On Beta Extraverted Ethics Fe

[aestrivex]

this is generally poorly understood, so i'll attempt to explain it. i'm not even saying that i completely subscribe to this interpretation of "expatian" socionics, but it does seem like it at least describes a number of things fairly effectively.


essentially, this whole thing started with the attempt to explain phaedrus as an IEI. the idea is that, in addition to phaedrus' obvious butchering of Ti/Te, phaedrus is more oriented towards a sort of passive relation towards Fe, which manifests as a need to both have his Ti interpretations accepted and to positively influence the emotional atmosphere, with an eye towards the future.

in fact, i'll show you expat's words. this discussion is straight from the talk page of http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...eed17/userlist.

Nice list. I just think that you tend to see as Ti-ego some people who are Ti quadra, but not necessarily - and in my opinion not probably - Ti dominants. In my opinion you're a bit oblivious to their use of Fe, but that also makes sense. Expat 16:59, 27 September 2007 (BST)

such as who? Niffweed17 21:35, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Such as Phaedrus, Jarno, and Dioklecian. You've typed them all as LII, but I think IEI is more likely. Benchmarking a bit, LIIs are more like thehotelambush and Logos, in my opinion -- they prefer Ti to Te, but they do not "massacre" Te, which is what Phaedrus does, and Jarno, to a lesser extent (because he keeps a lower profile), while Dio's behavior is very Ti, Fe, and victim imo. Oh, and snegledmaca. I think he's a good example of IEI who knows very well what he is and why. I think that male IEIs are a bit "orphan" in socionics and MBTI. The typical IEI descriptions emphasize Fe in a way they don't identify much with, because it's too "expressive", while the MBTI INFP is most like an EII and the INFJ, at best like an EIE. So there is actually no obvious description for them, and they tend to "migrate" to INTP, which is not really like an ILI because it does not value Fi and does value Ti. The same thing seems to be happening to dee who, incredibly, thinks he's ILI. I don't think it's only self-delusion since it happens too often. The exceptions are snegledmaca and misutii, who recognize they are IEIs despite also identifying most with INTP. That makes perfect sense to me. That is also the reason why Phaedrus and Jarno are the biggest proponents of ABCD = ABCd. They only identify well with INTP, and the only way they have to also use socionics while seeing themselves as "logical", which they convinced themselves they must be, is with the ILI = INTP bullshit. That's what's happening, but, again, only snegledmaca and misutii truly understand the situation "from inside" - because they bothered to understand the functions, which the others haven't. Expat 23:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)

hmm. well, you've certainly given me quite a bit to think about. there's definitely something to what you're saying, but i'm not sure how it fits. dio for example is somebody who i would have a hard time seeing as victim; i think he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is looking for an Fe caregiver. he seems to react very negatively to anything that doesn't function as an emotional booster. although i can see a significant distinction between his thinking, which doesn't appear to exist at all, and that of an LII like hotelambush. (btw im relieved to see you no longer see dio as IEE. there's absolutely no way he's Te/Fi.) i need a few days to think about everything here. Niffweed17 00:57, 28 September 2007 (BST)

Well, Dio's type is secondary, or even unimportant, to my reasoning above, which I think is indeed valid for Phaedrus, Jarno, snegledmaca, and misutii. I don't have a firm opinion on Dio's type, and I didn't, either, when I said I thought he was IEE. I did think that, but it was more like a guestimate, I couldn't make a very good case. So perhaps I shouldn't have included Dio in my list above. Expat 08:53, 28 September 2007 (BST)

Another point. Kristiina now sees herself as EIE, rightly so in my and Rick's opinion, and I think she truly understands the type. In person her Fe-ego is very clear. Yet she thought at first she was LII, then LIE. I think it may be a characteristic of the Beta quadra - even the ethical types - to focus on, or value, their Ti so much that they don't really identify with Fe. Perhaps because Fe is described too often in an Alpha, "touchy-feely", way that they don't see in themselves. In a broad-brush way, Alpha's Fe helps them to "reflect and delight in", Beta's Fe helps them "to conquer". So, again, I think it makes sense for an IEI, especially male, to identify with INTP. I don't know if Baby or Kioshi also did, but maybe they didn't look at MBTI first. And then it takes some detachment, or soul-searching, to see that IEI makes more sense. Expat 09:59, 28 September 2007 (BST)

essentially the key point here is that these beta NFs ARE exhibiting Fe, but in a passive, Ni-oriented sense rather than in an alpha sense. hitta's recent threads are the prime example. they challenged everybody else for "not supporting change" and placed the blame for his lack of success not on the idiocy of his theories (which seems to me like it would be sensible) but rather on the oppressive surrounding environment, which, according to him, quells new ideas and places little focus on emotional support.

this is the epitome of an > kind of argument. the focus here is absolutely not on any kind of objective analysis of his theory, but rather on the "dynamics" or mood of the surrounding environment.




this is a general overview. but perhaps this exposition might have some application in some present discussions, maybe.

[Phaedrus]

To my knowledge, neither niffweed, Expat, nor Rick are questioning the typing of Jonathan as an ILI. Why is Jonathan an ILI but not I and Jarno -- especially considering the fact that Jonathan was previously seen as someone who showed more Fe than most other ILI candidates on this forum?

[Logos]

Funny you should post this, Niffweed, as I was almost wondering if a certain poster's reluctance to consider LIE as a type due to a claimed aversion to Fe is more because she sees Fe primarily in terms of Fe blocked with Si.

[Jonathan]

This is the best articulation of Expat's theory in IEIs I've seen so far. Although it contains basically the same information as in other posts on the subject, he's much more explicit here. Thanks for posting this.

To my knowledge, neither niffweed, Expat, nor Rick are questioning the typing of Jonathan as an ILI. Why is Jonathan an ILI but not I and Jarno -- especially considering the fact that Jonathan was previously seen as someone who showed more Fe than most other ILI candidates on this forum?

Actually Expat suggested that I might be IEI at one time. Anyhow, I wouldn't equate Expat's approach with Rick's. (As an interesting example of the possible differences, Rick seems to think Michael Moore is ILI, whereas Expat has pointed out some reasons for considering Moore IEI.)

If we think of Rick's "algorithm" for typing, it doesn't generally focus on whether a person is "butchering" a function or associating such "butchering" with PoLR. Instead, Rick seems to focus on what people most consistently and naturally exude, and uses this to find the likely ego block functions. He also uses PoLR-related questions to see if someone is totally stumped or blindsided by that area.

Unlike Rick, Expat uses the "butchering" concept a lot to find PoLR. While I can definitely see the logic for this approach, I'm concerned that it may be somewhat subjective, especially when used to disprove a hypothesis about someone's creative function (which I see as sometimes being much less consistently stressed by an individual as the base function).

I'm always open to any sorts of reinterpretation of my type, especially since I feel I *like* and , as well as virtually any other IM Element, for that matter. I tend to interpret that, though, as an indication that the difference between the "valued" and "unvalued" functions can be more subtle than often supposed. In NYC, I tried to demonstrate that I was equally competent at all the functions, but Rick wasn't buying it. He consistently sees the things I say as showing mostly and .

Overall, I think Expat's observation that Beta NFs, especially male ones, often tend to focus more on and and less obviously on is very true. In my experience though, those who are aware of MBTI usually eventually see themselves as NF despite their heavy intellectualism. Usually in person, though, there's a clear sense of an emotional atmosphere...like an aura.

BTW, I've observed that a number Beta NFs, especially women, are particularly expressive and dramatic. I would even say that some Alpha SFs aren't as touchy-feely as is the stereotype....so this issue may not divide cleanly along Alpha/Beta lines.

[Hitta]

About hitta, according to his theory gammas and deltas are unoriginal. So, if he associates the leadership of this forum with these quadras, and takes his own theory seriously then it's not really a major use of Ti on his part to conclude that the forum is hostile towards him as a result of his theory's originality.

What I see as possible is his lack of strong Te, in that he makes extremely radical claims about the different types (ie. the originality thing, that some types don't understand love etc.). But again, this could just be a rare case of an INTj's Ti completely overshadowing Te, in which case I would look at the lack of Ne (because he seems not to accept revisions to his system). The question is, could an INTj think this way?

Please don't say that, I've never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said that. Gammas and Deltas have the capacity to be original, they just don't seek it. They seek routine and normalness. Alphas and Betas seeks the unique and original.

[Expat]

Actually Expat suggested that I might be IEI at one time. Anyhow, I wouldn't equate Expat's approach with Rick's. (As an interesting example of the possible differences, Rick seems to think Michael Moore is ILI, whereas Expat has pointed out some reasons for considering Moore IEI.)

First, I'm not sure that Rick still thinks that Moore is ILI, we have to ask him what his views are rather than speculate on this. Even if he still has him in his ILI list, Rick may find the IEI option plausible as he didn't say anything in the wiki "bio" of Moore.

Second, in your case, I admit to being unsure. I further admit that a very strong reason for dropping the matter in your case was that Rick, thehotelambush and niffweed, whose typings I respect, all saw you as ILI (or maybe also LIE, possibly?) after meeting you and discussing socionics throughly and with exercises. So, that is generally good enough for me.

And since I don't really put much weight on the "they must be identicals" argument, I don't think my views on your type mean much regarding anyone else's.

If we think of Rick's "algorithm" for typing, it doesn't generally focus on whether a person is "butchering" a function or associating such "butchering" with PoLR. Instead, Rick seems to focus on what people most consistently and naturally exude, and uses this to find the likely ego block functions. He also uses PoLR-related questions to see if someone is totally stumped or blindsided by that area.

Unlike Rick, Expat uses the "butchering" concept a lot to find PoLR. While I can definitely see the logic for this approach, I'm concerned that it may be somewhat subjective, especially when used to disprove a hypothesis about someone's creative function (which I see as sometimes being much less consistently stressed by an individual as the base function).

Jonathan, one of most frustrating things about discussing with you regarding socionics is how you refuse to "digest" what has been explained to you and keep coming back to the same thing.

For the umpteenth time --- it's not about just the bloody PoLR. I type mainly by functional preferences, or quadra values. My reasons for seeing those people as IEIs are not due to "oh he has Te PoLR" but rather, first, "he seems to have way Ti>Te preference".

If you read carefully why I said "butchering" in the text nifweed quoted, it was to explain why I thought they were IEI as opposed to LII, not ILI.

Please tell me why the above should be difficult to understand.

[snegledmaca]

Regarding myself, I have no doubt in my mind that functionally speaking is in my ego, it's basically the reason why I abandoned MBTI in favor of socionics, the correctly placed aspect of valuing the "functions" where I got to value both and , however, in terms of quadras there is no chance in hell I would be beta. No way. It is my exact opposite. Everything about it. I actively avoid people like in the description. And that kind of group "atmosphere". I don't see it as "fun", or "enjoyable", when I'm in it all I'm thinking about is how to leave. Even when I was a little child I was repulsed when observing such group behavior.

[Phaedrus]

(As an interesting example of the possible differences, Rick seems to think Michael Moore is ILI, whereas Expat has pointed out some reasons for considering Moore IEI.)

Michael Moore is one of the most obvious typing mistakes Rick has made. Moore is neither an ILI nor an IEI.

Regarding myself, I have no doubt in my mind that functionally speaking is in my ego, it's basically the reason why I abandoned MBTI in favor of socionics, the correctly placed aspect of valuing the "functions" where I got to value both and , however, in terms of quadras there is no chance in hell I would be beta. No way. It is my exact opposite. Everything about it.

Regardless of the fact that I don't buy your analysis of yourself in terms of ego functions, quadra values should never be used as a typing tool -- no matter Expat's opinion on that subject.

[Expat]

Regarding myself, I have no doubt in my mind that functionally speaking is in my ego, it's basically the reason why I abandoned MBTI in favor of socionics, the correctly placed aspect of valuing the "functions" where I got to value both and , however, in terms of quadras there is no chance in hell I would be beta. No way. It is my exact opposite. Everything about it. I actively avoid people like in the description. And that kind of group "atmosphere". I don't see it as "fun", or "enjoyable", when I'm in it all I'm thinking about is how to leave. Even when I was a little child I was repulsed when observing such group behavior.

Well, in that case, then, I would suggest that the weakest link is probably the Beta group descriptions.

What I'm going to say now may sound like a cop-out, but *shrug*. Rick is right in saying that typing online is of limited usefulness. I think we all know this, here, if asked, but we still continue to do it - because we don't have better options here. So the only way to solve the issue above would be to see how you interact with others in groups (or not) and see what we think is really going on.

[Ezra]

I agree with you niffweed. I don't think phaedrus is an IEI. I think he's clearly effective at Ti, and while he purports that he is Te creative, I think he's deluded about what it means to be Te creative, and thus mistakes where his Te is. I think if he really knew he'd understand that he just isn't interested in it.

[Ezra]

What I'm going to say now may sound like a cop-out, but *shrug*. Rick is right in saying that typing online is of limited usefulness.

That's true. Online, everyone thinks I'm SLE, including you. When you met me the first time, you thought I was SLE. The second time, you got more acquainted with me, and now you're confused.

[Expat]

I'm always open to any sorts of reinterpretation of my type, especially since I feel I *like* and , as well as virtually any other IM Element, for that matter. I tend to interpret that, though, as an indication that the difference between the "valued" and "unvalued" functions can be more subtle than often supposed. In NYC, I tried to demonstrate that I was equally competent at all the functions, but Rick wasn't buying it. He consistently sees the things I say as showing mostly and .

Then I will suggest that you don't really like what really is - not in all its manifestations. 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).

In Germany, Erkki, whom we all saw as ILI, was similar (even though Rick thought he was more like niffweed). He said that he dislikes situations where people openly say things that may offend others because the doesn't know how to react, so he has developed a "friendly and polite" persona (which may still be too low-Fe for Rick's eyes, but anyway).

If you like a situation where people are polite and friendly and do not offend each other, then you like a particular state of .

For instance, look at hitta. He almost makes a point of coming across as arrogant, so not polite, so "not Fe" according to what I wrote above. Yet - and this is the issue - he keeps writing posts, even whole threads, which are essentially about him whining about why he's not getting encouragement, praise, whatever. His posts are full of things like "this makes me puke" or "I don't wanna hear" etc. What's he's doing, without any selfconsciousness, is to fish for input by throwing some of his on in the waters (if you disagree, please provide an alternative explanation).

And look at anndelise's comments to me. What she saw in me as "stupid" was my total lack of concern for regarding Elena - anndelise was essentially saying, "you don't care about how what you say affects her". It is true. I do not, not in that situation.

Those two threads have lots of examples of that, but that's what I mean.

So, I don't think it is clear at all that Jonathan really values Fe as a function, even though it is manifested in him in a very different way as in niffweed, who does not see the need for politeness very often.

A similar example -- in Duesseldorf, Rick asked, "who around here is better dressed"? I said it was me (also for fun), and PotatoSpirit also said it was. And yes, I had chosen dark, conservative trousers, jacked, and jumper. I knew that probably that was ok. So it sort of short-circuited Rick's test, but the thing is -- does that make me a quadra? No, because I was going for the "safe" option. I would never choose something like even a "daring" tie. I suggest that your approach to "safe " is the same as Erkki's, and similar to my own approach to "safe " (which doesn't always work).

[Expat]

The second time, you got more acquainted with me, and now you're confused.

Yes you may call it "confused" if you wish. I need to re-think a few things, but for the moment I still think SLE.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, one of most frustrating things about discussing with you regarding socionics is how you refuse to "digest" what has been explained to you and keep coming back to the same thing.

For the umpteenth time --- it's not about just the bloody PoLR. I type mainly by functional preferences, or quadra values. My reasons for seeing those people as IEIs are not due to "oh he has Te PoLR" but rather, first, "he seems to have way Ti>Te preference".

If you read carefully why I said "butchering" in the text nifweed quoted, it was to explain why I thought they were IEI as opposed to LII, not ILI.

Please tell me why the above should be difficult to understand.

Sorry, I understood that in this case you were explaining why you saw as these people's 4th function rather than as their 7th. I was only making a general point when I said "especially when used to disprove a hypothesis about someone's creative function," as both LII and ILI had been mentioned in the conversation.

I stand corrected about not stressing that your approach is mainly focused on relative preferences between IM Elements. This is also a subtly different approach to Rick's methods, although he does gravitate more towards that approach when doing historical typings. Sorry that sometimes I'm a little hasty and don't always refer to your views correctly.

What I meant about Rick's typing of Michael Moore was, yes, that he still has him as ILI on his website, and that he responded on that website to someone who thought he was IEI.

Anyhow, clearing out all the mud here, the key question is really what does it mean to "butcher" a function. In my view, if a person seems awkward using a function, then it's probably not a strong one. Also, if people tend to pay little attention or don't really accept the person's use of a function, that may be an indication that it's not strong. But that's where things start to get into a gray area, in which Socionic functional "strength" can easily get confused with raw ability, intelligence, or even someone's subjective view as to whether another person's argument is "convincing."

And I wasn't saying whether or not you were correct in your assessment of "butchering"...I was only pointing out the potential pitfalls of the approach.

[Expat]

What I meant about Rick's typing of Michael Moore was, yes, that he still has him as ILI on his website, and that he responded on that website to someone who thought he was IEI.

Well, again, we have to ask him what he actually thinks right now. I would hope that if he really had a strong opinion on Moore's type today, he would have made comments in the wiki.

Anyhow, clearing out all the mud here, the key question is really what does it mean to "butcher" a function. In my view, if a person seems awkward using a function, then it's probably not a strong one. Also, if people tend to pay little attention or don't really accept the person's use of a function, that may be an indication that it's not strong. But that's where things start to get into a gray area, in which Socionic functional "strength" can easily get confused with raw ability, intelligence, or even someone's subjective view as to whether another person's argument is "convincing."

All of that is true, but we have to work with the information we have. I would prefer to have more clear evidence of the other functional preferences. In my opinion, those individuals also have Ni>Ne and Se>Si preference, but this is something I find more difficult to substantiate.

I will admit that - from a personal level - I am inclined to be more sensitive to what I see as a "violation" of Te, and to be more "indignant" when pointing it out.

[anndelise]

And look at anndelise's comments to me. What she saw in me as "stupid" was my total lack of concern for regarding Elena - anndelise was essentially saying, "you don't care about how what you say affects her". It is true. I do not, not in that situation.

Try getting your facts straight, Expat.

I said i couldn't believe you were so stupid cuz you kept showing that you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I have/had a difficult time believing that your reading comprehension abilities are so piss-poor

But the paragraph you wrote above only serves to further support that distinct possibility.

[Expat]

Try getting your facts straight, Expat.

I said i couldn't believe you were so stupid cuz you kept showing that you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I have/had a difficult time believing that your reading comprehension abilities are so piss-poor

But the paragraph you wrote above only serves to further support that distinct possibility.

Isn't what you meant related to my lack of concern, or blindness, to how my actions/words might be affecting someone else?

[anndelise]

Isn't what you meant related to my lack of concern, or blindness, to how my actions/words might be affecting someone else?

no, it's about your lack of concern, or blindness, for how you blame others for doing the exact same thing that YOU yourself are doing.

[snegledmaca]

I see that anndelise has responded for herself. I was also going to comment that paragraph she quoted for it's gross inaccuracy and a warped conception of reality. It's pretty obvious that she was giving a criticism on the inherent nature of treatment of people who appear to fulfill certain (shallow) stereotypes, a criticisms on the process of preservation of these stereotypes ironically through that very behavior that is sterotyped and with you on the manner in which you conduct your typing and collusion drawing process, as in, the motivations you ascribe to people are too simplistic (Which seems to be validated by your response here in the paragraph anndelise quoted).

Where you drew that conclusion, about her reaction being solely a result of "you don't care about how what you say affects her" line of thinking I have no idea, but it's an incredibly simplistic, childish one. It's like you missed on all of the complexity that was going on there, perhaps as if you can't even see it.

[Expat]

no, it's about your lack of concern, or blindness, for how you blame others for doing the exact same thing that YOU yourself are doing.

You see, I totally disregarded that, because I know very well why I am doing or not doing something, which had nothing to do whatsoever with your erroneous interpretation. Whether others see it that way, or not, was of no consequence to me in that situation.

[Expat]

It's like you missed on all of the complexity that was going on there, perhaps as if you can't even see it.

Perhaps I can't.

[Expat]

What I meant about Rick's typing of Michael Moore was, yes, that he still has him as ILI on his website, and that he responded on that website to someone who thought he was IEI.

1) No, that someone thought he was IEE;
2) Rick has added, "(Moore may be moved to the IEI page after I do more research) "

[Expat]

I see that anndelise has responded for herself. I was also going to comment that paragraph she quoted for it's gross inaccuracy and a warped conception of reality. It's pretty obvious that she was giving a criticism on the inherent nature of treatment of people who appear to fulfill certain (shallow) stereotypes, a criticisms on the process of preservation of these stereotypes ironically through that very behavior that is sterotyped and with you on the manner in which you conduct your typing and collusion drawing process, as in, the motivations you ascribe to people are too simplistic (Which seems to be validated by your response here in the paragraph anndelise quoted).

Where you drew that conclusion, about her reaction being solely a result of "you don't care about how what you say affects her" line of thinking I have no idea, but it's an incredibly simplistic, childish one. It's like you missed on all of the complexity that was going on there, perhaps as if you can't even see it.

Let me answer this anew.

The truth of the matter is -- I do not care. This is a subject of no interest at all to me. I had already written Elena off as someone with whom I have no interest to discuss socionics. I explained how it seemed to me. Perhaps my own actions seemed the same way to her, to you and to anndelise. Fine. Maybe I interpreted it the wrong way. Fine. None of that changes anything about my decision not to pursue the matter.

So, if you will, my explanations were sort of half-assed because I didn't really care.

[anndelise]

You see, I totally disregarded that, because I know very well why I am doing or not doing something, which had nothing to do whatsoever with your erroneous interpretation. Whether others see it that way, or not, was of no consequence to me in that situation.

pathetically enough, my 12yo SeFi daughter immediately caught on, without any input from me other than asking her to read those three quotes I had included in my final summary in that thread....the original quotes, NOT my summary. You know, the ones where you said it was pointless to talk to elena further because she just wants to win.

her response: *scrunched up face* "but isn't he trying to win too? he wants her to see his side too."

snegled caught it, elena caught it, i caught it, other forum members caught it, even a 12yo caught it, but you can't

I pity you when you say that it is of no consequence to you that your actions are hypocritical of your words.

[Expat]

I pity you when you say that it is of no consequence to you that your actions are hypocritical of your words.

Actually, it is of no consquence to me that the people you cited keep taking for granted the "winning" thing.

[Jonathan]

1) No, that someone thought he was IEE;
2) Rick has added, "(Moore may be moved to the IEI page after I do more research) "

You're right. I misread it.

[snegledmaca]

Let me answer this anew.

The truth of the matter is -- I do not care. This is a subject of no interest at all to me. I had already written Elena off as someone with whom I have no interest to discuss socionics. I explained how it seemed to me. Perhaps my own actions seemed the same way to her, to you and to anndelise. Fine. Maybe I interpreted it the wrong way. Fine. None of that changes anything about my decision not to pursue the matter.

So, if you will, my explanations were sort of half-assed because I didn't really care.

Well, if that is the case then I don't really have much to say as that is your choice.

[Jonathan]

I will admit that - from a personal level - I am inclined to be more sensitive to what I see as a "violation" of Te, and to be more "indignant" when pointing it out.

Well, I think this is a crux of the issue. Everyone has somewhat different rubrics for telling if a function is weak and or unvalued. In your view, what key indicators suggest a "violation of Te"?

[Expat]

Well, I think this is a crux of the issue. Everyone has somewhat different rubrics for telling if a function is weak and or unvalued. In your view, what key indicators suggest a "violation of Te"?

What I wrote in the Michael Moore article in the wiki should give you a good idea.

Also, most of Phaedrus's posts in this thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11151&page=13

Especially after post 120 or so, perhaps earlier. They also explain some of the things I have said. Look for the "lone wolf thing" as example of what I mean as a kind of input-providing Fe.

But the champions are his posts in this other thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=11502&page=10

Especially after post 90 or so. Most specifically, his reaction when confronted with the results of Lytov's study on ABCD=ABCd - a study which he himself mentioned first in that thread. His arguments, as a whole, when discussing the study, are an example of what I call "a violation of Te".

[Expat]

beta Fe: guys talking about stupid or funny stuff that happenned and everyone laughing. lots of Se subject-matter, strong language (ST) or loud voice using different blow-through intonations or putting on any image whatsoever (tied to Ni in that Ni enables tape recording or dynamic model of an object in action at different times (Fe and Ni if action is of fun nature, funny, something stupid or whatever in it and Te and Ni in the case of just objectively stating what happenned for example). Ni as well gives the overall melancholic predisposition to the type) (NF).

I agree with the general image conveyed by this description, not necessarily with the specifics.

[Kristiina]

beta Fe: guys talking about stupid or funny stuff that happenned and everyone laughing. lots of Se subject-matter, strong language (ST) or loud voice using different blow-through intonations or putting on any image whatsoever (tied to Ni in that Ni enables tape recording or dynamic model of an object in action at different times (Fe and Ni if action is of fun nature, funny, something stupid or whatever in it and Te and Ni in the case of just objectively stating what happenned for example). Ni as well gives the overall melancholic predisposition to the type) (NF).

you are totally right. But the way you phrased it made me want to punch you in the face. So a correction of context is needed. We don't laugh at stupid or funny stuff, we talk about nonsensical things to get a good laugh out of it. We treat our own silly mistakes as a source of light entertainment. Good things are worth expressing, but also bad things. But we don't want to make others feel bad, so we express bad experiences as a joke.

Just random absurd moments. Getting splashed wet and dirty by a car while stuck in the rain can make a great topic later. It's such a classic case scenario. "the rain was bad enough, trying to run past the puddles not to get splashed... It's almost like a game of who wins - me running past the large puddle or the nasty car approaching the water really fast. I usually won! Except that ONE time."

[Jonathan]

What I wrote in the Michael Moore article in the wiki should give you a good idea.

Also, most of Phaedrus's posts in this thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11151&page=13

Especially after post 120 or so, perhaps earlier. They also explain some of the things I have said. Look for the "lone wolf thing" as example of what I mean as a kind of input-providing Fe.

But the champions are his posts in this other thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=11502&page=10

Especially after post 90 or so. Most specifically, his reaction when confronted with the results of Lytov's study on ABCD=ABCd - a study which he himself mentioned first in that thread. His arguments, as a whole, when discussing the study, are an example of what I call "a violation of Te".

Yeah, the Moore example is a really good one. It's odd that I forgot the degree to which I participated in that discussion....Too many other things on my mind, I guess.

With Phaedrus I think other things are going on that make him not such a good example. The feeling of being ganged up on (lone wolf thing), the combative dynamic of the discussion, the misinterpretations of what he's saying by others which don't get cleared up, the battles over minor points so that it all becomes about whether he contradicted himself somewhere rather than being about his main point...none of that adds up either to evidence for IEI or against either Te or Ti. If anything, it tends to point to weak Fi (focusing on defending his points rather than building relationships and understanding between people) and weak Se (getting engrossed in defending points instead of taking a step back and saying what I am trying to get out of this...why am I arguing with these people...or what battles are worth it).

I like Phaedrus and think he has a lot to offer, but there's usually a disconnect on the forum, partly because he's more interested in talking about philosophy than others here. The point he raises...the question of whether typology is based on some externally existing thing or an arbitrary construct...and what that means, how one could even define the difference...is interesting. Perhaps it deserves its own thread.

[Expat]

the battles over minor points so that it all becomes about whether he contradicted himself somewhere rather than being about his main point...none of that adds up either to evidence for IEI or against either Te or Ti. If anything, it tends to point to weak Fi (focusing on defending his points rather than building relationships and understanding between people) and weak Se (getting engrossed in defending points instead of taking a step back and saying what I am trying to get out of this...why am I arguing with these people...or what battles are worth it).

Did you actually read the bits about the Lytov study?

And as a general point, "focusing on defending his points rather than building relaitonships and understanding between people" do not "point to weak Fi" at all. Jonathan, I have to say that in my view, as with Fe, you take one particular aspect of what Fe or Fi is, and then say this is what trhe whole function is all about.

You seem to be saying, then, that Fi-dominants will be inclined not to defend their points in discussions with others. Have you seen Diana's discussions with Gilly? Or with others? Does she lack inclination to defend her points?

Fi is what makes you focus on your relationship with others. If you have already decided that your relationship with someone allows for sharp exchanges of arguments - whether for "good" or "bad" reasons - then, you do it.

Just like you seemed to think that if you are polite, you "use Fe well", you are clearly saying that if you have strong Fi, you are not inclined to defend your points in discussion with others. Sheer rubbish.

Now, the EIIs, in particular, lack the inclination to engage in discussions that they feel have become more about aggression than reaching an understanding. But they will still defend their points and/or withdraw from the discussion, saying why (as in Minde's discussions with Gilly).

Or IEEs. Or SEEs. Do all of these types have "weak Fi"? Or do all of them prefer to avoid defending their points?

Jonathan, as with Fe, I have to conclude that the problem is that you simply do not really understand what the functions are really about. Sorry.

[Expat]

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.

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.

[Expat]

weak Se (getting engrossed in defending points instead of taking a step back and saying what I am trying to get out of this...why am I arguing with these people...or what battles are worth it).

That is not "weak Se", you know. This is a Te-Ni view of Se.

ETA: or, rather, it requires better clarification on what we mean by "weak". But, still, "trying to get something" out of an online discussion, in terms of productivity or real accomplishment, is a Te view. Others will say that they will not "take a step back" because it will make them look stupid.

[Expat]

With Phaedrus I think other things are going on that make him not such a good example. The feeling of being ganged up on (lone wolf thing), the combative dynamic of the discussion, the misinterpretations of what he's saying by others which don't get cleared up, the battles over minor points so that it all becomes about whether he contradicted himself somewhere rather than being about his main point...none of that adds up either to evidence for IEI or against either Te or Ti. If anything, it tends to point to weak Fi (focusing on defending his points rather than building relationships and understanding between people) and weak Se (getting engrossed in defending points instead of taking a step back and saying what I am trying to get out of this...why am I arguing with these people...or what battles are worth it).

I like Phaedrus and think he has a lot to offer, but there's usually a disconnect on the forum, partly because he's more interested in talking about philosophy than others here. The point he raises...the question of whether typology is based on some externally existing thing or an arbitrary construct...and what that means, how one could even define the difference...is interesting. Perhaps it deserves its own thread.

Jonathan, I think this analysis speaks huge volumes for your sense of humanity and essential decency and kindness. As a socionics analysis, I think it is very poor.

[Jonathan]

Did you actually read the bits about the Lytov study?

And as a general point, "focusing on defending his points rather than building relaitonships and understanding between people" do not "point to weak Fi" at all. Jonathan, I have to say that in my view, as with Fe, you take one particular aspect of what Fe or Fi is, and then say this is what trhe whole function is all about.

You seem to be saying, then, that Fi-dominants will be inclined not to defend their points in discussions with others. Have you seen Diana's discussions with Gilly? Or with others? Does she lack inclination to defend her points?

Fi is what makes you focus on your relationship with others. If you have already decided that your relationship with someone allows for sharp exchanges of arguments - whether for "good" or "bad" reasons - then, you do it.

Just like you seemed to think that if you are polite, you "use Fe well", you are clearly saying that if you have strong Fi, you are not inclined to defend your points in discussion with others. Sheer rubbish.

Now, the EIIs, in particular, lack the inclination to engage in discussions that they feel have become more about aggression than reaching an understanding. But they will still defend their points and/or withdraw from the discussion, saying why (as in Minde's discussions with Gilly).

Or IEEs. Or SEEs. Do all of these types have "weak Fi"? Or do all of them prefer to avoid defending their points?

Jonathan, as with Fe, I have to conclude that the problem is that you simply do not really understand what the functions are really about. Sorry.

Okay, I'll defend this one. In no way was I making a standard implying that anybody who defends their points has weak Fi. I never said that and sorry if it appeared to you that that's what I was saying. Simply in the context of the thread you posted a link to, it appeared that in that particular situation, the emphasis on attacking and defending every little point while things degenerate to name-calling suggested weak Fi. I'm aware that acc-Fi people also defend points, get angry at people, push people away, etc. In the context of that particular conversation, though, it looked like low awareness of the interpersonal dynamics...suggesting actually low awareness of both Fi and Fe for that matter.

It would be wrong to generalize from that some sort of "rule" and say "everybody who defends his points has weak Fi" or something like that. It's certainly not what I said.

[Expat]

Okay, I'll defend this one. In no way was I making a standard implying that anybody who defends their points has weak Fi. I never said that and sorry if it appeared to you that that's what I was saying. Simply in the context of the thread you posted a link to, it appeared that in that particular situation, the emphasis on attacking and defending every little point while things degenerate to name-calling suggested weak Fi. I'm aware that acc-Fi people also defend points, get angry at people, push people away, etc. In the context of that particular conversation, though, it looked like low awareness of the interpersonal dynamics...suggesting actually low awareness of both Fi and Fe for that matter.

It would be wrong to generalize from that some sort of "rule" and say "everybody who defends his points has weak Fi" or something like that. It's certainly not what I said.

Ok, fair enough, but I did think it needed clarification. Thanks.

[Phaedrus]

In the context of that particular conversation, though, it looked like low awareness of the interpersonal dynamics...suggesting actually low awareness of both Fi and Fe for that matter.

Whatever type people may think that I am, they must realize that what Jonathan states here is a general truth of me as a person in a lot of different contexts. If they dispute that, they miss something that is obvious to most people who know me in real life, and it is of course also obvious to many people on this forum.

So, those of you who want to attribute a certain type to me, must somehow make this fact about me fit your explanatory framework and the type you suggest for me. How you do it is your problem, but try to make sure that it makes some sense, please. If it does I am willing to listen and consider your suggestions, if it doesn't I will probably ignore it (and other people should of course ignore it too in that case).

[Expat]

I think one of the biggest hurdles of putting Socionics intertype knowledge to good use is just to realize that the person you're offended/annoyed with is not purposely trying to aggravate you, they're just being themselves and so are you.

I couldn't agree more.

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