Alternative to Model A

[Creepy-male]

I want to make an alternative to Model A.... I am confused beyond all believe..... sometimes when I consider my personality in terms of model A it seems to be confounding... and I don't understand the motivation for assigning the Jungian functions in the order they do. Its like they just made up a pattern out of thin air and then look at it and said "Thats plausible". I don't understand the motivation for establishing the pattern of functions they do in Model A, as far as I can tell their is no objective reasoning behind the way they order the function in Model A, or at best a weak reasoning.

I definitally like the Dictomies
I definitally like the Jungian Functions
I like the Idea of Ego/Super-Ego/Super-Id/Id......

but model A I am dissatisfied with and with the ordering of jungian functions in MBTI theories....

I tend to be
>>
>
>
>

Intuition > Sensing
Thinking > Feeling
Introversion > Extroversion

Yet I can't find a good model to impose these conditions on and I am fairly sure of my observations

My model would probably be
Ti > Ne > Si > Fi
Ni > Te > Fe > Se
With Si, Fi, Ni, and Te possibly overlapping in the middle, and subject to redistribution amongst each other
Ti, Ne at the top - subject to redistribution
Fe, Se at the bottom - subject to redistribution
further more.... I feel like sometimes certain functions will "tunnel through" their heirarchy in some situations... ocassionally I'll be more Fe than normal or more Si than normal, but only on a temporary scale - like a sunspot thing, then I'll retreat back to the normal hierarchy and stay there for most of the time.

Now I just got to find a way to generalize this...... maybe someone else can lend me some data on if they think there observations differ from model a (or not)

[crazedrat]

more likely you dont understand Fi vs. Fe. can you describe the difference?

[Creepy-male]

more likely you dont understand Fi vs. Fe. can you describe the difference?

Sure I'll take a stab at it, right now I am attempting to learn the jungian functions....

So....

is concerned about the immediate impression being experienced.
is concerned about the inner value they appraise something with.
Both are emotional/feeling in nature.

wants to builds connections with people based on the feeling or mood in the air at that moment
wants to build connections with people based on common ground, sharing similar ideals of value/meaning

naturally hone in on what the feeling being experienced in the moment is
evaluate the experience of the moment based on a measuring it to their personal conception of value/meaning develop through feeling

exhibits bubbly, nice, friendly, outgoing, gregarious, enthusiastic behavior due to their pension for feeling in the moment. The proverbial "heart on the sleeves" type.
exhibits a more sentimental, value and meaning based type of behavior due to their pension for establish connection to a more internalized feeling. The more "soulful" type.

[crazedrat]

parts of this are correct, parts are questionable:

Sure I'll take a stab at it, right now I am attempting to learn the jungian functions....

So....

is concerned about the immediate impression being experienced.

This is a more complicated issue. To find meaning in this statement, consider Te vs. Ti. Te is an abstraction; a relation between two things. This relationship can exist in many different scenarios. It is originally observed in a single situation. However, the same observations can exist in new situations. Ti is a relational network. This network is specific to a situation. No network will coherently match up with any other network. However, every network adheres to the same principles; and it is these principles which Ti experiences. The same applies to Fi & Fe. So in one sense, Fe is immediate; it is derived from the immediate; but in another sense it is abstract; it can be applied to many different situations
is concerned about the inner value they appraise something with.
Both are emotional/feeling in nature.
just make it clear the appraisal is secondary to the value. Fi is experienced. Appraising a thing is identifying something outside yourself.
wants to builds connections with people based on the feeling or mood in the air at that moment
This is a particular behavior sometimes associated with Fe. Many Fe types do not do this. Identifying a function based on behavior can be confusing
wants to build connections with people based on common ground, sharing similar ideals of value/meaning
It is important to specify what you mean by common ground. Is common ground considered internal and experience based, or worldly and identifiable? I have common ground with the people I work with. The other day we had a rude customer, and I felt common ground with my fellow employees, rallied against the bastard. I also feel common ground with a security guard at the gate, although I don't know anything about him. I can't particularly say why
naturally hone in on what the feeling being experienced in the moment is
evaluate the experience of the moment based on a measuring it to their personal conception of value/meaning develop through feeling
If you look at these two definitions, they say the same thing in reverse order. You have to consider the first point I made if you are attaching words like experience and moment vs. abstraction with Fe & Fi. Both functions have both qualities. Statements like the ones you make here need to be further qualified. I think Fe derives itself from the moment, and generalizes as an abstraction; where Fi derives itself from the person, as an abstraction, and is then applied to the moment. Considering this sort of duality: as functions have meaning when paired with other functions, every type will experience all 8 functions. Some they experience in a secondary, backwards fashion. Anyway, it is possible you are identifying your Fe in terms of your Ti, and seeing it as Fi.
exhibits bubbly, nice, friendly, outgoing, gregarious, enthusiastic behavior due to their pension for feeling in the moment. The proverbial "heart on the sleeves" type.
SEEs can seem very bubbly sometimes. Marilyn Manson is a Fe dominant type. I don't think this is a good way of identifying Fe. I agree Fe types have more concrete emotions. But I have known INFps & ISFps, manifesting their Fe through IP functions; this gives a different impression to the quality of their Fe.
exhibits a more sentimental, value and meaning based type of behavior due to their pension for establish connection to a more internalized feeling. The more "soulful" type. same criticism as above.. this qualitative observation can only be considered along with a persons other functions

the second part of this question is whether you understand the roles of Fi & Fe in your types information processing model (assuming you know your type).

[Creepy-male]

parts of this are correct, parts are questionable:

Wow, the thing is you haven't actually told me what your understanding is of and , you've only offered criticism on my understanding. The criticism isn't really that revealing though, its well thought out but its kind of nit-picky and not really structured or rational.

I'll still address each point peice by peice though.....

The summarization of your idea is as follows...

Te is a process which discerns a relationship between two things.
Ti is a process which discerns a relational network.
Fe and Fi obey this same interrelation....
Fe is a relationship between two things
Fi is a process which discerns a relational network.

A relationship is general and holds for all circumstance
A relational network is specific for a circumstance (but general for that circumstance - "network")

Therefore Fe is not "immediate" since it is general and not specific

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem I think with this thought process is it is misleading....

Fe manifests it discernment of relationships in practice as an understand of the relationship they have with other people, and how that experience feels.

Fi manifests its discernment of relational networks as how people fit into their personal "network" of value and meaning they understand through feeling.

In this sense Fe is based on something immediate and changing (the encounters they have with other people)... also the reason for it being Internal Dynamics of objects.

Fi is based on something non moving (their personal values or network of feeling).... likewise the reason for it being Internal Statics of fields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point you could argue that Fe applies their interactions with people to other situations... and this is true but it still doesn't refute the "immediacy" of Fe.

Consider something simpler like an experience.... lets say eating peppermint ice cream. The Fe type may find peppermint ice cream disgusting, so they remember this relationship between themselves and peppermint ice cream and apply it to the next time the see peppermint ice cream and avoid it.

I think Fe types do this process with people..... they remember what it was like with this one type of person, then they apply that to someone else they run across...

Its still immediate though because Fe is judging this based on a relation between themselves and something else in that moment, they aren't considering it from a larger "network" perspective.

first of all, all functions in practice work together.... its an idealization to pretend you can talk about Fi without regard to other functions and a very impractical one.... its like talking about pressure without regard to temperature and volume.

second, you completely misunderstand what I mean by apprasial. What I mean is that Fi is concerned with value, meaning, and sentiment that is developed based on feeling. When they encounter something they attempt to understand how that thing they encounter plays into those values, meaning, and sentiments. In essence they are appraising that thing based on their "network" of values and meaning. Its a completely subjective apprasial of worth , not an objective apprasial of worth.

this method of appraising is coherent with the idea of internal statics of fields.... since their network of value and meaning is much like a field that remains fixed. They attempt to understand things in terms of their place within that field.

The interesting trick is that to build this network or field they must unconciously use Fe to generate their feelings about things.

everyone to some degree wants to develop relationships with people based on the mood in the air at that moment..... and thats because Fe is at work in every person..... but in different areas of model A.... some are very concious of this, while others remain very unsure of this or unconcious of it.

You say "Many Fe types don't do this".... your being too literal about what I am saying.... this isn't so much a strict algothirm of behavior but rather an unlying motivation that Fe types I believe are in touch with more so than other types

I said common ground can be loosely defined as sharing similar ideals of value/meaning.... re-read what I wrote, you must have missed it.

Of course they say the same thing in essence.... both are intimately linked. The division between them though is the order..... saying one in reverse of the other IS the point.

I did find what you said about Ti and Fe interesting.... I hadn't considered that.... but still I hold model A as being loose at best..... There is not motivation for stacking the functions into the 8 slots the way they did.... they just did it and said "this is right"... they didn't base it on any real world motivation.

I say bubbly because Fe types where there heart on their sleeves.... when they are in good moods they express it openly as bubbly exhuberance. In the case of marilyn manson, hes darker and that manifests itself as a different type of feeling, but the point remains that they are very "heart on their sleeves".... very outward about their emotional expressivity.

I disagree.... I think it wouldn't matter if that function was extraverted sensing or extraverted intuition..... both only flavour the Fi differently.... but Fi remains sentimental, valuing, meaningful, and soulful. a Sensing and Fi would attach this sentimentally more concretely than an Intuitive Fi.

[crazedrat]

1st point response is addressed in the 5th point argument, 5th point argument is dismissed too quickly without reexamining its context with the 1st point argument, 5th point response is (annoyingly) a replica of my 5th point (minus one detail addressed below), 6th and 7th are also restating my 6th and 7th argument but pretending to be a response due to misinterpreting the implications of the 6th point argument, 7th is reworded in a minimalizing fashion (...why? why not just agree?), rest i didnt read.

one elaboration on your 5th point response (the only important response in the whole post):
part of your response paraphrased: 'saying one is the reverse of the other IS the point'
No, because one is not entirely the reverse of the other. Instead, they are only partially reverse of one another. they also share a similarity. Fe and Fi are not opposites. Fe and Ti are opposites, Fi and Te are opposites. That is a full reversal. Since Fe and Fi are only a partial reversal of one another, qualification (which is everything I gave you in bold) on what kind of reversal is necessary. And because of this, blocked functions (such as Ni & Fe) can give the illusion of the same sorts of reversal you see in Fi compared to Fe. Without qualification, the simple observation of a formal reversal is meaningless. What kind of reversal exactly? In what way is something immediate, and at the same time also abstract? That is what needs to be qualified. Using a blanket statement that a function is "immediate" or "abstract" is mostly meaningless. (and those are the sorts of statements you make in your replies).
The only inherent meaning in those statements is through a heirarchy of abstraction vs. immediacy present in a thing. It is better to specify that heirarchy then to leave it open to interpretation. That is what my criticism is. It makes it very clear what it is you are saying. There isn't a need to say something new entirely, only to give it proper context

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Thinking and Feeling aren't opposites, they're connected. How you think about something translates to how you feel about something. How is a man opposite of a woman? They're different but how can you say they're 'opposites.' Do men and women contradict each other? Certain men or women might. But I don't see how 'Thinking' is Fire and 'Feeling' is Water.

RUNAWAY TRAIN NEVER GOING BACK WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY TRACK SEEMS LIKE I SHOULD BE GETTING SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW I'M EITHER HERE NOR THERE. CAN YOU HELP ME REMEMBER HOW TO SMILE? MAKE IT SOMEHOW ALL SEEM WORTHWHILE, HOW ON EARTH DID I GET SO JADED? LIFE'S MYSTERIES SEEM SO FADED. I COULD GO WHERE NO ONE ELSE CAN GO, I KNOW WHAT NO-ONE ELSE KNOWS, HERE I AM JUST DROWING IN THE RAIN WITH A TICKET FOR THE RUNAWAY TRAIN

AND EVERYTHING SEEMS CUT AND DRY, DAY AND NIGHT, EARTH AND SKY. SOMEHOW I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.

That's the attitude/vibe and internal feeling I'm getting from your message. Your post reminded me of that song. OMG YOU HAVE FEELINGS AFTER ALL! SOMEBODY CALL THE COPS!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I definitally like the Dictomies

I don't like dichotomies. I like queer, circular, shamanistic shit. =/ I do not like binarieis or split categories. I don't see the world like that. I used to think in dichotomies actually but I'm trying not to anymore. It's helping.

[Creepy-male]

1st point response is addressed in the 5th point argument, 5th point argument is dismissed too quickly without reexamining its context with the 1st point argument, 5th point response is (annoyingly) a replica of my 5th point (minus one detail addressed below), 6th and 7th are also restating my 6th and 7th argument but pretending to be a response due to misinterpreting the implications of the 6th point argument, 7th is reworded in a minimalizing fashion (...why? why not just agree?), rest i didnt read.

one elaboration on your 5th point response (the only important response in the whole post):
part of your response paraphrased: 'saying one is the reverse of the other IS the point'
No, because one is not entirely the reverse of the other. Instead, they are only partially reverse of one another. they also share a similarity. Fe and Fi are not opposites. Fe and Ti are opposites, Fi and Te are opposites. That is a full reversal. Since Fe and Fi are only a partial reversal of one another, qualification (which is everything I gave you in bold) on what kind of reversal is necessary. And because of this, blocked functions (such as Ni & Fe) can give the illusion of the same sorts of reversal you see in Fi compared to Fe. Without qualification, the simple observation of a formal reversal is meaningless. What kind of reversal exactly? In what way is something immediate, and at the same time also abstract? That is what needs to be qualified. Using a blanket statement that a function is "immediate" or "abstract" is mostly meaningless. (and those are the sorts of statements you make in your replies).
The only inherent meaning in those statements is through a heirarchy of abstraction vs. immediacy present in a thing. It is better to specify that heirarchy then to leave it open to interpretation. That is what my criticism is. It makes it very clear what it is you are saying. There isn't a need to say something new entirely, only to give it proper context

Wow I didn't even bother reading that... because I kind of get the feeling you really didn't put any effort into understanding my thought process.... so tell me why should I do the same?

I do not wish to continue this conversation further until you actually want to stay on the point and address the issues being considered.... otherwise you can spread your criticism elsewhere.... but within the context of my investigation of model A, Fi, and Fe.... your ideas presented here are of little worth.

They are of little worth, because ultimately what point are you trying to make.... you took painstaking effort to analyze and criticize my last post.... but really how does this lead me closer to the pursuit of whether model A is a justifiable theoretical structure..... it doesn't.... your post only serves a self-focused motive.... you feel hurt because I criticized model A and I criticized your previous posts so your out to give a harsh criticism back.... but I don't even think you're aware of your point.

[Creepy-male]

Thinking and Feeling aren't opposites, they're connected. How you think about something translates to how you feel about something. How is a man opposite of a woman? They're different but how can you say they're 'opposites.' Do men and women contradict each other? Certain men or women might. But I don't see how 'Thinking' is Fire and 'Feeling' is Water.

RUNAWAY TRAIN NEVER GOING BACK WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY TRACK SEEMS LIKE I SHOULD BE GETTING SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW I'M EITHER HERE NOR THERE. CAN YOU HELP ME REMEMBER HOW TO SMILE? MAKE IT SOMEHOW ALL SEEM WORTHWHILE, HOW ON EARTH DID I GET SO JADED? LIFE'S MYSTERIES SEEM SO FADED. I COULD GO WHERE NO ONE ELSE CAN GO, I KNOW WHAT NO-ONE ELSE KNOWS, HERE I AM JUST DROWING IN THE RAIN WITH A TICKET FOR THE RUNAWAY TRAIN

AND EVERYTHING SEEMS CUT AND DRY, DAY AND NIGHT, EARTH AND SKY. SOMEHOW I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.

That's the attitude/vibe and internal feeling I'm getting from your message. Your post reminded me of that song. OMG YOU HAVE FEELINGS AFTER ALL! SOMEBODY CALL THE COPS!

Sorry this was difficult for me to understand... but I like the idea of using lyrics to communicate your feelings.

Are you basically comparing those lyric to how you feel when you consider the idea of thinking and feeling as seperates?

I don't like dichotomies. I like queer, circular, shamanistic shit. =/ I do not like binarieis or split categories. I don't see the world like that. I used to think in dichotomies actually but I'm trying not to anymore. It's helping.

I like categorization.... but I think the problem is how those categories play into a model.

People adopt a peg and hole model of categories.... the functions are the pegs and model a is the hole.

The problem is I think this is overly idealistic, un-natural, and simplistic.

I think the functions are more fluid, they overlap, and flow back and forth between each other.... but they still hold a distinct "essence" about them.

I think the same with dictomies.... people want to insert one of two pegs into the hole for a person.... and I think the bottom line is that dictomies are even fluid and people exhibit both dictomies.... about the only thing you can say deterministically about dictomies in my honest opinion is that people will have a "stronger attraction" to a particular dictomy or a "higher probability" of exhibiting a particular dictomy.... but I think outright saying in absolute terms you are completely A and not B what so ever is a gross oversimplification.

[silverchris9]

This thread is funny. Especially this bit:

Wow I didn't even bother reading that... because I kind of get the feeling you really didn't put any effort into understanding my thought process.... so tell me why should I do the same?

All of the first and second and third and fourth and whatever points are making my head hurt though.

exhibits bubbly, nice, friendly, outgoing, gregarious, enthusiastic behavior due to their pension for feeling in the moment. The proverbial "heart on the sleeves" type.
exhibits a more sentimental, value and meaning based type of behavior due to their pension for establish connection to a more internalized feeling. The more "soulful" type.

I disagree with this. Like crazedat said, these are all behavioral things that can be related to any function. Fe can be extremely sentimental. Fi can be extremely bubbly if the individual using Fi believes that the situation calls for bubbliness. Fi certainly doesn't have anything to do with a more "internalized" feeling or being more "soulful". For instance, most of what we describe as "soulful" in music can be produced by any type, but is very often found in musicians using Fe to influence the emotional atmosphere around them. I don't understand why Fe is associated exclusively with the emotion of excitement. I think Fe is more properly associated with the apprehension, expression and inducement of heightened emotional states, which can be anything: anger, sorrow, joy, anxiety, anticipation, dissatisfaction, infatuation, etc. Fi to me is more about "right behavior"; that is, behavior that will accomplish a certain end, which is generally peace/contentment/etc. "rude" and "unacceptable" are adjectives that I imagine Fi-users using. But I'm willing to accept the fact that I just don't understand Fi that well, since I don't really like it all that much, at least not the polite/good behavior side of it. (also, btw, I think you meant "penchant")

But whatever, because I like the functions better than I like Model A too. I just happen to like Model A better than it appears that you do, havelucid. I find it is generally accurate, although from a basic standpoint, I understand why you find it unnatural. But then I do find that the function pairs work nicely, and it makes sense that Se would need Ni and vice versa, that Fi would need Te, etc. But I'm too tired to mount a defense of Model A. I think it works though.

[Creepy-male]

I disagree with this. Like crazedat said, these are all behavioral things that can be related to any function. Fe can be extremely sentimental. Fi can be extremely bubbly if the individual using Fi believes that the situation calls for bubbliness. Fi certainly doesn't have anything to do with a more "internalized" feeling or being more "soulful". For instance, most of what we describe as "soulful" in music can be produced by any type, but is very often found in musicians using Fe to influence the emotional atmosphere around them. I don't understand why Fe is associated exclusively with the emotion of excitement. I think Fe is more properly associated with the apprehension, expression and inducement of heightened emotional states, which can be anything: anger, sorrow, joy, anxiety, anticipation, dissatisfaction, infatuation, etc. Fi to me is more about "right behavior"; that is, behavior that will accomplish a certain end, which is generally peace/contentment/etc. "rude" and "unacceptable" are adjectives that I imagine Fi-users using. But I'm willing to accept the fact that I just don't understand Fi that well, since I don't really like it all that much, at least not the polite/good behavior side of it. (also, btw, I think you meant "penchant")

K bottom line is this....

when I said "bubbly" I wasn't meaning to describe what Fi/Fe was....
I was meaning to describe a typical way in which Fi/Fe manifests itself.....

THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING!

just to solidify my point.... consider the types with Fe at the forefront of their ego....

That is ESE, EIE, (and to a lesser extent SEI and IEI)

Now I'll attempt to find descriptions of these types and bold the parts of them that establish the connection to what I mean by "bubbly", enthusiastic, heart on the sleeves

The trademark quality of this type is a focus on socializing and guiding social situations and interactions so that the people involved can have fun and enjoy themselves. ESEs are typically in the middle of what is happening socially and know about the latest events and what people think and feel about them. They are skilled at bringing people together in fun and interesting ways and making everyone feel actively involved. Their friends know them as people who love life and feel most at home in social situations surrounded by other fun people.

In their pursuit of fun-oriented and stimulating social interactions, ESEs typically neglect to structure their own thought processes and views in a way that would help them know exactly what they think and why. They are receptive to others’ attempts to help them introduce more structure and logical consistency in their life and thinking processes. They gravitate most to people who open up to fun and emotional interaction easily, yet are also skilled at systematizing thoughts and views and explaining ideological matters.

The quintessence of EIEs is what you might call "external self-expression." This is a striving to express externally the urges, passions, and desires one experiences internally. EIEs like to continually draw attention to themselves by making unexpected, abrubt statements, using unusual words or intonations, developing a striking outward appearance, and otherwise sticking out of the "dull crowd."

EIEs' professional activities provide an additional arena for self-expression. EIEs are as much or more interested in their image and others' emotional response to them as in the productivity of their work itself. They strive to be stimulating, captivating, and riveting in whatever they do. They have a great need to evoke an emotional response in other people.

EIEs enjoy being controversial, enigmatic figures. This allows them greater freedom for self-expression that might not fit in the boundaries that others would otherwise assign to them. They enjoy "changing their masks" to rivet others' attention toward them and foil those that would like to "put them in a box." Many EIEs have so many different personas that they wonder who they are "in reality."

Many EIEs declare that they "hate boundaries and limitations," which may at first glance appear to be a rejection of . In actuality it is not structure that they reject (they actually welcome and require structure to feel secure), but rather limitations on their self-expression — what they can talk about and how they may express themselves at any given moment. EIEs reject the idea of basing their lives on "being productive, rational, and useful," choosing instead to do as their passions dictate. This focus on self-expression stimulates others around them to also be more expressive and focused on what they are feeling. The EIE usually leads in this process, having the richest arsenal of feelings and means of expressing them.

EIEs typically have a "challenging" communication style — that is, they like saying things that might not be pleasant to hear in order to evoke a spontaneous emotional reaction and study themselves and the other person in the process. They like it when others challenge them with pointed statements as well. EIEs apply meaningful pauses that focus people's attention on the act of communication and heighten the feeling of intensity. EIEs often like to "up the ante" and intensify communication rather than try to quiet things down or smooth things over. This forces people to bare themselves and "show what they're really worth." This is EIEs' "moment of truth." EIEs typically hold in high esteem people who are "true to themselves" and don't conceal their true passions and strivings under layers of hypocrisy.

Many EIEs gravitate towards the social role of a figure who is utterly dedicated to a cause. Many prominent EIEs literally become their cause, having an uncommonly powerful self-identification with the purposes they choose to serve. Such EIEs become the embodiment of selfless devotion to the arts, their academic field, their line of business, or any other area they work is in. They cherish their status as a symbol of utter dedication and bask in the adoration and awe of their "disciples" (students, fans, etc.) who look up to them as mentors, heroes, and even godlike figures. EIEs often are able to arouse a kind of worshipful attitude in their disciples. They like to remain psychologically distant from ("above") the throng, only to unexpectedly shower a worshiper with praise and emotion. EIEs' strong emotional connection with their audience is very important to them. If they are not able to arouse love and devotion, they would rather arouse disgust and disdain than have people treat them with indifference.

Now without adding the other two types.... we see that have leading Fe seems to be connected with manifesting behavior that can be described as bubbly....

Bubbly btw I don't take to mean "excitement".... I think bubbly comes from.... "So enthusiastic and alive with energy, vibrance, and feeling that they bubble over effervisantly with all their built up intensity and emotional energy".... Hence bubbly.... and I think when EIEs and ESEs are in bad moods it isn't a sort of positive energy that is bubbling over... so that why I think "Excitement" isn't an appropriate interpretation of what I am meaning to say here.

[Marie84]

is concerned about the immediate impression being experienced.
is concerned about the inner value they appraise something with.
Both are emotional/feeling in nature.

Fe is the ability to identify and convey emotions. That doesn't equate to just dramatic emotions (bubbly, excitable, etc). A person with strong Fe is able to pick-up on the emotions within their environment and use that to produce whatever emotional reaction in response to it.
In other words, they can use emotions to manipulate a response or/and reaction

Fi is more about ethics than emotions. It's the ability to identify the proximity between individuals as well as the ability to evaluate ethical qualities in others.
A person with strong Fi knows how to conduct themselves in order to achieve the closeness or distance between themselves and others

wants to builds connections with people based on the feeling or mood in the air at that moment
wants to build connections with people based on common ground, sharing similar ideals of value/meaning

Pretty much everybody basis their connections with others based on share interests, that's the whole point of Model A.
All types prefer to be around people who're responsive to their functions

naturally hone in on what the feeling being experienced in the moment is
evaluate the experience of the moment based on a measuring it to their personal conception of value/meaning develop through feeling

"experience of the moment" is not really a good way to define how Fi is used, since it's not about the environment one is in but the individual one is near or/and how comfortable they're with the sentiments that they're exposed to (i.e someone is gossiping about someone in the room, this makes you uncomfortable because you feel for the person being gossiped about)

exhibits bubbly, nice, friendly, outgoing, gregarious, enthusiastic behavior due to their pension for feeling in the moment. The proverbial "heart on the sleeves" type.
exhibits a more sentimental, value and meaning based type of behavior due to their pension for establish connection to a more internalized feeling. The more "soulful" type.

"internalized feeling" sounds rather Ni+Fe, which is about focusing on your emotional state.
Fi is primarily concerned with the state of ethics and their relations towards others, not to say that Fe types are not concerned about ethics or the status of their relations, or that Fi types are not aware about emotional connections, rather it's just that both are more concerned with their own valued function.

[crazedrat]

B&D, I agree with what you're saying to a certain degree. The way I think of categories and duality; it exists as a principle but not as a something real. But since I enjoy studying principles, I still talk about duality. And I also agree at a certain point duality becomes trinity becomes .... 4 to 5 to ... well, neverending really. None of that prevents me from tentatively pondering duality. In anything we say there should always be the recognition our thoughts and descriptions are imperfect.
LucidDreamz, you are right. I did not put effort into understanding your thought process. The effort was given the first go round. It didn't work for you, and repeating that effort seemed sort of redundant. That said, the second post I made does point out real problems. Most of what you said was addressed in the first reply. But I am also not so interested in continuing this discussion

[Brilliand]

LII could be viewed as Fi>Fe due to function strengths (Fe will only show with assistance).

[Creepy-male]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Basically in response to what you said......

I think everyone on here is nitpicking my and descriptions apart. I could have put in a very academically rigorous and highly accurate/precise definition..... but it could have been cumbersome at best.

My goal here was to address the differences in and from a simple one sentence to one sentence comparison.

No one on here can refute my observations without writing at least 5 times as much.... it obvious that your thinking on a much more rigorous and detailed level. My goal was to touch on what and is on a broad conceptual level.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically I'd just like to address one thing I have gotten alot of flak about.... and that is that is more Bubbly....

1) I am not describing the nature of , I was describing how manifests itself in types which are dominant...... read any description of ESE or EIE (types with Leading Fe) if you don't believe me

2) Bubbly in essence isn't about always being in good spirits.... no person is always happy and upbeat. Bubbly comes from a person feeling with such intensity that it bubbles up inside of them and it comes out to the surface... bubbly comes from a person being outwardly expressive of their feelings. leading types are outwardly expressive about their feelings.

THATS WHAT I WAS SAYING.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further its hard to take any of your ideas seriously because in general it seems everyone on these boards have a different idea of what the jungian functions are.... and its simply not possible for everyone to be right.... hands down is alot of people on these boards bluntly just have no idea what they are talking about.... and because of that I'd like to see some strong rationales to your criticism before I can take it seriously.... the strength of your convictions alone isn't exactly a source of credibility for me.

[silverchris9]

Okay. Bubbly is okay when you strip it off the connotations I'm familiar with it having and define it as you did (esp. making allowances for highly expressive sadness and such, which I consider decidedly NOT bubbly). Maybe that's just a different people/different cultural situations thing.

Anyway, I know that you're providing descriptions of how functions often manifest themselves, but the problem is that at the beginning of the thread, you brought up the idea of altering/moving away from a cornerstone of the theory. So it seems to require some pretty fundamental (as opposed to surface/manifestation-level) understanding of functions in order to evaluate whether or not their interactions in people are accurately represented by model A. Like crazedat said, it's more likely that your understanding isn't complete (nobody's is) than that a cornerstone of the theory (Model A) is wrong.

Also, IEEs are Fi-egos and can be extremely bubbly (i.e., outwardly emotionally expressive and excitable/excited). IEIs are Fe-egos and Ni-subtypes especially can be very NOT bubbly. Bubbly is the last word you'd use to describe some IEIs. It's all accounted for in the eighth function: just as IEIs have a certain unconscious, unintended gracefulness towards people (Fi), but by no means stress that part of their personality, so IEEs are unconsciously excitable/excited about their Ne possibilities, and can communicate that excitement to others, but take that excitement as a given rather than something they emphasize in their personality, consciously. Fi-egos consciously create an atmosphere of Fi--certain behavioral assumptions/expectations that will help everybody get along. Fe-egos consciously create an atmosphere of Fe--certain behaviors/actions that will keep everything moving towards the desired emotional state.

I did like what you said at the end. It actually sounded Ti-leading instead of defensive (not that Ti-leading types can't be very defensive.) And you're right: people do have different ideas of what the functions are, obviously, but this is generally a result of the same idea being expressed through the lens of not only different functions but also different personalities, life experiences, etc., etc., etc. Most people here, I find, have a good grasp on at least their own leading functions, and some have better or worse understanding of the others (valued generally better, unvalued generally more skewed/biased). As for rationale, I'm assuming you want rational built from the dichotomies to the functions, and quite honestly, I don't know where that is. I just find that the eight functions are fairly accurate metaphors for how most people I know think, talk and act. I relate them to the dichotomies very little. Maybe that's a mistake, but I find it pragmatically accurate.

Also, if your goal was to address something on a broad conceptual level, that is, if you want to express your "concept" of Fe and Fi and your "concept" of Fe and Fi are that Fi is soulful and Fe is bubbly... then perhaps there is a conceptual issue?

Also also, Marie's post wasn't even that long. And it was right.

[Marie84]

The thing is, you didn't simplify the meanings, you misinterpreted them. Even when shortened, those were not what Fe and Fi meant in Model A, especially Fi.

I think part of the problem is that you think Model A Socionics is Jungian, it's not.
Augusta's definitions of the functions are not the same as Jungs, hence why someone with one type in one of the theories can be a completely different type in the other.
The two theories cannot be applied simultaneously

[crazedrat]

if you're doing socionics you have to be specific.

[Creepy-male]

Okay. Bubbly is okay when you strip it off the connotations I'm familiar with it having and define it as you did (esp. making allowances for highly expressive sadness and such, which I consider decidedly NOT bubbly). Maybe that's just a different people/different cultural situations thing.

Anyway, I know that you're providing descriptions of how functions often manifest themselves, but the problem is that at the beginning of the thread, you brought up the idea of altering/moving away from a cornerstone of the theory. So it seems to require some pretty fundamental (as opposed to surface/manifestation-level) understanding of functions in order to evaluate whether or not their interactions in people are accurately represented by model A. Like crazedat said, it's more likely that your understanding isn't complete (nobody's is) than that a cornerstone of the theory (Model A) is wrong.

Also, IEEs are Fi-egos and can be extremely bubbly (i.e., outwardly emotionally expressive and excitable/excited). IEIs are Fe-egos and Ni-subtypes especially can be very NOT bubbly. Bubbly is the last word you'd use to describe some IEIs. It's all accounted for in the eighth function: just as IEIs have a certain unconscious, unintended gracefulness towards people (Fi), but by no means stress that part of their personality, so IEEs are unconsciously excitable/excited about their Ne possibilities, and can communicate that excitement to others, but take that excitement as a given rather than something they emphasize in their personality, consciously. Fi-egos consciously create an atmosphere of Fi--certain behavioral assumptions/expectations that will help everybody get along. Fe-egos consciously create an atmosphere of Fe--certain behaviors/actions that will keep everything moving towards the desired emotional state.

I did like what you said at the end. It actually sounded Ti-leading instead of defensive (not that Ti-leading types can't be very defensive.) And you're right: people do have different ideas of what the functions are, obviously, but this is generally a result of the same idea being expressed through the lens of not only different functions but also different personalities, life experiences, etc., etc., etc. Most people here, I find, have a good grasp on at least their own leading functions, and some have better or worse understanding of the others (valued generally better, unvalued generally more skewed/biased). As for rationale, I'm assuming you want rational built from the dichotomies to the functions, and quite honestly, I don't know where that is. I just find that the eight functions are fairly accurate metaphors for how most people I know think, talk and act. I relate them to the dichotomies very little. Maybe that's a mistake, but I find it pragmatically accurate.

Also, if your goal was to address something on a broad conceptual level, that is, if you want to express your "concept" of Fe and Fi and your "concept" of Fe and Fi are that Fi is soulful and Fe is bubbly... then perhaps there is a conceptual issue?

Also also, Marie's post wasn't even that long. And it was right.

On terms of bubbly..... yes thats what I meant, and I am kind of assuming that people see the bubbly side of Fe more so since sadness isn't exactly the most appropriate of emotions in public. People generally reserve expressing their sadness to private or with close friends/family.... thats why when people ask "How are you", its uncommon to get the answer "Oh well my day has been shitty and I feel like killing myself"..... its just social convention and graces and I was assuming this so I consider the bubbly aspects of leading Fe types are more likely to express themselves.

Also I haven't begun to fully develop my alternative..... and I don't think I need to have a worshipful attitude to model A. Its a very simple idea, and I am simply not convinced of its use because there is no rational motivation for ordering the function as they are ordered. Its simply stated without a rationale on all the sites I've been to.

Lol and you're talking about IEE being unconciously excited..... doesn't this kind of prove my point? Since I believe you are refering to the role Fe serves in the Id block?

Also Ti is a strong function for me, but I am going to regret this statement, all the Ti types will come on and say my post is clearly lacking Ti and that I misunderstand what Ti is, then they will quiz me about Ti and tell me I am wrong because I failed to forget 1 or 2 small details, then they will type me as some other type. It seems to be all the trend on these boards.

[Creepy-bg]

Also Ti is a strong function for me, but I am going to regret this statement, all the Ti types will come on and say my post is clearly lacking Ti and that I misunderstand what Ti is, then they will quiz me about Ti and tell me I am wrong because I failed to forget 1 or 2 small details, then they will type me as some other type. It seems to be all the trend on these boards.

what other people think your type is doesn't matter. just ignore them. they don't know you.

[Creepy-male]

The thing is, you didn't simplify the meanings, you misinterpreted them. Even when shortened, those were not what Fe and Fi meant in Model A, especially Fi.

I think part of the problem is that you think Model A Socionics is Jungian, it's not.
Augusta's definitions of the functions are not the same as Jungs, hence why someone with one type in one of the theories can be a completely different type in the other.
The two theories cannot be applied simultaneously

Wow, your very bent on proving me wrong.... is it because you're leading Fi (*shakes head in a yes fashion*)

First of all the defintions I gave weren't perfect.... but I know what I know and I am supremely confident I have a grasp and understanding of Fi and Fe.... and I think you are just nitpicking because you are measuring my definitions on the basis that what I said about Fi describes you. If that is true, take a second and consider that expectation..... you're expecting me to describe your behavior, when I haven't even met you. Hands down is Fi may give me a window into how your personality works, but I won't be able to exactly identify how that Fi manifests itself..... I think any type is different for different people because the functions manifest themselves differently.... and I think this is the source of your discontent and not my understanding.

Plus I think its ridiculous that augusta's and jung's descriptions are different.... if augusta can define a model and just change her description.... why can't I define a model and change my description..... "Oh I think we misunderstand each other because you think I am talking socionics".... I am talking my own alternative to Model A.......

[Creepy-male]

what other people think your type is doesn't matter. just ignore them. they don't know you.

I know it isn't, I wrote this to mock alot of the ridiculous behavior I see.... but I am not seriously concerned about it.

[Creepy-male]

if you're doing socionics you have to be specific.

Of course, but being too specific and not having an idea of what the big picture is, is just going to lend to greater confusion.

[Creepy-bg]

I know it isn't, I wrote this to mock alot of the ridiculous behavior I see.... but I am not seriously concerned about it.

cool

[Marie84]

No, I don't get anything from pointing out errors, you're taking this too personally.
If you had posted inaccurate descriptions of the other functions I would have said something too, such as;
"Se is about violence and a desire to hurt others" I would have said something about that as well.

Plus I think its ridiculous that augusta's and jung's descriptions are different.... if augusta can define a model and just change her description.... why can't I define a model and change my description..... "Oh I think we misunderstand each other because you think I am talking socionics".... I am talking my own alternative to Model A.......

You can define a model and do whatever else you wish, but you can't commandeer another established theory, such as Model A or Jung, and sell it under the same package.
That would be like saying 3+2= 7 in Mathematics because I say so. Perhaps it's 7 under a different formula, but not in Math.
That's precisely what you're doing, claiming this and that function equates to this and that in Model A because you said so

[Creepy-male]

No, I don't get anything from pointing out errors, you're taking this too personally.

No I feel fine, possibly you are starting to get personal.... but if you really think this is getting out of hand (regardless of who it is that is getting personal) lets just cool down.

If you had posted inaccurate descriptions of the other functions I would have said something too, such as;
"Se is about violence and a desire to hurt others" I would have said something about that as well.

Yea but I don't think you can compare what I said as being similar to "Se is about violence and a desire to hurt others"..... I think a better analogy to what I mean is to say "Se types have a stronger predisposition compared to the others types to have a larger capacity for a desire to hurt others, due to the role in which Se plays in their persona".

I mean functions fundamentally aren't about behavior what so ever. Functions can only manifest certain behavior, but fundamentally what manifestation you get could be across a wide range and spectrum of human behavior. Do you agree?

You can define a model and do whatever else you wish, but you can't commandeer another established theory, such as Model A or Jung, and sell it under the same package.
That would be like saying 3+2= 7 in Mathematics because I say so. Perhaps it's 7 under a different formula, but not in Math.
That's precisely what you're doing, claiming this and that function equates to this and that in Model A because you said so

Ok ok ok.... THATS THE POINT!

Didn't augsta commandeer established theories like Jung, MBTI, and Freduian Psycholgy and sell it under the same package?

================================================== ================================================== ======



















================================================== ================================================== =========================
ALSO I'd like to point out the following.....

Directly from the wikipedia article on Socionics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics) it says

Fe is responsible for the perception of an emotional state in an individual and the bodily and linguistic expression of emotions. Fe is able to influence others' emotional condition and to communicate its own, "infecting" others. Fe is used especially in generating and recognizing excitement and enthusiasm.

And Directly from the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bubbly)....... it says

lively; effervescent; enthusiastic

............. I really don't know how this connection could be clearer..........
I mean I completely understand how you could think this is wrong.... but I get my information from online resources, and really I think you should direct your criticism at wikipedia and not me..... I am just conveying what I have researched and understood..... if in your infinite expertise on the subject you feel this is wrong, perhaps you should consider revising the wikipedia article?

[Marie84]

N
Yea but I don't think you can compare what I said as being similar to "Se is about violence and a desire to hurt others"..... I think a better analogy to what I mean is to say "Se types have a stronger predisposition compared to the others types to have a larger capacity for a desire to hurt others, due to the role in which Se plays in their persona".

I don't think you believe Se means what I stated previously, it was an out-there example, I was just trying to explain my point.

I mean functions fundamentally aren't about behavior what so ever. Functions can only manifest certain behavior, but fundamentally what manifestation you get could be across a wide range and spectrum of human behavior. Do you agree?

I disagree, functions do influence behavior to an extent, this is especially apparent in temperament. For instance, an SLI is going to behave in an entirely different manner than an EIE, on an average basis

Ok ok ok.... THATS THE POINT!

Didn't augsta commandeer established theories like Jung, MBTI, and Freduian Psycholgy and sell it under the same package?

No. Augusta never claimed her formula was Jung, nor did Jung claim his was Freudian. They created their own models but admitted to them being influenced by others

And in terms of using Wikipedia.org for an official stance on anything is rather naive.
Wikisocion is a far more reliant source since it's monitored by people who are more knowledgeable in Socionics, whereas the regular Wiki is not

[Creepy-male]

I don't think you believe Se means what I stated previously, it was an out-there example, I was just trying to explain my point.

I believe it could, but I don't think just because a person has a leading function they are constrained to act with a particular behavior. Thats the kind of thinking this whole thought process suggests and I disagree with that form of rationalizing.

I disagree, functions do influence behavior to an extent, this is especially apparent in temperament. For instance, an SLI is going to behave in an entirely different manner than an EIE, on an average basis

Once again you've revealed that you think of functions in terms of constraining behavior to a particular modus operandi.... I think that assumption is fundamentally ridiculous. Because of this fundamental difference, I think its impossible for us to see eye to eye on anything.

No. Augusta never claimed her formula was Jung, nor did Jung claim his was Freudian. They created their own models but admitted to them being influenced by others

Did I ever claim my alternative to model A would be socionics lol? I don't remember saying that, yet strangely you've projected this onto me. In fact thats why I posted this under Other Personality Typologies.... lol you need to pay attention sometimes.

And in terms of using Wikipedia.org for an official stance on anything is rather naive.
Wikisocion is a far more reliant source since it's monitored by people who are more knowledgeable in Socionics, whereas the regular Wiki is not

Ok then, please direct your criticism to the nearest wikipedia article and leave me alone.... for the record I don't think the wikipedia description is a bad one, but I'd prefer you take up your grievances with wikipedia than me. I've heard you can edit articles on wikipedia, so why not put your energies to that, its alot more productive than going after the small guy on the bottom.

[Marie84]

I believe it could, but I don't think just because a person has a leading function they are constrained to act with a particular behavior. Thats the kind of thinking this whole thought process suggests and I disagree with that form of rationalizing.



Once again you've revealed that you think of functions in terms of constraining behavior to a particular modus operandi.... I think that assumption is fundamentally ridiculous. Because of this fundamental difference, I think its impossible for us to see eye to eye on anything.

That's fine. I do believe Model A to be applicable in real life because I have personally observed it to be, but you can believe in whatever you like

Did I ever claim my alternative to model A would be socionics lol? I don't remember saying that, yet strangely you've projected this onto me. In fact thats why I posted this under Other Personality Typologies.... lol you need to pay attention sometimes.

If that's what your own theories consist of than that's fine, but they're incompatible with Model A as it is, that's all I was pointing out

Ok then, please direct your criticism to the nearest wikipedia article and leave me alone.... for the record I don't think the wikipedia description is a bad one, but I'd prefer you take up your grievances with wikipedia than me. I've heard you can edit articles on wikipedia, so why not put your energies to that, its alot more productive than going after the small guy on the bottom.

I don't care about Wikipedia or what is stated there about Socionics, that wasn't my point. If you want to use something as a source of accuracy Wikipedia is not the place to go to, hence why you shouldn't have used it as a resource to prove your point

[Creepy-male]

That's fine. I do believe Model A to be applicable in real life because I have personally observed it to be, but you can believe in whatever you like

Well good for you.... but I care less about what one believes, and more about what is.

If that's what your own theories consist of than that's fine, but they're incompatible with Model A as it is, that's all I was pointing out

Lol I actually haven't even proposed a theory here... I just proposed I would like to propose a theory. From the looks of it, I should probably wait and keep it to myself for a while.... sharing thoughts on alternatives to Model A is received here like it was blasphemy. All I wanted to do is entertain an alternative to model A, you're being too crusader about your precious model A... I just wanted to explore something outside of socionics for the fun of it. I am not ready to refute Model A or anything, I just personally find it unsatisfying sometimes and would have enjoyed the freedom to cooperatively partake in alternate explorations of ideas and models - something that is a big "No No" on these boards from the sight of it.

I don't care about Wikipedia or what is stated there about Socionics, that wasn't my point. If you want to use something as a source of accuracy Wikipedia is not the place to go to, hence why you shouldn't have used it as a resource to prove your point

lol ok well that just sounds heavily opinionated.... wikipedia is worse than wikisocion.... why? lol just because you say it is? Wow really convincing!

[Creepy-male]

So basically I'd like to propose something..... I really think this topic has turned to crap.

I want to re open this after I've had time to inspect the socionics wiki a bit further and time to work on my own alternates.

I'll be making two topics.... one on vs
and one on my alternative theory.....

This thread has just turned to meaningless sludge

If you wish to continue are conversation Marie84.... just pm me, theres no reason to debate everyone on this topic.... its not even the point of my post, 1 criticism completely took this topic off course.