Of all the 16 types, which are most concerned with decorum, customs, etiquette? It is an Ti Mobilizing thing?
SEI comes to mind. Thoughts?
Decorum
Of all the 16 types, which are most concerned with decorum, customs, etiquette? It is an Ti Mobilizing thing?
SEI comes to mind. Thoughts?
I suppose this is typable but i think it has sooooooooo much to do with upbringing.
The ethical leads I'm thinking. And SO/SP, SO/SX in particular.
What? I was just thinking that LSI is the type that care most about this. Fi Role.Originally Posted by sorrows
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I care about decorum and customs and etiquette to the extent that temporarily conforming to other people's values in these areas smooths the way for me. Otherwise, not so much. In fact, I feel some personal resistance regarding these things, but I try (and do not much succeed) to pay lip service to them.
I do think that, of all the types, SEI's tend to place the highest value on these things. All Alphas do, in fact, but SEI's do this to the greatest extent. I've been criticized by an ILE for being insensitive to decorum, and I know that SEI's can't take my jokes and I seem to be able to offend SEI's without trying, and maybe my lack of decorum is part of the reason why.
This is not the whole story, though. I've worked with a couple of ILE's, and they have the ability to cross boundaries and piss me off like few other types (and many other people find them to be irritating, too), but SEI's find their behavior adorable. So, something else is at work here.....
I dont care about this shit. Fi role is we are polite to not offend others. Its not in our valued functions. Beta sts value fe
I think EII, SEI, ESI come to mind at first.
But it has to do with upbringing.
I can try to care about decorum in a formal business setting, but this greatly dimishes my ability to function as normal. Maximum limit is 3-4 hours, after that my real personality starts leaking through.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
well we need to separate out the intellectual from the psychological. social decorum is a fixed pattern of behavior that is relative to whatever social setting is in play, someone like LSI might mock this from "the outside" in an intellectual sense that from their point of view all the rules and customs are stupid. however on the psychological level, under the circumstances where the "rules and customs" are those the LSI participates in, i.e.: direct Fe involvement of his own "system" you can be sure he's interested in decorum, i.e. "living up to norms" at that time. this is sort of like Putin solemnly hanging a wreath to the victims of stalnist oppression or something. its like, he's highly interested in decorum at that exact moment. but hes not interested in decorum in the sense that he actually creates a shitload of the same kind of oppression being memorialized. in that sense you might say "by someone else's rules" he lacks decorum. he's totally for decorum "in principle" just within the proper context. whereas other types might be likely to flout the seriousness of their own memorial ceremony, but be deadly earnest not to create the underlying conditions, sort of the inverted Putin. it goes to what we mean when we say "decorum" I guess. as always it brings to mind different things for different people.
the interesting thing is "taste" is more a matter of Fi and perception, whereas "rules" are more Ti. Decorum is somewhere in the twilight zone where you have a collective dynamic sort of enforcing the former by way of the latter. I would say this is mostly a Fe/Ni/Se/Ti dynamic, i.e.: a beta thing, from my point of view anyway. Deocorum could exist as an entirely Fi/Ne mode, which would make it more delta. Perhaps it really comes down to aristocracy, which is something more like, whatever the particulars, sensing+logic ethics+intuition "cares" about it the most. I feel like in general no one likes exposing themselves to "threats" so "decorum" has an innate coercive factor to it, so people can be brought under its "influence" from any quadra, as long as whatever "system" they're in at the time is sufficiently strict about it. I can imagine a lot of fussiness over "ugh that was so inappropriate" from any number of angles. I think in the end everyone "cares" its just what aspects giving rise to the phenomenon are conscious/unconscious so it seems like people do or do not, but its more where the accent lies in dealing with the issue, going back to the Putin thing
decorum
Cassidy-Republican-Groveling-at-the-White-House.jpg
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-23-2017 at 09:50 AM.
The first types that come to mind are ESE and SEI. Both types place a high emphasis on externally derived values and stability. IME, they have the greatest tendency to carry on traditions, conform to social mores, and live by rules of etiquette. Sure, variance between one individual and the next develops when people of the same type come from different backgrounds. However, a core similarity remains in that they tend to preserve the customs they were brought up with.
Beta NFs have some understanding and fluency in this world of decorum, but their focus revolves more around their intuitions. So, the rules of conduct they follow serve their personal vision more than any desire for stability, homeostasis, or comfort. They are almost like the guru extolling a self-help system with an ethical leaning.
To a lesser extent, Delta STs care about the things you list. Their appreciation for customs has a much more impersonal quality to it. For example, they tend to respect the policies of the organizations they belong to, the laws of the land, hierarchies, and chains of command.
The quadra least likely to care about decorum is Gamma. They are the honey badgers of socionics.
Rules on what is "right" and "wrong" behaviour is pretty fi
Those rules dont hold any logical consistency most of the time, its just customs that came to be viewed as right or wrong morally. (Like shaking hands, dont burp in public etc)
Fi: "moral" vs. "immoral" (universal framework)
Fe: "appropriate" vs. "inappropriate" (contextual framework)
You just said the same thing with different words.
Fi = good bad, appropriate inappropriate
Fe = convivial atmosphere where no one gets judged in a moral way
"rules" can be either Ti or Fi. Ti rules would be like, "going against common practice sends a message contrary adherence to practice would establish" [1]-- so like being grumpy at a Trump rally even though you think he's a piece of shit, but you're a republican and duty bound to support him. Its just the Ti side to the Fe aspect. In other words ethical rules in terms of subjective structural understanding are Fi, but ethical rules in terms of appropriateness are Ti, like what Keranos is saying. In any case, "rules" is ambiguous because it can pertain to both. I would say "decorum" applies just as much to Fe/Ti "rules" as Fi; in other words its not the domain of Fi; rather that precisely what decorum looks like is informed by the values of the person contemplating the thing
a Ti "rule" governing Fe context is going to be stuff like dress code for events and stuff like that too. Its a "black tie" event, etc
its interesting because not all words are loaded where they have highly fluid psychological meaning. some are more technical words with specific domains associated with them, I think you see Sorrows raise questions of this sort a lot as a form of Ti/Ne seeking, because its about unpacking what exactly is going on with these concepts that people throw around a lot but are actually not well understood when you get into it. a sort of attempt to better nail down the phenomenon, because its like people think they know what they mean when they invoke them and other people think they know what they mean, yet its almost one of those things you never hear people talk about directly on a conceptual level precisely because of how it slips away conceptually at the first glance. its the kind of thing you could do a study on and see that decorum has almost no underlying fixed meaning except as a broad based invocation to adhere to a floating standard. in other words, it can look like or mean almost anything by context, and in the same way people can either be concerned with those particular results or not based on their relative standing to the conduct. I think this is a long winded way to say that concern for decorum is NTR, but it probably correlates more directly to big 5 traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness
if you define it up front as sensory and ethical concern (physical manifestation of "should"-type behavior in any given setting) then decorum is the specific domain of ethical sensory types (as keranos pointed out), but like I said decorum I think actually can be interpreted more broadly, then again those alternate interpretations may not be the one Sorrows had in mind when asking the question (the "decorum" of Putin paying service to victims of oppression), which would make her specific question one centered on an ethical sensing interpretation
[1] you might say this is "Fi role" but realize its a fundamentally Ti formulation inasmuch as "Fi role"'s entire meaning as a concept is a Ti one. In other words, Ti dominance experiences "Fi rules" in the form of Ti. So it is understandable that the two would be blurred, but its something like Fi is that slightly awkward moment where you make some gesture or other because its called for under the circumstances but you have no strong explicit understanding of why this and not that etc. Later you might say something like "that is what people do in those situations who don't want to stand out" (i.e.: set themselves up in opposition to the general happenings). In that sense the rule is entirely Ti, not Fi although it was "felt" first as Fi, it is informed almost entirely in reference to a Ti framework of how the world operates. interesting fictional stories are stories where the protagonist "wakes up" from this kind of existence and experiences the development of their Fi firsthand (equilibrium is like this), this is also probably why Gulenko emphasizes Fi for Ti doms. a binary conception of conformity as the basis for Fi is like step 1, strong Fi is something like the very ability to explode it into a limitless palette of ethical options
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-23-2017 at 11:32 AM.
Nope its all fi. Ti applies to logical consistency. It has nothing to do with moral rules. Ti egos are often indifferent to moral causes/etiquette
This is incorrect. Like Fi, Fe is about personal judgments. Sure, the source of reference is different. Fi is shaped more by subjective factors and Fe is shaped more by objective factors. But personal judgments are made with Fe. In philosophical terms, Fi deals more with morals, while Fe deals with ethics.
Fi isn't about what's appropriate or inappropriate. "Appropriateness" is all about whether specific actions or words fit within the correct objective context. So, for instance, pissing in a urinal is generally considered "appropriate", while pissing in a stranger's ear while riding the subway is generally considered "inappropriate." It falls on Fe to process information and make these kinds of distinctions.
In stark contrast, Fi hardly factors in the objective context. Within the sphere of Fi, something is either always wrong or always right. An Fi type may, for instance, feel that killing someone is always wrong.
I would also like to add that "personal judgements" and "rules" are distinct concepts, but ones that get collapsed as one, precisely by Ti. in other words, a fundamental tenet of ethics is the experience of "I could be wrong", where rules are actually the opposite of that in the sense that you're either wrong or not according to the rules which are the definite criterion for judgement. Some Ti "systems" allow for vagueness and ambiguity, but in general even when that is in play is defined. Fi is full of personal judgements, but they are rules only in the sense that they are viewed as such from the point of view of Ti, in other words, strictly speaking Fi is not rules "rules" is a Ti projection onto Fi in order to structure what Fi does. Fi is actually beyond rules, its more like the experience of acting as a moral agent in all its complexity which transcends words and functions prior to the codification of any such action in language or integration into an explicit system. Its sort of how in the american system of law most rules are abstracted from situations after the fact based on analysis, but (many times) the moral agents involved were acting out their own Fi prior to any rules being formed. in a certain sense Fi being a system of "rules" is a pure anachronism. its more like the base convictions that give rise to behavior that only later can be construed in terms of a logical system. Fi is rational but is experience as something categorically distinct and by definition unspeakable (inasmuch as Ti is associated with language). Its more like poetry, is poetry about rules? not really
the experience of Fi goes even deeper of "I could be wrong" its almost something like "I am wrong--only to what exact degree forever remains to be determined" and living under that constant tension and self suspicion. its funny because it gets projected onto as having this absolute confidence in itself, but thats once again a hard to describe imposition of Ti onto Fi. From the point of view of Fi, Ti egos are entirely way more confident in their ethical stance, etc
I remember a ILE said to me one time something unironically like, "yeah but what If I'm wrong" as it pertained to a should statement and it was like welcome to ethics!, and you could tell it horrified them in its implications because they had sort of momentarily crossed over into really seeing the ethical sphere, it was like when the event horizon passes through hell or something, even a split second was enough to traumatize
and you could tell they sort of live in this sort of "clean" mode of thinking where not every possibility is laden with so much affect and the only thing that matters is the logical interrelationships when it comes to navigating them and so on and so forth, but for a second the full weight of error sunk in, and it was something far more crushing than simple logical error
I guess what I'm saying is ethics from the point of view of logic has a reductive element to it that turns on how "rules" function and what the word "rules" even means. To me "rules" is an inherently logical concept linked to the law. In another sense it may just be more like "criterion" which Fi has its criterion, but its certainly not "rule based" inasmuch as "rule based" is a logical procedure. Fi is rational in that it reasons off of perceptions according to an internal framework, but that framework is not bound by rules, because rules implies a dimension of cognition across the linguistic plane that is actually in contradistinction to what Fi experiences. When Reinin said "it can hardly be spoken of" I think he "got it" in the sense that there is a question begging here where I'm assuming Fi can't be understood in terms of rules, because in one sense it can, but only as a Ti mode of appropriating from the outside what Fi is really like. "affect laden" is a better way to put it. The rules come later, and feed back into the deliberations, but more as a form of Te/Fi interaction. Even "rules" one sets for oneself become a Te node in the system so to speak, Fi is really doing something qualitatively different and is only understood by others as a form of "legislation." when delta turns into alpha you see Fi experience essentially "summed up" in a Ti/Fe approach, which simultaneously crops Fi and in doing so makes room for new creative possibilities across different dimensions. society still manages to function because Fi gets hardened into Ti "rules" that get the job done, and Fi/Te goes underground into the subconscious, so as to make room for Ti/Fe expansion
Fi is a form of introverted judgement but it doesn't proceed bottom up in exactly the same way I understand Ti to, which is to positively determine conclusions on the bases of premises and to essentially build a bottom up structure within which everything is valid and nothing outside is. Fi is backwards in that it its something like the opposite wherein the person knows only that beyond the scope of their understanding lies "the truth" and they are forever and perpetually "wrong" in some sense (this is probably why enneagram 4 gets associated with Fi). Its hard to explain but its something like, the transcendental axioms are not the basis for confidence in the deductions they're the basis for radical uncertainty that makes the realm of deliberation a kind of infinitely murky expanse where the only certainty is that this is wrong we just don't know how yet. the flipside to this is Te which adds the objective element. Fi is full of suspicion but not in an ideological or technical sense (you're doing this wrong! in a Ti sense--illogical), but more like it suspects itself foremost, and only others as a byproduct of empathy. its why Fi comes across as judgey but its rarely as condescending as people think, usually a deep empathy that goes unseen accompanies any negative Fi judgements of others, because the capacity to be wrong in the alleged way originated first in the person making the judgement, like they owned it entirely before it even came across outwardly. if Fi is confident its only in that "no one can hate me more than I hate myself" kind of thing, where they've done "the work" way more than anyone else so people can "think what they want" at that point etc... its sort of "If Im wrong I don't want to be right" kind of inception where doing all they could matters more than being right, because being right is impossible all the time, but doing all you can is something you can make the criterion for correctness (ethics) that supersedes context and rules.. I think the fundamental "rule" of Fi, if there is one, which there isn't, is something like intent matters and doing your best is the most important factor in evaluating the ethics of a situation. that wonder woman comic where wonder woman is like "it doesn't matter what you intended--you crossed my ideological line" was especially triggering for that reason, its was a statement of anti-morality in my mind. it was as Fi ignoring an ethical statement as I've ever seen. on the flipside you will see in this paragraph a lot of Fe ignoring ethical statements if you look carefully
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-23-2017 at 12:36 PM.
Fe is not about personal judgements. Hence Objective ethics.
the subjective aspect is Ti, hence rules, but not Fi
in any case Keranos is talking about the manifestation of Fe valuing in behavior which does implicate more than pure Fe, mainly because pure Fe doesn't exist. Fe valuing is emobodied i.e.: acted out by a whole person. What a Fe valuing person does is interpret the ethical situation according to its objective ethical aspects, meaning the objective ethical occurrence. That in of itself does not lead to a determination that "x is right/wrong"--this is a introverted judgement. An extroverted judgement is "my business plan made a million dollars" or "those comments hurt a lot of feelings." Inasmuch as subjective judgements are tied to objective judgements in a dichotomous relationship we can say they're all aspects of "personal judgements" which are the manifestation of the entire dichotomy. It would be easy to mistake "x is right/wrong" statements as pure Fi, but they're just as often Ti statements stemming from Fe. "personal judgements" we can say take the form of "value" statements, which are statements uttered pursuant to valued functions. When someone makes a Fe ethical statement they're really making a Ti statement about an Fe state of affairs. So when Te says "my business plan made a million dollars, and (I feel) that is good" they're implicating Fi (good as to who? relations). When someone says "that hurt a lot of feelings and (I think) that is bad" they're saying as a Ti consequence of a Fe reality (hurt lot of feelings) = bad, as a logical consequence. Hurting feelings is bad, by definition, in other words. Usually such an implication goes unsaid. This is where irony can come in, Te types can brag about hurting a lot of feelings as if it makes it more ethical, if it gets a certain job done. Usually Fe wants to imply that on some scale less feelings will be hurt in order to ethically justify an act (we must gas the Jews for the future of Germany). Sometimes acts just go ethically unjustified and are seen in purely logical terms. This would be like Stalin "i'll stop killing when it stops being necessary" stuff like that
People are generally socialized to think in crossover terms of extroverted judgement. In other words, Te types take a "businesslike" approach to emotions in the environment, such that they could say "that hurt a lot of feelings and that is bad" too, but they would be taking a different path to get there. It would personally mean something like "these people can harm me so its important to keep them happy" (ethics of relations interpreting an ethical situation), inasmuch as they're not happy that is bad (for goal oriented reasons other than group emotion)
This is how people project, they assume people mean what they'd mean were they saying the words in question. Talking across extroverted judgements makes value statements sound wonky, because its like when Stalin says "ill stop killing when it stops being necessary" in the mind of the Fi valuer it naturally raises the question, "for whose benefit are you killing these people and is it really for their benefit?" because they think he's making a statement about the efficacy of methods in regard to the ethics of relations. In other words, it sounds like he's saying "I value people group x over people group y, such that killing y is necessitated in order for me to maintain good relations with x" when the natural objection seems to be why is killing anyone necessary to maintain good relations, isn't there a diplomatic solution? But that's not what Stalin is saying, he's saying "it is an objective fact that when I kill people group y I see a rise in the state of people group x and so killing is necessary because the emotional benefit it elicits in the group makes it necessary and therefore justified" (or at least excusable as a property of the universe, i.e.: something that cannot be helped), i.e.: it is not my personal ethical stance that "created" the principle, it is just a logical consequence of objective ethical factors. Only subconsciously does he make the Te/Fi calculations. Thus any criticism of him across those functions is shielded. Beta does a good job in general of playing with time in order to circumvent ever having to face personal ethical responsibility. When the executioner executes he's just "doing his job" i.e.: abiding by rules. When the dictator renders judgement they're not "killing anyone", in this way they're empowered to do things other people wouldn't with all the pros and cons that go along with that
of course to say "its not my personal ethical stance" is always a cop out, because everything we do is a personal ethical stance in some way or another, but people have varying degrees of conscious awareness of this. Dostoevsky writes a lot about how conscious or not this reality of man being an ethical creature has consequences (and by this I don't mean its all Fi, I mean its all ethical action--the world is the forum for ethical action--however you come to it, be it Fe/Ti or Fi/Te its all instantiated in human activity--which is to say nothing more than humans comprise all 8 functions).
ultimately the idea is all of ethics is the way to live best (virtue ethics), thus the "beta approach" inasmuch as it conspicuously avoids actually relevant moral consideration it actually harms itself, because it fails to realize that ethics isn't solely for other people's benefit. its a sort of naive assumption you see in Stalin's reasoning that since Fe is "selfless" by definition it means he's "in the clear" on Fi aspects. But he's not, and Fi isn't merely "Christlike" self flagellation but actually attempts to play the "best" ethical game i.e.: most productive in a Te sense, possible. Thus there is a self defeating ethical aspect to Fe that ultimately sets the stage for gamma to take over. IEI catches onto this first and is the one who points it out, by dreaming "of a better tomorrow" i.e. where these internal tensions are resolved
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-23-2017 at 02:18 PM.
Do you think not putting your elbows on the table is something that generally comes from subjective feelings or is it more of an 'objective' standard?
Do you think not getting upset about a joke and ruining the mood is never part of the "decorum" in certain groups?
I think both of these things have to do more with the group than the individuals feelings, depending on upbringing and context.
How can we know?
Fe ego types yes, cause of it's effect on the emotional energy.
But, types weak in F too. If you can establish a groundwork of behavior, then there's less likelihood of making mistakes, so you can have types weak in F who like formal settings but find it difficult to relax when the rules are off.
Too many variables for socionics to handle.
Sorry for the boring answer.
Subjective feelings. Being offended is subjective, therefore rules based on not offending others are rules based on fi
What about the second question? Do you have any subjective feelings about it when people ruin the mood (like anger or annoyance)? Or is that a rule in some groups for some other reason?
The point is subjective feeling is fi, therefore decorum is fi
So when people get upset because the mood was ruined by a morally judging person, theyre Fi. Okay.
Yea
Thinking: impersonal judgment. Logic, fact, "right vs. wrong."
Feeling: personal judgment. Ethics, morals, "good vs. bad."
The difference between "impersonal" and "personal" defines the dichotomy of the rational IEs. Rudimentary, really.
ESE's are one of the types most concerned with etiquette in society. Reading this forum one would think ESE's wouldn't give a shit if someone takes a dump in the middle of a theatre play or spits into a baby's face, since Fe = no judgment of anything ever. Fe is a rational, judging IE, the last time I checked.
Edit: there's also a huge difference in logical/ethical Fe valuing types, you cannot compare how SLE reacts to something vs. ESE. It's not all the same just because they're Fe valuing ffs.
That would go against creativeas well, double whammy
ExE descriptions do have a "watch your manners" element to them, I also can't understand why we'd think of them as laissez-faire in terms of conduct.
Ofc, ExE both, but ESE to a bigger extent or in a more conservative way or smthng imoThat would go against creative.
Fe is not about personal judgements (in the sense of subjective) but personal judgements from a Fe valuer are about Fe. In other words, strictly speaking Fe is "impersonal" (although this is a tortured version of Fe, because emotions imply persons, but setting that aside), but as soon as an actual person makes a "personal judgement" i.e.: subjective, in this case, it is implicating its dichotomous partner, in the form of Ti when speaking of Fe. So what this means is Fe (valuers) naturally makes personal judgements pursuant to Ti when it makes personal judgements, i.e.: in the case of an actual person who is valuing Fe. Fe in the air doesn't make personal judgements because Fe doesn't exist apart from a mind in which it functions, which naturally goes together with the rest of the dichotomy. Its important to remember functions themselves are just axes imposed on brains to explain the phenomenology of the self. In this sense, "personal judgement" is being used in different ways here.
"personal judgement" as arising out of a person
"personal judgement" as subjective rational belief
"personal judgement" as ethical judgement (as opposed to logical)
I use it in the first way, #9 uses it in the second, keranos is defining it as the 3rd. "personal judgement" can apply to all 3, what changes is what people mean when they use it. really, all 3 apply, its just the circumstances in which people speak of all 3 or 1 or 2 or whatever. I feel like all 3 are simultaneously compatible its just how nuanced the picture is to see from whence all 3 are coming from, usually people limit them and have a more narrow meaning when they use the word (then category errors and misunderstanding follows, when people project their meaning into the mouth of the other--this is not something easily dispensed with by repeating oneself or one's base assumptions, which is where the true divergence occurs)
In a certain sense, one splits the atom if they peg "personal judgement" to logic or ethics exclusively because they are two sides to the same coin, and all humans interweave both when doing anything, it is just the relative level of consciousness that differs. And that's precisely what personality measures: where the accent is placed by that person. So it is entirely fair to do some splitting, but it just mirrors how we understand personality differences which is to say "I think person x means this when he says y" in a certain sense you can't avoid naturally dichotomizing people's utterances which is why personality theory is really not a big leap over what people already do, which is project. socionics itself tries to be more "technically correct" about how projections are applied (in other words, it is a logical, per keranos, theory of projections). From any given lens you can interpret the world, which is what socionics attempt to lay out, but socionics itself is subject to that same interpretive imperative, which is how and why measurement becomes such a big deal
More than anything, I get very bothered by people who are easily triggered, critical, pedantic, and keen to find fault with me without being provoked. Anyone who takes offense to something which didn't concern them will enrage me, especially if the attacks I receive as a result are very personal, made in public, or caused by something trivial (like lewd sex jokes, or forgetting to flush the toilet). By contrast, I have a live-and-let-live attitude. I won't protect someone from harm, but nor will I attempt to embarrass and shame them. We all make mistakes and you need to fail in order to succeed.
I'm a robot. I never get annoyed by anyone doing anything; well, I do, but it usually goes away after a couple of hours of not thinking about it. It's really, really hard to make judgements stick-- like even against straight up serial killers who crap inside their victims' skulls. I have no idea how some people can hold grudges for like 50+ years.
I avoid people who violate my personal space, though. And I'm not stupid; I can rationally deduce when someone is being a dick and act accordingly, even if I don't feel it.
Subjective feelings themselves are actually Fe. Or more accurately 'what you feel inside coming to life.' That's more valued Se/Fe though. Valued Fe with valued Si is subjective feelings with a lot more tact & interpersonal harmony with external objects.
Fi is the attraction/repulsion distance between two objects- so that's why Fi-egos tend to stereotypically come across as "stuffy" or overly guarded and non-humorous because they keep their distance with others based on their own personal attraction with them. That is what having 'Fi in the ego' means ya numb nutters. If you get close to a Fi valuer though (and yes you hateful idiots- a Fe/Fi valuer can grow close), you will see through this stereotypical shell and understand just how fun and cool they can be.
Back on topic: I don't know what type it is, I never cared much for this stuff. I'm very ghetto and wear ugly looking clothes from Walmart. I think its probably ntr, more to do with upbringing/your own income. I would probably care and work on my aesthetics more if I had more money though. Decorum, customs and etiquette are all three very different things but if you put them all together I would say that's an incredibly Delta thing.
Definitely a Ti/Fe valuing theme. I highly value decorum insofar as it communicates graciousness, politeness, and not acting like an animal.
That being said I am not a fan of arbitrary rules and customs like you have to hold a fork a certain way or things like that.
Some Fe valuers don't care about it as much but they still care about what or how they are communicating generally more than Fi valuers. Irreverence is more typical of Fi valuing extroverts.
I have seen ILEs who have the exact opposite of this view and make a point of being disruptive - which is precisely for them a rejection of Fi inter-relations and a focus on being the 'Fe mobilzing' clown.
So, no.
Hmm, some of this sounds Fi valuing tbh or just stronger Fi. Your own feelings > than the greater good. But what about the feelings of those who do not value crude humor? You are just imposing your likes and desires above their's. I don't mind dark, morbid, even dead baby humor but am I going to tell dead baby jokes in a room full of pregnant women. No and the reason why is I know what is appropriate and I know some things are hurtful and could cause superstition. Those same people might tell the same jokes when not pregnant, for example.
I am not a crowd follower either though. I make my share of mistakes but I usually just know how to behave in a variety of situation. I was raised with awareness and manners. When I first read Delta is the live and let live quadra I was like, whaaa?? Then why are they judging me behind my back. I can now see why they consider themselves such, once it was pointed out by my EII sister. I still think she judges people but it is usually silently and only to family but then again I can see the same in my ESE sister.My EII sister will not pretend she is fine when she isn't. It shows on her face. She can not grin and bear a lot of things I can. Neither can my ESE sister though (she is better at it than the EII. Both are ethics based. My family has members from all quadras but mostly beta. I think we are not shy about family interventions but they are handled with tact and loving support. Shame rarely is involved but sometimes tough love is.
Not to be crude but if someone isn't flushing in my house they can take a walk to the nearest service station and use their bathroom. I won't tell them in front of others because I am not into shaming people that way but my house my rules. I don't even own pets because I am not going to clean up after them. Cats aren't going to clean their own litter box so they can go outside too. In fact I prefer animals in the wild to people who have them and won't take care of them. I also believe people should control their own children and tell them to leave my stuff alone. I shouldn't have to do that. It is the parents place to make a child aware. Not mine.Description:
They value politeness and feel uncomfortable in conflicts or if people get too emotional.
Types of Delta Quadra believe that each person is unique, that no one should intervene with the other person's inner world.
They like new experiences (new places, new technologies etc). They like sharing the new facts or talk over the same facts with a new angle, their ideal discussions are informative and polite. They are interested in tangible ideas and facts.
Types of this Quadra respect hard working individuals and dislike idleness.
The biggest fear:
to be wrong
The psychological age:
Maturity
Edit: and to blur the lines of quadra even more!
Strong Fe and strong Fi just go together valued or not.Description:
The general atmosphere in this Quadra and the appearance of people belonging to it have an element of drama and theatricalism. They are often people of extremes with love for extraordinary heroic behaviour ( in the sense of great individual's strength and willpower ).
They often disapprove of the society rules and morals, allowing their own opinions, emotions and feelings to guide them instead. They hate to be preached at, 'though enjoy sharing opinions (which are often strong) as long as these opinions are not forced on them as being "right". Their discussions are passionate with a great emotional involvement. They admire the broad spectrum and strength of emotions.
They tend to divide people into those who are close to them and "all others", seeing their "inner circle" as a gathering of extraordinary people. An "us-them", "friend or foe" kind of attitude. They care a lot more about those who in their opinion make the "inner circle", often not feeling any responsibility for the others.
People of the Beta Quadra see the world in a structured, hierarchical way. They have respect for hierarchy in interpersonal relations, but the basis for this respect is often very subjective.
The biggest fear:
To be powerless and without privileges.
Psychological age:
Teenage.
Last edited by Aylen; 12-24-2017 at 03:02 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
Deltas will let you live as long as you give them the space to live however they want ....
Fe valuers definitely can be clownish (which of course is the opposite of decorum) but again that in itself implies attention to how one is communicating.
Yeah but in doing so they don't care about the how or the why it's communicated, they're just focusing on their own communication - which at the same time can even be regarded at T, hence T types in general like some rules to be set in social situations as lack of formality can make it difficult to know how to act, but then, rules being set can be as much about maintaining an energetic atmosphere as it is from disrupting pleasant inter-personal bonds.
Amongst friends things are different, but in house jokes, quirks etc applies for all types.
I see nothing wrong with that concept and in a perfect world.... But someone has to take the high road first in these matters which can often lead to a stalemate when someone's pride is involved.
PS I have an Fi demon in the 8th position.
I also have an inner circle of people from all quadras, not so surprisingly I guess. Mostly beta and gamma types but some deltas have managed to find their way into my heart. I am low on alphas atm. I think I scare alpha NTs too much.
“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