I don't bvelieve they are at all but Expat and crew (Wikisocion & Rick DeLong) decided to amalgamate MBTI Fi with "R" and they haven't looked back along with the peculiar augmentations they've made with their strict quadra-centric worldviewOriginally Posted by Singularity
@Maritsa
For Fi and Fi-valuing types, relationships are mainly based on subjective rules, which are often imposed by Fi types. For Fe and Fe-valuing types, relationships are mainly based on how people feel about each other, they are less rule-bound and are more "organic". That's why Fe relationships tend to either "intensify" or "fizzle out", based on how each other are feeling. Like "We don't feel the same about each other anymore".
From this, Fe and Fe-valuing types typically don't like to be told how to feel, they see that feelings are something that should not be controlled or regulated. It makes sense, since their emotional states describe their own relation to others and others' relation to them, unlike Fi.
It's like these lyrics from "Love Story":
that's interesting because I feel like Fe types are basically trying to control and regulate feelings almost by definition
I actually thought about that, which I thought was a contradiction. But anyway, I would say that *in general*, a Fe/Ti atmosphere is where everyone is freely expressing their emotions in a reasonably unregulated manner (as long as the emotions aren't too harmful like anger or hatred etc.) while a Fi/Te atmosphere is more emotionally regulated and controlled.
it sounds really beta to me, in that you've defined freedom as doing what the group wants and "regulation" as not being able to essentially lie in order to promote a jocular atmosphere. the ti construction of this, while consistent with its definitions strikes me as kind of absurd, because its usually the ringleaders that define and control whatever the group wants anyway, thus the whole thing just comes off as a transparent attempt to justify beta domination via groupthink and emotional pressure. extra points for invoking notions of "love" and "organic" as if the universe itself appointed NFJs its masters
the funny thing is, as soon as there are two popes suddenly there's war. so all this moralizing rings false because beta can't even get along with itself. so much for freedom and love
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-22-2017 at 08:31 AM.
No. You clearly don't understand Delta atmosphere. There are no "ringleaders" yet the atmosphere is tightly controlled and regulated via the omnipresent Fi. It sounds more like you can't think outside of Gamma thinking.
by all means, enlighten me
edit: the whole point is, beta wants to establish themselves as the ringleader--so of course ringleaderless delta is offensive to beta power mongering
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-22-2017 at 09:00 PM.
While someone like LSE likes being told what to feel in convoluted ethical situations and yes I do tell LSE when to feel what. For example an lse will say "I feel bad because I feel like I'm walking away when they need me (referring to a job." In which case I remain more objective because I can compartment jobs from interpersonal relationships so I'll say "no you're not. You're not breaking up with them. You are seeking employment which will further your career goals and you may ask to return to that job once you've obtained the qualifications that you are seeking" anotherwords it's not personal and because LSEs make personal relationships the boundaries get crossed and feelings get convoluted and they can't separate them in their mind. I continue with "you are still friends with your coworkers and you have not burned bridges by acting impulsively and walking away without notice. You have kept your relationships in good standing so that should make you feel better about moving on to another job. After all you are being paid to perform a duty but I do understand that you have a partner and that you feel the need to support him and help carry the load."
The goal is to limit and control external reactions of negative feelings because those cause stress. I've seen it first hand in LSEs who cry over bad relationships and EII or even IEE are there to listen, comfort and to even ease them out of these states not to let them take on a deeper life. But we don't stop their expression we just are made more uncomfortable by them.
However, when let's say my sister expressed negative emotions at a positive happy event I tried to get her to calm down while my lse cousin (sitting next to me) told me to wait and let her talk about them because she was obviously upset.
Maybe just my sister comes off as a drama queen and it annoys me that she can turn everyone mood in one outcry
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 02-22-2017 at 05:30 PM.
-
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
Here's a subjective rule on relations but tell me this isn't kind and considerate. I think that what the ESE did in this story was mean since the LSEs was rushing and organizing and helping them and the ESE's emotionally charged reaction was uncalled for
So one LSE has an ESE living with the son rent free and the last time LSE was over at the ESE's she helped them pack to move and asked the ESE to do some tasks. The ESE got super lazy and did not move from the couch. LSE gave her two warnings about dishes in the sink that needed to be washed and pack and when the ESE didn't do them the LSE tossed them in the trash. The ESE held a resentment and when the son was talking to the LSE the ESE screamed out "I don't want that bit** here so loud to make sure the LSE heard it. The LSE lamented about being called that to me. Of course at this point the LSE doesn't think or feel highly of the ESE and the mood swings of ESE do resemble bipolar. The LSE though is revising this emotionally and it makes her sad being called a B but she wanted things done on her base function "clean up so my son can move out"
Dual type
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
I've seen EIE be very controlled in public and trying to not flirt even if she was twisting her shoulders and making very expressive faces (the lights of which it's very hard for me to describe).
Dual type
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
Everyone can use their strongest IE to control others. It is not Fe restricted
Yes, Fe types can control feelings and emotions by definition, as you say. However, there is a difference between controlling all your emotions or just filtering the irrelevant emotions to make the environment better suited for the current task or meeting, etc. There is a difference between controlling and managing.
In these cases, maybe Fe types are trying to remove emotions that they perceive as fake or disturbing to their objective of allowing people to express their true emotions ? The other person may feel controlled by their Fe, but it doesn't contradict the fact that they are fostering the expression of true emotions.
Got another observation that could help.
Fi - especially blocked with Se, is much more radical and sharp than Si which comes blocked with Fe and Te. It sorts things out based on sentiment polarization. Or on how good an idea is when it's blocked with Ne.
Si sorts stuff out due to what is comfortable to a person based on efficiency or emotive actions. It can be very lenient: That's why Si egos are paired with fantastical Ne ego brats wink wink.
Summed up: Si is more mellow, especially in Alpha. Fi - a lot less, especially in Gamma.
This sounds like Fe, trying to induce a particular emotional state. There is some Fi and/or Ni maybe too in the sense of attachment to the song and past experience. I've seen this behavior in LII, SEI, EIE...
What on earth are you talking about. None of the people you mentioned tried to "amalgamate MBTI Fi" with anything. Quadra-centric socionics is more of a post-Rick WSS thing.
I feel like wanting to reproduce an enjoyable moment is mostly Si and it gets muddled by the source being "emotional" which brings in Fe in the form of "production" and Fi in the form of "subjective sense-feeling", you could even say Te or Ti depending on how they approached it (reproduction and "aesthetic" appreciation), and a splash of intuition to add conceptual depth. in essence its a complex phenomenon that is going to be weighted by the personality in question. some people will privilege some modes more than others, but on the whole its anchored in Si
I think if they really thought about it its more about the sensation than the emotion... its how people can enjoy being sad, its a pleasant sensation attached to negative affect. if you reproduced purely the emotion without the accompanying sensation it would be purely negative.. its why people prefer music to being kicked in the balls (there are exceptions of course, but you get the idea... perhaps a better way to put it would be music to being told your beloved grandma just died)...
in this way I see music as primarily a Se way to produce introverted sensations, which are grounded mainly in Fi from the producer, but then you get shit like math rock or weird al so that can vary (Ti/Ne "music")
national anthems and shit like that seems like "Fe music", maybe some kinds of church songs, etc
suffice to say, I think Ti and Fe music sucks, but that's obviously subjective, which goes to show there's all kinds of music but I think what really brings it together--its essential quality--is Si
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-16-2017 at 09:56 PM.
I can't agree with that. I would say it's anchored in ethics, but Si is blocked with Fe for a reason. Music only improves the quality of your experience because it affects your emotional state (which is what Alomoes is describing here).
It has nothing to do with Te or Ti.
This proves the exact opposite to me: Fe with Ni/Se means going through possibly negative or intense but also cathartic and valuable emotional experiences, which is exactly what some music does.I think if they really thought about it its more about the sensation than the emotion... its how people can enjoy being sad, its a pleasant sensation attached to negative affect. if you reproduced purely the emotion without the accompanying sensation it would be purely negative.. its why people prefer music to being kicked in the balls (there are exceptions of course, but you get the idea... perhaps a better way to put it would be music to being told your beloved grandma just died)...
in this way I see music as primarily a Se way to produce introverted sensations, which are grounded mainly in Fi from the producer, but then you get shit like math rock or weird al so that can vary (Ti/Ne "music")
national anthems and shit like that seems like "Fe music", maybe some kinds of church songs, etc
I don't feel like you're wrong at all, but this is precisely how and why taste differs (paying attention to different aspects of the same experience); experiencing things in different ways gives rise to different preferences and its why I think LIIs have their distinct style (which is simply their understanding and preferences made manifest)
I really don't think so. As I see (and experience it) Si is about internal stimuli, but feelings are completely different matter. Its physical stimuli, it has nothing to do with emotions in reality, except when I feel (physically) uncomfortable enough to start being impatient, angry, sad, or numb. And these reactions cease instantly when I fulfill the physical need (eating, sleeping, resting, etc).
Most of the times physical stimuli produces another different physical reaction or its related to thoughts ( intellectual/sensory valuation, more often) since its the next function or a Ni process. Sometimes its just the stimuli and likes or dislikes (physically) or just experience it. Contrary to what certain ppl think, its infrequent an emotional connection to a sensation for Si, while Fi users can relate more often physical sensations to feelings and emotions (I've seen it irl, they "read" sensations through emotions), thats something that I (as Si user) find cute (I perceive this as childish, cute on enfp and annoying on infx -excessive-). lol
Fi as it says, its about Internal Feelings, the subject is mainly focused in his/her own feelings and emotions, and the feelings they have for others. It means, If they love something or someone or if they don't, if they feel happy, angry, moved, for themselves/others/something; they have a rich deep relationship with their own feelings and usually have a great range of them (and sometimes they try to project it over everyone or everything).
Si on the other hand try to get the most comfortable or enjoyable part from anything (make experiences comfortable enough for them if possible).
Fi and Si users of course dont understand each other naturally… Fi is always interpreting (translating) Si into emotions/feelings and Si doesn't care for feelings/emotions at all, and Fi (since its an internal emotional focus) could be easily offended (hurt feelings).
Si users experience the world through 5 senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch), while Fi experience it trough emotions and feelings (happy, sad, excited, angry, scared, anxious, surprised, love, hate etc).
Could physical sensations affect emotionally a Si user?
Could it be, but its not so frequent… its more often to feel something (emotionally) after thinking (processing) certain event (on my case). Its rare that Si would affect me emotionally instantly…its really unusual I'd say. Maybe just on extreme situations (danger f.e.)…I've cried over pain but it wasn't an emotional crying it was just the body response. As I said, is after an intellectual exercise that I'd start to have genuine emotional responses or feelings over an incident. Ironically, thinking is the short way to Fi on my case.
Now, maybe you are confused because of moral.
Si user could be offended by forcing something through their senses…(noise, sight, touch, smell, taste). Thats why Si could stand up for "moral" stuff…but it comes more from a "natural" (physical) personal source more than morals.
But again, its different from Fi since Fi its about feelings/emotions and a personal sense of right and wrong (obviously, it could be learned from external sources -parents, societal, religious etc-), then, the focus is "what I think is good or bad", while Si is "what physically make me feel uncomfortable or offended (abused) -physical boundaries-". F.e. one of the things that offends or annoys me the most is when others think that they have the right of touching, watching or talking to me inappropriately… also having to watch naked people on tv screens all the time or listening to heavy volume music/tv when I'm walking on a public place (or when being a guest), all of this to me its a lack of respect. Thats why I find extremely grotesque and bizarre ppl as lady gaga and exhibitionists (and extreme tattoos and modifications or some Hinduism practices), its extremely awful how these ppl dont have any kind of self respect or respect to their own bodies(aka dignity: I'm not talking about moral or pride, or judging ppl morally, but this sensation of having right/belonging over ones body, not to show it up or change it, but to taking care of it on and preserve a sense of physical intimacy, thats highly valuable for me). Thats probably why some SLI descriptions talk about self respect.
On the other hand, Fi users aren't interested on whats good/right physically talking…they are interested in whats good/right morally according what they have learned (or what they feel)…f.e. they can be in favor of indecent exposure if they are moved by an emotional speech or something like that, something that wouldn't affect the internal physical sensations of a Si. The nice speech wouldnt change an uncomfortable physical sensation.
So, others can perceive or think that both Si and Fi share the same root but its not like that.
Others cant see it clearly because both are Introverted, but one is feelings and the other sensations.
Thats all I can see of all this socionics nonsense...hope that helps.
Last edited by Hope; 04-29-2017 at 01:48 AM.
"All nations will place their hope in him."
(Mt 12:21)
@Slugabed How do you feel about Miley Cyrus?
...exactly the same as with lady gaga. I was about mention to her but I thought that lady gaga was enough.
"All nations will place their hope in him."
(Mt 12:21)
this is precisely the problem I had with an SLI ex of mine. I always took it for granted I could say what I wanted if it made sense Fi wise, but she would say exactly this: "you can't talk to me like that" and I never really understood that until just now
thanks Slugabed
Ok, one more question... what about Bjork?...exactly the same as with lady gaga. I was about mention to her but I thought that lady gaga was enough.
What about her, she's not an exhibitionist.
"All nations will place their hope in him."
(Mt 12:21)
You don't think that she looks weird and grotesque?
Of course she's weird, but she's not an exhibitionist and she's not grotesque.
Bjork: sui generis, artistic, weird, ridiculous
Gaga: nasty, disgusting, exhibitionist, attention whore
I've to add that I really don't like bjork style, but even when she's weird or ridiculous, she doesn't reach the gaga level that means she's not an eyesore. I mean, I wouldn't compare bjork with gaga, gaga just want to cause controversy and get attention at any cost. Bjork…its just pretentious. Talking merely about Si, she doesn't reach gaga levels and she's not really nasty.
That said there are a lot of sensing stuff can make me feel ill (physically), uncomfortable or provokes me reactions like anxiety, aversion etc …
f.e. the work of Yayoi Kusama, it can make me throw up (literally) and it provokes me anxiety. There are some movies and videos that make me feel really sick… Requiem for a dream(the colors, close ups, angles, the repetition, the scenes), some scenes of Trainspotting, The exorcist, Deadpool...Maroon 5 animals video, etc.
I mean I've nothing against gaga particularly, I just think she's disgusting, the same with a lot of pop artists that are equally disgusting…Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Cyrus and a lot of Djs videos…all are the same. I just mention gaga because she's the most representative and exaggerated guess. The same with tv shows and series (I'm not into pop culture and that's the reason why, so uncomfortable).
I'm not against artistic expressions or even eccentricity, I'm against disgustingness.
"All nations will place their hope in him."
(Mt 12:21)
Yeah that's interesting, because apparently Bjork is an SEI. I guess to me, both Bjork and Gaga are about "the same" in weirdness.
As for Yayoi Kusama... haha, I mean I wouldn't go as far as throwing up, but it's kind of weird I guess. But it's also the kind of weirdness that you might see in nature.
Maroon 5's Animals, wtf, that's psycho shit yo.
I agree with you. While reading your exchange, with Mari, I had a flashback to something I posted awhile back in another thread. At the time I considered the whole situation to be related to my Si primarily but now I think it was a mixture of Ni, Si, strong Fi reaction to the guy not listening to me. A bit of Fe too. :/ Your interaction was actually pretty helpful. Thanks.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-17-2017 at 07:44 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
