On Beta Extraverted Ethics Fe

[Minde]

you're making the most sense out of anybody.

A Fe type make sense? Especially an INFp? Never!!


(Just kidding, in case there's actually anybody who needs that clarification.)

[aestrivex]

oh, yeah, i thought that was expat speaking.


yah, i retract my previous comment. what she said was stupid Fe-blather.

[marooned]

Moments that appear to be lucid are indeed rare to Fe-ego block people. But they aren't entirely unheard of. I understand the dismay.

[snegledmaca]

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.

I am wondering whether you are serious or what on earth you are doing. Her "categorical statement" is that another categorical statement does not apply. Or betas are not obnoxious as a rule. In essence she is saying exactly what you are saying in this sentence, categorical statements, where she isolated one, do not apply to human behavior.

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.

What I was trying to do is for nifweed to back up his claim that Kristiina was ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly. She clearly said " Betas don't act obnoxious as a rule, so stop using it as a way to describe what Fe is about " to which he responded " here we have Fe ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly". I would like to know how and why she is wrong when she says that betas aren't obnoxious as a rule and that being obnoxious is not what beta is about. Or if he meant something else to clarify himself. Right now, his accusation of her does not stand.

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.

Again I am wondering whether you are serious or what on earth you are doing. I'm debating the validity of a tendency and the conclusions drawn from it.

And a question, was this response a joke or are you projecting with the "accusations" of trapping, stupidity, ignorance and poor understanding?

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

Yes, I was wondering about that as I did not remember anyone ever making such a proclamation. However perhaps it was implied.

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.

I misunderstood you then. I understood that you meant that kristiina was wrong because of this sentence " Betas don't act obnoxious as a rule, so stop using it as a way to describe what Fe is about".

However, why make such a proclamation "some people believe that betas sometimes act obnoxious"? It's so obvious that stating it can lead one to believe that there is more to it, that perhaps there is some underlining pattern here that is perhaps only just emerging. Basically it's a statement that only says what it says and any attempts to read more into it will result in wrong information while at the same time limiting/directing that aspect of it of what exactly can be read from it (If you for example replace some with a lot and sometimes with often). Or a marketing, propaganda trick. Basically it proclaims the existence of something but does not define it and leaves our imagination/interpretation to do that for them while they can at the same time claim that they never said the conclusions they guided us to. What kristiina meant with the journalism thing.

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???

Perhaps she isn't debating that at all. Perhaps she is saying what I've said above in the usage of such statements for manipulation of opinion/impressions of commonly accepted truths/stereotypes. To bypass having to validate one's wrong claims and still have them be accepted as valid. As a generator of wrongful convictions.

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

Is this an "ultimatum" or how you generally try to solve differences of opinion? By trying to "silence" the other side? Why not try to resolve this?

And also, she has every right to "yell" at you "why can you not see this???" as well. What she is trying to say was very much obvious to me. To be honest I cannot see how you missed it.

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.

Yeah, I don't think that's true. I have never used my in order to influence people's emotions or have been emotional myself. I use it in the same impersonal manner as types do when they say they observe the object and realize "how it works". I just observe the interior of an object, or person, and realize "how they work". For example, I say something, behave a certain way and they respond, I learn how to influence their internal states, in essence go below their conscious level. There are no emotions, or any personal involvement in that. It's basically the art of cold reading, taking cues from people and then influencing their internal dynamics as a result. The emotional effect is a byproduct.

[Expat]

I have never used my in order to influence people's emotions or have been emotional myself.

I would argue that when you are being "charming" on purpose, though, which you say you do easily, you are indeed being emotional and influencing people's emotions, even if at a very low-profile level.

I use it in the same impersonal manner as types do when they say they observe the object and realize "how it works". I just observe the interior of an object, or person, and realize "how they work". For example, I say something, behave a certain way and they respond, I learn how to influence their internal states, in essence go below their conscious level. There are no emotions, or any personal involvement in that. It's basically the art of cold reading, taking cues from people and then influencing their internal dynamics as a result. The emotional effect is a byproduct.

This is a great description. And I would bet that quite a few people here would say that that would make you a "logical type". And be wrong, of course.

[Logos]

Yeah, I don't think that's true. I have never used my in order to influence people's emotions or have been emotional myself. I use it in the same impersonal manner as types do when they say they observe the object and realize "how it works". I just observe the interior of an object, or person, and realize "how they work". For example, I say something, behave a certain way and they respond, I learn how to influence their internal states, in essence go below their conscious level. There are no emotions, or any personal involvement in that. It's basically the art of cold reading, taking cues from people and then influencing their internal dynamics as a result. The emotional effect is a byproduct.

That really does explain quite a bit, even for those of us who value Fe, as it also seems to provide the key as to why Ti would value Fe, just because what Fe is able to read is exactly what Ti cannot read or figure out. And the comparison with Te also works in the same way that Fi is compared with Ti.

[snegledmaca]

I would argue that when you are being "charming" on purpose, though, which you say you do easily, you are indeed being emotional and influencing people's emotions, even if at a very low-profile level.

Ha, "charming" in the eyes of other. I'm being calculating on the inside. Well, that's calculating as in engaging a rational element, thinking things through rationally, cause and effect kind of thing. I know what works and how to accomplish the desired results.

Regarding and it's usage, perhaps my perspective on it will be welcoming, especially in a beta thread.

I strongly object to people equating Fe with "emotionality", "feeling", and the like. It's not about that. There is no more personal involvement in it then there is for any other element (For example, think of just how passionate Ti dominants can be about their "precious" theories). It's just a simple matter of processing information. Personally I'm very much unemotional, I consider myself to be an enneragram 5. Also think about the stereotypes of the manipulation often associated with Fe. A person cannot be personally involved in such things. So if one is manipulating with Fe it's very much an act of coldheartedness. The empathy, kindness and so on would very much only be an interpretation of the other person and not a reflection of what is really going on within the Fe type.

But don't get me wrong with this example, Fe is not about "manipulation" and the like, I'm just trying to portray how there is no inherent natural involvement on the part of the Fe person when they are being "Fe-ish". Much like there is no inherent involvement when a Ti type makes a theory, or a Te type a process and so on. There could be, but that, in my opinion, falls completely out of the realm of basic information processing, the basic informational metabolism, or socionics. That's just people being people, being emotionally expressive which is not exclusive to any type and neither is the method of emotional expression.

To further elaborate on how I see my usage of Fe (And also why I simply cannot see myself as anything other then a beta NF), when I approach things, including people, I'm not naturally emotional, or excited, or serious, I'm merely adapting. For example, when I am alone I'm not bubbly, energetic, funny, "confused", eccentric and the various descriptions people have of my personality because there is no need for it. For myself, dealing with people is no different then dealing with machinery, or inanimate objects. Except that I seem to have a grasp on how they naturally function, a grasp on their internal functioning, I can adapt to people, I can shape them, influence them without them ever noticing, or knowing what I am doing.

For example, my roommate, who I've recently begun to think is SLE, has certain, what I would call "needs" for "domination" of the other person. Hmm, to better express this, not really domination as having the upper hand, being better, one upping. He has a tendency to make belittling comments about others, to their face not behind their back, in order to make "himself feel better" or to bolster his ego. Now, this might sound kind of belittling of me to describe his as such, but it demonstrates how I see my usage of Fe.

When I interact with him, I do it completely placidly and completely detached, that is, analytically. However on the outside I'm a bubbly, goofy character on which he gets to "take out his frustrations". For the most part I don't really care if he is or is not "belittling" me, making fun of me, that is irrelevant to me. Often times I am the "clown" of the group and freely let myself be laugh at and so on, act/serve as a "comic relief". It's basically like watching television, you don't associate yourself with what is going on the screen. Well, most people don't, but after time one experiences desensitization, so you might have at one point but repeated exposure renders you "immune" to it. In this same manner I approach other people, group happenings. It's television and through observing things around me I can safely, "from the comfort of my sofa", with no personal involvement, learn about my environment, figure out how it works, how these "things" in my environment function. An analytical process just like with any other rational element. Except that I see the internal dynamics of things around me, or as is most often put forward, the internal functioning of people.

But I must add, that even though I can pick up on things like ego compensation and so on, this is not how I "mostly" use my I mostly use it to gain knowledge in my field of interest, which is science. I don't know why, but the role of is hugely understated here. And for that matter. For example, when I approach something I get a "feeling" for it, call it a "vibe". With this I can align my effort. If I find something to be giving me a wrong vibe, I don't feel it's behaving as it should, I switch my effort. It's also largely about expectation as well.

(And also regarding Fi, it is in essence, in my opinion, the awareness of the context, or the internal static of fields. You can get nowhere if you do not have a grasp of the context at hand. Ti can also be said to be "context" but I wouldn't really say so as Ti is obvious and the context of something is often very much unapparent, needs to be "exposed" first, and then it's interpretation is very often subjective which is not the case with Ti. There is only one way to interpret Ti. I think this is what happens when Ti types dabble with context, "there is only one true way of interpreting the context!" basically inhibiting Fi)


What I find odd is that for the most part expectation and the like are linked to intuition but that is not necessarily so. When there is little direct way of getting results all the elements resort to expectation, guess work, hit and miss, trial and error. It's the basic principle of evolution. With Fe in my example I may come across a problem I cannot directly observe, perhaps there is no reference or something. So I resort to placing expectation on it, on how it will behave. I notice it's behavior and contrast it to my expectations. Like how I am making this post. First I placed an expectation on how it will develop and as it did I aligned. The expectation is not external in any way, I simply have a feeling inside of me and as I write I make sure I do not deviate from it. When the feeling changes non preferably, when I deviate, I stop and deal with what has caused the dismay and continue. You could say the feeling is kind of a static indicator that the situation is progressing appropriately, much like how statistics would be an indicator for Te that a process is running along smoothly.

Which is also another thing, we can use other methods as a part of the usage of an element which are not immediately linked or apparently linked to the element. Like this feeling of "things being right". You could say it's s part of some a static element but it's solely a creation in service of insuring the internal dynamics of things are "proper". Well, actually it could be partially Ni as well, for the guidance part of it, but I think that this feeling is an essential part of Fe methods of control over the internal dynamics and not an indicator of Ni progression of a concept over a context. Or it could be linked to my usage of Ni, my mother gets upsets if the "harmony" of the environment is not adequate. Perhaps for her the guidance for Fe is Si, or it's Si that switches and moves the feeling which then alerts Fe that something is not right and that corrective action is required. But perhaps, Don't know. Just guessing really.

Also the reason why I don't care about how others treat or perceive me is because I see Te as insignificant. Te is about external dynamics, Te is the one that really cares how people carry themselves, how they act, how they are perceived, observed and so on. Put limitations and rules on that. Fe doesn't care about this external dynamics, it can be "dramatic", "loud", "obnoxious", and abuse Te in all sorts and manners of styles. But what Te doesn't see is that beneath all of this there is the calm, calculating rational element, they just see disorder, chaos, mayhem, something out of control.

I think this is the main point of conflict, when Te calls Fe actions as "out of control" Fe strongly objects as control is precisely the thing it has. You may see a glimpse of this control when Fe starts to direct it's furry at the Te who suddenly finds themselves attacked from sides they cannot even see existing, "out of the blue", I don't know, popular opinion suddenly turns against them, people keep accusing them of things and so on (Sound familiar expat?).

I think this is the point in that elena thread. To call her behavior Fe is basically an "insult" to those who really do have Fe in their ego. It's simplifying a concept one does not understand nor comprehend.

[Gilly]

I am wondering whether you are serious or what on earth you are doing. Her "categorical statement" is that another categorical statement does not apply. Or betas are not obnoxious as a rule. In essence she is saying exactly what you are saying in this sentence, categorical statements, where she isolated one, do not apply to human behavior.

It doesn't matter. It's a categorical statement that just isn't true: "Betas don't behave like x" is almost never going to be true, because odds are, some Beta out there is behaving "like x" at this very moment, or has in the recent past. It doesn't matter what kind of statement she was countering; her use of a blanket assumption is no more valid.

What I was trying to do is for nifweed to back up his claim that Kristiina was ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly. She clearly said " Betas don't act obnoxious as a rule, so stop using it as a way to describe what Fe is about " to which he responded " here we have Fe ignoring the truth in favor of what seems palatable and friendly". I would like to know how and why she is wrong when she says that betas aren't obnoxious as a rule and that being obnoxious is not what beta is about. Or if he meant something else to clarify himself. Right now, his accusation of her does not stand.

Wait, this is sounding different. When you say "Betas aren't obnoxious as a rule," that sounds more like "Betas are never obnoxious" than "Betas aren't necessarily obnoxious," but it looks here as if you may actually mean the latter. If this is really the case then I agree with you.

[aka-kitsune]

To further elaborate on how I see my usage of Fe (And also why I simply cannot see myself as anything other then a beta NF), when I approach things, including people, I'm not naturally emotional, or excited, or serious, I'm merely adapting. For example, when I am alone I'm not bubbly, energetic, funny, "confused", eccentric and the various descriptions people have of my personality because there is no need for it. For myself, dealing with people is no different then dealing with machinery, or inanimate objects. Except that I seem to have a grasp on how they naturally function, a grasp on their internal functioning, I can adapt to people, I can shape them, influence them without them ever noticing, or knowing what I am doing.

I find everything up to this point in your post interesting and accurate for my experience. However, my understanding of utilizing Jung's feeling function differs from this "detached" manner that you describe. Jung always stated that feeling is the appropriate function to use when dealing with people and thinking the appropriate function with situations. Assumedly, this is because feeling is inherently personal and relative and thinking impersonal and fact-based (though both rational elements). People aren't machinery. They don't behave predictably all the time. Patterns and such, yes, but that's more in the realm of , I'd think. If you're indeed INFp, you'd be "reading" people with Ni (as receptive function), and determining how to respond to them with Fe (creative function).

When I interact with him, I do it completely placidly and completely detached, that is, analytically. However on the outside I'm a bubbly, goofy character on which he gets to "take out his frustrations". For the most part I don't really care if he is or is not "belittling" me, making fun of me, that is irrelevant to me. Often times I am the "clown" of the group and freely let myself be laugh at and so on, act/serve as a "comic relief". It's basically like watching television, you don't associate yourself with what is going on the screen. Well, most people don't, but after time one experiences desensitization, so you might have at one point but repeated exposure renders you "immune" to it. In this same manner I approach other people, group happenings. It's television and through observing things around me I can safely, "from the comfort of my sofa", with no personal involvement, learn about my environment, figure out how it works, how these "things" in my environment function. An analytical process just like with any other rational element. Except that I see the internal dynamics of things around me, or as is most often put forward, the internal functioning of people.

Still sounds like mostly processing to me.

But I must add, that even though I can pick up on things like ego compensation and so on, this is not how I "mostly" use my I mostly use it to gain knowledge in my field of interest, which is science. I don't know why, but the role of is hugely understated here. And for that matter. For example, when I approach something I get a "feeling" for it, call it a "vibe". With this I can align my effort. If I find something to be giving me a wrong vibe, I don't feel it's behaving as it should, I switch my effort. It's also largely about expectation as well.

again. I tend to use Ni to perceive the "not quite rightness" of something perplexing, perhaps a conundrum or concept. I use to "ping" people in situations and note my reactions and theirs, reorient, then recompile all new data into the overall perception. Data-seeking always appears to be an process.

Also the reason why I don't care about how others treat or perceive me is because I see Te as insignificant. Te is about external dynamics, Te is the one that really cares how people carry themselves, how they act, how they are perceived, observed and so on. Put limitations and rules on that. Fe doesn't care about this external dynamics, it can be "dramatic", "loud", "obnoxious", and abuse Te in all sorts and manners of styles. But what Te doesn't see is that beneath all of this there is the calm, calculating rational element, they just see disorder, chaos, mayhem, something out of control.

Interesting. Will have to mull that some more...

[Expat]

Catching up with some previous issues in this thread --

@ misutii: that was a very good case on Michael Moore; I still think that the case against ILI is stronger, but your points are good. If you're okay with it, perhaps you might put them in the wiki in the Michael Moore page. It is interesting that I see "bad " and you see "bad ".

@ Jonathan: I think you've got it wrong as to what "spontaneously referring to external data" actually means in terms of having Te as part of your argument. Anyone - of any type - refers "spontaneously" to their PoLRs if that's the information needed. IEEs and SEEs will also refer to things like mathematical calculations (pure ) to make sure they have something right, if that's the only (or even best) way to do it in that situation.

[marooned]

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.

Yeah, I don't think that's true. I have never used my in order to influence people's emotions or have been emotional myself. I use it in the same impersonal manner as types do when they say they observe the object and realize "how it works". I just observe the interior of an object, or person, and realize "how they work". For example, I say something, behave a certain way and they respond, I learn how to influence their internal states, in essence go below their conscious level. There are no emotions, or any personal involvement in that. It's basically the art of cold reading, taking cues from people and then influencing their internal dynamics as a result. The emotional effect is a byproduct.

I don't think what I said and what you said are really all that contradictory. I used the words "feelings" and "emotional atmosphere," yes. But I was trying to cover a general area.

This, for instance,

However, why make such a proclamation "some people believe that betas sometimes act obnoxious"? It's so obvious that stating it can lead one to believe that there is more to it, that perhaps there is some underlining pattern here that is perhaps only just emerging. Basically it's a statement that only says what it says and any attempts to read more into it will result in wrong information while at the same time limiting/directing that aspect of it of what exactly can be read from it (If you for example replace some with a lot and sometimes with often). Or a marketing, propaganda trick. Basically it proclaims the existence of something but does not define it and leaves our imagination/interpretation to do that for them while they can at the same time claim that they never said the conclusions they guided us to. What kristiina meant with the journalism thing.

would satisfy my idea of the "feelings" or "emotional atmosphere." I wasn't trying to mean it in the strict sense of "emotions" or being "emotional," though I didn't really make that clear.

So, mostly, at least in terms of this area, I agree with you.

[BLauritson]

Also the reason why I don't care about how others treat or perceive me is because I see Te as insignificant. Te is about external dynamics, Te is the one that really cares how people carry themselves, how they act, how they are perceived, observed and so on. Put limitations and rules on that. Fe doesn't care about this external dynamics, it can be "dramatic", "loud", "obnoxious", and abuse Te in all sorts and manners of styles. But what Te doesn't see is that beneath all of this there is the calm, calculating rational element, they just see disorder, chaos, mayhem, something out of control.

I think this is the main point of conflict, when Te calls Fe actions as "out of control" Fe strongly objects as control is precisely the thing it has. You may see a glimpse of this control when Fe starts to direct it's furry at the Te who suddenly finds themselves attacked from sides they cannot even see existing, "out of the blue", I don't know, popular opinion suddenly turns against them, people keep accusing them of things and so on

Although I can't really think of anything more to say, I find the above very interesting. Gah, I really want to make a more informed comment but I can't. But something kinda resonates with this.

[snegledmaca]

Actually, I'm now wondering if I really described . I think the point aka-kitsune brings up is a valid one, my approach just seems to "cold". References to here, here, here all kind of "contradict" my descriptions of it. At least at the core. Which is the emotionality and "humanness" of it. My approach is focused on perceiving and understanding the mechanisms of the functioning of things. I don't personify things and quite the contrary depersonalization is a strong element in my approach. Hmm, perhaps I'm not really describing at all.

[marooned]

@ Snegledmaca

Here's what I'm wondering.

Does the internal dynamics of objects *have* to necessarily have to do with emotion.

For instance, could a leading person be more "emotional" than an leading person?

By itself, things like the "internal dynamics of objects" and "external dynamics of objects" in its abstract form (or "true" form?) don't seem to have much to do with the presence or absense of emotion...?

It also depends what we mean by "emotion."

It would probably be silly to say that and are entirely unrelated to emotion, and and are entirely unrelated to logic... but... where are the bounds on just how much these things are connected?

(I haven't read Aka-kitsune's post yet.)

[Logos]

Actually, I'm now wondering if I really described . I think the point aka-kitsune brings up is a valid one, my approach just seems to "cold". References to here, here, here all kind of "contradict" my descriptions of it. At least at the core. Which is the emotionality and "humanness" of it. My approach is focused on perceiving and understanding the mechanisms of the functioning of things. I don't personify things and quite the contrary depersonalization is a strong element in my approach. Hmm, perhaps I'm not really describing at all.

Well if you have blocked with , how could your understanding of not be attached to that as well?

[Phaedrus]

Well if you have blocked with , how could your understanding of not be attached to that as well?

And if he (hypothetically) doesn't have blocked with , what would happen then?

[Logos]

And if he (hypothetically) doesn't have blocked with , what would happen then?

Then it would be blocked with .

[Jonathan]

@ Jonathan: I think you've got it wrong as to what "spontaneously referring to external data" actually means in terms of having Te as part of your argument. Anyone - of any type - refers "spontaneously" to their PoLRs if that's the information needed. IEEs and SEEs will also refer to things like mathematical calculations (pure ) to make sure they have something right, if that's the only (or even best) way to do it in that situation.

I guess it depends on how one defines "spontaneous." I think you're absolutely right that people use the functions that are needed for the situation. The question is whether it's common behavior for people to consistently put themselves into situations where their PoLR is what's called for. If someone consistently puts him/herself in situations calling for and uses in those situations, but perhaps badly in some sense, then I'm more inclined to say that the person is using a valued or ego-block function, even if it's "flawed" in some sense, than that the person is dwelling on his/her PoLR. (I'm not ruling out that a person might be obsessed with using the PoLR as much as possible; it just seems less likely.)

I think my more significant point is that the very nature of the creative function may (depending on the individual) make it appear that an ILI is using using to justify what he/she already thinks anyway, because the directionality is -> , and that this way of using may not necessarily indicate that the is PoLR. But if you think it does, again, my question is, would that apply symmetrically across all types?

Would you tend to think that an acc- person who spends a lot of time creating what appear to be systems but doesn't seem to adjust his/her ideas much based on lack of consistency and other logical flaws would probably be IEE? Or would such a person more likely be a "space cadet" sort of ILE who just needs to work on his/her more?

In my observations, IEEs are characterized more by their lack of emphasis on ...and when they do use it, they may actually use it quite well.

[Phaedrus]

Then it would be blocked with .

And what if it (hypothetically) wasn't that either but instead blocked with , how would you perceive snegledmaca's comments then?

[Phaedrus]

I think my more significant point is that the very nature of the creative function may (depending on the individual) make it appear that an ILI is using using to justify what he/she already thinks anyway, because the directionality is -> , and that this way of using may not necessarily indicate that the is PoLR.

A related consequence of Expat's reasoning is that for example Ludwig Wittgenstein could not be an ILI. That hypothesis would immediately be ruled out as impossible if Expat's reasoning is correct.

[snegledmaca]

Hmm, I think I know what you're talking about here. It's like you "switch modes" with different people because you know what works for them? Whether it be serious and solemn, or a cute sad face, or whatever.

For example, I forgot a homework assignment in history. At some level I knew it was important. But deep down, honestly, I didn't really care about it much. But I went to class and acted all sad and regretful, because that's the type of teacher he is, he wants to be the "benevolent guy that everyone loves", and he was like "well honey everyone makes mistakes just bring it on tuesday"......it worked just like clockwork. And did I feel regretful, or did I just fool myself into think I was regretful? I did care, but at the same time I didn't.

I try not to analyze this stuff too much. I mean, when I do I feel vaguely guilty. It's like I'm fooling them into thinking I'm this sweet person, but in reality I just know that being "sweet and cute" works with them, just like being respectful or saucy works with others.

It's not really a concious thing either, I don't really "process" that people are a certain way and that I should act a certain way, just go with the behavior I feel will work, and if it doesn't, I try something else. Does that make sense?

Yeah. But for me it's more of an adaptation to, reading their wishes. But I guess that is for the most part what you described.

Yeah, I agree. When no one's around, I'm a bit deadpan. When I do something original, I want someone to notice. Like if I'm in my car, staring into the sun or bopping my head to the music, I want someone to think "whoa that person is striking/weird". I don't do it just for personal fulfillment. I love people who stand out from the crowd and I try to imitate them, but not because I want to be different, but because I want to be noticed me being different.

Whoa, totally not me. When I do such things I make absolutely sure nobody can or will see me and if they do I get frightened, as in I actually experience fear (I get over it soon enough, as I engage the other person). If that happens then there is the necessarily period of beating myself about it, about how I could've let it happen, and never letting that kind of oversight happen again. I'm very private about my privacy or any kind of "personal" expression, as in emotional, like with my real joy, sadness, happiness and so on. That would be reserved for people I feel the utmost intimacy with and not for "public usage".

Also I don't really want people to think I'm weird, but they inevitably do. It's because I'm "peculiar" so I just go along with it. For example, with my IEE friend, who people also describe as weird, there is nothing of the sorts. I guess that's just because they don't really "know me", or don't identify with me (I presume are of a contrasting socionics type).

And I don't want people to find me different, to think of me as striking and especially not weird, although sometimes I can act in order for people to notice I'm different. But this is not for being-noticed-to-be-different's sake, it's because that way I let my boundaries be known. Like say everybody is drinking and I start a discussing on how I don't drink and contrast myself to others. This was everybody knows this and I will have no problems with people over this.

I think that could be because you are an enneagram 4. I have no striking need for individuality, but rather independence in most manners and forms.

Also, forgot, I reeeeeealy don't like people "who stand out from the crowd". I, for the most part, view them as attention whores. We don't mix very well. I try to avoid such people.

And what if it (hypothetically) wasn't that either but instead blocked with , how would you perceive snegledmaca's comments then?

Can you actually make that case instead of hypothesizing it?

[snegledmaca]

Ok well I don't exactly want people to think I'm "weird". I want them to think well of me, not just to be "different for different's sake". But I've always found people who act on their inner feelings instead of being repressed all the time extremely appealing.

That's being frightening in my eyes. I think I would for the most part be dismissive of such people. Well, actually, that would entirely depend on the manner in which they do it. For example acting on convictions would fall into this category and I wouldn't be dismissive of such people.

They seem so genuine. I want to be thought of as genuine. This is independence, no? Acting on your inner feelings, being confident in yourself?

Acting on ones inner feelings is not equal to being confident in oneself (Some might even say it shows a lack of control). And being independent, for me, means not being unwillingly controlled. It doesn't have much or anything to do with individuality, with being genuine, like it seems to for you.

[Phaedrus]

Can you actually make that case instead of hypothesizing it?

What about you trying to make it yourself, just to see if it makes sense to you? I think I have already made a case for your type, and you as you are showing some slight doubts about the correctness of your own typing, why can't you try the hypothesis and see where it leads you?

[Logos]

And what if it (hypothetically) wasn't that either but instead blocked with , how would you perceive snegledmaca's comments then?

You've lost me. Would you mind rephrasing your question again?

[Logos]

And what if it (hypothetically) wasn't that either but instead blocked with , how would you perceive snegledmaca's comments then?

Okay, now after reviewing the flow of the conversation, I understand you, but it appears that you do not understand me, or maybe you are, but are merely taking my original post out of context in order to try and prove some other point in regards to snegledmaca.

[Satan]

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.

Fe is about standing out. About making an impression. Either concealed, or overt.

[Satan]

Agreed on the bold. But ok, maybe acting on one's feelings isn't the right phrase - how about convictions? Like I don't want to bombard everyone with every single feeling I have, but if I have a conviction about that particular feeling, then it's important enough for me to voice it/do something about it.

That's about using emotional acting, in order to influence.

[misutii]

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.

Okay... but I was mainly referring to Beta NFs and Gamma NTs... which are not "diametrically opposed" as they both share values. Yes there is a / divide but proper use of can bridge that.

What it comes down to, quite frankly, is that intelligent Beta NFs and intelligent Gamma NTs, that properly use socionics, can get along. The fact that, for example, you (niffweed) and I haven't been reduced to insulting each other, despite debating opposing points in multiple threads, exemplifies this.

The conondrum here is that in order for types that use opposing functions to get along they sometimes need to stop acting naturally... in other words they need to stop and think before they post a response. Between stopping, thinking, and posting the response, they need to functionally dissect the argument, in other words to personally detach themselves from the argument. I believe types are capable of this and doing it makes a lot of sense. So i.e., before I responded to you I did this by taking note that I (an INFp) am responding to you (an INTp). Using socionics I'm aware that appealing to an INTp by using is not going to get anywhere so I'm purposefully not using in this response. You'll notice that not only do you probably agree with me, but that I've consciously avoided presenting this information in a way that could degrade this debate into a personally offensive conflictual spiralling shit-casket.

The fact is that anyone here capable of sufficiently understanding socionics should be able to recognize and respect the responsible use of the eight functions by other posters. Like when a Gamma NT uses well and formulates a concise fact driven explanation of something, even though I may not value in itself I can't help admiring and valuing its good use. It's about valuing the intelligent expression of information regardless of which function is being used to express it. I think people here need to start doing this, to read posts made by others using functions they may not value, and to note the difference as to when the functions are used intelligently vs. when they're used lazily/in a stupid manner.

[Logos]

Ummm...the Fe-Ti/Te-Fi divide in quadras does not mean that individuals valuing or possessing the functions cannot get along (no more than the Se-Ni/Si-Ne divide that somehow Gammas and Deltas can overcome), but merely that there are barriers in information metabolism and processing that exists between individuals. Any other conflict that you choose to generate between these "opposing sides" is mere projection.

[Phaedrus]

Okay, now after reviewing the flow of the conversation, I understand you, but it appears that you do not understand me, or maybe you are, but are merely taking my original post out of context in order to try and prove some other point in regards to snegledmaca.

My point was: How would you interpret snegledmaca's comments about creative , if you (hypothetically) knew that he wasn't creative but instead creative?

[Expat]

there are barriers in information metabolism and processing that exists between individuals. Any other conflict that you choose to generate between these "opposing sides" is mere projection.

Which is what I mean when I say that it's about "why" not "how". The thing is, people take the "why" for granted as identical to their own - which is, indeed, projection.

[snegledmaca]

My point was: How would you interpret snegledmaca's comments about creative , if you (hypothetically) knew that he wasn't creative but instead creative?

And I will ask you again, care to elaborate how my description of is a description of the usage of the elements in the manner an ILI does? (No, I will not do it myself as I claim no such thing. You hypothesize/theorize it, you provide the explanations/basis for your claims)

[aestrivex]

Ummm...the Fe-Ti/Te-Fi divide in quadras does not mean that individuals valuing or possessing the functions cannot get along (no more than the Se-Ni/Si-Ne divide that somehow Gammas and Deltas can overcome), but merely that there are barriers in information metabolism and processing that exists between individuals. Any other conflict that you choose to generate between these "opposing sides" is mere projection.

precisely.

[misutii]

lol, now apply that to the conflicts on this forum for free admission to one hell of a Freudian coke-trip from hell.

[aestrivex]

lol, now apply that to the conflicts on this forum for free admission to one hell of a Freudian coke-trip from hell.

you are missing the point badly. because information differences can be the (partial) cause of certain conflicts does not mean they always cause those conflicts. if i argue with somebody like snegledmaca over some Te/Ti related issue, that does not mean that i will argue with you over the same issue. you and snegledmaca are different people with different perspectives, regardless of whether you are the same type or not.

the bottom line is that socionics does explain the interaction between people fairly well in many ways, but you can't say that Te and Fe people will get along BECAUSE of their Te and Fe; that's just wrong. they can get along becase they're people, and not robots acting according to some predetermined symbols.

[Logos]

you are missing the point badly. because information differences can be the (partial) cause of certain conflicts does not mean they always cause those conflicts. if i argue with somebody like snegledmaca over some Te/Ti related issue, that does not mean that i will argue with you over the same issue. you and snegledmaca are different people with different perspectives, regardless of whether you are the same type or not.

the bottom line is that socionics does explain the interaction between people fairly well in many ways, but you can't say that Te and Fe people will get along BECAUSE of their Te and Fe; that's just wrong. they can get along becase they're people, and not robots acting according to some predetermined symbols.

I agree. But I would also like to add to my previous statement that the problem arises in studying Socionics when individuals begin to identify themselves too closely with the functions, which thereby become personified. Wherein it becomes a key to their sense of identity such that they seek to maximize the value of particular functions while downplaying or minimizing the value or utility of other functions. When there are then multiple people of different functional values who are doing the same as a means of securing the optimization of self-identity, the result is one of inevitable conflict in the maximization-minimization process as individuals seek to somehow protect their own ego or sense of identity or worth.

[Logos]

is that an observation?

It's a jelly donut.

[Logos]

What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.

[Kristiina]

Ha, "charming" in the eyes of other. I'm being calculating on the inside. Well, that's calculating as in engaging a rational element, thinking things through rationally, cause and effect kind of thing. I know what works and how to accomplish the desired results.

Regarding and it's usage, perhaps my perspective on it will be welcoming, especially in a beta thread.

I strongly object to people equating Fe with "emotionality", "feeling", and the like. It's not about that. There is no more personal involvement in it then there is for any other element (For example, think of just how passionate Ti dominants can be about their "precious" theories). It's just a simple matter of processing information. Personally I'm very much unemotional, I consider myself to be an enneragram 5. Also think about the stereotypes of the manipulation often associated with Fe. A person cannot be personally involved in such things. So if one is manipulating with Fe it's very much an act of coldheartedness. The empathy, kindness and so on would very much only be an interpretation of the other person and not a reflection of what is really going on within the Fe type.

But don't get me wrong with this example, Fe is not about "manipulation" and the like, I'm just trying to portray how there is no inherent natural involvement on the part of the Fe person when they are being "Fe-ish". Much like there is no inherent involvement when a Ti type makes a theory, or a Te type a process and so on. There could be, but that, in my opinion, falls completely out of the realm of basic information processing, the basic informational metabolism, or socionics. That's just people being people, being emotionally expressive which is not exclusive to any type and neither is the method of emotional expression.

To further elaborate on how I see my usage of Fe (And also why I simply cannot see myself as anything other then a beta NF), when I approach things, including people, I'm not naturally emotional, or excited, or serious, I'm merely adapting. For example, when I am alone I'm not bubbly, energetic, funny, "confused", eccentric and the various descriptions people have of my personality because there is no need for it. For myself, dealing with people is no different then dealing with machinery, or inanimate objects. Except that I seem to have a grasp on how they naturally function, a grasp on their internal functioning, I can adapt to people, I can shape them, influence them without them ever noticing, or knowing what I am doing.

For example, my roommate, who I've recently begun to think is SLE, has certain, what I would call "needs" for "domination" of the other person. Hmm, to better express this, not really domination as having the upper hand, being better, one upping. He has a tendency to make belittling comments about others, to their face not behind their back, in order to make "himself feel better" or to bolster his ego. Now, this might sound kind of belittling of me to describe his as such, but it demonstrates how I see my usage of Fe.

When I interact with him, I do it completely placidly and completely detached, that is, analytically. However on the outside I'm a bubbly, goofy character on which he gets to "take out his frustrations". For the most part I don't really care if he is or is not "belittling" me, making fun of me, that is irrelevant to me. Often times I am the "clown" of the group and freely let myself be laugh at and so on, act/serve as a "comic relief". It's basically like watching television, you don't associate yourself with what is going on the screen. Well, most people don't, but after time one experiences desensitization, so you might have at one point but repeated exposure renders you "immune" to it. In this same manner I approach other people, group happenings. It's television and through observing things around me I can safely, "from the comfort of my sofa", with no personal involvement, learn about my environment, figure out how it works, how these "things" in my environment function. An analytical process just like with any other rational element. Except that I see the internal dynamics of things around me, or as is most often put forward, the internal functioning of people.

But I must add, that even though I can pick up on things like ego compensation and so on, this is not how I "mostly" use my I mostly use it to gain knowledge in my field of interest, which is science. I don't know why, but the role of is hugely understated here. And for that matter. For example, when I approach something I get a "feeling" for it, call it a "vibe". With this I can align my effort. If I find something to be giving me a wrong vibe, I don't feel it's behaving as it should, I switch my effort. It's also largely about expectation as well.

(And also regarding Fi, it is in essence, in my opinion, the awareness of the context, or the internal static of fields. You can get nowhere if you do not have a grasp of the context at hand. Ti can also be said to be "context" but I wouldn't really say so as Ti is obvious and the context of something is often very much unapparent, needs to be "exposed" first, and then it's interpretation is very often subjective which is not the case with Ti. There is only one way to interpret Ti. I think this is what happens when Ti types dabble with context, "there is only one true way of interpreting the context!" basically inhibiting Fi)


What I find odd is that for the most part expectation and the like are linked to intuition but that is not necessarily so. When there is little direct way of getting results all the elements resort to expectation, guess work, hit and miss, trial and error. It's the basic principle of evolution. With Fe in my example I may come across a problem I cannot directly observe, perhaps there is no reference or something. So I resort to placing expectation on it, on how it will behave. I notice it's behavior and contrast it to my expectations. Like how I am making this post. First I placed an expectation on how it will develop and as it did I aligned. The expectation is not external in any way, I simply have a feeling inside of me and as I write I make sure I do not deviate from it. When the feeling changes non preferably, when I deviate, I stop and deal with what has caused the dismay and continue. You could say the feeling is kind of a static indicator that the situation is progressing appropriately, much like how statistics would be an indicator for Te that a process is running along smoothly.

Which is also another thing, we can use other methods as a part of the usage of an element which are not immediately linked or apparently linked to the element. Like this feeling of "things being right". You could say it's s part of some a static element but it's solely a creation in service of insuring the internal dynamics of things are "proper". Well, actually it could be partially Ni as well, for the guidance part of it, but I think that this feeling is an essential part of Fe methods of control over the internal dynamics and not an indicator of Ni progression of a concept over a context. Or it could be linked to my usage of Ni, my mother gets upsets if the "harmony" of the environment is not adequate. Perhaps for her the guidance for Fe is Si, or it's Si that switches and moves the feeling which then alerts Fe that something is not right and that corrective action is required. But perhaps, Don't know. Just guessing really.

Also the reason why I don't care about how others treat or perceive me is because I see Te as insignificant. Te is about external dynamics, Te is the one that really cares how people carry themselves, how they act, how they are perceived, observed and so on. Put limitations and rules on that. Fe doesn't care about this external dynamics, it can be "dramatic", "loud", "obnoxious", and abuse Te in all sorts and manners of styles. But what Te doesn't see is that beneath all of this there is the calm, calculating rational element, they just see disorder, chaos, mayhem, something out of control.

I think this is the main point of conflict, when Te calls Fe actions as "out of control" Fe strongly objects as control is precisely the thing it has. You may see a glimpse of this control when Fe starts to direct it's furry at the Te who suddenly finds themselves attacked from sides they cannot even see existing, "out of the blue", I don't know, popular opinion suddenly turns against them, people keep accusing them of things and so on (Sound familiar expat?).

I think this is the point in that elena thread. To call her behavior Fe is basically an "insult" to those who really do have Fe in their ego. It's simplifying a concept one does not understand nor comprehend.

This is the most meaningful post about that I've read in a long long long time. Well done Snegled. I was out of town, so I just read it now and I haven't had time to chew through all the replies and I might not bother with it, but this post really got my attention.

I think the planning of how the post will turn out is beta Fe, because you get a sense of the feeling and you want to stay true to it as you move towards the end result. Alpha Fe would not do that IMO.

I have to admit, I am often unable to stay neutral to the attitudes of other people. Like when people don't laugh at my joke, I feel bad about it. But when I do start joking around, I often make myself as the target of the joke, so you could be right about the comic relief and TV theory. With Fi valuing people it's characteristic that they really do make jokes/topics personal. Like if I were to joke about having horribly frizzy hair, a Te/Fi type would look at me in a serious way and try to comfort me about it. That's horrible. Or if they act all understanding and try to give me advice. Grrrrr... It makes it so personal somehow.

[Logos]

that's wise, tx.

Were we not doing a fortune cookie reading?