Complementary elements - how does this work?

[golden]

Is Fe actually just emotions?

Once I finally figured out ages ago what I think is Fe about me, I thought at my worst or most out of control I had been over-the-top emotional, almost untamably, and I’d had to work really hard to get a grip on my emotionality. The easiest conduits for it were performing arts, because then the emotion had a place to go, to be relevant, and Fe is great for filling up a space with energy and reading an audience. But once any given performance was over, the temporary holder for the emotion was gone.

I think that Fe at its best is that lock on the receivers of the message. So over time I have tried to put more of my energy behind that. The biggest early help to me in that regard was studying rhetoric with a professor who was an awesome, intense LSI and who’d created a highly structured, detailed system for teaching persuasive communication. He actually measured his grading to the half point, giving quantified feedback on every aspect of students’ work, even though the work was qualitative. So I never had any lingering questions about where I needed to learn to calibrate.

My experience of Fe is that it is not very particular or specific about what it attaches to. It is really broad and though it molds exactly to what it encounters, it is undiscriminating about what it will encounter in the first place. So ... it it is hard to withdraw my attention from anything around me. I can’t always figure out what among all the stuff I’m reading / locking into is salient. Everything in the world looks interesting.

It seems like Ti (at least LSI-style) is often good at creating structures that limit my attention and focus it (and that Se is good at going for “the shiny thing,” rather than “everything,” which is probably another way of directing attention).

Or ... all of this is just my brain not working right. Yay.

[domr]

@Myst

Here is how I currently view it: Fe is about changeable states or forms, Ti is about static structure. Ti gives structure and stability to the forms with its structure, while Fe gives the structure content / manifestation / a reason to exist by filling it with the changeable states / forms / expressions, or you could say by propagating the structure itself.

To give an analogy, it's like you have a cup with water in it. Ti is the cup - the hard structure that gives the water form and "organizes" it for the person drinking it - and Fe is the water which gives the cup's form "life" and a reason to exist. A cup without something to drink out of it is just a pretty trinket at best, while water without a container won't stick around very long.

You are right that Fe is changeable and Fi is static but everything else is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/r...sm-empiricism/

[Myst]

Is Fe actually just emotions?

No, not simply emotions, it's some refined consciously managed version of emotionality for expression. Really "manufactured" expressions so to speak.

Once I finally figured out ages ago what I think is Fe about me, I thought at my worst or most out of control I had been over-the-top emotional, almost untamably, and I’d had to work really hard to get a grip on my emotionality.

That sounds like you had some psychological issue, I'm 1D Fe and I had my bad over-the-top emotional out of control period of life too. Fe isn't really about out of control emotionality.

I think that Fe at its best is that lock on the receivers of the message. So over time I have tried to put more of my energy behind that.

I don't know what this "lock on" is like...?

My experience of Fe is that it is not very particular or specific about what it attaches to. It is really broad and though it molds exactly to what it encounters, it is undiscriminating about what it will encounter in the first place. So ... it it is hard to withdraw my attention from anything around me. I can’t always figure out what among all the stuff I’m reading / locking into is salient. Everything in the world looks interesting.

Hmm well I do find Fe is pretty whimsical compared to T stuff, though Fe base is definitely not as whimsical as Irrational types... I don't think it molds to what it encounters or that it's really truly undiscriminating. It's extraverted so it's more about broadcasting oneself rather than molding to others, and it's still responsible for making ethical judgments (of the Fe type).

It seems like Ti (at least LSI-style) is often good at creating structures that limit my attention and focus it (and that Se is good at going for “the shiny thing,” rather than “everything,” which is probably another way of directing attention).

That's a good point that Se as Sensing is a way of specifically directing attention compared to vague, all-over-the-place Intuition.

[golden]

No, not simply emotions, it's some refined consciously managed version of emotionality for expression. Really "manufactured" expressions so to speak.




That sounds like you had some psychological issue, I'm 1D Fe and I had my bad over-the-top emotional out of control period of life too. Fe isn't really about out of control emotionality.

Right, I don't think Fe is about out-of-control emotions.

I don't know what this "lock on" is like...?

Since you don't see me as Fe-lead, I'm hesitant to describe it because I think it may get filtered into an interpretation that has to do with your view of me as Ni-dominant. I have struggled to be aware of what Fe actually is, and what I have said in the past is that it's not just about the broadcast message, but about reading in real time how that message is being received. In order to do that in real time, I seem to lock on to whatever interpersonal situation I am in. When performing, it meant having an awareness of how the audience was responding to the output, to instantly adjust how much intensity, volume, emotional tweaking was needed to have the proper / desired effect, which is primarily to hold on to their attention as much as possible.

It isn't theoretical. Though with experience you can estimate what the reaction / attention level will be, the power of it seems to be immediate. Like iirc you said that Fe is able to name an emotion in another person. Tracking these emotions is done in the moment and doesn't really need any analysis.

Hmm well I do find Fe is pretty whimsical compared to T stuff, though Fe base is definitely not as whimsical as Irrational types... I don't think it molds to what it encounters or that it's really truly undiscriminating. It's extraverted so it's more about broadcasting oneself rather than molding to others, and it's still responsible for making ethical judgments (of the Fe type).

Well, this is one of the things I think I do. It took me, as I said, a long time to get awareness of what was going on. On the one hand, yes, there is the broadcasting, but the other issue is whom you are broadcasting to. And I am usually reading my environment closely whether I am currently broadcasting or not, so the more opportunity I have to purposefully broadcast, the healthier I seem to be.

Of course Fe makes ethical judgments. But it seems to me that in the process of data in, data out, data in, the ethical judgment itself has to be occurring as an inner process (even if it feels very immediate) that responds to an outer stimulus. Ultimately a mind is involved in mediating the whole thing. The outward part of the process feels like taking a really big imprint of a lot of environmental, situational, interpersonal information, and the inner part is the judgment part. But if this were complete in itself, then Socionics as conceived--"dual nature of man"--wouldn't be a thing at all.

[nickelslick]

I think there needs to be a general rule for complimentary functions, this ad hoc stuff doesn't integrate into the theory very well IMO and leaves me unsatisfied. I try not to get too involved in typing threads yet because I'm not happy with my understanding, but here's what I'm working with.

Rational functions inform rational functions, irrational informs irrational. To be complimentary, functions need to cover aspects of reality the other has missed, since the aim is to maximise the amount of information taken in. So we have T and F, for example, one handles well-defined information, the other not well-defined. Then, we have introverted Fi and introverted Ti. Since they are both introverted functions, they look similar to each other, and the natural inclination of Ti being fed Fi is to try to take the information on itself, and to try to consciously hold Fi without altering it requires effort as it gets put on to the same track that Ti is on in the mind of a Ti type.

Enter Fe, which covers very different aspects of reality to Ti, but doesn't impose itself on the domain of Ti, and since Te is undervalued to a Ti type anyway, the conflict between Fe and Te isn't seen as significant. Now we have two functions of the same rationality and are different enough to provide maximum value/insight to the other, while presenting this information in a form most easily digestible. I think any further explanation of compliment is unnecessary, and this applies to all complimentary pairs.

[Lao Tzunami]

Ignoring the teleology of complementing elements, practically, they add something valuable without inhibiting their opposite.

Elements that are the same Jungian function (intuition, sensing and logic, ethics) but opposite direction (extroverted or introverted) exponentially expand each other. Using an example I am familiar with, Ni+Ne would be following every possibility, at every step in their path in time. In gigantic groups, like science or culture, both antethical paths can be followed and synthesized, but it is annoying to deal with someone who is pushing your antithesis, because it is distracting from what you are trying to do, and it takes way more time and effort to work out a solution together than by yourselves.

A similar thing happens with elements that are the same temperament, but opposite strength. Jung said in psychological types that pursing any strength engenders a weakness because it is impossible to do both intuition-sensing or logic-ethics at the same time. Since temperament elements are in the same domain, doing one means neglecting the other. That is the base of the socionic super-ego: something that society may require you to do that cannot do while being yourself.

This is where the complementing element comes in. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping both element being pursued at once, except one person cannot do both. The solution is have partners! Now this person is going to be very different from you because they are your polar opposite, but you can work together by letting the other person process there dominant information and then accepting their judgements and perceptions.

To summerize with a metaphor, imagine four people holding hands around a tree. If you were one of these people, you could move but only by pulling or pushing the two people next to you. If you wanted to move the group, you'd like the two people next to you to follow your lead. But the third person that you cannot see through the tree is not limiting your movements and can basically move freely with you as long as the two intermediate people are subordinate. This is like your dominant and complementary element. If you both work together, you have the best control over the group.

Hope that helps

[nickelslick]

Great post, @ajsindri !

Ignoring the teleology of complementing elements, practically, they add something valuable without inhibiting their opposite.

This is what I was trying to say with my word salad.

[Rebelondeck]

Is Fe actually just emotions? .........

Every type has emotions, which seem to originate from (usually temporary) inabilities to cope with immediate realizations; F-configurations denote how emotion is rationalized or dealt with, once it has occurred. Fe-types seem to prefer rationalizing these issues with others - like group therapy. Because emotion is for the most part an associative issue, F-processing is simply better at recognizing and rationalizing it; Fe-types seem best at dealing with emotion because they naturally draw on the experience and understandings of others while Fi-types often keep it to themselves and or dismiss other opinions - but they're certainly well ahead of T-types......

a.k.a. I/O

[Myst]

Since you don't see me as Fe-lead, I'm hesitant to describe it because I think it may get filtered into an interpretation that has to do with your view of me as Ni-dominant. I have struggled to be aware of what Fe actually is, and what I have said in the past is that it's not just about the broadcast message, but about reading in real time how that message is being received. In order to do that in real time, I seem to lock on to whatever interpersonal situation I am in. When performing, it meant having an awareness of how the audience was responding to the output, to instantly adjust how much intensity, volume, emotional tweaking was needed to have the proper / desired effect, which is primarily to hold on to their attention as much as possible.

It isn't theoretical. Though with experience you can estimate what the reaction / attention level will be, the power of it seems to be immediate. Like iirc you said that Fe is able to name an emotion in another person. Tracking these emotions is done in the moment and doesn't really need any analysis.

I can read your lines without considering type or whatever. Either way you'd definitely be Fe ego anyway. So anyway, thanks, interesting. Yes I said Fe base is able to get the main emotional aspect of the situation without having to analyse or elaborate on it more deeply.

Well, this is one of the things I think I do. It took me, as I said, a long time to get awareness of what was going on. On the one hand, yes, there is the broadcasting, but the other issue is whom you are broadcasting to. And I am usually reading my environment closely whether I am currently broadcasting or not, so the more opportunity I have to purposefully broadcast, the healthier I seem to be.

You mean the molding, yes? I don't know what exactly you are referring to personally, I just in general figure that molding to the other person is the Ni part of beta NF, not the Fe part. It's an introverted attitude of responsiveness/receptiveness, and I think it complements Se rather than Ti, much like discussed here about Agape (Ni) vs Victoria (Se) complementing each other. Agape (Ni) adjusts to the demands of Victoria (Se) in a flexible and very uh, nice way. Golihov's descriptions of Ni also notes it etc.

I do very much like it from IEIs when they do that attentive-adaptive-molding thing. Like they really try and attune into me. EIEs don't do it as much though they are also capable of it some... (Alpha SFs are again a different matter ofc)

But of course, if your thing is different than that, if you think it does seem more specific to Fe than Ni, feel free to say more about it, and this isn't about type but about the thread topic (Fe vs Ti).

And, as for the topic of Fe complementing Ti, the emotional energy and in general the emotional information is what essentially seems to be complementary for Ti. The specific molding-attunement that I said I experience from Ni is not complementary to Ti, it does not make it energized or give it the missing emotional information to enable Ti to prioritize better and make better decisions (or even enter decisive mode in the first place), which is what Fe does instead. Ti doesn't really need others to mold in that way to Ti. I think what it instead needs Fe to do is just accept the direction it gives to Fe.

Of course Fe makes ethical judgments. But it seems to me that in the process of data in, data out, data in, the ethical judgment itself has to be occurring as an inner process (even if it feels very immediate) that responds to an outer stimulus. Ultimately a mind is involved in mediating the whole thing. The outward part of the process feels like taking a really big imprint of a lot of environmental, situational, interpersonal information, and the inner part is the judgment part. But if this were complete in itself, then Socionics as conceived--"dual nature of man"--wouldn't be a thing at all.

I'm not sure I was following your point with it being an inner process?

I think there needs to be a general rule for complimentary functions, this ad hoc stuff doesn't integrate into the theory very well IMO and leaves me unsatisfied. I try not to get too involved in typing threads yet because I'm not happy with my understanding, but here's what I'm working with.

Rational functions inform rational functions, irrational informs irrational. To be complimentary, functions need to cover aspects of reality the other has missed, since the aim is to maximise the amount of information taken in. So we have T and F, for example, one handles well-defined information, the other not well-defined. Then, we have introverted Fi and introverted Ti. Since they are both introverted functions, they look similar to each other, and the natural inclination of Ti being fed Fi is to try to take the information on itself, and to try to consciously hold Fi without altering it requires effort as it gets put on to the same track that Ti is on in the mind of a Ti type.

Enter Fe, which covers very different aspects of reality to Ti, but doesn't impose itself on the domain of Ti, and since Te is undervalued to a Ti type anyway, the conflict between Fe and Te isn't seen as significant. Now we have two functions of the same rationality and are different enough to provide maximum value/insight to the other, while presenting this information in a form most easily digestible. I think any further explanation of compliment is unnecessary, and this applies to all complimentary pairs.

I understand what your issue is with it seeming too arbitrary. My problem is that without further elaboration of cognitive processing, which leads way way way outside of and further than Socionics's model, you can't really explain it in detail, and it will still seem arbitrary to me because you could say that a Rational function actually needs an Irrational function to complement it, you can just use different reasoning to claim this, vs claiming that a Rational function needs another Rational function to complement it.

As far as Socionics's model goes, if it's correct (and it seems to be on the most basic level), I'm ok with just making the assumption that each IE takes certain cognitive resources of the brain's processing and some of these resources are shared by more than one IE process for whatever reasons (to elaborate on the reasons it seems like we'd have to go past Socionics) and that's why certain IEs are incompatible with each other, but the idea of IEs complementing each other I find harder to really understand. I mean I could assume that a certain process would use a few cognitive resources working together to process overall and then you can decouple these resources for whatever reason that actually in reality do still need each other, so then they are complementing each other, with more elaborate emphasis on one side of the overall process. It just simply is less clear to me than the idea of incompatibility.

[Singu]

I don't know what you meanby intent here. As for an explanation... there are some in this thread, I have no idea why you are unable to consider them as explanations.

Okay, then why do Fe and Ti complement? That is obviously not explained. Also, what about all the times that Fe and Ti do not complement? Are we supposed to just brush them aside as anomalies or irrelevancies? Obviously not a good explanation.

By intent, I mean that it depends on what you do with them. You can use either emotions or logic to create or resolve conflicts, it can simply go either way, by the intent of the user. There is nothing in emotions or logic in themselves that are either complementary or conflicting. It can be both.

You know sometimes it's not the best approach to try and prove things wrong because then you will never get to reach a decision for taking action.

It's an even worse approach to try to prove something to be true (which is an impossibility, anyway), because you can justify anything, if only you try hard enough. If you want to take action, then you simply pick the best remaining option.

Not necessarily. Elaborate on what you mean by "based on", as this is too vague. There is a complex intertwining of logic and feelings though, for sure.

By based on, I mean that we all start with emotions first. Then we use logic to analyze, correct or justify our emotions or behaviors.

Actually "social logic" isn't the same as impersonal logic. These are implemented in different brain systems too.

Again, what puts a check on our emotions, other than logic? What makes us consider, "Is this the right time to be angry?" or "Should I be nice to this person?", etc? I don't think emotions can be used to put a check on emotions. My guess is that logic works as a kind of a corrector or an advisor to our emotions.

I would just assume it's some way to process some aspects of the world, and that's just how the world works in part: that objective logical approach is able to process that way of working (suppose, it evolved to process those aspects).

Well see the thing is, evolution doesn't work by "copying" an aspect of reality. It's simply a guess that have happened to work at better replicating itself, via random mutations. It's a happy little accident, even if it's an extraordinary accident. The evolution of logic was an accident, that nonetheless worked and had purpose that gave as evolutionary advantage. But the question is, what was the advantage? My guess is that it gave us social advantage.

How about emotion (including social refined emotional feeling) can put a check on logic too. On the purely utilitarian and sometimes sociopathic seeming objective approach.

And yet we obviously evolved emotions first, and then logic second. Logic works as a secondary function to emotions.

[Exodus]

I.e. emotions are needed for motivation? Or?

In my view Fe is not necessarily (or essentially) about emotions. But yes, emotions are a subjective indication of what is important to us.

Link?

http://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/...ts-in-Model-A2

I no longer stand by all of the speculative material here but if you read the articles on my site you'll have a decent idea of my views (there aren't that many pages).

Enter Fe, which covers very different aspects of reality to Ti, but doesn't impose itself on the domain of Ti, and since Te is undervalued to a Ti type anyway, the conflict between Fe and Te isn't seen as significant. Now we have two functions of the same rationality and are different enough to provide maximum value/insight to the other, while presenting this information in a form most easily digestible. I think any further explanation of compliment is unnecessary, and this applies to all complimentary pairs.

I agree 100% and I've mentioned this in the past: the "non-interferingness" of dual elements is key to how they work together (and how the corresponding types work together in a practical sense).

[Myst]

Okay, then why do Fe and Ti complement? That is obviously not explained.

OK what I personally experience... Fe is what processes emotional information and that emotional information shows / highlights aspects of the situation Ti didn't consider previously. And like you indicated, emotions are part of our makeup that Fe processes, while it's what Ti "represses" / extinguishes the most, for some reason*, the emotional energy and emotional focus of Fe. So obviously, as emotions have a function as part of our makeup, somehow this needs to be provided for to have everything working well.

*: (this part is what is unclear to me as to EXACTLY why it happens, I just have an incomplete understanding of it, but still, it's clear that it's the case in reality)

Also, what about all the times that Fe and Ti do not complement? Are we supposed to just brush them aside as anomalies or irrelevancies? Obviously not a good explanation.

You mean if they have different agendas, goals? Not really an anomaly, because no one said they must always want the same goal, an LxI and an ExE won't always want the same thing, the same direction/agenda. Then of course there will be conflict.

By intent, I mean that it depends on what you do with them. You can use either emotions or logic to create or resolve conflicts, it can simply go either way, by the intent of the user. There is nothing in emotions or logic in themselves that are either complementary or conflicting. It can be both.

I gave you a link to a book by a scientist that discusses how emotion and logic work together, based on his research. Note I don't mean primitive emotion, but the more refined processing of them in the prefrontal lobe.

It's an even worse approach to try to prove something to be true (which is an impossibility, anyway), because you can justify anything, if only you try hard enough. If you want to take action, then you simply pick the best remaining option.

I really really disagree that you can justify anything. Maybe in your world things are chaotic enough for that but not in mine.

By based on, I mean that we all start with emotions first. Then we use logic to analyze, correct or justify our emotions or behaviors.

Nah, biased view.

Again, what puts a check on our emotions, other than logic? What makes us consider, "Is this the right time to be angry?" or "Should I be nice to this person?", etc? I don't think emotions can be used to put a check on emotions. My guess is that logic works as a kind of a corrector or an advisor to our emotions.

Same biased view.

You can read the book as above if you want.

BTW I do think emotions can be utilized to manage other emotions.

Well see the thing is, evolution doesn't work by "copying" an aspect of reality. It's simply a guess that have happened to work at better replicating itself, via random mutations. It's a happy little accident, even if it's an extraordinary accident. The evolution of logic was an accident, that nonetheless worked and had purpose that gave as evolutionary advantage. But the question is, what was the advantage? My guess is that it gave us social advantage.

I did not say it copied it.

As for advantage - more effective survival in the world.

And yet we obviously evolved emotions first, and then logic second. Logic works as a secondary function to emotions.

Who said we evolved emotions first? You mean the primitive limbic emotions? Don't compare that to logic as in a neocortex function, because that's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison is to compare refined / social emotion as produced in the neocortex to compare it to refined logic as produced in the neocortex.

[Myst]

In my view Fe is not necessarily (or essentially) about emotions.

Just about subjective evaluation and expression?

http://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/...ts-in-Model-A2

I no longer stand by all of the speculative material here but if you read the articles on my site you'll have a decent idea of my views (there aren't that many pages).

Ok, I checked out that part, thanks

[golden]

You mean the molding, yes? ...

But of course, if your thing is different than that, if you think it does seem more specific to Fe than Ni, feel free to say more about it, and this isn't about type but about the thread topic (Fe vs Ti).

I went to a play starring Nathan Lane, and I considered him to be Fe dominant (ESE) and recognized what he was doing as what I could do. (Not saying I was ever a master performer like him.) All of the actors were good, but he was the only actor in the show who could push his energy into every human “attention receptor” (yes I made that term up) in the theater. So all I mean by molding is the way that the receptors are found. It has to be precise. Fe is sculpted to fit into the receptors precisely. I don’t think he values Ni, so I don’t think Ni is integral.

What I meant earlier when I mentioned the indiscriminate nature of Fe is twofold. First, to be precise in its assessments, Fe cannot be biased because then it would take less of the available information and lose its maximum communicative potential, whether this is about a straightforward “live broadcast” or a more intricate ethical situation. So where the ethical judgment comes in isn’t the same as the gauging. The reason an Fe person may feel confident making a statement about your emotional state or the most right way to approach a human interaction is that they feel objective about assessing, with comparatively low solipsism or selectivity. Awareness of the very nature of personal bias can grow in the Fe dominant person because they can experience over time the gap between what they find in external conditions vs what their internal discourses or preferences indicate. And I think the meta and patterning aspects of Ni may play a part in that development.

One reason I type Robert Anton Wilson EIE (current typing thread) is because in his mature state he mined exactly this territory.

Second may be more a problem specific to me, or more nonspecific to encompass many people, NTR. I am not good at turning off the external gauging process I described above. Often that’s ok. But one downside is I cannot easily fade into the background, which in some scenarios could make me feel safer. For example when I ride the subway, the protocol is that it’s polite to look zoned out and not make eye contact. I have to deliberately adopt that appearance, pretending I’m not aware of the people in my train car. My two methods of disengaging are reading a book / playing a game, or turning on my imaginative introspection process. But neither of these works perfectly because I think I *should* stay aware of my environment. I’m used to being the person who does that, kind of a guardian. Now, this could be about hypervigilance or ADD perception patterns or something else—even if the cause of it is not Fe, I am involving Fe in it, but ymmv.

I'm not sure I was following your point with it being an inner process?

I mean that an individuated human mind is involved, so some aspect of the extroverted IE still has to be happening inside the person “doing” it.

[Myst]

I went to a play starring Nathan Lane, and I considered him to be Fe dominant (ESE) and recognized what he was doing as what I could do. (Not saying I was ever a master performer like him.) All of the actors were good, but he was the only actor in the show who could push his energy into every human “attention receptor” (yes I made that term up) in the theater. So all I mean by molding is the way that the receptors are found. It has to be precise. Fe is sculpted to fit into the receptors precisely. I don’t think he values Ni, so I don’t think Ni is integral.

Oh no of course I don't think Ni is about emotional energy/expression, if you are talking about that. I have no idea how the receptors are found lol. Mind saying more on this?

What I meant earlier when I mentioned the indiscriminate nature of Fe is twofold. First, to be precise in its assessments, Fe cannot be biased because then it would take in only part of the information and lose its maximum communicative potential, whether this is about a straightforward “live broadcast” or a more intricate ethical situation. So where the ethical judgment comes in isn’t the same as the gauging. The reason an Fe person may feel confident making a statement about your emotional state or the most right way to approach a human interaction is that they feel objective about assessing, with comparatively low solipsism or selectivity. Awareness of the very nature of personal bias can grow in the Fe dominant person because they can experience over time the gap between what they find in external conditions vs what their internal discourses or preferences indicate. And I think the meta and patterning aspects of Ni may play a part in that development.

I think solipsism is more about being completely relative, and not about selectivity, but anyway, sure, Fe is less subjective in the sense of selectiveness than Fi.

One reason I type Robert Anton Wilson EIE (current typing thread) is because in his mature state he mined exactly this territory.

Not going to start type arguments here... it's just, I've never heard of him, looked him up and I see this "Wilson described his work as an "attempt to break down conditioned associations, to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models or maps, and no one model elevated to the truth". His goal being "to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything.""

That sort of thing touches on my Ne PoLR real bad.

I mean, it's good to continually improve on models/paradigms, but I do not want to be agnostic literally about everything.

Second may be more a problem specific to me, or more nonspecific to encompass many people, NTR. I am not good at turning off the external gauging process I described above. Often that’s ok. But one downside is I cannot easily fade into the background, which in some scenarios could make me feel safer. For example when I ride the subway, the protocol is that it’s polite to look zoned out and not make eye contact. I have to deliberately adopt that appearance, pretending I’m not aware of the people in my train car. My two methods of disengaging are reading a book / playing a game, or turning on my imaginative introspection process. But neither of these works perfectly because I think I *should* stay aware of my environment. I’m used to being the person who does that, kind of a guardian. Now, this could be about hypervigilance or ADD perception patterns or something else—even if the cause of it is not Fe, I am involving Fe in it, but ymmv.

I've had EIE tell me they cannot not focus on people if people are around.

Lol though for the underground, I do look at people just fine. (Not like the EIE though, they are more impersonal to me by default than to the EIE who said the above.) Who cares about protocol. I'd feel really weird if I was to NOT look around in my environment. I'd get uncomfortable with that pretty fast. It's much like what I read about how you don't want to eat without looking up sometimes and that it's some instinct, and yeah it's about vigilance I guess. Not sure if it's about being a guardian, it's just natural to keep in touch with the surroundings.

I mean that an individuated human mind is involved, so some aspect of the extroverted IE still has to be happening inside the person “doing” it.

I don't think Fe is mental or related to the mind much really in the sense of it being not all that introspective, lol, I find EIEs really shallow in a way. (Not trying to offend any EIE on this site tho' but yeah )

[golden]

I think solipsism is more about being completely relative, and not about selectivity, but anyway, sure, Fe is less subjective in the sense of selectiveness than Fi.

I think you’re right and it’s not the perfect term. It’s not too easy for me to find terms for things I spent most of my life thinking were “just me” and never reflecting on. I also think it’s correct to say Fe is less subjective than Fi but obviously no one is without bias or selective attention.

Not going to start type arguments here... it's just, I've never heard of him, looked him up and I see this "Wilson described his work as an "attempt to break down conditioned associations, to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models or maps, and no one model elevated to the truth". His goal being "to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything.""

That sort of thing touches on my Ne PoLR real bad.

I mean, it's good to continually improve on models/paradigms, but I do not want to be agnostic literally about everything.

Lol. I don’t know that I agree with that write up. He was espistemologically attacking cognitive bias. Agnosticism in his sense has to do with not trusting your beliefs. Blind belief is not adequate. He had a lot of background training in the sciences, and imo he was saying both that there are things we can concretely know, and there are things beyond what we can concretely know. Some of this was influenced by psychedelics and is a product of his zeitgeist.

Lol though for the underground, I do look at people just fine. (Not like the EIE though, they are more impersonal to me by default than to the EIE who said the above.) Who cares about protocol. I'd feel really weird if I was to NOT look around in my environment. I'd get uncomfortable with that pretty fast. It's much like what I read about how you don't want to eat without looking up sometimes and that it's some instinct, and yeah it's about vigilance I guess. Not sure if it's about being a guardian, it's just natural to keep in touch with the surroundings.

I never had this issue on trains in Europe. Here, I can almost always tell in an instant which people on the train are tourists or visitors or insane because they have the “wrong” body language. A friend had her parents visit her in NYC for the first time and her mom said, “Everybody on the train looks so sad.” Friend said, correctly, “They’re just being polite.” I have read stuff about the anthropology of scanning your environment, the horizon, for danger, but this might have become a thing back in the days when the subways in NY were pretty dangerous and making eye contact in close quarters with strangers wasn’t a good idea.

I don't think Fe is mental or related to the mind much really in the sense of it being not all that introspective, lol, I find EIEs really shallow in a way. (Not trying to offend any EIE on this site tho' but yeah )

I don’t mean Fe is mental or related to the mind, only that there is a single, individual mind mediating the Fe. If there is a thing we can call Fe, it is arising through someone’s physical organism. It is necessarily within that organism that the information is evaluated or mediated in some manner even though Fe by definition and per my experience is not at all introspective.

As for whether EIEs are shallow, I find it varies. I think EIE like many extroverts is more about breadth. Fe by its nature is not focused on depth. I also think Ni is not exactly deep, it is “out there.”

ETA: as for how the “attention receptors” are found I have no idea. Black magic?

[timber]

The shiny thing and they want to touch it.

[Myst]

I think you’re right and it’s not the perfect term. It’s not too easy for me to find terms for things I spent most of my life thinking were “just me” and never reflecting on. I also think it’s correct to say Fe is less subjective than Fi but obviously no one is without bias or selective attention.

No worries

Lol. I don’t know that I agree with that write up. He was espistemologically attacking cognitive bias. Agnosticism in his sense has to do with not trusting your beliefs. Blind belief is not adequate. He had a lot of background training in the sciences, and imo he was saying both that there are things we can concretely know, and there are things beyond what we can concretely know. Some of this was influenced by psychedelics and is a product of his zeitgeist.

Blind belief is an extreme and I think agnosticism about everything is the other extreme.

I never had this issue on trains in Europe. Here, I can almost always tell in an instant which people on the train are tourists or visitors or insane because they have the “wrong” body language. A friend had her parents visit her in NYC for the first time and her mom said, “Everybody on the train looks so sad.” Friend said, correctly, “They’re just being polite.” I have read stuff about the anthropology of scanning your environment, the horizon, for danger, but this might have become a thing back in the days when the subways in NY were pretty dangerous and making eye contact in close quarters with strangers wasn’t a good idea.

I was in NY before, had no problem with the subways and trains there, I did my usual behaviour there, but I might've had the wrong body language sure. Hmm interesting about the scanning the horizon, I think I do it differently (not really paying attention to the horizon, not going that far)

I don’t mean Fe is mental or related to the mind, only that there is a single, individual mind mediating the Fe. If there is a thing we can call Fe, it is arising through someone’s physical organism. It is necessarily within that organism that the information is evaluated or mediated in some manner even though Fe by definition and per my experience is not at all introspective.

As for whether EIEs are shallow, I find it varies. I think EIE like many extroverts is more about breadth. Fe by its nature is not focused on depth. I also think Ni is not exactly deep, it is “out there.”

Yeah. How do you mean Ni is "out there"?

ETA: as for how the “attention receptors” are found I have no idea. Black magic?

[golden]

Yeah. How do you mean Ni is "out there"?

For me Ni is up, out, away from the present and the material. It’s like activities of boundless space, and though it can do some cool stuff, it doesn’t settle in any one place, so how can it become heavy or go deep?

If there’s any socionics pattern to whom I perceive as deep, it is static types seeming deeper than dynamic. But that would be a really general trend.

[Myst]

For me Ni is up, out, away from the present and the material. It’s like activities of boundless space, and though it can do some cool stuff, it doesn’t settle in any one place, so how can it become heavy or go deep?

If there’s any socionics pattern to whom I perceive as deep, it is static types seeming deeper than dynamic. But that would be a really general trend.

I don't understand this: "activities of boundless space". Is "activities" literal? Or, like, mental activities in boundless mental space?

[golden]

I don't understand this: "activities of boundless space". Is "activities" literal? Or, like, mental activities in boundless mental space?

Although “activities” is an unusual word to use there, it does reflect how I experience Ni. For me it is like a lively inner world I can move into and make use of, but I don’t know how it is for other people.

Would it look active to you, looking on from the outside? I suppose not. But there are times when someone asks me for an opinion or view that I can best address with Ni and I literally will say something like “let me think about it for a minute,” go through a brief inner process, and then produce the response or information or whatever. If it’s especially complex I will ask for time (an hour, a day or two) to consider the thing because it’s not a one-step process. So in those cases, the other person knows something is happening.

Sorry if that sounds weird. :|

[Singu]

Who said we evolved emotions first? You mean the primitive limbic emotions? Don't compare that to logic as in a neocortex function, because that's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison is to compare refined / social emotion as produced in the neocortex to compare it to refined logic as produced in the neocortex.

We evolved from animals, which we still are animals... Our mammalian ancestor was some sort of a rat that survived the extinction of the dinosaurs. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the bonobos, which must mean that all of those 3 species must share a common trait with this ancestor. Did that ancestor have more "sophisticated" logic that we have today? Doubtful, as chimps and bonobos, as intelligent they are, probably don't have the exact same logic as we have (for example, chimps can't probably do math).

Mammals obviously have emotions, and they started with emotions. Emotions are necessarily in order for them to act. They hunt when they're hungry, they recoil and run away in fear, they get angry when threatened, etc. I would think that emotions arose first and logic came second.

Like I said, the more sophisticated "social emotions" may have something to do with the spindle neurons, which are found in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Spindle neurons exist in all the animals that show complex social behavior, such as humans, great apes and elephants. And it is said that these spindle neurons act as 'air traffic controllers' for emotions. It does seem like they act as more or less as an error-correcting mechanism for our actions or emotions.

[golden]

We evolved from animals, which we still are animals... Our mammalian ancestor was some sort of a rat that survived the extinction of the dinosaurs. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the bonobos, which must mean that all of those 3 species must share a common trait with this ancestor. Did that ancestor have more "sophisticated" logic that we have today? Doubtful, as chimps and bonobos, as intelligent they are, probably don't have the exact same logic as we have (for example, chimps can't probably do math).

Mammals obviously have emotions, and they started with emotions. Emotions are necessarily in order for them to act. They hunt when they're hungry, they recoil and run away in fear, they get angry when threatened, etc. I would think that emotions arose first and logic came second.

The current view afaik is that different kinds of emotions evolved at different times. If you’re talking about a very primitive thing like the amygdala’s fear response, yes. But many later-evolved emotions are more complex and grew out of the context of increased social complexity, which means that thinking also was evolving.

[Singu]

The current view afaik is that different kinds of emotions evolved at different times. If you’re talking about a very primitive thing like the amygdala’s fear response, yes. But many later-evolved emotions are more complex and grew out of the context of increased social complexity, which means that thinking also was evolving.

Well yes, you can read about the more "complex social emotions" on the spindle neurons that I wrote additionally above.

To be honest, I don't think that the emotions of all mammals are that different. Animals experience seemingly "human" emotions like jealousy. Empathy might be one of the more complex social emotions. If you look at any behaviors of chimpanzees, they're so much like us that it's like looking into a mirror. Chimpanzees don't use any language, they can't speak although they use gestures and vocalization to communicate with each other (it's said that chimpanzees have around 70 gestures - some might even be shared by our own recognizable gestures). And yet chimpanzees engage in "politics", just like us. Looking at behaviors of male chimpanzees is like looking at politicians debating and hollering during the election debate or in the Congress. They befriend each other, they have enemies, they band together and create alliances and coalitions. They bluff and engage in bravadoes. Sometimes they even band together to take down the alpha male that they don't like. They play politics.

So the chimpanzees act like us, and yet it does not appear like they're "thinking" like us, as in they don't verbalize their thoughts. So what is it that they're thinking? What drives their behavior?

[Myst]

Although “activities” is an unusual word to use there, it does reflect how I experience Ni. For me it is like a lively inner world I can move into and make use of, but I don’t know how it is for other people.

Would it look active to you, looking on from the outside? I suppose not. But there are times when someone asks me for an opinion or view that I can best address with Ni and I literally will say something like “let me think about it for a minute,” go through a brief inner process, and then produce the response or information or whatever. If it’s especially complex I will ask for time (an hour, a day or two) to consider the thing because it’s not a one-step process. So in those cases, the other person knows something is happening.

Sorry if that sounds weird. :|

I see. It didn't sound weird

We evolved from animals, which we still are animals... Our mammalian ancestor was some sort of a rat that survived the extinction of the dinosaurs. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the bonobos, which must mean that all of those 3 species must share a common trait with this ancestor. Did that ancestor have more "sophisticated" logic that we have today? Doubtful, as chimps and bonobos, as intelligent they are, probably don't have the exact same logic as we have (for example, chimps can't probably do math).

Mammals obviously have emotions, and they started with emotions. Emotions are necessarily in order for them to act. They hunt when they're hungry, they recoil and run away in fear, they get angry when threatened, etc. I would think that emotions arose first and logic came second.

No, you are still comparing it to refined logic... that's not the correct comparison. Example: rats finding their way in the maze, that needs a little logic too even if primitive. Not just emotions.

[Myst]

If you look at any behaviors of chimpanzees, they're so much like us that it's like looking into a mirror.

Maybe for you it's like looking into a mirror. Not for some other people.

So the chimpanzees act like us, and yet it does not appear like they're "thinking" like us, as in they don't verbalize their thoughts. So what is it that they're thinking? What drives their behavior?

They don't verbalize their feelings either.

[Singu]

No, you are still comparing it to refined logic... that's not the correct comparison. Example: rats finding their way in the maze, that needs a little logic too even if primitive. Not just emotions.

That's not an understanding of causality and causal mechanisms, which I believe is required for using tools and solving problems. Rats didn't use logic to solve problems, they were just navigating the maze and navigating maze alone, they couldn't solve any other problems using the same universal logic. Logic implies this universality that can be applied to anything.

By logic, I mostly mean this understanding of causality. It seems that great apes even show understanding of causality in social relations, but not say, monkeys do.

Maybe for you it's like looking into a mirror. Not for some other people.

They don't verbalize their feelings either.

Such ignorance... I doubt that you have actually looked into it.

Can you seriously say that this is nothing like human behavior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6742UPsOO5Y







And this is a video caught on tape, a group of chimpanzees taking down an alpha male that they didn't like:

[Exodus]

Just about subjective evaluation and expression?

If you're looking for something closer to what I see as the essence of Fe, refer to my post above. The point is that emotion is how we subjectively experience internal states.

[Myst]

That's not an understanding of causality and causal mechanisms, which I believe is required for using tools and solving problems. Rats didn't use logic to solve problems, they were just navigating the maze and navigating maze alone, they couldn't solve any other problems using the same universal logic. Logic implies this universality that can be applied to anything.

Finding your way in a maze is problem solving too. And the "universal logic" (the more refined version) gets based in that imo.

By logic, I mostly mean this understanding of causality. It seems that great apes even show understanding of causality in social relations, but not say, monkeys do.

See above

Such ignorance... I doubt that you have actually looked into it.

No, it's not ignorance, it's simply disagreement.

Can you seriously say that this is nothing like human behavior?

Like I said, I certainly do not feel like I am looking in a mirror when watching these videos.

I'm sorry, that's just how it is. Not everyone's gonna share in your revelations.

[Singu]

Well it does appear that our ability to think abstractly and use logic is linked to our ability to acquire languages. Language is abstract in that we can think of and imagine things that we've never seen before... and there is probably logic in language as well. Logic is an abstract idea, it's not exactly something that can be seen or experienced. It has to be... thought, or spoken.

So we could hypothesis that we have evolved to use logic by having the ability to acquire languages. I would also guess that we have evolved consciousness by acquiring languages, and it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to share our own thoughts and feelings with others, and to share the same thoughts and feelings in order to cooperate.

[Myst]

Well it does appear that our ability to think abstractly and use logic is linked to our ability to acquire languages. Language is abstract in that we can think of and imagine things that we've never seen before... and there is probably logic in language as well. Logic is an abstract idea, it's not exactly something that can be seen or experienced. It has to be... thought, or spoken.

So we could hypothesis that we have evolved to use logic by having the ability to acquire languages. I would also guess that we have evolved consciousness by acquiring languages, and it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to share our own thoughts and feelings with others, and to share the same thoughts and feelings in order to cooperate.

There is nonverbal logic too imo.

But sure, language plays an important role too for the mind's workings, along with social cooperation etc etc etc.