Fi in a non-emotional context

[silverchris9]

I just posted something in another thread that I think may go part of the way in solving the problem of how Fi applies to things beyond just relationships between people:

Fi, I feel, has a lot to do with expectations, and making evaluations based on whether those a priori expectations have been fulfilled or not.

Having already established that Fi can be related to deontology, duty, obligation, etc., it seems natural to me to extend those expectations of duty beyond the realm of just interpersonal relations. One area where I definitely see it in Fi-valuing types is in making decisions about what businesses to support. First of all, I don't know if it's just the Fi-egos I know or if it's a general Fi-ego thing, but I notice that Fi-egos tend to think in terms of "supporting" a business, rather than the dry exchange of goods and services. And they will often choose to continue or discontinue their "support" or "patronage" to a given business, be it a department store, a restaurant, a university, a brokerage, or whatever, based on whether or not the business fulfills the set of duties that the Fi-ego has in the back of his or her head about what "should" be done. For example,a Ti ego might look at a product and ask, "does it function correctly? how logical is the arrangement? will this produce the desired results? once I get a complete understanding of it, how can I use this?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might look at a product and ask, "what do I have a right to expect for the money I will spend on this product? Has this product fulfilled those expectations? has this product exceeded them? Has it fallen slightly below, or significantly below expectations?" So, a Ti-ego evaluating a college course might ask themselves, "were things taught in a logical manner? did the professor present the information in a coherent way, or did he or she contradict themselves frequently?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might ask, "did this course provide me with the information it said it would? did this course provide me with information that is actually relevant to me and my interests/goals? did the professor explain things in such a way as the students in the class could reasonably have been expected to understand? was the grading 'fair'?" An Fi-ego might have this as one of his/her Fi values: "the grade in the course should reflect the amount of work done in the course." So he or she would evaluate the quality of the course, at least in part, on the criteria "did my grade and the grades of my peers reflect their relative levels of work?" If yes, then it is a good course, at least on that count. If no, then it is a bad course. The "subjective" part, and the part that tends to frustrate Ti-valuers, is that even if the course is taught impeccably, even if it fulfills all the stated goals, if the criteria above happens to be one of the criteria the Fi-valuer has in his/her head of what a course "ought to do," then the course will be considered to be of less quality, or less ideal (I know that's technically nonsensical, but work with me here), than one that had all of the course in question's positive attributes, but also fulfilled the "grade fairly" dictum.

I do want to say, while we're on the subject, that there are simply areas in which it is illogical to apply Fi reasoning, and even an Fi-ego will try to look at such information from a different perspective. You can look at it as if it were on a scale from logic to ethics. Way on the logical end is mathematics. There's really no productive way to use Fi to evaluate mathematics. Way on the ethical end is, say, matricide (I use that example because I took a class that is really part of the background knowledge that's informing my thoughts on Fi, and matricide--in the Oresteia by Aeschylus--is the topic we used to delve into the idea of taboos). You can try to weigh the pros and cons of killing your mom (say your mom killed your dad and got away with it, do you take revenge), and you can try to pick what would be the most "logical" thing to do, but in a situation like that, the elements that you're dealing with are so emotionally and psychologically and above all, ethically fundamental that applying logic and ideas of coherence and incoherence just doesn't work, or, at least, it works about as well as subjectively evaluating math based on the duties of numbers to one another, or something. However, between the extremes of matricide and mathematics, there are huge swaths of gray area that can viably be considered by either Fi or Ti, either logic or ethics. It is that gray area that we are interested in, the area that is neither a) clearly inherently logical or inherently ethical, nor b) clearly dealt with far more productively by one function than the other (as in the examples above). So, I guess what I'm saying is that, philosophically, while it is correct to say that any situation can be viewed through the "lens" of any of the socionics information aspects, it is incorrect to say that any situation can be productively viewed through the "lens" of any socionics information aspect.

So, what are some other situations we can explore where it would be productive to apply either Ti or Fi, outside of the realm of interpersonal affairs? I have the business example, but not much else. Thoughts?

[Creepy-male]

There's really no productive way to use Fi to evaluate mathematics.

Not unless you do algebra by mentally replacing the variables with people and start explain why an equation must be balanced so that its fair and doesn't hurt the other variables feelings.

[stanprollyright]

Not unless you do algebra by mentally replacing the variables with people and start explain why an equation must be balanced so that its fair and doesn't hurt the other variables feelings.

I literally laughed out loud. That was fantastic.

[Mattie]

Having already established that Fi can be related to deontology, duty, obligation, etc., it seems natural to me to extend those expectations of duty beyond the realm of just interpersonal relations.

Besides disagreeing with the original quote, you're trapping yourself in other catch-phrases and stereotypes to try and take out of it's stereotypical application. You're setting up your argument to be "If is expectations and duty, therefore it's not only relationships, but..." So even if you're trying to look outside of it being applied to relationships, you're trapping into words that don't represent it authentically. Because every type has some sense of duty, obligation, and expectations, and they all have a manner of viewing their relationships. If you want to put words to an IE, that actually encompass its entirety, check out this Information Aspects thread, as there's an interest for it at the moment. And while to some it might seem wrong to pin down IAs/IEs to words, we do it all the time, like here, but we create a tunneled version of it through our own understanding and experience.

There are more assumptions about that you relate to things that are not type related at all, just merely coincidences or you looking for Socionics too much in other people:

One area where I definitely see it in Fi-valuing types is in making decisions about what businesses to support. First of all, I don't know if it's just the Fi-egos I know or if it's a general Fi-ego thing, but I notice that Fi-egos tend to think in terms of "supporting" a business, rather than the dry exchange of goods and services. And they will often choose to continue or discontinue their "support" or "patronage" to a given business, be it a department store, a restaurant, a university, a brokerage, or whatever, based on whether or not the business fulfills the set of duties that the Fi-ego has in the back of his or her head about what "should" be done.

So, do you think types are the only ones not getting BP gas anymore? And types were the only ones who dumps French wine when there's tension between America and France? What leads you to believe that itself is the IE that applies personal morality to everything they see? You're insinuating that egos don't have the capacity to see morality by saying that sees too much of it. You're basically transferring the rut is in with being attributed to "relationships" to it's other problem of being stuck in "morality."

For example,a Ti ego might look at a product and ask, "does it function correctly? how logical is the arrangement? will this produce the desired results? once I get a complete understanding of it, how can I use this?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might look at a product and ask, "what do I have a right to expect for the money I will spend on this product? Has this product fulfilled those expectations? has this product exceeded them? Has it fallen slightly below, or significantly below expectations?"

I think, again, this is looking too hard for Socionics. You're creating very specific behaviors based on an overgeneralized notion. "Expectation" and "obligation" persist throughout the types, and having a focus on such qualities in assumes that other are incapable of recognizing it, or are weak at it, or don't find value in it. This example actually shows two very incomplete people: one person is a complete blank slate that will allow any product that seems to serve its purpose to be bought, and doesn't include knowledge of past experiences (which would produce expectations), and the other only relies on the experiences they've had or the information that they know about that isn't connected to the product, and not its actual performance. While there can be tendencies for such behavior, I don't think they are encapsulated by the IEs. And if it seems like I made this in a black/white situation, that's how I felt it was theoretically presented.

So, a Ti-ego evaluating a college course might ask themselves, "were things taught in a logical manner? did the professor present the information in a coherent way, or did he or she contradict themselves frequently?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might ask, "did this course provide me with the information it said it would? did this course provide me with information that is actually relevant to me and my interests/goals? did the professor explain things in such a way as the students in the class could reasonably have been expected to understand? was the grading 'fair'?"

Really? So, egos won't be psychologically disturbed as long as an expectation was set up before hand, there was some contract signing, and we all play our parts? Why do egos have the capacity (or tendency) to think "Wow, that's not a logical argument" and egos can't? As long as that illogical argument is in an expected parameter, it's okay? That's ridiculous. This set up you have here says that contains the logic to not need expectations, while egos around bound by expectations.

I feel pretty much the same about the rest of what you have to say in the post.

[Wynch]

Not unless you do algebra by mentally replacing the variables with people and start explain why an equation must be balanced so that its fair and doesn't hurt the other variables feelings.

LOL. I do this in reverse. I apply math to values. In grade nine I converted my Christian Ethics notes (Catholic High School) into math formulas so I could remember them better.

[Aiss]

Having already established that Fi can be related to deontology, duty, obligation, etc., it seems natural to me to extend those expectations of duty beyond the realm of just interpersonal relations. One area where I definitely see it in Fi-valuing types is in making decisions about what businesses to support. First of all, I don't know if it's just the Fi-egos I know or if it's a general Fi-ego thing, but I notice that Fi-egos tend to think in terms of "supporting" a business, rather than the dry exchange of goods and services. And they will often choose to continue or discontinue their "support" or "patronage" to a given business, be it a department store, a restaurant, a university, a brokerage, or whatever, based on whether or not the business fulfills the set of duties that the Fi-ego has in the back of his or her head about what "should" be done. For example,a Ti ego might look at a product and ask, "does it function correctly? how logical is the arrangement? will this produce the desired results? once I get a complete understanding of it, how can I use this?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might look at a product and ask, "what do I have a right to expect for the money I will spend on this product? Has this product fulfilled those expectations? has this product exceeded them? Has it fallen slightly below, or significantly below expectations?" So, a Ti-ego evaluating a college course might ask themselves, "were things taught in a logical manner? did the professor present the information in a coherent way, or did he or she contradict themselves frequently?" An Fi ego, on the other hand, might ask, "did this course provide me with the information it said it would? did this course provide me with information that is actually relevant to me and my interests/goals? did the professor explain things in such a way as the students in the class could reasonably have been expected to understand? was the grading 'fair'?" An Fi-ego might have this as one of his/her Fi values: "the grade in the course should reflect the amount of work done in the course." So he or she would evaluate the quality of the course, at least in part, on the criteria "did my grade and the grades of my peers reflect their relative levels of work?" If yes, then it is a good course, at least on that count. If no, then it is a bad course. The "subjective" part, and the part that tends to frustrate Ti-valuers, is that even if the course is taught impeccably, even if it fulfills all the stated goals, if the criteria above happens to be one of the criteria the Fi-valuer has in his/her head of what a course "ought to do," then the course will be considered to be of less quality, or less ideal (I know that's technically nonsensical, but work with me here), than one that had all of the course in question's positive attributes, but also fulfilled the "grade fairly" dictum.

I think more than one element is involved in this kind of reasoning, first. Second, there's a reason why Te is associated with practicality. Because, you know, Te types tend to evaluate objects - not the least purchases - by their usefulness, cost, etc. If there was one thing I'd say about Gamma NTs, it'd be that there's always some cost-benefit analysis going on in the background. Of course, everyone does so to an extent, but probably not so much or rather, not in this way. There must be some expectation as to how good a product will be, which everyone has when making a decision to purchase - very few people are truly compulsive buyers who would have no expectation whatsoever past the present moment, too few to make for a type, much less a dichotomy. I disagree with the way you describe it here as Fi, though. Maybe it's different between Fi-egos and Te-egos, since each type considers their ego's perspective first and foremost. But it might also be simply not type related - I see that "patronage" thing clearly in an obviously Ti-leading person, for example, something I don't really get, since I tend to seek a better option rather than purchase at known but overpriced place. Then there's buying "environmentally conscious", "organic" or fair-trade products, which I think is an entirely different issue, one I believe isn't type related, though arguments most effective at convincing a person to do so probably are.

I do want to say, while we're on the subject, that there are simply areas in which it is illogical to apply Fi reasoning, and even an Fi-ego will try to look at such information from a different perspective. You can look at it as if it were on a scale from logic to ethics. Way on the logical end is mathematics. There's really no productive way to use Fi to evaluate mathematics. Way on the ethical end is, say, matricide (I use that example because I took a class that is really part of the background knowledge that's informing my thoughts on Fi, and matricide--in the Oresteia by Aeschylus--is the topic we used to delve into the idea of taboos). You can try to weigh the pros and cons of killing your mom (say your mom killed your dad and got away with it, do you take revenge), and you can try to pick what would be the most "logical" thing to do, but in a situation like that, the elements that you're dealing with are so emotionally and psychologically and above all, ethically fundamental that applying logic and ideas of coherence and incoherence just doesn't work, or, at least, it works about as well as subjectively evaluating math based on the duties of numbers to one another, or something. However, between the extremes of matricide and mathematics, there are huge swaths of gray area that can viably be considered by either Fi or Ti, either logic or ethics. It is that gray area that we are interested in, the area that is neither a) clearly inherently logical or inherently ethical, nor b) clearly dealt with far more productively by one function than the other (as in the examples above). So, I guess what I'm saying is that, philosophically, while it is correct to say that any situation can be viewed through the "lens" of any of the socionics information aspects, it is incorrect to say that any situation can be productively viewed through the "lens" of any socionics information aspect.

So, what are some other situations we can explore where it would be productive to apply either Ti or Fi, outside of the realm of interpersonal affairs? I have the business example, but not much else. Thoughts?

Information aspects are best dealt with by matching information element, surely. This is basically why clubs and profiles exist - because people good at Fi, that is, implicit stable relations, are most interested in such information. Relations between people are just one of the better examples of this type of information, if not the best. Value judgments - or "choosing the right thing", as opposed to following a clear codex - is another, though often misinterpreted example. If we're going to say Fi deals with morality, we have to contrast it with Ti as law to understand it. Yet it goes beyond "rules", as Fi deals with stable feelings not only towards people, but things and issues. I use the word stable here instead of static, because I think it illustrates the difference without provoking more "everything is changeable" comments.

Ti, knowing what explicitly affects what, is able to control these relations and detach parts from each other; it is able to modularize, which is good in, for example, mathematics. Fi represents more of a holistic approach, taking everything into account, without analyzing how the end result is precisely affected by each part. In effect, Fi deals better with situations where what matters is the end result - such as making very complex decisions, as in the case of matricide you mentioned. You can't exactly analyze it explicitly because of its psychological and moral complexity besides obvious external consequences. On the other hand, Fi would probably have easier time evaluating mathematics as a science rather than analyzing what to it must seem details of the system, but what actually allows people to make use of it.

The difference is not so much in complexity or simplicity itself, but in its kind. It would be foolish to say mathematics isn't complex, but it's complexity is constructed explicitly, in a way. Whereas other issues - especially related to people on a psychological level - simply aren't possible to explicitly describe, though socionics tries. It's possible there are other issues not related to morality - which is largely related to human mentality - or psychology that are better grasped by Fi, but nothing comes to my mind at the moment, to be honest. That's not to say Fi-egos don't use its evaluation in everyday life, such as Ti use theirs in contact with people.

The keyword here is suitability - it's possible to do that, but the result it yields would depend on element's suitability to a large degree. When we encounter information we can't deal with easily, we must either use a less suitable or a weaker element - both limiting our ability to process it effectively.

Not unless you do algebra by mentally replacing the variables with people and start explain why an equation must be balanced so that its fair and doesn't hurt the other variables feelings.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

A good equation is always fair, or at least that's generally it's purpose, ethical and systematic. Does Ti meet Fi?

Man I need to log off.

[Gilly]

Fi isn't "relationships;" it is the conditions of relationships, their parameters and boundaries.

[silverchris9]

Really? So, egos won't be psychologically disturbed as long as an expectation was set up before hand, there was some contract signing, and we all play our parts? Why do egos have the capacity (or tendency) to think "Wow, that's not a logical argument" and egos can't? As long as that illogical argument is in an expected parameter, it's okay? That's ridiculous. This set up you have here says that contains the logic to not need expectations, while egos around bound by expectations.

I feel pretty much the same about the rest of what you have to say in the post.

Nope. I feel like you're needlessly offended at that part (I will try to respond to the rest later, but I have an easy response to this one). Of course Ti-egos are bound by expectations: their "logical systems" or "universal rules" are just as much assumptions as Fi assumptions. I worded it the way I did to play up the difference in emphasis. Ti emphasizes how "logical" something is as a more external version of what Fi says. I don't have a comparable word, but it's more like Fi analyzes how "ethical" something is, insofar as ethics is a series of obligations: a good class should do x, a good teacher should do y, etc. (Both introverted judging functions, to my mind, are concerned with the normative.) I use the word "duty" to describe this sort of thinking---a good x should do y---but if there's a better word, I'd gladly swap words. Of course the Ti ego won't always make the better decision; that's just silly. Not all Ti-egos are smart, not all Ti-egos are capable of determining what is the most "logical" in an objective sense, but they will emphasize "logical" terms: contradiction and lack thereof, whereas an Fi-ego will emphasize "ethical" or "deontological" terms: "a good x ought to do y." I'm not saying this exact thought pattern or God forbid, wording is ubiquitous to Ti-egos or Fi-egos, but I do believe that the general association fits.

Even now, I might argue that the assumption you are emphasizing, something along the lines of "a correct socionics explanation must not privilege any one function over another as a superior way of coming to intelligent and/or defensible conclusions" has more of an Fi character than a Ti character. It's not really pointing out inherent contradictions in the argument, or providing any "facts" that it contradicts. It is an intelligent, viable, and defensible argument, but one which has more of an ethical character than a logical one (and here I mean ethical and logical only in the socionics sense).

[anndelise]

Fi, in a non-emotional context, (at least by creative Fi) is used a means of orienting one's self in that context.

If the context is trying to follow an 'argument' (such as a paper written to convince someone of something)...
then Fi creatives use their Fi to help orient themselves while reading the argument. If the argument leads in one direction, Fi's able to follow along. If it twists and turns, Fi may get confused (like being dizzy after spinning), and will need to find a way to reorient themselves within the argument. If the argument splits from itself (such as contradicting itself, or contradicting experience), then the Fi person's orientation will be split, causing something akin to pain. This lets the Fi person know that there's something wrong with the argument. And, if the Fi person is in a position of having to read such papers on a regular basis, they will gain skill in pinpointing where the split occurred...and thus where the contradiction occurred.

When the creative Fi is in a position of having to create an 'argument' or paper, or convincing someone, they would find it easier to guide the orientation of their audience rather than trying to explicitly state how each part of the argument is connected. If the audience is multiple people, that leads to multiple possible orientations, which can lead to a long and messy paper. If the audience is one single person, but the person is unfamiliar to the Fi creative, there's still varying orientations that the Fi has to try to direct. If the audience is one single person, that the Fi creative knows well, and is aware of the person's orientations to different things, then the Fi creative will have an easier time creating a path for the person to follow along.

In terms of judging something as "good" or "bad", it again comes to orientation. What is it good for? What is it bad for? If a person is aiming (oriented) towards one goal, will this item help them, not help them, or hurt them?

[Mattie]

Nope. I feel like you're needlessly offended at that part (I will try to respond to the rest later, but I have an easy response to this one).

No, I'm not offended, I'm more irritated that I see things like this over and over again. And it's not directly at you, there are a lot of posts by you I find to be well thought out and entertaining, but this here just seems to be an issue I wish wasn't as prevalent on the board. My main overall point was that you are bound by the words that you use, not only in your posts but in your mind as well; it isn't as simple as you finding another word that is similar to the ones you've been using that might give another idea at all, but to use words that aren't as limited and easy to interpret subjectively. I brought up that other post to show an effort (it might be flawed, but the idea is there) to find words that capture information aspects (and therefore IEs) that create the correct connotation when you use it, and isn't victim to too many interpretations. For example:

Words you used for in the OP: Deontology, Duty, Obligation, Expectations, Ethics. You also used phrases as "subjective," "ought to do," what "should" be done.

Suggestions in Information Aspects: Resonance, Essence, Valence, Synthesis, Consilience, Complexity, Negative Space, Potentiality, Affinity.

There's a difference in the types of words done, besides more phenotypic qualities, that suggest processes that can't be swayed by a subjective understanding, or a limited set of personality traits. They are abstract words but describe a process that is more applicable and doesn't assume a strength/weakness binary. They are all just different ways of doing things instead of obviously strong in one sense and obviously weak in another. When you assign something like "duty" to an IE, that implies there are types that lack a sense of duty, and that's a personal thing rather than type related.

I guess more later lol

[Existential Potato]

If OP is true, it would naturally follow that Fe is also illogical, leading me to question the logical legitimacy of OP, which causes me to be skeptical of its contents.

[silverchris9]

No, I'm not offended, I'm more irritated that I see things like this over and over again. And it's not directly at you, there are a lot of posts by you I find to be well thought out and entertaining, but this here just seems to be an issue I wish wasn't as prevalent on the board. My main overall point was that you are bound by the words that you use, not only in your posts but in your mind as well; it isn't as simple as you finding another word that is similar to the ones you've been using that might give another idea at all, but to use words that aren't as limited and easy to interpret subjectively. I brought up that other post to show an effort (it might be flawed, but the idea is there) to find words that capture information aspects (and therefore IEs) that create the correct connotation when you use it, and isn't victim to too many interpretations. For example:

Words you used for in the OP: Deontology, Duty, Obligation, Expectations, Ethics. You also used phrases as "subjective," "ought to do," what "should" be done.

Suggestions in Information Aspects: Resonance, Essence, Valence, Synthesis, Consilience, Complexity, Negative Space, Potentiality, Affinity.

There's a difference in the types of words done, besides more phenotypic qualities, that suggest processes that can't be swayed by a subjective understanding, or a limited set of personality traits. They are abstract words but describe a process that is more applicable and doesn't assume a strength/weakness binary. They are all just different ways of doing things instead of obviously strong in one sense and obviously weak in another. When you assign something like "duty" to an IE, that implies there are types that lack a sense of duty, and that's a personal thing rather than type related.

I guess more later lol

Oh, okay. So it's more about a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't think you're going to find words that you can hold still and that can't be interpreted subjectively, though I guess good on you for trying, and I do think that the sorts of words you're coming up with are closer to something that would work.

I do see your point about how it could be confusing, but I think as long as you trust your interpreter to have a solid understanding of socionics, I don't think they will be mislead and think that just because the word duty is used to describe Fi, that Fi-types are the only people who have a "sense of duty." I would more readily say that Fi types tend to mean one thing by a "sense of duty" and Ti types tend to mean another, although that also isn't true in every case, obviously. I think that type differences tend to be found in what people mean by the words they say, moreso than what they say.

All that said, although nobody likes being wrong, I am (at least intellectually) open to being wrong in part, if not entirely, about this. Since I don't have the same kind of conscious focus on Fi as I do on Ni, I can't observe it as well, and am more prone to make errors (not that I can't make errors about Ni too).

[silverchris9]

If OP is true, it would naturally follow that Fe is also illogical, leading me to question the logical legitimacy of OP, which causes me to be skeptical of its contents.

neither formal logic nor the information aspect generally associated with it represent the only way to come to a valid conclusion. Also, Ti-HA, bitchez.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Speak to HugoLeasing, he's here to help.

neither formal logic nor the information aspect generally associated with it represent the only way to come to a valid conclusion.Also, Ti-HA, bitchez.

Yeah.

[Existential Potato]

formal logic is not the only way to come to a valid conclusion. Also, Ti-HA, bitchez.

Ah, I should have expected that. When I said contents, I intended accurate, but since that which is accurate can potentially be valid as well I cannot contest you.

However, there exist minor differences in the use of the two words, as 'valid' implies a value intentionally placed upon something by an individual for whatever reason. Things that are valid can be just, reasonable, liked, or accurate as I pointed out. However, 'accurate' implies proximity to a single or certain value. Things which are accurate cannot have discrepency in interpretation.

If you were to make OP more accurate in that there cannot be as large of differences in interpretation instead of valid in that it resembles whatever value you place upon its contents, you would recieve less resistence from individuals like sky or myself because we have our own validity we place upon things like Fi or 'logic', and it appears that sky holds logic in high esteem and that you do not; that logic is useful (sky) is valid for one and not valid for the other (you), which is probably the cause of your disagreement.

Making OP accurate does not necessarily imply use of logic; I was just screwing around and do not hold the belief that any or all 'accurate' explanations are come about by logic.

[silverchris9]

Ah, I should have expected that. When I said contents, I intended accurate, but since that which is accurate can potentially be valid as well I cannot contest you.

However, there exist minor differences in the use of the two words, as 'valid' implies a value intentionally placed upon something by an individual for whatever reason. Things that are valid can be just, reasonable, liked, or accurate as I pointed out. However, 'accurate' implies proximity to a single or certain value. Things which are accurate cannot have discrepency in interpretation.

If you were to make OP more accurate in that there cannot be as large of differences in interpretation instead of valid in that it resembles whatever value you place upon its contents, you would recieve less resistence from individuals like sky or myself because we have our own validity we place upon things like Fi or 'logic', and it appears that sky holds logic in high esteem and that you do not; that logic is useful (sky) is valid for one and not valid for the other (you), which is probably the cause of your disagreement.

Making OP accurate does not necessarily imply use of logic; I was just screwing around and do not hold the belief that any or all 'accurate' explanations are come about by logic.

OMG. There were so many words and as soon as I started reading I got a headache. Is this post filled with Te? Is that the problem? 'Cause for realz, to go back to the slater thread, I need a mental caretaker to come explain this to me, 'cause it really feels like a bunch of words.

Okay, after screwing on my Ti-goggles (I can literally feel a physical change when I try to focus on information like this and make sense of it; it's strenuous trying not to interpret things through Ni, through windy motions in relation to one another like planets orbiting one another while spinning heedlessly through the void on the way to an unknown destination. ahhh I feel much better now),

However, 'accurate' implies proximity to a single or certain value. Things which are accurate cannot have discrepency in interpretation.

lol, I have a different definition of accurate as well. Actually not really. I think of accuracy as something that cannot be logically understood without being understood in the meaning intended by the author. To put it another way, the fewer internally coherent explanations that exist, the more accurate it is. This is probably a Ti/Te thing (at least the "internally coherent" bit).

So, to me, something like a line of poetry can be interpreted a thousand ways, but it is still accurate if there is only one interpretation that is internally consistent, or one best explanation given the "evidence" you find in the context.

I do agree with, and like, your distinction between accuracy and validity, however. I think that's spot on. I also agree that if I were to write in such a way that fewer interpretive possibilities exist---especially possibilities that are way off the mark, such as "ethical type people cannot think logically"---my writing would be more useful to some people. I will try to keep that in mind in the future.

[silverchris9]

@look, I can really see your point. I tend to view things in a different way, and I feel that the OP would help me/a-person-like-me understand things better. I use the word "archetypally" a lot. I'm interested in knowing what the IEs are generally associated with, and I want to see if I can use that internalized knowledge to sort of spot them in real life. I don't mean using a laundry list of "this trait is associated with that type," but rather sort of building a bundle of associations that I then compare to a person to see where it matches, maybe. So when I try to describe IEs I tend to describe them in that archetypal/associative way, rather than trying to be as clear as possible in terms of not creating a stronger/weaker binary. I assume people already know that there's no stronger/weaker binary, but also that it is extraordinarily difficult to view each IE impartially (and for evidence, just look at any description on wikisocion and then check the type of the author), because valued vs. unvalued IEs has SUCH an impact on how we see the world.

I mean, really, what I mean is that I want to learn the Form of each IE so that I can better understand its many manifestations, but maybe that's a little overboard Platonic.

Now, all that is assuming that the idea at bottom (that one of the ways that Fi-egos tend to evaluate things subjectively is through creating assumptions about how things should function, just as Ti-egos tend to create assumptions about what is logical/intelligent and what not), however expressed, has any validity, and I'm not 100% sure that it does. What do you think?

I think, again, this is looking too hard for Socionics. You're creating very specific behaviors based on an overgeneralized notion. "Expectation" and "obligation" persist throughout the types, and having a focus on such qualities in assumes that other are incapable of recognizing it, or are weak at it, or don't find value in it. This example actually shows two very incomplete people: one person is a complete blank slate that will allow any product that seems to serve its purpose to be bought, and doesn't include knowledge of past experiences (which would produce expectations), and the other only relies on the experiences they've had or the information that they know about that isn't connected to the product, and not its actual performance. While there can be tendencies for such behavior, I don't think they are encapsulated by the IEs. And if it seems like I made this in a black/white situation, that's how I felt it was theoretically presented.

I actually think that's perfectly accurate--to a point. Of course an Fi ego isn't stupid, nor is a Ti-ego impartial. In fact, by repressing the tendency to make decisions based on how past experiences have affected one's feelings towards a product, Ti-egos can become "over-objective" which really means they're being completely subjective and acting like they're not. Jung wasn't talking about Ti-Fi conflict when he wrote about "the shadow of the opposite," but the concept still applies here. But if you take 500 Fi-egos and 500 Ti-egos to the grocery store, are there going to be more Fi-egos making decisions based on their feelings towards the companies that make them than Ti-egos doing the same? Of course. Especially Fi-egos who haven't had enough exposure to Te, which might step in to tell them that, factually, Brand A saves it's customers 75% over Brand B. Between the Fi negative feeling towards Brand A for breaking a rule and/or expectation, and the Te impulse to do the most efficient thing, you build a happy medium: some violations of expectation are too great, such as BP, as you mentioned, sometimes efficiency wins out, and the Te ego and the Fi ego can productively use each others' information. (That's not really on topic, but I wanted to talk about it.) It doesn't mean that the Ti ego is always going to make the right decision. To make it an extreme example, an Fi ego who knows how to understand basic number sense (i.e., 3.75 is less than 7.05) is far more likely to make a "logical" purchase than a Ti ego who does not have basic number sense. An Fi ego who is well informed and knows, for instance, that Brand A will last twice as long as Brand B will make a better decision than a poorly informed Ti ego who mistakenly thinks that Brand B will last twice as long as Brand A. Is this making any sense?

To return to the BP example, let's think about how a Ti-ego might look at that versus an Fi-ego, even if they come to the same conclusion. An Fi-ego's reaction is more likely to be emotional in nature, to focus on the human cost, the carelessness of BP, etc. I feel that one way to model this reaction is to analyze it in terms of reasonable expectations that BP failed to live up to. We have a reasonable expectation that a corporation won't break an entire coastline. BP failed to live up to that expectation. On the other hand, the Ti-ego's reaction is more likely to be analytical in nature. I know I'm giving it a bit of a beta Ti twist, but the Ti ego is likely to think in terms of whether or not there was a failure in thought, does this reveal internally contradictory understanding, as in "BP was so stupid for running that risk. The relationship between risk and benefit was off. The risk was too high for the benefit." These sorts of thoughts are no more correct than the Fi example I provided. But they are more "logical" as opposed to "ethical," in a socionics sense. Now, if you think there's a fundamental value judgment inherent in the terms "logical" and "ethical," well... I mean... blame Jung and Augusta. Shrug.

[Beautiful sky]

An Fi-ego might have this as one of his/her Fi values: "the grade in the course should reflect the amount of work done in the course." So he or she would evaluate the quality of the course, at least in part, on the criteria "did my grade and the grades of my peers reflect their relative levels of work?"

Not really, I try to limit my work/effort for the maximum grade. I will invest 15 minutes on a class that requires 3 hours, why? because I choose what I feel will be important on an exam not what the exam requires.

SeFi are not the same way as I am.

My primary Fi means I have a very deep level of intricate emotions that must stay in, so I prefer a non emotional environment. If these emotions make themselves out then my external world is interrupted (resulting in consumption, depression, confusion, distraction, disoriented, inability to focus, orient my goals, direct myself towards a specific task- Those are Te roles, as in my Te suffers when my internal emotions come out - I will not be able to act, I become disabled). My dual is very good at clearing my emotions quickly by removing all things that can potentially build into something bigger later on.

They discuss issues quickly and move forward...controlling all functions related to Te which seems to govern Fi, apparently.

[silverchris9]

Not really, I try to limit my work/effort for the maximum grade. I will invest 15 minutes on a class that requires 3 hours, why? because I choose what I feel will be important on an exam not what the exam requires.

SeFi are not the same way as I am.

My primary Fi means I have a very deep level of intricate emotions that must stay in, so I prefer a non emotional environment. If these emotions make themselves out then my external world is interrupted (resulting in consumption, depression, confusion, distraction, inability to focus, orient my goals, direct myself towards a specific task- Those are Te roles, as in my Te suffers when my internal emotions come out - I will not be able to act, I become disabled). My dual is very good at clearing my emotions quickly by removing all things that can potentially build into something bigger later on.

They discuss issues quickly and move forward...controlling all functions related to Te which seems to govern Fi, apparently.

Um.... good post. Like, for reals.

[Beautiful sky]

Um.... good post. Like, for reals.

A good example of this was (sorry if I'm making it public) when a dual, who is a forum member, observed that his internal feelings were guiding him away from a specific thread and asked me if I would stay away from the site to save my energy, thereby directing my work -Te- I was already beginning to feel overwhelmed at the work that it would take to respond to certain posts within it and started to feel (as in noticed certain feelings) edge themselves out and was getting confused. When I read a single post within the tread, it was as if my mind could not process the information because of these feeling that were edging out (clouding and confusing my sense of direction and judgement about which post to pursue when).

Te's direction to stay away from the tread, balanced that out somehow and I was fine in reading and processing information from other threads as if nothing ever happened.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi is also about relationships because when Fi in ESTj sufferes, the person's inner emotions begin to bother them, Fi recognizes the inner emotions and quickly acts to correct them, Fi is both deep emotions and relationships. So, in me, when Te sufferes, I have a hard time assimilating external flow of things, which also includes data.

[crazedrat]

Fi seems like judging whether or not a thing relates to a particular set of values.

[Mattie]

@look, I can really see your point. I tend to view things in a different way, and I feel that the OP would help me/a-person-like-me understand things better. I use the word "archetypally" a lot. I'm interested in knowing what the IEs are generally associated with, and I want to see if I can use that internalized knowledge to sort of spot them in real life. I don't mean using a laundry list of "this trait is associated with that type," but rather sort of building a bundle of associations that I then compare to a person to see where it matches, maybe.

What I sense is that you're taking all of what you perceive to be the manifestations of IEs and pretty much substituting them for the actual IE. That doesn't sit well with me because that leads to over-generalization and a misappropriation of importance to certain details or behaviors. You are assigning too much importance to qualities such as "duty" and "expectations" that honestly shouldn't be limited to any IE. So, instead of applying the actual IE to type and diagnose inter-relations, you're taking these associations that aren't necessarily product of an IE to type with. So now, anyone you view to shop by company is going to be more likely an type, and you honestly don't have back-up for this claim other than you feel like duty and expectations are related to . Do you feel strongly enough about the definition of that you can reference why you think these are appropriate assumptions?

So when I try to describe IEs I tend to describe them in that archetypal/associative way, rather than trying to be as clear as possible in terms of not creating a stronger/weaker binary. I assume people already know that there's no stronger/weaker binary, but also that it is extraordinarily difficult to view each IE impartially (and for evidence, just look at any description on wikisocion and then check the type of the author), because valued vs. unvalued IEs has SUCH an impact on how we see the world.

Why would you assume there isn't a strong/weak binary to be observed? The fact that we are more attuned with certain IEs and ignoring of others is an integral part of diagnosing inter-relation issues. I'm not necessarily promoting a binary, but a core part of why types get along certain ways is because they not only have affinity for certain IEs, but they are also immersed or unaware of others. So, when you assign traits like the ones you did to a certain IE, you're implying that another type is unaware of or doesn't value the importance of said IE, and here, with "duty," you're saying that not only are -leads typically unaware of the importance of "duty," but ignore it when it is brought to their attention (or whatever we want to think of as the role's response). On the other hand, I might describe something along the line of resonance, having an internal feeling of other objects' relation to you and each other in accordance to everything's inner state, well, besides sounding way too wordy, the flip side doesn't insinuate some sort of deficiency with the other types, there would only be a different way that no one can really be partial to on an objective level. I don't particularly think this definition of seems like "the right way to do things," because it is just an abstract process, I just know that Socionics predicts that I do things that way, and that process trumps other processes. You can't really observe this so much since this is a mental process, but that's kind of the point; there should be a focus that what IEs and functions are about aren't observable, we can't directly see the IEs, and therefore can't make 1:1 ratios, or even any generalization. I might be projecting some frustration about how the forum as a whole deals with this, but I tend to see these associations go so far that stereotypes are openly accepted and almost enforced. Every type has a sense and application of duty and expectations... To me, it seems silly to deny that this isn't prevalent. If someone doesn't value duty, that's most likely a personal thing rather than type related. I prefer to have the abstract process in mind when describing IEs, and then when I see a situation, apply the process to make sense of it, rather than taking what I see as a short-cut through catch words.

I mean, really, what I mean is that I want to learn the Form of each IE so that I can better understand its many manifestations, but maybe that's a little overboard Platonic.

That's what all this focus on Information Aspects is about. Information Aspects are the Platonic "Forms" of IEs, and I'm trying to better understand them better as well. I think that you will become less attached to the manifestations themselves; I know that I need understanding of the manifestations so I have a practical use for Socionics, but the focus has shifted as to not rush to too many topical personality traits as evidence for IEs.

Now, all that is assuming that the idea at bottom (that one of the ways that Fi-egos tend to evaluate things subjectively is through creating assumptions about how things should function, just as Ti-egos tend to create assumptions about what is logical/intelligent and what not), however expressed, has any validity, and I'm not 100% sure that it does. What do you think?

I haven't thoroughly read the bottom yet, but I would challenge you to redefine what you say without using the terms objective, subjective, logical, and emotional, as not only do we both have different definition of some (I would say my NeTi best friend is more emotional than me, while others would find that to be a hard claim seeing that I'm NeFi), and by "definition," both and are subjective, but there's been more of a move to throw out these words as they don't describe the IEs well enough because of our associations with the words. Funny how it all comes down to the words.

I actually think that's perfectly accurate--to a point. Of course an Fi ego isn't stupid, nor is a Ti-ego impartial. In fact, by repressing the tendency to make decisions based on how past experiences have affected one's feelings towards a product, Ti-egos can become "over-objective" which really means they're being completely subjective and acting like they're not. Jung wasn't talking about Ti-Fi conflict when he wrote about "the shadow of the opposite," but the concept still applies here. But if you take 500 Fi-egos and 500 Ti-egos to the grocery store, are there going to be more Fi-egos making decisions based on their feelings towards the companies that make them than Ti-egos doing the same? Of course.

No, not of course. You honestly don't have any room to make that claim from any sort of stance, except that you've just come to that conclusion through your experience with theory. And the reason why I point this out is that you're making a claim about behavior, you're saying that will most likely lead to a certain type of behavior, while I am not. I'm not looking to be a hypocrite because I understand I had my own journey of establishing my ideas about Socionics and it is foolish to think that what I have found is "the way," but when you say things like this, and this goes out to the large host of people on here who say things like this, you are stating a causal effect. I've been grocery shopping for a while now, and I can't say that brand names or my feelings towards brands has dominated my shopping. Price has been the biggest factor, as well as how things fit into my diet; the fact that I want more produce and I want to stay away from preprepared foods... I mean, what you said here is a really sweeping generalization that doesn't actually apply to people, only the ideas of types that is in your head. So, instead of you wondering about how someone came to a conclusion, it's more like "Oh, they have an emphasis on brands, that seems rather to me," which I don't think is the way to go about typing and recognizing IEs.

Especially Fi-egos who haven't had enough exposure to Te, which might step in to tell them that, factually, Brand A saves it's customers 75% over Brand B. Between the Fi negative feeling towards Brand A for breaking a rule and/or expectation, and the Te impulse to do the most efficient thing, you build a happy medium: some violations of expectation are too great, such as BP, as you mentioned, sometimes efficiency wins out, and the Te ego and the Fi ego can productively use each others' information. (That's not really on topic, but I wanted to talk about it.) It doesn't mean that the Ti ego is always going to make the right decision. To make it an extreme example, an Fi ego who knows how to understand basic number sense (i.e., 3.75 is less than 7.05) is far more likely to make a "logical" purchase than a Ti ego who does not have basic number sense. An Fi ego who is well informed and knows, for instance, that Brand A will last twice as long as Brand B will make a better decision than a poorly informed Ti ego who mistakenly thinks that Brand B will last twice as long as Brand A. Is this making any sense? To return to the BP example, let's think about how a Ti-ego might look at that versus an Fi-ego, even if they come to the same conclusion. An Fi-ego's reaction is more likely to be emotional in nature, to focus on the human cost, the carelessness of BP, etc. I feel that one way to model this reaction is to analyze it in terms of reasonable expectations that BP failed to live up to. We have a reasonable expectation that a corporation won't break an entire coastline. BP failed to live up to that expectation. On the other hand, the Ti-ego's reaction is more likely to be analytical in nature. I know I'm giving it a bit of a beta Ti twist, but the Ti ego is likely to think in terms of whether or not there was a failure in thought, does this reveal internally contradictory understanding, as in "BP was so stupid for running that risk. The relationship between risk and benefit was off. The risk was too high for the benefit." These sorts of thoughts are no more correct than the Fi example I provided. But they are more "logical" as opposed to "ethical," in a socionics sense. Now, if you think there's a fundamental value judgment inherent in the terms "logical" and "ethical," well... I mean... blame Jung and Augusta. Shrug.

Again, I think you're putting too much emphasis on = rules, and Tx = some sort of logic. I think these constrain what the actual IEs are, which are more inclusive. I can only really point you to other threads that talk about Information Aspects, or take this somewhere else. And it's not Jung and Augusta to blame, its everyone else who takes these words too literally, especially from other languages. Socionics seems to use these words as placeholders that give a certain idea rather than actually logical or emotional. Again, that goes back to an MBTI infusion of T/F, if Tx were supposed to be "logical" and Fx supposed to be "emotional," how would you explain someone who is ESTP FeSi? I have a co-worker who is this combination, and neither affected the other; his MBTI types are all his topical personality traits that MBTI tests for, and his Socionics type the way he fits into model A. It would be impossible for this person to exist by your use of logical and ethical/emotional.

ETA: Ultimately, wasn't this supposed to be extracting from emotional context? lol It seems like you've fallen back onto that, especially by saying that Tx functions are logical, and on the other side of the binary of emotional.

[Suz]

Not unless you do algebra by mentally replacing the variables with people and start explain why an equation must be balanced so that its fair and doesn't hurt the other variables feelings.

I actually do something sort of like that sometimes, with math and science.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi seems like judging whether or not a thing relates to a particular set of values.

This too, we make a lot of judgements.

[Mattie]

This too, we make a lot of judgements.

[crazedrat]

well, just judging whether it relates gives them the quality of 'staying on the topic' I've noticed. Whatever that topic may be.. Like they don't really respond to tangents, and they will requote important information just to drive it home.

[Beautiful sky]

Here's my Fi judgment...

Because Christopher Reeve played Superman, a super hero movie, geared towards people who like the image of a hero/savior, and because he made money doing it, he should not be a hypocrite, as he was in turning kids away from autographs, who admired him and looked up to him. He wants kids to live in the real world, then he should not have excepted the role of Superman. That is ESTp type of characteristic that I can't stand, doing it for the money, but not giving two shits about kids who looked up to him because he played those roles, instead telling them to go concern themselves with real type things.

I should expect that ANY ESTj who played the same role, would appreciate that people looked up to the fantasy with a grain of imagination and interest and did not turn kids away who were inspired by the fantasy of the role of superheros. Sure, superheros are not real, but it's the stuff of the imagination, real helpful/helping values, and fantasy that counts.

[silverchris9]

No, not of course. You honestly don't have any room to make that claim from any sort of stance, except that you've just come to that conclusion through your experience with theory. And the reason why I point this out is that you're making a claim about behavior, you're saying that will most likely lead to a certain type of behavior, while I am not. I'm not looking to be a hypocrite because I understand I had my own journey of establishing my ideas about Socionics and it is foolish to think that what I have found is "the way," but when you say things like this, and this goes out to the large host of people on here who say things like this, you are stating a causal effect. I've been grocery shopping for a while now, and I can't say that brand names or my feelings towards brands has dominated my shopping. Price has been the biggest factor, as well as how things fit into my diet; the fact that I want more produce and I want to stay away from preprepared foods... I mean, what you said here is a really sweeping generalization that doesn't actually apply to people, only the ideas of types that is in your head. So, instead of you wondering about how someone came to a conclusion, it's more like "Oh, they have an emphasis on brands, that seems rather to me," which I don't think is the way to go about typing and recognizing IEs.

Again, more later maybe, but this is incorrect. I am precisely NOT stating a causal effect. If it were a causal effect every time you put in input x (Fi) you would get output y (a given behavior). That is exactly what I'm saying is not the case. Rather, I am saying that Fi is one of ten thousand factors that would influence you to make a certain decision. Ti is one of ten thousand factors that would influence you to make a different decision. Even that is speaking metaphorically (it would be more correct to say "Fi is a way of viewing things that would tend to focus on information, such as one's feelings towards corporations, that would lead to a certain decision," but that takes too long). This is hardly causation. It's merely the recognition of a trend. I added Fi egos may also, after sufficient exposure to Te, take in information about a given brand from a different perspective, Te, which would could lead them to make the more "efficient" or "logical" decision.

ETA: Ultimately, wasn't this supposed to be extracting from emotional context? lol It seems like you've fallen back onto that, especially by saying that Tx functions are logical, and on the other side of the binary of emotional.

I disagree. Let's call it a non-interpersonal context. My issue was "how does Fi deal with things that don't have to do with interpersonal relationships?" My response was, essentially, by making them into interpersonal relationships (my relationship with a corporation). Fi tends to take a decision like "what cereal do I buy" and make it an interpersonal thing: how does this corporation relate to me, how do I feel about this corporation. But that is merely an explication of the word subjective. What does subjective mean? If nothing else, it means "related to me". If Fi is a function that is neither ethical nor subjective, what is it?

I haven't thoroughly read the bottom yet, but I would challenge you to redefine what you say without using the terms objective, subjective, logical, and emotional, as not only do we both have different definition of some (I would say my NeTi best friend is more emotional than me, while others would find that to be a hard claim seeing that I'm NeFi), and by "definition," both and are subjective, but there's been more of a move to throw out these words as they don't describe the IEs well enough because of our associations with the words. Funny how it all comes down to the words.

That's your method, and I respect it, but it's not mine, at least not for the time being. We'll have to agree to disagree on that score.