On Beta Extraverted Ethics Fe

[Phaedrus]

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 now seriously considered snegledmaca's post above, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I simply cannot agree with you here, Kristiina. The comments by aka-kitsune in #141 are more correct, and here are some of the reasons why.

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.

This not an example of . The "vibe" comes from , as pointed out by aka-kitsune. And it is when combined with that you gain knowledge of your field of interest.

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.

None of this is . It's all and , and the "feeling" you are talking about is .

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.

No. It is the other way around. The reason why you don't care about how others treat or perceive you is because you have PoLR, and, contrary to what you say, is the one that really cares about how people carry themselves, 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?).

It has now become quite obvious that you interpret the functions to fit the assumption that you are an IEI instead of understanding them correctly.

If we go back to the beginning of your post, we can see clearly what is going on:

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.

The truth is that you are not talking about here, snegledmaca. You are describing the inner workings of a logical type. really is about personal involvement, "emotionality", "feeling", empathy, and kindness -- it is the opposite of coldhartedness. You are a 5 as you claim, and you are an ILI. It's time that you modify your understanding of the socionic functions.

I have to admit, I am often unable to stay neutral to the attitudes of other people. 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.

This is an example of how a real ethical type reacts.

[Logos]

So you identify with what snegledmaca said, Phaedrus?

[Expat]

I still want to address the whole of the post, but for the moment:

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.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at.

I did understand Fe in the way you explained it, in fact, it's precisely why I have suggested Fe ego for individuals who are not typically "emotional", yourself included.

But I think that you may be making the opposite mistake, that is, not seeing that, when connected to an EJ temperament - rather than a more passive, "analytical" introverted temperament - Fe will have the sort of "stirring the waters" aspect. That you dislike its being associated with Fe is perhaps no different from an ILI disliking Te being associated with LIEs being "know-it-all windbags" (that is, assuming ILIs would even care, which I doubt they would).

When you say:

when I approach things, including people, I'm not naturally emotional, or excited, or serious, I'm merely adapting.

This seems like a textbook description of IP temperament.

Also,

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.

This sounds like a straw man argument. Who has ever argued that Fe actions are typically "out of control"?

I'm not sure what point you're making about Elena (I also didn't read the whole thread).

[Kristiina]

So you identify with what snegledmaca said, Phaedrus?

yeah, and now he has to prove that Snegled is ILI too.

[Phaedrus]

yeah, and now he has to prove that Snegled is ILI too.

That has already been done in the past. This is just yet another corroboration of the fact that it is totally unreasonable not to believe that he is an ILI.

[Logos]

That has already been done in the past. This is just yet another corroboration of the fact that it is totally unreasonable not to believe that he is an ILI.

And he turns out to be an IEI, would you then admit to being an IEI if that were the case?

[Phaedrus]

And he turns out to be an IEI, would you then admit to being an IEI if that were the case?

No. How could I admit to something that doesn't make sense? If some of the typing methods, lines of reasonings, and criteria used in Socionics would strongly indicate that I am an IEI, that would be a proof that Socionics as a whole is logically inconsistent. Because a lot more other typing methods, critera, lines of reasoning, etc -- in fact all but those "methods" some members of this forum are using -- very strongly indicate that I am not an IEI. It is not a logical possibility that I am an IEI, unless you want to turn Socionics into a joke, into something that is no different from astrology, where you can prove anything you want.

[Logos]

No. How could I admit to something that doesn't make sense? If some of the typing methods, lines of reasonings, and criteria used in Socionics would strongly indicate that I am an IEI, that would be a proof that Socionics as a whole is logically inconsistent. Because a lot more other typing methods, critera, lines of reasoning, etc -- in fact all but those "methods" some members of this forum are using -- very strongly indicate that I am not an IEI. It is not a logical possibility that I am an IEI, unless you want to turn Socionics into a joke, into something that is no different from astrology, where you can prove anything you want.

How could I have forgotten that the integrity of Socionics theory is dependent upon the logical necessity that you are an ILI?

[Phaedrus]

How could I have forgotten that the integrity of Socionics theory is dependent upon the logical necessity that you are an ILI?

You don't seem to understand what the problem is. It has nothing to do with my person; it has everything to do with the theory of Socionics.

And you have got the logic wrong here. It is not a logical necessity that I am an ILI, and I would gladly be another type if that would make sense. But it happens to be a logical necessity that if Socionics is a correct theory that does not contain logically contradictory assumptions, then it follows that I am an ILI, because the hypothesis that I am not an ILI leads to logical contradictions.

[Minde]

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.

That's interesting... That is how I would tend to respond. So, what would be a correct response?

[Minde]

Umm, just laugh about it, say something like "Oh yeah, I have the same problem! It's ok.....when I wake up in the morning it looks like my hair has been run over by a tractor." Nothing too heavy, and it doesn't need to be true. But if it is true, you're scoring major points because you're subtly identifying with her problem. Or share one of your insecurities, in a joking voice. Don't make it too heavy. Like, you never know if

a) She's joking, and doesn't want you to take it seriously at all. If you do, she'll feel like you're using her attempt at lightening the mood as an excuse to criticize or patronize her.
b) She's joking, but she's using a bit of irony as well, trying to feel out if others are going through the same thing because she wants to feel validated.

So either way, if you make an equally outrageous joke with perhaps a tinge of truth or an allusion to your own problem, peace is preserved and hilarity is insued.

Thank you. That sounds like good advice. I'll try to use it.

[Kristiina]

Umm, just laugh about it, say something like "Oh yeah, I have the same problem! It's ok.....when I wake up in the morning it looks like my hair has been run over by a tractor." Nothing too heavy, and it doesn't need to be true. But if it is true, you're scoring major points because you're subtly identifying with her problem. Or share one of your insecurities, in a joking voice. Don't make it too heavy. Like, you never know if

a) She's joking, and doesn't want you to take it seriously at all. If you do, she'll feel like you're using her attempt at lightening the mood as an excuse to criticize or patronize her.
b) She's joking, but she's using a bit of irony as well, trying to feel out if others are going through the same thing because she wants to feel validated.

So either way, if you make an equally outrageous joke with perhaps a tinge of truth or an allusion to your own problem, peace is preserved and hilarity is insued.

haha, yes very good description of the right reply. I'll add one possible reply to the list. You can just say the exact opposite without fearing the consequence. "My hair is not frizzy AT ALL! I guess I'm lucky in that aspect.". I would even add "that's because I have soooo much better hair than you do! " (and expecting them to say something similar). But if you inhibit your interaction style too much, it might sound like this, "It's not... the same... with me at all..." and that's a conversation killer.

[aestrivex]

Sorry to harp on about Phaedrus again, but I agree with what he is getting at here (at least, as far as my own personal experience can tell me ... that is, I'm an independent person but I would care if a group of people perceived me badly while I didn't have anything against them, for example ... I'd feel hurt and sad). So if Phaedrus does understand what Fe is and still insists that he doesn't value it, how can we suggest that he is a Ti/Fe type?

you think that phaedrus correctly listing one very general characteristic of Fe means that he understands what it is?

[Expat]

Well he didn't just list it; he corrected snegledmaca. Besides that, I don't know if he understands it or not. I don't know him and I've only recently been following his posts.

I think it's a case of "broken-clock rule".

[Expat]

What's that?

Even a broken clock will show the time correctly twice a day.

[aestrivex]

Even a broken clock will show the time correctly twice a day.

extending the definition of broken: depending on what's wrong with the clock, that's not necessarily true.

[Park]

extending the definition of broken: depending on what's wrong with the clock, that's not necessarily true.

You take things too literally sometimes.

[Park]

No. It is the other way around. The reason why you don't care about how others treat or perceive you is because you have PoLR, and, contrary to what you say, is the one that really cares about how people carry themselves, how they are perceived, observed and so on.

That's interesting. There are times when I do care about how people perceive me and there are situations when I am obsessed with it. I wonder if that makes me an Fe type.

[aestrivex]

You take things too literally sometimes.

what have i taken? i have stolen nothing. your accusations are entirely falsified.

[Jimbean]

What you have is not necessarily Fe as a functional preference. You are very polite, in a "gentlemanly" way, and you seem actually to be consistently in a friendly-gentlemanly "nothing seems to really anger or offend me" mode (at least as you come across here online, those who met you can comment perhaps).

For reference sake, yes, this is mostly true of Jonathan

[aestrivex]

For reference sake, yes, this is mostly true of Jonathan

yes; i'd agree also.

[Ezra]

Why does no one trust Phaedrus when he says he's Te/Fi valuing? Is it because he's shown signs of Ti/Fe or something?

[Expat]

Why does no one trust Phaedrus when he says he's Te/Fi valuing? Is it because he's shown signs of Ti/Fe or something?

Yes, and because I have no reason to think that he even understands what valuing one thing or the other means.

[Phaedrus]

That's interesting. There are times when I do care about how people perceive me and there are situations when I am obsessed with it. I wonder if that makes me an Fe type.

No, it doesn't. But if you would constantly think and care about how other people perceive you, you would definitely be some other type than a type with PoLR.