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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Joy]

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

interact with people

[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.