What exactly is Introverted Feeling Fi?

[Jimbean]

What exactly is Fi? I have seen people use it, but I do not fully understand it, or my understanding is not confident. For a while I thought that Fi was about evaluation, but now I do not think this is the correct way of looking at it.

[Waddlesworth]

What exactly is Fi? I have seen people use it, but I do not fully understand it, or my understanding is not confident. For a while I thought that Fi was about evaluation, but now I do not think this is the correct way of looking at it.

Everything I say here will be according to my interpretation of the words of C.G. Jung:

As you probably know, here is how Jung simplified his description of psychological functions:

In terms of 'things' or 'it':

Thinking: What it is.
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not.
Sensing: That it is there.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going.

The second important element here the E/I dichotomy, which is, apparently, determined by the feeling function.

The E/I dichotomy is easily misinterpreted but it must be made clear that Jung initially described the E/I dichotomy as a general 'attitude' toward the outside world. So an extrovert finds the outside world more agreeable than an introvert, who resists it.

Attitude = Whether it is agreeable or not.


Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Extroverted feeling is used frequently in choosing a mate(and this is done by all types, even introverted feeling types).

Extroverted feeling says: 'What will others say if they see me with this person? Is this person too fat? Too short? Too tall? Are they attractive enough? Are they the proper race?'

The introverted feeling type has a natural attitude which is contrary to this but they still must confront these norms and deal with them.

Introverted feeling says: 'Is this person compatible with me? Do I like this person? Does this person make me feel comfortable?'

The extroverted feeler must deal with these internal feelings, also, but they get less priority. This will cause problems for them in the future.

[munenori2]

Yeah, that's probably somewhat close to the Jungian bit. Alas, we are in the socionics.

[Waddlesworth]

Yeah, that's probably somewhat close to the Jungian bit. Alas, we are in the socionics.

In all seriousness, it is as exact to the Jungian bit as I have so-far gotten.

[munenori2]

I believe ya

[ArchonAlarion]

Fi is simply a passive input filter that perceives the internal statics of fields. It is a way of "seeing" the attraction/repulsion between objects based on subjective, intuitive, and intent oriented criteria. So it can manifest as a moral compass for instance, but the difference from a Ti compass is that Fi is personal, value oriented, and (to me at least) undefined and slightly mystical. Whereas a Ti framework seeks clear, defined, concrete, "rational", and universal (objective) Links between objects.

Maybe Allie, Dolphin, or an Fi-er can explain it better...

[Creepy-male]

Your experience of Ti is very different from mine, Archon.

I think it's enough to say that it's just a thinking style shared by Merry Quadras, as opposed to that of the Serious quadras. Whether it's a strong function or not is whether you're in doubt as to the results or not.

[ArchonAlarion]

How is it different? I'm interested in your take on it.

[Creepy-male]

It's just a thinking style that works from rules (applied through my base, Ne) to generate understanding of individual instances.

Like ok here's an example process,

No family A clouds close to the coast.

Known: salt particles are excellent nucleators.
Rule: there is salt dust in the air due to the effect of waves.

-> Derived: no family A clouds close to the coast:
            they condense due to the salt dust in the air before they get that high.

That's cause-effect thinking, consistent with my ILE typing (positive/process)... I think.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well I'm not sure about the cause affect deal.

The elements are supposed to be "passive input filters". So besides the actual filtering, the information isn't really "judged" upon. You can make conceptions (judgements) of all perceptions (elements), but the elements are primarily reactive and accepting.

Now perhaps there is something to that where certain functions (mode, agenda, polr, etc.) are less reactive or whatever. Im trying to figure that out currently.

But cause and effect seems to be a dynamic realm of perception. Ti is about static fields, so I'm not sure that works, but yeah Ti is "ruley" in that way.

[FDG]

Everything I say here will be according to my interpretation of the words of C.G. Jung:

As you probably know, here is how Jung simplified his description of psychological functions:

In terms of 'things' or 'it':

Thinking: What it is.
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not.
Sensing: That it is there.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going.

The second important element here the E/I dichotomy, which is, apparently, determined by the feeling function.

The E/I dichotomy is easily misinterpreted but it must be made clear that Jung initially described the E/I dichotomy as a general 'attitude' toward the outside world. So an extrovert finds the outside world more agreeable than an introvert, who resists it.

Attitude = Whether it is agreeable or not.


Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Extroverted feeling is used frequently in choosing a mate(and this is done by all types, even introverted feeling types).

Extroverted feeling says: 'What will others say if they see me with this person? Is this person too fat? Too short? Too tall? Are they attractive enough? Are they the proper race?'

The introverted feeling type has a natural attitude which is contrary to this but they still must confront these norms and deal with them.

Introverted feeling says: 'Is this person compatible with me? Do I like this person? Does this person make me feel comfortable?'

The extroverted feeler must deal with these internal feelings, also, but they get less priority. This will cause problems for them in the future.

Good explanation.

[07490]

Maybe Allie, Dolphin, or an Fi-er can explain it better...

Strrng thinks I'm MR. NI. And I think Dolphin is Miss. Fi.

[Creepy-male]

Well I'm not sure about the cause affect deal.

The elements are supposed to be "passive input filters". So besides the actual filtering, the information isn't really "judged" upon. You can make conceptions (judgements) of all perceptions (elements), but the elements are primarily reactive and accepting.

Cause-effect is a really loose term, tbh. The whole point is that it's "linear" after a fashion. Compare with holographic, which makes dissections and compares them; vortex, which moves along a path while evaluating the resultant "noise"; and dialectic-algorithmic, which... hell I don't know--I think it evaluates by a dynamic process of comparing and synthesising ideas.

Don't forget that the functions not only accept information, but produce information. They take in information which then propagates through the block before being communicated again (hence why ILE and IEE have distinct flavours of Ne: compare "Socionics is fascinating!" with "That guy is really intriguing!").

I think it's also fair to say that there's a whole world of simple behavioural patterns... how else would the system of Quadras work?

[ArchonAlarion]

Everything I say here will be according to my interpretation of the words of C.G. Jung:

As you probably know, here is how Jung simplified his description of psychological functions:

In terms of 'things' or 'it':

Thinking: What it is.
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not.
Sensing: That it is there.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going.

The second important element here the E/I dichotomy, which is, apparently, determined by the feeling function.

The E/I dichotomy is easily misinterpreted but it must be made clear that Jung initially described the E/I dichotomy as a general 'attitude' toward the outside world. So an extrovert finds the outside world more agreeable than an introvert, who resists it.

Attitude = Whether it is agreeable or not.


Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Extroverted feeling is used frequently in choosing a mate(and this is done by all types, even introverted feeling types).

Extroverted feeling says: 'What will others say if they see me with this person? Is this person too fat? Too short? Too tall? Are they attractive enough? Are they the proper race?'

The introverted feeling type has a natural attitude which is contrary to this but they still must confront these norms and deal with them.

Introverted feeling says: 'Is this person compatible with me? Do I like this person? Does this person make me feel comfortable?'

The extroverted feeler must deal with these internal feelings, also, but they get less priority. This will cause problems for them in the future.

That is basically untrue in every way.

Thank you for posting this as an example of what not to think the elements are.


@Gulanzon: The elements don't produce really.

It goes: sensation (five senses, input) -> perception (elements, input) -> conceptions (judgements) -> action (behavior, output)

So the elements affect our conceptios and therefore our actions, but our conceptions and actions are not the actual elements.

Now because socionics and the psyche model deal with perceptory-cognition I think its fine to say that the functions (not the elements themselves) can produce, so no foul there.

[Creepy-male]

That is basically untrue in every way.

Thank you for posting this as an example of what not to think the elements are.

And THAT is an example of how not to communicate.

It just makes you sound like you're gainsaying for the heck of it--and that's not cool.

I'd agree that most of it sounds wrong, but there are better ways to communicate that

@Gulanzon: The elements don't produce really.

It goes: sensation (five senses, input) -> perception (elements, input) -> conceptions (judgements) -> action (behavior, output)

So the elements affect our conceptios and therefore our actions, but our conceptions and actions are not the actual elements.

Now because socionics and the psyche model deal with perceptory-cognition I think its fine to say that the functions (not the elements themselves) can produce, so no foul there.

Yeah, fair enough. I see why you're spearating elements and functions now, too.

EDIT

But it's still important to discuss the actual experience of specific elements in specific functions. The lack of that information is why I thought I wasn't Ti-creative.

[FDG]

That is basically untrue in every way.

Thank you for posting this as an example of what not to think the elements are.

Hey man, probably nobody told you this so far, but: your knowledge and experties of socionics asymptotically approaches zero (in the sense that, the more you explain, the more it looks like it's zero). So, you're not the right person to say "what the elements are".

[Creepy-male]

Hey man, probably nobody told you this so far, but: your knowledge and experties of socionics asymptotically approaches zero (in the sense that, the more you explain, the more it looks like it's zero). So, you're not the right person to say "what the elements are".

No no no, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry, this is not the correct instance for that style of communication.

Let's take a practical course in socionics!

How is Jake going to take what you just said?
Why do you not feel compelled to mince your words?

EDIT

And, fwiw, I think there's merit in using Jake's understanding as a springboard. Things aren't fixed, yo. Your pressuring the dude doesn't help. Mirite, J-bro?

[Steve]

Maybe Allie, Dolphin, or an Fi-er can explain it better...

[Sirena]

[b]

Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Extroverted feeling is used frequently in choosing a mate(and this is done by all types, even introverted feeling types).

Extroverted feeling says: 'What will others say if they see me with this person? Is this person too fat? Too short? Too tall? Are they attractive enough? Are they the proper race?'

The introverted feeling type has a natural attitude which is contrary to this but they still must confront these norms and deal with them.

Introverted feeling says: 'Is this person compatible with me? Do I like this person? Does this person make me feel comfortable?'

The extroverted feeler must deal with these internal feelings, also, but they get less priority. This will cause problems for them in the future.

I think this is so far off the mark it's not even funny, especially the extroverted feeling part. That sounds way too logical and restrictive for a dynamic feeling function.

I'm sorry I can't think of a way to make this a more useful post, but I don't think I can put it into words right now.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Everything I say here will be according to my interpretation of the words of C.G. Jung:

As you probably know, here is how Jung simplified his description of psychological functions:

In terms of 'things' or 'it':

Thinking: What it is.
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not.
Sensing: That it is there.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going.

The second important element here the E/I dichotomy, which is, apparently, determined by the feeling function.

The E/I dichotomy is easily misinterpreted but it must be made clear that Jung initially described the E/I dichotomy as a general 'attitude' toward the outside world. So an extrovert finds the outside world more agreeable than an introvert, who resists it.

Attitude = Whether it is agreeable or not.


Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Extroverted feeling is used frequently in choosing a mate(and this is done by all types, even introverted feeling types).

Extroverted feeling says: 'What will others say if they see me with this person? Is this person too fat? Too short? Too tall? Are they attractive enough? Are they the proper race?'

The introverted feeling type has a natural attitude which is contrary to this but they still must confront these norms and deal with them.

Introverted feeling says: 'Is this person compatible with me? Do I like this person? Does this person make me feel comfortable?'

The extroverted feeler must deal with these internal feelings, also, but they get less priority. This will cause problems for them in the future.

Good post.

[ArchonAlarion]

Hey man, probably nobody told you this so far, but: your knowledge and experties of socionics asymptotically approaches zero (in the sense that, the more you explain, the more it looks like it's zero). So, you're not the right person to say "what the elements are".

Okay whatever. Really you obviously don't have one clue about socionics if you agree with that post.

Bascially its BS with a good bash at Fe. That's all it fucking is. Once again trying to make Fe out to be a shallow piece of shit.

Fe IS INTERNAL JACKASS. THATS THE FUCKING POINT. SO WHEN THAT POST SAYS FE DOESN'T DEAL WITH "INTERNAL FEELINGS" IT MAKES ME WANT TO PUT MY EYES IN A BLENDER.

Dont give me that trash.

Go to Hell.

[Mediator Kam]

Okay whatever. Really you obviously don't have one clue about socionics if you agree with that post.

Bascially its BS with a good bash at Fe. That's all it fucking is. Once again trying to make Fe out to be a shallow piece of shit.

Fe IS INTERNAL JACKASS. THATS THE FUCKING POINT. SO WHEN THAT POST SAYS FE DOESN'T DEAL WITH "INTERNAL FEELINGS" IT MAKES ME WANT TO PUT MY EYES IN A BLENDER.

Dont give me that trash.

Go to Hell.

.... I don't agree how you are taking this man.

[ArchonAlarion]

I dislike it when people mock my position when they are obviously wrong.

Im getting upset. I shouldn't be, but I am.

[Creepy-male]

KAMANINGNANGNONGIR

I need your awesome. They're not listening to me

I need a SEIhug

[Mediator Kam]

KAMANINGNANGNONGIR

I need your awesome. They're not listening to me

I need a SEIhug

You are lucky I like hugs.

*asexual movements*

I dislike it when people mock my position when they are obviously wrong.

Im getting upset. I shouldn't be, but I am.

Go outside and run some, it really puts things into perspective. I've been pissed off on the boards a lot, and I just have to walk away for a while and do a cold reboot of my mental system, reparsing all info I have gained. So I beg you, re-assess.

[Slacker]

Fi is about creating and maintaining relationships. It is also about perceiving how others are related to each other - recognizing whether people like each other or not, who is in charge, etc.

Fe is about emotional atmospheres, putting people at ease, charging people up, etc.

[Steve]

Time to take a step back. Jake it's fine to be upset; what are you feeling exactly, and at what?

[jewels]

So I don't know the technical definition, but this is how I see Fi...

When I hang out w/ Fi-focused friends, we discuss whether the way people are acting/what they are saying is "right." Or is it mean? Is it intentionally mean? Or did the person just not notice? It could look like we're judging people, and I guess we are, but it's in an attempt to understand others and why they do/don't get along w/ us.

There is also a focus on ties between us and others. My other ENFp and INFj and ISFj friends all bring up things like "so you're really good friends w/ so and so? Seems like you guys are really close." Or, "I'm not a good friend of hers because I don't really understand her, so we'd probably never be really good friends." Etc. That's an example of the Fi tie between people.

So it's both our internal reaction to people, events, etc. in terms of whether we think it's "nice" and "right" and "good" and "appropriate" (sort of comparing our values against the way the world is working) and then also a focus on the ties between us and others and either strengthening those ties or making them less strong.

I knew this one fairly tough ENfp guy who seemed upset when he thought he'd offended another guy (who was ENFj). The other guy had acted rudely to him when he made a suggestion. He kept whispering to me about it and seemed really upset by it. I explained it was another reason that guy was upset (that he wasn't in the loop on) and the ENFp felt better knowing he hadn't violated some sort of Fi norm (that was how I took it). He clearly felt really bad until that was resolved, and then he thanked me later for making him feel better. So it was both his concern that he had done something "wrong" and "rude" (without knowing what he'd done) and also his tie w/ that other guy (he didn't want to ruin that tie).

Us Fi types like seeing this behavior in others as it shows they are aware of the "rules."

An ENTp in comparison might be in the same situation and would also be upset he had offended someone, but the focus might be that the other person "should just know" the ENTp hadn't meant to offend, and also the concern over it affecting the Fi relationship wouldn't be as much of a worry, as "I'm sure they understand I didn't mean it like that, so it won't be a problem."

The ENFp takes it to heart if they've acted "wrong" and want to clean up their incorrect Fi behavior if they accidentally acted "rudely" or whatever because they know it could mess up their relationships.

Fi types know that other people may end a relationship w/ them if they do enough rude things, or it could cause the relationship to get weird or bad or awkward if enough Fi violations have happened. Once someone's Fi perception of you is changed, it is nearly impossible to change it back (and it's forever sort of not a "good" perception even if you've made amends). Sort of like having a felony and trying to get a job...or going bankrupt and then trying to get a loan -- that's what it's like if you've pissed off Fi people and you're trying to refriend them.

[Brilliand]

@OP: is like , only subjective. makes clear classifications and unites them in a way that is objectively not contradictory. The results of -based reasoning can be argued about, as to whether you missed a contradiction or can derive anything more from the categories. is like this as well, except that it's subjective. The categories can't be defined in any objective way, and whether there's a contradiction is a subjective thing; this makes it well-suited for classifying people, who are often too complex to fit into a given system.

Now to spell out exactly why Waddlesworth's post was wrong:

Everything I say here will be according to my interpretation of the words of C.G. Jung:

As you probably know, here is how Jung simplified his description of psychological functions:

In terms of 'things' or 'it':

Thinking: What it is.
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not.
Sensing: That it is there.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going.

Thinking: What it is -> EP functions (or possibly Sensing)
Feeling: Whether it is agreeable or not -> Not sure... perhaps all subjective (N,F) functions, but especially . I'll allow this definition.
Sensing: That it is there -> Sensing is more than this, but yes.
Intuition: From whence it came and where it is going -> Intuition is more than this, but yes.

The second important element here the E/I dichotomy, which is, apparently, determined by the feeling function.

Therefore either Jungian E/I = Socionics Merry/Serious, or what follows is not really about Socionics Extraverted Feeling. I'll ignore this line. I actually think you may have misinterpreted Jung here...

The E/I dichotomy is easily misinterpreted but it must be made clear that Jung initially described the E/I dichotomy as a general 'attitude' toward the outside world. So an extrovert finds the outside world more agreeable than an introvert, who resists it.

Not bad. I'd actually say that it's about how agreeable a person finds himself - an Extrovert is driven outward, whereas an Introvert is more comfortable within himself. My reasoning for this? Perceiving types are continually changing, therefore they are better understood by Dynamic types. Judging types are relatively unchanging, therefore they are better understood by Static types. Dynamic Perceivers and Static Judgers understand themselves, and therefore they are introverted. Dynamic Judgers and Static Perceivers have difficulty understanding themselves; so they are driven into the world.

Attitude = Whether it is agreeable or not.

Close... let's see where this leads.

Introverted feeling is an attitude which is contrary to conformity to ethical norms. Ethical norms are (for this situation) extroverted feeling.

Balderdash. The previous claims are too shaky already to hold up this statement. is not opposed to an ethical standard!

And the rest depends on that, so there is no need for me to deal with it.

[Waddlesworth]

I want to make it clear that I am not attacking any psychological functions.

First off, my way of interpreting 'elements' is sound. It is not the only possible interpretation, but it is the only one I have seen that makes an attempt at structurally understanding Jung's words.

I have spent alot of time in the past thinking about the structural nature of Socionics. I have been able to answer most of my questions.

Those that are interested in understanding the structural base of Socionics may gain from my posts. There is a great deal more that I have discovered and perhaps I may share it.

There is a problem with the I/E dichotomy

The question I have often asked about it is this:

Is I/E characterized by a universal difference in the way in which the mind perceives reality? That is, do all humans, regardless of type, perceive internal and external reality(from a purely instinctive standpoint) in the same way? If they do not, is this difference the basis for psychological type and the determinant of I/E? Or is psychological type separate from this?

I used to hold to the belief that an introvert perceives his/her reality mostly within the internal psyche. What I mean by this is that the introvert sees, hears and perhaps feels their internal imagination/perceptions more than their external surroundings. So this would imply that an introvert has better access to internal pictures of events, the details of memory etcetera, but this would come at an expense of losing attention of the external reality. This tendency is instinctive and involuntary.

Quite simply; Is I/E characterized and defined by a different mode of instinctive processing of reality?

But then there is another perspective and this is that all humans generally perceive reality the same way, and if they do not, their differences in perception do not play a role in the determination of type.

By that I mean that, even if a person has superior access to their internal imagination, sensations, thoughts, facts etcetera, they may still be an extrovert.

Why?

Because I/E is not determined by the instinctive processing/perception of reality, but something else. This something else is 'attitude'.

Well, what is attitude? When someone says you have a 'bad attitude', what do they mean?

here is one dictionary definition:


Attitude
noun 1. manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.

So I think most of us will agree that an 'attitude' is a 'feeling' that a person has toward what they are experiencing. That is, 'Whether it is agreeable or not'.

So if we see I/E as a preference of FEELING toward the external and internal space, then it may not always be relevant whether a person is better at, or tends toward processing internal or external information involuntarily. This may explain the notion of subtypes.

So I/E, according to Jung's definition and the definitions I have just set, implies that I/E is related to a preference of information in the external or internal reality.

Interestingly, all preferences of psychological functions, if the above assumptions are confirmed, may be determined by the feeling function.

The extraverted attitude is a preference toward modeling the internal reality based upon the external world. This is symptomatic of a general tendency to agree with the external world. So a type with Fe preferred will attempt to create relations that are modeled after their external reality. Their internal world will develop in a way which mirrors this.

Eventually it may be that, with a prolonged preference toward the internal space a person's internal world will begin extroverting itself, creating schizophrenia. the person will begin to 'hear things' or 'see things'. Prolonged extroverting may cause internal emptiness or 'poverty'.

Essentially; A change in instinctive processing can be the result of prolonged preference to either Introversion or Extroversion.

If I came across as attacking Fe, or any other psychological function, it was not my intention.

[pluie]

Well I'm not sure about the cause affect deal.

The elements are supposed to be "passive input filters". So besides the actual filtering, the information isn't really "judged" upon. You can make conceptions (judgements) of all perceptions (elements), but the elements are primarily reactive and accepting.

Now perhaps there is something to that where certain functions (mode, agenda, polr, etc.) are less reactive or whatever. Im trying to figure that out currently.

But cause and effect seems to be a dynamic realm of perception. Ti is about static fields, so I'm not sure that works, but yeah Ti is "ruley" in that way.

oh God...
Boxxy??? Explain? please?

I hope it's not what i think it is :x

[Brilliand]

I want to make it clear that I am not attacking any psychological functions.

First off, my way of interpreting 'elements' is sound. It is not the only possible interpretation, but it is the only one I have seen that makes an attempt at structurally understanding Jung's words.

I have spent alot of time in the past thinking about the structural nature of Socionics. I have been able to answer most of my questions.

Those that are interested in understanding the structural base of Socionics may gain from my posts. There is a great deal more that I have discovered and perhaps I may share it.

My apologies if I seemed accusing; I only meant to imply that your conclusions were incorrect, not that you had any ill intentions.

Jung is not an authority on Socionics; he was merely the inspiration. While his words can be helpful, I wouldn't advise taking them as holy writ, so to speak.

There is a problem with the I/E dichotomy

The question I have often asked about it is this:

Is I/E characterized by a universal difference in the way in which the mind perceives reality? That is, do all humans, regardless of type, perceive internal and external reality(from a purely instinctive standpoint) in the same way? If they do not, is this difference the basis for psychological type and the determinant of I/E? Or is psychological type separate from this?

I used to hold to the belief that an introvert perceives his/her reality mostly within the internal psyche. What I mean by this is that the introvert sees, hears and perhaps feels their internal imagination/perceptions more than their external surroundings. So this would imply that an introvert has better access to internal pictures of events, the details of memory etcetera, but this would come at an expense of losing attention of the external reality. This tendency is instinctive and involuntary.

Quite simply; Is I/E characterized and defined by a different mode of instinctive processing of reality?

But then there is another perspective and this is that all humans generally perceive reality the same way, and if they do not, their differences in perception do not play a role in the determination of type.

By that I mean that, even if a person has superior access to their internal imagination, sensations, thoughts, facts etcetera, they may still be an extrovert.

At this point you assume that everyone has the same inward vs. outward focus. I have not found this to be true. A few days ago, Gulanzon said in a chat "I wonder what it would be like to have a sense of self?" after I had gone on for a while about my sense of self. In general, I would expect introverted types to have more focus on themselves, whereas extroverted types would have more outward focus. I have not personally made many observations on that point, but apparently that is also the classical position on E/I.

I also have an explanation for this, rooted in the Reinin-style relationship "Static/Dynamic XOR Judging/Perceiving = Introvert/Extrovert." My explanation is that Judging are relatively nonchanging types (thus suited for Static processing), whereas Perceiving types are very changeable (thus suited for Dynamic processing). Thus Static Judgers and Dynamic Perceivers are well-suited to process themselves, whereas Dynamic Judgers and Static Perceivers have better odds out in the external world.

To continue your line of thought, though:

Why?

Because I/E is not determined by the instinctive processing/perception of reality, but something else. This something else is 'attitude'.

Well, what is attitude? When someone says you have a 'bad attitude', what do they mean?

here is one dictionary definition:


Attitude
noun 1. manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.

So I think most of us will agree that an 'attitude' is a 'feeling' that a person has toward what they are experiencing. That is, 'Whether it is agreeable or not'.

OK, you've made a jump here - you've changed definitions in the middle of a sentence. "feelings" are not the same as Socionics "Feeling." The Jungian/Socionic word "Feeling" is an approximate translation that was already jargon in Russia. Do not expect to find a word with its exact meaning in an English dictionary, and if a non-Socionist such as Webster say "feeling" you can assume it isn't the Socionic term.

You've made the jump from E/I to T/F, and while I could stretch your statement to make it true (i.e. Introvert/Extrovert = Merry/Serious XOR Emotivist/Constructivist, which in turn can be defined by Feeling function position), what follows is inconsistent with any such stretch.

Now, each element has an extroverted and introverted form, and an overall introvert still has an extroverted element. That interpretation can be forced into your continuation without too much stretching. So you are talking about .

So if we see I/E as a preference of FEELING toward the external and internal space, then it may not always be relevant whether a person is better at, or tends toward processing internal or external information involuntarily. This may explain the notion of subtypes.

So I/E, according to Jung's definition and the definitions I have just set, implies that I/E is related to a preference of information in the external or internal reality.

Interestingly, all preferences of psychological functions, if the above assumptions are confirmed, may be determined by the feeling function.

At this point my new interpretation breaks down, and I don't know what to make of it except that you are wrong. I've already pointed out the equivocation that imo is the cause.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Fi is simply a passive input filter that perceives the internal statics of fields. It is a way of "seeing" the attraction/repulsion between objects based on subjective, intuitive, and intent oriented criteria. So it can manifest as a moral compass for instance,

I agree with the first half of what you wrote. This part, I quoted. The second however, I think you were getting a bit too far-fetched.

[Waddlesworth]

My apologies if I seemed accusing; I only meant to imply that your conclusions were incorrect, not that you had any ill intentions.

Jung is not an authority on Socionics; he was merely the inspiration. While his words can be helpful, I wouldn't advise taking them as holy writ, so to speak.

Jung was the first to define introversion and extroversion. He defined that they were the basic attitude that a person has toward the outside world. No way around that.

Now what does a Socionics or MBTI test usually ask? It asks "which do you prefer". It tests you on ATTITUDE.

It asks you to use a rational function. It asks "is it agreeable or not".

That is Feeling.

At this point you assume that everyone has the same inward vs. outward focus. I have not found this to be true. A few days ago, Gulanzon said in a chat "I wonder what it would be like to have a sense of self?" after I had gone on for a while about my sense of self. In general, I would expect introverted types to have more focus on themselves, whereas extroverted types would have more outward focus. I have not personally made many observations on that point, but apparently that is also the classical position on E/I.

I used to think that I was an extrovert. I thought this because I thought as though my consciousness existed primarily within the outside world. My internal visions, memories, voices, etcetera, were not dominant. I assumed, naively, that I/E was a mental mode which one was locked into from birth. I think that this is what you mean by "focus" or if not that, something similar.

Now that I have started to live in the real world I have come to learn that my emerging introversion is the result of an attitude that I have. It is the result of how people and situations make me feel. I realize that most people conform for the sake of conformity. They don't know why they act the way that they do, they just do it. For example; they talk about sports and root for the home team. They talk about popular music and their favorite television shows. I have an attitude which prefers to have nothing to do with this sort of thing. My attitude has drawn me within. I have judged the external world to not be in agreement with myself, so now I have been developing my internal eye. For this I seem to be an introvert.

It could be that introverts and extroverts have a different way of seeing things from the start, a different "focus" as you say. But we can't really measure that, can we? We can't go inside everyone's mind and see that. What we have to do is measure their JUDGEMENT, their FEELING FUNCTION. We have to ask them what is agreeable to them.

I also have an explanation for this, rooted in the Reinin-style relationship "Static/Dynamic XOR Judging/Perceiving = Introvert/Extrovert." My explanation is that Judging are relatively nonchanging types (thus suited for Static processing), whereas Perceiving types are very changeable (thus suited for Dynamic processing). Thus Static Judgers and Dynamic Perceivers are well-suited to process themselves, whereas Dynamic Judgers and Static Perceivers have better odds out in the external world.

I can't yet accept the Reinin dichotomies. As far as I am concerned right now, they are illusory.

To continue your line of thought, though:

OK, you've made a jump here - you've changed definitions in the middle of a sentence. "feelings" are not the same as Socionics "Feeling." The Jungian/Socionic word "Feeling" is an approximate translation that was already jargon in Russia. Do not expect to find a word with its exact meaning in an English dictionary, and if a non-Socionist such as Webster say "feeling" you can assume it isn't the Socionic term.

Feelings are "whether it is agreeable or not". Feelings manifest as "attitude". Attitude/feelings are one of two rational functions.

This seems likely. Best of all, it is simple and can be tested!

You've made the jump from E/I to T/F, and while I could stretch your statement to make it true (i.e. Introvert/Extrovert = Merry/Serious XOR Emotivist/Constructivist, which in turn can be defined by Feeling function position), what follows is inconsistent with any such stretch.

Again with the Reinin dichotomies.

Why do people always want to toy with the most overly complicated and convoluted things? Is it because it is easy to hide what they don't know?

Socionics is not complicated. Really, it is very simple. Reinin dichotomies seem to convolute Socionics.

Now, each element has an extroverted and introverted form, and an overall introvert still has an extroverted element. That interpretation can be forced into your continuation without too much stretching. So you are talking about .

is when you use the function of feeling and you pair with it an introverted attitude.

For the sake of simplicity let us, for the moment, assume this:

You must use the Feeling function when choosing a mate. Nomatter what this choice is , but the attitude that one models their introverted feeling is dependent upon whether they are or

If they are then the choice they make for their mate is dependent upon the social norms. For example, "Does he have good prospects? Is he the proper height? Does he come from a good family? Does he have a nice car?" So it is still "what do I want, which is , but it is determined by "what is everyone else doing?" which is

At this point my new interpretation breaks down, and I don't know what to make of it except that you are wrong. I've already pointed out the equivocation that imo is the cause.

You can conclude that if you want. But that doesn't prove that I am wrong; though I could be wrong.

[ArchonAlarion]

oh God...
Boxxy??? Explain? please?

I hope it's not what i think it is :x

It is exactly what you think it is




@Waddles:

Man, you really do not understand the socionics elements.

What you are calling "extraverted feeling" is frankly despicable and insulting. Conforming to ethical norms has absolutely dick to do with Fe. Fe is the internal dynamics of objects. Thats what it is.

I doubt any Fe valuer would agree with that and the whole thing is biased towards Fi.


I'm of the opinion that your entire understanding of the elements is misconceived and I really don't know even where to begin.


"If they are then the choice they make for their mate is dependent upon the social norms. For example, "Does he have good prospects? Is he the proper height? Does he come from a good family? Does he have a nice car?" So it is still "what do I want, which is , but it is determined by "what is everyone else doing?""

^ that seriously made me wretch.


*edit*

and you know what? Now I see why Strrrng and Allie ripped into me when I first came here. Im glad they fuckin did too.

[Kim]

It's Socionics at its finest:

Two people with Fi in their ego block describe how they experience Fi, but are completely ignored for the sake of continuing to Ti Fi to death.

[Warlord]

Man, you really do not understand the socionics elements.

No, it's you who don't.

Fe is the internal dynamics of objects. Thats what it is.

That's definetly not what Fe is. That's an aspectonics (or in your case ashtonics) attempt to explain what Fe is. And anyone with half a brain, should realise it's a totally failed attempt at explaining it, and has nothing to with what human psyche or brain actually does. Just a neat system that people use, so they can hide behind empty rhetoric, that they have no clue what they are actually talking about. In reality human psyche or brain isn't a neat little oversimplified system.

[jewels]

It's Socionics at its finest:

Two people with Fi in their ego block describe how they experience Fi, but are completely ignored for the sake of continuing to Ti Fi to death.

Yeah describing Fi in Ti terms is kind of funny. We should make a thread where we describe Ti in Fi terms.

This reminds me of how my ENFj sister and INTj dad would get all Ti during a chess game and I would take their extra pieces and play with them, since they were horses. And horses are suppose to be fun...

[Creepy-bg]

Fe Fi foe fum!

[Sirena]

@Waddles:

Man, you really do not understand the socionics elements.

What you are calling "extraverted feeling" is frankly despicable and insulting. Conforming to ethical norms has absolutely dick to do with Fe. Fe is the internal dynamics of objects. Thats what it is.

I doubt any Fe valuer would agree with that and the whole thing is biased towards Fi.


I'm of the opinion that your entire understanding of the elements is misconceived and I really don't know even where to begin.


"If they are then the choice they make for their mate is dependent upon the social norms. For example, "Does he have good prospects? Is he the proper height? Does he come from a good family? Does he have a nice car?" So it is still "what do I want, which is , but it is determined by "what is everyone else doing?""

^ that seriously made me wretch.

+1

some more thoughts:

I thought about posting some more about this yesterday and decided against it because this conclusion you've drawn to define Fe is ridiculously simplistic and just well, ridiculous and quite honestly I don't even know where to start. Not to mention that this thread isn't about Fe. But I guess I feel compelled to at least share a few of my thoughts. Sorry in advance for derailing the thread.

I'm not going to go into a whole theoretical explanation of the elements and all that, but I can tell you that as an Fe valuer I don't relate to your explanation at all and I can see how it would seem offensive. First of all you're making the assumption that Fi and Fe are complete opposites of each other, so that if Fi is "how I feel about something", Fe is "how other people feel about something." And even though that's wrong in itself, it is based off another assumption: that "what is agreeable"=feeling=Fe/Fi. It seems like you've taken one piece of information and created this chain of blind assumptions from it.

It's hard for me to break down who I am to determine what function is responsible for what. But to me, I am using Fe when I naturally pick up on people's tones, inflections, body language, etc. I use all of those things to read between the lines of what people are saying. I've noticed that the conclusions I draw from how people say things (for instance), outweigh any static bond, which is why it is constantly re-assessed through an Fe lens. Fe is also the feeling behind something, not just words, anything. Behind a gesture, a song.

Okay, I'm tired...