Do those with poor Fi have poor people skills?

[Ezra]

Is this the case, or can you get those who are adequate in Fi having bad people skills?

[Joy]

What do you mean by "people skills"?

If you're talking about the handling situations where comfortable interaction with people you don't know well or aren't close to, then I'd say that it's more related to Fe than Fi.

If you're talking about being "smart" about relationships, then obviously there's an aspect of Fi to it (not that all Fi ego types are good at relationships).

[Creepy-Cyclops]

My experience of ESTp's is that they tend to have good people skills, in terms of handling people to get what they want. Wether they care about the people is sometimes another matter, I suppose.

[Joy]

My experience of ESTp's is that they tend to have good people skills, in terms of handling people to get what they want. Wether they care about the people is sometimes another matter, I suppose.

Some of the best/most successful salespeople are SLE's.

[Ezra]

I don't understand it when people don't understand commonly defined phrases like "people skills". Anyway, the way I define them is like this:

1. Your verbal communication is at a good level; you communicate well with others
2. Your body language aids your being able to achieve your people- or person-based objective or aim
3. You know how to effectively maintain good relations with others
4. You gain others' trust easily through utilisation of said skills

If you're talking about the handling situations where comfortable interaction with people you don't know well or aren't close to, then I'd say that it's more related to Fe than Fi.

If you're talking about being "smart" about relationships, then obviously there's an aspect of Fi to it (not that all Fi ego types are good at relationships).

So, essentially, all ethical types have good people skills.

[zenbrat]

The term "people skills" usually applies to superficial, short-term, results-based social interactions. Relationships are about "intimacy skills".

[Ezra]

The term "people skills" usually applies to superficial, short-term, results-based social interactions. Relationships are about "intimacy skills".

Yes.

[xyz]

Define "people"

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Define "define"

[theMime.]

Anybody (any type) can have good or bad people skills.

It's people SKILLS.

They are skills. Skills can be taught and learned.

[xyz]

Anybody (any type) can have good or bad people skills.

It's people SKILLS.

They are skills. Skills can be taught and learned.

Bingo.

[Blaze]

if you don't comprehend the information related to an information aspect well, then you're going to have a hard time being skilled at behavior which is connected to this information.

with SLE's, there is only one relationship with them. it's "i'm in charge and you're not." they accurately assess power dynamics and people's needs, but not their potential and positive qualities. overly autocratic.

with ILE's, there's only one relationship, it's "we're buddies." they accurately assess people's potential, positive attributes, but not their needs and will. overly democratic.

[FDG]

with SLE's, there is only one relationship with them. it's "i'm in charge and you're not." they accurately assess power dynamics and people's needs, but not their potential and positive qualities. overly autocratic.

But what if the other person has better qualities than the SLE?

[JRiddy]

if you don't comprehend the information related to an information aspect well, then you're going to have a hard time being skilled at behavior which is connected to this information.

with SLE's, there is only one relationship with them. it's "i'm in charge and you're not." they accurately assess power dynamics and people's needs, but not their potential and positive qualities. overly autocratic.

with ILE's, there's only one relationship, it's "we're buddies." they accurately assess people's potential, positive attributes, but not their needs and will. overly democratic.

This is a gross oversimplification. It's true only at the most superficial levels, and is more descriptive of social immaturity than type dynamics. Having as a PoLR, whether SLE or ILE, is a constant feeling of distance between you and others. Not that other types don't feel distant from other people, but "alienation" is a persistent theme, with creative types often completely unaware of other's feelings about them. For them, such feelings must always be stated and demonstrated.

People skills are indeed developed skills. I know users who really lack for people skills because they reject the kind of (typically ) behavior that could endear people to them more rapidly. Also, since people skills often happen at much greater psychological distance, type means less, as the exposure to personal information is not as great. The only real advantage an adept has at people skills is a heightened awareness of other people's feelings toward people or things, allowing them to test reactions to various things, detecting small changes in attitude and (sometimes) affect. Other types just learn other ways like the razzle-dazzle or the power display.

[theMime.]

if you don't comprehend the information related to an information aspect well, then you're going to have a hard time being skilled at behavior which is connected to this information.

with SLE's, there is only one relationship with them. it's "i'm in charge and you're not." they accurately assess power dynamics and people's needs, but not their potential and positive qualities. overly autocratic.

with ILE's, there's only one relationship, it's "we're buddies." they accurately assess people's potential, positive attributes, but not their needs and will. overly democratic.

well yeah sure some people may have a harder time than others with certain aspects of social skills or maybe even social skills in general but they're still skills. still something you gotta learn...people with advantages learn quicker and eaiser but still...

[Lotus]

I think I have decent people skills.
Maybe not online, because it's difficult to communicate properly on the internet...
But irl I'm usually not that offensive and I can persuade people pretty easily if I need to.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think I have decent people skills.
Maybe not urine, because it's difficult to communicate properly on the internet...
But irl I'm usually not that offensive and I can persuade people pretty easily if I need to.

What does urine have to do with people skills?

[Elro]

What does urine have to do with people skills?

You don't tend to find a lot of both in the same place?

[xyz]

well yeah sure some people may have a harder time than others with certain aspects of social skills or maybe even social skills in general but they're still skills. still something you gotta learn...people with advantages learn quicker and eaiser but still...

My people skills are 25+, 30+ with my ring of beauty on.

[theMime.]

What does urine have to do with people skills?

lol. that typo was great. =)

[Lotus]

I've heard people with good people skills pee on you if you annoy them.

lol. that typo was great. =)

I never made a typo! That bastard!
Quoting me wrong...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You don't tend to find a lot of both in the same place?

It's a useful metaphor

I've heard people with good people skills pee on you if you annoy them.

They pee and they shit on you from great height.

[xyz]

lol, was this anonymous person male or female?

female this time.

[Lotus]

female this time.

I thought for sure it was Kamangir.

[xyz]

I thought for sure it was Kamangir.

He was the first time, but I didn't quote him.... I just don't swing that way.

[xyz]

you stud <3

Must be the tan.




...Actually, I know what it is.

[Lotus]

Must be the tan.




...Actually, I know what it is.

She couldn't have sniffed you through the internet..
it must be your... um... your charm.

uh ckk
[/gag]

[Blaze]

Is it possible that this is where beta aristocracy comes in to play? The SLE needs to guage who is above whom in terms of status in order to act. If the person is clearly above the SLE in many ways, he'll avoid challenging that person directly. However, if the person becomes an obsession the SLE then probes for ways to challenge the person on the SLE's terms in order to prove the SLE's worth.

An unhealthy SLE may outrightly deny the fact that any person is superior to him and live in a sort of self-contained world, challenging any information which may lead him to believe otherwise in an autocratic fashion. This is at least the case with one SLE I've observed.

yes. exactly. SLE just figures out what's wrong with said person. the only person who is impervious to SLE is ESI...and while ESI is impervious, in the SLE mind, they are not. when all else fails, just make fun of the person's appearance or something. lol.

@JRiddy: yeah it is an oversimplification i agree. but a way to get the conversation focused. i don't disagree with what you've added.

@theMime: it is exceptionally difficult to learn skills connected to one's polr due to the fact that you don't perceive information related to it very well. it's kinda like a blind spot. how exactly can one become skilled at info that one cannot see? but you can learn related skills via watching one skilled in your hidden agenda. like say for SLE and ILE, dual, activity, or illusionary.

[Minde]

If you're talking about the handling situations where comfortable interaction with people you don't know well or aren't close to, then I'd say that it's more related to Fe than Fi.

If you're talking about being "smart" about relationships, then obviously there's an aspect of Fi to it (not that all Fi ego types are good at relationships).

Just looking at myself, I'd say that's true. I don't always make good decisions when it comes to relationships.

My experience of ESTp's is that they tend to have good people skills, in terms of handling people to get what they want. Wether they care about the people is sometimes another matter, I suppose.

From experience, I would agree with this.

So, essentially, all ethical types have good people skills.

No.

The term "people skills" usually applies to superficial, short-term, results-based social interactions. Relationships are about "intimacy skills".

I would tend to agree with this.

Anybody (any type) can have good or bad people skills.

It's people SKILLS.

They are skills. Skills can be taught and learned.

Yes, exactly!

That said, I think that some types have a preference for developing certain skills over others. For example, Fe-dominants may be more inclined to practice using body language as a form of communication/control than an Fe-adverse type. On the other hand, a Fe-adverse person may have developed that understanding and skill, for whatever reason (e.g. culture, conditioning, environment, etc.), and therefore be better at it than an Fe-dominant who has not.

This is where you look at preference and comfort as opposed to just a behavior, which may be provisional and motivated by something other than natural inclination.

People skills are indeed developed skills. I know users who really lack for people skills because they reject the kind of (typically ) behavior that could endear people to them more rapidly. users who really lack for people skills because they reject the kind of (typically Also, since people skills often happen at much greater psychological distance, type means less, as the exposure to personal information is not as great. The only real advantage an adept has at people skills is a heightened awareness of other people's feelings toward people or things, allowing them to test reactions to various things, detecting small changes in attitude and (sometimes) affect. Other types just learn other ways like the razzle-dazzle or the power display.

That's a good point.

[hellothere]

is it possible that some ethical types could be so aware of certain cues in others that it inhibits them from starting or continuing the interaction, making them appear to have worse people skills than others who don't notice these things in the first place?

[theMime.]

is it possible that some ethical types could be so aware of certain cues in others that it inhibits them from starting or continuing the interaction, making them appear to have worse people skills than others who don't notice these things in the first place?

Yes.

This happens a lot actually with my IEI friend. I get a bit anxious, she notices, it makes her anxious, I notice, it makes me even more anxious, she noticies, etc.

[hellothere]

yeah, it happens to me too.

some people seem to have good people skills because they do not see signs in others which if they did would put them off

[hellothere]

why?

[Ezra]

Define "people"

Anybody (any type) can have good or bad people skills.

It's people SKILLS.

They are skills. Skills can be taught and learned.

if you don't comprehend the information related to an information aspect well, then you're going to have a hard time being skilled at behavior which is connected to this information.

She said it.

with SLE's, there is only one relationship with them. it's "i'm in charge and you're not." they accurately assess power dynamics and people's needs, but not their potential and positive qualities. overly autocratic.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I for one am willing to give others free reign over their own lives because I believe autonomy is a beneficial thing to people.

Is it possible that this is where beta aristocracy comes in to play? The SLE needs to guage who is above whom in terms of status in order to act. If the person is clearly above the SLE in many ways, he'll avoid challenging that person directly. However, if the person becomes an obsession the SLE then probes for ways to challenge the person on the SLE's terms in order to prove the SLE's worth.

I agree with this. It's definitely something I experience often.

An unhealthy SLE may outrightly deny the fact that any person is superior to him and live in a sort of self-contained world, challenging any information which may lead him to believe otherwise in an autocratic fashion. This is at least the case with one SLE I've observed.

Yes, this is also true, although I've rarely reached this kind of health level.

Having as a PoLR, whether SLE or ILE, is a constant feeling of distance between you and others. Not that other types don't feel distant from other people, but "alienation" is a persistent theme, with creative types often completely unaware of other's feelings about them. For them, such feelings must always be stated and demonstrated.

Brilliantly put. Spoken like a true Fi PoLR.

The only real advantage an adept has at people skills is a heightened awareness of other people's feelings toward people or things, allowing them to test reactions to various things, detecting small changes in attitude and (sometimes) affect.

Which, for example, salespeople will often use.

My people skills are 25+, 30+ with my ring of beauty on.

Not only does my Golden Hammer of Dark Faith give me +400HP, but it also means my people skills are tripled whenever I encounter anyone who has less than 75PS.

No.

Yes, but only if it's based on the premise that people skills are related to Fe. Even Fi egos will be good at them if they are indeed Fe-related, for the simple fact that they are adept in Fe. Whether or not they dismiss their inherent people skills is irrelevant; it's a personal choice based on preference. For example, a salesperson who was Fe ego might utilise Fe more than Fi to get what they want, but they'd still be using Fi to their advantage (as JRiddy described the tactics used by someone adept in Fi).

[theMime.]

Uhm I really don't think it would be accurate to say that Fi or Fe PoLR types WILL have bad social skills.

How much does that Fi or Fe blind spot really inhibit? I know ISTps, an INTp, ESTps, and ENTps that all have really good people skills.

And also there are Fe and Fi types with social anxiety and what not. Not to mention the phemoninan that Hellothere was talking about...where F types might actually be inhibited, in some cases, socially because they pick up on things others miss and...well you can just read his post.

[theMime.]

@theMime: it is exceptionally difficult to learn skills connected to one's polr due to the fact that you don't perceive information related to it very well. it's kinda like a blind spot. how exactly can one become skilled at info that one cannot see? but you can learn related skills via watching one skilled in your hidden agenda. like say for SLE and ILE, dual, activity, or illusionary.

Yes.

[Minde]

I agree with theMime. Having "strong" Fe (or Fi) does not necessarily mean being skilled in working with people. Likewise, having "weak" Fe (or Fi) does not necessarily mean having little to no people skills. There's much more to it than just Fe = people skills.

[Ezra]

Such as?

[Minde]

Such as?

Skill can, I suppose, be both an innate ability and a learned behavior. So, I guess this goes into the idea of whether or not you think socionics is a behavioral thing or a preferences thing (to put it very simply). If socionics is all about surface level behaviors, then, yes, I guess that it's possible that Fe = people skills, since skill involves learned abilities - learning being something distinct from already having it in you. However, if you're more of the inclination that socionics is deeper rooted, then the deepness of it doesn't completely mesh with the surface level nature of a skill.

A crude example - Someone traveling from one culture to another versus another who is very familiar with that culture. The one familiar will know better how to interact and communicate with the locals, they will have better "people skills" (which includes body language cues as well as verbal communication), than the one who has not learned of the culture.

Now, some socionics types may naturally be better at learning those skills and picking up on the cues, but unless you're somehow non-socionically inhibited (mental disorder, physical handicap, etc.) any type has the ability to learn how to navigate in a people environment. Again, going back to preferences and comfort, some may choose not to expend the effort needed to get a good grasp on the subject, or practice the skills, or even find the work-around solutions to what continues to elude them, but that does not mean they are incapable of learning how to interact with people well.


This is my opinion. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

[Blaze]

i think it's easy for ethical types to say that people skills are easily learned.

the same way it would be for logical types to say that logic is easily learned.

it's better to say these things can be learned if the person is motivated enough. how easily the learning will come will depend on a lot more than motivation though.