Note on Fe

[silverchris9]

This is something from the topic about whether or not the forum is going downhill, but I want to expand it into a larger conversation about the nature of Fe, and how it is different based on what IP element it is blocked with.

Nothing about this forum is Fe anymore. All you guys care about is staying on topic, being respectful of other's attitudes, and a myriad of other Fi trivialities. The seriousness of this place is palpable. I wouldn't be surprised if half of you realize you're Delta in the next few months as this place becomes more and more of a bore-fest. I would be fine with a boring atmosphere if the information pertaining to the theory was the least bit accurate, but this place is the worst of both worlds.

Do you have any evidence that these new policies are Merry > Serious? You've witnessed a lot of the Merry people get banned.

The intuition at play here is that Fe as blocked with Ni (and in Se-valuing individuals) looks different than Fe as blocked with Si (and in Ne-valuing people). Staying on topic or not isn't really related to any function, if anything it's related to both thinking functions. But Fe blocked with Ni is going to be more grandiose. It has more interest in making the passion as large as possible because Ni is interested in ideas that are as large and as abstract as possible. Fe blocked with Si is going to be gentler. It's going to poke rather than prod. It is concerned not with making the passion as grandiose as possible, but with making the atmosphere as pleasant as possible. It doesn't seek extreme emotional atmospheres as Beta Fe does. It seeks emotional atmospheres that complement a positive internal state.

The fundamental problem here is an overidentification of Fe with "emotion." Certainly, Fe is about changing internal states (internal dynamics of objects), and a changing internal state is often identified as an emotion (as opposed to more habitual internal states, which Ne is concerned with, such as being a "grumpy" person, or a "happy" person). But changing internal states aren't always big noticeable emotions, because big noticeable emotions wreck Si equilibrium (you can't reach an equilibrium if you're always bouncing around from ANGER to SORROW to GRIEF to RAGE to JOY). Rather, changing internal states, when informed by a concern for external dynamics of fields, rather than the double internality of Fe and Ni, involves making the atmosphere more comfortable emotionally. Smoothing out extreme emotions, working in precisely the opposite direction.

Of course, this is just in the abstract. In practical terms, the two "versions" of Fe are still quite similar, but hopefully this suggests some of the underlying difference.

[Krig the Viking]

Very well said, silverchris. I would say that +Fe (Beta Fe) seeks passionate emotions, while -Fe (Alpha Fe) seeks pleasant emotions. Beta prefers powerful, thrilling, earth-shattering "heavy" emotions, while Alpha prefers harmonious, soothing, happy, "light" emotions.

[Park]

Very well said, silverchris. I would say that +Fe (Beta Fe) seeks passionate emotions, while -Fe (Alpha Fe) seeks pleasant emotions. Beta prefers powerful, thrilling, earth-shattering "heavy" emotions, while Alpha prefers harmonious, soothing, happy, "light" emotions.

What kind of emotions do Deltas seek?

[Simon Ssmall]

What kind of emotions do Deltas seek?

[717495]

Very well said, silverchris. I would say that +Fe (Beta Fe) seeks passionate emotions, while -Fe (Alpha Fe) seeks pleasant emotions. Beta prefers powerful, thrilling, earth-shattering "heavy" emotions, while Alpha prefers harmonious, soothing, happy, "light" emotions.

Ok, though I don't know that I would call it "soothing," but that's just me.

[Simon Ssmall]

[Krig the Viking]

What kind of emotions do Deltas seek?

Deltas seek relationships; emotions are secondary.

Though if I understand it correctly, Model B proposes that both Alphas and Deltas value -Fe and +Fi. But I haven't read as much of Boukalov's work on the subject as I would like, so I don't have a full understanding of the theory. (If anyone has a link to a full description of how Model B works, I sure would appreciate it )

[Park]

[silverchris9]

Deltas presumably seek a stable relationship that is based entirely on the connection between two people, or even a larger social structure, that can't be disturbed by the emotions of the moment. Obviously Deltas love to laugh, and love to have a positive internal state, but the positive internal state is less important than what your insides tell you about each other, how you feel about eachother in the sense of how your internal motor is humming when you're around one another, which is itself an indicator of the quality of relationship. Deltas do Fe stuff of course, everyone's internal state changes. But Deltas see internal change as something necessary for the improvement of the relationship, as such, only those emotions which benefit the relationship---and only insofar as they benefit the relationship---are permissable or good. So whereas betas enjoy fighting to some degree (anything for something to feel), deltas see fighting as, at the very best, a necessary evil, a clensing that needs to happen to make a relationship progress. Negative emotions in general are to be avoided because they make the relationship worse.

So Forum wise, deltas wouldnot be in favor, presumably, of intraforum conflict, because they'd ideally prefer an atmosphere of mutual agreement and unity so that we can move forward as a group, whereas betas prefer a more antithetical method, subscribing to Blake's theory that "opposition is true friendship."

[Brilliand]

As mentioned in the "Deep Secrets of Taciturn/Narrator" thread, -Fe and +Fi both correspond to Judicious. Hence, both would be of the "pleasant" variety, whereas the Decisive varieties would be more harsh, tending toward extremes. Hence, whereas Delta's bonds can be decently described as "stable" Gamma bonds might be better termed "strong": a close-knit group that can stand against the world.

Wrt the feeling elements:

Merry: What you display
Serious: What you feel deep down
Judicious: Mild, positive
Decisive: Extremes

[Park]

Deltas seek relationships; emotions are secondary.

[Krig the Viking]

Silverchris: That makes a lot of sense. In the same vein, how would you describe the Gamma relationship between Fe and Fi? I have limited real-world experience with Gammas, but I would guess that -Fi and +Fe would result in using emotions as some kind of "test" for the strength of the relationship?

Interestingly, this distinction between the plus and minus versions of each element may provide a possible way to reconcile a disagreement Pinocchio and I had on the relationship between the Ego and the Super-Ego; i.e., I feel there's worth in our Super-Ego elements, and he feels that Super-Ego elements are by definition rejected entirely. Taking the plus/minus dichotomy into account, an LII (for example) would reject -Fi as Pinocchio contends, but might learn to find worth in +Fi as I contend.

As mentioned in the "Deep Secrets of Taciturn/Narrator" thread, -Fe and +Fi both correspond to Judicious. Hence, both would be of the "pleasant" variety, whereas the Decisive varieties would be more harsh, tending toward extremes. Hence, whereas Delta's bonds can be decently described as "stable" Gamma bonds might be better termed "strong": a close-knit group that can stand against the world.

Wrt the feeling elements:

Merry: What you display
Serious: What you feel deep down
Judicious: Mild, positive
Decisive: Extremes

I think your description of how Judicious and Decisive affect Fe and Fi is good, but I disagree with the characterization of Fi being "what you feel deep down" and Fe being merely "what you display". Joy, sorrow, rage, etc., are all forms of Fe, and all can be felt just as "deep down" as any Fi. In fact, the display of emotion is only incidental to Fe; primarily it is an internal function.

I would restate your formulation as:

Merry: Your emotional state.
Serious: Your sentiments toward others.
Judicious: Mild, positive.
Decisive: Extremes.

[Brilliand]

I would restate your formulation as:

Merry: Your emotional state.
Serious: Your sentiments toward others.
Judicious: Mild, positive.
Decisive: Extremes.

Hmm, yes I think that what I meant was somewhere between our terms. does have a more external emphasis than , though.

In the interests of getting back to the original Russian conceptions... Reinin in his book (which I downloaded from the recent thread) describes as what others think of you (direct quote: "It is the external relationship, the relationships between other people and their attitude towards me. It is the emotions of other people.") and as what you think of others (direct quote: "It is my attitude to people. It is the liking/disliking of people/things. It is the emotions I experience.").

What others think of you of course has to be displayed in order for you to know about it (though not necessarily overtly - someone with weak might possibly need a more overt display to get the hint), whereas what you think of others really doesn't, and it's up to others to discern what you think of them if they care.

[ashlesha]

Merry: Your emotional state.
Serious: Your sentiments toward others.
Judicious: Mild, positive.
Decisive: Extremes.

???

"towards others" seems too specific to me. emotional states don't have to be connected to other people and neither do sentiments.

from: Sentiment-and-Emotion.html

Sentiment and Emotion

The distinction between emotion and sentiment is to a large extent a distinction between dispositions and actual states of consciousness. Such a sentiment as friendship cannot be experienced in its totality at any one moment. It is felt only in the special phase which is determined by the circumstances of the moment. If we are parting from our friend, we feel sorrow; if we are about to meet him after long absence, we feel joy. The joy and the sorrow are actual experiences; but the sentiment which includes the susceptibility to either according to circumstances, cannot in its totality be an actual experience. It is a complex emotional disposition * which manifests itself variously under varying conditions. These varying manifestations are the actual experiences which we call emotions.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't agree with Crispy, that this place becoming a boring place is an indication that the merry types, refered to as Fe are leaving. That's not what Fe is. Fe does not mean being funny or silly; Fe types do have an affinity to detecting words that can be used as play on other words and producing funny, sarcastic, expression because of this ability, but Fe itself means that the person values Trust above Relationship. Fe means that the person who values this function compares all new information (from reading or listening to others speak) to their own values, believes and morals. These observations are used back to society to change it; For example, my ESE boss will speak about how he thinks doesn't think that the world is overpopulated and he finds that the only way to improve society is to obliterate a few million human beings. This kinds thinking is not very Fi; it is Fe because society and societal values drive thought instead Fi says that individuals are more important then society.

[silverchris9]

Silverchris: That makes a lot of sense. In the same vein, how would you describe the Gamma relationship between Fe and Fi? I have limited real-world experience with Gammas, but I would guess that -Fi and +Fe would result in using emotions as some kind of "test" for the strength of the relationship?

Hm. Well... I guess there would still be subjugation of emotional motion to the bond, but the bond is more martial. It reminds me more of the Henry V "Band of Brothers" bond, or the bonds between warriors in the Iliad. Certainly emotion is viewed less as disruptive (i.e., anti-Si) and more as frivolous (i.e., anti-Se). So it's like we have this bond between us, but we don't need to talk about it or make any emotional demonstrations, 'cause that would disrupt this sort of cool movement towards the goal. I dunno. I'm not doing a very good job of trying to get into the gamma mindset. I find gammas very chill. I think that constant emotional movement is above all frivolous to gammas, an unnecessary expending of energy that could be better used in the pursuit of an object. Se + Te makes gammas pragmatically the most efficient quadra, while Ni + Fi makes gammas the most suited to institute long-term social change (I would say that the double abstraction of beta Ni would be more likely to "discover" the new social more---after having the possibilities developed by alpha Ne---and that gamma would be more likely to "institute" or "enforce" the new social more). So perhaps its the individualism of constant emotional change? But I'm still not doing a good job of connecting it to alpha Fe, which is more about smoothening. Well, you could say that gammas do find use for beta Fe in the sense of a "Band of Brothers" type speech, gammas (esp. SEEs) do find it worthwhile to rally the troops and rouse the passions towards an object, but would find absolutely no reason to use emotion to make people feel more at ease. The sense of at ease doesn't come from a general emotional atmosphere, but from meriting a place within the hierarchy.

Interestingly, this distinction between the plus and minus versions of each element may provide a possible way to reconcile a disagreement Pinocchio and I had on the relationship between the Ego and the Super-Ego; i.e., I feel there's worth in our Super-Ego elements, and he feels that Super-Ego elements are by definition rejected entirely. Taking the plus/minus dichotomy into account, an LII (for example) would reject -Fi as Pinocchio contends, but might learn to find worth in +Fi as I contend.

That's interesting. So delta Te always remains useless to me, but I might find a way to think gamma Te is potentially useful. That makes some sense to me, but it does contradict something I've always heard about the polr, which is that the reason its so painful is because it could potentially be integrated with your base function, and you just can't quite make them fit. So the very closeness, the potential association between the base the polr (or between the role and the creative function), which according to this theory causes the superego functions to become potentially valuable, is what, according to another theory, makes the polr so difficult to think about/use.

[Aiss]

I agree that sentiments and emotions work better for Fi and Fe than "display" and "feel deep down" do, as much as many people, myself included, would associate sentiments with deep feelings. Fe-valuers, on the other hand, often seem to associate those momentary passions with "deep", for example accusing someone of lacking feelings if they don't show this passion - which to Fi-valuers seems at least superficial, and often whimsical or hypocritical, when it turns out to have been meaningless after all.

The main difference is static vs dynamic. Sentiments and feelings are examples of static and implicit field information; they may change, but don't fluctuate. Emotions are anything but static, they exist only in the moment. These influence each other, but as far as we distinguish eight information aspects, they are not the same.

Re: Beta/Gamma discussion. I see it as Beta being somehow like a revolution, sparkling off the change and expending the energy in the general direction (Se + Fe involved in outside world), while Gamma is more of a reform, adding a precise direction (Se + Te explicitly control the flow of energy). Delta loses Se/Ni control of the direction for the sake of Si/Ne equilibrium, and while it may follow by the force of inertia, it is accepting of what it works towards rather than adjusting the course.

[krieger]

As mentioned in the "Deep Secrets of Taciturn/Narrator" thread, -Fe and +Fi both correspond to Judicious. Hence, both would be of the "pleasant" variety, whereas the Decisive varieties would be more harsh, tending toward extremes. Hence, whereas Delta's bonds can be decently described as "stable" Gamma bonds might be better termed "strong": a close-knit group that can stand against the world.

Yeah, like I've said a bunch of times before, a decent way to formulate the thesis is that you can use "Judicious" and "Resolute" to describe Rational functions with too.

I agree that sentiments and emotions work better for Fi and Fe than "display" and "feel deep down" do, as much as many people, myself included, would associate sentiments with deep feelings. Fe-valuers, on the other hand, often seem to associate those momentary passions with "deep", for example accusing someone of lacking feelings if they don't show this passion - which to Fi-valuers seems at least superficial, and often whimsical or hypocritical, when it turns out to have been meaningless after all.

The main difference is static vs dynamic. Sentiments and feelings are examples of static and implicit field information; they may change, but don't fluctuate. Emotions are anything but static, they exist only in the moment. These influence each other, but as far as we distinguish eight information aspects, they are not the same.

Static/Dynamic has a very strong bearing on depth and shallowness. At first I thought Dynamic was just shallow, but it appears that Dynamic functions mostly just imply depth where Static seeks a direct grasp of it (through an elaborate act of "digging down" to it - "Creating").

[Krig the Viking]

In the interests of getting back to the original Russian conceptions... Reinin in his book (which I downloaded from the recent thread) describes as what others think of you (direct quote: "It is the external relationship, the relationships between other people and their attitude towards me. It is the emotions of other people.") and as what you think of others (direct quote: "It is my attitude to people. It is the liking/disliking of people/things. It is the emotions I experience.").

Hm. I disagree with this, even if it was Reinin who said it. I would say that "the external relationship, the relationships between other people and their attitude towards me," and "my attitude to people... the liking/disliking of people/things," are both Fi, and that "the emotions of other people," and "the emotions I experience," are both Fe. The way Reinin defines them is not consistent with the aspects of the information elements, which I consider fundamental -- i.e., Fe = Internal Dynamics of Objects, and Fi = Internal Statics of Fields (a.k.a. Internal Statics of Relationships). The "relationships between other people" are relationships, not objects, and "the emotions I experience" are changing conditions within the Object known as "me".

???

"towards others" seems too specific to me. emotional states don't have to be connected to other people and neither do sentiments.

from: Sentiment-and-Emotion.html

That's an excellent article, laghlagh, and it explains well what I was trying to describe above in my reply to Brilliand. If "Emotion" = Fe and "Sentiment" = Fi, then that article corresponds perfectly to my understanding of those IEs.

I'm not sure I understand the source of your objection, though. I would more specifically phrase my formulation as "Fi: Your sentiments toward other people/things." All of the examples in the article you linked to talk about sentiment as being directed toward something, whether it be an object or a person.

Hm. Well... I guess there would still be subjugation of emotional motion to the bond, but the bond is more martial. It reminds me more of the Henry V "Band of Brothers" bond, or the bonds between warriors in the Iliad. Certainly emotion is viewed less as disruptive (i.e., anti-Si) and more as frivolous (i.e., anti-Se).

[...]

But I'm still not doing a good job of connecting it to alpha Fe, which is more about smoothening. Well, you could say that gammas do find use for beta Fe in the sense of a "Band of Brothers" type speech, gammas (esp. SEEs) do find it worthwhile to rally the troops and rouse the passions towards an object, but would find absolutely no reason to use emotion to make people feel more at ease. The sense of at ease doesn't come from a general emotional atmosphere, but from meriting a place within the hierarchy.

That makes sense. A Gamma would see no use for being at ease emotionally (-Fe), because as they see it the world is all about working hard and applying the necessary force to acquire what you want for yourself and your loved ones. They would tend to even feel scorn for those who emphasise -Fe too much. +Fe, that is, the more aggressive, "powerful" emotions, could be used in support of Se, so a Gamma would see some use in them, although they would not likely see those emotions as an end in themselves. An LIE corporate executive, for example, could see the utility in getting his employees "all fired up" emotionally, to motivate them to do their jobs, but would not have very much use for reading poetry or listening to music for the sole purpose of achieving an emotional "high".

As you said, for a Gamma the sense of ease would come from stable and well-defended relationships (-Fi). For an Alpha, to be at ease is to be relaxing in a meadow, laughing and having a good time with friendly people. For a Gamma, to be at ease is to be secure in a fortress, surrounded by trustworthy allies and material resources.

That's interesting. So delta Te always remains useless to me, but I might find a way to think gamma Te is potentially useful. That makes some sense to me, but it does contradict something I've always heard about the polr, which is that the reason its so painful is because it could potentially be integrated with your base function, and you just can't quite make them fit. So the very closeness, the potential association between the base the polr (or between the role and the creative function), which according to this theory causes the superego functions to become potentially valuable, is what, according to another theory, makes the polr so difficult to think about/use.

Based on what I was saying above about the Gammas, I would say that a Beta would see the utility of -Te in supporting -Se. If the world is a struggle to survive, a fight to minimize weaknesses that the enemy might exploit, a Beta might see the use in -Te, which is all about taking pragmatic and effective risks in chaotic situations to avoid coming up short in the productivity department. However, a Beta would see no point at all in wasting time putting effort into producing high-quality results like a +Te Delta would. "It's good enough, let's go!" the Beta might say, seeing the Delta +Te as unnecessarily plodding and pedantic.

[ashlesha]

I'm not sure I understand the source of your objection, though. I would more specifically phrase my formulation as "Fi: Your sentiments toward other people/things." All of the examples in the article you linked to talk about sentiment as being directed toward something, whether it be an object or a person.

i'd say that adequately addresses it. maybe i was being a bit nitpicky. thanks.

[Krig the Viking]

i'd say that adequately addresses it. maybe i was being a bit nitpicky. thanks.

Oh, ok, cool. I realize my original definition wasn't clear on that, but when I wrote "others", in my mind it meant "other people/things". I sometimes forget that other people aren't aware of my thoughts.

[Park]

As you said, for a Gamma the sense of ease would come from stable and well-defended relationships (-Fi). For an Alpha, to be at ease is to be relaxing in a meadow, laughing and having a good time with friendly people. For a Gamma, to be at ease is to be secure in a fortress, surrounded by trustworthy allies and material resources.

What if someone finds ease in both of those things, and seek and appreciate them equally? What if I say that strong, trustworthy bonds are as much as important as having a good time with friendly, jovial folks? (or something along those lines)

[krieger]

Fe is all about Feeeeeeeeelings.

[Park]

Fe is all about Feeeeeeeeelings.

Control your emotions, you ne-rational labfreak.

[Trevor]

What if someone finds ease in both of those things, and seek and appreciate them equally? What if I say that strong, trustworthy bonds are as much as important as having a good time with friendly, jovial folks? (or something along those lines)

Yeah. What if someone really finds ease in both of those things, and seek and appreciate them approximatelly equally? What if someone says that strong, trustworthy bonds are as much as important as having a good time with friendly, jovial folks? (or something along those lines). Do we type him/her as typical human being then?

[Trevor]

This is what might happen when you start using relative descriptors in an absolute way.

[Park]

@ quoting me word for word. Good job, Travar.

This is what might happen when you start using relative descriptors in an absolute way.

So... can we conclude that nothing is absolute?

[Trevor]

So... can we conclude that nothing is absolute?

Absolutely. But that conclusion would be false.

Travar, wtf .

[silverchris9]

What if someone finds ease in both of those things, and seek and appreciate them equally? What if I say that strong, trustworthy bonds are as much as important as having a good time with friendly, jovial folks? (or something along those lines)

Well of course everyone experiences both of those things as positive, because we're conditioned to. If you value Fe, presumably what you really want is a regular and reliable source of the desired type(s) of emotional atmosphere, which is best achieved by building a bond with a specific group of people. As such, you are conditioned to value building a bond, because the bond gives you what you really want: the type of emotional atmosphere. The difference is that the bond is a proxy (or metonymy) for the emotional atmosphere. Both are valued, but one is only valued as a result of the more intrinsic value for the other.

Similarly, if you value Fi, presumably you really value having a connection to other people, or, more accurately, having a stable internal sense around a certain group of others. But obviously, when you have that good internal sense around people, you also tend to have pleasant and enjoyable emotional atmospheres; when people like each other, pleasant emotional atmosphere results. So you're conditioned to like pleasant emotional atmospheres, because those tend to go along with what you really want, the bond between people.

The brain works by metonymy: when one thing is always found alongside another, the feelings towards the one can be transferred to the other. If your mother always fed you your favorite pasta from a specific bowl, and never fed you the hated brussels sprouts from that bowl, you may begin to have a generally positive association with the bowl, although you have much less love for the bowl intrinsically, the bowl in and of itself, than the actual manifested feelings would suggest.

[Krig the Viking]

What if someone finds ease in both of those things, and seek and appreciate them equally? What if I say that strong, trustworthy bonds are as much as important as having a good time with friendly, jovial folks? (or something along those lines)

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit. "Strong, trustworthy bonds" could apply to either form of Fi, as could "having a good time with friendly, jovial folks" describe both kinds of Fe.

Here's how I see it (based partly on Gulenko's descriptions):

Alpha and Delta value -Fe and +Fi. As such, both Quadras prefer to avoid or minimize negative emotions (-Fe) by avoiding things like arguments, scandals, flamewars, and emotional instability, and they also prefer to maximize good, warm relationships (+Fi) by putting up with people they don't like and trying to recognize and understand the individuality and uniqueness of others.

Alphas value -Fe over +Fi, and see the ability to form positive relationships primarily as a tool for creating pleasant emotional atmospheres. Deltas value +Fi over -Fe, and see the ability to create a pleasant emotional atmosphere primarily as a tool for developing positive relationships.

Beta and Gamma value +Fe and -Fi. As such, both Quadras prefer to maximize positive emotions (+Fe) by putting up with a lot of negative emotions, indeed even stirring up arguments and emotional instability to wring even the smallest bit of emotional pleasure out of them. They also prefer to minimize negative relationships (-Fi), by attacking those they see as bad people and driving them away.

Betas value +Fe over -Fi, and see the ability to drive away "evil" people primarily as a tool for the maximization of a powerful emotional atmosphere. Gammas value -Fi over +Fe, and see the ability to create a powerful emotional atmosphere as a tool for banding their allies together and driving away "evil" people.

To sum up, +Fi wants to expand relationships, even with people they may not like -- they prefer to convert enemies into friends, because their Ne can see the potential in everyone. -Fi wants to contract relationships, so that they only people they're attached to are the people they completely trust -- they prefer to drive enemies away, because their Se is constantly aware of the balance of power.

+Fe wants to expand the emotional atmosphere, to find even the smallest bit of joy in the midst of pain and conflict and negative emotions -- they will even stir up conflict if their Ni looks ahead and thinks that there is some emotional benefit to be gained from it. -Fe wants to contract the emotional atmosphere, so that the only emotions experienced are happy, pleasant ones -- they prefer to avoid arguments and conflicts, because their Si is focused on creating harmony in the here-and-now.

A striking example was the recent "to flame or not to flame" debate on this board. This was very much a conflict between +Fe ("to flame") and -Fe ("not to flame"), led by the Betas and the Alphas, with the Deltas mostly sympathetic to the Alphas, and the Gammas mostly sympathetic to the Betas.

[The Exception]

Great insight, Krig.

[silverchris9]

post

Nice.

The only thing that I want to mention is that often betas at least see any emotional motion whatsoever as positive. Even if it's anger, it's not anger for the sake of the far off goal of happiness; it's anger for the sake of having some motion, some movement, for the sake of not being bored. So it's more like extreme joy (or a sort of sorrow-joy complex that comes when you read/write poetry) is at the top of a hierarchy of emotions, and it produces the most units of good (lets call them 'glows'), and anger is at the bottom, and it produces the least glows, but it still has some spark, so it produces a very little bit of glow, and even a very little bit of glow is better than no glow at all. I think the Ni/Si divide comes in more in that Ni is interested in tracking internal changes, so Ni is excited by internal motion in much the same way as a baby is inherently fascinated by the motion of a mobile over his/her crib. Although I do see where you're going with the long-term/short-term thing, and that is pretty neat. I don't think it's quite accurate though. I could be wrong, though.

Also, I don't think of the people excluded as evil, just as incapable of contributing to the emotional atmosphere. In beta this is translated into a sort of "not strong enough" thing. Like, "you aren't strong enough to hang with us, so we're going to subtly exclude you." It could also have to do with a rallying the troops thing: "I'm going to kick you out of the circle because having you in the circle prevents me from creating the emotional atmosphere I need to get my group to be the most effective that it can be." Contrast with gamma: "I'm going to use my emotional expression to shame you out of the circle because having you in the circle prevents me from forming the tight band-of-brothers bond I need to get everything done that I need to get done."

[Krig the Viking]

Nice.

The only thing that I want to mention is that often betas at least see any emotional motion whatsoever as positive. Even if it's anger, it's not anger for the sake of the far off goal of happiness; it's anger for the sake of having some motion, some movement, for the sake of not being bored. So it's more like extreme joy (or a sort of sorrow-joy complex that comes when you read/write poetry) is at the top of a hierarchy of emotions, and it produces the most units of good (lets call them 'glows'), and anger is at the bottom, and it produces the least glows, but it still has some spark, so it produces a very little bit of glow, and even a very little bit of glow is better than no glow at all. I think the Ni/Si divide comes in more in that Ni is interested in tracking internal changes, so Ni is excited by internal motion in much the same way as a baby is inherently fascinated by the motion of a mobile over his/her crib. Although I do see where you're going with the long-term/short-term thing, and that is pretty neat. I don't think it's quite accurate though. I could be wrong, though.

I was wondering if it might be something like this, but I didn't want to stray too far from Gulenko's descriptions without being sure. You have increased my understanding.

Perhaps one way to put it would be: +Fe would rather feel pain than nothing at all, -Fe would rather feel nothing at all than pain.

Also, I don't think of the people excluded as evil, just as incapable of contributing to the emotional atmosphere. In beta this is translated into a sort of "not strong enough" thing. Like, "you aren't strong enough to hang with us, so we're going to subtly exclude you." It could also have to do with a rallying the troops thing: "I'm going to kick you out of the circle because having you in the circle prevents me from creating the emotional atmosphere I need to get my group to be the most effective that it can be." Contrast with gamma: "I'm going to use my emotional expression to shame you out of the circle because having you in the circle prevents me from forming the tight band-of-brothers bond I need to get everything done that I need to get done."

Ah, yes, this fits better with my experience. I shall add it to my mental files.

[Aiss]

To be honest, I see -Fi more as avoiding potentially harmful relationships over giving them a chance, for many reasons, but also because those usually result in "bad" Fe. So I don't quite see it as using +Fe for that, though maybe it applies more to Gamma SFs. Also, I strongly disagree with this:

Contrast with gamma: "I'm going to use my emotional expression to shame you out of the circle because having you in the circle prevents me from forming the tight band-of-brothers bond I need to get everything done that I need to get done."

Gamma is more focused on individual bonds than anything so collective. The point is, while there might happen to be 'circles', those aren't necessarily all that integrated. They are different for each person, and while their overlap or sum might be considered a "circle" as well, it's different because there's really no relation assumed, as in, it's the circle that is implied by relations and not the other way, so anyone can exclude anyone from their private circle while they remain in others'. Your example sounds more like exclusive aristocracy that I'd say is closer to Beta than Gamma, if it's representative of any quadra in the first place.

[Krig the Viking]

To be honest, I see -Fi more as avoiding potentially harmful relationships over giving them a chance, for many reasons, but also because those usually result in "bad" Fe. So I don't quite see it as using +Fe for that, though maybe it applies more to Gamma SFs.

That makes sense. We do prefer to avoid using our Super-Ego and Id functions where possible. However, I'd wager that a Gamma (particularly a Gamma SF) who was unable to avoid a persistent harmful relationship would be likely to take a more active role in driving that person away. Of course, anyone would do so eventually, but a Gamma would be much less willing to put up with it than an Alpha or a Delta.

Gamma is more focused on individual bonds than anything so collective. The point is, while there might happen to be 'circles', those aren't necessarily all that integrated. They are different for each person, and while their overlap or sum might be considered a "circle" as well, it's different because there's really no relation assumed, as in, it's the circle that is implied by relations and not the other way, so anyone can exclude anyone from their private circle while they remain in others'. Your example sounds more like exclusive aristocracy that I'd say is closer to Beta than Gamma, if it's representative of any quadra in the first place.

A good point. Gammas are stereotypically the people who have "contacts" everywhere: people who are loyal to said individual Gamma moreso than any groups they may belong to. "I know a guy who owes me a favour," is a pretty common Gamma phrase, yes?

[April]

YouTube - Will Smith The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Fathers Episode

That ending almost made me cry. wtf, unexpected.

[Skeptic]

A good point. Gammas are stereotypically the people who have "contacts" everywhere: people who are loyal to said individual Gamma moreso than any groups they may belong to. "I know a guy who owes me a favour," is a pretty common Gamma phrase, yes?

Yes, but Ne is often described as the acquisition of a lot of contacts too. Two opposite ways to make a people network, I suppose...

[Park]

That ending almost made me cry. wtf, unexpected.

Has the same effect on me.

Uncle Phil is LSE, btw.