Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Differences between +Fi and -Fi

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Differences between +Fi and -Fi

    +Fi: that which draws you to others (that which you want)
    -Fi: that which draws others to you (that which others want from you)

    I say this only with regard to the aspects themselves. not the elements.

    Although + and - are often described as "that which one has" vs "that which one lacks", I see this as a problematic appraisal. Particularly, they both seem to be concerned with the production of new content, which they guage as lacking relative to their content level of their contraries of the opposite sign. (-Fe and +Fe in the case of ISFjs/INFjs) Thus there is always a lacking -- that's part and parcel of the problem.

    I say this with regard only to the elements themselves, not their functions. On the other hand, there do appear to be problems with this view.

    I'm not satisfied that this position is the correct one. Please critique.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-09-2008 at 12:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to me reasonable that -Fi is that which others like about you based on something you give them that they can receive and use, whatever that is. Similarly, +Fi is that which you want from others. (your motive) Between these two is the substance of ethic: giving and getting in equal proportion. (fairness)

    However, it is undeniable that there is a definite sunny side to +Fi that there isn't with -Fi. But I wonder if this holds true for all cases....

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Flawed approach. When you speak about "Fe+" you're talking about something that is supposed to be commonly held by a grouping of types so large and inhomogeneous that it can hardly be spoken about as group with common characteristics. "Fe+" means "the characteristics common between all beta NF types AND all gamma SF types when inversed in foreground/background". See how clumsy and cumbersome the definition is...?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Flawed approach. When you speak about "Fe+" you're talking about something that is supposed to be commonly held by a grouping of types so large and inhomogeneous that it can hardly be spoken about as group with common characteristics. "Fe+" means "the characteristics common between all beta NF types AND all gamma SF types when inversed in foreground/background". See how clumsy and cumbersome the definition is...?
    What does that have to do with my statement about Fi?

  5. #5
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Substitute Fi and whatever types have Fi+... he's talking about a different element, but it's a good analogy. So far as I can tell, he's claiming that generalized descriptions are impossible... which is where I disagree with him. There is always a way to group eight types as opposed to the other eight.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  6. #6
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    +Fi: that which draws you to others (that which you want)
    -Fi: that which draws others to you (that which others want from you)

    I say this only with regard to the aspects themselves. not the elements.

    Although + and - are often described as "that which one has" vs "that which one lacks", I see this as a problematic appraisal. Particularly, they both seem to be concerned with the production of new content, which they guage as lacking relative to their content level of their contraries of the opposite sign. (-Fe and +Fe in the case of ISFjs/INFjs) Thus there is always a lacking -- that's part and parcel of the problem.

    I say this with regard only to the elements themselves, not their functions. On the other hand, there do appear to be problems with this view.

    I'm not satisfied that this position is the correct one. Please critique.
    i never saw much difference between that which one lacks and that which one possesses as realization of that which one lacks implies a sort of possession, at least of knowledge. am i wrong to assume we are dealing more with a question of potential versus actual?
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's a question: how does one deduce the content level of a producing element?

    I would argue that the role of the foreground producer is to surpass the level of the background producer, because this allows it to nullify the effect the background producer its exerting. (via its slave element, of course) It has superior magnitude and thus, dictates the character of the function as a whole.

    Were the background function not confronted, it would empower the background acceptor against the foreground acceptor, creating a state of submission to the background that would reflect itself in something akin to a brief psychotic episode.


    As for the thread topic, I've reached an answer to the delimma: valuations of "more" or "less" are exclusively properties of the elements, not the aspects. A negative element will always see a deficit in its own status; a positive element, conversely, will perceive of itself as abundant.

    Joy's earlier assertion that the elements and aspects are distinct -- and Rick's, too -- was correct.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-11-2008 at 04:09 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa View Post
    i never saw much difference between that which one lacks and that which one possesses as realization of that which one lacks implies a sort of possession, at least of knowledge. am i wrong to assume we are dealing more with a question of potential versus actual?
    The problem is that we are indeed in possession of realization... however, that is not what we need. We are only in possession of realization because there exists an imbalance between the foreground and the background.

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Substitute Fi and whatever types have Fi+... he's talking about a different element, but it's a good analogy. So far as I can tell, he's claiming that generalized descriptions are impossible... which is where I disagree with him. There is always a way to group eight types as opposed to the other eight.
    There might be a clumsy and cumbersome way though.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah.

    That post was basically me voicing some personal gripes I have with people using functions in their reasoning as if they were anything other than groupings of types. In hindsight it was probably not the most mature thing to do. Its one of those fundamental differences between slave beta and slave delta that members of the two camps are unavoidably going to be exchanging punches about when discussing socionics together.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •