I found this to be one of the most useful threads I've read in a while. Good job, Expat!
I have to say I identify with Fe/Ti. It's something I've been thinking about lately.
Oh, I also really liked everything Loki said.
I found this to be one of the most useful threads I've read in a while. Good job, Expat!
I have to say I identify with Fe/Ti. It's something I've been thinking about lately.
Oh, I also really liked everything Loki said.
I know daug.Originally Posted by Steve
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Yeah. Definitely a good read.
4w3-5w6-8w7
A great thread although I haven't read everything. I'vw finally come to a conclusion I identify with Fe/Ti so thanks Expat !
This whole idea makes sense, but I think it's easier to determine this if you're a rational type. I think I fit the Te/Fi description, but the whole Te info gathering seems subconscious, maybe due to the inerts being functions 1,4,6,7 and contact being 2,3,5,8. Does anyone have an explanation on possibly why the second function tends to be mostly unconscious?
Last edited by 717495; 04-27-2009 at 03:28 PM.
I haven't been on the forum much...but just thought I'd stumble in, so I guess I'm a bit late to the party on this thread. This is a very clear theory of Ti/Fe vs. Fi/Te, although very different from how I've ever thought of the distinction and probably contradicting how I usually see it. I don't see that as a problem, necessarily, as I believe there are many legitimate sub-models in Socionics.
Taking this theory at face value though, I would have to fall in the Ti/Fe camp for this particular model. I am not much inclined to believe information based on whom it is coming from. Quite on the contrary, I tend to have the bias that doing that is universally a big mistake. I think ideas should be judged on their merits, and any tendency to revere "authorities" as sources of knowledge is not only creatively limiting, but tends to cloud people's judgment. I remember feeling very strongly about this as a kid....nowadays I'm more mellow about it, but still I feel an aversion to trusting something because so-and-so said it. The actual statements need to be analyzed; nobody and nothing is immune.
Incidentally, though, my first reaction to this post is that it sounds like the way some people describe the aristocratic vs. democratic dichotomy. Aristocrats (NF/ST) are supposed to be the ones who identify based on the "group" whereas Democrats (NT/SF) are supposed to be the ones who identify "on the merits."
Right away, I sense by saying that that I might be told that I completely misunderstood the point of this post (and the Dem/aristocrat dichotomy). But what I said here is just a reaction, just how the post hits me. It really sounds like Aristocratic/Democratic, although that's not a theoretical observation, rather just an impression.
Theoretically, I can see that comparing base-Ti vs. base-Fi types, it makes perfect sense that the base-Ti types will filter based on the logical merits, and the base-Fi types on feelings about the person.
For certain types, particularly Ip types I think, it potentially gets more complicated. While it is accurate to say that the rational functions are the ones most suited to "filtering," I think the irrational functions color ones perception enough to effectively serve a filtering role of sorts.
In the case of ILIs, for example, do they really filter their information based on their activation function? Similarly, compare ILIs and IEIs. Who is more likely to be swayed by how they feel about a person in deciding whether they will believe what that person is saying? Naturally some of that goes beyond type, but overall I think it is the ILIs who will attempt to judge more "objectively" through Te and the IEIs who based on subjective affinity with a person or group will tend to adopt that group's philosophy or way of thinking.
One other reflection on this....From my experience, some LIEs I know seem to fit this theory...that is, they filter based on source. I think this is related a bit to using Te as a technique to efficiently get good information, and obviously filtering by source is more direct and efficient than going through *everything* and filtering by logic. (LIIs though avoid going through *everything* by just ignoring it and building out from a few logical premises.)
Whether this applies equally to other Te/Fi types is something I'm just not as certain about at the moment.
Another reflection...this whole post somehow reminds me of a conversation I had with Expat back when I was going on the forum regularly, where he questioned why I would even listen to or take seriously certain people who have so called "crackpot" theories....and particularly why I would even post about what's wrong with those theories and yet somehow later suggest that I think that "well, maybe there's something to it" after all.
And this I think is a perfect example of the issue being raised. To me, even if someone were wrong a lot of the time, somehow I will always react to how their particular ideas stimulate me to think of various possibilities, so that I would never dismiss what they say but am rather inclined to focus on the one part of it that makes sense.
.
"Reading between the lines" only pertained to the Fe component. So yes, you could see the "read between the lines" vs. "read the lines" as Fe vs. Te, and that could be seen as fitting into the "internal dynamics of objects" vs. "external dynamics of objects" if one really wants to go there.
But I was reacting to "So, Fi-Te's way of getting "correct" information is to choose the specific sources of information (not necessarily human beings, but it's more illustrative if we think of it that way) that they can trust, and then in principle take all the information from those sources at face value."
In other words, he's saying get a reliable source of information, and then trust it. It makes sense on some level, as I acknowledged. If I have a project at work, I don't have time to read all available information. I'm best finding the most reliable source and getting the information I need. The approach kind of fits into Te "efficiency" and Fi seeking of trustworthy people. I see that dynamic a lot in LIEs and ESIs at least.
But where I associate that with group identification vs. pure informational merit is that (if we're talking about people as sources of information) then essentially the approach Expat is talking about involves putting the "reliable" people into a particular group (e.g., group identification) as opposed to just seeing if what people are saying is logical (pure informational merit) whether or not they are from the "reliable" group.
For example, if someone says "why listen to that person? That person is from the group of unreliable people"....that is group identification. But if someone says "well, I don't care how unreliable that person seems, I like this one thing that the person said and I don't care who said it; I'm just reacting to the idea," then that's a sort of emphasis on pure informational merit.
.
I really don't see how that's a Delta vs. Gamma issue. Knowing whom to ask about particular subjects is just a matter of common sense. Everybody does that. The way I understood Expat's theory, it seems as if he's talking about something that goes a little beyond just knowing whom to ask for stuff.
I thought he's talking about putting the emphasis (in terms of filtering) on the front end (information source selection) so that there's an advantage of efficiency, but a disadvantage that one might be blind to the insights of someone who seems too young or inexperienced or doesn't have the right degree (...or that one might be inclined to put too much credence in someone who went to the right college, etc.). (I know that's a specific example that may not be exactly the one he had in mind.)
...whereas the Ti perspective (according to that theory) would be more like saying "well maybe this person's just a high school drop-out who shouldn't know anything about this, but let me see if what he's saying is logical."
Now no matter how you cut it, even if you say that it's more value-neutral because you're recognizing that even if a person isn't a reliable source of information on one thing, he might be on something else, it's still putting people into groups.
You might say for example, "I'm not grouping people. I'm just saying this person doesn't know anything about Socionics, so I'm not going to really pay much attention to what he says, but he might know about plumbing." It's still grouping people; it's just adding that "well he might know about other things" to it.
More importantly, it's putting the emphasis on the person rather than the message.
And really my main comment here is that I'm not sure that putting the emphasis on the person rather than on the message is always a Te/Fi vs. Fe/Ti thing. It seems to me that it could partly be a temperament thing, or something else.
That's a total and complete misunderstanding of what I said and meant. What I said, and meant, has nothing - nothing at all - to do with what you just wrote about "young and inexperienced" or "degree". And that should be clear, Jonathan, if you had bothered to read the whole thread, including my other comments.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
.
It's not a sub-model, it's an analysis of how Fe and Ti, and Te and Fi, complement each other in duality (also in the duality of irrational types). My goal was not to propose something "original", but a clarification of model A socionics. It's not meant to be an improvement on it.
What I said about the Fi-Te view has nothing - nothing at all - to do with "authorities".
You're making it way too complicated, and it has nothing to do with "groups", unless you think that "people I trust" and "people I don't trust" are "groups" in the sense of Aristocracy. They are not; it's like saying that "people I love" and "people I despise" is "groups".
In its most simplistic terms, it is about this:
Person A: I have evidence that person A doesn't always say the truth. Person A will distort it, for a number of reasons: to cover A's ass in some situations; to kiss my own, in others'; to make themselves look clever, to put others down, to spare someone's feelings, etc etc. So, and at least as those circumstances are concerned, I will be wary of taking anything that A says at face value, and I will be inclined to at least double-check it (of course not in very trivial things like asking A for some very basic information like the time of the day; only if A had proved to be a pathological liar).
Person B: I have evidence that, so far, B has been truthful in giving me accurate information (as far as B knows), without catering for those situations as I described for A, and B has often been careful to point out when they might not know something rather than appear clever etc. So, I conclude that B is a more reliable source of information than A.
In other words, I feel more confident in taking what B says at face value than A.
That has absolutely nothing to do with A and B's level of education, or their being an authority, etc. It has to do with a Fi judgment of their character.
Yes.
Amen.
And thanks.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Gee, looks as if I really hit a nerve with you folks. It would be silly for me to argue with you over what you meant. I was basically commenting on the original idea that you posted on the thread, which as stated did not narrow the conception of the criteria of filtering "by source" to the issue of trustworthiness or straightforwardness in communication. In that context, the idea of filtering based on degree, or experience makes perfect sense, even if the words I used sound less flattering than saying "listening to someone who's more likely to be knowledgeable over someone who isn't." But of course, you're free to mean whatever you want, and if that means your emphasis is on trustworthiness/straightforwardness, then fine. That probably makes more sense anyhow, and I stand corrected on coming in here without having read all pages of the post.
I never said anything about it being a bad idea. I just said it was a grouping. And I was also implying that it's typically a subjective assessment that's made whether someone one meets is knowledgeable or not. Your example of talking to someone off the street about physics is just an extreme. Most of the time it's a matter of making an educated guess based on what you know about a person, and so it's subjective.
Anyhow, I never said that it's wrong to make an assessment of who's likely knowledgeable. ....Just that emphasis on the source as vs. the content *sounded" like aristocratic/democratic...but I never said it was the same, only that it sounded like it.
And as to the groupings that "aristocratic" types make, I don't see any reason to think that they're intrinsically unreasonable or illogical groupings either.
In spite of the connotational misunderstandings I think you've made some very good points, Jonathan. I get what Expat's saying, but I don't know why he replied in such a manner. Seemed a bit harsh to me, as well. Not too open-minded either.
Anyways, glad to see you back on the forum, J.
edit: I'm happy for Expat, too. (: He joined back just recently as well.
Last edited by Park; 05-22-2009 at 05:44 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Rubbish.
On the contrary, my original post made it very clear that it was about trusting sources, and your reading of it was totally unjustified (as confirmed, incidentally, that nobody else seems to have read it that way).
The issue is not about me "being free to mean whatever I want" - is about you jumping to conclusions without reading carefully.
I make no apologies about not being "open-minded" about correcting erroneous interpretations of what I said - especially if those clash so clearly with some of my deeper values.
So I was "harsh" because one of the things I find most repulsive is the idea of trusting someone because they have degrees, etc. I have known plenty of PhDs who are total morons and liars, and I will trust lots of people with poor formal education over them at any time.
Likewise with the idea that one should trust people because they are "authorities".
Thank you!
I didn't mean to imply nor do I think you should be open-minded about correcting erroneous interpretations of your views, but rather about seeing those interpretations as new and different (independent) ideas that have came up out of the original ones and accept/appreciate them as such. That's why I said you were not being open-minded - I was referring to your obvious disregard of Jonathan's personal thoughts and newly brought ideas/insights, regardless of where they came from.
Well, I guess you could approach them more objectively and without taking them personally, simply by acknowledging the fact that different people hold different values.especially if those clash so clearly with some of my deeper values
Yeah, I got that, and I completely agree with your POV. It's the way you worded your whole response that made it seem like you were getting revolted or taking what J said personally. Or at least that's what I think he got from it.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Thanks.
I think I see why Expat was offended though. Generally, I take for granted that the kinds of things we talk about in Socionics are broad patterns, which have many different specific examples or realizations. Hence, two people may exhibit behavior related to an IM element or type that is nevertheless very different. Similarly, when I (in an attempt to inject a certain concreteness to the concepts) used the example of pre-judging people based on academic degrees and such as an example of filtering applied to the source of information rather than to the individual contents of information after the fact, I intended this as one of example of how such filtering might be manifested. But both Expat and Diana felt that such criteria are particularly superficial; when they judge people as sources of information, they evidentally prefer different criteria, but the broader pattern is the same. So I think Expat, at least, was offended that I appeared to suggest that he (or all Gamma/Deltas) judge people based on what college they go to, whereas it was just an example.
Also, my comments were directed at the initial post and how people responded to it on the first page (some other people also thought it had to do with judging people in terms knowledge, not the trustworthiness/straightforwardness thing which evolved later in the thread). And I must admit that for someone who has been discussing something for a long time (I guess this conversation has been going on a year) and someone walks in the room and says something out of the blue that doesn't seem to relate to where other people are at, some people may be get annoyed by that.
But beyond that, there's been kind of a long term pattern where I read Expat's posts out of interest because they seem to have some good ideas, but then there are certain aspects that I can't help commenting on, as they trigger other ideas or questions, and this seems to drive Expat crazy because I'm responding to the words he said and where that takes me, and it isn't really where he wanted to take the idea, or he sees it in a competitive or critical way or something, and this has been going on a long time...
Do you identify with being INTj (or Alpha NT), Jonathan? I think part of the miscommunication could be due to Expat being Ni-creative and not valuing Ne+.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Na Expat just reacts that way because he's insecure. It doesn't matter if Jonathan is
.
That has nothing to do with it; if you think it has, you miss the point. In point of fact, before writing this thread, I went out of my way to ask self-and-widely-acknowledged Fe-Ti individuals to make sure I was addressing it properly from their PoV rather than make it too biased from my own.
What I do take personally is when people comment on my views and distort them into something else.
It has nothing at all to do with being "competitive" or "critical". "Competive" and "critical" would be in the context of you saying, "you say A=B, but I think A=C, because of this and that". That is perfectly okay, as long as I have, indeed, said that A=B.
What "drives me crazy"is when you start saying, "Expat says that A=D, but I think A=C" etc etc. My issue is not with you presenting your views; it's about your misrepresenting mine.
Well I don't think this helps much, but at least it's not a deliberate attempt to misrepresent you. I also tend to line my posts with disclaimers and reminders that it's my subjective impression of what was written, not my presumption to be able to know what someone else really thinks (like "what I said here is just a reaction, just how the post hits me" etc.), but that probably doesn't help much in your eyes either.What "drives me crazy"
(As to the suggestions people have that maybe I'm really Alpha, and that this explains the misunderstandings....Yeah, I've thought about that. That opens up a whole can of worms, as people will remember from all those threads way back when about my type.
Last edited by Jonathan; 05-23-2009 at 08:07 PM.
And what I was saying was that you could approach those distortions more objectively and less personally, knowing that it's quite possible that they have occurred precisely because of that - people's different values and viewpoints. I am not in any way denying the misinterpretations or your right to be agitated and react accordingly, just pointing out that they don't necessarily represent Jonathan's intentions or carelessness. (;
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I never thought that, not for a second.
As I just said, I never thought those were his intentions; as for thinking it was carelessness, fair enough.
I am just reading this thread, but I wanted to say that this explanation of the interactions between Fe-Ti and Fi-Te really make a lot of sense to me.
I am curious as to how Te-ego types ascertain what sources are trustworthy when they don't have any Fi-ego feedback around. I have some ideas based on past observations, but they're not really solid and I'd rather hear from people who identify with the actual types.
One of the things that drives me ABSOLUTELY CRAZY about Fe-Ti is valuers and ego-types say "this is this" or "that is that" without explanations and evidence. On another forum, there is a guy who is a guru in a field of mutual interest. He literally wrote the book on that subject. So when he deigns to come into the forum in between his busy schedule, everyone pays attention. Also, people are constantly quoting what he had to say on a topic as if it is the final word.
But my problem is that he always says precious little (or so it seems to me). Everything is a conclusion and not an explanation. He dismisses that which he thinks is wrong or illogical, but I have no reason to trust him just because he speaks "authoritatively" (which to me comes across as simply blunt). It really irritates me actually and makes me think less of him than a lot of the other people on that forum.
I know that I crave explanations from trustworthy sources. This might sound bad, but I am always looking to replace my thinking with someone else's, if it is a subject I know I could know more about (such as Socionics). I would NEVER replace my values with someone else's, but logic and thinking, yes. If someone can explain things in such a way that my mind starts understanding it in the same rhythm as they are explaining it, so that I can then feel like that knowledge is now my own, I really appreciate that. When people just state their knowledge without giving me a chance to see the process and understand how it works, then I will often forget it.
I must stress that I speak only for myself here.
EII
4w5, sp/sx
I would think that they either base it on some generilzed rules that they have ascertained, or try to weed through it comparing to other types of knowledge they are verified. You do not need your dual to survive so there has to be some reasonable explaination to how people handle the abscence of their Super-id.
It's not a grouping. However it is possible to see it as a grouping. But a person that sees that as a grouping by default, is likely be the aristocrat. They aren't grouped in the Gamma persons head.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
Why so much nonsense?
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
Hmm this is a pretty decent way of portraiting merry vs serious.
at this point it got me to reflect the following:
1) a constant need for people to ask about what is implied/meant, could be the result of opposition in this dichotomy. I.e lack of evident path for the interpretation of an object oriented critic (Te) to take place [ ... A) OMG i'm totally having an existential crisis! ... B)What do you mean by that, what happened to you?...] vs lack of space to maneuver interpretation for a discrete analysis to be made (Ti) [ ... B) so at that point he turned around and picked up the one on the left without flinching...1) are you implying he actually had no fear or doubt at all?]
2) An INxP independently of this dichotomy, should be very conscientious about the internal dynamics of an interaction. I.e how one's relationship with the object will be changing in function of the interpretation revealed through the object [Te+Fi vs Ti+Fe]
Ni+Fe Is aware of how the interaction with the other (conversation) could produce subtle changes of attitude in the self and other, which can be interpreted in a discrete consistent manner [...I feel weird, I'm coming up as an idiot, i almost can see how he's making fun of me with that cynical smile... That's making me feel anxious, if we should change themes to lighten the mood I might feel more confident in time ... It would be fun if... ].
Ni+Te notices how the exchange with the object (conversation) might produce evident reactions in the self and the object, which can be interpreted in a discrete ambiguous manner [... I think this guy is an idiot, he keeps on just smiling whenever he doesn't have a clue about what to say, this is a drag, there is no use to this, if he should shoot himself at least I wouldn't have to endure staring at his face forever ... How can I... ].
Wisdom: Knowledge condensed in antithetical propositions.
"Life is all about my most recent and pompous interpretation" [Narcisistic Scoundrel (Begining of Humanity - End of Humanity)]
this is very interesting. i've noticed with this an EII and a SLI. they filter information in how it was described above - by establishing a personal bond with someone they feel they can trust and relate to, then absorbing everything that person tell them. the stronger the bond, the less selective they are with what's coming from that person.
it does have that particular flaw that if the entire relationship was a delusion and the person they became close with was lying, concocting something that merely sounds factual and intelligent, and purposefully distorting facts for some kind of scheme, they are easily caught up in this kind of misdirection and gullibly mislead. EII with suggestive Te suffers from this more severely than the SLI, but the SLI also becomes too undiscriminating if the bonds of trust run deep enough.
My Lord the amount of BS in his writing makes me cringe
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
Fe-Ti gathers objective information from the emotional atmosphere and analyzes the whys/origins of that atmosphere.
Fi-Te already formulated subjective judgement based on internal emotional values and solicit external evidence to validate their moral judgement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ehhhh, you just skipped (again) on how /both/ have subjective /and/ objective elements just to bash on Fi/Te
What are morals?
I doubt that F- or T-processes actually filter data, which is likely reserved for input processes; they rationalize it so as to later dismiss or accept it but that isn't filtering in the information-control-system sense. Filtering implies an automatic elimination or passing of certain data at acquisition time, a process which doesn't normally permit time for rationalization. Now, rationalization may lead to some later filtering refinements, but, for example, if one is S-oriented then no amount of rationalization is going to cause a transformation to N-input.
a.k.a. I/O
Whoah this is so old and y'all keep Necro'ing threads but I do really see what Expat meant.
I don't like being taken so literally all the time, it's awkward and invasive or something. For example, I obviously don't want to tear off Anderson Cooper's nipples just because I did it in a fan fiction but to me, a strong Fi valuer would think I would want to do those things 'for real' just because I said I did and it's bizarre to me, being treated that way lol. And it's stifling/weird-in-the-bad-way to me if people talk ultra literal and "straight" and with no creativity to their voice. That's why I probably will never be a Fi/Te valuer.
(I do appreciate/can usually tolerate SEE and ESI's Fi/Te speak for some reason though- because they are my benefactor and semi-dual respectively, but most of the time I loathe it, especially probably if it's coming from str8 ppl Deltas- as to be expected I guess.) I can tolerate some IEE crap as well but only in small doses I think. Interacting with most EIIs/LSEs especially have been the most clash-y, I think over all. But it depends, I know that's too vague - socionics is complicated, there are all sorts of variations and nuances. There are INFjs/even a few LSEs that at least understand INFps a bit- it depends.
- I don’t care about authority. Even a genius can shit the bed sometimes. Those who are elevated on an academic/intellectual pedestal are usually given a bedpan—expect them to be insane or unreasonable at times.
- Broken clocks are correct once in a while. Don’t dismiss them totally.
- It has to make sense to me. God or the Queen or someone with a gun to my head can make me lie through my teeth to them. It won’t change what I think internally.
- I don’t judge knowledge by how much I like or love them or whether or not they are my friend or a psychopath (although, I do think most of my friends are pretty smart and capable). I can hold my tongue to avoid escalating conflict if I really care about them or if I need to in order to make a good impression, but that’s about it.
- The way I determine whether or not things are likely to be true is based on the known existence of occurrences that are dependent on those things being true. I utilize all obvious known indisputable facts.
- Due to the above, the more detail and cross-references to other topics something has or that a person is able to provide, the more likely it is to be true.
- Actions are the final word.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
