at least 4 sentences. Also, tell me what the related difference between both Ti:Fi and Te:Fe.
Gold star for the brownest nose.
Tell me what Fe is in...
at least 4 sentences. Also, tell me what the related difference between both Ti:Fi and Te:Fe.
Gold star for the brownest nose.
Didn't Jung say what Fe is and didn't Aushra put them in those little boxes using her Ti superpowers at categorisation as you put it in that Scapegrace thread? I think you already know the answer.
Besides, wouldn't it be better asking them to tell you how on Earth some of them are "done with Socionics" but still continue it. It's like saying I'm done with my wife, time to get a divorce and restraining order, but I'm going to live with her all the time. Lolwut.
So, Jadae, rehash old threads, to infinity and beyond and still no one is going to know anything. Gulash isn't crap though.
Last edited by Absurd; 12-05-2012 at 11:57 AM.
Good question. It depends if you view Fe as being 'more strictly' emotion or ethics, doesn't it?
In socionics it is strictly emotion with an ethical undercurrent - this has behavioural consequences which are clearly attributable.
In psychological types it is strictly ethics with an emotional undercurrent - this has judgement preference consequences which are clearly demarcatable from thinking.
Emotions and ethics are the same thing, moral emotions are something else, though.
Last edited by Absurd; 12-05-2012 at 03:33 PM.
My understanding is that Fe is feeling used in an extrotim way, i.e. against another "object". In contrast Fi is feeling used in an introtim way, i.e. within oneself. So, in that sense, I would imagine Fe would concentrate on a display of emotion to others, whereas Fi would refer to concentration on how one feels about things, within one's one mind. Of course, Fe dom always goes with Fi in the 7th position, Fi dom goes with Fe in the 7th position, Fe creative goes with Fi demonstrative, and Fi creative goes with Fe demonstrative, so in a way they go hand in hand. So what also needs to be determined is when someone is emotional, what one's focus is within the emotions. Is it the actual display, or a consequence of what is happening inside. idk that part is hard to explain and i'm not conveying it in its full scope.
Fe dominance/creative fxn I also associate with prowess in how to convey a certain emotion/message to the public. I.e. if the public is to be influenced/moved in some way, the Fe-egos have great skill in how to do so.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Short version: (note, the image has been edited since it was first posted)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
reacting to the environment in real time in a way that changes the relationship to the subject in question in a way that others can see and respond to
is emotion in relation to objects.
is emotion in relation to self.
It is that simple.
To get
I say to get
Furthermore to understand the difference between extroverted and introverted functions, pull out some coins from the pocket. The subject of the extrovert function will be able to clearly witness all the coins, as objects in relation to objects, and will continue to compare and contrast all these coins objectively against one another (ie. in objective terms). On the other hand, the introvert function came from the subject focusing on just one coin; the subject has learned its more exacting specifications and developed a relationship to this image. Introversion is the image which has formed the greatest personal value in one's own mind.
Emotional effects do not vibrate off of objects. What are you smoking?
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
He's talking about how he defies Gulenko's cog styles and lives to tell.
You and korpsy really do only think in words, don't you. ...That's alright, my dual has a similar problem.Originally Posted by Scapegrace
You haven't seen anything yet, Kalki, but that's alright, my dual has similar problems, blindness. Anyhow, leave human alone, I mean Zhuangzi.
Try this to soothe your mind:
Last edited by Absurd; 12-06-2012 at 10:43 AM.
Fe is that special feeling you get when you and all your best buddies are huddled into a circle, gaily masturbating onto a grounded pepperoni pizza.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
If you were moved more often by curiosity than spite you'd get to enjoy being correct occasionally too.
I'm sorry, but saying it's about emotion makes it sound trivial, instinctive, and primitive.
It is that simple.
To get
I say to get
But it's more than emotion, it's about feeling. Fi and Fe both process feeling and affect, but in different ways; and that's what Jung describes.
good bye
Only beta people read Jung...
Emotion is feeling, unless you're talking about sensory feeling.
When people ask me how I feel, I usually respond, "With my hands."
Pervert.
Yeah, right. Well this isn't go anywhere.
There's a big difference between
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology)
is all I'm sayin'.
Do you then agree that Jung's feeling is representative of cognitive intelligence that involves emotion or do you believe feeling is just emotion? Some people seem to believe the latter (as it seems stupid to me, but I won't hold it against you), which is why I'm asking.
good bye
Appealing effectively to Jungian thought requires including relevant citations from his works, or from those who've commented upon that body of literature and practice. Simple name-dropping only conveys information about the referrer and his/her relationship with the referent, but it does not signal anything useful or illustrative about the referent itself.
Please note that Jung's definitions from Psychological Types were added some months ago on wikisocion: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...I:_Definitions
Affect
By the term affect we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other [5]. I use emotion as synonymous with affect. I distinguish—in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity)—feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that no definite demarcation exists, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. On practical grounds, however, it is advisable to discriminate affect from feeling, since feeling can be a disposable function, whereas affect is usually not so. Similarly, affect is clearly distinguished from feeling by quite perceptible physical innervations, while feeling for the most part lacks them, or their intensity is so slight that they can only be demonstrated by the finest instruments, as for example the psycho-galvanic phenomenon [6]. Affect becomes cumulative through the sensation of the physical innervations released by it. This perception gave rise to the James-Lang theory of affect, which would make bodily innervations wholly responsible for affects. As opposed to this extreme view, I regard affect as a psychic feeling-state on the one hand, and as a physiological innervation-state on the other; each of which has a cumulative, reciprocal effect upon the other, i.e. a component of sensation is joined to the reinforced feeling, through which the affect is approximated more to sensation (v. Sensation), and differentiated essentially from the state of feeling. Pronounced affects, i.e. affects accompanied by violent physical innervation, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to the realm of the sensation function (v. Function).
You will further find useful this Jungian lexicon prepared by the New York Association for Analytical Psychology, which is the branch of psychology that Jung founded. To wit:
Affect
Emotional reactions marked by physical symptoms and disturbances in thinking. (See also complex and feeling.)
Affect is invariably a sign that a complex has been activated.
Affects occur usually where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one . . . [is] singularly incapable of moral judgment.["The Shadow," Aion, CW 9ii, par. 15.]
Emotion
An involuntary reaction due to an active complex. (See also affect.)
On the one hand, emotion is the alchemical fire whose warmth brings everything into existence and whose heat burns all superfluities to ashes (omnes superfluitates comburit). But on the other hand, emotion is the moment when steel meets flint and a spark is struck forth, for emotion is the chief source of consciousness. There is no change from darkness to light or from inertia to movement without emotion. ["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 179.]
Feeling
The psychological function that evaluates or judges what something or someone is worth. (Compare thinking.)
A feeling is as indisputable a reality as the existence of an idea. ["The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 531.]
The feeling function is the basis for “fight or flight” decisions. As a subjective process, it may be quite independent of external stimuli. In Jung’s view it is a rational function, like thinking, in that it is decisively influenced not by perception (as are the functions of sensation and intuition) but by reflection. A person whose overall attitude is oriented by the feeling function is called a feeling type.
In everyday usage, feeling is often confused with emotion. The latter, more appropriately called affect, is the result of an activated complex. Feeling not contaminated by affect can be quite cold.
Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process. ["Definitions," CW 6, par. 725.]
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 12-07-2012 at 04:11 AM. Reason: addendum
K0rp, you easily confuse people adding these distinctions. Try just explaining Fe to people.
Jung's feeling does involve and is described as involving emotion. But for the purpose of explaining, "emotion" is the word most intuitively understood as the overall process, "affect." Otherwise, I agree with you,
Now, Jung makes the distinction that "affect" is the interchange of both ethics and emotion, not something different or a process between the two, so the terms emotion and feeling are of tertiary importance to the actual function.
Thank you captain obvious. I wasn't citing Jung, I was paraphrasing him for those perceptive enough to understand basic English. This is even better. The problem I think is that you misinterpret what Jung was describing, not the terms he used.
Last edited by 717495; 01-13-2013 at 06:38 PM.
feeling =/= emotion either. everybody is capable of feeling emotion; where the feeling fxn comes into play is in assigning and recognizing emotional value + making decisions (pertaining to others and yourself) based on these values. one is an automatic, primitive response to stimuli, the other is a result of reflection and conscious thought.
I understand exactly what you're saying, but there's no need to make the definitions of
And once your capabilities are sufficient to communicate with people above the kindergarten stage, you'll begin actually citing the passages your gums are flapping at so that others understand in detail what you purport to mean. Meanwhile, repeatedly pouting "Read Jung!" with an exasperated air certainly suits your vanity, but failing to follow that injunction with appropriate line and verse only proves your pseudo-expertise. May you aspire to a greater station in life than vapid poseur and swinger on nuts.
Yeah, polikujm, read Jung.
Reading and reciting may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me. You should try questioning things, one of these days.
edit: I just want to share my annoyance. This lack of thought has been an ongoing problem resulting in how k0rpsey reacts to people. He recycles everything he hears without thinking much about it, so someone makes a valid or original point, and he can't grasp it unless it's related to a familiar text and word phrasing, then goes on to express their stupidity: You have to decipher his words only to realize he's saying the same things over and over again, all the time.
Last edited by 717495; 01-13-2013 at 06:55 PM.
The riffs are just great.
Thats a big ask on this forum.
It is that simple.
To get
I say to getYou're right, defining the functions is simple. It's knowing how those definitions manifest that is a whole other multifaceted challenge altogether, and can be a subject of extensive discussions and complexity.I understand exactly what you're saying, but there's no need to make the definitions of
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Teehee that's funny.
For a short time when i was about 11 or 12 years old, I decided to mess with people when they asked me "What's up?", by saying "the sky". That got old though.
Mostly I did it because I didn't like that question. It just rubbed me the wrong way for some reasons. "How's it going?" or "What are you up to?" or "What's happening?" or something like that would have been preferable. Now I dont really care, "what's up?" is fine.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I looked up "up" in the dictionary for such a situation as this. The answer is, "in or into a higher position or place."
One another forum, someone just asked me, "How are you AAB?" I replied, "I just picked that username and it let me."
idk, i kinda wanna parrot what Rob is saying... that post was awesome btw, but yeah, Fe is just .... really faggy and expressive.
Like me, you, gilly... we all come across as faggy- real sexual orientations not withstanding. =p
Fi is more restrained, it's more straight. Fi is like in the closet, like heterosexuals sipping tea in their polished homes and talking about Republican family values. That is such a campy exaggeration of course, but that's the way it feels purely.
To answer ur question, Fe isn't in anything. Fe is out. Fe is saying ' I am gay' and like just letting your hair down or something. With Fi it's just kind of the opposite. People have accused Fe as being manipulative. I think both of these functions are incredibly manipulative though.
idk there can be this shrill-y girliness to Fe that's annoying but also with Fi - there's this like kinda stuck-up ness to it that's equally annoying. It's kinda like just reminds me of stereotypically making fun of something for being a bit on the colorful/gaudy/show-y side. But it also depends on where Fe and Fi is in your psyche. If it's super ego(polr hits)- something not inside of you naturally but something where it feels like society is chastising you on, then you come across as sociopathic/psychopathic to people in ways... you sorta have to work on being a bit softer with ppl so they don't think you're an asshole and like that's it, there's nothing else to you.
Fe external dynamics -what is happening according to external observation then ethical evaluation; external action of behavior gives them clues of that subject's internal motive. So heavily vested in their observable society's ethical codes that they feel not only obliged to follow it. Group emotions; this person's behavior is effecting the forum.
Fi internal statics -what is happening but HOW I relate to it and my ethical evaluation; the person's own emotions are changed with the person's own ethical values; their own emotions; how I relate to Sam, as an individual is more important to me than how the group sees him or what he does for the group.
Both may "stick up for a subject" like animal abuse; Fe approach is "this jackrussel was abused and find this little guy's abuser; if we shot people who did this none would occure." Fi approach "I feel (return to the Fi subject for reference to the external world - bring in first than take out) so bad for this little guy; I want to kill the guy that did this."
Fi interacts with one person, gets an impression of that object and builds a picture with facts; "Amy is smart, emotional, kind, chaotic." From this FiNe builds sort of "this is what to expect" while FiSe says "this is what it is." Amy comes in contact with Mary, Mary is these qualities. Amy's emotional makeup shifts, she becomes more tense, less willing to share information when around Mary, I observe that and wonder what is happening, what it is about Mary that gets Amy to change, I analyze this, was it something said? I may ask Amy what happened why did I feel her emotions shift, she may say "I don't like Mary because she criticizes me." I build the relational network in my mind and more so from that I come up with formulas as to what Amy can do to improve the relations between herself and Mary, while in the process also striving to explain to Amy the aspects of Mary's personality that may benefit her. I'm living in the world of human relationships.
Fe wouldn't waste internal evaluative energy doing what I described of Fi. Fe: "you don't like Amy? why? What she does is wrong."
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 01-13-2013 at 02:46 PM.
-
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
Also, I trust what people say, just because they say it because I ignore Fe, needing to see it; while an Fe is more inclined to look for motives, actions, through behavior of individuals; when people tell me they love me I trust that they love me, when you tell an Fe you love them, they need to see it, get them a gift or do something caring/considerate...show them.
Why do I trust it when someone says they love me? Because the concept of love "to love" is a matter of expression I relate to very well, I have built a concept on love and how it can be approached from many ways, "I love because I'm sad and I need it; I love because I feel lonely, etc." Love me is not just "show me" it can easily relate to the intricate and diverse nature of individuality.
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
Personally I think its kind of useless to ask "What is a function;" probably more productive to think about "what would this function do in this situation?" Or "what aspects of this situation would this function focus on?" Etc. Functions aren't real physical things that exist in some layer of reality that is imperceptible to microscopes; they are rather emergent concepts that, in reality, work only as a product of their psychological alchemical interactions with whatever information they happen to be apprehending. So there is no "actual thing" that is "Fe," or any function; only sets of interactions and circumstances that dictate its emergent differences from other functions. Because functions aren't things; they are more like ontological MOs. So yeah, beyond a strict theoretical definition like "internal involved dynamics of objects" its really pointless to try to describe consistent properties of a function itself. We can observe behaviors that seems concurrent with function use, and patterns of behavior that betray underlying processes, but literally speaking, "there is no Fe."
From a first person standpoint, I think Fe is largely about navigating predefined cultural boundaries regarding what is ok and what is not ok. Fe types kind of naturally integrate social input into their psyche and behave according to it. This is the crux of how Fe depends on Ti: basic logical and ethical maxims for cooperative functionality outgrow themselves into operational behavioral standards and measurements of compliance with this sense of "what is reasonable human behavior." This can be micro-analyzed and pigeonholed into things like "manners" but it all goes very much deeper than that. At its root, its about deciding under what terms people can coexist. Rational functions all do this: yes or no, good or bad, right or wrong. Fe's main holistic purpose is to decide on basic agreements under which people can function civilly, how we can cooperate, how our energies can come together without conflicting. Its kind of like the glue that holds us together, but its not a binding, regulatory social contract, but rather more like a constant bartering of humanity with itself on an individual level, a constant social and behavioral dilemma that finds new solutions in the balance between competing factors as new cultural, emotional data is input. This is why I think Oprah Winfrey, despite widespread typing as IEE, is actually an Fe dominant: she plays the Fe game as well as anyone in history, riding on the very peak of the waves of the concurrent mainstream women's and other related civil rights and humanitarian issues, to the point that she is basically seen as a standard bearer for everything and nothing at the same time. She has a very palpable nugget of control in society by virtue of being able to sense exactly which issues are ok for her to tackle and take strong stances on. She makes a living simultaneously asking and telling people what they believe. This is Fe in the largest (so instinct primary) sense: humanity as a whole trying to figure itself out and decide on the cultural standards it can live by and use as reference points for the judgment of its participants' actions.
In the smallest sense, though, Fe is really just about what people feel. This is the whole game: what is good and bad and right and wrong is ultimately dependent on what people feel, how they react, what effect it has on them, and whatever light shines brightest when everyone is getting lit up for their input, that's the light that will prevail. I think Fe people live as a kind of walking summation of what they have learned in this sense, and the reason their judgments can seem to carry more weight is because they are almost forced or programmed to live by it; not that they can't or won't or don't violate it, but that they almost allow their experience with people to determine their baseline interactive behavior: they are bought in. This is not just the case for "society at large" but also in smaller groups, right down to individual relationships. There are always terms, always reasons, and obvious ones at that, for which we engage one another and cooperate. Fe types live fully in these terms, though not necessarily by them; only to the extent that their basic rights (also part of the agreement) and sense of self (not part of the agreement) are not violated. When Fe people sense that you don't play by the same rules as they do, they will either hold firm on their ways and attempt to pull you into their "current," or they will adapt to yours. The nature of Fe existence is to be "on top" of these terms, whether that be keeping up with them or sitting atop the heap, there is a level of self-expectation that implicitly must be met. The most rudimentary form would be needing to have the newest clothes to demonstrate social class; a more complex manifestation might be a cult where members retreat from society at the behest of subtle agreements about humanity's shortcomings revealed slowly as shared beliefs over time. These are obviously both pathological in nature but they share the same root: a finger on the pulse of the collective opinion and subjective factors, whether aesthetic, philosophical, or emotional.
(And no I am not saying Fe PoLR or Role types lack this instinctual sense of agreement or have an autistic lack of awareness, this is more often the case with Ti egos actually, despite their openness to direct input about the feelings of others, which might make others feel coerced or manipulated; more that Te egos intrinsically perceive the lines drawn by such practices as fuzzy, inconsistent, and incoherent, especially compared to their typically more concrete standards for acceptable behavior.)
This is why Fe dominant sociopaths, like ****** and Oprah, are so dangerous: they can navigate and manipulate these agreements, and live even with a sense of connection to them, without being hindered by their humanitarian implications. Sssssssss...
Last edited by Gilly; 01-13-2013 at 04:27 PM.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I ask because I want feedback as to where forum members "are" in their thoughts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
