What does it mean to Fi/Fe

[Creepy-male]

So I was talking to a friend the other day and we were talking about the types of our friends. He noted I was a Rational (in Kiersey), and that I was much better at thinking than his other friends. He noted he was an Idealist (in Kiersey), and that he was much more advance in feeling than his other friends.

This got me thinking later, how the hell can someone be "advanced" in feeling?

After thinking about it I realized that there are two sides to feeling -- being sensitive to the world emotionally and taking in how you feel things. This is the introverted side of feelings as you are not sharing this externally. Second is developing emotional connections with people, sharing love, pride, hate, or whatever other emotion is there. This is the extroverted side.

What do u think it is to be "advanced" in feeling, and is it possible for a person to have a good mastery of say the introverted side of feeling but not the extroverted. I believe I am very sensitive to experiencing feelings and distinguishing feelings on people and empathizing, but I find it painstakingly hard to connect to people emotionally on the spot since I am soo analytical and intuitive.

[Brilliand]

Advancedness in makes more sense than advancedness in , though both have some sense to them. Advancedness in is about having experience that can be called up as the situation demands - things like, sometimes when you hug an angry person it makes them calm down. Advancedness in is more theoretical in nature, much like is more theoretical than - it comes from having put a great deal of thought into emotions and formed a view of how emotions should be dealt with.

and are not logical in nature, but they have the same situational vs. universal nature that separates from .

In general: Static functions advance, Dynamic functions deal with temporary things.

[Danielle]

I don't know, maybe this might be related: The 5 Levels of the Feeling Function

[Creepy-male]

Advancedness in makes more sense than advancedness in , though both have some sense to them. Advancedness in is about having experience that can be called up as the situation demands - things like, sometimes when you hug an angry person it makes them calm down. Advancedness in is more theoretical in nature, much like is more theoretical than - it comes from having put a great deal of thought into emotions and formed a view of how emotions should be dealt with.

and are not logical in nature, but they have the same situational vs. universal nature that separates from .

In general: Static functions advance, Dynamic functions deal with temporary things.

1) From my understanding people have a PoLR, Place of Least Resistance, I've always viewed this as they are weaker and undeveloped in that function, which is exactly opposite to the function in which they are dominant in (and hence developed). So I've always noticed there is this sort of relation between functions being developed and undeveloped. So shouldn't this imply that in theory, all functions can be considered to have "advancedness" that can be developed.

2) What do u make of what I mentioned about the difference of introverted and extroverted feeling.

That introverted feeling is concerned with being sensitive to the emotions that are invoked within yourself and not obvious to the external world. Its simply your receptivness, openness, and awaress to feelings.

Whereas extroverted feeling is concerned with the connections people have when they are around one another. Its something that would be extremely obvious (if even unconciously obvious) to those around them.

Does this at all Correlate with Fi/Fe in Socionics?

I don't know, maybe this might be related: The 5 Levels of the Feeling Function

VERY interesting, never knew about the 5 stages of feeling. However it would seem to me this entire stage setup is a pathway to greater empathic understanding through feeling. I guess I was speaking less about such a pathway and more just about the mechanics of personality. As in what does it mean to be a "Master at Feeling", I know what it means to be a "Master at Thinking" -- it means to be a brilliant, genius, and profoundly intellectual. What does it mean to be a "Master at Feeling"? From the 5 stages it sounds as though its simply being a master at empathy, not so much in just identifying the way people feel empathically but in the capacity to fully experience their profound feelings on things. And if that is the case then what purpose does that serve in life, is their more value on empathy in life than on intellect? Are one of these types the one with short straw when it comes to life?

Also in term of the 5 stages, I believe I am stuck on 3 to 4, I am aware of my feelings at most times, I can create art to mirror that backdrop, and I attempt to organize experiences in my life based on what I value but I find trouble in relating to other people on a feeling level, to develop intersubjectivity and develop meaningful relationships. I mean I develop relationships but their is a lack of that deeper aspect that is described in stage 4.

[Marie84]

That introverted feeling is concerned with being sensitive to the emotions that are invoked within yourself and not obvious to the external world. Its simply your receptivness, openness, and awaress to feelings.

That's Fe'ish

Whereas extroverted feeling is concerned with the connections people have when they are around one another. Its something that would be extremely obvious (if even unconciously obvious) to those around them.

That's Fi'ish

Does this at all Correlate with Fi/Fe in Socionics?

Not really

[Creepy-male]

Not really

Ok before I attempt to refute what you said, let me make sure I understand something....

Why is Fi called Introverted Feeling? Specifically what is so introverted about it if it is concerned more with interacting with people.

Secondly why is Fe called Extraverted Feeling? Specifically what is so extraverted about it... etc?

[Marie84]

Ok before I attempt to refute what you said, let me make sure I understand something....

How can you refute me if we're using two different typing systems, you MBTI and me Socionics?

Why is Fi called Introverted Feeling? Specifically what is so introverted about it if it is concerned more with interacting with people.

Fi is an evaluating function, it's internal and therefore introverted.'

Relations does not mean having many close bounds, it means the distance between one person and another. Interaction is not even necessary for this either, it can be observed as well.
It is most beneficial when used in a relation but can also be used to provide input for someone else relations.

I guess one way of putting it is, Fi is knowing when you're "stepping on someones toes"

Secondly why is Fe called Extraverted Feeling? Specifically what is so extraverted about it... etc?

It's an exterior function, and thus Extroverted.
It's used when showing, expressing or judging anothers emotional output. It's something that you can see, unlike Fi.
Example from Socionics.org:

positive emotions - happiness, merriment, emotional lift, enthusiasm, laughter, optimism, a good mood, the experience of happiness

negative emotions - grief, melancholy, emotional decrease, depression, weeping, tear, dissatisfaction, pessimism, poor mood, the experience of misfortune.

[Creepy-male]

How can you refute me if we're using two different typing systems, you MBTI and me Socionics? .

Ok so you basically said "not really" when I asked if what I said at all correlates to socionics. Yet your first two responses seem to suggest what I said correlates to socionics; an inverse correlation that is

In your first response you noted what I called introverted is Fe in socionics... I quote

That's Fe'ish

In your second response you noted what I called extroverted is Fi in socionics... I quote

That's Fi'ish

That sounds like a correlation to me, which suggests that the comment at your end was less about discussing the relation between MBTI and socionics more like you were saying "You got it wrong its the reverse"... but how could I have gotten it wrong if I was using a different typing system? . Its like telling someone speaking another language they aren't speaking properly and is a bit rude and arrogant. Of course I don't want to finger point, maybe I am just reading into it too much but I took it as a bit of a challenge when you said "not really". I could care less about being right and more about what is right (what is the underlying truth here), I honestly just want to get other peoples feedback on what it means to be a "Master at Feeling", rather than amass nochs on my belt for "arguments won".


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Second the introverted in Fi is used in the context of internal attributes
and extraverted in Fe is used in the context of external attributes

it has nothing to do with internal/external relations to people

is that correct?

[Marie84]

I said "not really" because the definitions didn't really correspond with Socionics. There were bits and pieces of the functions, but neither is really a function on its own, hence why I added the "ish"


"That introverted feeling is concerned with being sensitive to the emotions that are invoked within yourself and not obvious to the external world. Its simply your receptivness, openness, and awaress to feelings."

Bits and pieces of Fe with some Fi ^


"Whereas extroverted feeling is concerned with the connections people have when they are around one another. Its something that would be extremely obvious (if even unconciously obvious) to those around them."

The first part could fit into Fi, the second part not so much ^

I'm not saying you got it wrong, I said we're using two different typing methods. If I spoke Socionics on an MBTI board it would be the same thing

Second the introverted in Fi is used in the context of internal attributes
and extraverted in Fe is used in the context of external attributes

it has nothing to do with internal/external relations to people

is that correct?

This is, basically, how the use of Fi applies to relations. I highlighted the parts that apply to the general use, not just for Fi leading types:

"Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual."

Fe:
"Extroverted ethics is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity."

[Creepy-male]

If I spoke Socionics on an MBTI board it would be the same thing

Ok I mean that sounds fair but I mean in essence I could care less about if this is a board of Socionics of MBTI, both are just way of understanding people, and thats what I care about, sometimes I find Socionics too restrictive, other times I find it more useful, I mean Socionics or MBTI are made by people to describe people - people aren't made by Socionics or MBTI. These personalities are just tools to aid people towards understanding something on a much more fundamental level.

Now that I've said my part... I guess all I am wondering is what it is to be a "Master of Feeling" that was my orginal question/point.... what does it mean to Fi/Fe, as in what does it mean to Fi/Fe and not something else. What does it mean to be Fi/Fe Dominant.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-male]

In a nutshell of my understanding, the feeling types, meaning who have Fi or Fe in the ego, judge things more considering their background, their connection to them. Fe types make more often choices they prefer without necessarily having logical reasons. For example buying a beautiful thing when on low on budget. Fi consider more things that have something in common with them. The same apply to people.

k this I understand, Feeling types are subjective rather than objective. That is to say they develop value for things based on how it makes them feel. Then they seek those things which hold that value to them. Since values are highly individual and opinion based they seek things in life in a subjective manner.

So Fe is external feeling, so it would be the outward aspect of something which is assessed for value; more superficial in nature.

Fi is the internal feeling, so it would be the inward aspect of something which is assessed for value; more profound in nautre.

Just throwing it out there, but would it make sense to say Fe types may easily fall into relationships simply for superficial reasons, like the person is fun to be around, or they are attracted to them. Whereas Fi fall into relationships with people they connect to or typically what is refered to as "chemistry". That isn't to say Fe types are shallow and dumb, eventually if they didn't connect with someone, certain external aspects would come out that would turn them off to that person. Would this be a correct assumption?

[Krig the Viking]

So Fe is external feeling, so it would be the outward aspect of something which is assessed for value; more superficial in nature.

Fi is the internal feeling, so it would be the inward aspect of something which is assessed for value; more profound in nautre.

This is a common misconception, created by the fact that "extraversion" and "introversion" don't mean quite the same things in socionics as they do in normal usage.

Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.

Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relationships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships, which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changeing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.

That's my understanding, anyway.

[Marie84]

Ok I mean that sounds fair but I mean in essence I could care less about if this is a board of Socionics of MBTI

But it's a Socionics board. There is a section on this board for other type theories called "Other Personality Typologies"

both are just way of understanding people, and thats what I care about, sometimes I find Socionics too restrictive, other times I find it more useful, I mean Socionics or MBTI are made by people to describe people - people aren't made by Socionics or MBTI. These personalities are just tools to aid people towards understanding something on a much more fundamental level.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. They're still two conflicting typologies

Now that I've said my part... I guess all I am wondering is what it is to be a "Master of Feeling" that was my orginal question/point.... what does it mean to Fi/Fe, as in what does it mean to Fi/Fe and not something else. What does it mean to be Fi/Fe Dominant.

That would depend on the type, as the creative function affects the dominant one, so an FiNe and an FiSe will have a different process, just like FeNi and FeSi's do, since ones is the others vulnerable function (weak and undervalued)

You can read explanations for how the types use the functions on the type profiles here Category:Type descriptions - Wikisocion

[Marie84]

note that their Logical valuers, respectively Ti for Fe and Te for Fi, have many things in common with their Ethical pair. For example Te's are more likely to value tradition like Fi's, when Ti's to value novelty, life change, like Fe's.

Ti's prioritize positive feelings and emotional comfort wheres Te's prioritize positive, clear and stable relations. Ti's still need Fi, but through the filter of Fe, just like Te's need Fe, but through the filter of Fi.

I disagree with tradition and change being aligned to Te and Ti, as those are rather subjective terms
Beta Ti's are certainly not going to value novelty since they don't value whereas Deltas and Alphas do. TiSe's, for instance, are very steadfast people who generally dislike change once they have established a certain direction or mindset.
Just as many Te's will ignore traditions that don't make any sense

[silverchris9]

Wouldn't being advanced in extroverted feeling be something like being adept at communicating an emotion/inducing an emotional state in others? Sounds like something that would be related to "performance" both on a stage or a modicum of "performance" (not in a negative connotation, but insofar as one causes or allows a change in the emotional state of oneself or another rather than the change "happening to" the individual with no conscious shaping or flavoring, if you will) in real life, which is why some socionics people refer to Fe-leading EIE as the Hamlet type. I agree with Brilland; strength in Fe should be readily visible or measurable by the Fe users degree of efficacy in causing the desire emotional state in the "target", just as Te is measurable in the Te users degree of efficiency in causing the desired change in external state of the "target". Strength in Ti is difficult to find without an external referent (in identical circumstances, will the cause-and-effect unfold as the Ti predicts that it did in another circumstance), and so is strength in Fi, although I can't for the life of me guess how one would find strength in Fi.

[Creepy-male]

Wouldn't being advanced in extroverted feeling be something like being adept at communicating an emotion/inducing an emotional state in others? Sounds like something that would be related to "performance" both on a stage or a modicum of "performance" (not in a negative connotation, but insofar as one causes or allows a change in the emotional state of oneself or another rather than the change "happening to" the individual with no conscious shaping or flavoring, if you will) in real life, which is why some socionics people refer to Fe-leading EIE as the Hamlet type...

This seems to be a good explanation from what I know, so Fe mastery would be seen as emotional interaction with others such as interaction during a performance. I think thats a good practical measure to notice Fe in others. But what would Fi be noticed like in practice, and how does Fi/Fe uniquely manifest itself in different types?

[Creepy-male]

But it's a Socionics board. There is a section on this board for other type theories called "Other Personality Typologies"

good so move it to that section or stop complaining

Perhaps, but that's not the point

I am glad you could clarify what the point of this thread I posted was, I must have forgotten, I am so glad I have people to remind me.

That would depend on the type, as the creative function affects the dominant one, so an FiNe and an FiSe will have a different process, just like FeNi and FeSi's do, since ones is the others vulnerable function (weak and undervalued)

this seems worthwhile since its the only part of your response which wasn't making small hits back at our somewhat stupid and insignificant disagreement. But you can continue, its entertainment at least.

[Brilliand]

1) From my understanding people have a PoLR, Place of Least Resistance, I've always viewed this as they are weaker and undeveloped in that function, which is exactly opposite to the function in which they are dominant in (and hence developed). So I've always noticed there is this sort of relation between functions being developed and undeveloped. So shouldn't this imply that in theory, all functions can be considered to have "advancedness" that can be developed.

Oh, you're talking about something different. What you're calling "advancedness" is what I would call "strength" - it's how effectively you can make progress in an area. advances in the sense that its "progress" is progress in knowledge, and can be applied broadly; advances are progress in whatever is being dealt with in the time, which probably won't apply elsewhere. Thus, knowledge is both more appropriate for the situation and less useful to remember.

Also, note that being developed in a function often implies being weak in another - it isn't as though you can be strong in all functions. As the user PotatoSpirit described it: Past experience is like speed, function strength is like acceleration. Function strength is not how far you've advanced your functions so far, but how quickly they advance in everyday use.

2) What do u make of what I mentioned about the difference of introverted and extroverted feeling.

That introverted feeling is concerned with being sensitive to the emotions that are invoked within yourself and not obvious to the external world. Its simply your receptivness, openness, and awaress to feelings.

Whereas extroverted feeling is concerned with the connections people have when they are around one another. Its something that would be extremely obvious (if even unconciously obvious) to those around them.

Does this at all Correlate with Fi/Fe in Socionics?

You seem to describe Fi and Fe as strictly "Introverted Feeling" and "Extroverted Feeling" whereas my treatment is closer to (in MBTI terms) "Perceiving Feeling" (FP, or in Socionics IXFj and EXFp) and "Judging Feeling" (FJ, or in Socionics EXFj and IXFp).

Now, specifically - you describe Fi and Fe as things in nature there to be observed; I think of them as thought processes that handle the same material in different ways. Thus, I'd say that either or can handle both the forms of feeling that you describe - but will handle it in a more thought-out, "across-the-board" manner, whereas will handle it on an individual basis, meeting each emotion on its own terms. You can see how causes spending time in thought whereas causes devoting more time to action...

[Creepy-male]

This is a common misconception, created by the fact that "extraversion" and "introversion" don't mean quite the same things in socionics as they do in normal usage.

Fe is internal dynamics of objects. This means it is an internal thing sometimes expressed externally. Fe is the ever-shifting mood: excitement and passion and emotion. Fe Ego types are good at sensing and influencing their own moods and the moods of others. Being dynamic, Fe moods can shift and change, but this does not mean Fe is shallow: deep and powerful feelings of passion, love, anger, hope, etc., are all Fe. At its strongest, Fe can be an all-consuming fire that overwhelms everything else.

Fi is internal statics of fields. Fi is all about the connections between people: like and dislike, good relationships and bad relationships. Fi can be friendship, loyalty, trust, dislike, mistrust, hatred. Fi Ego types are good at determining the status of relationships, which people are to be trusted and which are not, etc. Unlike Fe, Fi is a very stable thing, solid and seldom changeing. At its strongest, Fi is an unbreakable bond between people that will resolutely weather all storms and anything that may be thrown at it, or an unswerving loathing that will give no quarter to the enemy.

That's my understanding, anyway.

Hmm so what is considered external dynamic/statics?

[Krig the Viking]

Hmm so what is considered external dynamic/statics?

Here's a list of all of them:

Fe: Internal Dynamics of Objects
Te: External Dynamics of Objects
Fi: Internal Statics of Fields
Ti: External Statics of Fields
Ne: Internal Statics of Objects
Se: External Statics of Objects
Ni: Internal Dynamics of Fields
Si: External Dynamics of Fields

There's more information on this here: Socionics :: Information Elements

[Creepy-male]

Past experience is like speed, function strength is like acceleration. Function strength is not how far you've advanced your functions so far, but how quickly they advance in everyday use.

I don't want to press this analogy too far, but

Past experience = speed
Function strength = acceleration

so I am guessing the distance of which we are talking about is "progress"

Distance = progress

this means...

the rate at which you make progress is a matter of past experience, check; makes sense.

the rate at which you have past experience then would be acceleration, which is function strength. This doesn't make sense, how can personality shape the rate at which you have experience... everyone is constantly having experiences as time moves by.

Its could be better described by a different physics analogy, but I don't want to get all technical with it.

What you say makes sense though, I just feel as though its not always just that simple.

You seem to describe Fi and Fe as strictly "Introverted Feeling" and "Extroverted Feeling" whereas my treatment is closer to (in MBTI terms) "Perceiving Feeling" (FP, or in Socionics IXFj and EXFp) and "Judging Feeling" (FJ, or in Socionics EXFj and IXFp).

So are you saying Fi and Fe are more comparable to "Perceiving Feeling" and "Judging Feeling" in MBTI than "Introverted Feeling" and "Extroverted Feeling".... but let me guess even then its not an exact correlation?

[Creepy-male]

Here's a list of all of them:

Fe: Internal Dynamics of Objects
Te: External Dynamics of Objects
Fi: Internal Statics of Fields
Ti: External Statics of Fields
Ne: Internal Statics of Objects
Se: External Statics of Objects
Ni: Internal Dynamics of Fields
Si: External Dynamics of Fields

There's more information on this here: Socionics :: Information Elements

So as far as keywords go....

Feeling Functions ==> Internal
Introverted Functions ==> Fields
Extroverted Functions ==> Objects

Great now how do these keywords play into observations of people

[Brilliand]

I don't want to press this analogy too far, but

Past experience = speed
Function strength = acceleration

so I am guessing the distance of which we are talking about is "progress"

Distance = progress

this means...

the rate at which you make progress is a matter of past experience, check; makes sense.

the rate at which you have past experience then would be acceleration, which is function strength. This doesn't make sense, how can personality shape the rate at which you have experience... everyone is constantly having experiences as time moves by.

Not the rate at which you have experiences, but the rate at which you process them into meaningful knowledge. "Past experience" only builds up at the rate that your functions accumulate it as you have experiences - we experience reality through the screen of our personality. Anything that you can't process is lost.

So are you saying Fi and Fe are more comparable to "Perceiving Feeling" and "Judging Feeling" in MBTI than "Introverted Feeling" and "Extroverted Feeling".... but let me guess even then its not an exact correlation?

Actually, I don't even know what the MBTI descriptions are for Perceiving/Judging. I bring it up because in terms of where the functions are said to go in the types, it matches up with Socionics' Static/Dynamic, which is the main thing that I use to understand the functions nowadays.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

So as far as keywords go....

Feeling Functions ==> Internal
Introverted Functions ==> Fields
Extroverted Functions ==> Objects

Great now how do these keywords play into observations of people

Right, exactly.

One thing I've noticed with ESEs (certain ones that I know, anyway) is that they like to have long one-on-one talks with people. They like to find out what is going on inside of people: internal dynamics of objects.

With ESIs (again, possibly not all of them, but certainly the ones that I know) I've noticed they are concerned about the idea of 'respect'. If someone is behaving disrespectfully toward someone they think is worthy of respect, they are quick to speak up. They are concerned that the the internal static field between the two people should be an appropriate one.

That's all I can think of right now; if I think of more I'll post them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Marie84]

Novelty is not strictly dependent on Ne. All extroverts enjoy it, but in different manners.

Novelty is generally used to describe irregular and unique newness, which is more associated with Ne, as Ne doesn't process in a continues pattern like Ni, rather it adds continuous random (novel) information.

What about SeTi, you forgot about them?

Interesting enough, the wiki gives a rather good explanation of how Se's react to Ne, specifically Se creatives

"He tends to openly express mistrust and skepticism towards all unexpected or novel behavior and developments, as well as towards information about things that he or she has not experienced directly. This mistrustful attitude usually goes away after the person has the chance to deal with the new thing, event, or behavior directly for a period of time and get used to it. He is able to orient himself quickly when he is in direct contact with events, things, or behavior, but when he is told about them far in advance or simply in the form of "random information that may come in handy some day," he usually doesn't know how to react to this information."

This is what I meant about Beta and Gammas not liking novelty, I only wrote about TiSe's because you posted that Ti's "value novelty" and since they're the only Ti dominant who doesn't it made a good example of how novelty has nothing to do with Ti, but Ne.

Novelty is not strictly dependent on Ne. All extroverts enjoy it, but in different manners.

Flexibility and novelty are not quite the same thing

[Brilliand]

Extroverted = known V
Introverted = unknown V
Dynamic = known A
Static = unknown A
External = known D
Internal = unknown D

Interesting... but I'd be happier trying to apply these to function positions. Known/unknown seems like an aspect of competence, moreso than a type of information or a strategy for handling it.

As functions, yes. As Information Elements, no. IEs are parts of reality, therefore "things".

Hmm... I view and in their objective forms (that is, existing apart from a person) as two different states of Feeling - one where the Feeling is relatively predictable (and need not be expressed), and one where it is in continuous motion (and must be constantly expressed to stay in motion). That is, they can't exist together and independently, although you can have something that's halfway between them. The parts of reality are the four element types (or three, I'm not sure how Intuition is part of reality except as part of human communication), each of which can be in a form preferring in either 'attitude'. Likewise, in the mind, each of the four element types is strong/weak and inert/contact, and has a preference for one or the other 'attitude'.

OK, yes, the elements can be part of reality; I had forgotten that interpretation.

[Marie84]

good so move it to that section or stop complaining

I am glad you could clarify what the point of this thread I posted was, I must have forgotten, I am so glad I have people to remind me.

this seems worthwhile since its the only part of your response which wasn't making small hits back at our somewhat stupid and insignificant disagreement. But you can continue, its entertainment at least.

I didn't bring MBTI into a Socionics forum, nor do I have the power to move it.
I honestly don't even understand why you joined if you have no interest in separating Socionics from other typologies

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Waddlesworth]

What do u think it is to be "advanced" in feeling, and is it possible for a person to have a good mastery of say the introverted side of feeling but not the extroverted. I believe I am very sensitive to experiencing feelings and distinguishing feelings on people and empathizing, but I find it painstakingly hard to connect to people emotionally on the spot since I am soo analytical and intuitive.

When a person is extroverted feeling their introverted feeling is extroverted.

"Why do you do this to yourself!? why do you keep doing this to yourself!"

"Because that's what I want!"

"Don't you see, you are destroying yourself! This is not what you want! This is what the world expects of you!"

"Yes, exactly! That is what I want!"

As you can see, the argument goes nowhere. There is no advance on either front. Stalemate.

[Creepy-male]

When a person is extroverted feeling their introverted feeling is extroverted.

"Why do you do this to yourself!? why do you keep doing this to yourself!"

"Because that's what I want!"

"Don't you see, you are destroying yourself! This is not what you want! This is what the world expects of you!"

"Yes, exactly! That is what I want!"

As you can see, the argument goes nowhere. There is no advance on either front. Stalemate.

Lol I am sorry I don't understand the point of your little imaginary conversation, could you please clarify?

The only thing I took away from your imaginary conversation is its a debate between two people; one is on the side of saying "I really want to do this and nothing you say is going to change my mind", the other is on the side of saying "Don't do this because its not about what you want its about what is expected of you". You say this goes nowhere, but to me its would seem to go here.... "Is it ever possible to reconcile the expectations of society with the desires of the individual?" and personally my believe is yes, and I have that believe because if that were not the answer people would simply be fated to lonliness or complete destruction, and if that is the case, well then it doesn't really matter if I am wrong because everything will end up destroyed and everyone will end up lonely.

Anyways thats what I took away from the little imaginary conversation, but I don't understand how it addresses the point at hand which is... "Extroverted vs Introverted Feeling and/or Fi vs Fe"

[Creepy-male]

I didn't bring MBTI into a Socionics forum, nor do I have the power to move it.

Well I guess thats just a bummer you don't have the power to move it, looks like the only course of action you can take is to continue complaining, which has seemed to work well for you so far.

I honestly don't even understand why you joined if you have no interest in separating Socionics from other typologies

Well maybe if you stick around long enough you can get an answer to that question. Then again maybe you don't want an answer, maybe you already have an answer and that is to keep those other practioners of heretical typologies away, got to keep the forum pure afterall.

[Marie84]

You're right. I was considering only the meaning of "new", but in this perspective yes, it's Ne-related.

I regret I was not clear enough, consider my original use of "novelty" as new, refreshment, change.

No problem

[Waddlesworth]

Lol I am sorry I don't understand the point of your little imaginary conversation, could you please clarify?

The only thing I took away from your imaginary conversation is its a debate between two people; one is on the side of saying "I really want to do this and nothing you say is going to change my mind", the other is on the side of saying "Don't do this because its not about what you want its about what is expected of you". You say this goes nowhere, but to me its would seem to go here.... "Is it ever possible to reconcile the expectations of society with the desires of the individual?" and personally my believe is yes, and I have that believe because if that were not the answer people would simply be fated to lonliness or complete destruction, and if that is the case, well then it doesn't really matter if I am wrong because everything will end up destroyed and everyone will end up lonely.

Anyways thats what I took away from the little imaginary conversation, but I don't understand how it addresses the point at hand which is... "Extroverted vs Introverted Feeling and/or Fi vs Fe"

I was illustrating the difference between the introverted feeling and the extroverted feeling. The conversation/argument precisely addresses "Extroverted vs Introverted Feeling" though I was deliberately being covert about that.

Extroverted feeling wants what everyone else wants.
Introverted feelings wants what only the individual wants.

We are all unique, but we are also the same as everyone else. The quarrel is within.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Waddlesworth]

Poor translations and ignorance have made socionics inaccessible and mysterious. It has become a dumping ground for half-baked, dead-end intellectualism. I try to go strictly by-the-book when I post here.