A Metaphor for Fe

[Krig the Viking]

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

[Brilliand]

I think this is good, and an improvement on Expat's description. I've course, I'm one of those who can mistake yellow construction paper for the sun.

Let's see... extending this to and a la Ti... is boxes. The boxes contain stuff; they're organized and stacked on top of each other, and when enough stuff is put in boxes, empty spaces start to stand out where we don't have any boxes yet. creatives will deal will pack the empty spaces with properly labeled empty boxes, in anticipation of finding the thing that goes there. Sometimes we'll talk as though we've already found it, because we know that it exists - the box is there, isn't it?

*Not talking about myself from here down, or anyone I've observed very closely - might be wrong*

creatives will look at the empty spaces and say "Those spaces are empty"; they'll mark the floor maybe, and certainly not put anything there that doesn't belong there, but they won't mark any boxes until they've found the thing to put in the box.

On the other hand, is a busy warehouse; things are constantly going in and out, and organization is based on how the things will be used. is a warehouse for long-term storage and cataloging; space efficiency is important here. is a warehouse for constant use, with no dusty corners. Retrieval efficiency, not space efficiency, is the important thing.

[Logos]

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let's face it. Fog is not as cool as laser beams. But the description sounds good. I may expand upon it later.

[Warlord]

You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ).

You just can't entrust them with matches.

Fe PoLRs are the gremlins?

A black hole emitting a gamma-ray burst


I had a neighbor who suspected I was a vampire for real. He asked me questions like:"you must not like garlic?" etc., and I mean out nowhere, I have never said anything at all about garlic.

EDIT: I just noticed that the picture was made by a guy called Garlick, hidden connections everywhere!

[Warlord]

From your user title to ava to the post, there is something strangely epic about it all.

I just had to log in and check out if I won Viking lottery, that was held earlier today. All these omens, but no win

[shakealittle]

But going by this theory, doesn't that suggest that Fe types would be the brightest around people they have the most positive blue lazer beams? In my experience, Fe types I have good relationships with don't necessarily act that way.

[Krig the Viking]

But going by this theory, doesn't that suggest that Fe types would be the brightest around people they have the most positive blue lazer beams? In my experience, Fe types I have good relationships with don't necessarily act that way.

That's not necessarily the case. Fe is influenced by a lot of factors, not just laser beam colours. A hard day at work, winning the lottery, just saw a cute puppy... there are many reasons for the shifting Fe moods. Around someone with a very blue laser (a very close relationship) an Fe type might even feel free to express some of their more serious, private emotions.

Plus, the blue and red lasers are just an example -- in reality, there's also pink, yellow, chartreuse, lime green, forest green, plaid, etc. ad nauseum. There's so many subtleties of mood, and so many things that influence mood, that you can't really expect a 1:1 correlation of blue Fi laser = blue Fe glow.

[Gilly]

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

[Krig the Viking]

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

I was thinking along the same lines, but I need to sort it all out in my head before I post about it. I've been trying to figure out how to metaphorically describe Si and Ni, as they relate to Fe in ESEs and EIEs. Hmm.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

I was thinking along the same lines, but I need to sort it all out in my head before I post about it. I've been trying to figure out how to metaphorically describe Si and Ni, as they relate to Fe in ESEs and EIEs. Hmm.

Well, an FeNi would see people's internal states over an extended period of time, monitoring not only their "moods" in the literal sense (the more short-term transience of "moods" is more relevant to Si), but also their longer-reaching internal attitudes, phases of their life, personal development, and see correlations and trends between his own life, lives of other people, and all of the parallels and connections in between. This is why FeNis are often thought of as very "spiritual" people: they are very concerned with and aware of the sort of "internal evolution" that is emphasized in many religious or occult traditions.

Think like this: the extension of an Ni "field" is not in external space and the meshing and physical interactions of the present moment, but rather in the longer term causations and interweavings of events as they unfold in time. Si has to do with "timing," too, in the sense of swinging a baseball bat with the right timing to hit the ball, whereas "Ni timing" is more concerned with seeing things in a sense that is abstracted from our immediate physical perception; hence, over a longer period of time, in a sense that is not related to things physically present, but rather overriding trends in a longer-term sense.

[Logos]

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

Yes, since Si is more "free floating" than Ni. But even then, fogs and lasers do not seem to be an appropriate or analogous visual for communicating the differences between Fe and Fi that does both IE justice. Instead of jury-rigging Expat's visual, it might be easier to build up a new one from the ground-up.

[Gilly]

I think the laser beam metaphor is good; the difference, I think would be emphasis on the "color" or "shade" of the individual as that moment vs. emphasis on the color or shade of the laser beam.

[Currere]

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

So basically Fe-leading types have "emotional infrared".

[Nico1e]

bumping an ancient thread from the distant past.

[Gilly]

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

So basically Fe-leading types have "emotional infrared".

Actually, yeah.

[Aiss]

I think this is good, and an improvement on Expat's description. I've course, I'm one of those who can mistake yellow construction paper for the sun.

Let's see... extending this to and a la Ti... is boxes. The boxes contain stuff; they're organized and stacked on top of each other, and when enough stuff is put in boxes, empty spaces start to stand out where we don't have any boxes yet. creatives will deal will pack the empty spaces with properly labeled empty boxes, in anticipation of finding the thing that goes there. Sometimes we'll talk as though we've already found it, because we know that it exists - the box is there, isn't it?

*Not talking about myself from here down, or anyone I've observed very closely - might be wrong*

creatives will look at the empty spaces and say "Those spaces are empty"; they'll mark the floor maybe, and certainly not put anything there that doesn't belong there, but they won't mark any boxes until they've found the thing to put in the box.

On the other hand, is a busy warehouse; things are constantly going in and out, and organization is based on how the things will be used. is a warehouse for long-term storage and cataloging; space efficiency is important here. is a warehouse for constant use, with no dusty corners. Retrieval efficiency, not space efficiency, is the important thing.

IDK about your idea of Ne+Ti and Se+Ti, but I like the last paragraph. And yes I realize this thread is ancient, but it still seems this forum haven't progressed much if at all since then.

[Cat King Cole]

If you like integral types, I think it's because we've basically passed into the phase of refining the theory and connecting it up to other things (like labcoat's work). There's not really a lot of or activity.

[717495]

This is good. Though I must say, when Fe and Fi is defined in these abstract terms, I tend to relate to both of them.

The most relatable Fe descriptions tend to be when they are colored in terms of IEIs.

[Nico1e]

You already know all this but I'm in 'lecture mode' today, sorry, just tune it out. This is one of those days when I am writing too much and telling everyone things they already know.

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

[Galen]

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

I don't. Fe tends to baffle the shit out of me and makes me generally uncomfortable when I'm expected to replicate it.

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

I have yet to see myself or any other Ne ego I know be capable of reproducing Ni in any sort of accurate way.

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

It's not difficult if you know how Fe and Fi people actually work, and understand that the valuing of one excludes the natural understanding or reproductive capabilities of the other.

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

See above.

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

See above above.

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

Then turn it into Te, that should be easy right?

[Galen]

Back on topic.

I'm still not a fan of describing F functions as "feelings," because whatever emotions may arise seem like secondary byproducts of the process underlying them. I talked about this a bit with my dad (without actually using the word Socionics or any sort of socionics terminology) and he made a point to substitute the word emotion with "experience," and given how F and S functions are involved (versus N and T being abstracted) this made a lot of sense to me.

Now I see both F functions are more means of experiential rationalization: the situation or object is understood by the individual in terms of how it is experienced. This would differ from S functions by means of the irrational -information input- versus rational -information synthesis- dichotomy. The reason why this may translate into the idea of emotions or feelings is since experience only happens on the individual level, it cannot be explained. From an experiential perspective, one cannot explain what the color red looks like; if you were to try to speak of "red" in terms of its scientific make-up, such as the wavelength of the light hitting your eyes, then you detach from the experience of the color itself. The same applies to the F functions: when one attempts to understand information on an experiential level, the result is something that loses its direct conveyability. I estimate that you could never properly convey something like a religious experience or sheer hatred to someone who's never experienced it before. If anything you could only explain such an understanding in terms of secondary qualifiers: the physical reactions you have, resulting courses of action, etc.

I may expand more on this later.

[Krig the Viking]

Two years later, I think the metaphors hold up.

Fe is Internal Dynamics of Objects, i.e., what's going on inside of things/people. The most common example of this is emotions or moods, one's changing emotional state. It's not strictly limited to emotions, though -- things like energy levels and feelings of physical pain or pleasure could also be considered Internal Dynamics of Objects (as opposed to Si which observes how such dynamics within objects are influenced by the physical interactions between objects).

Fi is Internal Statics of Fields, i.e., the internal attitude and orientation of objects toward one another. The most common example of this is sentiment and opinion, what people think and feel about other people, their relationships toward one another. I like Jane, I'm friends with Jim, Janice doesn't like me, and I'm enemies with Jack; that sort of thing. Like Fe, however, Fi isn't strictly limited to personal sentiments and opinions. Things like moral obligations and social status could also be considered Internal Statics of Fields.

[Galen]

Two years later, I think the metaphors hold up.

Fe is Internal Dynamics of Objects, i.e., what's going on inside of things/people. The most common example of this is emotions or moods, one's changing emotional state. It's not strictly limited to emotions, though -- things like energy levels and feelings of physical pain or pleasure could also be considered Internal Dynamics of Objects (as opposed to Si which observes how such dynamics within objects are influenced by the physical interactions between objects).

Fi is Internal Statics of Fields, i.e., the internal attitude and orientation of objects toward one another. The most common example of this is sentiment and opinion, what people think and feel about other people, their relationships toward one another. I like Jane, I'm friends with Jim, Janice doesn't like me, and I'm enemies with Jack; that sort of thing. Like Fe, however, Fi isn't strictly limited to personal sentiments and opinions. Things like moral obligations and social status could also be considered Internal Statics of Fields.

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

[tcaudilllg]

You already know all this but I'm in 'lecture mode' today, sorry, just tune it out. This is one of those days when I am writing too much and telling everyone things they already know.

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

The effect of Ti demonstrative is such that you don't try to force your knowledge onto others. But why? I think it also has something to do with avoiding conflict and "live and let live".

[Krig the Viking]

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life. If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

[Reuben]

This makes me feel like I'm a Fe-polr instead of Fi-polr

[Nico1e]

I liked this metaphor because it gives me a simple visual image that I can use in my mind. And it's true that Fe and Fi are probably more complicated than that, but I need an image that I can quickly see. I have to represent social interactions in my mind by using some kind of vague, symbolic imagery, because it's not easy for me to represent them in any kind of complex or detailed way. And I happened to stumble across this post while I was digging through some ancient historical threads.

[Nico1e]

The effect of Ti demonstrative is such that you don't try to force your knowledge onto others. But why? I think it also has something to do with avoiding conflict and "live and let live".

Yes, that does describe how Ti demonstrative feels, to me. I *could* be extremely aggressive about using that type of logic, but it would be sort of painful or tiring, and I would also feel like I was getting into fights, so yeah, 'live and let live.'

[Galen]

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life.

Nanashi seems like a good example of an INTp who seems very aware of her moods and emotional self-expression, and Riddy is a good example of an ENTp who knows what people he likes and has very strong opinions about things. Likewise, I hardly care about things like social status. So, something's wrong here.

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

[717495]

and I'm a good example of a homie who ain't black. Home-slice, rep ra zent.

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

[EyeSeeCold]

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

Though it doesn't affect the likelihood that accuracy is the reason why it's commonly believed. Do you expect more people to converge on accuracy or inaccuracy?

[717495]

ESC, c'mon. Don't ask silly, bottomless questions.

[Gilly]

actually its a valid point lol

[Krig the Viking]

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life.

Nanashi seems like a good example of an INTp who seems very aware of her moods and emotional self-expression, and Riddy is a good example of an ENTp who knows what people he likes and has very strong opinions about things. Likewise, I hardly care about things like social status. So, something's wrong here.

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Moral obligation, especially in a general sense, is related to Fi+Ne, while social status is more of an Fi+Se matter.

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

[Galen]

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

[Krig the Viking]

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then.

[munenori2]

Back on topic.

I'm still not a fan of describing F functions as "feelings," because whatever emotions may arise seem like secondary byproducts of the process underlying them. I talked about this a bit with my dad (without actually using the word Socionics or any sort of socionics terminology) and he made a point to substitute the word emotion with "experience," and given how F and S functions are involved (versus N and T being abstracted) this made a lot of sense to me.

Now I see both F functions are more means of experiential rationalization: the situation or object is understood by the individual in terms of how it is experienced. This would differ from S functions by means of the irrational -information input- versus rational -information synthesis- dichotomy. The reason why this may translate into the idea of emotions or feelings is since experience only happens on the individual level, it cannot be explained. From an experiential perspective, one cannot explain what the color red looks like; if you were to try to speak of "red" in terms of its scientific make-up, such as the wavelength of the light hitting your eyes, then you detach from the experience of the color itself. The same applies to the F functions: when one attempts to understand information on an experiential level, the result is something that loses its direct conveyability. I estimate that you could never properly convey something like a religious experience or sheer hatred to someone who's never experienced it before. If anything you could only explain such an understanding in terms of secondary qualifiers: the physical reactions you have, resulting courses of action, etc.

I may expand more on this later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Are you saying all 'F' functions are qualia, that all qualia are examples of 'F' functions, or some other less stringent claim?

[thePirate]

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then.

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

[Galen]

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Are you saying all 'F' functions are qualia, that all qualia are examples of 'F' functions, or some other less stringent claim?

I really don't know the term too well, so I can't say for sure. But from what I'm reading there are some definite comparisons to be drawn between involved IEs and the nature of qualia. Interesting connection.

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

I'm not trying to make connections to any model. I'm just describing my own musings/connections/observations about the IEs as discrete patterns of cognition and understanding. Not sure where you got any depictions of Model A out of what I wrote.