# Thread: Disjointed socionical thoughts 9.36a

1. ## Disjointed socionical thoughts 9.36a

Fe can be understood as shallow nuance, but also as a small incremental change of perspective. incremental in the sense that the change can not be divided up into parts that can themselves be understood independently.

F functions seem to have something to do with adjectives. they can be understood as registering a unique difference; one comprehensible only in terms of itself.

F = qualities
T = quantities

the human perceptual organ seems to bring perspectival input in a way that does not incorporate small enough changes for them to qualify as Fe. in a sense, the Fe is only arrived at mentally by dividing up the Te perspectival saccades. you see two images in sequence, too different to be suitable for direct association, then you find the pictures that should go in between them to form a smooth transition. the process by which this happens is crucial to understanding the system as a whole.

under entirely different circumstances the reverse happens. you take a picture and then latch together small, incremental changes so as to create a direct sequence of two disparate states, connected by an arbitrary transition, an analytical method of transiting from A to B. this is the process of deriving T from F. it happens not during perception but when forming plans and expectations of the future prior to observing it.

the two are opposites and non-interchangeable.

the challenge is figuring out how this relates to the N, T, S, F, N cycle and how this cycle is then ontologico-mathematically understood.

2. Basically you're saying that Te->Fe goes by integrating the infinitesimal steps between two Te inputs. And similarly, you're implying F->T goes by differentiation of such wholeness.

Disagree. Both Te and Fe are dynamic. From your POV, Fe is, in certain way, more dynamic than Te, as if Fe is a sort of continuum whereas Te is not. More than this, you cannot generalize this to T versus F, due to the fact that Fi is static. Also Ti is, but if you integrate infinite Ti degrees inside Fi, it lost its nature.

I think you're overcomplicating the issue by a too theoretical analysis. Your POV also fails to explain conflict between creative and PoLR, because there would be nothing that prevents Ti-Fi or Te-Fe to work cooperatively. I think they're simply two expressions of the same information processing but just from two different references; the user (case F) and outside the user (case T). They are respectively processed by two conflicting brainpaths, the empatic and logic one.

3. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
the user (case F) and outside the user (case T). They are respectively processed by two conflicting brainpaths, the empatic and logic one.
makes sense. Fe/Ti aka subjectivists see everything as being about personal opinion, interpretation. So in case of Fe creatives they'd get to focused on "maybe what just went down is just biased in some way or another thus can't be taken at face value" (opposite of the judge a book by its cover approach of Te: call a spade a spade) & thus can't replicate what it sees as easily as Te can.

I was there when gummibearz said to woofwoofl in chat sth about "it's play time now so now we can [sth]" which woof replied to with "as far I know there's only one time!". So Te could criticize Fe for being unable to replicate sth but Fe comes right back with sth about the context excusing it (from here, Fe's tendency to look for biases also arises).

Seems like this doesn't go just for contexts but also roles... Fe/Ti is merry so doesn't take things srsly so role plays more or sth like that. Alpha fun only, beta rehearsal for the "big battle". Thus archetypes are easily associated with merry quadra (esp ENFj the actor); doesn't seem to be a big divide between archetype & role...

Bias/partiality has sth to do with context, expectations & "impurity" imo. You don't call a gardener biased for creating a beautiful garden nor do you accuse a designated villain of being biased towards evil... It's only when they get incongruent that bias enters the picture. So Ti as dividing the world into contexts/categories & Fe as intersubjective "translator" sits well with me. Fi is then a more holistic, unified field so simpler.

I recall reading sth about Fi disliking big changes & also wanting human experience to be somewhat uniform. If ppl are relatively similar, then one can understand another person if one shares experiences with them. "I had that experience, so I understand what you're going thru" which clashes with Ti/Fe insistence on subjectivity.

Both on the forum & in descriptions it's mentioned that Te/Fi values experience a lot & I know lecter here also thinks similarly. I remember him saying in a old post sth about according to Te "if you weren't here, didn't turn the handle, didn't do everything single little detail you don't know what it's like". That was badly paraphrased cuz I'm working off of memory but I hope I got the general message across.

On the accuracy-speed scale I'd have Te as going with speed, Ti with accuracy. Ti, esp Ti-doms should be the best at seeing all the implications from short, meaningful words (e.g. "subjectivism" within socionics) & is thus compatible with Fe which reads between the lines & is essentially dynamics full of implications (I don't agree with cause-effect as having to do with Je, CD cog has that already)... raising a white flag sends a different message in a war then in many other contexts.

Te's sheer speed is useful when it's easier to simply act. This should be the case when buying computers cuz tech gets so outdated that creating a complicated plan for when to buy such & such is just pointless. Ti's staticness blocks it off from further input kinda, a kind of sterility. Assuming Absurd is Te-ego, he's opposed to that, & doesn't rely on the internality of F functions either:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Originally Posted by zap
cuz I don't see how your objectivity can be reconciled with many non-consensus realities.
It isn't "mine", I don't hold any rights to it. Nor have I locked it in a dungeon without bread and water to never see the light of day.
The impermeability of static prolly makes it seem arbitrary to dynamics... Seems static either thinks it has it all figured out (CD cog) or it's not worth doing much (HP cog). Dynamics otoh is willing to just go with it (VS cog) & to reconcile (DA cog).

For Te's objectivity to work you have to take everything as face value unless there's a good reason not to, such as the source being malicious or problematic (not taking things at face value themselves). This fits with what Expat said in old posts about Fi/Te rationals being very vulnerable to being lied to in relations. So if input suddenly isn't accepted, that's relational transgression as far as Fi is concerned. Jung said wants to create world law, so this would be what brings human experience "closer" & more easily understandable, works well for Fi.

I thought lecter was referring to sth in Fe that reminds me of Ni's (shared internal dynamics) ability to bridge gaps & operate in information scarcity (strong emergence) & sth in Te that reminds of Si's preference for weak emergence.

Dunno if my post clears up anything or not. Feedback?

edit: also in regards to Fi's internality it seems to notice particular/internal ones. "like whenever that guy things get affected in this peculiar way" so it smooths out problems that can't be beaten with brute external force.

4. in case anyone got the wrong idea this isn't a discussion thread. these claims are not open to negotiation and will only change when i feel like it without outside suggestion. none of the reactions so far were remotely useful.

ps. mensupermateriam is on ignore for wrapping an insult in a feignedly constructive post

5. @zap no offense, but I found your post a bit fragmented and difficult for reading, so maye what I'm going to say is not accurate.

Apparently, you have taken both Ti/Fe as subjectivists and Te/Fi as objectivists. That was not what I was trying to say, but both Ts (Ti & Te) as "objective" (understood as point of reference outside its user) and both Fs (Fi & Fe) as "subjective" (point of reference inside its user).

Ti as subjetive, because it's an introverted function, is closer to MBTI understanding of this topic. T functions, regardless object (Te) or field (Ti) are both external, meaning what was said bout reference.

True that Ti uses a sort of internal framework that makes it, in certain way, more subjetive than Te, but both bunctions talk [are focused on] about reality (external, objective) wereas Fe & Fi are focused in experiences (internal, subjective) so to speak.

Fi deals with attraction/repulsion kind of relations (like/dislike, good/bad, etc) and this is a purely subjective topic.

6. @lecter, all threads are open to discussion. That's what implies being in a forum. You can always write a blog or something if you do not like this.

Which insult, by the way?

7. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Apparently, you have taken both Ti/Fe as subjectivists and Te/Fi as objectivists. That was not what I was trying to say, but both Ts (Ti & Te) as "objective" (understood as point of reference outside its user) and both Fs (Fi & Fe) as "subjective" (point of reference inside its user).

Ti as subjetive, because it's an introverted function, is closer to MBTI understanding of this topic. T functions, regardless object (Te) or field (Ti) are both external, meaning what was said bout reference.

True that Ti uses a sort of internal framework that makes it, in certain way, more subjetive than Te, but both bunctions talk [are focused on] about reality (external, objective) wereas Fe & Fi are focused in experiences (internal, subjective) so to speak.

Fi deals with attraction/repulsion kind of relations (like/dislike, good/bad, etc) and this is a purely subjective topic.
Well, its honestly all about how you choose to divide the concepts. Its sort of Hotdogs and Hamburgers here. You're folding one way with the words Subjective/Objective and they may be folding another.

Te/Ti being Objective is cool. Your rationale is fair. But you're arguing that your quantification is more accurate than there's is. Which it's not. They're both essentially equal, as both the lines are arbitrary.
But when it comes to discussing something purely conceptual like Socionics is, you have to agree on what certain words mean in order for them to have any usefulness. Ti/Fe are established as Subjectivists as it's just another way to understand what the word Merry encapsulates. Objectivists, the same with serious.

8. Originally Posted by Pookie
...But you're arguing that your quantification is more accurate than there's is. Which it's not. They're both essentially equal, as both the lines are arbitrary.
Well technically I have not argued which choice is more accurate. I was merely specifying what I meant in my original post because Zap could have misundertood it.

If you are saying that what is understood by subjective/objective depends on the definition of such words, I have to agree (this could be applied to anything). But that they're equal, not necessarily. It depends on which one represents better observed behavior.

But when it comes to discussing something purely conceptual like Socionics is, you have to agree on what certain words mean in order for them to have any usefulness. Ti/Fe are established as Subjectivists as it's just another way to understand what the word Merry encapsulates. Objectivists, the same with serious.
Yes to bolded part. Although I'm not completely sure, afaik Ti/Fe as "subjectivists" is exclusively based in merry/serious dichotomy you've mentioned. Reinin dichotomies are not universally acknowledged (except by Gulenko and his circle) and I am more skeptic about them than I am about mainstream Socionics. I can't recall the exact location, but Ts as objective and Fs as subjective are defined in such way by the same theory (I think I read about it in Rick's web). Anyway, it is a definition I agree, and I personally see it as better than the alternative.

But if you want, we can deal with Te as doubly objective, Ti as objective/subjective, Fe as the subjective/objective, and Fi as doubly subjective. With this, you can observe certain problematic inside the merry/serious dichotomy. Because it's not the same valuing objectivity than being objective. Fi doms are not objective per se by any of those standards, regardless being serious. Te as DS is their weakest function (alongside PoLR).

9. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Well technically I have not argued which choice is more accurate. I was merely specifying what I meant in my original post because Zap could have misundertood it.

If you are saying that what is understood by subjective/objective depends on the definition of such words, I have to agree (this could be applied to anything). But that they're equal, not necessarily. It depends on which one represents better observed behavior.

Yes to bolded part. Although I'm not completely sure, afaik Ti/Fe as "subjectivists" is exclusively based in merry/serious dichotomy you've mentioned. Reinin dichotomies are not universally acknowledged (except by Gulenko and his circle) and I am more skeptic about them than I am about mainstream Socionics. I can't recall the exact location, but Ts as objective and Fs as subjective are defined in such way by the same theory (I think I read about it in Rick's web). Anyway, it is a definition I agree, and I personally see it as better than the alternative.

But if you want, we can deal with Te as doubly objective, Ti as objective/subjective, Fe as the subjective/objective, and Fi as doubly subjective. With this, you can observe certain problematic inside the merry/serious dichotomy. Because it's not the same valuing objectivity than being objective. Fi doms are not objective per se by any of those standards, regardless being serious. Te as DS is their weakest function (alongside PoLR).
I would say that the better one is the one that helps bridge gaps in communication, to keep everyone on the same wavelength. But i see where youre coming from.

I'm pretty sure it is exclusively based on the merry/serious dichotomy. Though i don't think that the Valuing objectivity not equaling being objective matters much. For the point Subjective/Objective represents, i feel the word is enough to get the idea. Too much fracturing and fragmenting and i will get lost in the details, though it might help those that don't get it in the form its produced.

Personally, i think the Reinin Dichotomies are great, as sliding scales between opposing ideas.

10. Originally Posted by Pookie
Though i don't think that the Valuing objectivity not equaling being objective matters much. For the point Subjective/Objective represents, i feel the word is enough to get the idea.
The problem is this concept (or better concept definition) objectivity is applied to whole groups (serious quadras) when it only represents accurately Te egos, but not their duals. And simultaneously, it fits (even if not so well) in Ti egos despite being merry.

Serious means "Te/Fi valuing". But those functions are extremely different and cannot be reunited in such Te [Ti] based concept and consequential observable behavior. Facing the task of typing a person, there are high chances of making mistakes when considering being objective as a merry/serious indicator. If the result is worse, "simplifying" concepts is not helpful.

Personally, i think the Reinin Dichotomies are great, as sliding scales between opposing ideas.
That would apply to any dichotomy, not only Reinin. You can always define behavioral extremes and observe if a person is closer to one or the opposite. But that's not the issue.

11. Thats why you don't use the dictionary definition. You use the definition expressed explicitly in Serious or Merry. There's much less confusion that way.

12. take it elsewhere, this thread is mine.

13. Originally Posted by lecter
take it elsewhere, this thread is mine.

14. Originally Posted by Pookie
Thats why you don't use the dictionary definition. You use the definition expressed explicitly in Serious or Merry. There's much less confusion that way.
That is extremely impractical. If you have a word with a common meaning, which fits well in an observable behavior in this particular field, redefining/modifying it for "mixing" two things which have almost nothing in common, provides zero gain. And it would be prone to confusions, which is a goal that you seem to have.

And this is what they've done. There is no "new meaning" in merry/serious description. Just a mixed set of Te properties (mostly those which would be commonly understood as objective) with a set of Fi properties, and the whole thing is called "objectivism". But it's still a lie, because such set is presented as a common ground for serious types (that is, every user will evenly manifest these characteristics) and this is not true. As I have already commented, Fi users could value objectivism but they, per se, do not behave in this way (all things equal). Te is one of their weakest function.

The definition of the dichotomy is mainly useless for identifying types.

15. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
That is extremely impractical. If you have a word with a common meaning, which fits well in an observable behavior in this particular field, redefining/modifying it for "mixing" two things which have almost nothing in common, provides zero gain. And it would be prone to confusions, which is a goal that you seem to have.

And this is what they've done. There is no "new meaning" in merry/serious description. Just a mixed set of Te properties (mostly those which would be commonly understood as objective) with a set of Fi properties, and the whole thing is called "objectivism". But it's still a lie, because such set is presented as a common ground for serious types (that is, every user will evenly manifest these characteristics) and this is not true. As I have already commented, Fi users could value objectivism but they, per se, do not behave in this way (all things equal). Te is one of their weakest function.

The definition of the dichotomy is mainly useless for identifying types.
Ill respond to this fully later today because i disagree, but to your last point:

That's, just, like... your opinion, man.

16. thread overrun by dorks. closed.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•