How to make sure which feeling function you value?

[Quaris]

I'm having doubts about my quadra. Any suggestions on how to determine the valued Fx?

[Computer Loser]

Hey Quaris, took this straight off the wikisocion page, hope it helps



Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, always taking jokes with a grain of salt.

However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations; it is just one technique among many.

Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they (in principle) don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

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

Types with valued strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics () approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)

[Krig the Viking]

There's also this page for overall descriptions of the Quadras.

[Quaris]

Thanks, I actually know those things and was rather hoping for some kind of "trick" or some other easy way to get the answer.

I'm skeptical of my ability to tell which of the two I am. I fear to become too subjective.
I have asked other people to help me with the typing but none of my friends really know anything about sosionics which makes their opinions a bit hard to rely on.

[Park]

Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, always taking jokes with a grain of salt.

However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations; it is just one technique among many.

Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they (in principle) don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

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

Types with valued strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics () approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)

Does anyone know who wrote these?

[Quaris]

There's also this page for overall descriptions of the Quadras.

I should make that my homepage...I go there almost every day at least once.

It's not that I'm stupid and don't get it(I hope).
I just don't trust myself in typing. It would be great to find someone professional to do it IRL but I don't think there are any around.

[xerx]

You value all the functions in your ego and superid. Start from there.

[Quaris]

Thanks aixelsyd. That was very helpful

[Creepy-female]

The trick is to understand the difference between introverted and extroverted feeling and to identify what causes psychological comfort/discomfort and/or what you are most apt to express. If you are a feeling ego type, you will be strong at both types, but one will come out naturally and the other will tend to bore you or seem unnecessary to express in day to day situations.

"Susceptibility to emotions, direct emotional influence, exposed feelings"

"Psychological environment, relations between people, moral issues, guarding of principles"

Fe is more spontaneous and in the moment...emotions suited for the moment such as sudden laughter, smiling pleasantly to make others feel invited (positive manifestations). It is a free exchange of emotions and moods and expressions which clearly indicate one's current mood. There is an aversion to 'mood killing' even if it utilizes common sense and pragmatism and facts.

Fi, on the other hand, is more about:
-state of relations: being friends, being enemies, having nothing to do with each other
-personal like and dislike/how you feel about something or someone on a long term basis.
-code of ethics/ code of honor, a personal example being that I have a hard time, on a certain online game which is PVP, attacking my opponent when they don't have a weapon, not because it's too easy and because I am more interested in demonstrating my skill by going for more worthy opponents, but because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth (figure of speech) and feels cheap and mean and makes me feel bad.
-love, hatred, enmity, favor: ties with personal like and dislike

So you have to figure which of these is preferred. Some might find both to be lame or pointless, but then pick the lesser of the two evils. There is no trick other than getting the gusto behind these two categories of Jungian ethics and applying it to yourself.

I think that is is pretty good. It's not there aren't both aspects in F leading people, like you said. But I think that for example, for myself personally..I treat the former as sort of a game. Not anything bad, and it's not as if I don't feel those things somewhat..but it's more like..it's really hard for me to be that way on a consistent basis, or to treat those kind of cues as something important. I only engage in the Fe stuff you are describing in close groups in which I can feel certain my reactions won't be misread, and I'd always choose to ditch that kind of interaction in favor of a sort of objective encompassing analysis of feeling. It seems as if in a lot of situations Fe people read my Fe cues as something of a signifier about my overall disposition, when it's something I don't really put a lot of value on as a whole.

[mu4]

There's also this page for overall descriptions of the Quadras.

I think the quadra descriptions are pretty bad.

[Airman]

from my muslim socionics master, Mohammed Al-Jihad Al-Akbar:

"

: superficial exchanges of emotions usually in group settings but doesn´t get any deep. statements exchanged are usually impersonal (not about the persons involved themselves or their feelings); emphasis is on the general emotional group atmosphere. statements of personal feelings are seen as inappropriate, questions about personal feelings are seen as invasive. things are usually loud and cheerful atmosphere.

: interchange of emotions of a highly subjective nature and character. it can happen among groups but less frequently than on one-on-one occasions. this is the function of deep emotional binding. focus on creating a general emotional atmosphere or impact in groups where Fi is dominant is seen as presumptuous or inappropriate. things are quieter and more serene atmosphere.

[Creepy-female]

I agree with the general idea but I feel that the descriptions aren't ideal. Because I get the feeling when I read these that Fi is "deeper" or "better" somehow that Fe, and I know that isn't true. I think the problem is in the terms. I think the important distinction to make is not putting a value judgment on either one when those terms are used, and just use them for purely contrasting purposes. But even then I'm not sure if that's possible. I do think that there's some value on the stereotypes because they have registered as somewhat true within my own experience, but still I'm hesitant to apply them on a really universal level. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to do so.

[Krig the Viking]

Fe is more spontaneous and in the moment...emotions suited for the moment such as sudden laughter, smiling pleasantly to make others feel invited (positive manifestations). It is a free exchange of emotions and moods and expressions which clearly indicate one's current mood. There is an aversion to 'mood killing' even if it utilizes common sense and pragmatism and facts.

Fi, on the other hand, is more about:
-state of relations: being friends, being enemies, having nothing to do with each other
-personal like and dislike/how you feel about something or someone on a long term basis.
-code of ethics/ code of honor, a personal example being that I have a hard time, on a certain online game which is PVP, attacking my opponent when they don't have a weapon, not because it's too easy and because I am more interested in demonstrating my skill by going for more worthy opponents, but because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth (figure of speech) and feels cheap and mean and makes me feel bad.
-love, hatred, enmity, favor: ties with personal like and dislike

I agree with these descriptions. Here's my own descriptions from an earlier thread:

Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.

Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relationships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships, which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changeing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.

That's my understanding, anyway.

[Creepy-female]

Oh there we go. I thought of it. Fe exchanges aren't really "superficial". If you've ever heard a Fe valuer talk about what they're exchanging, you would know it isn't so. They're actually reading a shitload of information when they process those seemingly little things.

The problem then is just describing the way it looks outwardly. Something inward expressed outwardly that is object based (someone talks about their Fe observations) might look "shallow" because it's emotional and idea mechanics as they are happening. It's not formulating them into a larger context. Perhaps in that situation the Ti (the overall reasoning, the connections of ideas and emotions to value judgments and to structure) is taken for granted because it's nature is subjective in the way that it's attached to the person (field). You're not stating the rules or the implications of the situation necessarily if you're using Fe, they're being taken for granted because the way you structure them (the Ti) is linked with you. Ti is a field. The Ti aspect isn't being detailed if you're using Fe. D'oh.

Ti is external, so explaining the rules seems to take place on an easily traceable level, and people often equate 1+1=2 thinking with shallowness and non-traceable thinking with deepness. It's like Ti valuers are external in their Ti so they can trace their connections, so therefore it's assumed they're "robotic". Fe statements are taken as givens in the situation, but they're not as easily traceable, so core observations can only be emphasized, not explained fluidly, and it takes a longer time to explain to do such observations justice, and even then they're not exactly able to be "justified", they are the sort of observations that just "are", and are taken for granted, like Te takes itself for granted.

So statements attempting to explain emotions, ideas, and concepts, look silly to Fi because the Ti person is explaining ideas, concepts, and emotions in a 1+1=2 way, things that are attached to themselves, and the Fi person can't comprehend 1+1=2 things that are attached to themselves. Ti valuers are linked personally to objectivity. (And when I say objectivity there I mean external structure and not the fields/objects distinction). Fi doesn't understand that. So it might be easy to ridicule that. I feel that Ti people are screwed because when they take the time to detail their subjective structures, the 1+1=2 externality of their structures screws them over in the way that people think they are "shallow".

I think I've observed the difference between Fe/Ti people and Fi/Te people is the way they assume different things are implicit or explicit.

Something inward expressed outwardly that is subject based (someone talks about their Fi observations) might look "deeper" because it's emotion and ideas considered in a longer term, more complex (information taken into account) structure. It's formulating the ideas and emotions into a larger context. When you're using Fi, you're taking the time to state the rules or the implications of the situation. When you're using Fe you're not really taking the time to detail stuctures. You're just communicating object based (not personally connected, subjective [as in field] observations). It's possible to take Fi conclusions for granted because they are also linked with you due to Fi being subjective, as Ti can be taken for granted, but if you're detailing Fi stuff, at that point, you're basically not taking them for granted, lol. (Sorry that was so circular.) Fi is internal and not easily traceable so someone might have to take more effort to explain it because the correlations aren't as "obvious". The internal combined with subjective field based nature makes Fi look "deeper" on the outside, because if you take Fe's internality, you still can't fully commit to calling it "deep" because it still has the object based stuff from which to appeal from and sort of balances the internal quality. Fi's nature is more polarized.

Fi is internal, so explaining the rules seems to take place on a not easily traceable level, and people often equate trying to find non-traceable ways to describe things with deepness and traceable thinking with shallowness. It's like Fi valuers are internal so they can't trace their connections, so therefore it's assumed they're "deep". Such statements look silly to Ti because the Fi person is explaining non-traceable things that are attached to themselves, and the Ti person can't comprehend internally traceable things that are attached to themselves. The Fe observations are all separate from themselves. Ti valuers are linked personally to objectivity (1+1=2 thinking, traceable thinking), but Fe is object based, even though it's internal.

Well it's like of course if you contrast Fi and Fe, Fi may look "deeper" because Fi is field based and Fe is object based. If you're explaining a detailed structure of thought to someone vs unattached observations, which will seem "deeper"? If you aren't Fe valuing and don't understand the unattached observations, then the detailed structure will seem "deeper".

The trick is getting Fe/Ti people to detail their external subjective structure of thought and then try to suspend judgment on the validity of it because Ti valuers are so personally attached to their 1+1=2 thinking (and all the times I say 1+1=2, it isn't a value judgment, it's just a way to convey externally traceable thinking). If you read Ti/Fe valuers writing, this traceable thinking is noble. And there's nothing wrong with that. It can just be hard as a Fi/Te valuer to accept that that way of thinking means anything, because it can be a sort of instinctual reaction to dismiss it.

[Krig the Viking]

Ti valuers are linked personally to objectivity.

I really like that turn of phrase (and your whole explanation based on it). I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's true. Ti-Egos, especially Base-Ti types, consider themselves to be in one way or another "Champions of Truth", and feel personally insulted when people fail to see the importance of impartial truth and logic. When Fi-Egos casually dismiss what we consider to be vitally important information, we get confused and frustrated.

[Creepy-female]

I really like that turn of phrase (and your whole explanation based on it). I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's true. Ti-Egos, especially Base-Ti types, consider themselves to be in one way or another "Champions of Truth", and feel personally insulted when people fail to see the importance of impartial truth and logic. When Fi-Egos casually dismiss what we consider to be vitally important information, we get confused and frustrated.

Yes I think I might have changed "objectivity" to 1+1=2 thinking because phrasing this properly is really getting me down. I'm unsure of whether objectivity is the proper word or whether it communicates what I'm trying to convey. But yes your explanation is quite in line with what I'm trying to say.

[tcaudilllg]

First observe the feeling function you feel would most enable you to RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the feeling function you LEAST value.

[xerx]

First observe the feeling function you feel would most enable you to RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the feeling function you LEAST value.

tcaud that's not much of a contest.

[Creepy-female]

First observe the feeling function you feel would most enable you to RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the feeling function you LEAST value.

Well that makes sense to me at least. I'd use Fe to rule to world but it would be so trivial and detached, and I'd go home at the end of the day believing that no one actually understood me.

I think that for examples INFps use Fi like little mofos, and preserve all their connections to people kind of offhandedly, but they really want the liberty to be little emotive bitches a lot. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it's still something I see.

And anyway I don't mean "use" Fi or Fe like you really "use" your quadra functions instinctually. I mean you have some limited understanding of functions depending on what type you are but it's more like a mockery/hassle/misunderstanding than anything else.

[xerx]

itt you guys gave amazing descriptions of Fe / Fi.

aixelsyd, I'd probably feel the same way about not wanting to hurt the guy in the MMORPG. Especially because of what you said about it leaving a bad taste, but I think it might be more because I would internalize his dynamic visible emotional outcry to the event, not because of a static moral code.

[Crispy]

Do others consider you Merry or Serious?

[Mediator Kam]

I would just think of a less visceral way to kill him.

[Galen]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/31938-how-make-sure-feeling-function-you-value.html#post683464

Dolphin that was a really fucking good post.

[glam]

... Fi valuers are internal so they can't trace their connections, so therefore it's assumed they're "deep". Such statements look silly to Ti because the Fi person is explaining non-traceable things that are attached to themselves...

yeah i've noticed this with Fi types; them looking "silly" to me because they can't seem to explain their Fi judgments in a way that is satisfactory to me, or to other Fe-Ti types. recent example: i was shopping with my mother (IEE) and my sister (SEI); my sister wanted to go to a certain shop someone had told her about because the thing she wanted was supposedly cheap there. we get to the shop and my mom immediately did not like it, she said things like "i don't like this place", "i'm not buying anything from here", "i really want to leave now" etc. my sister protested and kept asking "why don't you like it? why can't we buy anything? i don't understand, etc." and my mom didn't really elaborate, she just essentially kept repeating herself and we did leave soon after without buying anything, with my mom saying "i'm never going in there again." admittedly it was sort of a sketchy place but my sister and i weren't incredibly bothered by it in the way my mom was. my sister was annoyed at the lack of a "good reason" for us leaving the place, and i think i may have been too if i really wanted to purchase something there; though since i know socionics i could understand my mom in that way; i knew this was some Fi+Si (on my mom's part) clash with Fe-Ti (on my sister's part).

[07490]

yeah i've noticed this with Fi types; them looking "silly" to me because they can't seem to explain their Fi judgments in a way that is satisfactory to me, or to other Fe-Ti types. recent example: i was shopping with my mother (IEE) and my sister (SEI); my sister wanted to go to a certain shop someone had told her about because the thing she wanted was supposedly cheap there. we get to the shop and my mom immediately did not like it, she said things like "i don't like this place", "i'm not buying anything from here", "i really want to leave now" etc. my sister protested and kept asking "why don't you like it? why can't we buy anything? i don't understand, etc." and my mom didn't really elaborate, she just essentially kept repeating herself and we did leave soon after without buying anything, with my mom saying "i'm never going in there again." admittedly it was sort of a sketchy place but my sister and i weren't incredibly bothered by it in the way my mom was. my sister was annoyed at the lack of a "good reason" for us leaving the place, and i think i may have been too if i really wanted to purchase something there; though since i know socionics i could understand my mom in that way; i knew this was some Fi+Si (on my mom's part) clash with Fe-Ti (on my sister's part).

Good example

[Mediator Kam]

I think your mom freaked out unnecessarily.

[Joy]

I'm having doubts about my quadra. Any suggestions on how to determine the valued Fx?

interact with people

[Park]

words

Ok, I gotta say this. Whenever an ExFp talks about their introverted ethics (from a personal perspective), I have no idea what on earth they are talking about. I mean, I get the concept and grasp some of the ideas theoretically, but I have no idea what the things being said actually mean, or how they feel, and where you guys are coming from. I can not relate in the slightest. Sometimes I read, and read, and goddamn it's like it's all Greek to me. Well I do know some Greek, so maybe that's not the best metaphor to use, but you get my point...

[Park]

yeah i've noticed this with Fi types; them looking "silly" to me because they can't seem to explain their Fi judgments in a way that is satisfactory to me, or to other Fe-Ti types. recent example: i was shopping with my mother (IEE) and my sister (SEI); my sister wanted to go to a certain shop someone had told her about because the thing she wanted was supposedly cheap there. we get to the shop and my mom immediately did not like it, she said things like "i don't like this place", "i'm not buying anything from here", "i really want to leave now" etc. my sister protested and kept asking "why don't you like it? why can't we buy anything? i don't understand, etc." and my mom didn't really elaborate, she just essentially kept repeating herself and we did leave soon after without buying anything, with my mom saying "i'm never going in there again." admittedly it was sort of a sketchy place but my sister and i weren't incredibly bothered by it in the way my mom was. my sister was annoyed at the lack of a "good reason" for us leaving the place, and i think i may have been too if i really wanted to purchase something there; though since i know socionics i could understand my mom in that way; i knew this was some Fi+Si (on my mom's part) clash with Fe-Ti (on my sister's part).

I think it's a mom thing. Mine acts (/has acted) the same exact way. And she's an EIE.

[Airman]

Dolphin you got my idea and yes I agree with you.

[jessica129]

I cant believe I thought I valued Fi at one point, lol

[Gilly]

I cant believe I thought I valued Fi at one point, lol

Should've just listened to me... :wink:

[glam]

I think your mom freaked out unnecessarily.

she didn't "freak out" and that's just it... some people would have found her reaction "unnecessary", unwarranted, unexplainable, etc.... the point is that something about the place made her uncomfortable/dislike the place - something she couldn't really explain but that was there, something very real - to the point where she wanted to leave... for her, that was enough; she didn't need to find a way to explain it to people who did not immediately understand.

I think it's a mom thing. Mine acts (/has acted) the same exact way. And she's an EIE.

eh honestly i don't see why it'd be a "mom" thing; if what i described is not related to socionics, i don't think "being a mom" would really be the explanation.

[Park]

she didn't "freak out" and that's just it... some people would have found her reaction "unnecessary", unwarranted, unexplainable, etc.... the point is that something about the place made her uncomfortable/dislike the place - something she couldn't really explain but that was there, something very real - to the point where she wanted to leave... for her, that was enough; she didn't need to find a way to explain it to people who did not immediately understand.


eh honestly i don't see why it'd be a "mom" thing; if what i described is not related to socionics, i don't think "being a mom" would really be the explanation.

hey, don't take what I say so literally. :wink:

[jughead]

"I think that for examples INFps use Fi like little mofos, and preserve all their connections to people kind of offhandedly, but they really want the liberty to be little emotive bitches a lot. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it's still something I see."

So poetry, music, expressive writing, Shakespeare etc is really just a bunch of emotive bitches. How sad.
Do you not realize you were just an emotive bitch with Fi? It was just done less expressively because you do not have Fe in you "ego" thus it is not directly verbalized, but indirectly. The different ability to verbalize the different states leads to specialization and a greater spectrum of humanity.

And the next person who says Fe is shallow gets a bitch slap. Fe is more naturally expressive because it pays attention to a dynamic flow of emotions, there is more vocalization/verbalization of Fe happenings, just as Te types do with logic. And don't forget the differences between Fe/Te creatives and dominants.

[Creepy-female]

"I think that for examples INFps use Fi like little mofos, and preserve all their connections to people kind of offhandedly, but they really want the liberty to be little emotive bitches a lot. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it's still something I see."

So poetry, music, expressive writing, Shakespeare etc is really just a bunch of emotive bitches. How sad.

Poetry, music, expressive writing, and Shakespeare are not the exclusive domain of Fe.

Do you not realize you were just an emotive bitch with Fi? It was just done less expressively because you do not have Fe in you "ego" thus it is not directly verbalized, but indirectly. The different ability to verbalize the different states leads to specialization and a greater spectrum of humanity.

You're actually illustrating my point. Instead of realizing that I wrote on several issues of Fe/Fi in this very thread, including one which was quite long, (and detailed the reasoning I do not consider Fe necessarily "shallow"), you're focusing excessively/putting too much emphasis on the expression of two or three words. This is what I termed loosely being "an emotive bitch". It wasn't a dictionary term, or something designed to ridicule all INFps, simply a condensation of the feeling/associations I have had with some INFps, and Fe valuers as a whole. Instead of bothering to ask "What did you mean?" or clarify things, you simply reacted. I did not say that being an emotive bitch was the sole domain of Fe. I did not say it was not possible for me to be an emotive bitch, or that it was impossible for Fi people, so I think you're reading a little too much into my statement. I've done that sort of thing in the past, anyway, and got offended at phrasing issues, but I was talking about something I've seen in Fe valuers in general. It's a sort of predisposition to hone in on the expression of more specific phrasing/terms instead of trying to extract the meaning in a more holistic, intent based way. In this case IxFps seem to manage the latter in a loose, fluid way, but have seemed to desire focusing on the former when they get more comfortable in the relationship.

And the next person who says Fe is shallow gets a bitch slap.

I did not see anyone in this thread saying Fe is shallow. Did you read it?

Fe is more naturally expressive because it pays attention to a dynamic flow of emotions, there is more vocalization/verbalization of Fe happenings, just as Te types do with logic. And don't forget the differences between Fe/Te creatives and dominants.

I wouldn't say either way is more "natural". They're just different.