Which is more concerned with how others feel

[marooned]

or ?

The question is all broken bones without any flesh, but I wanted to know where people might go with it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[marooned]

I was wondering in small part because I think seeking sympathy from others is sort of associated with dual seeking. Yet on the other hand one of the statements that gets associated with PoLR sometimes is "I don't care how you feel." And of course it's context dependent because you can't care about your relationships and then at the same time not care about how those people close to you feel.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Rubicon]

I think , but I would say taking into account how you feel, rather than concerned.

[Ezra]

I think this is a very important and good point. Cheers for posting, Loki.

I agree with everyone's post so far. We've already discussed the demonisation of Fe, and I think that the worst mistake one could make is to attribute a genuine-o-meter to Fe and Fi. Fe and Fi are both genuine. Each has its pros (and cons, to those who devalue it). Fe cares more about people's feelings in general because the emotional content of the environment depends on it. If a Fe type feels ecstatic, it will find a way to make the rest of the room nearly as if not just as ecstatic. Fi, on the other hand, is more concerned with specific individuals' feelings; that is, others' feelings towards the individual, and its feelings towards others. It doesn't place the same emphasis on the external emotional interplay of the metaphorical room. It's interesting that Augusta defines Fi as being relations between "objects", and I'd be grateful to anyone who could confirm what she meant by "objects", and whether it's limited to people/individuals or if it, for example, includes animals ("I know you adore the cat") or natural phenomena ("we love that river so much").

[Expat]

esper, whose descriptions are those?

[Ezra]

Oh no, esper. Tell me you didn't.

[hellothere]

Oh no, esper. Tell me you didn't.

uh oh...

[marooned]

those appear to be from http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html...

[BLauritson]

The "ESE" and "SEE" ones have been mixed up

EDIT: For so long I've been looking for a good excuse to post that face on this forum. I feel so relieved now.

[marooned]

but I wouldn't call it inaccurate.

I agree... I think. In essence some of it might be okay. (Also agree that the introvert descriptions tend to be the most out of sync with Socionics.)

[BLauritson]

I remember I used to visit that site loads back when I was into MBTI. Funny how back then I revered it, yet nowadays I can look at it with complete indifference. IP temperament ftw. Gah, I had the funniest train of thought just then, but it happened too fast for me to type it and now I can't remember exactly how it went. *sigh* guess I might as well resign from a career that I never even started...comedy. I remember it was something to do with how I'm not sure that what I wrote up there is necessarily related to IP temperament and that if it came into argument I'd just claim the statements weren't related, thus winning said argument. Then I thought something about how later on I wouldn't care about said argument. And then repeat the "IP temperament ftw." thing. That's the essence of it, but I can't remember the exact wording. And annoying as it may be, it seems wording is critical in making a joke; especially online. Thus I feel comfortable in ruining said joke by explaining it rather than attempting to make it. Not that anyone particularly cares but I wanted to write this anyway. If you don't like it, the ignore list is only a few clicks away.

[redbaron]

I agree that is more concerned with how people feel. Not that isn't, but I think seems more set, less willing to change and therefore less concerned with feelings that come and go and more concerned with the overall status of the relationship or getting feelings to match up to the way they view the status. I dunno if that's true or if it even makes sense. I just had a mango margarita so I might not be thinking clearly.

[BLauritson]

Having thought extensively about this topic in the past, I honestly don't think either of them are necessarily more concerned than the other about how others feel. Furthermore, I don't think either one necessarily wants others to feel good; I think that aspect is down to the individual's personality (I'm thinking factors such as psychological health in general and other things I'm thinking but can't put into words but are more or less covered by that umbrella term anyway). However, as far as I can work out, I think that how and differ is the methods by which they recognise and deal with both their own and other people's feelings and emotions. I'm not even going to attempt to describe this side of things, since a) it'll most likely be inaccurate, skewed and/or biased and b) this has been covered with volumes of text elsewhere on the forum. I think I've more or less covered my (somewhat limited) understanding of these functions. It could be wrong, but that's the best I seem capable of at this point in time.

EDIT: While I think of it, I also want to point out that I'm not trying to say this is all that and deal with either; I'm just thinking in the context of feelings and emotions. I won't attempt to delve into other aspects; it's taken me this long to reach this level of understanding. It's amazing how much there is to these functions...I know there's so much more to and than I've written, yet so much of it I'll never understand. I suppose unless you happen to have one hell of a lot of life experiences, you'll never understand every aspect of a given function, even your strong functions. Because some understanding can only come through experience. I dunno...I'm feeling philosophical for some reason. Bah.

[Trevor]

Fe. Btw..empathy is Fi thing.