Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Introverted Ethics Fi not like emotions or feelings

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Introverted Ethics Fi not like emotions or feelings

    I'm not sure how most people perceive Fi but I was just thinking about it and to me it totally doesn't seem like emotions or feeling at all, which I sometimes find in descriptions and have also inferred from how people talk. To me Fi doesn't seem like feeling at all. But rather it is an analysis of certain characteristics of people, well this is how it predominantly comes across anyway... there are also other ways. So yeh, I think Fi has pretty much nothing to do with feeling. To me it is totally a thinking function. For example Fi "says" to me "based on what I have previously seen in this person he/she will likely have this, this, and that on his/her wall. Will behave like this in this situation and that in that situation. He/she will like this but not that.... etc. It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.

    Does anyone else identify with this?

    Is this pretty much the description of Fi?
    IEE

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.

  3. #3
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    I'm not sure how most people perceive Fi but I was just thinking about it and to me it totally doesn't seem like emotions or feeling at all, which I sometimes find in descriptions and have also inferred from how people talk. To me Fi doesn't seem like feeling at all. But rather it is an analysis of certain characteristics of people, well this is how it predominantly comes across anyway... there are also other ways. So yeh, I think Fi has pretty much nothing to do with feeling. To me it is totally a thinking function. For example Fi "says" to me "based on what I have previously seen in this person he/she will likely have this, this, and that on his/her wall. Will behave like this in this situation and that in that situation. He/she will like this but not that.... etc. It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.

    Does anyone else identify with this?

    Is this pretty much the description of Fi?

    I'd be interested to here about this in greater detail.

    You may be getting Fi confused with another element...

    or this may be an example of the silliness of "F" as Fi and Fe are miles apart. Also no element has to do with emotions. That is a separate biological/psychological issue.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  4. #4
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.
    You are on the right track, I think.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  5. #5
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does
    Sure it does. Fi is static, and in the case of an IEE like jimbo, judging objects is exactly what it does. Ne base perceives in object form and Fi creative judges it. Static thinkers (especially EPs) will always be thinking in the mode of object judgement.

    I think the issue here is the difference between Static and Object/Dynamic and Field. I'll talk about this later as I have to get to work.
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  6. #6
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't believe "judgement" is always via a subjective element. Wouldn't the perception of every element involve judgement? For instance, judging the presense of objective data.

    Perhaps its just the way you are using the term. Do you mean specifically "determining if an object fits criterion for its inclusion within some wider framework"?

    Yeah, Fi would focus on determining inclusivity of actions... like, "This action is not allowed due to my beliefs." Ti behaves in a similar way, although its the criterion not the actions themselves which are demonstrable and explict.

    For Ti/Fe, the rules are solid and the actions intuited and for Fi/Te the rules are intuited and the actions solid.
    This is a grand over simplification, but may be useful for a realization.

    So, okay Vero, I agree lol.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  7. #7
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fi is more connected with ethical values, principles and personal sentiments rather than expressed emotion which is a focus of Fe. But,

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.
    it does have something to do with emotions, in the sense that, subjective judgment and personal sentiments are often expressed through (or followed by) some sort of emotion.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  8. #8
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The F elements deal with affect, as in influences.
    In terms of "ethics vs logics", F seems to be treated as a combination of Ethos + Pathos.

    Logos, Ethos, and Pathos are methods of persuasions.
    Logos methods attempt to appeal to the intellect and includes such things as symbolic logic, mathematical logic, and formal logic.
    Ethos methods refers to the trustworthiness of the speaker/writer.
    Some of the ways of gaining trust of those you are attempting to persuade is to
    * establish yourself as an authority figure on the topic (assuming the audience respects "authority")
    * establish yourself as knowledgeable on the topic
    * demonstrate respect for the audience's ideas and values
    * know your audience's preferences
    * know your audience well enough to know what kinds of things they trust or distrust

    * know the kind of language to use with your audience
    Pathos methods deal with sympathy and empathy. Giving someone a logical reason why to do something doesn't get that internal energy moving inside them that would prompt them into motion. But touching a nerve of theirs helps to compel them into action.

    Ethos and Pathos both utilize awareness of the audience's emotional potential and values (among other things) as a way to influence their audience. Their both aimed at attempting to produce a mental or emotional effect, to act upon a person's emotions, to recognize what influences the audience.


    The OP is a good example of what I mean.
    The OP said,
    * "[Fi] is an analysis of certain characteristics of people"
    * "Fi "says" to me "based on what I have previously seen in this person he/she will likely have this, this, and that on his/her wall. Will behave like this in this situation and that in that situation. He/she will like this but not that.... etc."

    Each of those examples deals with awareness of what influences the person, knowing the person's values ("will likely have this, this, and that"; "will like this but not that"), and what influences their behaviors and actions (which is a combination of their values + the nerve that prompts them into motion).



    As an aside note: Even "Ethics" as is commonly referred to on this forum deals with values, and rules and principles of behavior. (The problem comes when "morals" are referred to instead of ethics. Morals deals with "correctness" of behavior, character, and conduct. Attempting to persuade an audience of 'correct' behavior is one possible goal of ethos/pathos persuasion attempts, but it is not the only possible goal.)
    Last edited by anndelise; 06-25-2009 at 03:01 PM.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well Fi isn't objective in the socionics term. It isn't detached from the whole like emotions are. Sure Fi can produce emotions and like winterpark said is expressed through emotions. Sure an Fi-ego can sense emotions, they have Fe. Emotions are objective in the socionics term because they are being judged apart from the field of ethics. Emotions capture motivation and willpower, something internally objective, Fe. So I am referring to socionics objectivism. However often than not, emotions aren't going to change the Fi big picture of humanity. They have little effect, aren't valued, and most importantly they aren't perceived and then exchanged, because the judgment of Fi occurs on the basis of wordly ideals, which is judged through oneselves standard, not the basis of individual people standing for themselves. Most information about individual people that supports Fi is supposed to come from the extroverted irrational function.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.
    I like this. I don't understand the last sentence though.

    I would add something to this though. I think Fi can take a person and separate them from the broad picture of humanity. Relating everything to this broad picture and the formation of ethics is just one aspect of Fi.

    A person can be separated from this big picture however it is still not the objective emotions of the person that are assessed. As you said. In this context Fi could asses ,like I said in the original post, the attraction and repulsion between that person and objects, other persons, beliefs etc. Basically; what the person would like/dislike.

    Then on an even smaller context it could asses different aspects of the same person and the repulsion and attraction between them.

    Basically I think that Fi can get small scale, but it always deals with relationships of attraction and repulsion.

    Like you said I also think this works well on the large scale. ie, taking into account all of humanity.

    Perhaps it could be said that it cannot just take one aspect, as Fe does, and look at it on it's own, without relating it to anything else.

    To clarify further; Fi Looks big picture but the scale can be small (e.g. the entire person becomes the big picture in a small scale context). Where as Fe looks little picture but the scale can be large.
    IEE

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Also no element has to do with emotions. That is a separate biological/psychological issue.
    This is basically what I was thinking. It is interesting that F types, especially Fe types, seem to display more emotions??? maybe display is the key work here???
    IEE

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterpark View Post
    it does have something to do with emotions, in the sense that, subjective judgment and personal sentiments are often expressed through (or followed by) some sort of emotion.
    Yep agreed. Yeh actually this makes a lot of sense.

    So could we say that it is the Fi that leads to emotions because things are looked at subjectively, because personal involvement leads to emotions about the event/issue etc??

    And that an expression of Fi could be seen as an emotion when personal sentiments are expressed. Eg. I like this, love that etc.

    (pretty sure I pretty much just said exactly what you did...)

    Man now I think that Fi does have to do with emotions.

    Well definitely in this context anyways.
    IEE

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Liked the post Ann. Us F types would defs be good at ethos and pathos.
    IEE

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Most information about individual people that supports Fi is supposed to come from the extroverted irrational function.
    Interesting...
    IEE

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    K. That will prolly be my last post on this topic. Cheers guys.
    IEE

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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