Fi vs Fe (Reinin)

[Singu]

So, Reinin seems to define Fe as "objective ethics" "external relationships" and "how others relate to myself". While he defines Fi as "subjective ethics" or "my own attitudes toward others". That seems to make sense, but it's still not totally clear to me.

Maybe Fi types have a much easier time talking about their own attitudes toward someone or something than Fe types. A Fe type may simply state the existence of feelings, such as "I feel hate/anger", but a Fi type might say "I hate you/I am angry at you". But I mean, they both say those things interchangeably.

A Fe-creative type may manipulate other people's relations, but usually in the direction that he thinks is beneficial, that is, according to either their Si or Ni. They may see that person A is not relating well to person B, so they may subtly do something to mend the relation, even if the relation have nothing to do with them.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Grigory_Reinin

Fe:

ESE:

Function #1 – objective ethics (Fe): “Person is a realm of relationships. If I have relationships with other people, then I exist”. This type is in its element when in a relationship. A Hugo would never put a strain on a relationship no matter what he thinks about other people's attitudes to himself and each other. He does not need to inquire of anybody’s attitude because he knows what it is. He is confident in this area. Stability of his personal relationships combined with stability of other people’s relationships support stability of a Hugo’s personality. A change in existing relationships may emotionally disturb a Hugo. A Hugo may be a closer friend than a Hamlet. These “horizontal" relationships have no boundaries. The more the better! He does not care about the social status of the people involved. It is a personal "world wide web"! Just try putting a Hugo in a room with a disconnected phone line! It may cause anxiety or aggression. Even thinking that his phone may be disconnected because he has not paid the bills stresses him out. A Hugo knows how to smooth things out, ease the tension. He always has a lot of friends. He likes to party and hang out; there he is in his element. "If I do not have relationships, then I do not exist. If I am not needed, I am no more, if I have relationships, then I exist."

EIE:

Function #1 – objective ethics (Fe): the zone of confidence is external relationships. People of this type typically orient themselves very well in the sphere of relationships and don't have many problems in this respect. They value stability of external relations in general. When someone tries to change existing relations, this causes a strong emotional reaction, even aggression from the EIE. The EIE belongs to the aristocratic quadra, and in his/her life there are fewer trusting relations, than, for example, in the life of Hugo. This, as a rule, is a very small number of persons of "his/her circle".
If the EIE is deprived of the opportunity to be on stage - in a broad meaning of this word - not only as an actor, but also as a teacher, mentor, or a leader, if he/she is deprived of the opportunity to be in public with people looking at or up to him or her – then the EIE feels devastated. Then everything is ruined: both the first and the second (creative) functions go to waste. “If there is no way to relate, then I am not needed, I do not exist.” EIE needs relationships, no matter if they are good or bad - they simply need to be. Employees, bosses, friends, enemies, contacts, lovers, customers, business partner, onlookers, and spectators. Any situation where there is any type of relations affirms EIE's existence in this world.

SEI:

Function #2 – objective ethics (Fe): the zone of taking risks. Dumas' creative function deals with relations between people and their relations to him or her.
The SEI loves an element of risk in relations. He/she is sociable and well informed. Easily manipulates information in the sphere of people's relations and characters. The “item” that Dumas “sells” to others - is manipulations in the area of relationships. Dumas gathers social information: who, what, where, with whom, etc. He/she sees very clearly what is happening in the sphere of relations between people, and can in the right moment create a shift, a change in relations, and, moreover, do it in such a way that he himself will never end up inside, at the focal point of the situation that he has created himself. This may be done by intonation, by a sophisticated pause, i.e. so subtly that no one else will understand how he created this situation. In this way Dumas can communicate something to a person without actually saying anything, such that the person guesses himself and does what is needed of him. The SEI does not distort the information much and misrepresent facts, but he/she is a master of omission and subjectively biased presentation. Dumas “sells” intrigue, the formation of information about people and relationships.
The sphere of communication, of conversations - is the strong point of SEI women and men alike. SEIs are distinguished by the “gift of the gab”, by ability to speak well and in confident tone, to debate and argue, to talk to an audience, has aptitude for language and literature. Dumas is often interested in various forms of thinking, philosophy, epistemology, interpretations, explanations, analyses, and logic.

IEI:

Function #2 – objective ethics (Fe): this is the area of IEI's creativity – relations of people between each other and their relations towards him/her. Even if creative function deals with manipulations of relationships, this does not necessarily mean that the person is an intriguer. The IEI simply easily sees what's going on between the people. The IEI can easily create shifts in relations and attitudes into the needed direction. Moreover, he/she does it from the outside of a situation, to not end up inside, at the focal point, but keep on observer sidelines. This influence is exerted in light, subtle, tangential form. The IEI lightly touches on certain issues, seemingly in a friendly sharing way, makes subtle statements - and there you go! A Tutankhamon can also influence relationships through numerous short yet strong emotional attacks and quarrels. There is a supposition that a Tutankhamon is even a more sophisticated manipulator than a Dumas. However, I could never catch a Tutankhamon in this act. Here perhaps more observations and inquiries are needed.
On the other side, I know that a Tutankhamon is usually a person who does not have problems with relationships. He/she is always able to find an agreement, to strike up a compromise, be flexible in order to get what is wanted. The IEI can easily instigate, provoke certain acts and actions (I've observed them doing that so many times).
A Tutankhamon can be a great organizer, creating and structuring large groups of people. He/she is able to regulate, adjust and maintain relationships within a group and create a productive atmosphere. As a leader, the IEI adheres to a more democratic style of management as a rule.

ESI:

Function #-1 – objective ethics (Fe): ignoring of the relationships. A Dreiser is an observer. At a party she is mostly quiet and observant. But she would dance with pleasure – he/she moves with ease, likes to dance: there is no fellowship or relationship in a dance as she thinks. A Dreiser may fail to discern other people's feelings or attitudes. Her inadvertent stepping on toes may result in a sudden barrage of complaints. A Dreiser really does not fathom since the external relationships are in her zone of ignoring. And this is hard to explain to another type because they also have their own realms, and they may interpret a Dreiser’s ignoring in their own way.
The zone of ignoring is a place where the 'unexpected' conflicts arise. Due to the peculiarity of this psychological sphere the person may face sudden adverse reaction from someone close who has been putting up with things, but at a certain point of time his/her cup overflows with anger and bitterness, and the person explodes over an innocent minor thing.

EII:

Function #-1 – objective ethics (Fe): ignoring relationships. A Dostoevsky has this trait in common with a Dreiser. If a person pays special attention to the relationships of close people for some reason, then she can see them clearly; but this is not the case with the majority of the Dostoevskys who are prone to ignore this aspect of life (sometimes they do it intentionally, choosing to wear the mask of a misanthrope). This may cause "unexpected" problems. The inner world may draw all of a Dostoyevsky’s attention, while a dense veil of imagination may cover the outside world.

SEE:

Function #-2 – objective ethics (Fe): the zone of standards. A Napoleon maintains certain standards in external relationships, rarely becoming close with people. He prefers to keep people at a distance, he does not make friends in the office (command, platoon, etc.); there is a distance, a uniform, a business talk within the framework of the rules of rank. They often do not have close friends in a large crowd of associates and acquaintances.
Relationships fall in the sphere of "unnecessary". At times a Napoleon wanting to express his personal attitude does not take into consideration neither circumstance, nor people’s personal or group space. A Napoleon easily becomes a part of a group and just as easily he pulls it apart. Some people of this type sincerely do not realize how tactless they are. Sometimes you can witness a situation: a Napoleon approaches a talking couple and as a matter of factly interrupts and addresses the person he needs to talk to; – the thing is, approaches them without second thought, says something, disrupting the space of the dialogue, takes care of his business, while the other partner takes off. A Napoleon may get in trouble for doing that especially if he is a child in school.

IEE:

Function #-2 – objective ethics (Fe): here is the zone of standards – the quality of the relationships depends on whether the person belongs to 'my circle' or does not. His social bondings are formal and standard. When out in the society a Huxley uses the "uniform" approach. The dialogue happens on the formal basis: a Huxley talks to people in the key of social role-playing considering positions of both sides. Even in his relationship with close people a Huxley often keeps a distance.

Fi:

ESI:

Function #1 – subjective ethics (Fi): the person’s attitude to something or somebody is in the area of confidence. In this area person’s relationships are of the least importance, often they do not concern him at all. His attitude is much more important here, and he would rather have it permanently fixed. If a Dreiser has formed a good opinion of someone, it would take some major factors to make it change. Even more so his bad attitude or opinion is hard to change. Other types may easily change their attitudes: I love it today; I hate it tomorrow. A Dreiser's first function can hardly be described with words. Essentially it is the need for being able to have a conscious attitude. The attitude itself may change, but its realm is so deep, that can hardly be described with words. This realm of personal attitudes to other people and the external world is strongly felt but poorly verbalized. There is constant activity in this realm.

EII:

Function #1 – subjective ethics (Fi): the zone of confidence is my attitude to others. The spectrum of emotional reactions of this type is peculiarly large. A Dostoevsky is more confident in the sphere of emotions than other types. People of this type feel and discern shades and nuances of emotions unthinkable for representatives of the other types. What could, say, a Zhukov understand in a Dostoyevsky’s emotional world when even the notion of such details is absent in the psyche of the former? People often live in parallel worlds that have nothing in common except for rather narrow area of conventional (formal) contacts.

SEE:

Function #2 – subjective ethics (Fi): the area of creativity covers his attitude to the world, to people, to objects, his opinion on any subject. First of all here is his emotional risk. A Napoleon is a leader because he easily expresses his attitude to actions or people. He seeks a position of leadership because there his opinion will matter.
Since this is the creative function, both negative and positive poles are easily accessible to him. A Napoleon can just look at his troops and say: “Soldiers, I love you!” There are ten thousand people; does he love them all? The fact is they know he really does love them, and they trust him, and they follow him. Demonstration of his attitude is art; therefore it takes special circumstances that facilitate the maximum self-expression. Is there a better position for self-expression than a position of leadership? “I am the boss, you are the fool. When you are the boss, I will be the fool.” Therefore it is natural for a Napoleon to aim at positions where his creative function may find its realization. If you are late for work, your boss – a Napoleon – may reprimand you harshly, even rudely. But in five minutes he will come to you as a matter of factly to discuss business as if nothing had happened. He just vented his anger, no big deal. It was just a part of the routine! A Napoleon does not dwell on it, unlike a Don Quixote who is hurting over offending someone for several days. This type often uses words "shame", "disaster", "I hate it", "I like it", "fantastic", "great". A Napoleon may fruitfully work in the heat of the conflict. Often he intentionally creates a situation of a conflict to draw out reliable information, a plan of attack.
A Napoleon is a good politician, in a dialogue he is able to easily find rapport and talk about the opponent’s problems, but he never forgets about his own goals. He produces an illusionary impression that he really cares about other people's problems. A Napoleon is loved despite of his boldness, people trust him, they vote for him hoping he will change things for the better.

IEE:

Function #2 – subjective ethics (Fi): the place of creativity is my attitude to others. “If I feel like it – then I will fall in love, if I don't feel like it - then I will fall out of love, and later I will love some more.” This is not the stable kind of relationships he prefers. His feelings of love are never sure and stable. Today a Huxley loves you; tomorrow will speak for itself. People of this type have no idea about commitment as far as their feelings and emotions are concerned, they sway in their emotions between love and hate, they see a wide spectrum of shades in-between. At the same time if they hate you it is not final, as it is with some other types who make up their mind once and for good. “Nothing is eternal under the moon: today I love, leave tomorrow for tomorrow”.
A Huxley is also careless in demonstrating his attitude. "Hey, man, are you stupid or what!” he says by the way. He is joking, teasing. From the point of view of the alpha-quadra those jokes are completely inappropriate. I have a friend, a Huxley. I twitch every time he jokes and every time I am amazed: my inner being invariably reacts. What could be done? Essentially nothing can be done here.
A Huxley expresses his attitude very creatively. Consequently he is looking for positions and opportunities to express his attitude. People of this type are often found in leading positions in the society where their creative function is well realized: they are heading the departments at the Universities, leading people in other ways.

ESE:

Function #-1 – subjective ethics (Fi): Hugo ignores his attitude to people. First of all there should be external relationships, and my attitudes are secondary. My feelings and me are real and can be described. But a Hugo finds it difficult to talk about his/her attitude. He/she may not even answer a direct question about his/her attitude. This is irrelevant. Other things are more important to a Hugo. Relationships of the current external world are important. A Hugo tends to go with the flow and does not want to change circumstances or reveal his/her attitude. A Hugo's attitude is an intimate thing; there is no need to share. It does not need an explanation; my behavior speaks of my attitude. Others may interpret my actions and know what my attitude is. But putting it into words is hard and not necessary. A Robespierre, who compliments a Hugo's(, does not expect to hear about his attitude. In this area a Robespierre is full of fears, therefore they communicate in another psychological plane.

EIE:

Function #-1 – subjective ethics (Fi): zone of ignoring, minus-values, "bad things". EIE's own relation and attitude towards other people don't play an important role in his/her life. Other people’s attitude towards him/her are of greater importance. Of course both such attitudes and relations exist for the EIE, but the external relationships always take the first place. 'My attitude to people' remains somewhere in the background, often concealed even from the EIE him/herself. The EIE is focused on his external relationships more than on his own internal attitudes. "External relations must exist, but internal relations concern nobody else but myself." The EIE may talk about his/her states and impressions, he may easily imagine this and even play them out, but his own internal relations and attitudes are, as if, not taken into account. This should already be evident, everything was already shown, that my relation is such-and-such. However, to express his/her relation towards something for an EIE is much more difficult than for an IEE or an SEE, who easily and readily express their personal attitudes by their creative function. For Hamlet it is easier to play some role as means of conveying his/her attitudes and feelings.

SEI:

Function #-2 – subjective ethics (Fi): the zone of "do not need to", the zone of standards. A Dumas do not talk about their attitudes. Life reveals truth anyway. They would rather talk about objective circumstances than their feelings. Often a Dumas uses a definite formal criteria to form an attitude to another person. He is a democrat(, therefore he is a socially and status-oriented person. Extreme case of this type is a certified snob.

IEI:

Function #-2 – subjective ethics (Fi): the zone of norms, standards, stereotypes of behavior, no's and don't's. A Tutankhamon avoids situations where he/she needs to express a personal attitude, for example, talking about his/her own feelings of love. The IEI finds it easier to talk about objective circumstances, of how things ought to be, while his/her own attitude is already the way it ought to be. The IEI expresses his/her sincere (even positive) attitude towards another person in a conventional standard form. Such rich inner life escape is practically inaccessible to put it into words.

(But this doesn't really make sense though, since IEIs seem to be almost always talking about their own feelings.)

[squark]

Not to derail but this made me think of Trump "This type often uses words "shame", "disaster", "I hate it", "I like it", "fantastic", "great". He produces an illusionary impression that he really cares about other people's problems. A Napoleon is loved despite of his boldness, people trust him, they vote for him hoping he will change things for the better."

[Singu]

Not to derail but this made me think of Trump "This type often uses words "shame", "disaster", "I hate it", "I like it", "fantastic", "great". He produces an illusionary impression that he really cares about other people's problems. A Napoleon is loved despite of his boldness, people trust him, they vote for him hoping he will change things for the better."

No it's fine, I kind of wanted people to have random thoughts or inputs or insights that they have about Fi or Fe.

This is SLE's Fi, which doesn't really say much of anything:

Function #-3 – subjective ethics (Fi): the problem is solved when SLE changes his attitude to an object or a person. It is important to have clarity and definiteness. When a Don Quixote faces a conflict in a relationship; he tries to smooth it out. A Zhukov in similar circumstances is more determined. It is easier for him to avoid the difficult person than to live with tension of uncertainty. Both kinds of behavior are inadequate, however, he gets the result, which comforts him: the situation becomes simpler in both cases; he pushes the problem out of his life. A Zhukov has a radical approach to the problem: if there is no relationship then there is no problem.

But his behavior is quite well explained by his Ti on Stratiyevskaya's description:

His point of view he will forward and try to prove even against the general public opinion, using all the permitted and not permitted forms of debate: he can raise his voice, use emotional or physical pressuring: in a dispute he is not seeking truth but victory.
When he doesn't have the means of persuading his opponent, he refers to the other participants and observers of the dispute to try to mock and discredit his enemy; he feels the need to triumph in any way possible.

Often is able to have the last word decimating his opponent with his replicas or just a single phrase said at the right moment.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Stratiyevskaya

[Pookie]

Are you asking for any differences? Or are you asking how to distinguish the conceptual boundary between the two?

[Singu]

Are you asking for any differences? Or are you asking how to distinguish the conceptual boundary between the two?

I don't know really... I feel like there is still no clear consensus on the definition of Fi and Fe, as well as the people's general understanding of them are too simple and stereotypical (my own understanding included).

[Pookie]

Well its tricky because someone with strong fe has strong fi, so you often see them used together. Creative and demonstrative are both highly visible. But for the f bases, I*fj and e*fj, you can see it better as the ignoring reroutes the info into the base. But in simple terms, Fe reads people and makes inferences off of visual cues. Thus they pick up on the emotional atmosphere and are more at home with expression. Fi is a bit harder to explain, for me, because I have it as demonstrative so its hypertuned in one aspect of the element, but also neglectful of an enitre facet Fi encompasses. So the relational aspect of it, I dont have. But the other side of it is the part that makes sense in Ji terms. Subjective logic or, more aptly put, value judgements. Weighing the value of information. Ti valuers distance themself from this subjective bias as much as they can, but that also lends them to weighing criteria equally when they shouldnt be.

But as far as distinguishing the two from each other, its usually easier to focus on the extroverted element. How much is this person reacting to visual cues, minor emotional ticks, expression, and reciprocating an emotional wavelength. Fe ignoring wont do that.

[Nehtaro]

@Singularity, there certainly is no clear consensus. There never will be. The IEs themselves are too abstract, and behavioral patterns vary and have too much 'noise' for everyone to reach consensus. I've already tried explaining my takes on it, which apparently did not work for you, nor did it lead you to ask any specific questions--are you asking for an LII or SLE to clearly explain things in Ti-language for you? Then there will be something missing as well because of their 2-D understanding of Ethics.

It sounds like you want a clear, concise explanation that is neither too full of stereotypes nor too abstract. This does not exist beyond what has already been provided. @Pookie 's explanation is good. Aushra's explanation is good. SSS's explanation is good. I'm a fan of Anndelise's old blog posts as well. But no one will have a fully universal understanding that does the subject matter justice. This is part of human nature that Socionics helps explain--language and thought, like any systems, cannot completely describe themselves. We all see different sides of the same coin and run around in circles, sharing and repeating the cycle forever. Hence your 4ish feeling of eternal dissatisfaction and longing, even with this.

I wish I could help more but I get the feeling that my explanations are, by nature, unsuitable for you.

[chrys]

I mean it's completely not what it's described like in most definitions, the Fe at least. Does this mean that Reinin Dichotomies doesn't apply to Aushra Augusta's model of functions, only to his own functions? Actually that would make even less sense, because Static/Dynamic only looks legitimate with Fe as the manipulator of emotional energy, not as a static relationship with people... this is just confusing tbh I don't really like this, it ruins everything for me since I actually liked Static/Dynamic as it applied to the original definitions, this just makes the dichotomy either wrong or it's not what I thought it was to begin with.

Is this just some Jungian stuff? I haven't read Jung, so maybe this only looks right to people who've read jung. Especially when I see Fe written as "Objective Ethics", which seems a bit more like MBTI or Jung definition of Fe.

[Singu]

Well its tricky because someone with strong fe has strong fi, so you often see them used together. Creative and demonstrative are both highly visible. But for the f bases, I*fj and e*fj, you can see it better as the ignoring reroutes the info into the base.

Yeah, it's definitely more obvious with Fjs, due to their ignoring functions. EXFjs hardly ever make their own attitudes known, and IXFjs hardly ever make their own emotions known to the outside world. But this is less obvious with Fps because their F functions are not ignoring.

But in simple terms, Fe reads people and makes inferences off of visual cues. Thus they pick up on the emotional atmosphere and are more at home with expression. Fi is a bit harder to explain, for me, because I have it as demonstrative so its hypertuned in one aspect of the element, but also neglectful of an enitre facet Fi encompasses. So the relational aspect of it, I dont have.

Well that's the thing, since Reinin is defining Fe as "external relationships". As a Fe-creative type, am I focusing on others' emotions, or others' relations? Probably both. Fe is often defined as "emotions" by most people, but it seems to have also something to do with relations, and that's not necessarily because they also use Fi.

As a Fe-creative type, I feel almost a compulsion to improve the OTHER people's relations, even if they have nothing to do with me. It really bothers me if person A isn't getting along with Person B, and I feel like I have to improve it, like there's an itch that needs to be scratched. Of course, that would be meddling so I try not to do it. But you can say it in general terms, such as "making people get along" in general, like easing political differences.

So this got me thinking, Fe isn't just about "reading other's emotions", like I'd have previous thought myself.

But as far as distinguishing the two from each other, its usually easier to focus on the extroverted element. How much is this person reacting to visual cues, minor emotional ticks, expression, and reciprocating an emotional wavelength. Fe ignoring wont do that.

I wonder if IXFjs are actually bad at those things, or at least not as good at those things as they think they are.

@Singularity, there certainly is no clear consensus. There never will be. The IEs themselves are too abstract, and behavioral patterns vary and have too much 'noise' for everyone to reach consensus. I've already tried explaining my takes on it, which apparently did not work for you, nor did it lead you to ask any specific questions--are you asking for an LII or SLE to clearly explain things in Ti-language for you?

No actually I understood what you were saying, it's just that I had nothing more to add because you had explained Fi - that's all and there's nothing more to add. It seems like my own insight into Fi is fairly inaccessible, but if others explain it, then I can understand it fairly well. I'm just trying to add more and more data and input so to speak, so if you could explain Fi more then that would be appreciated. I may also not understand it immediately, it takes a little time to process it.

It sounds like you want a clear, concise explanation that is neither too full of stereotypes nor too abstract. This does not exist beyond what has already been provided. @Pookie 's explanation is good. Aushra's explanation is good. SSS's explanation is good. I'm a fan of Anndelise's old blog posts as well. But no one will have a fully universal understanding that does the subject matter justice.

It's just interesting to me, because there are always new insights and information available constantly. Like this definition by Reinin is new to me, and probably also new to most people. It made me think of Fi and Fe in a different way.

[Singu]

I mean it's completely not what it's described like in most definitions, the Fe at least. Does this mean that Reinin Dichotomies doesn't apply to Aushra Augusta's model of functions, only to his own functions? Actually that would make even less sense, because Static/Dynamic only looks legitimate with Fe as the manipulator of emotional energy, not as a static relationship with people... this is just confusing tbh I don't really like this, it ruins everything for me since I actually liked Static/Dynamic as it applied to the original definitions, this just makes the dichotomy either wrong or it's not what I thought it was to begin with..

Well, I think this much is clear... EXEs hardly ever make their own attitudes known, or they don't care, while EXIs are hyper-focused on their own attitudes and don't really care about other's attitudes. That's why EXEs may come across as "self-sacrificial", while EXIs may come across as "moralizers". But this is much less obvious with Fp types, as there are a lot of overlaps.

How this all fit into the "manipulation of emotional energy" of Fe, isn't clear to me yet.

[Beautiful sky]

No it's fine, I kind of wanted people to have random thoughts or inputs or insights that they have about Fi or Fe.

This is SLE's Fi, which doesn't really say much of anything:



But his behavior is quite well explained by his Ti on Stratiyevskaya's description:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Stratiyevskaya

ILE do the same in public that SLE do

[Pookie]

Yeah, it's definitely more obvious with Fjs, due to their ignoring functions. EXFjs hardly ever make their own attitudes known, and IXFjs hardly ever make their own emotions known to the outside world. But this is less obvious with Fps because their F functions are not .

Yeah but at that point you just have to distinguish between EP and IP, which is one of the more obvious dichotomies to spot. And from then you can rerun the information back in your head and start to catch the nuances, like oh this SEE had tons of Fe, but she also was not using it seriously, and I guess that aspect of it that was used seriously, is that Fi? And over time the boundaries become much clearer.

[Myst]

As a Fe-creative type, I feel almost a compulsion to improve the OTHER people's relations, even if they have nothing to do with me. It really bothers me if person A isn't getting along with Person B, and I feel like I have to improve it, like there's an itch that needs to be scratched. Of course, that would be meddling so I try not to do it. But you can say it in general terms, such as "making people get along" in general, like easing political differences.

So this got me thinking, Fe isn't just about "reading other's emotions", like I'd have previous thought myself.

Sure. Golihov: "This person perceives and manipulates the feelings of others very finely, a skilled psychologist. He aims to be liked and sees his own purpose in this. Often likes non-communicative persons who need to be brought into contact, brings them "light". He is constantly involved in the process of ethical creation, can promise something just for the sake of improving relations with someone. Rarely spends time time alone, as wherever there are people he can make favorable impressions and create "good relations". Knows how to advertise himself and how to create the right mood in a group or in conversation with someone. Loves finding negative relations between people and changing them into positive, bringing people together. When there is no necessity to change anything on his personal front, may deliberately spoil relations so that he can mend them later i.e. find work for his creative function. Can impose his wishes onto others so that they look after them as if they were their own. The wishes and desires of others often become his focus as they allow him to improve relations towards himself. Likes risky, spontaneous relations. Knows how to persuade, ideal salesperson of goods and services if such is his vocation. He is best for elevating moods, for bringing groups together. But the inclination towards intrigues may cost him his position, as the fact that he is able to discreetly pass off "white" as "black" and make it out "unscathed" sooner or later becomes apparent if this happens too often."