Fi creative thoughts

[redbaron]

They're so focused on what they LIKE. For example, my NeFi mother is always talking about how she HATES the cold and LOVES the beach. My SeFi friend LOVES babies and has all her friends in a row, knows exactly how close she is with each of them and spends an inordinate time talking about their bond, publicly.

It makes me tired after awhile. Like, okay great but WHO CARES. Why does the entire Facebook world need to know how close you are with these other women? First of all, it might make people on the outs feel bad that they're not as close to you as your "close" friends. Why would you want to exclude people?

I think Fi-creatives can come across as Fe valuing types at first because they're friendly, warm and outgoing. But then when you get to know them, you see that they refuse to ignore their bonds with specific people for a more general positive atmosphere.

The SeFi I know was complaining the other day about air kisses. How they're not sincere or whatever. My thought is that it's a positive gesture of affection. Might not be as deep or abiding but it could have its origins in culture or in that particular community. My point being, why be so judgmental about air kisses??

I dunno. Bugs me.

[Roro]

I dunno dude, kinda sounds like you're doing the same thing by mentioning the things you dislike about Fi creatives lol.

But who cares, right?

[Codie]

Yh I don't really care if some air-kisses me as long as their not a Paris Hilton type, sometimes i've air kissed involuntarily Lol. I dunno maybe they see it as a superficial gesture & not what best friends do. It bugs me how much emphasis gamma xSFx's put on , with beta it's the other way round. Here's my (+/-) IE take on it.

Beta uses - to serve +, (possible example) "I'm going to strengthen my bond with my favourite individuals/ cut off toxic relationships privately AND not verbalize my likes and dislikes, so I can experience more positive emotions when I'm together with people.
Gamma uses + to serve -. (possible example) "I'm going to shower only my best friends with affection & verbalize their exclusive status in my life to make them feel more valued and strengthen our bond. "

I dunno but creative +Fi's aka IEE's tend to care a whole lot more about people they're not even personally close to if it ties in with some favourite moral or cause in which they support.. Perhaps that IEE likes the positive atmosphere at the beach maaan

[redbaron]

Are you saying that these women shouldn't be happy, exuberant, and expressive about their close friends because the general unknown Facebook audience might feel excluded? Because paying positive attention to some people somehow translates as bestowing negativity to the rest of the world? That's starting to sound suspiciously like life's a stage, my Beta NF People can have upwards of 300+ friends these days on Facebook. Are we somehow obligated to pay virtual attention to all of them?

It's just like..if you really can't stand their vocality that much, put them on ignore. Life's too short to be preoccupied with the hypothetical judgments of haters, and being happy is hard enough without ruminating on how people might somehow disapprove of it.

Of course she doesn't need to pay attention to everyone equally or something stupid like that! But I'm not talking about just paying attention to, it's more like DRAWING attention to the relationships themselves. For example, one of her friends posted that they were celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary and this woman's response was "I was there and I have pics to prove it!" Okay... obviously nobody is doubting she was there or that they're friends but it's like this constant need to reaffirm the close relationship they have and stick it out there. Also, she's always visiting and has other friends visit her and when they're together they take all these pictures and put them all over Facebook. I dunno, I just don't do that. Maybe one pic if it's good? But talking ad nauseum about the relationship itself and how CLOSE you are with someone just seems way over the top to me.

And, I would never even be vocalizing this thought if it weren't for socionics. I might have the fleeting notion that she was talking a lot about her friends or something but I wouldn't have pinpointed it in quite this way. It just occurred to me that it's probably a SeFi thing. Which is FINE and helps me to understand why she's being that way. I do like this person in general. She welcomed me into her circle of friends without ever having met me in real life. But this is just something I've noticed that I thought was interesting.

[redbaron]

Beta uses - to serve +, (possible example) "I'm going to strengthen my bond with my favourite individuals/ cut off toxic relationships privately AND not verbalize my likes and dislikes, so I can experience more positive emotions when I'm together with people.
Gamma uses + to serve -. (possible example) "I'm going to shower only my best friends with affection & verbalize their exclusive status in my life to make them feel more valued and strengthen our bond. "

I think this is right on. I often do not verbalize my likes and dislikes for the sake of the emotional atmosphere. I do this a lot actually.

[redbaron]

Okay, that's annoying. But I've seen a ton of people that aren't Fi creative do that on Facebook. I'm Fi creative and I don't do that. Not type related imo.

true that different people of the same types use Facebook differently. But I do think there's something to the way in which she emphasizes her psychological distance with people and highlights the various bonds. She also talks about when and how they met (a LOT). Reminiscing is fine! I'm not criticizing I just don't do that! And the other Fe-valuing people I know don't do that either. *shrug*

[Cat King Cole]

Socionics fallacy #1: "I don't like it therefore it's quadra or type related."

No offense, but your SEE sounds like the kind of person anyone would dislike. She instantly reminded me of my "ESE" aunt.

[Beautiful sky]

I think this is right on. I often do not verbalize my likes and dislikes for the sake of the emotional atmosphere. I do this a lot actually.

I do it regularly

[717495]

It's of the highest significance but I don't talk about it much; it's too complicated to put in words.

[Galen]

They're so focused on what they LIKE. For example, my NeFi mother is always talking about how she HATES the cold and LOVES the beach. My SeFi friend LOVES babies and has all her friends in a row, knows exactly how close she is with each of them and spends an inordinate time talking about their bond, publicly.

It makes me tired after awhile. Like, okay great but WHO CARES. Why does the entire Facebook world need to know how close you are with these other women? First of all, it might make people on the outs feel bad that they're not as close to you as your "close" friends. Why would you want to exclude people?

I would exclude the people I don't like because their presence acts as a new variable in whatever situation I'm in, and he/she only yields a worse total outcome. I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but there are very few people/situations out there that cause me to react this way. I guess I see the things in my environment in an emotionally-holistic way, where the introduction of each new data point must be taken into account and combined with everything else currently in my mind, thus resulting in a new experience of the situation as a whole. Each data point (person, object, w/e) carries its own weight behind it, and things that strike a greater influence on me will affect this holistic experience more than lesser things.

The SeFi I know was complaining the other day about air kisses. How they're not sincere or whatever. My thought is that it's a positive gesture of affection. Might not be as deep or abiding but it could have its origins in culture or in that particular community. My point being, why be so judgmental about air kisses??

The problem here for me would be two-fold. First, American culture tends to look down upon men publicly expressing their affections for other people like that, and I'm probably a victim of that. Second, all cultural elements aside, for a deep sentiment to be expressed out in the open like that (assuming the sentiment exists in the first place) defeats its purpose. Part of it could just be me being a dirty E6 and hesitating on sharing myself like that, but I've always felt that if you feel a need to express that sort of shared sentiment with another person, then you're not actually "feeling" it. I can't take a feeling/sentiment I have towards something and put it on display, because to do so would mean detaching myself from the sentiment itself. This makes me generally uncomfortable because I feel like that objectified sentiment will then be subjected to other people's cognitive rationalizations about it, making me feel like they're putting words in my mouth or trying to tell me who I am (again, E6ishness could play into that paranoia about other people, but I figure if I was Ti valuing then the notion of this mechanism in and of itself wouldn't be cause for fear).

[tcaudilllg]

That's id block Fe for you.

[glam]

i know what you're talking about redbaron. that kind of stuff puts me off too. it's one reason i generally prefer interacting with my illusionary type (ILE) rather than semi-dual (SEE).

i agree that it's type-related behavior, a manifestation of Fi creative (strong, valued, producing Fi), which is in Mental ring (information that you verbalize.) it's also a Contact function:

Contact functions 2 and 3 are in the mental ring. The creative function produces new information out of what is accepted by the base function. This is literally how we uniquely 'make contact' with the world.

that's why she makes her Fi so obvious and blatant...



ETA: i think the behavior redbaron describes often gets attributed to Fe creative - which i disagree with.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, Glam, and that is why LSE are so attracted to SEE and IEE types, because they make their Fi so blatant and that is why, and undualized EII is likely not to be that way and miss out on a dual instead being more attracted to their activity relations SLI or ILI

[The Ineffable]

But I'm not talking about just paying attention to, it's more like DRAWING attention to the relationships themselves.

I think that's what makes the difference. When you said "LIKE" in the OP that's too generic and could apply equally to many types, especially considering how every type of psyche interprets the same thing differently. I knew what you meant from the context, though.

I am aware from my experience of how Fi-Creatives give absolute importance to relationships. When I say absolute I mean that they suggest that something is "good" instead of "I like it", as if it is a model to follow. When I talk to them, I often hear references to recognition as if it mattered: "we're good friends since 7", "an awesome guy", "renown scientist", "popular writer". It is not bothersome when this remains merely tangential to the topic, good-to-know trivia, but when it gains momentum and starts to matter as an argument for unrelated concusions. It happened to me before, when you start criticising someone/something already presented by them ad-nauseam as "good" or "awesome" (same with "bad", "evil" or "awful") it turns out that to their minds you've got a problem and decide to stay on the wrong side, instead of considering your objective arguments for your views, as if it was commonly agreed in advance that their POV was right. I recall few weeks ago an IEE colleague told me, after he repeatedly failed to convince me that a game does not suck, that "okay, tell milions of people that this game sucks!". LOL, I don't give a fuck, I don't care that he is among these millions of people and he is my colleague/pal/friend [1], I told him why the game sucks to me and that's all, nothing can change it unless I change my criteria.
---
[1] - depending who you ask about our relationship.

[The Ineffable]

But things don't end here, sorry if I'm going a bit off-topic. All Ne-PoLRs are invited to leave the room for their own sake, thank you.

Such attitude (Fi-Creative) often makes people struggle to become public oppinion makers: journalists, lobbysts, politicians, and so on. This is when it begins to annoy me and to become dangerous for the society. The press articles are more than often directed to imbue a "politically correct" bias before even you have the time to make up your mind about a subject, selecting the information they release to fit their agenda, sometimes making things up invoking that magical "apparently". Some things even create global tensions, like the Western aggressive slandering of China. I find it obvious that the nature of this conflict between the Chinese government and the Western media is Ti-Base VS Ti-PoLR. IMO China feels threatened by this grotesque circus [1], subversive and disruptive actions for no apparent reason, it created a *real* dangerous potential out of nothing, proof for its reality being that high officials expressed discontent about it. I'm not sure if this potential has reached its peak or it is still growing, but news for 2011 are not very promising:
http://my.news.yahoo.com/china-still...01746-638.html
http://news.yahoo.com/china-slams-ch...210344044.html

Think of the Chinese government as a group of engineers, and the Western media [2] as a group of humanists and artists; how the hell could one believe that the former will find acceptable for the emotional impact blabber of the latter to interfere with their decisions? No matter how much we all value human rights, how much they mean to us, sometimes it is necessary to dismiss them. Western schoolars know pretty well how important the population control and political stability in this country are for the stability of the whole world. When forced abortion is necessary for our survival, who gives a shit that I disagree with it, that everyone around me relates to this or even all the people on Earth? Creating sympathetic support groups won't change reality, neither the foam at the wistleblowers' mouth, necessary measures are not an abuse, even when they are unpleasant or conflict with our personal or cultural convictions, if you care to find out why they have priority, putting your convitions aside just for few minutes.
I recently heard a saying or quote like "don't bother about your collar when you're going to be decapitated".

I don't know if it's clear how this relates to the OP. The base idea is what consequences can there be when a framework based on personal preferences and relationships is established. It is related to Fi in general, just it's the Fi-Creative that is that loud and uncompromising about it. The examples should not be taken as absolutes, for instance Fi Ego does not necessarily imply opposition to anything inhuman (like forced abortion), it just means a relational (personal or social) attitude towards a certain matter, I could easily see a Ti-PoLR as a vocal supporter of something inhuman, however the necessity for ethical consistency would turn the person to an extreme [3], that does not happen very often.
---

[1] - public attacks, disrupting events, protests, boycott attempts, slanders or public scams, like the universal Buddhist "sanctity" of Dalai Lama.
[2] - I include here the Nobel awards, since their technical value is null, this is a purely cultural initiative.
[3] - for instance supporter of war in all its aspects. Ashton, where are you?

[Slacker]

So the complaint is that people are talking about stuff they like on Facebook? What exalted purpose does Facebook hold if not for blathering?

[Slacker]

Jerry Seinfeld's whole thing is about talking about his dislikes, and he's usually (that I've seen) typed as ILE, isn't he? I guess I don't have a strong opinion about his type but I don't think Fi creative. I don't think this is peculiar to Fi creatives.

[WVBRY]

Having as control function I often have issues with the "like" and "dislike" people have of stuff, though ironically I dont feel creatives are the ones I target most. And its not something I do all the time either, like I think there is an perfectally appropriate time to express likes and dislikes, I do it myself at times too. Its more when people take an exclusively "like or dislike" approach to something which requires contextual understanding as well, and its not just a question of whether you like or dislike that thing.

[Slacker]

If it isn't OK to say you like things on Facebook, why is there a like button?

[glam]

If it isn't OK to say you like things on Facebook, why is there a like button?

no one is saying that it isn't ok...?

[Trevor]

Fi-Creative = AFTHE ??? yes or no?

Fi-Creative = A FRIENDSHIP THAT HAS ESCALATED ??? yes or no?

[Trevor]

OYIYI related to Fi-Creative?? Yes or No ??

ONCE YOU'RE IN YOU'RE IN related to Fi-Creative?? Yes or No ??

[squark]

BYOB related to Fi-Creative?? Yes or No ??

BRING YOUR OWN BEER related to Fi-Creative?? Yes or No ??

[EyeSeeCold]

If it isn't OK to say you like things on Facebook, why is there a like button?

Test of character?

[Uncertainty]

I don't think I do this, for what it's worth, and I self-type IEE (which could be wrong).
I do make a lot of inside jokes on facebook, which might "exclude" some people, but in general I'm not the type to talk a lot about how much I love this or hate that.
Not openly, anyway. There's something too forward about it that I don't like.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If I really like somebody, I'm not shy about showing affection. American society can look down on me all they want for it, who cares? I never fit in with society anyway why would I start caring what they thought?

I think everybody verbalizes their likes and dislikes. Beta just doesn't view the Fi as sharply as Gammas. It just seems for those folks it matters more to them or something. It's like...they value it. It's not that Betas 'hate Fi' it's just we aren't putting it up on a pedestal like Gammas do.

[Myst]

I would exclude the people I don't like because their presence acts as a new variable in whatever situation I'm in, and he/she only yields a worse total outcome. I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but there are very few people/situations out there that cause me to react this way. I guess I see the things in my environment in an emotionally-holistic way, where the introduction of each new data point must be taken into account and combined with everything else currently in my mind, thus resulting in a new experience of the situation as a whole. Each data point (person, object, w/e) carries its own weight behind it, and things that strike a greater influence on me will affect this holistic experience more than lesser things.


The problem here for me would be two-fold. First, American culture tends to look down upon men publicly expressing their affections for other people like that, and I'm probably a victim of that. Second, all cultural elements aside, for a deep sentiment to be expressed out in the open like that (assuming the sentiment exists in the first place) defeats its purpose. Part of it could just be me being a dirty E6 and hesitating on sharing myself like that, but I've always felt that if you feel a need to express that sort of shared sentiment with another person, then you're not actually "feeling" it. I can't take a feeling/sentiment I have towards something and put it on display, because to do so would mean detaching myself from the sentiment itself. This makes me generally uncomfortable because I feel like that objectified sentiment will then be subjected to other people's cognitive rationalizations about it, making me feel like they're putting words in my mouth or trying to tell me who I am (again, E6ishness could play into that paranoia about other people, but I figure if I was Ti valuing then the notion of this mechanism in and of itself wouldn't be cause for fear).

Thx for this post, very interesting to see such a clear description of Fi ego / Fe ID