Fi Creative vs Fe Creative

[fen]

Could someone please explain the difference between creative and creative in a coherent, organized way devoid of bias and stereotypes? :S Please? A compare/contrast chart..something applicable and identifiable in real life and real people? Just the main points...not how the functions manifest? I need to get this down pat, hehe. Please..

[1981slater]

Creative fi = the ability to deal with people (with friends, with co-workers, with clients...), the ability to create/evaluate/modify links between people
Creative fe = the ability to alter the emotional state of people (via words, hugs or even pieces of art, painting, music, etc)

[JWC3]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ighlight=smoke

Srsly.

[JWC3]

I would think Fe/Fi leads would walk around living life in a state that is constantly aware of Smoke/Lasers without even thinking about it.

I would think Fe/Fi creative types would generally just view the smoke/lasers as something they can change or manipulate in some way.

So, essentially, the leading types would just naturally interact with it and the creative ones would be aware of it but only try to affect it when they want to.


But my explanation is too simplistic to be factually correct.

[fen]

Thanks so much guys. I've read the smoke/laser thing before, but..ehh.

I would think Fe/Fi leads would walk around living life in a state that is constantly aware of Smoke/Lasers without even thinking about it.

I would think Fe/Fi creative types would generally just view the smoke/lasers as something they can change or manipulate in some way.

So, essentially, the leading types would just naturally interact with it and the creative ones would be aware of it but only try to affect it when they want to.


But my explanation is too simplistic to be factually correct.

So in what different way would creative and creative change/manipulate it?

[JWC3]

Thanks so much guys. I've read the smoke/laser thing before, but..ehh.

So in what different way would creative and creative change/manipulate it?

Well assuming the smoke/lasers represent prefered method of emotional expression, and color represents mood they would exhibit some ability to change the color or thinkness/intensity of the smoke/lasers.

I suppose red could represent anger and blue calm and so on and so fourth if you've taken an art class or something it would be similar to that.

If it helps you could think of the smoke/lasers in terms of who is affected by them. Smoke affects everyone who breaths it in while lasers affect only who they are directed at.

If this doesn't help, I'm more than willing to try and make this clear.


Perhaps another example.

Consider if you will that each quadrant represents a different animal. Theres a bear, a badger, a couger, and a squirrel. The squirrel best functions around the badger but is often intimidated by the bear. The bear has mutual respect for the cougar and the cougar despises the badger. In a nutshell this is socionics. If your interested in further exploration I invite you to cosider the subdivision of said animals FOR INSTANCE bears can be divided into black bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, and elusive but still docile panda bear.

Squirrels on the other hand have only two subdivisions: Gray and Flying. Badgers are stubborn and can not be divided any more and cougars can best be categorized as Mountain dwelling or Courtney Cox i.e. Cougar Town.

[strangeling]

I have some time, so I'd like to know if this helps you at all or if you think I'm misunderstanding something. The way I understand it is by first breaking everything down into conceptual parts and explaining it from there:

introversion/extroversion: introverts have the world impact them and extroverts impact the world (keep reading, it'll become clearer).
Function Duality: Involves repression and Fi-Te are related together through it; same with Ti-Fe (keep reading, it'll become clearer).

How are static and dynamic different from each other?
dynamic introversion: perceives where things are going and adjusts to the world.
dynamic extroversion: takes a perception of where things are going and adjusts the world.
static introversion: formulates an understanding of how things occur, in order to have and decide upon scenarios.
static extroversion: takes a scenario and goes after fulfilling it.
How are static and dynamic related to each other?

Function Polarities - Si<->Se, Ni<->Ne, Ti<->Te, Fi<->Fe

dynamic introversion can contradict static extroversion: the dynamic introvert might express how a scenario fails to succeed.
static extroversion can contradict dynamic introversion: the static extrovert might express how a failed scenario can succeed.
dynamic extroversion can contradict static introversion: the dynamic extrovert might express how scenarios about the world are inaccurate, useless, and/or unnecessary.
static introversion can contradict dynamic extroversion: the static introvert might express how adjusting the world leads to poor outcomes.

Function Dualities and Their Repression - Ti<->Fe, Fi<->Te, Ne<->Si, Se<->Ni

Similar to the Function Polarities, Function Dualities (Ti<->Fe, Fi<->Te, Ne<->Si, Se<->Ni) create the same conflict of the Function Polarities, but are metaphysically internalized here in a person, causing a repressive conflict specific and unique to that person. Since these relate by forms of repression, the opposite function in another person is capable of recognizing and alleviating the problems of that repression, potentially relieving the repressive conflict at times or altogether.

Ti vs Fi (Function Ideality):
How are they the same?
Ti and Fi both take a situation and determine various scenarios that could occur in order to choose between those scenarios.
How are they different?
Ti is related to logos in that it has no sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Fi is related to pathos in that it has sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Both analyze and both use logic, albeit the logic of Fi tends not to be as rigorous as Ti, perhaps because humanity makes the mistake in thinking impersonal logic is the only true, greatly preferred, or correct form of logic to be used. But Fi focuses on the personal aspects of how people affect one another and the Fi user, whereas Ti focuses on the impersonal aspects of how people affect one another and the Ti user.
Function Non-Ideality
More realistically, Ti and Fi both relate to Fe and Te through repression. But I do think it's still appropriate to single them out from their repressed unconscious, since that doesn't change their metaphysical form, but relates mainly to their motivation.

Fe vs Te (Function Ideality):
How are they the same?
Fe and Te both take a perception of where things are going and use that to adjust the world.
How are they different?
Te is related to logos in that it has no intention of adjusting the sentiment of other people, but the impersonal nature of the world. Fe is related to pathos in that it has intention of adjusting the sentiment of other people, but does not care for adjusting the impersonal nature of the world. So Fe aims to sway or mold the personal sentiments of other people and Te aims to sway or mold the impersonal nature of the world.
Function Non-Ideality
Again, more realistically, Te and Fe both relate to Fi and Ti through repression. But I do think it's still appropriate to single them out from their repressed unconscious, since that doesn't change their metaphysical form, but relates mainly to their motivation.

Putting it together
So, from this, we see that Fi and Fe are a bit different in that Fe has a perception of where things are going in the world (dynamic introversion) and aims to adjust the sentiments of others from that, while Fi is concerned with analyzing (producing and sifting scenarios of) the personal aspects of how people affect one another and then aims on fulfilling a particular scenario (static extroversion). And from the Function Polarities, we see that Fi and Fe can contradict each other in two different people. From Function Dualities, we see that Fi has a metaphysical conflict with Te within the same person, while Fe has a metaphysical conflict with Ti within the same person; and that an Fi user with a Te user does not produce a theoretical contradiction between them, as well as with an Fe and Ti user.

[thePirate]

here you go:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post693238

[The Ineffable]

gambit: you messed up some things. Here's a table of the IEs:

IE --- Bodies/Fields --- Dynamic/Static --- External/Internal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fi --- Fields -------------- Static ----------------- Internal
Ti --- Fields -------------- Static ----------------- External
Ni --- Fields -------------- Dynamic ------------ Internal
Si --- Fields -------------- Dynamic ------------ External
Ne --- Bodies ----------- Static ----------------- Internal
Se --- Bodies ----------- Static ----------------- External
Fe --- Bodies ----------- Dynamic ------------- Internal
Te --- Bodies ----------- Dynamic ------------- External

Where Extroverted/Introverted is directly related to Bodies/Fields, they are used interchangeably. E.g. Fe (Extroverted Ethics) is Bodies.

[strangeling]

^ Thanks. The dynamic/static dichotomies seem to apply to what I've written, although Bodies/Fields would need to be amended somewhat into the explanations for clarity (I think my concept of scenarios for situations versus seeing where things are going or moving is pretty similar though).

So intuition and feeling are internal, while thinking and sensing are external. I looked it up and found that it's likely to mean implicit/explicit; I guess that makes sense since feelers have to understand other people's emotional qualia, without it being explicitly verbalized or stated; and intuition needs to have an idea of how things are occurring or relate to one another, without being able to prove it with experience, since proving it could make the intuition go from true to false.
What are your thoughts on this dichotomy?

[Suz]

Thanks so much guys. I've read the smoke/laser thing before, but..ehh.

So in what different way would creative and creative change/manipulate it?

The Fi-creative would be good at manipulating the bond between people, e.g. creating friendships or alternatively, distancing themselves when they dont want to be friends, etc. What I've noticed about myself is that when i'm trying to decide whether i want to be friends with someone or not, i'll bring them very close (figuratively, in a psychological distance sense) to evaluate them. Then if something is amiss (like they seem to take advantage of people or show some dishonesty or something else I dont respect), or if i get the sense they dont want to be friends with me, I'll distance myself accordingly.I think this sort of thing might be why IEEs can be misunderstood by potential romantic partners, because that initial phase where I bring someone close to evaluate them can be misinterpreted as flirting, or being more interested in them than I am. Well, in such a case, I obviously had enough interest to want to get to know them better but decision is definitely not final! Then, once I get to know them and decide they're not who i want to be in a relationship with and distance myself, then i become a Don Juan...

The Fe-creative would be largely focused on manipulating the emotional atmosphere... Is everyone smiling? if not, that means everyone isnt happy yet, they'll inject some smiles or fun to make things better. Alternatively, say everyone is at a funeral... sooo sad, friend or family member died... I imagine the Fe-creative would be good at making the atmosphere one of proper sadness yet comforting the bereaved and trying to cheer them up. I'm actually not totally sure about this funeral scenario, can an Fe-creative weigh in?

For example, at a funeral, I'm also pretty good at behaving appropriately solemn and respectful, but if others arent i wouldn't necessarily be trying to change that. I'd be appalled at how dishonorable they are being to the memory of the deceased person, and maybe I would glare or something. I guess an Fe-creative would be more talented at actually influencing those jerks into more appropriate behavior?

[The Ineffable]

So intuition and feeling are internal, while thinking and sensing are external. I looked it up and found that it's likely to mean implicit/explicit; I guess that makes sense since feelers have to understand other people's emotional qualia, without it being explicitly verbalized or stated; and intuition needs to have an idea of how things are occurring or relate to one another, without being able to prove it with experience, since proving it could make the intuition go from true to false.
What are your thoughts on this dichotomy?

The matter is more complex - and having many implications - but definitely YES, I agree. Everything that is assumption, presumption or belief, everywhere one has to fill in the dots, that is Internal IE. For instance including in one's plans a promise, or a deal with someone. Another random example is the concepts of "huge", "great", "insignificant" and things like these. Internal information is in no way limited to these examples.

I normally look at this as possessing justification (External) and not possessing justification (Internal). I think implicit and explicit can create confusions due to their multiple sense (just like the "objective/subjective" pair) or simply can tell nothing in some cases, I don't remember why but I remember just that a while ago I encountered issues using it.

There is External information that cannot be verbalized, as a rule of thumb Irrational (Sensing). Identification which IMO is Se, it just "is".

[Galen]

Ti vs Fi (Function Ideality):
How are they different?
Ti is related to logos in that it has no sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Fi is related to pathos in that it has sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Both analyze and both use logic, albeit the logic of Fi tends not to be as rigorous as Ti, perhaps because humanity makes the mistake in thinking impersonal logic is the only true, greatly preferred, or correct form of logic to be used. But Fi focuses on the personal aspects of how people affect one another and the Fi user, whereas Ti focuses on the impersonal aspects of how people affect one another and the Ti user.

This isn't too bad of a comparison, although I don't think it's fair to say that Fi logic isn't as rigorous than Ti logic. Both are equally as logical in their own rights, they simply go about their analysis in different and incompatible ways. The Fi "logic" resides in how the situation is experienced as opposed to overt mental cognition. It will undoubtedly come across as less logical to Ti/Fe valuers because the results it produces are not based in externally verifiable consistency.

[Ryan]

This isn't too bad of a comparison, although I don't think it's fair to say that Fi logic isn't as rigorous than Ti logic. Both are equally as logical in their own rights, they simply go about their analysis in different and incompatible ways. The Fi "logic" resides in how the situation is experienced as opposed to overt mental cognition. It will undoubtedly come across as less logical to Ti/Fe valuers because the results it produces are not based in externally verifiable consistency.

Bullshit.

[Galen]

Bullshit.

oh okay

[strangeling]

This isn't too bad of a comparison, although I don't think it's fair to say that Fi logic isn't as rigorous than Ti logic. Both are equally as logical in their own rights, they simply go about their analysis in different and incompatible ways. The Fi "logic" resides in how the situation is experienced as opposed to overt mental cognition. It will undoubtedly come across as less logical to Ti/Fe valuers because the results it produces are not based in externally verifiable consistency.

Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. I just meant that the thinking of Ti seems to encourage predictable complexity, whereas Fi seems to prefer a spontaneous simplicity. I get the sense that Fi absorbs something, maybe a transference, and can feel bogged down with too much of that to deal with. But Ti on the other hand, the more Ti seems to have to work with, the better it is at synthesizing everything into a better kind of perfection.

Am I stereotyping? It's hard to explain, but I think I'm too logical to communicate it well otherwise; maybe somebody could try to put this into perspective?

[Galen]

Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. I just meant that the thinking of Ti seems to encourage predictable complexity, whereas Fi seems to prefer a spontaneous simplicity. I get the sense that Fi absorbs something, maybe a transference, and can feel bogged down with too much of that to deal with. But Ti on the other hand, the more Ti seems to have to work with, the better it is at synthesizing everything into a better kind of perfection.

Am I stereotyping? It's hard to explain, but I think I'm too logical to communicate it well otherwise; maybe somebody could try to put this into perspective?

Hmm, what you're describing could easily be the Te side of Fi valuing. I do get how Fi can be seen as emotional absorption though, taking the experience of something and meshing it into his/her own personal system. The predictable complexity part could just as easily apply to Fi valuing, but not in the sense of outright cognitive complexity. You seem to be comparing the two along more of a Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi line, which still makes sense given that Te valuing inherently implied Fi, and likewise with Ti and Fe.

[strangeling]

Hmm, what you're describing could easily be the Te side of Fi valuing. I do get how Fi can be seen as emotional absorption though, taking the experience of something and meshing it into his/her own personal system. The predictable complexity part could just as easily apply to Fi valuing, but not in the sense of outright cognitive complexity. You seem to be comparing the two along more of a Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi line, which still makes sense given that Te valuing inherently implied Fi, and likewise with Ti and Fe.

That makes a lot of sense.

One thing though that I'm kind of seeing as a problem (that I'm trying to differentiate in some way) is that Fi seems to involve not just the Fi-valuer, but also other people to some metaphysical degree. In a way, Ti is separate and unique to the individual; and it can be pin-pointed as something explicit and separate, given fundamental axioms, that can be applied into an infinite number of contexts. Fi on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything like this; rather because it depends on another to some extent, it can't be pin-pointed, but is implicitly contextual. Maybe rigorous isn't the right word, but then what do you think would be a good way to summarize this difference? I'm out of ideas.

[Galen]

That makes a lot of sense.

One thing though that I'm kind of seeing as a problem (that I'm trying to differentiate in some way) is that Fi seems to involve not just the Fi-valuer, but also other people to some metaphysical degree. In a way, Ti is separate and unique to the individual; and it can be pin-pointed as something explicit and separate, given fundamental axioms, that can be applied into an infinite number of contexts. Fi on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything like this; rather because it depends on another to some extent, it can't be pin-pointed, but is implicitly contextual. Maybe rigorous isn't the right word, but then what do you think would be a good way to summarize this difference? I'm out of ideas.

I would say that Fi and Ti are a lot more similar than you're giving them credit. By definition they're both static, field, and rational, so the sorts of routes that each process takes is very similar. What's different is the realm in which they operate, being Internal/External or Involved/Abstracted respectively. They can both be equally as rigorous in what they accept, but Ti processes depend on some sort of external validity for its conclusions to be reached, simply due to it being External. Conversely, Fi being an internal and involved IE doesn't depend on externally-verifiable information in order to operate, instead working on a more internalized, experiential plane. I'd argue that both Ti and Fi are equally as subjective, since any sort of information has to be processed by an individual's senses and cognitive faculties in order to be considered information in the first place.

It's difficult to really explain what I really mean by "experiential" vs "externally-verifiable," and since my head isn't in the right place for thinking about that sort of thing right now I'll leave it be for a while. If anybody wants to be a dear and dig up some old posts I have on the subject, feel free.

[strangeling]

I would say that Fi and Ti are a lot more similar than you're giving them credit. By definition they're both static, field, and rational, so the sorts of routes that each process takes is very similar. What's different is the realm in which they operate, being Internal/External or Involved/Abstracted respectively. They can both be equally as rigorous in what they accept, but Ti processes depend on some sort of external validity for its conclusions to be reached, simply due to it being External. Conversely, Fi being an internal and involved IE doesn't depend on externally-verifiable information in order to operate, instead working on a more internalized, experiential plane. I'd argue that both Ti and Fi are equally as subjective, since any sort of information has to be processed by an individual's senses and cognitive faculties in order to be considered information in the first place.

It's difficult to really explain what I really mean by "experiential" vs "externally-verifiable," and since my head isn't in the right place for thinking about that sort of thing right now I'll leave it be for a while. If anybody wants to be a dear and dig up some old posts I have on the subject, feel free.

Let's see.

Before I say anything else, in my mind I see conflicting definition between experiential and externally-verifiable, since the experiential is produced from direct, verifiable experience. Would it be better to say 'experimental' over experiential because the experimental doesn't "need" verification? Since you can't answer as I type, I'll assume you're okay with that for now. Experiental seems like it would belong to the irrational functions, where intuition synthesizes unrefined experience (Se/Si) and derives some form of conclusion (Ne/Ni) from it.

Since the functions act as filters that represent their own definitions to the world, it might be a good idea to talk about discrepancies with how we are defining concepts versus type in general.
Case in point, an Fi type might actually use Ti to some reasonable degree and end up confusing the two in conceptual understanding (or vice versa). The problem then isn't with the definitions, but that we have a difference in talking about the type, as it relates to reality in a given person, versus talking about the concepts as filters. The two aspects are separate in this way. Because of this, I should say I don't necessarily agree with prescribing personalities, but do find the functions as filters particularly interesting. All that said,


*TL;DR Marker*

My interpretation of what you wrote was that Fi paired with Te would like to have many options to choose from for a given situation; perhaps because the motivation of its feeling has an experimental aspect to it that works best with having many options on the fly to pick from (Te), rather than one or a few (Ti). Fi wants to choose its options of doing things.

Fe paired with Ti would like to narrow their options for a given situation; perhaps because the motivation of its feeling has an experimental aspect to it that works best when the options are decided (Ti), rather than changing or undecided (Te). Ti wants to choose how things will be done.

Is this a bit better?

[Galen]

Let's see.

Before I say anything else, in my mind I see conflicting definition between experiential and externally-verifiable, since the experiential is produced from direct, verifiable experience. Would it be better to say 'experimental' over experiential because the experimental doesn't "need" verification? Since you can't answer as I type, I'll assume you're okay with that for now. Experiental seems like it would belong to the irrational functions, where intuition synthesizes unrefined experience (Se/Si) and derives some form of conclusion (Ne/Ni) from it.

I may be phrasing my ideas incorrectly. What I mean to emphasize is the difference between experiential and cognitive information, information that is felt vs thought. Experiential information is probably most easily grasped in the sense of sensory information, the experience of seeing/touching/tasting/etc. Likewise, one can think of cognitive input as so-called "images" that come to one's mind. The primary difference between these two types of information is that experiential information cannot be immediately expressed to a 3rd party, rather it can only be felt by the individual. Try explaining to someone the experience of seeing the color blue, or what the touch of cotton feels like. While you may be able to communicate abstracted chunks of information about the experience, such as the wavelength of the light entering your eyes or the mechanisms behind color vision, doing so will not instantly allow the other person to experience the thing for his or herself.

*As a side note, I don't think it's fair to say that Ne/Ni are at all responsible for forming conclusions by themselves. As irrational IEs, they would be responsible for sheer information input of an abstracted and cognitive nature.*

In the case of S vs. N IEs, you're right in saying that the experience must be produced from something direct and verifiable (unless you're straight-up hallucinating). This would be due to Si and Se both being external and involved IEs. For the F vs T dichotomy though, the experiential aspect lies in an internal frame of reference, that being feelings. In a similar fashion, try explaining to somebody the feeling of jealousy. As far as I can tell, the closest anybody can get to doing so is to either describe a situation in which one may feel jealous, or the visceral autonomic reactions someone may have when feeling it. But again, this knowledge alone doesn't allow someone to instantly internalize and recall the feeling of jealousy.


I haven't combed my way through the details of the rest of your post, so excuse me if I don't get to them.

[strangeling]

edited for gayness

[jet city woman]

Bullshit.

There are a LOT of F-types and Fi-users here, and they have to validate their superior intelligence and abilities somehow. It's called bullshitting themselves and others.

[ashlesha]

There are a LOT of F-types and Fi-users here, so they have to validate their superior intelligence and abilities somehow. It's called bullshitting themselves and others.

nothing galen said had anything to do with F types being superior.

[jet city woman]

nothing galen said had anything to do with F types being superior.

duh. Can ya' explain that again? It's not necessarily superior compared TO anything that I'm speaking of, just in-general, superior intelligence and a lot of F-types and Fi-users here need to validate themselves, I've noticed. Make sense? Alot of people on the net in-general need to believe they are intelligent/logical in order to reinforce their own self-esteem. Their self-image is based on it. Some forums are NT-based, "Oh, NT's are obv the most intelligent and F-types are dumb!", for example. This site seems to be very F-oriented, and more of "Well, F-types are just as intelligent/logical as Ti-users!", for example, and the most popular ideas will be those of that nature/leaning toward that arena, because F-types understand them and want to believe it, and the F-types who are "leading the pack" are understood by other F-types, and it reinforces their self-image and esteem.

I personally find it strange to describe any F-function as "logical" or even as being involved in Thinking without the T-function involved. But I see functions as in-and-of themselves unless working together to form ideas in a Te/Fi way. So saying "Fi logic" at all, is just strange to me, and yes, it's as-if the people describing it that way need to believe their main or F-function is involved in logical analysis/thinking.

[ashlesha]

okay, so who is bullshitting...?

[ashlesha]

i'm not going to speak about Fi as a concept but my own experience is that the frameworks and judgments in my head and the factors i use for decisions are mostly feeling-based. which might leave out important details that somebody else with a more brainyish disposition might catch but IMO(!) has an honesty that gets brushed away when things are rationalized and some more flexibility. i don't really see myself as using "rigorous Fi logic" or whatever and i don't really feel much need to assign "logic" as a major component of the way i usually function because i don't see it as particularly important to be honest.

[Ryan]

duh. Can ya' explain that again? It's not necessarily superior compared TO anything that I'm speaking of, just in-general, superior intelligence and a lot of F-types and Fi-users here need to validate themselves, I've noticed. Make sense? Alot of people on the net in-general need to believe they are intelligent/logical in order to reinforce their own self-esteem. Their self-image is based on it. Some forums are NT-based, "Oh, NT's are obv the most intelligent and F-types are dumb!", for example. This site seems to be very F-oriented, and more of "Well, F-types are just as intelligent/logical as Ti-users!", for example, and the most popular ideas will be those of that nature, because F-types understand them and the F-types who are "leading the pack", and it reinforces their self-image and esteem.

Where the fuck did you come from? I wholeheartedly agree.

[aixelsyd]

Fi creative indicates the individual easily recognizes attachments, feelings between individuals, and held sentiments as well as easily manipulates this sort of information and does so on deliberation. Fe creative indicates recognizing emotional states, moods, and what someone is experiencing on a subjective emotional basis at a given time and manipulates this information quite readily.

Fi creative is more inclined toward dealing with these relational ethics and sentiments than dealing with inner states that can fluctuate while Fe creative is more concerned with reading emotional states and manipulating them.

Example: Fi creative might find it more interesting to try and mediate two people's differences and settle them to promote truthful and harmonious relations. Fe creative might try to dispel tension in a situation and lighten the mood or be one to point out what a person is really feeling despite the person's efforts to mask their true feelings. I also notice Fe creatives might say or do things that play on a person's real feelings in order to bait the person to say something or act in a way that lets their "true colors show" so to speak.

More visible examples include those from the few shows I watch. One is Ellen Morgan from Ellen who often goes out of her way to make two people like each other or to smooth over hard feelings someone feels for her. She is Fi creative. I also commonly cite Okita from the sitcom anime, Gintama for Fe creative and basically using his ability to convey whatever emotion he desires to fuck with other people in line with his sadistic nature. He can tell what they are feeling and thinking and knows what to say and do and how to say it and do it to get the desired reaction and to put people through hell. I'd think of a less sadistic example, but whatever.

[Radio]

There are a LOT of F-types and Fi-users here, and they have to validate their superior intelligence and abilities somehow. It's called bullshitting themselves and others.

duh. Can ya' explain that again? It's not necessarily superior compared TO anything that I'm speaking of, just in-general, superior intelligence and a lot of F-types and Fi-users here need to validate themselves, I've noticed. Make sense? Alot of people on the net in-general need to believe they are intelligent/logical in order to reinforce their own self-esteem. Their self-image is based on it. Some forums are NT-based, "Oh, NT's are obv the most intelligent and F-types are dumb!", for example. This site seems to be very F-oriented, and more of "Well, F-types are just as intelligent/logical as Ti-users!", for example, and the most popular ideas will be those of that nature, because F-types understand them and want to believe it, and the F-types who are "leading the pack" are understood by other F-types, and it reinforces their self-image and esteem.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

the irony

[jet city woman]

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

the irony

I don't really see it in myself as much. I don't consider myself an intellect, even. I don't consider myself super-intelligent or well-versed or extraordinary in that manner, and certainly am not as educated as many. (I don't have enough time for it normally, as I have a business I'm starting, an S.O., and a house to decorate and take care of, and other hobbies.) But I will use it in order to troll others who need it. I'm sure you're familiar with this approach.

If someone's bullshitting me telling me about "Fi logic", yea, I'm gonna call bullshit. Feeling functions are not about logic. I've also got my NT/ISTP brothas/sistas to take care of.

[Absurd]

Oh I see, you came to be LSI pretty fast. Good riddance.

[jet city woman]

Oh I see, you came to be LSI pretty fast. Good riddance.

Lol, I don't really KNOW what type I am yet. I'm just trying different ones on for size as I learn about them. If you're nice, tho, you can be included in my little inner circle.

[Absurd]

Lol, I don't really KNOW what type I am yet. I'm just trying different ones on for size as I learn about them. If you're nice, tho, you can be included in my little inner circle.

Judging by those not very overt hate threads about me, I think you're replying to the wrong person. Wrong number, different other job.

[anndelise]

Regarding "Fi-logic". It might be more appropriate to refer to it as 'Fi-reasoning' (or similar).
To deny that Fi types have their own reasoning process is..well...not all that reasonable.

If you look at the aspects involved, socionics' Fi and Ti have similarities. Mainly those of dealing with the 'static relationships between things, people, and events'. In other words, both Fi and Ti deal with how things relate to other things, people to people, people to things, people to events, events to events, concepts to concepts, etc. Unlike the dynamic fields however, the static fields deal with those relationships which are relatively stable and/or consistent. So yes, both Fi and Ti reason out how these things, people, events, and concepts are connected/related to other things, people, and concepts.

The distinctive differences between Ti and Fi is that Ti makes those connections through a process of abstracting and expliciteness. While Fi makes those connections based on how each item influences the psyche...which is a process of experiencing and impliciteness.

Iow
Ti-reasoning would be along the lines of reasoning out the connections based on what's been made clear and explicit.
Fi-reasoning would be along the lines of reasoning out the connections based on how the psyche was influenced.

Asking the Fi to clarify and make their reasoning more explicit is akin to asking them to Ti their Fi. Such that when it's heard...it's easy to assume that it's based off of Ti processing, rather than a translation attempt.

Being capable of reasoning and making connections between things, people, events, concepts, etc does not equate to being an intellectual.

[jet city woman]

Judging by those not very overt hate threads about me, I think you're replying to the wrong person. Wrong number, different other job.

Hate threads? ??????

[jet city woman]

Regarding "Fi-logic". It might be more appropriate to refer to it as 'Fi-reasoning' (or similar).
To deny that Fi types have their own reasoning process is..well...not all that reasonable.

Supposedly judgments are formed with Fi, and I disagree that it is done through reasoning. Reasoning is the process of forming judgments from facts or premises. Fi forms judgments based on feelings, specifically. Feelings lead to the forming of judgments, which is the basis. So, it's not based on reasoning or facts, but feelings. No, I don't think that Fi-types lack reasoning or logic lol.... I just think that reasoning and logic aren't coming from Fi. It can be argued that judgments are formed based on feelings with Fi, and therefore, reasoning is being used. According to definition, I don't agree with it, tho.

[squark]

Supposedly judgments are formed with Fi, and I disagree that it is done through reasoning. Reasoning is the process of forming judgments from facts or premises. Fi forms judgments based on feelings, specifically. Feelings lead to the forming of judgments, which is the basis. So, it's not based on reasoning or facts, but feelings. No, I don't think that Fi-types lack reasoning or logic lol.... I just think that reasoning and logic aren't coming from Fi. It can be argued that judgments are formed based on feelings with Fi, and therefore, reasoning is being used. According to definition, I don't agree with it, tho.

Consider the instinct subtypes thread. You FELT something to be true, and continued to assert its veracity in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Unfounded belief that you labeled "optimism" was nothing but your own feelings about the subject. You claimed that nobody could understand you because of "Ti" which wasn't Ti at all. You have a belief that you wish to hold, but it doesn't follow an explicit or clear line of thought or reason. Pointing out the errors in the way you were thinking, and how it was neither coherent nor logical was met with nothing but more "nobody understands me" whining. Radio most definitely has a point when he says that you project.

Anyway, if you wish to take issue with the word "reasoning" for how Fi types describe their thinking, at least realize that it is a cause-and-effect, how things are related means of processing, and instead of picking at the semantics, consider the idea that they are attempting to communicate. Anndelise described the difference between Ti and Fi very clearly, and it'd be worth your while to read it without trying to nitpick.

[jet city woman]

Consider the instinct subtypes thread. You FELT something to be true, and continued to assert its veracity..... Belief that you labeled "optimism"

I agree, somewhat. Some of my views in the "instinct types" thread ARE based on Fe, and therefore, aren't based on reasoning. Ti is used with Fe in order to create reasoning and logic, and to argue. Make sense? I picked and chose from the cultural beliefs surrounding me, and it's about that. It's also about granting myself as much freedom as possible, which actually is something that i learned from experience, that i can manipulate my thoughts in order to achieve maximum results and get more of what I want, based on Fe. Yes, the base is of a non-reasoning nature, and Ti is definitely involved there.....

[squark]

Ti is used with Fe in order to create reasoning and logic, and to argue. Make sense?

No, lol. You're just digging yourself further into a hole.