Model A isn't a theory...

[Bertrand]

I always think of insults as ethical claims, usually Fe ones if they're more about putting someone over an emotional threshold (puffing) and Fi if they go to the interior structure of ethical considerations (detailed ethical criticism) I would agree Singu shows very little verbal manifestation of Fi, but tons of Fe. He reminds me of a poor mans al pacino sometimes. you could say, well its weak ethics because of the "poor man's" part, but if we adopt your theory it would just be "bad" ethics (instead of illogical, its unmoving) etc. I really don't think there's any nailing down the essential ambiguity here. I don't think of balzac as getting involved in these kinds of lost causes unless they're really young. in a way he reminds me of a teenager, I fully concede he could be a mental teenager ILI, but that is essentially isomorphic with having teenage thinking within the meaning of HA. what we really need is more info on singu. I wonder what he's like when he's not freaking out on the internet. I think your argument would be almost certainly correct if singu were in fact 16

[domr]

I always think of insults as ethical claims, usually Fe ones if they're more about putting someone over an emotional threshold (puffing) and Fi if they go to the interior structure of ethical considerations (detailed ethical criticism) I would agree Singu shows very little verbal manifestation of Fi, but tons of Fe. He reminds me of a poor mans al pacino sometimes. you could say, well its weak ethics because of the "poor man's" part, but if we adopt your theory it would just be "bad" ethics (instead of illogical, its unmoving) etc. I really don't think there's any nailing down the essential ambiguity here

If you want to define insults as ethical claims then the rationale would be "I don't like you... I want to make you feel bad... Insult." This would be maybe the lowest form of ethical reasoning. So it's not indicative of type.

[Bertrand]

I mean I feel like thats essentially what -Fe is, but it just gets progressively more sophisticated, but its basically the veneer over schoolyard insults that gives essentially the same yowling traction. it reminds me of those puffer dinosaurs from jurrasic park. its all the emperor has no clothes. even someone like nietzsche has very little to fall back on if you take away the emotional impact from the claims, and look at them for what they are as a matter of logic. I think this is why most mainstream academic philosophers don't really like nietzsche, because he's closer to literature for that reason. I happen to really like literature and Nietzsche because I think emotional impact signifies something real, but I think manipulating it directly is distasteful since it should flow as a byproduct of sincerity. but I don't think you can logically make much of it, because ethics is sort of qualitatively distinct from logic and if you're in the business of logic you throw that stuff out at the onset. by this I mean -Fe is the lowest form of ethical reasoning, I would agree with that.. someone like Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard has very sophisticated ethical reasoning from my point of view. you can see how N is different because he treats his aphorisms as threshold issues, his goal is to quickly get you to where he wants you, its like the Fe version of a Te explanation, whereas D and K build and build and the emotional impact is a byproduct of their fleshed out ethical structure

[domr]

I mean I feel like thats essentially what -Fe is, but it just gets progressively more sophisticated, but its basically the veneer over schoolyard insults that gives essentially the same yowling traction. it reminds me of those puffer dinosaurs from jurrasic park. its all the emperor has no clothes. even someone like nietzsche has very little to fall back on if you take away the emotional impact from the claims, and look at them for what they are as a matter of logic. I think this is why most mainstream academic philosophers don't really like nietzsche, because he's closer to literature for that reason

Fe is just group-think. Sample the population and you determine what is right/wrong by aligning with the mean (and actually you can see already that Fe will get messed up by sampling distributions but that is a different topic).

[Bertrand]

I think weak valued Fe is groupthink, I think strong Fe is demagoguery, but yeah I essentially agree

[domr]

I think weak valued Fe is groupthink, I think strong Fe is demagoguery, but yeah I essentially agree

The formal defintion for Fe is inductive ethics so it's always inferring what is right and wrong by sampling the data.

[Bertrand]

yeah but the data is the felt emotional states of the crowd the explicit formulations only proceed as post hoc justifications later, but someone has to be the ringleader and they're the amplifier. they essentially take the momentum and build on it, which is how you get ******s and trumps, because they took the germ of resentment and built on it as part of a positive feedback loop. they just happen to look upon that role as that of the savior and the subconscious fact that it happens to be the path to personal power is repressed. to say they actually consciously workout the ethics and direct them is giving them too much credit since their basic premises are all ready made by the environment. I did not mean to suggest a degree of moral agency that is not really (consciously) there, but that is precisely what makes it all the more horrific

[domr]

yeah but the data is the felt emotional states of the crowd the explicit formulations only proceed as post hoc justifications later, but someone has to be the ringleader and they're the amplifier. they essentially take the momentum and build on it, which is how you get ******s and trumps, because they took the germ of resentment and built on it as part of a positive feedback loop. they just happen to look upon that role as that of the savior and the subconscious fact that it happens to be the path to personal power is repressed. to say they actually consciously workout the ethics and direct them is giving them too much credit since their basic premises are all ready made by the environment. I did not mean to suggest a degree of moral agency that is not really (consciously) there, but that is precisely what makes it all the more horrific

you are confusing ethics with emotion. they are 2 different concepts. Fe is focused on utility not emotions, although people do get utility from emotions so emotions factor into the calculate but they are not the primary focus.

[Bertrand]

utility is Te

[Singu]

lol I make fun of sol for this all the time--no I don't believe that, but its your inability to parse all these factors at once with nuance that makes me think you lack sophisticated logic as a matter of personality, because if you did you wouldn't be making these claims littered with insults and so on. you'd be more cold blooded and precise to begin with

Yeah, because we all know that you are the master of sophisticated and nuanced "logic" and analysis, you fucking dope. You are a fucking incoherent babbling idiot, and have always been.

Now stop using Socionics as a way to instill meaning and purpose into your worthless life, and go clean your room like Jordan Peterson tells you to.

[Bertrand]

its funny cause the clean your room thing came from Peterson analogizing Jung's coniunctio principle

anyway its sad you can only see things through the lens of dominion and submission and that's all you take from that

[Singu]

its funny cause the clean your room thing came from Peterson analogizing Jung's coniunctio principle

anyway its sad you can only see things through the lens of dominion and submission and that's all you take from that

It's sad that you can't see your own attempts at domination and manipulation, because you have this fantasy that you are this perfectly Moral and Serious Serious Type, because Socionics tells you so.

[domr]

utility is Te

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp

[Bertrand]

well yeah but from a psychological perspective utility is differentiated (what you are linking is a more colloquial understanding of utility--what utility means in general, not as a matter of socionics). the premium people put on emotional satisfaction as soon as it is evaluated in terms of an objective metric is a form of Te. in other words, as soon as you use quantitative measures you're in the realm of logic. in any case, your point is that I'm short shrifting what goes into the objective ethics of action, which is Fe, but I think you will see as a matter of analytic distinction, everything that is not emotional is T and everything that is is F and it has to be that way, because as soon as you can explain what goes into Fe other than emotion it instantly becomes Te. In this sense Fe is the ethics of emotion and cannot be otherwise, from the point of view of a logical model. If your point is that in reality Fe types build in more than simply their perception of emotion into their decision making, you are right and I don't dispute that, but that is what is meant by the role Te plays in their decision making from the context of socionics. you're sort of doing that thing again where you're collapsing the lines into what it means to be a whole person, by proceeding from the common meaning of things and preserving that meaning into the model, when the model purposefully differentiates them

[Singu]

I have already said in this very thread that all of this is just observations, extrapolating generalizations and imposing that stereotype to others, and they're still going at it like clueless idiots running in circles.

You really can't cure idiocy.