It's an overcompensation for the underlying awkwardness/feeling of defectivnessOriginally Posted by sevjenn
I'm a master at projecting 2 cool 4 school and in some ways I am haha, but deep down it's always this uneasy feeling of odd man out.
It's an overcompensation for the underlying awkwardness/feeling of defectivness
I'm a master at projecting 2 cool 4 school and in some ways I am haha, but deep down it's always this uneasy feeling of odd man out.
Thread title seems to be a double entendre.
Don't you dare touch him
I read it darya u cunt
t16t = gamma cybermen factory
i wanna respond to this thread but i dont know what to say.
hm, Fi/Fe clashes with IEIs that i remember havent been serious conflicts and havent been about morality. just awkward moments when i express or ask for more explicit clarity surrounding relationships, like telling my IEI friend i thought somebody didnt like me and continuing to push the subject awkwardly because i wasn't consoled with her "oh, sure she likes you!" blase attitude. or point-blank saying when i think we have reached a relationship milestone and then encountering a stumble in conversation where they clearly weren't really comfortable with or expecting that sort of comment.
with IEIs who are really nice & friendly i can either take that as a representation of how they feel about me and overestimate our bond or alternatively find myself second guessing every little compliment and gesture in case they "dont really mean it" (since to me these gestures are generally reflective of definitive feelings about people and not just done to raise the mood of the moment or whatever)
Fi-dom isn't about morality but i guess it can seem that way because its about those gut feelings of attraction/repulsion, good/bad, resonance/discord and strong & decisive attitudes about those feelings can seem moralistic. and Fi types tend to address those things more head-on whereas Fe types often seem to think its tacky and insincere and prefer to hint at it or make it implicitly known instead. like my IEI bf not saying he wanted to be exclusive or going for some kind of Talk about it but instead, like, happening to start talking about why he is always exclusive in his sexual relationships. i guess that helps Fi polrs not to be forced into deep emotional conversations or something, lol.
I tactically yield in order foster a merry and decisive result, my farsightedness will incite a positive dynamic in the field at play, emotively.
Gamma tries to escape the pit. Beta stands in the chaos and looks deeper in.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Nah only EII Buddha can do that. I lack that superpower.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Nah brah.
Don't you even think it!
Anyway, I had a dream last night and it came true today. Gotta post it.
Before I go let me Fe you up for a sec.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Don't you dare touch him
*has your back.*
Forces united!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Ya, I see Fe as a means to an end.
but people who actually dwell in that mode all the time...Idk I find it exhausting..like HOW? HOW DO YOU DO THIS ALL THE TIME?
I'm quite a serious type and person. I find the ways in which Fe dom jokes and is sarcastic to be lacking in sensitivity sometimes. They find my a erious and unshowy emotional nature confusing and they find my judgements on things to be too narrow
-
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
Yesssssss.
You pretty much nailed it.
I'm direct and the SiFes at work.. aren't? (they actually all talk shit about each other behind each other's back to me...it's quite bizarre... I don't talk shit about my friends).
But at the same time...SiFes are pretty good at cheering me up when they aren't being dramatic and/or gossiping and they rub my back/ put a hand through my hair when I'm sitting at the computer charting..which I LOVE. and most have a pretty funny sense of humor. they laugh at my jokes too but...eh as stated they usually end up saying, "ahahaha, you're so weird." They uphold soooooooooo many social standards......and I'm just like...jesus, be yourself, who cares what anyone else thinks?
anyways, I love jokes along with the best of 'em. I just really dislike backhanded compliments and gossipy backstabbing (which I know.. Fi egos are capable of as well...I just dont really know many Fi egos...the IEEs I work with do NOT gossip whatsoever.
I'd just call Fi subjective feelings. I'll leave it up to those who have Fi base or creative to describe it more thoroughly. But don't trust a beta or an alpha on this; I doubt they could explain Fi any more than I could explain Ni.
*sees lungs and blackburry discussing it* Yeah; those will do. And here's another:
"The main importance is that Jung calls Fi subjective and Fe objective for a reason. It is because the feelings of such types are either a direct representation of that person's worth, or they're feelings not about him/her but feelings of untied expression. Fe types often express themselves in ways they don't particularly 'associate' with themselves, that can seem put on, rather it is just a way of feeling. Think similarly of Ne types and their various conflicting perspectives that just come naturally as an expression of interest. So to define what Fi is, we look at the word subjective. It means that the feelings automatically reflect the subject who has them, by simple fact that it cannot detach its feelings from the impression of itself, so its feelings are wholely sincere, often singular, and they by any matter have a difficult time expressing many others shades of feeling, similarly how Ni cannot sincerely express perspectives they're incapable of backing up. The subjective filter thus acts as a limiter, or rather a focuser and intensifier, of a certain familiarized character of being, where as the objective attitude is always about expansion and openness. This is why Fe can seem illuminating to an Fi type and Fi can seem too harsh or serious to an Fe type. Hopefully by understanding these two terms you can begin to grasp what Fi and Fe really are: subject-based vs objective/detached.
Fi doesn't represent a moralistic person who stands up for their beliefs. We're often very subdued. Fi types need to come in and say this every thread because people misdefine them. Jung writes, "The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such people. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanor is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way." Jung very clearly speaks in his description that Fi isn't seeking any feelings about objects themselves, rather it consciously ignores them. What it's seeking then is an ideal, a vision, or a special sentiment or something felt long ago. Because of this we come across indifferent to a lot of things, but are highly passionate about our own world of feelings."
-polikujm
It's probably the tests which are at fault.
The Ij in my family had the most sparse living quarters. His room collected dust as he sat on his bed using his laptop.
I can relate.
Fe people tend to think emotions should be out in the open to share or to help each other with. Feelings are more personal to an Fi type and thoughts are more personal to a Ti type. (So telling me I'm wrong is a challenge to the facts, whereas telling a Ti they're wrong is a challenge to them, I guess.)
I'm sort of torn on the subject of social standards, both wanting to follow them strictly and wanting to abandon them intentionally. It's probably because I'm a 1.
Last edited by DirectorAbbie; 06-18-2014 at 09:01 PM.
" in their search for more objective truth about the outside world of feeling"
I think this is pretty spot on for myself-- I find actual emotions fleeting and don't trust them. I like emotions, sure, I also like to be in control of my own unless I'm in the company of people I really like.. I like to see the core of someone as opposed to their minute by minute feelings. (which is also important I guess...but to me not as important).
All of this being said...LIE's are pretty capable of Fe and I appreciate this in them.
Hmmm... the Te/Fi vs. Fe/Ti divide...
To me Fi can feel strict at times, with a more polarized understanding of the properties of people or objects. To me, it seems more balanced or fair to say "b/c of x and y she acts like a and b" than "she should stop doing that thing" or "she is spoiled" (terrible examples, sry!!) - since it seems like every action is a collection of really complicated intrinsic emotional processes and where those processes meet outside circumstances. Fi can seem like it wants to make a statement or provoke action while somehow bypassing the part where you address or even acknowledge those processes. But this is probably also due to my Te-PoLR (/Fe-creative... same deal.) I have no idea what motivates people's actions outside of my Fe evaluation of it.
Also I think to Fe valuers Fe seems more "objective" and less "hurtful" ('it's not you- it's the processes of your emotions!'- while being bitchy) and Fi seems uncomfortably intrusive. Whereas I guess for Fi valuers Fe seems like it's trampling all over the true inner feelings maybe, or simply "not caring" about what's really inside.
Honestly I actually think both parties misunderstand or over-read each other at times. Like, obviously there are annoyances in communications and sometimes you feel like you're over-adapting your values- but it's pretty easy to see if someone is a decent person or not, and what circumstances you feel like you can trust them in and where to not overstep boundaries. I used to get uptight around some Fi users (before even learning socionics) cuz I felt like I needed to behave in a very specific appropriate way around them to be accepted as an "okay" person, and then I eventually realized that it's not about that at all. Plus I think both parties actually sometimes misconstrue the other's Fi- or Fe- judgements to be more negative or harsh than they were actually meant.
Finally I definitely don't judge my idea of whether someone has a "rich internal life" (weird wording... just paraphrasing from @Director Abbie 's quote here) or "deep real feelings" based on their Fi- or Fe valuing (although I found that quote beautiful). Whether something is out in the open or hidden inside is not a sign of its quality. All of which polijikum explained better than I did.
Last edited by lemontrees; 06-18-2014 at 09:35 PM. Reason: reread quote
This makes sense. I didn't understand your choice to not let you nephew stay with you and it seemed like it was only based only on your morals and perhaps some guilt. My sister is also like this. She has a very serious persona and I can't remember seeing her really fall out laughing at anything. I am sure she has but more often than not she just has this frail appearance and it looks like she needs taking care of, until something sets her moral compass off. I have no doubt she is EII and she will stand up for her ideals when something seems wrong to her. Just as you seem to do. Believe me when I say this kinda thing ripples out. When she has narrow judgments on "right" behavior it turns people off especially if she presents it behind a mask of childishness, as was stated above.
I can see now why you made the choice that you did though. You had to follow your own moral guidance. I wasn't particularly put off by you making the choice to not let him stay. I guess I am more bothered by the idea of family not supporting family no matter what the situation is. I come from a tight family though and we have been through some horrible times together so it makes it harder for me to turn them down no matter how immoral it may seem to the outside world.
Thanks, this helped.
Edit: And YES! I can see how our sarcasm may hurt sometimes and it is not meant to.I use it often to lighten people up if I think they are too uptight about something I have done.
Edit: My IEI and ILI friends are actually some of the most sarcastic people I know.
Last edited by Aylen; 06-18-2014 at 09:03 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I didn't let him stay because I would have violated a few concepts that it was lying to hide the truth from his parents, who I know and have voiced their disapproval, which in turn is secret deceptiveness which I can't stand. I feel that it would have dishonored hia parents and I too am a responsible party. In the long run it doesn't help him and maybe if I had helped him that wouldn't have mattered anyway. As Dostoevsky said "the moment you make yourself responible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all."
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
That is exactly why I wrote in the other thread that it must suck to have the burden of the world on your shoulders. I don't know if I could live like that but my sister seems to be at peace with it most of the time.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I think being against premerital sex is more of an IEI kind of thing ....
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Please explain
Is being against murder an SEI thing?
The bolded is exactly how I feel around a lot of ESEs. they judge everything someone says, how they say it, how they looked while they said, what they did with their face/hands/body...this that this that... ahhhhh. it drives me nuts. my ex's mom was constantly like, "you must not be having a good time because you only smiled twice" ..seriously................. my mom is also the same. i get to the point of fake laughing for five minutes and back out of a room so they back off.Hmmm... the Te/Fi vs. Fe/Ti divide...
To me Fi can feel strict at times, with a more polarized understanding of the properties of people or objects. To me, it seems more balanced or fair to say "b/c of x and y she acts like a and b" than "she should stop doing that thing" or "she is spoiled" (terrible examples, sry!!) - since it seems like every action is a collection of really complicated intrinsic emotional processes and where those processes meet outside circumstances. Fi can seem like it wants to make a statement or provoke action while somehow bypassing the part where you address or even acknowledge those processes. But this is probably also due to my Te-PoLR (/Fe-creative... same deal.) I have no idea what motivates people's actions outside of my Fe evaluation of it.
Also I think to Fe valuers Fe seems more "objective" and less "hurtful" ('it's not you- it's the processes of your emotions!'- while being bitchy) and Fi seems uncomfortably intrusive. Whereas I guess for Fi valuers Fe seems like it's trampling all over the true inner feelings maybe, or simply "not caring" about what's really inside.
Honestly I actually think both parties misunderstand or over-read each other at times. Like, obviously there are annoyances in communications and sometimes you feel like you're over-adapting your values- but it's pretty easy to see if someone is a decent person or not, and what circumstances you feel like you can trust them in and where to not overstep boundaries. I used to get uptight around some Fi users (before even learning socionics) cuz I felt like I needed to behave in a very specific appropriate way around them to be accepted as an "okay" person, and then I eventually realized that it's not about that at all. Plus I think both parties actually sometimes misconstrue the other's Fi- or Fe- judgements to be more negative or harsh than they were actually meant.
Finally I definitely don't judge my idea of whether someone has a "rich internal life" (weird wording... just paraphrasing from @Director Abbie 's quote here) or "deep real feelings" based on their Fi- or Fe valuing (although I found that quote beautiful). Whether something is out in the open or hidden inside is not a sign of its quality. All of which polijikum explained better than I did.
In my experience, the problems I've had involve expectations.
The ESEs I've known tend toward seeing the emotions on my face and mood and relate it to what's happening at the moment; it's a problem because a lot of the time my mood and emotions are not directly related to what's happening at the time. But they expect they should be, lest I'm hiding something from them or acting strangely by not making things overt and explicit. And so this bothers them to not know because it takes away from their psyche's strengths (superego reluctance?) and this makes us, more or less, incompatible.
What are the differences between Fe and Fi when it comes to social etiquette, formalities (established rules and customs) and general social propriety?
Social ettiquet between the two is uniformly the same. I went to a city meeting in a huge room where all types showe up to hear about the metro rate hikes. With the exception of three empassioned young 20 somethings most every one regardless of type were civil. In a fun setting Alpha quad may be more jokey andBeta more respective looking. I for one just sit back and am comfortable in a small group .
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
.
Last edited by Skepsis; 09-05-2015 at 03:27 AM.
i tend to recognize those things in people i type Fe valuing but Fe valuers on the forum have said the same thing about Fi...so maybe its an irreconcilable case of seeing things differently. i dunno. i kinda wonder if aristocracy might have something to do with it too but i'm not the person to analyze it.
you seem like a really polite and nonoffensive person and this is hard for me to imagine. do you remember the joke? how weird. i rarely come across such prickly people.
tbf I don't think Fi gives me off vibes of "established rules for social engagement" but more so "established rules for who you actually *are* or 'should be' in your actual life." which I then interpreted via my Fe and tried to "mold" into proper behavior while socially engaging with some Fi people.
it may be an aristocracy thing too, and i also feel badly equipped to make generalizations
Yes
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
.
Last edited by Skepsis; 09-05-2015 at 03:28 AM.
Omg yes!! I feel a moral obligation to bond with people at times even if it they are Fe egos and cause me anguish due to their insensitivity to my feelings...etc. People do not understand why I bother trying to "bond" with them if I get hurt; but I feel obligated since they have shown me some kindness in the past.
What crashes with me and Fe users is...Let's say that I have a hard to deal with brother. I'm likely to complain about how hard it is to deal with him and continue doing it for the sake of moral obligation to my relations even though at every turn and time he drives me bananas. Fe dom would say :if it stresses you out (gives you negative feeling) why do you continue to do it (self subjecting yourself to more bad experiences that cause bad feeling)." I say it's because I (the major I - the subject involved in these experiences and emotions) has a moral obligation and bond to family that produces bad feelings when I don't do the right thing and I experience infantile emotions of empathy because the person in me feels the pain for the other individual and I don't want that pain to be caused in them therefore I continue in the possibility
EIIs are not very materialistic, so premerital sex, unlike premarital sex, is not a concern to them.Please explain
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
oops about the spelling
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
