I just realized a way in which my Aristocracy manifests itself

[pianosinger]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Yes, I agree. I do the same thing as well.

And I do think this tendency is a good thing. There is definitely a correlation between experience and knowledge and socionics accuracy. Of course, not everyone who's been around several years is 100% right all the time, but in general, I think respecting those who have studied something longer than you have helps you understand and learn the right things faster.

[Creepy-Snaps]

On a sidenote: I'VE BEEN HERE ONE MONTH LONGER THAN YOU HAVE!

Big Southpark voice: RESPECT MA AUTHORITAY!

[pianosinger]

On a sidenote: I'VE BEEN HERE ONE MONTH LONGER THAN YOU HAVE!

Big Southpark voice: RESPECT MA AUTHORITAY!

yes, sir.

[Beautiful sky]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

Demonstrating Fe makes you look like an ENFj and attracts your conflictory relation to you by mistake. I'm sure if you thought about it long enough you really don't like the heir-achy and want to be equals.

[717495]

Hmm I do this sort of, except I don't go by join date.

[Aiss]

Not sure if it's in any way type related, but I usually just read posts and only look who wrote them as an afterthought.

[717495]

Not sure if it's in any way type related, but I usually just read posts and only look who wrote them as an afterthought.

+123

[1981slater]

FTR: I don't care about the joining date. For instance: I find Divided's posts very interesting, in spite of he has joined the forum recently.

[Marie84]

I've been reading the site since 2006 or 2007 and didn't really find a correlation with join date and being more trustworthy about Socionics.
In my case I just absorbed all the information here and from other sites over the years and only when I felt confident in my own understanding did I start to filter which posters I thought to be consistent with their own understanding as being more trustworthy

[Computer Loser]

I respect people that have more experience, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically yield to what they say. I have a lot of common sense.

[Galen]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

Weird, that's not something I've ever done. If I do look at someone's join date, I never retain that sort of information and just move on. All I care about is if the person in question seems to know what they're talking about and if I agree with what they say, or they have something to give to the discussion that I haven't seen before and works. I'd doubt that it has much to do with aristocrat/democrat, but I'm always the outlier so let's see how other responses turn up.

[Jarno]

And I do think this tendency is a good thing.

And ironically it isn't.

I used to think too that it would count, but on average the people who have been longest here or have posted the most, are the ones who keep being confused.

But to put it in the right perspective, it's just slightly negative correlated.

[Bardia]

Oh. I never pay attention to people's join dates. Seems like completely useless clutter information to me.

I just size up a person from reading them, and get a sense of whether they're insightful and worth listening to, or an idiot to overlook in the future.

This pretty much what I do. Based on my own understanding I see if what this person says expands on what I think fits or if it seems way off.

[pianosinger]

Okay, I think I've been slightly misread...

I did say that the first thing I tend to look at is how long a poster has been around...but just like many of you have also pointed out, I also have learned after a while which members I tend to agree with more, which seem most knowledgeable and which are just too confusing or too full of themselves or whatever...

And I don't look at exact join date all the time, either. Often I'll also try to notice which people other members tend to "revere" more as well.

Anyway, maybe it's not Aristocracy after all. But, an interesting observation (to me) nonetheless.

EDIT: okay, looking back on my OP, I did actually describe things in a more cut-and-dry manner, didn't I?

[Galen]

Okay, I think I've been slightly misread...

I did say that the first thing I tend to look at is how long a poster has been around...but just like many of you have also pointed out, I also have learned after a while which members I tend to agree with more, which seem most knowledgeable and which are just too confusing or too full of themselves or whatever...

And I don't look at exact join date all the time, either. Often I'll also try to notice which people other members tend to "revere" more as well.

Yeah, I figured you weren't saying that Join Dates are your sole means of judging who to listen to or who is dependable. But again, just not something I've ever seriously looked at. Could just be a personal thing you do

[Creepy-Snaps]

And ironically it isn't.

I used to think too that it would count, but on average the people who have been longest here or have posted the most, are the ones who keep being confused.

But to put it in the right perspective, it's just slightly negative correlated.

So not even part of you respects people who have been around longer? And are you talking about yourself?

But maybe there is a correlation, at least with socionics, for posting more/being around longer and being more cemented in your opinion, and less likely to listen, and greater chance of being wrong.

I'd like to think perhaps the people who have confused you simply did so because of a difference in communication styles... and that with time, people's knowledge generally increases, and that their opinion should be respected more.

And maybe this is something pianosinger and I admit to doing, considering we're relatively new? Maybe if we were some of the people who had been around for years already, we'd realize there probably isn't that much of a correlation between experience and socionics understanding. And then disregard join date, and pay attention to simply the person and their opinion.

Because, after all, socionics isn't exactly a skill you can practice and get better at... it's still an evolving science, and subject to misinterpretation... so unlike a skill, being more experienced with it, or being around longer, doesn't guarantee your understanding is better than those who are new.

[Brilliand]

But maybe there is a correlation, at least with socionics, for posting more/being around longer and being more cemented in your opinion, and less likely to listen, and greater chance of being wrong.

Naw, the chances of being wrong are the same across the board, except as the chances of leaving are correlated with the chances of being right (that is, they might have a shared cause). It's just that newbies have a greater chance of changing their mind, whether wrong or not.

[Park]

You should take into account that some of the people with early join dates may have taken long breaks from the forum and/or from studying socionics, so their information may be as useful and up-to-date as anyone's.

[silverchris9]

Oh. I never pay attention to people's join dates. Seems like completely useless clutter information to me.

I just size up a person from reading them, and get a sense of whether they're insightful and worth listening to, or an idiot to overlook in the future.

+10.

I dunno if that counts as aristocracy or not. I think the aristocratic part of delta comes in all these implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people. I suppose democratic/aristocratic has to be a function of a certain set of function blockings, i.e., TeSi, NeFi, NiFe, and SeTi (or some subset thereof) are more aristocratic than TeNi, SeFi, SiFe, and NeTi (or some subset thereof). Does anybody know specifically what function blockings are considered to be responsible for the phenomenon?

[Aiss]

I think the aristocratic part of delta comes in all these implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people.

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

[1981slater]

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

IMHO

When a group of merry people meet, with different backgrounds each, they KNOW they value different things but, at the same time, they KNOW that this shouldn't undermine the "FUN". Think of: "OK, we are never gonna see each other again, but let's put our best to make this moment funny".
Serious people on the other hand, cannot stand someone with a different approach to life or set of values.
As usual, someone will tell me I have defined a different dichotomy You are welcome, though

[Slacker]

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

I agree, but this is going to head back to the Fi/taboo debate. LOL.

[pianosinger]

As usual, someone will tell me I have defined a different dichotomy

You have defined a different dichotomy.

You are welcome, though

And thank you.

[redbaron]

IMHO

When a group of merry people meet, with different backgrounds each, they KNOW they value different things but, at the same time, they KNOW that this shouldn't undermine the "FUN". Think of: "OK, we are never gonna see each other again, but let's put our best to make this moment funny".
Serious people on the other hand, cannot stand someone with a different approach to life or set of values.
As usual, someone will tell me I have defined a different dichotomy You are welcome, though

I do this. lol Even with my SEI friend... we make it fun even though at base it's clear that we "focus" on different things in life as a whole.

[Singu]

Both Fi and Fe are pretty subjective, it even says so in the EIE's description:

4. Good vs. evil. He never does things he considers as evil, and is very intolerable to evil in others. However, his ethical theory is based on his own principles, without consideration for customs and authority. Sometimes his views on problems of good and evil are very original. In any case he consequently acts on them and insistently defends them.

But I think that most of the descriptions in general are pretty extreme, and if taken literally then it assumes that Fe types are ALWAYS Fe, and Fi types are ALWAYS Fi, Ti types are ALWAYS analyzing something, Te types are ALWAYS being super-objective (and they can't do anything else) and so on.

[krieger]

Je is epistemically objective and ontologically subjective. I'm getting really impatient with people's inability to recognize the distinction between the two. In Fe's case epistemic objectivity means there is no process of elaborate interpretation or inference from experience going on. The experience or observation itself is being evaluated, not it's interpretatory content. To focus on interpretatory content increases the difficulty of attaining epistemic certainty on a topic, so to focus on it a lot anyway is to place less emphasis on epistemic validity, i.e., to devalue the Je function in question.

[golden]

(all the Jung stuff)

Well, that was interesting. I think that sounds a lot to me like "implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people."

Having given some thought to Jung's Fe material for a while, I'd say it's accurate BUT, for me, incomplete.

I don't mindlessly go about holding myself and others to objective standards of emotional/behavioral/social interaction. I am probably pretty well aware of those standards, and sometimes I really do appreciate them and deploy them in order to make life go more smoothly. I care about these things because to me they lead to efficiency. I hate having to improvise or work from scratch in the ethical domain, especially in small matters.

But just as important, my mind is often preoccupied with critique of those standards, values, and traditions. I question why people behave as we do, why we treat one another as we do. What values do and don't serve society at large, and me in particular? Therefore, I might choose to deviate sharply from commonly held behavioral norms. But if I depart from the acceptable and reasonable, lol, I usually do it consciously, and I can generally turn on a dime to behave in a standard way, or conversely to flout the standards on purpose for specific reasons. Sometimes the reasons are conceptual, sometimes the motivation is merely to get my way, and sometimes the desire is to express myself in a manner that authentically reflects my convictions or emotions, which I admit seem to go hand in hand. I might do it just for kicks, too, but if asked to defend myself in such a case, I'll generally give a theoretically based reason, I think.

When someone's behavior deeply offends me, sometimes it comes down to "You just don't DO that. Anyone knows that's not a way to behave." And I suppose that reaction arises in me only when the person in question doesn't seem to know what the objective standards are and just does whatever s/he feels in the moment. For me, that kind of behavior contrasts sharply with intentional transgression, which doesn't usually bother me so long as it's not deeply harmful or dangerous.

And ... I really don't get happy when someone extrapolates from a subjective feeling to generalities about right and wrong, i.e., "That hurts my feelings, or that offends me, so it's always bad for everyone." Just not how I do things, that.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Naw, the chances of being wrong are the same across the board, except as the chances of leaving are correlated with the chances of being right (that is, they might have a shared cause). It's just that newbies have a greater chance of changing their mind, whether wrong or not.

Could you explain the underlined part a bit more? How are the people who are more likely to be right about socionics, and understand it, more likely to leave?

[Brilliand]

Could you explain the underlined part a bit more? How are the people who are more likely to be right about socionics, and understand it, more likely to leave?

I was just allowing for the possibility; I don't actually know why, nor do I know whether it's really the case.

[silverchris9]

Okay, let's take this Jung evidence into consideration.

Jung says Fe is that thing that makes you have appropriate responses. I totally buy that, and I agree. Fe is how you know to smile here, nod there, cry here, laugh there. That's all Fe.

But the Fi standards Fe valuers complain about aren't about what emotional reactions are appropriate in a given situation, it's how not to offend in a given situation, how not to break any of the rules. With Fe the rules are obvious (to Fe-egos): when other people are smiling, you smile. When other people are laughing, you laugh. When other people are crying, you act sad (even if you are rather buoyant at the moment). At church, you do... well, whatever it is you do at your church. If you're watching presentational theater (which is more pure Fe than representational theater, to be honest) you cry when the actor makes a certain emotional gesture and smile when he makes another.

You can argue that this exists in a Ti matrix: external action a results in external response b. As Jung says, totally objective. Or as labcoat says, though I hate to agree with him, epistemologically (not quite the right word here, but the best one we have) objective and ontologically subjective---that is, the method of derivation is objective, if a, then b; but the way you come up with that formula is subjective and de-emphasized/backgrounded. You objectively know what the response is by plugging it into the formula, but you subjectively decide what the appropriate formula for a given situation is.

With Fi, it seems to be the opposite: the objective derivation is put in the background, and the subjective formula is foregrounded. There is still an action taken in response to certain stimuli. But the external stimulus-external response aspect is downplayed in favor of the subjective, internal stuff that happens: the relation of the stimulus to the internal world, the process that turns the stimulus into the response, if that makes sense.

With Fi the rules are not so obvious (to Fe-egos), and yes, they are shared by groups. They're not objective, but it is obviously possible for more than one person to come to the same subjective conclusion, e.g., Harold Bloom and Samuel Johnson both conclude that Hamlet is a great play, despite lacking any objective metric for that valuation. And I think it is likely that Fi-egos, given the importance they place on their subjective feelings towards things, would be likely to gravitate towards people who have come to the same subjective conclusions as them. That is, if Fi-ego 1 feels super passionate about racial equality, Fi-ego 1 is not very likely to hang out with a white supremacist. Or if Fi-ego 1 feels super passionate about white supremacy, Fi-ego 1 is not likely to hang out with Jesse Jackson. Nobody wants their super-important subjective feelings trampled all over.

So, to recap, the principle is: Fi-valuers tend to hang out with people who have subjectively come to the same conclusions about certain important matters as them. It is easy to extrapolate from there how the Fe-valuer who enters the Fi-valuer group could mistakenly say something that violates that subjective conclusion, and thereby be ostracized by more than one person.

Also, nobody wants to acknowledge the negative things about themselves. The implicit argument Ashton is making (Fi-egos do not think this describes them, and they would know best, since they live Fi) is invalid in this case precisely because the argument is about something negative that Fi-valuers do. IEIs don't want to acknowledge that we tend to distort or misrepresent facts for the sake of the big picture idea, but we do. Similarly, Fi-valuers don't want to acknowledge that they do ostracize across groups (especially deltas). Because they don't experience it as ostracizing people from their group. They react individually. It's just that since they hang out with people with similar subjectivities (for the reasons mentioned above), each individual reacts in a similar way.

Now, I know this is bad to say... but Jung's description of Fe is quite biased (unless the rest are also this negative). Perhaps this goes back to the Jung-is-ILI debate... but regardless, it is generally understood/agreed that Juliet is an Fe-ego. And yet she does not by any means follow the appropriate or suitable love. What he's talking about is more accurately represented in someone like Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra, but Shakespeare does a great job of showing that the fact that Cleopatra's love is rooted in things about Antony rather than internal compatibility (although they are fairly compatible) does not make it shallow. She has a deep, abiding passion for both Caesar and Antony, precisely because of their admirable qualities (which Jung reduces to "suitability").

Also, any judging function involves standards that are shared by groups of people. If you have a school of philosophy, that school will often have the same standard of how one is to reason, or what assumptions one should make, etc. If you have a method of doing policework (I only associate that with Te because of the whole Sherlock Holmes is LSE thing) then you usually have an agreed upon Te standard. So sure, that's not the right (or wrong) term for it. But I don't think the idea behind it is inaccurate.

[Aiss]

@silverchris - I think you have a point, but are trying to fit it to Ti/Fe way of thinking . When you say:

With Fi, it seems to be the opposite: the objective derivation is put in the background, and the subjective formula is foregrounded. There is still an action taken in response to certain stimuli. But the external stimulus-external response aspect is downplayed in favor of the subjective, internal stuff that happens: the relation of the stimulus to the internal world, the process that turns the stimulus into the response, if that makes sense.

... all I can say is that from my point of view, you have it backwards - it isn't Fi that implies Te (like Ti -> Fe would make you think, thus you assume Fi -> Te and speak of subjective foreground), but Te that implies Fi. Focus is on how people's actions shape the relation. Otherwise, I tend to agree with mechanism presented, though I wouldn't take it to the extreme, either. Looking for people who'll agree with you on everything is first, impossible (unless someone was seriously brainwashed), second, it seems more like craving ego-boost than anything else, and third, IME I'm more likely to get it from smiling/crying/nodding along Fe anyway, regardless of their actual opinion. It's more about people's actions (Te) making them incompatible (Fi). White supremacist and someone passionate about racial equality simply aren't compatible as long as they're both active and uncompromising in their approach, so it only makes sense for them to not become close, I'd think? But many differences don't stop people from disagreeing and being close. Others might make a friendship less likely but can be overlooked when working towards unrelated goals. And exactly what and how much matters to an individual is part of this implicit derivation, inherently subjective, yes.

[krieger]

Fe basically doesn't deal with "opinions" or "views"; this is the fallacy I see perpetuated in this thread. It doesn't stop to think about what it's presentations and actions "mean" in a deeper, interpretatory sense.

In fact, when you see an Fe type focus on interpretations and opinions, you're more likely to see them use some unvalued or weak Ji function (I'm primarily thinking about weak Ti).

[Singu]

So, I take it that Fe is mostly about not disturbing feelings, and Fi is mostly about not disturbing relationships? Would a Fe type withhold an opinion for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings? Would a Fi type withhold an opinion for the sake of not damaging the relationship? Possibly (though both types would likely consider either). But it seems absurd to say that Fe is not about having any opinons or views on things. Isn't Fe (and Te) about making judgements based on "objective data"? Or if a Fe type makes a judgement, it's "really" Ti? Well... whatever that means. When Socionics gets too technical, it seems to get absurd. An opinion is an opinion... what else more is there?

Sorry if this sounds kinda stupid, lol. I find most psychology to be fairly straightforward. But this... this is not straightforward. I think most psychology deals with simple cause-and-effect relations and observations, but Jung/Socionics etc attempt to create some kind of a "system" that supposedly explains how our minds work with some kind of scientific or mathematical precision.

I find Jung's observations to be pretty interesting, but I think they're kind of old-fashioned. It's sort of gender stereotypical. It reads as if women are emotional beings who are incapable of even having a rational thought, and men are this hyper-logical, objective beings (which he divides as Feeling and Thinking). Well they were written in early 1900's, where the gender stereotypes were more common.

[golden]

Would a Fe type withhold an opinion for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings?

I can do that so long as the person in question is respecting my boundaries; otherwise, no.

And for me, a measure of closeness lies in whether I can give my opinions. Sometimes an opinion might be very slow to form, though.

But it seems absurd to say that Fe is not about having any opinons or views on things.

Heh. Or maybe the point is that an Fe-based opinion has no value? Not sure there.

Isn't Fe (and Te) about making judgements based on "objective data"? Or if a Fe type makes a judgement, it's "really" Ti? Well... whatever that means. When Socionics gets too technical, it seems to get absurd. An opinion is an opinion... what else more is there?

Here you get at something that I've been considering lately. I'm not sure that Feeling versus Thinking versus Sensing versus Intuiting is all so very neat. These functions are not completely sealed off from one another. In reality, they are going to blend. In my mind right now I sometimes stop calling them by those dichotomous names and simply call them Function A, Function B, and so on, without ascribing any other terms to them--I play with this concept in my imagination.

In my bound-to-be-unpopular opinion, feeling can think, thinking can feel, and so on. There may be a particular character to the kind of feeling that a certain kind of thinking can do or prefers to do.

And in my opinion, whatever the leading function, that function is likely to be extremely versatile and fluid. I think it will be able to do many more things than the models and descriptions we use here imply.