Individual Interests and Gift Giving Behavior: Fe and Fi values

[JWC3]

Individual Interests and Gift Giving Behavior: Fe and Fi values

The Fe Perspective

The general (inferred or extrapolated) usage of the word 'you'. Associations, Mass appeal.

Fe values generally allude to the perspective that any given individual is wholly unified in their attraction or repulsion to their interests or disinterests even though that may not be the case. From an Fe valuing perspective if an individual is known to possess a certain specific interest they are perceived or inferred to also possess interest in anything tangentially connected to their known, original inclinations. Essentially, Fe values are adept at reading between the lines. Practical manifestations of this behavior follow.

Assuming individual A is known to enjoy the genre of horror movies, from an Fe valuing perspective this individual is also believed to enjoy things associated with horror movies such as T-shirts depicting famous horrific scenes or toys relating to this genre. This perception of interests can be expanded to extremes such as; individual A loves the country of Canada so individual A must like anything connected to or associated with Canada ranging from souvenirs to mugs made in China that depict Canada's glory. The Fe perspective can also posses a much smaller scope such as; individual A loves the Transformer toys so individual A must like Transformer TV shows and paraphernalia (or from an expanded extreme; individual A must enjoy all children's toys. Slightly less expanded; individual A must enjoy what is generally perceived as toys for male children). In this sense the 'size' of the Fe valuer's perspective is likely correlated to the 'strength' of their Fe, the degree to which they don't understand Fi, or plain old individual differences. The important point here is that Fe values perceive individuals as having and wanting to display expansive and inferred connections to their interests and also that those interests exist on many levels though they may not all be present on an individual one.

Consequences: The Fe perspective in an Fi environment or interaction

When an Fi valuing type receives a gift from Fe valuing type that is only inferred to be associated with the Fi's interests (not directly connected to) the Fe valuer can be perceived as; overly analytical, misguided, or forced. This leaves the Fi valuer feeling misunderstood (understood incorrectly).

Assuming the Fe valuer is aware of the Fi valuer's feelings in this regard the Fi valuer can be perceived as; overly critical, needlessly difficult, or boring (in this sense meaning lacking in 'depth').

Notes: IEIs and SEIs, possessing demonstrative Fi, are able to access and operate on a specific individual level however will often choose not to as it will feel forced, contrived, or wrote.

Explanation of behavior See footnote

Fe valuing types pay attention to and interact in their external environment which is perceived to largely consist of the dynamic emotional expression of the individuals therein. Fe valuing types perceive rapid fluctuations in expressed emotional states as crucially important when it comes to understanding individual preferences. For that reason they infer internal states from external expression . They perceive internal desires to be as dynamic and changing as an individual's mood. This results in constant extrapolation based on external expression in an attempt to assess internal (inaccessible, not readily apparent) information.


The Fi Perspective

The specific (individual) usage of the word 'you'. Connections, Individual preference.

Fi values decidedly avoid assuming that an individual is wholly and universally attracted to or repulsed by their interests or disinterests and anything tangentially associated therein even if that may be the case. From an Fi valuing perspective if an individual is known to possess a specific interest they are perceived as possessing that interest exclusively until tangential or inferred associations are known to be included as well. Essentially, Fi values take preferences at face value. The practical implications of this assumption follow.

If individual A is known to enjoy the genre of romantic comedies, from an Fi valuing perspective, this individual is believed to enjoy only these films and not paraphernalia associated with them. This perspective can be extremely narrow in scope in that it may not even attempt to include the entire genre of romantic comedies. This can mean that if individual A exclaims their enjoyment of the romantic comedy genre of films after viewing the film Hitch (a romantic comedy) they may then be assumed to be referring to Hitch specifically and not the entire genre despite the individual's general exclamation of appreciation for it. Information regarding individual preferences is taken as directly and simplistically as possible. This assessment is viewed as unvarying by the Fi valuer and can result in redundant presentation of interests (i.e. getting the same person a candle every time an instance to give a gift to that person comes up for years on end because that individual is known to enjoy candles).The important point here is that Fi values perceive individuals as possessing only specific and expressed individual preferences and also that those interests do not exist on an multiple inferred levels even though they may.

Consequences: The Fi perspective in an Fe environment or interaction

When an Fe valuing type receives a gift from an Fi valuing type that is directly and specifically associated with the Fe's interests they may be initially received warmly. However, overtime the repetition of this behavior can seem to the Fe valuer to be; overly simplistic, unimaginative, or lazy. This leaves the Fe valuer feeling incompletely understood (viewed as simplistic or 'one-note' in a hurtful way).

Assuming the Fi valuer is aware of the Fe valuer's feelings in this regard the Fe valuer can be perceived as; impossible to please, needlessly difficult, or demanding.

Notes: SEEs and IEEs, possessing demonstrative Fe, are able to access and operate on a universal or extrapolated level however will often choose not to as it will feel disingenuous or unthoughtful.

Explanation of behavior

Fi valuing types pay attention to and try to satisfy the internal emotional desires of individuals but ignore or, don't acknowledge externally expressed emotion as important when it comes to achieving this objective. It's important to note that the information an Fi type attempts to influence is also inaccessible to them due to its internal nature however the emotional states of others are not assumed to be in flux. For this reason they attempt to interact with a static assessment of an individual's character rather than influence or react to their expressed emotionality.



Footnote: In an aspectonics sense emotional states are "internal," which means they are not explicitly observable in the environment; they must be inferred or extrapolated from the expressed (visible or 'external') behavior of the interactant. This is true of all individuals. The differences between Fe and Fi tactics concerning this lack of internal information is described in their respective 'Explanation of behavior' sections.

For further reading and a more socionicly inclined description see this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Fi-Te-question

[ashlesha]

yeah.

i saw this earlier and i thought it was really thoughtful and the sort of thing that could be interesting compared to a lot of what goes on here, and worthy of response, but it was just so far removed from anything i've ever theorized or observed that i didn't know what to say.

[SyrupDeGem]

Win list (shortened version)
Green socks, trilby, opera tickets, midnight walks


*Unhappy face* list
Gold (ick), anything bought without care or consideration or love in it, cruises or trips to superficial things/places (e.g vegas)

^ tuppence worth, disect it as you will

[JWC3]

Well I tried to make it understandable, I perhaps failed a bit. Though there are no assumptions made about why any individual would give any other individual a gift. In this instance it's just assumed that, for explanatory purposes, an individual is tasked with presenting another individual with differing quadra values a gift.

There are no 'reasons why' someone would do something, but it's assumed that they must do something and this is an examination of their rationale behind completing the task and how that compares to those of differing quadra values.

Instead of answering the question "Why do people give gifts, and are those reasons related to quadra values?" I attempt to offer insight into the details involved in two opposing quadra values trying to complete the same task.

If you must have a reason you can pretend they're all at a birthday party, or Kwanzaa or something.

[ashlesha]

there is always some guessing involved in buying someone a gift unless they tell you exactly what you want and you buy precisely that item.

if you've noticed that somebody likes five different horror movies, you could buy them a vampire costume ("associated paraphernalia" as described in the op) or you could buy them a horror movie (the more direct way as associated with fi in the op). but either way you won't know for sure that they'll like it, and its still just "associated paraphernalia" if its not the exact same thing (i.e. one of those five horror movies that they've already watched and you know they'd like to own).

[JWC3]

there is always some guessing involved in buying someone a gift unless they tell you exactly what you want and you buy precisely that item.

if you've noticed that somebody likes five different horror movies, you could buy them a vampire costume ("associated paraphernalia" as described in the op) or you could buy them a horror movie (the more direct way as associated with fi in the op). but either way you won't know for sure that they'll like it, and its still just "associated paraphernalia" if its not the exact same thing (i.e. one of those five horror movies that they've already watched and you know they'd like to own).

Well, yes. There are no consequences associated with giving a good gift. This is more how Fe valuers may 'miss the mark' in interacting with Fi valuers and vice versa. The incorrect assumptions an individual may make (but likely wont in most instances) in attempting to interact with another who has differing quadra values than their own and assuming a mistake was made how both types of individuals would react to the other. There are probably a fair number of gifts that are given without a hitch. This does not attempt to describe those instances.

[JWC3]

Maybe it's worth stating that in this instance an individual is only able to make 'incorrect' assumptions if the gift is ill received. If it is well received then, for all it matters, they got it right.

[ashlesha]

i've just never noticed any single person i've known over the course of my entire life only buying gifts that are THAT specifically geared toward the receiver. maybe every gift giver i've ever known has been Fe valuing. and even if you know somebody likes apple scented candles specifically, you might unthinkingly get them a long, skinny candle when actually they only like short, broad candles. every single thing is specific.

[ashlesha]

i guess that sounds nitpicky but it just seems like an arbitrary line is being drawn.

it makes me think of my ex's mom (who i typed eii) who was known for being an excellent gift-giver. but i mentioned once that my favorite color was purple and then after that i got a ton of purple stuff every christmas that i didnt like, lol. and it was like, oh, how thoughtful, she knows you like purple. HOW SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO YOUR SPECIFIC INTERESTS.

[JWC3]

i guess that sounds nitpicky but it just seems like an arbitrary line is being drawn.

it makes me think of my ex's mom (who i typed eii) who was known for being an excellent gift-giver. but i mentioned once that my favorite color was purple and then after that i got a ton of purple stuff every christmas that i didnt like, lol. and it was like, oh, how thoughtful, she knows you like purple. HOW SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO YOUR SPECIFIC INTERESTS.

Right, exactly. That's the proper Fi response. That's what she knows so that's what she works with. From the perspective of others it may feel like she has a one-sided or incomplete view of who she is interacting with. "This is all you know about me and you've been using it for years! You don't really know me at all!" is along the lines of an expected response as I detailed in my original post.

A tale from my own experiences; I was never very close with my step-mom. I loved her sure, but I saw her maybe twice a month so the psychological distance never really closed. She is where my candles example comes from. For her birthday and Christmas every year I got her a scented candle because this was all I knew that she would for certain like. I asked her our first Christmas together, that's what she told me and I stuck to it for years. I got her various types of candles, long, short, food smell, flower smell, you name it, but they were always candles and they were always scented. Then one year, after I'd known her for years, she finally asks me "You always get your mom nice bath soaps, why don't you get me anything like that? Girls like that sorta stuff."

My response to that was a sort of flabbergasted; "Whaaaaaa?" I would've gladly gotten her something other than candles if I'd known sooner that was what she wanted. I know plenty of people of the female persuasion who do not like bath soaps though, so to me making such an inference was disregarding her preferences in favor of viewing her as a 'female' instead of as 'my step-mom'. It almost seemed offensive to me that she insinuated I should not act on what I know specifically about her as an individual. Likewise it was offensive to her that I kept presenting her with the same, redundant, wrote gift year after year without attempting to read into her preferences.

As for your comment about me drawing an arbitrary line, yes. The OP, like all of socionics, is exaggerated to make a point.

[Absurd]

I tried to read that three times and failed, anyway, I bought some girl flowers once - am I Fe or Fi?

[ashlesha]

It wasn't about the redundancy. It was about the fact that just because I like the color people it doesn't mean I want a purple T-shirt. It was too unrelated to what I actually like. Even though it was intended to be specifically geared toward my interests, it wasn't, at all.

I don't know how you got "too redundant" out of that, unless you were only looking to validate your original hypothesis.

[Absurd]

Great - were damn pricey though. Next time I'm going to cut the expenses and get grass for free.

[JWC3]

It wasn't about the redundancy. It was about the fact that just because I like the color people it doesn't mean I want a purple T-shirt. It was too unrelated to what I actually like. Even though it was intended to be specifically geared toward my interests, it wasn't, at all.

I don't know how you got "too redundant" out of that, unless you were only looking to validate your original hypothesis.

It's my perspective of Fe values. For example if you watch some video I made on colors a long time ago I actually touch on this inadvertently.



I straight up make the statement that if someone is inquiring as to my favorite color I expect them to need that information for all of eternity and for gifts. I never expect it to change. Green will always be the correct choice by me. Always.

At this point it's worth noting that I perceive both you and Ashton to perceive your own interactions as existing on the wrong side of lines dictated by quadra values. That's fine. I'm not trying to re-type you, you can think what you want and I will think what I want. However, that being said, if I write something about quadra lines it is sensible for me to expect that in many cases we will not agree. There is nothing useful further to be said; at this point you really just have to call me an idiot and say this whole thing is pointless because in this instance it actually is. We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[ashlesha]

Okay but you realize "too tangential and assuming" is what we both dislike. Lol.

I agree that as long as you view me as an abstraction first and work your way backwards to decide what my values are, we will never see eye to eye.

[JWC3]

You know what? Just ignore all methodological descriptions of behavior in this as unimportant. They aren't and that is a valid criticism. It makes sense, we all do indeed give gifts for various reasons (@Ashton). That is not what I'm getting at. That connection, in this writing, is decidedly tenuis. Granted. However that connection is not the point. The gifts or the why are completely unimportant and only exist to detail the message of quadra values that can be made incredibly succinct.; Fe valuers 'read between the lines' Fi valuers take things at 'face value'.

That's really the whole point. That is what I'm trying to get at admittedly a bit inadvertently.

Does that help, @lungs?

[ashlesha]

Please describe how the following statements are indicative of completely opposing values:

"when I tell someone my favorite color, I expect them to use that information for gifts (including clothing, candles, stationery, and bath supplies"

"when I tell someone I like the movie batman, I expect them to use that information for gifts (including clothes, video games, and movie posters)"

[JWC3]

Please describe how the following statements are indicative of completely opposing values:

"when I tell someone my favorite color, I expect them to use that information for gifts (including clothing, candles, stationery, and bath supplies"

"when I tell someone I like the movie batman, I expect them to use that information for gifts (including clothes, video games, and movie posters)"

That connection is unimportant, ignore that. All of it. Unnecessary. In fact you're probably right, it may actually muddle the message a bit. The act of 'telling' someone something, or indeed speaking at all, is an externally visible behavior. Ignore all the behavior. It is completely and wholly auxiliary to the point. That being said I could re-arrange your statement to make sense in my original context. I'm not going to do that however because that original context is itself unimportant.

The behavior, what I mention people doing, or saying, is there to facilitate understanding that individual's perspective from a quadra values stand-point. In and of itself it is meaningless.

EDIT: @lungs, yes I do mean even my post with my video is meaningless. I was just riled up. It's still unimportant despite my emotional reaction at the time.

[Korpsy Knievel]

T
E
N
U
O
U
S

[JWC3]

T
E
N
U
O
U
S

Oh naw, see I was using tenuis to mean a voiceless unaspirated stop. As in voicelessly and and without aspiration ignore this connection, it is unimportant.

[JWC3]

Either you're re-typing us or you're not. You can't have it both ways.

Well in this instance I don't view it as re-typing because you both already know what I think. I'm not suddenly changing my mind as information in this thread presents itself, I'm simply stating that I currently possess and always have possessed an opinion that is contrary to your own. I'm not making this apparent for my benefit or to illuminate you as to my opinion. I'm stating, for the purposes of anyone who happens to view our disagreement (or in light of your last post perhaps lack thereof) on this matter, that this is simply a single battle in a war that's been going on for a while. I mean, that makes it sound far too dramatic, generally we both just keep to ourselves however I'm sure you understand my meaning at this point.

Um, I haven't even disagreed with you yet. I'm still in the stage of trying to figure out what it means (which I stated), as in how it applies to humans and how what you're saying would manifest in relevant instances familiar to me.

Behaviorally? Applies in what way? Practically? I mean you'd have to answer that yourself really. My gifts example is just one possible tenuis instance of a practical manifestation of these perspectives. At this point it's fairly obvious that it's not a very good one either. I mean if you come up with something that is a more concrete behavioral example of these two perspectives, be my guest. I clearly could use the help.

[JWC3]

If you say that lungs/myself perceive ourselves as existing on the 'wrong side' of lines dictated by quadra values, that's clearly a re-typing by you. Nothing dramatic. I just don't see the point of implying, "well… I think you're Fe-valuing despite the fact that you think you're Fi-valuing… but I'm not re-typing you!" That's silly passive-aggressive word mincing. Just state what you think, nobody is going be offended by it.

What I think isn't the point though. The point is that I thought it before I wrote my OP so of course you two are going in fit into my OP in ways that you disagree with because it was intentionally designed to incorporate your perspective in a way that you don't perceive as accurate.

[JWC3]

What you think of our types is most certainly a key point then if you used these very assumptions in your OP's construction as you say.

Sorry, that was a general 'you' referring to anyone, who by my perspective, is on the wrong side of what in this thread is my perspective. You may agree with it or disagree as you wish.

[JWC3]

Ah, okay.

Though even then you're doing an awkward confirmation bias here to say "of course you guys wouldn't agree with it, cuz you're self-typed wrong mwahaha!" (which is also curious since I never disagreed with you).

Yes, as I explained to lungs that was simply a knee-jerk reaction. From my perspective it's a lot like I walked up in this thread and started telling a story about my drunk driving uncle and really I just wanted everyone to not drink and drive. That was my whole moral. Then you and lungs come in with things like "Why was the truck blue?" "My uncle owns a van so he could never do that..."

To which I respond with a sort of vaguely outraged; "THE TRUCK IS BLUE AND IS A TRUCK BECAUSE I SAID SO! RAWR!"

When really, I don't care what color the truck is. I don't care that it's even a truck. I'm just pissed because to me it seems like erry body in the club is all up in this truck when I'm just here trying to say;

"DON'T FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE!"

I mean, I'm sure how if you had a fictional drunk driving uncle you'd be able to relate.

[JWC3]

I dunno, I tend not to generalize anecdotes drawn from my own personal experience as applying broadly to people as a whole.

Actually. I should have guessed that.

[Korpsy Knievel]

One year my dad bought himself every Creedence Clearwater Revival album, giftwrapped them and labeled the package both TO and FROM himself, placed it under the xmas tree, and made a great show of being surprised when he opened it. "Whoa! Exactly what I wanted," said he. Was he a serious or merry type?

[ashlesha]

well the "between the lines" vs "face value" thing is a pretty longstanding rule of thumb that i can see applied in some ways, even if not this particular way.

i appreciate that you were able to step back and take another look at the specific gift hypothesis but its hard for me to swallow "ok ignore that part" when there were assumptions about me as a person attached to our discussion that remain regardless. i'm sure you'll be able to find things in this post that indicate fe values, as well, because you've already decided what my values are and therefore everything i say will be misunderstood. i don't care what you type me in terms of "right" or "wrong" typings, its just when you start turning "the gifts weren't reflective of my interests" into "the gifts were redundant" because you're using a translator instead of just listening. this is what i tried to tell you before.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Where is this train going?

[JWC3]

well the "between the lines" vs "face value" thing is a pretty longstanding rule of thumb that i can see applied in some ways, even if not this particular way.

i appreciate that you were able to step back and take another look at the specific gift hypothesis but its hard for me to swallow "ok ignore that part" when there were assumptions about me as a person attached to our discussion that remain regardless. i'm sure you'll be able to find things in this post that indicate fe values, as well, because you've already decided what my values are and therefore everything i say will be misunderstood. i don't care what you type me in terms of "right" or "wrong" typings, its just when you start turning "the gifts weren't reflective of my interests" into "the gifts were redundant" because you're using a translator instead of just listening. this is what i tried to tell you before.

Cool. As long as you sort of get it I'm happy. And, Sorry. I made it personal. I didn't mean to. My mistake. Sorry.