Look what I found

[Creepy-female]

.

[xerx]

I don't mean for this to sound dickish, but for that writer.

[xerx]

Given the fact that I know several Fe people who are determined to keep people within mental paradigms of right/wrong behavior, and perhaps unbalanced Aristocratic quadras in general, I fail to see how your correlation holds water. In fact this entire article could be viewed in terms of Te seeing as how it's an external fact that just as this happened, this also happened, and no isolation for logical condensation is necessary. Te doesn't necessarily have barriers except for the barrier the external world represents - it's expansive.

A ego would rely on to generate his ethical principles, and then there is certainly an "ethical" condensation involved.

Ti could, in theory, generate principles about ethics, but they're so far removed from the everyday, and the reason Ti egos can be insensitive and don't feel people too well.

It's also not impossible that you can appreciate an article regardless of the IE behind it.

[crazedrat]

I don't think this concept is overly associated with an element.

[xerx]

You don't have to agree with my criteria or anything. If I'm right, then it's entirely your loss. If I'm wrong, then it isn't.

So don't act as if because this article involves changing emotional expression that it's necessarily Fe. Not that I understand your criteria. That's just my guess on what your reasoning was. But the way I see it, changing emotional expression can be seen as an external event as well.

Changing emotional expression can be seen as an external event, but as an external event it has no meaning without an ethical function that can perceive it.

For example, could model a smile as the mouth moving into an awkward shape. It might notice the different curvature on everyone's faces when they do it, the different contours of the mouth, Grandma's toothless grin versus a tooth-filled one. It can record every known fact about the smile into a large databank. But none of the warmth behind the smile would be perceived and the smile would lose most of its human connotation. It wouldn't be that different from modeling a mathematical curve.

That's why egos try to avoid displays of emotion. It's not because they can't perceive them or attempt to do them, they can. It's just the emotional display has no meaning to them. There is no reward in it and there are too many extra-dimensional variables they don't understand.

They'd feel safer with an ego who can translate the smile as part of the bond they share.

A revolving door is also an external event that's dynamic and changing, a floating balloon is an external event that changes. None of these things mean anything on their own without an ethical function to associate a more sentimental meaning to them.

EDIT: even for egos this is a problem since we have weak .

[Creepy-male]

Well, I like slapping elements on the writer.

I think she is Fe. It leaks through in her writing style, in her message, in her motivations for trying to teach what she's trying to teach (cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable and unpleasant). Obviously the information there can be used by anyone, and is probably aspect-neutral (or more logically, actually, aspect-replete) enough to yield something useful to any reader.

But I dunno, I guess I'm the sort of person who likes watching a film as much to enjoy it as to psychoanalyse the creator.

[xerx]

But there's nothing to say that this article in question isn't Fi, either. Fi is able to take in disparate sets of external data (Te) and translate it into something overarching that doesn't take an external justification, but rather can involve insight into people's natures, "Johnny is both a great athlete and does pot". Maybe that's Johnny's nature.

Yes, that's good. Any ethical function is going to be concerned with people's inner lives and motives. But what do you think would do after it found out Johnny's nature? Wouldn't it more likely reject his nature as something wrong? As something that doesn't correlate with its internal value system (unless it didn't find anything wrong with pot in the first place, which wouldn't make this into a dilemma).

Of course Ti generates principles about ethics. It can generate principles about a lot of things. Ti egos aren't across the board insensitive, they're sensitive to the input of their duals. Why do you think duality is beneficial? Because the information coming in is formatted in such a way that we can learn from it and accept it without feeling overwhelmed or threatened. A Ti ego is going to accept information that is formatted with his complimentary functions. There's no reason why he would be seen as a dick to people who can understand his motives and reasonings.

That's true and I don't deny this. But Ti on its own, undualized (self-dualization counts), probably wouldn't generate very nice principles.

No it's not impossible. So you don't have to be the first to jump in gung ho, attributing it to a function, you can widen your mindset a little to see how it works in different scenarios and with different quadra viewpoints.

So could you. You can widen your perspective to include the possibility that it's another IE altogether.

[anndelise]

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Yes, that's good. Any ethical function is going to be concerned with people's inner lives and motives. But what do you think would do after it found out Johnny's nature? Wouldn't it more likely reject his nature as something wrong? As something that doesn't correlate with its internal value system (unless it didn't find anything wrong with pot in the first place, which wouldn't make this into a dilemma).

Right. That's why it isn't a dilemma. Why does an internal value system correlate with rejecting his nature as something wrong? A value system is a value system. Values are values are values. They're not necessarily strict. Fi is just formulated in a different way because you can't readily externalize its decisions in the externally consistant connected way Ti does. So if it had some subjective values, the dual acceptance could be totally within this range.

The original article is similar to an argument that various Fi types have tried to correct about T-type descriptions of Fi and Fi types. (quite a few deltans, and diana)

Alpha NTs keep describing Fi as being black or white thinking, good vs evil, etc. But the Fi types have constantly said no, that's not what's going on.

Believe it or not, we can like parts of a person while disliking other parts of them. We can like that Johnny earns us money when we bet on his games, but we may not particularly want him to be a role model for our kids due to his drug usage. Does his drug usage make him a BAD person? Not necessarily. Perhaps just a not so great role model. I, personally, avoid being around people who use drugs. Does that mean that I think they are evil? No. I love chatting with bionicgoat. If we were to meet in person, we'd probably have a good time hanging out chitchatting about all sorts of things. But if he were to pull out a doobie in my presence, I would probably frown and make my excuses to leave. That doesn't mean that I'm judging HIM as a person, just that I don't want to be around drugs.

One of the things I tend to run into issues with, is when someone asks me about a person. If the person falls under my definition of "good people", I'll say so. But there may be some buts in there as well. Some parts of them may not be so good. The problem comes when I'm supposed to give some black or white answer. I can't. There are so many aspects to a person that there's just no way of judging all of them as being good or all of them as being bad.

My brother and I used to joke about this, but it has a ring of truth to it. If you're a thief, tell me you are a thief. It doesn't mean we won't hang out, it just might mean that I might double check my wallet sometimes . But the honesty of having told me wins major points.

Just because *I* have certain values about some things, doesn't mean that I expect EVERYone to have those same values, nor to fall in line with my values. Be yourself, let me be myself, and if we sync up, great, if not, that's ok too.

Many of my friends label a guy as being an ass after they break up. It's as if they've forgotten, or are deliberately ignoring all the good things that the person does that they used to like. Ever since I was young, I'd felt that just because she and I aren't friends, or because a relationship with some guy didn't work out, doesn't mean that they are bad people. It just means that we don't connect. Before I met Richard, I was dating various people. But by then I had certain criteria that I needed from a person (such as them not triggering certain emotional responses in me, them being patient, etc). I had learned, the hard way, that a relationship with someone just wouldn't work out if they kept hitting my PTSD triggers, or if they were even half as impatient as I am. So, while dating, if I met someone who hit those triggers accidently, by just being themselves, then I knew it wouldn't work long term between us. So I would end the dating attempts rather early. This didn't mean that I thought that they were bad people, just that we were incompatible with each other. The vast majority of my ex's are still friends and in contact with me BECAUSE of this way of thinking. Sometimes, I'll even refer them to someone who would be more compatible with them.


The only dilemma I can think of is when being unsure what to do when you both like parts of someone (or parts of a situation) AND dislike other parts of it. Then what do you do? The person is neither good nor bad, the situation is neither good nor bad. Sometimes, depending on other circumstances, the same person or situation may be desirable, and at other times the same person or situation may be undesirable. And here, sometimes we get accused of "sending mixed signals".

[xerx]

Right. That's why it isn't a dilemma. Why does an internal value system correlate with rejecting his nature as something wrong? A value system is a value system. Values are values are values. They're not necessarily strict. Fi is just formulated in a different way because you can't readily externalize its decisions in the externally consistant connected way Ti does. So if it had some subjective values, the dual acceptance could be totally within this range.

I don't think I fully understood you here. But anyway, it's a dilemma for the type because the other person has two conflicting values. It's not as much of a dilemma for types because ethical value systems don't play a major part in their thinking. They're more willing to work with another person as he is than caring about whether he satisfies some personal ethical criteria.

That's the difference between extrovert (outwardly directed) and introvert (inwardly directed) IEs.

So as I see it, the article is an criticism of thought processes.

I think empathy and warmth has more to do on the person than the function, but I also think socially or relationship awkward people can be very warm and endearing.

Well we use all our functions so yes. A logical type maybe a hopeless romantic, desire to be warm or empathetic, but I've never met one who was very good at articulating these feelings without duality to help. Even then, the person has to be more spiritual than the average logical type. And even then, figuring out the right type of smile, or how to comfort someone who is crying without feeling embarrassed can take forever.

I didn't have any IE in mind when I posted it. I'm not marrying or deeply identifying with the writer. I thought the concept was really cool though because it taught me how to deal with some things I previously was at a loss with.

I'm genuinely happy for you and please don't take this argument too personally or anything. It's just about socionics.

[xerx]

The original article is similar to an argument that various Fi types have tried to correct about T-type descriptions of Fi and Fi types. (quite a few deltans, and diana)

Alpha NTs keep describing Fi as being black or white thinking, good vs evil, etc. But the Fi types have constantly said no, that's not what's going on.

Black and white thinking is usually associated with , which means are going to have more black and white ethical thinking than .

From Gulenko:

-Fi = minimization of negative relationships. This element is critical of evil. It possesses a desire to get away from bad people and bad relationships, and to protect themselves from enemies and adversaries. They want to minimize negative experiences, because as we know from psychoanalysis, all extruded problems are liable to generate an emotional reaction one way or another, with a physical cost for the purification of the subconscious.

+Fi = good, warm relationships. Psychological factors play a vital role. Without positive ethical values, such as the recognition of religion, individuality and the uniqueness of others, non-interference in others lives, concrete humanism, etc., the stability they strongly support is hardly possible.

There is also involved. And yes, the above description has been true time and time again in my dealings with Gammas and their forcefully judging others.

[Beautiful sky]

That was a very good description of EII

Goodness and warmth are all I need sometimes. I like gulenko's version. Black and white thinkers may also use Ti activation to categorize people. ILE have Ti too so, they do this as well; look at ****** and how he supported categories of people.

[Beautiful sky]

You don't have to agree with my criteria or anything. If I'm right, then it's entirely your loss. If I'm wrong, then it isn't.

Changing emotional expression can be seen as an external event, but as an external event it has no meaning without an ethical function that can perceive it.

For example, could model a smile as the mouth moving into an awkward shape. It might notice the different curvature on everyone's faces when they do it, the different contours of the mouth, Grandma's toothless grin versus a tooth-filled one. It can record every known fact about the smile into a large databank. But none of the warmth behind the smile would be perceived and the smile would lose most of its human connotation. It wouldn't be that different from modeling a mathematical curve.

That's why egos try to avoid displays of emotion. It's not because they can't perceive them or attempt to do them, they can. It's just the emotional display has no meaning to them. There is no reward in it and there are too many extra-dimensional variables they don't understand.

They'd feel safer with an ego who can translate the smile as part of the bond they share.

A revolving door is also an external event that's dynamic and changing, a floating balloon is an external event that changes. None of these things mean anything on their own without an ethical function to associate a more sentimental meaning to them.

EDIT: even for egos this is a problem since we have weak .

This is partly not true; Te avoids Fi display of emotions like the plague and even tries to cox us into getting into a good mood; this is because they have poor understanding of what they need to do for us in order for us to feel better. For example, Fi will shoot out objective facts about reality as perceived by them, when they get emotional saying the things I will say, like "I'm this or that or I wish this for myself or that"; they are supposed to not avoid me, but to correct my information, to brush away my disturbing thoughts (the things I shoot out); by doing so, they also brush away my bad emotions. But, most don't understand this aspect about our relationships and instead will mock, make fun, try to joke around, childishly.

[xerx]

The original article is similar to an argument that various Fi types have tried to correct about T-type descriptions of Fi and Fi types. (quite a few deltans, and diana)

Alpha NTs keep describing Fi as being black or white thinking, good vs evil, etc. But the Fi types have constantly said no, that's not what's going on.

Believe it or not, we can like parts of a person while disliking other parts of them. We can like that Johnny earns us money when we bet on his games, but we may not particularly want him to be a role model for our kids due to his drug usage. Does his drug usage make him a BAD person? Not necessarily. Perhaps just a not so great role model. I, personally, avoid being around people who use drugs. Does that mean that I think they are evil? No. I love chatting with bionicgoat. If we were to meet in person, we'd probably have a good time hanging out chitchatting about all sorts of things. But if he were to pull out a doobie in my presence, I would probably frown and make my excuses to leave. That doesn't mean that I'm judging HIM as a person, just that I don't want to be around drugs.

One of the things I tend to run into issues with, is when someone asks me about a person. If the person falls under my definition of "good people", I'll say so. But there may be some buts in there as well. Some parts of them may not be so good. The problem comes when I'm supposed to give some black or white answer. I can't. There are so many aspects to a person that there's just no way of judging all of them as being good or all of them as being bad.

My brother and I used to joke about this, but it has a ring of truth to it. If you're a thief, tell me you are a thief. It doesn't mean we won't hang out, it just might mean that I might double check my wallet sometimes . But the honesty of having told me wins major points.

Just because *I* have certain values about some things, doesn't mean that I expect EVERYone to have those same values, nor to fall in line with my values. Be yourself, let me be myself, and if we sync up, great, if not, that's ok too.

Many of my friends label a guy as being an ass after they break up. It's as if they've forgotten, or are deliberately ignoring all the good things that the person does that they used to like. Ever since I was young, I'd felt that just because she and I aren't friends, or because a relationship with some guy didn't work out, doesn't mean that they are bad people. It just means that we don't connect. Before I met Richard, I was dating various people. But by then I had certain criteria that I needed from a person (such as them not triggering certain emotional responses in me, them being patient, etc). I had learned, the hard way, that a relationship with someone just wouldn't work out if they kept hitting my PTSD triggers, or if they were even half as impatient as I am. So, while dating, if I met someone who hit those triggers accidently, by just being themselves, then I knew it wouldn't work long term between us. So I would end the dating attempts rather early. This didn't mean that I thought that they were bad people, just that we were incompatible with each other. The vast majority of my ex's are still friends and in contact with me BECAUSE of this way of thinking. Sometimes, I'll even refer them to someone who would be more compatible with them.


The only dilemma I can think of is when being unsure what to do when you both like parts of someone (or parts of a situation) AND dislike other parts of it. Then what do you do? The person is neither good nor bad, the situation is neither good nor bad. Sometimes, depending on other circumstances, the same person or situation may be desirable, and at other times the same person or situation may be undesirable. And here, sometimes we get accused of "sending mixed signals".

@anndelise

You know, now that I reread the article I can see an IEE (or another ego anyway) writing something like it. A lot of her thrust is about escaping convention and not overly dichotomizing the mind into a rigid structure. The article isn't so much about confronting the bad feelings in relationships like you'd expect from an ego, as it is on the actual mental perception that leads to them.

The article also revolves around pradoxes in peoples perception of things, which is a major theme. And she can't stop herself from branching out and going on constrained tangents (she uses a lot of brackets, which is something I do a lot of ).

Anyway, sorry for the ego suggestion. I can see now that it's not so clear.

[xerx]

Because you don't perceive any subjectivity in their dealings with others unless you are spoon fed it Fe style.

Obviously, I didn't perceive yours when writing my answers. Although I can't thank you enough for the condescending post even after I posted a correction to my ideas. Way to blow a simple disagreement about socionics out of proportion.

[Creepy-bg]

Believe it or not, we can like parts of a person while disliking other parts of them. We can like that Johnny earns us money when we bet on his games, but we may not particularly want him to be a role model for our kids due to his drug usage. Does his drug usage make him a BAD person? Not necessarily. Perhaps just a not so great role model. I, personally, avoid being around people who use drugs. Does that mean that I think they are evil? No. I love chatting with bionicgoat. If we were to meet in person, we'd probably have a good time hanging out chitchatting about all sorts of things. But if he were to pull out a doobie in my presence, I would probably frown and make my excuses to leave. That doesn't mean that I'm judging HIM as a person, just that I don't want to be around drugs.

fwiw I'd never pull out a joint (and even avoid talking about it) when hanging out with a non-drug user. Not saying that you implied that, just wanted to make that clear. I have respect for peoples boundaries on that stuff.

agree with everything posted here though. I know many people who have "bad" sides to them. It doesn't make them "bad" people though, sometimes it can even make them MORE interesting people (provided that they can accept who they are, otherwise I feel obligated to help them accept those parts of themselves which can get annoying for them and me when I push it too far). But if they want to steal in a stupid way or whatever, basically do something that makes me nervous, then it's time for me to go.

[anndelise]

fwiw I'd never pull out a joint (and even avoid talking about it) when hanging out with a non-drug user. Not saying that you implied that, just wanted to make that clear. I have respect for peoples boundaries on that stuff.

I kept telling myself as I was writing it that I should put in a disclaimer that I didn't think you'd pull one out if you were around someone who avoided drugs. And something about it being part of your value system to respect others' values as well. And who can't respect THAT??

[Creepy-bg]

I kept telling myself as I was writing it that I should put in a disclaimer that I didn't think you'd pull one out if you were around someone who avoided drugs. And something about it being part of your value system to respect others' values as well. And who can't respect THAT??

[xerx]

I feel that the disagreement has forced me to elaborate on something in such a way that it lent itself to description and reasoning and elaboration, so I can't see it as out of proportion. We have enough long ass posts about the judgmental-ness of Fi around here, more aren't needed. I feel that this is a useful contribution. Socionics isn't a dinky little way to abstract people to nubbins detachedly. It has its flaws but there's really something to it. There really ARE different perspectives.

And that all neatly justifies your comment about being spoon fed.

[Beautiful sky]

And I don't think that this can really feasibly be relegated to quadra values anyway. I think that everyone can take something valuable from it. I think it could apply both ways. All quadras can be willing to simplify another quadra's values and put them in a categorization that doesn't correspond to reality simply because they don't understand the quadra's values. We put things into categories so we don't have to death with every single little detail those happenings involve. Maybe quadras got tired of trying to understand their opposing quadras. Maybe they felt misinterpreted or imposed upon or misunderstood or attacked. And maybe that was because they lacked understanding of ways to connect. And that can only come with being open minded and being willing to try to feel what the other person is actually feeling or thinking or considering the way they make decisions.

Because for example I can't figure out how Ti actually operates. How do they make a decision? I just see the output. So how do you know what your opposing quadra values see if you only see the output? There has to be some insight into their thought process.

And that's what I believe forums like this can facilitate.

So don't act as if because this article involves changing emotional expression that it's necessarily Fe. Not that I understand your criteria. That's just my guess on what your reasoning was. But the way I see it, changing emotional expression can be seen as an external event as well.

It's easy for me because I can use my perception to get a feeling of how each piece of information that they are looking at is adjusting within them and defining the system that they are building; for you, it's not so easy, because as you said, you can only see the output, which is Se perception. It's okay; I'll try to send you an example by PM.

Why do you keep implying that one needs to be good at articulating feelings to be warm? Or that spirituality and Ti/Te processes don't mix? Or that the right type of smile is integral to communicating care, or that a rough, awkward word can't convey sincerity? It seems that once again you are unable to hold the seemingly opposing states in the same psychological space without your perception bowing out.

I think that Socionics is valuable. I'm not a fanatic but I think there's something here that's meant to be addressed. I'm not being crazy or emotional. I think there is a very clear Fi polr being shown right here, right now. And in spite of all the factors, I still think that distinction is valid.

One does not need to be good at articulating feelings to be warm and kind; INFj's are action people, we show it with action. INFp's say it, they are the verbal kind of warm. Ti/Te can both be spiritual

[717495]

I agree with this being mostly Ni+Fe. I'm sure a lot of the stuff in the Oprah magazine is.

[Capitalist Pig]

Wow, this article was really good, I've considered these kinds of things before. Thanks for this, dolphin. Who knew the Oprah magazine could occasionally prove interesting?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah! People shouldn't feel all conflicted and confused that they like raw throat fucking and disney gay magical love. They seem separate. Brutal raw throat fucking is like so hard and straight and like, different- and disney fag love is so ideal and like magical and not physical. But they aren't opposites. They aren't like, fighting for dominance or war- that's just how humans perceive it.

So, I accept myself for liking both brutal throat fucking and sappy romance. It doesn't mean I want to 'harden' my romance or 'soften' the throat fucking either. I can like both in their pure raw forms at once without feeling guilty or conflicted.