Minus Fe (-Fe) in leading Fe types
I am curious about how minus Fe works in leading Fe types, like an ESE. Does anybody know how to explain that?
This is minus Fe : ::: "− Fe - negative emotions, grief, sorrow, sadness, emotional recession, depression, crying, tears, frustration, pessimism, poor mood, the experience of unhappiness;"
Socionics -
the16types.info
It is also described as this:
-Fe = minimization or avoidance of negative emotions, prevention of quarrels, scandals, and other situations causing emotional instability, which is valued as more important than creation of positive emotional effect.
Socionics -
the16types.info
2nd description is what I know.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Basically it's viscerally upsetting to sense another person's negative emotions; the gut reaction is to want to change that or to get out of the place.
My ESE friend is an emotional sponge and sometimes doesn't realise how much other people's moods are affecting her (often needs it pointing out by a third party). Occasionally she'll become withdrawn and sit around in her house for a while, find distractions then have a cry and want to talk it (logic seeking). This is usually when she's not sure how to deal with something/overwhelmed. It can also come out in negativity towards other people and sometimes saying things she regrets.
Being a little emotionally labile means she usually gets everything out and bounces back really quickly.
I know it sounds like it could go for many people. But it's so much more amplified with her. She's a bit like a puppy emotion-wise.
Is that -Fe?
One of the misconceptions about the minus functions is that they are perceived as masochistically biased because there is too much negative in their description. But in reality no sane person enjoys negative things and this holds true for people's minus functions as well. The difference with the plus function is that a negative one is not affraid of negative information, it can handle it without neurotic desire to get rid of it as soon as possible or close the eyes to the negative. If needed, a negative function can stay in the negative subject and calmly look for ways to improve the situation. Also in contrast to a plus function it tends to have a more general and less detailed picture, which allows to comprehend the whole range or scale of the problem.
If the question is about how it looks in real life, then an ESE type posesses a very vide range of emotinal expession and all of them are valuable to him/her. Sometimes this type can even savor his/her bad mood. My daughter is of this type, and it is amaizing how she can pass on from laughter to tears and then back again. I have impression that she must to have her dayly ration of good and bad moods. One evening, when she was 10 years old she said to me amd my wife that is seems to her that she didn't cry since a long time and in 5 minutes she was already crying. Of course, the last example is a bit out of normal but it demonstrates that negative emotions are no big problem to her.
However in contrast to an elaborated and refined emotional play of an EIE type, emotions of an ESE are rather straightforward, plain and "wholsale". An ESE can be an emotional sponge and it is quite natural for this type..
By the way, I would differentiate between emotions (
) and quarrels which are rather related to
.
This is to me a rather large generalisation of the types, moving into personality modus operandus. I think + and - is irrelevant, functions are functions regardless of where they are lets not obsfucate things more.
Well, I suppose i'm curious whereabouts where you are coming from, so I read your post with interest, thanks.
I would agree with you that these are fine details as opposed to a basic model. However they are observable. Moreover, in socionics school of my tradition they allow an expert to decide between certain types in complicated cases of identification.
You could make a little experiment to make sure for yourself that signs exist and function. If you ask a person a general question and the person is trying to narrow down your question to something more concrete, then most likely that his respective function has sign plus. If the person is answering the question not being confused with it sounding too general, then most likely we see a minus function. I assure you that, from my experience, the sign phenomenon can be observed quite clearly.
This is the thing.
Fe is different in EIE than ESE because of functional blocking, Fe is with Ni in EIE and with Si in ESE. You are better explaining this with functional blocking rather than trying to attach further defintions to a standalone function which does not exist in real life.
Even better, this is what type descriptions are for, so it seems like an exercise in redundancy.
Why not just use functional blocking descriptions or type descriptions rather than attach symbols to a function?
Probably you would be surprized but neither socionics types exist in real life. In real life exist only people
Because fuctional grouping does not explain signs. For example ESE and SEE have the same functional blocking but different signs of respective functions. SEE can show negativeWhy not just use functional blocking descriptions or type descriptions rather than attach symbols to a function?
Well if none of the types exist don't know how you can make a comment about ESE andProbably you would be surprized but neither socionics types exist in real life. In real life exist only people
Because fuctional grouping does not explain signs. For example ESE and SEE have the same functional blocking but different signs of respective functions. SEE can show negativeThanks for your reply.
Concepts.Well if none of the types exist don't know how you can make a comment about ESE and
If you can touch it with your finger, it exists. If you can not, it is an idea/concept. Socionics is a concept. Therefore, you can not touch it with your finger. So it does not exist.
Most things in the world actually worth talking about do not exist. I think the guy's choice of words was to incite the idea in your head that niether method is more valid than the other. Since both are merely constructs to explain the same phenomenon.
Personally, i think the two do not contradict. And the two explain the same thing from a different "angle", or "wavelength". Therefore if one does not help adequately, the other might. I often fall back on Reinin to determine something that is not apparent.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Well, my sister talks a lot about these things, she will say how sad she is and how she remembers not being loved a certain way by my parents; even though ESE are a positivist type, which is just noticing the good parts of someone else, when it comes to them, they hold on to a lot of negative energy.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Concepts also have definitions, I don't know if I would want to call an electron for instance a + electron and a - electron and mean something different from a negative charge or matter/antimatter (well apart from whether we can touch or predict an electrons position but we apparently know they exist) if I didn't want to confuse myself and dear readers with additional unnecessary stuff.
But yeah as a concept it could be interesting to discuss and I do agree with you about the stuff that's interesting to talk about, escapism is nice for me as well. I salute you, dear sir.
Reply With Quote
