a misconception that just keeps growing roots in socionics community. Especially when we start having authority figures who are never argued against. Minde or Megan or who argued in the beginning of the thread and there was an immidiate, "SHHHHH! Shut up and go read Wiki!".
3, 4)Nelson Mandela and Ronald Reagan are outdated celebrities. They have no effect on how ENFj is perceived. Nixon is also outdated.
5)discojoe is not "nice and friendly" all the time. What does that prove? My sister INFp isn't artsy and emo. It's just a stereotype. But why do some types keep getting more positive stereotypes than others - that's the main question.

And I see you don't take criticism well. By all means, say whatever you want, I will not stop you from speaking. But I will not give you special treatment just because you're Expat. Whenever you don't undrstand/like someone, you say he's INFp. And you start giving long STRONGLY offencive descriptions why they're beta and INFp. "you don't have any logic", "you only try to give a certain impression to others", etc. If hitta would have been saying all those things about and betas, he would have been crucified. You just got 2 sentences of criticism from me and you go all nuts writing rants of how fair you've been to betas and all that. Seems criticism was long overdue.

[aestrivex]

Indeed. I did not say you were WRONG, because technically there's no way you could be wrong when you say something as accurately phrased as that. You'd do great in tabloid newspapers. You'd be able to say whatever you want and never get sued because it would all be true. You could also use phrases like "Some would say that..." and "It is possible that...". Sometimes the > preference produces such absurdly "accurate" but internally false results that it just makes me wonder if the person is serious or if he's deliberately trying to spread false information.

i find this discussion ludicrous. you can't possibly disagree with the fact that "sometimes people find betas obnoxious." that's not intended as a knock: that's the inescapable truth. it's not "internally false" at all or in any way disguised as misleading information.

case in point: i'm a gamma type. (presumably.) you are being stupid right now. i find your inability to understand this extremely simple non-issue obnoxious.

there are some other beta (or other) types that do not find you obnoxious because they do not perceive your inexhaustibly thick-headed defense of the beta quadra as obnoxious.


people have different perceptions and react to different situations in different ways. the idea that some people won't like you at any given time is not misleading and fallacious: its rather an undeniable truth.

why can you not see this???


i'm about one more nonsensical post from putting you on ignore.

[Slacker]

The point, Niffweed, is that Fe is your PoLR, so of course you find use of it obnoxious. Guess what? I sometimes find people who use Ti obnoxious. But it would be silly to write "Sometimes people find Ti obnoxious" without putting it in context. Sometimes people with weak Ti find Ti obnoxious.

So person A finds qualities that are not compatible obnoxious. This is not a statement about Fe any more than any other function.

[aestrivex]

So person A finds qualities that are not compatible obnoxious. This is not a statement about Fe any more than any other function.

of course. that's exactly what i'm saying.

[marooned]

may well be my polr and I don't find it obnoxious.

In any case, it seems that Kristiina is seeing things from an perspective and she's trying to communicate that. Expat and Niffweed are seeing it from at (?) perspective and are trying to communicate that.

It may be difficult, I don't know, but I think these are both relevant perspectives. There is more beyond the literal, objective, etc. meaning of words... such as the tone they convey.

From an pov maybe it seems that there's a whole lot of negativity towards as an IM element on the forum, or towards dominants, or whatever. This is because is looking beneath the surface and seeing an "emotional atmosphere," or the feelings that seem to be *behind* what people are saying. This doesn't mean that perspective is accurate. But it doesn't mean it's deluded either. In any case I don't think it should be totally ignored in favor of a perspective.

Edit: In fact if you try to see it in terms of true and false, you're trying to look at like it's . It is a subjective thing, and it has to be seen that way. But subjective input can be just a valuable as objective input.

Meh. I don't know.

[aestrivex]

may well be my polr and I don't find it obnoxious.

In any case, it seems that Kristiina is seeing things from an perspective and she's trying to communicate that. Expat and Niffweed are seeing it from at (?) perspective and are trying to communicate that.

It may be difficult, I don't know, but I think these are both relevant perspectives. There is more beyond the literal, objective, etc. meaning of words... such as the tone they convey.

From an pov maybe it seems that there's a whole lot of negativity towards as an IM element on the forum, or towards dominants, or whatever. This is because is looking beneath the surface and seeing an "emotional atmosphere," or the feelings that seem to be *behind* what people are saying. This doesn't mean that perspective is accurate. But it doesn't mean it's deluded either. In any case I don't think it should be totally ignored in favor of a perspective.

Edit: In fact if you try to see it in terms of true and false, you're trying to look at like it's . It is a subjective thing, and it has to be seen that way. But subjective input can be just a valuable as objective input.

Meh. I don't know.

you're making the most sense out of anybody.