Do you have a better one?
Do you have a better one?
Take a coin and flip it. If the result is heads, pick Fe. If the result is tails, pick Fi.Originally Posted by Aleksei
The descriptions Maritsa has supplied you with could remotely work in an MBTI context, but they don't apply here. Put simply, Fi is the IM (function) of "relationships," in the sense of recognizing psychological distance and focusing on the status of a relationship with someone. (in a simplified manner, recognizing friend v. foe) By contrast, Fe is the function of "emotion" in the sense of recognizing the moods of others and stimulating the emotions of others.
Of course, that is a description of using either as a strong function. And Ethical ("F") type is strong in both Fi and Fe, while a Logical (T) type is weak in both, so the above description should help little.
The issue here is function value. A "T" type, someone with weak Ethics (note the capital letter; "Ethics" here merely refers to the function) values behavior in others that establishes their valued form of ethics in the environment.
I encourage you to read the wikisocion descriptions for the various functions. Function value comes in pairs. (IE: Te/Fi are always valued together, as are Ne/Si, Se/Ni, and Fe/Ti) For a contrast of behavior between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti valuing behavior, I recommend you read this page on wikisocion:
Judicious (Fe/Ti) and Decisive (Te/Fi)
Maritsa's egregious misrepresentations of Fe and Fi are simply too "off the mark" to point out every instance where they stray from the actual functions. It's simpler to point out a more correct understanding.
As Aiss pointed out, any "newbie" should be wary of Maritsa. She practices her own convoluted idealized version of Socionics, widely rejected by virtually everyone on this forum. One may read what she writes, but this must be held in the context that what she says carries virtually no weight regarding Socionics and should not be mixed with an actual understanding of the theory.
Did you read my example of the differences between Fe and Fi?
Do you understand that Fe valuers hold traditions above their own personal values and morals and that with Fi new information is compared to their own values and morals, if new information goes against the person's values and moral, that the information may be easily rejected while with Fe, new information is compared not with the person's own values and morals but that of the one their own tradition/cultural background has instilled in or on the individual.
Fe uses new information to correct and establish new values and morals, Personal emotional preferences of which values and morals are not more important then the values and beliefs of the society that the person comes from while with Fi types, their own personal emotional preferences are more important then that of the ones that society has established...very much individual rather then collective nature of Fi function.
-
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
No, I do not "understand" this interpretation because it is simply wrong. What evidence do you have for this interpretation other than a single anecdote?
Every single ESE that I've ever observed following their family's or culture's traditions will have the same response as to why they picked a life course or route that way. My ESE boss got married, because "that's what culture dictated then"; I would get married because "that's how I feel is the right way to raise kids and family", not because I follow the norms of any culture that i am from, they are my personal feelings, ethics and morals. Both Fe and Fi are Ethics/ both have concern for feelings and everyone is social loves or wants to be in a happy and healthy relationship so to say that Fi is ethics of relations is WRONG
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 06-13-2010 at 11:39 PM.
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 posit a few blatant problems with that conclusion:
1. The above scenario is presented from the perspective of Maritsa. While this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it becomes one when "Fe" is described on the limited amount of information Maritsa receives from alleged ESEs and is compared to the more complete information she has with herself, the sole EII examined in the scenario
2. None of these typings can be objectively verified. As far as we know, they have been flavored by Maritsa's personal bias.
3. Only ESEs and EIIs are contrasted, while all 16 types use Fi and Fe in some manner, half of them use one in their ego block, and 4 use one as their leading function. The example is wholly limited to a particular comparison and cannot be expanded to explain Fi or Fe in other types
4. The popular name for Fi IS, in fact, relational ethics. (take, for example, Rick's descriptions: Socionics :: Information Elements)
Whatever. Starting with how the psyche perceives and judges the outside information personally is a good start, IMO.
My conclusion makes sense for why ****** would adapt to "ethnic cleansing" of the German/arian culture and why Fe is centered on not personal values but that of societal.
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
Removed at User Request
I did. It's worthless, as is your newest interpretation of Fe and Fi. Last time we clashed over this, you claimed it was Fi to spend hours on the phone with your friends. Something else like that will probably come next, although I wish it didn't.
That's not Fe and Fi.
yes it is.
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
Very informative. From the link you provided I actually think I'm more judicious rather than decisive. I did see there were other dichotomies on that vein, so I followed the links. These were my results, if it helps: Carefree, democratic, positivist, result-oriented, yielding, tactical, dynamic, emotivist, merry, asking.
Maritsa's egregious misrepresentations of Fe and Fi are simply too "off the mark" to point out every instance where they stray from the actual functions. It's simpler to point out a more correct understanding.
As Aiss pointed out, any "newbie" should be wary of Maritsa. She practices her own convoluted idealized version of Socionics, widely rejected by virtually everyone on this forum. One may read what she writes, but this must be held in the context that what she says carries virtually no weight regarding Socionics and should not be mixed with an actual understanding of the theory.thanks for the warning.
Don't worry too much about Reinin dichotomies, some of them even go as far as to contradict type descriptions. The three of them (except for Jungian ones) that are more or less useful are:
* judicious/decisive - or rather, Ne/Si vs Se/Ni valuing, effectively Alpha+Delta/Beta+Gamma;
* merry/serious - that is, Ti/Fe or Fi/Te valuing, Alpha+Beta/Gamma+Delta;
* to a less extent in typing, aristocratic/democratic - Beta+Delta/Alpha+Gamma;
But really, IEs are the way to go. There's a lot of interpretations of merry/serious and judicious/decisive, and none of them is really applicable.
Someone just directed him to Renin's Lenin's dichotomies and now you're telling him not to worry about it much? really? that's how you expect to advance or improve socionics, by telling people to ignore some people and listen to others?
You haven't been able to do shit except to make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions about people's types and now what? you think that you can lead people to places with more crap about "clubs" and "quadras"? There are plenty of people here who have mistyped themselves because of this information, because of Lenin/Renin and because of "quadra" values and such crap...understand the functions and how they process and perceive information...that's all a person needs to know.
And maybe even how they view their duals.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 06-14-2010 at 03:04 AM.
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
Removed at User Request
As a general word to the wise, those are known as the Reinin Dichotomies. They're one of the theoretical abstractions of Socionics. Take them with as much caution as one might for dichotomy descriptions in MBTI. They're valid for the system and mostly accepted, (although some, especially positivist/negativist, are questioned) but the descriptions can be slightly misleading and are occasionally biased in favor of their author's preference on the dichotomy. They work, but the widely regarded "absolute" for typing people are the information elements. (IMs, also known as functions) They're found on Wikisocion here:
Information Elements
They theory accepts that all types "use" every IM, but in different positions, as you'll read in descriptions of the IMs.
Overall, I'd say LIE(ENTj) seems like your most likely typing from your limited self-description and I recommend you read up on LIE descriptions for the sake of confirming, if you haven't already. I'd also look into LSI(ISTj), LSE(ESTj), and perhaps ILI(INTp) to get a sense of how fitting LIE for you compared to some other similar types that might give the impression of an LIE.
Good luck on your journey into Socionics, and welcome to the forum.
Static/Dynamic is yet another shared one, yes. It's a good one, too. I don't see how internal/external could be translated into Reinin? That would mean NP+FJ, which isn't in accordance with the system.
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
