Fe-Ti vs. Fi-Te and filtering sources of information

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-09-2008, 11:52 AM
Expat

Fe-Ti vs. Fi-Te and filtering sources of information

Disclaimer: these are indeed my views, that is, it's not something that I can say anyone else in socionics has said in quite that fashion. Although my present view is that it's correct, it's possible that others could make a good case that it's not.

However, personally I wouldn't consider "I am of type bla-bla, and I don't identify with it" a good case.

Where I'm coming from:

It is self-evident that (1) any healthy person, extrovert or introvert, needs the input of external information and (2) no healthy person accepts every external information uncritically. Everyone has what I will call "internal filters" that help them pick up, from external information, what is "useful" or "useless", what "rings true" and what "sounds like nonsense". We all have observed cases - here or IRL - of equally clever individuals saying things to each other like "you're so naive to believe that" or "isn't it obvious?" etc. This happens because people have different "filters". When the "filters" are, say, "calibrated differently", then of course you have different views on what is obvious or not, or on what you should believe or not.

On the Fe-Ti and Fi-Te divide

So, everyone is "subjective" at one level regarding external information. However, in different ways.

One imperfect way of putting it is this:

Fi-Te: "liking or disliking" (ie being "subective" with regards to) a kind of source of input, "source" also being "individuals"
Fe-Ti: "liking or dislikng" a kind of input

Te: takes any input "as it is given" as long as it is from a reliable source (or person)
Fi: tells you which sources are reliable (or which people to trust)

Fi is here the filter.

Fe: takes the input not "as it is given" but "reading between the lines"
Ti: organizes such input logically, rejecting the bits that do not fit logically.

Ti is here the filter.

In both cases, Fe and Te get the external, dynamic, input - they are the "antennae" - and Fi and Ti select what is "correct" according to "static" criteria of how things, or people, connect - they are the "filters".

Consequences:

Fi-Te:
Fi-Te quadra types - in a "pure", "unrealistic" situation - would prefer to communicate in ways that avoid any selection or interpretation of information - in a "robotic" way even. Which is why, by the way, at least the rational Gamma/Delta dual couples become increasingly "unemotional" with time, at least to outsiders -- they find comfort precisely in the reassurance that there is no need to select information with that particular person, no need to "read between the lines".

So, Fi-Te's way of getting "correct" information is to choose the specific sources of information (not necessarily human beings, but it's more illustrative if we think of it that way) that they can trust, and then in principle take all the information from those sources at face value.

The downfall of doing this: if you choose badly those specific sources of information (or individuals), because then you're vulnerable to all sorts of misinformation.

That's what makes Fi-Te types so sensitive to being lied to, or to any other breach of trust, or even to receiving "softened" information even with good intentions.

Fe-Ti
Fe-Ti quadra types are far more "open" to the specific sources of information, that is, they are not selecting information based on their sources -- they get it from everyone; however, rather than "filter" it through Fi by selecting the sources carefully, they "filter" it through Fe (which already reads between the lines) and Ti (which sees what really makes sense and what is just, uh, padding or make-up etc).

The downfall of doing this: your "filter" may lead you to be "biased" towards information that already fits certain already accepted notions; or be open to information that is factually unsustainable, but makes sense according to Fe and Ti.

That's what makes Fe-Ti types so sensitive to "accusations" that the ideas they most deeply believe in are wrong.

In both cases, what they are reacting against is anything exposing the vulnerability of their filters.

Hence the mutual accusations between Fe-Ti and Fi-Te of "narrow-mindedness".

To Fe-Ti, it looks like Fi-Te will only listen to specific sources or individuals, so "biased" towards them, or "narrow-minded" or "naive".

To Fi-Te, it looks like Fe-Ti will only listen to what confirms what they already think - so, again "narrow-minded", or "circular thinking".

Unnecessary disclaimer: as in anything in socionics, these are trends, not absolutes; obviously Fe-Ti quadra types will also develop preferences for one source over others, if it turns out to be consistently reliable; and the other way around for Fi-Te. But I think that when there are moments of mutual incomprehension and accusations, that's how it tends to happen.
03-09-2008, 12:48 PM
Ezra

This makes me think I am Fe/Ti more now.
03-09-2008, 01:13 PM
implied

eh, it made me think i'm Fi/Te, actually probably solidified that position.
03-09-2008, 01:45 PM
Phaedrus

Expat's interpretation makes quite a lot of sense, especially if we look at the behaviour of some clear Fe-Ti types, like for example Sergei Ganin. I have seen these tendencies in other real life INTjs and also in ENTps. I haven't really thought about how much of it I have seen in other Fe-Ti types, but I would not be surprised if I found it there too.

And if the interpretation is correct, then I am without doubt a Fi-Te type as I have claimed for years now. According to every criteria or test that Expat has ever produced, I am unquestionably an Fi-Te Gamma type, and therefore an ILI. Can we settle on that and move on now to more interesting subjects?
03-09-2008, 02:14 PM
BLauritson

This makes a lot of sense IMO. It explains why when I was younger I seemed to be so gullible, since I tend to trust people as being knowledgeable unless they prove to me otherwise and so, since I trusted them, I took what they said to be true without really questioning it. I suppose this still happens to an extent actually. I end up getting confused if two people that I trust to be knowledgeable on a subject end up giving me different information, because then I don't know who's correct and who isn't (provided that I'm not knowledgeable on said subject, that is).
03-09-2008, 02:43 PM
discojoe

Interesting.

My elder brother used to play adolescent pranks on me, using the reverence I had for him at the time to deceive me into doing stupid things for his amusement (and I don't begrudge him of this in hindsight). After a short while of this I decided I wouldn't trust him any longer, and any future attempt of his -- malicious or benign -- fell on totally deaf ears. This might sound typically like an instance of response training, but I think this differs because I literally would not listen to him *at all* for days at a time.

I think now that this infuriated him because he was expecting me to have his very same Ti filter, and approach his schemes with the idea of "reading between the lines", assuming I would listen if he made himself sound plausible enough, and not simply write him off after deciding he was a "bad source".
03-09-2008, 02:54 PM
Expat

If Fe-Ti people do not equally see the point, then I will have failed, although a couple had told me over PM that they did agree with it.

I'd like to add that types with Ti in super-id will probably also say that they relate to "needing information from others", but I disagree, what they need from others is help with their filter, as in, "this is what I'm thinking, is that correct?" or "I know everything else, I just need input on this precise bit". What they don't want to hear is suggestions that their filter has got it all wrong so far.

But, of course, everyone will (say) more or less trust a random stranger on the street when asking for directions, although they will use their filters, in some way, when deciding whom exactly to ask for directions.
03-09-2008, 03:18 PM
Ezra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Expat's interpretation makes quite a lot of sense, especially if we look at the behaviour of some clear Fe-Ti types, like for example Sergei Ganin. I have seen these tendencies in other real life INTjs and also in ENTps. I haven't really thought about how much of it I have seen in other Fe-Ti types, but I would not be surprised if I found it there too.

And if the interpretation is correct, then I am without doubt a Fi-Te type as I have claimed for years now. According to every criteria or test that Expat has ever produced, I am unquestionably an Fi-Te Gamma type, and therefore an ILI. Can we settle on that and move on now to more interesting subjects?

Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14

LIS. You're not the only person who matters, Phaedrus.
03-09-2008, 03:58 PM
Warlord

I agree on everything else, but there seems to be something fishy about this part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

(a) To Fe-Ti, it looks like Fi-Te will only listen to specific sources or individuals, so "biased" towards them, or "narrow-minded" or "naive".

(b) To Fi-Te, it looks like Fe-Ti will only listen to what confirms what they already think - so, again "narrow-minded", or "circular thinking".

To me it would usually appear to be people who are weak at Te or are Fe-Ti, who are using Fi-Te at the moment, that are "guilty" of (a). While Te-ego-block Te-Fi, has the downfall of wanting excessive proof, because of lack of trust to external sources (unfulfilled Fi).
03-09-2008, 04:06 PM
Joy

To tell you the truth, I don't identify more strongly with the Te/Fi "filter" than the Fe/Ti "filter" (or vice versa). Good information and ideas can come from any source, as can bad information and ideas. It's the individual's job to figure out what makes the most sense based on all of the information available. A source's source matters more than the source itself (I want to know where the information originated, such as what studies were done, etc.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joy

There's also an aspect of it which involves finding a lot of information on a subject and sorting through it relatively quickly to determine which information is most useful for the purpose of effectively accomplishing whatever it is a person is trying to accomplish. If nothing else I can usually make recommendations regarding which information a person should obtain and the best places to start looking for that information.

When I do this, I scan for information from many sources, some of them reliable, some unreliable, and piece together the bits that make the most sense and filter out the bits that don't make sense. Sometimes the information that doesn't make sense comes from the most reputable sources. Granted, I do look for which sources are most likely to have gotten their information from valuable sources and which are most likely to have gotten inaccurate information, and I certainly look at who's making money off of the information (helps to distinguish bullshit from what's accurate).

When I report the information to someone I'll say something like "I once read that *insert information here*, but I'm not sure how reliable the source was" or "according to a researcher who's at the top of his specialty field, *insert information here*" or something along those lines.

I guess I use a combination of these "filters". I think I use Ni as much as I do Ti to determine which bits of information "fit" (and which don't) though.
03-09-2008, 04:14 PM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joy

When I do this, I scan for information from many sources, some of them reliable, some unreliable, and piece together the bits that make the most sense and filter out the bits that don't make sense. Sometimes the information that doesn't make sense comes from the most reputable sources. Granted, I do look for which sources are most likely to have gotten their information from valuable sources and which are most likely to have gotten inaccurate information, and I certainly look at who's making money off of the information (helps to distinguish bullshit from what's accurate).

This would make sense based on what I just said above.
03-09-2008, 04:29 PM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

You're not the only person who matters, Phaedrus.

That's exactly my point. So it's time for you and others to move on to more interesting problems -- just like I said.
03-09-2008, 05:46 PM
eunice

The Fe-Ti description here sounds very foreign to me. Are there specific examples or analogies about how Fe "reads between the lines"?
03-09-2008, 07:12 PM
Expat

@ Joy and Warlord: my original concept was that the "sources" were mostly "other individuals"; perhaps it makes the most sense if we stay with that, and see Fi mainly as a filter for which people to trust, rather than which books (or whatever) to use as source, etc.
03-09-2008, 07:22 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by eunice

The Fe-Ti description here sounds very foreign to me. Are there specific examples or analogies about how Fe "reads between the lines"?

Tone of voice and inflection. Reading body language. When what someone says does not seem to match with other factors that may be in play. Or even in poetry; there are the words on the page which are seen and read in a flow (Te) and then there is the emotion or feeling that exists in that word(s) of the poem in that moment of reading (Fe). Then you could say that the poem is structured syntactically (Ti) in a way to obtain that reaction to which the reader or author may or may not have an attachment to (Fi).

The Ti-Fe description was well done. Expat, I did not detect any bias in this write-up, so good job. Ti also works well with Fe since it holds sources, events, and ideas on mostly neutral terms (though still in a subjective logical system) not so much on a basis of what is or works (external dynamics), but whether or not it makes sense as presented based upon the objects' external statics.
03-09-2008, 07:31 PM
Joy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

@ Joy and Warlord: my original concept was that the "sources" were mostly "other individuals"; perhaps it makes the most sense if we stay with that, and see Fi mainly as a filter for which people to trust, rather than which books (or whatever) to use as source, etc.

Okay, then it works well for me.
03-09-2008, 07:32 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Tone of voice and inflection. Reading body language. When what someone says does not seem to match with other factors that may be in play. Or even in poetry; there are the words on the page which are seen and read in a flow (Te) and then there is the emotion or feeling that exists in that word(s) of the poem in that moment of reading (Fe). Then you could say that the poem is structured syntactically (Ti) in a way to obtain that reaction to which the reader or author may or may not have an attachment to (Fi).

That's a very good example, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

The Ti-Fe description was well done. Expat, I did not detect any bias in this write-up, so good job. Ti also works well with Fe since it holds sources, events, and ideas on mostly neutral terms (though still in a subjective logical system) not so much on a basis of what is or works (external dynamics), but whether or not it makes sense as presented based upon the objects' external statics.

Thanks!
03-09-2008, 07:38 PM
inumbra

(in response to initial post)

This is very good imo. Thank you for sharing.

I very much relate to the Fe-Ti one.
03-10-2008, 01:55 AM
Park

A great description, Expat. Thank you. This confirms I am from a Te-Fi quadra.
03-10-2008, 02:15 AM
Park

I 'll take my behavior on this forum as an example to show that what Expat says holds the ground. There's people for instance, whose posts I never even bother to read, and there's people (like Expat) whose posts I always enjoy reading and will never regret spending time with and trust their information almost unconditionally. Many times I would be skimming through threads quickly and only stop to read Expat's and a few other people's posts, completely ignoring the rest. So yeah, I am very selective when it comes to sources of information. :)

edit: (just to add something.) I really hate it when people instead of listening to the content of what I am saying they pay more attention to the tone of my voice, my articulations, the ways I hold my hands, the way I look at them and all that secondary (for me) unimportant info.
03-10-2008, 02:38 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

edit: (just to add something.) I really hate it when people instead of listening to the content of what I am saying they pay more attention to the tone of my voice, my articulations, the ways I hold my hands, the way I look at them and all that secondary (for me) unimportant info.

1) Fe is more involved than that, 2) Fe is not an anti-content listening function, and 3) while you may think of it secondary importance, sometimes what is more important is not what is said, but what remains unsaid or lurks behind what is being said. This 3rd element is particularly important for counseling where listening beyond the words is required.
03-10-2008, 02:43 AM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

1) Fe is more involved than that, 2) Fe is not an anti-content listening function, and 3) while you may think of it secondary importance, sometimes what is more important is not what is said, but what remains unsaid or lurks behind what is being said. This 3rd element is particularly important for counseling where listening beyond the words is required.

Yeah, I understand that. But listening beyond the words without listening to the words is definitely not cool and it pisses the shit out of me.
03-10-2008, 02:45 AM
xyz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

Yeah, I understand that. But listening beyond the words without listening to the words is definitely not cool and it pisses the shit out of me.

I agree with you, and I also agree that I never regret reading Expat's very informative posts.

But I think you and I have a losing battle here, Winterpark. I think most people will look at our outward actions and make judgements on us. It blows.
03-10-2008, 02:51 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

Yeah, I understand that. But listening beyond the words without listening to the words is definitely not cool and it pisses the shit out of me.

I do not think that would please anybody, so I would not expect it to be particular to a Fe/Te divide.
03-10-2008, 02:55 AM
Park

I am having serious trouble explaining my point to a person who watches and mainly responds to my gestures or goes into "aha, so you mean that and that or that..." mode. I say what I mean. Most of the time there's no reason to search for hidden meanings in my verbal output (or try to find them in my physical appearance and outward emotional expression) in order to understand me. And I think this is related to Te/Fe.
03-10-2008, 03:12 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

I am having serious trouble explaining my point to a person who watches and mainly responds to my gestures or goes into "aha, so you mean that and that or that..." mode. I say what I mean. Most of the time there's no reason to search for hidden meanings in my verbal output (or try to find them in my physical appearance and outward emotional expression) in order to understand me. And I think this is related to Te/Fe.

One of the things I have learned in life is that people rarely if ever say what they truly mean. And I do think that you are understating how importance body language (roughly 80-90 percent of the human language) is when saying what you mean. So while you may say what you mean, saying what you mean involves far more than just the content of your words.
03-10-2008, 03:17 AM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

So while you may say what you mean, saying what you mean involves far more than just the content of your words.

I wouldn't agree. I 'd say "the extra" goes in varying degrees, starting from near zero, if not zero.
03-10-2008, 03:22 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

I wouldn't agree. I 'd say "the extra" goes in varying degrees, starting from near zero, if not zero.

Then you would seem to have a lot to learn still of the world.
03-10-2008, 03:32 AM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Then you would seem to have a lot to learn still of the world.

No, it would seem that you will have to do a lot of accepting and adjusting to things that don't fit your viewpoint.
03-10-2008, 03:53 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

I wouldn't agree. I 'd say "the extra" goes in varying degrees, starting from near zero, if not zero.

Yeah I agree. Body language/expressions/intonation etc. are just as misinformative as the content of the speech, if not more since people seem to trust it more. I would say that 90% of time, other than the content of my speech would be misinformative if/when someone tries to read it.
03-10-2008, 03:59 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

Yeah I agree. Body language/expressions/intonation etc. are just as misinformative as the content of the speech, if not more since people seem to trust it more. I would say that 90% of time, other than the content of my speech would be misinformative if/when someone tries to read it.

The importance and the use of body language =! the success in interpreting it. But my point was more that our body language is a fairly large component of our language whether or not it is interpreted correctly. The content of your words is just as liable to be lost in translation in definitions, connotations, structure, emphasis, etc. Welcome to Reality 101.
03-10-2008, 04:28 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

The importance and the use of body language =! the success in interpreting it. But my point was more that our body language is a fairly large component of our language whether or not it is interpreted correctly. The content of your words is just as liable to be lost in translation in definitions, connotations, structure, emphasis, etc. Welcome to Reality 101.

Body languages importance diminishes when it doesn't convey any meaningful message. Over-emphasizing it's importance means that you get lot of meaningless information, that you interpret as somehow relevant.

According to Mehrabian rule 55% of communication comes from body language. But that's just amount. It's importance should largely depend on how meaningful the information exchange is through body language.
03-10-2008, 04:40 AM
snegledmaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

One of the things I have learned in life is that people rarely if ever say what they truly mean.

God, you sound like my mother. And you're both wrong. Like I constantly say to her I will say to you, stop projecting, just because you're like that doesn't make everybody like that.
03-10-2008, 04:45 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

Body languages importance diminishes when it doesn't convey any meaningful message.

How then is this any different from content?

Quote:

Over-emphasizing it's importance means that you get lot of meaningless information, that you interpret as somehow relevant.

And deemphasizing it's importance robs you of potentially useful information that is not strictly within the content of the words.

Quote:

According to Mehrabian rule 55% of communication comes from body language. But that's just amount. It's importance should largely depend on how meaningful the information exchange is through body language.

But look at the other percentages: words account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55% of our "liking for the person who puts forward the message." Tone of voice + body language = 93% of communication versus strictly 7% of words, that may or may not be meaningful or coherent.

So it can be little denied that body language informs the content of what we say. How seriously can we take a man saying that he is mad when he says it daintily while frolicking through the fields with loose facial muscles and a big grin on his face?

Quote:

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

God, you sound like my mother. And you're both wrong. Like I constantly say to her I will say to you, stop projecting, just because you're like that doesn't make everybody like that.

And how do you know this?
03-10-2008, 04:58 AM
inumbra

This is starting to irk me. The way people says things, their gestures, their expressions (body language), their intonations, the way they organize and present their information, how their presentation of information relates to previous ways they have presented information, the trend of how they've been expressing themselves in general, things you know about them from memory, when they pause in their speech or not, when they look at you or not, how they attempt to affect the flow of conversation, etc. All of these things speak volumes about what they mean. This cannot be denied. The content of what they say *also* speaks volumes about what they mean.

The problem is that you can't pay attention to all of this at once. Just because someone has more of a slant towards paying attention to the direct literal content of what someone else says over that other stuff *does not* mean it's more likely to give more accurate information on what that person means. For instance someone could be lying through their teeth and this could be very evident in the way they're expressing themselves, but you might miss it because you're paying attention to just the content of what they say. Or, someone could be saying exactly what they mean at face value, but because you've been paying attention to their "body language," etc. (and possibly misinterpreting it), you miss their meaning. You can screw it up either way.

The other thing is what people mean precisely can sometimes be very difficult to express in words. Sometimes words can only approximate precise meaning, but never quite hit it (some might argue all the time).

It's fine to object to Fe>Te... this is to be expected. But to say one way is superior to the other or somehow more accurate seems silly to me. And by the way, no one said it was superior. I was reading between the lines. :p
03-10-2008, 05:00 AM
Logos

Exactly!
03-10-2008, 05:16 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

How then is this any different from content?

Content is usually understandable, it's an exception when it's not. Try to send your message only by using only auxiliary body language. And you notice the difference how meaningful the convesation becomes. If that's not already self-evident now.

Quote:

And deemphasizing it's importance robs you of potentially useful information that is not strictly within the content of the words.

Maybe, but it's far more likely that it cuts off more misinterpretations, than what's gained by over-concentration and interpretation of body language, and trying to interpret what every body posture, chin rubbing etc. supposedly means.

Quote:

So it can be little denied that body language informs the content of what we say. How seriously can we take a man saying that he is mad when he says it daintily while frolicking through the fields with loose facial muscles and a big grin on his face?

Well I would certainly think he's mad in the classic sense :)

The problem there is exactly what Winterpark said: trusting body language/expressions instead of content of speech.

There are lot of people who are close to snapping point or suicidal etc., and nobody can tell it by looking at them.
03-10-2008, 05:33 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

Content is usually understandable, it's an exception when it's not.

Content on its own is usually understandable, but it is not always meaningful.

Quote:

Try to send your message only by using only auxiliary body language. And you notice the difference how meaningful the convesation becomes. If that's not already self-evident now.

Now try and send that same message without body language or tone of voice. How much meaning is transmitted in that?

Quote:

Maybe, but it's far more likely that it cuts off more misinterpretations, than what's gained by over-concentration and interpretation of body language, and trying to interpret what every body posture, chin rubbing etc. supposedly means.

But what you seem to be missing is that most of the interpretation of body language is done subconsciously.

Quote:

Well I would certainly think he's mad in the classic sense :)

Why?

Quote:

The problem there is exactly what Winterpark said: trusting body language/expressions instead of content of speech.

There are lot of people who are close to snapping point or suicidal etc., and nobody can tell it by looking at them.

I think you have it reversed. In my example, what he says is not what he means as he reveals in his actions. He is clearly not mad, but the mere content of his words would suggest otherwise.

Why do you continue to deemphasize the importance of body language and tone of voice? I do not think that it is superior to the content - only a fool would say that - but so would the fool also ignore the prominence of body language and tone of voice whether it be interpreted consciously or not. Body language, connotation, and tone of voice infuse our words with meaning beyond mere definitions and face-value content. It is an essential part of communication and just as much as the words that are transmitted. The what is often made meaningful by the how. Have you not read what Loki wrote, or do you continue to persist in this argument for the sake of arguing? I have the feeling that we would most agree, but you seem to always be trying to get a leg-up where there is no need to do so.
03-10-2008, 05:36 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

You can screw it up either way.

Trust no one :)
03-10-2008, 06:00 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Content on its own is usually understandable, but it is not always meaningful.

Well yeah.

Quote:

Now try and send that same message without body language or tone of voice. How much meaning is transmitted in that?

I think I did, this is text only.

Quote:

But what you seem to be missing is that most of the interpretation of body language is done subconsciously.

Not really. You can't make your subconscious to read more or less, or display more body language.

Quote:

Quote:

Well I would certainly think he's mad in the classic sense

Why?

That's not rational behaviour, he should be doing something profitable instead./joke

Quote:

I think you have it reversed. In my example, what he says is not what he means as he reveals in his actions. He is clearly not mad, but the mere content of his words would suggest otherwise.

He could be either way.

Quote:

Why do you continue to deemphasize the importance of body language and tone of voice?

I'm down-emphasizing your over-emphasis. And trying to find out makes you think it's so important that it would require your initial reaction to Winterpark.
03-10-2008, 06:15 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

I think I did, this is text only.

But out of context in what we are discussing, which pertains to situations where there can be an interplay of body language, words, and tone of voice. Obviously, you can not see my body language now. But think of how many posts seem to note how tone of voice to indicate how the content of what they say should be taken to mean does not always carry well on message boards.

Quote:

Not really. You can't make your subconscious to read more or less, or display more or less body language.

Sorry, but that was not what I was saying at all. I never said that you could get your subconscious to read more or less or display more or less body language, but merely that most of the interpretation of body language occurs in the subconscious. Yes, you can control the conscious part of it, but most is indeed in the subconscious.

Quote:

He could be either way.

He's my example, I think I should know. ;)

Quote:

I'm down-emphasizing your over-emphasis. And trying to find out makes you think it's so important that it would require your initial reaction to Winterpark.

But I'm not over-emphasizing it, just pointing out that it is more important than Winterpark is downplaying. And I'm curious as to what about what I wrote in my initial reaction you find puzzling.
03-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Expat

I see the Logos-Winterpark discussion as a good illustration of precisely what I tried to convey.
03-10-2008, 07:32 AM
Expat

I see from Ezra's post that Phaedrus is saying that this "confirms" that he's a Fi-Te type -- it's amusing that he doesn't realize that his saying it, in the context of this thread, proves the precise opposite. He's behaving in a Fe-Ti way even as he says "I am Fi-Te".
03-10-2008, 07:36 AM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

I see the Logos-Winterpark discussion as a good illustration of precisely what I tried to convey.

I'm glad to be of service to you then.
03-10-2008, 08:33 AM
hellothere

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

He's behaving in a Fe-Ti way even as he says "I am Fi-Te".

I'm a bit slow, I wonder if you could explain this? Though I understand why you might not want to, so its okay if you don't.

Anyway what you've described as the Fe-Ti way bugs me, in fact its exactly what my SEI friend does and its exactly what annoys me about him.
03-10-2008, 08:49 AM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

But out of context in what we are discussing, which pertains to situations where there can be an interplay of body language, words, and tone of voice. Obviously, you can not see my body language now. But think of how many posts seem to note how tone of voice to indicate how the content of what they say should be taken to mean does not always carry well on message boards.

I think that, not having to deal with the people irl and therefore having influence in your relationships etc. has stronger effect on the way and content of what people write. So most the strain in communication comes from that. Rather than not seeing their body language and hearing their intonation. But sure that has some effect also. But I don't have the feel that I would need that extra information to increase understanding. Some jokes are lost, that's about it.

Quote:

Sorry, but that was not what I was saying at all. I never said that you could get your subconscious to read more or less or display more or less body language, but merely that most of the interpretation of body language occurs in the subconscious. Yes, you can control the conscious part of it, but most is indeed in the subconscious.

Well, that was your reply to what started out as someone placing a conscious effort to reading more information about body language. That is, trying to read more than you subconsciously do. So it wasn't even about subconsious interpretation.

Quote:

just pointing out that it is more important than Winterpark is downplaying. And I'm curious as to what about what I wrote in my initial reaction you find puzzling.

The wording how you said it seemed condescending. Comparing that to you not having said any relevant information. Just that it's considered to be statistically important part of communication. But if someone doesn't find any use in reading non-verbal communication, what's the big deal? The reason is that they find it to be unrealiable information, like it often is.
03-10-2008, 09:52 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

I am having serious trouble explaining my point to a person who watches and mainly responds to my gestures or goes into "aha, so you mean that and that or that..." mode. I say what I mean. Most of the time there's no reason to search for hidden meanings in my verbal output (or try to find them in my physical appearance and outward emotional expression) in order to understand me. And I think this is related to Te/Fe.

Maybe it is also related to :Fe: PoLR. I have the same attitude and the same problem(s) as you have described here.
03-10-2008, 09:57 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

One of the things I have learned in life is that people rarely if ever say what they truly mean. And I do think that you are understating how importance body language (roughly 80-90 percent of the human language) is when saying what you mean. So while you may say what you mean, saying what you mean involves far more than just the content of your words.

That's what many people like to think, but it is nearly always not true in my case. My body language is very often misleading (= people draw incorrect conclusions based upon it) without me knowing it and in what way. So, I have very little control over how I come across (:Fe: PoLR again, I suppose), and people mistakenly believe that I am trying to say something I have not literally said. That's a really annoying problem.
03-10-2008, 09:59 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Then you would seem to have a lot to learn still of the world.

But what if you can't learn it, because you are born with :Fe: PoLR (and maybe something else that might be relevant too)?
03-10-2008, 10:00 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

No, it would seem that you will have to do a lot of accepting and adjusting to things that don't fit your viewpoint.

That's my attitude too.
03-10-2008, 10:09 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

I see the Logos-Winterpark discussion as a good illustration of precisely what I tried to convey.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

I see from Ezra's post that Phaedrus is saying that this "confirms" that he's a Fi-Te type -- it's amusing that he doesn't realize that his saying it, in the context of this thread, proves the precise opposite. He's behaving in a Fe-Ti way even as he says "I am Fi-Te".

I am certainly not. What we should try to understand is why you continue to misinterpret what I am saying and why I am saying it. You seem to be making the same kind of mistake as some of those Fe-Ti types are making when they try to interpret what I am not saying. They mistakenly believe that they can interpret my actions and the way I am saying things in the same way they interpret other people's actions and statements. But the truth is that they can't in my case, because I don't have a normal body language, and I don't have hidden motives, and I don't lie. I am much more open and honest than they imagine, and that leads to misunderstandings.
03-10-2008, 10:17 AM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

I'm glad to be of service to you then.

An illustration of my inability to read between the lines - I have no idea how seriously I'm supposed to take that :o
03-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

An illustration of my inability to read between the lines - I have no idea how seriously I'm supposed to take that.

Then learn from that, and stop trying to read between the lines in my posts. If you used other typing methods that are not based on your (in)ability to read between the lines, your would decrease your number of mistypings.
03-10-2008, 10:44 AM
Cyclops

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Then learn from that, and stop trying to read between the lines in my posts. If you used other typing methods that are not based on your (in)ability to read between the lines, your would decrease your number of mistypings.

You have as much to learn as anyone
03-10-2008, 11:00 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops

You have as much to learn as anyone

No.
03-10-2008, 11:04 AM
Cyclops

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

No.

It depends on what you want to learn of course, but as a look-a-like relation to you, I think I can understand some of your shortcomings. But in saying that I wonder if you are happy with what you currently know, you might be, but I get the impression you probably are not. This is my observation is all.
03-10-2008, 11:33 AM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops

It depends on what you want to learn of course, but as a look-a-like relation to you, I think I can understand some of your shortcomings. But in saying that I wonder if you are happy with what you currently know, you might be, but I get the impression you probably are not. This is my observation is all.

I am more unhappy with what others don't know. The discussions tend to get stuck in the mud because of it.
03-10-2008, 12:23 PM
Ezra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

No.

Haha! He's right, you arrogant fuck.

I'm reconsidering this now. I think I might be Te/Fi.
03-10-2008, 12:47 PM
snegledmaca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

God, you sound like my mother. And you're both wrong. Like I constantly say to her I will say to you, stop projecting, just because you're like that doesn't make everybody like that.

And how do you know this?

The same way you know people rarely if ever say what they truly mean.
03-10-2008, 01:19 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salawa

I would be angry if someone discounted what I said because of tone/body language/etc.. Obviously I don't expect them to ignore the other information, but there is little that is more infuriating than being told that "you're only saying that because you're upset" or some other bullshit (from my perspective) like that. I thought that was what Winterpark was trying to get at, he may correct me if I'm wrong.

That's exactly what I was getting at.
03-10-2008, 01:20 PM
Logos

Quote:

Well, that was your reply to what started out as someone placing a conscious effort to reading more information about body language.

Was it?

Quote:

That is, trying to read more than you subconsciously do. So it wasn't even about subconsious interpretation.

But the overall point that you seem to be ignoring is me repeatedly pointing out the evidential importance that body language and tone of voice play in communication.

Quote:

The wording how you said it seemed condescending.

Then I'm afraid that you misread me and read between the lines what was not there.

Quote:

Comparing that to you not having said any relevant information.

That's quite the accusation. I may not have :Te: in the ego or be :Te:-valuing, but that does not mean that what I say should be discounted because I am the only Alpha here, which is the feeling I am increasingly gaining here.

Quote:

Just that it's considered to be statistically important part of communication. But if someone doesn't find any use in reading non-verbal communication, what's the big deal? The reason is that they find it to be unrealiable information, like it often is.

I suppose people are welcome not to read into non-verbal communication, but to quote a page on body language: "Some researchers put the level of nonverbal communication as high as 80 percent of all communication. More reasonably it could be at around 50-65 percent. That’s exactly what Mehrabian discovered in his communication study. He found that only 7 percent of communication comes from spoken words, 38 percent is from the tone of the voice, and 55 percent comes from body language. In basic terms, if you aren’t conscious of what is happening nonverbally, then you are missing out on the vast majority of what is going on during a typical conversation." Obviously verbal content does play a big role in communication, every ESE knows that probably better than the ILI and LIE, but they also know that the non-verbal also plays an essential part in interpersonal communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

That's what many people like to think, but it is nearly always not true in my case. My body language is very often misleading (= people draw incorrect conclusions based upon it) without me knowing it and in what way. So, I have very little control over how I come across (:Fe: PoLR again, I suppose), and people mistakenly believe that I am trying to say something I have not literally said. That's a really annoying problem.

Or is it simply misleading because it is learning an individual's specific patterns of body language? Body language is also cultural and individualistic, much like language in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But what if you can't learn it, because you are born with :Fe: PoLR (and maybe something else that might be relevant too)?

:Fe: would be weak and conscious, but not non-existent. Just because I have a :Se: PoLR does not mean that I'm naturally colorblind or that I can't be confrontational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

An illustration of my inability to read between the lines - I have no idea how seriously I'm supposed to take that :o

I'm serious, but saying it in a friendly nonchalant manner.
03-10-2008, 01:27 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

The same way you know people rarely if ever say what they truly mean.

Haha, good answer.
03-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

The same way you know people rarely if ever say what they truly mean.

Psycho-Linguistics?
03-10-2008, 01:32 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salawa

I would be angry if someone discounted what I said because of tone/body language/etc.. Obviously I don't expect them to ignore the other information, but there is little that is more infuriating than being told that "you're only saying that because you're upset" or some other bullshit (from my perspective) like that. I thought that was what Winterpark was trying to get at, he may correct me if I'm wrong.

And I would be angry if all of my content was dismissed based on me not being the right person. Yet that seems to be happening as we speak. ;)
03-10-2008, 01:43 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

And I would be angry if all of my content was dismissed based on me not being the right person. Yet that seems to be happening as we speak. ;)

wtf man?:confused: If you think your signature, or you being Alpha, or any of that would interfere in my (or Salawa's) interpretation of your posts, then you are utterly wrong.
03-10-2008, 02:17 PM
Warlord

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Was it?

Of course, follow sequentially backwards what was said before that.

Quote:

But the overall point that you seem to be ignoring is me repeatedly pointing out the evidential importance that body language and tone of voice play in communication.

I haven't been ignoring that.

Quote:

Then I'm afraid that you misread me and read between the lines what was not there.

"Then you would seem to have a lot to learn still of the world." That's condescending, there's no need to even read between the lines.

Quote:

That's quite the accusation. I may not have :Te: in the ego or be :Te:-valuing, but that does not mean that what I say should be discounted because I am the only Alpha here, which is the feeling I am increasingly gaining here.

Now you are being paranoid. You haven't said what makes it so important, what's the gain? Because it's not that it really improves understandability.

Quote:

In basic terms, if you aren’t conscious of what is happening nonverbally, then you are missing out on the vast majority of what is going on during a typical conversation.

Sure probably a whole lot. But weak Fe makes you miss it anyway. If you start paying attention to it. You just get confused, because you can't be sure about your interpretation. It could be a real gesture, faked, related to some "body condition" like itching, sore neck etc. or the person could be sending messages for no apparent real reason, or the person could be not sending anything at all when he should, or you could still be missing relevant cues or they could just have poor skills in that type communication and therefore sending wrong messages.

If you mostly ignore it, then you can concentrate on the information that you can process better.

It shouldn't be that important. It's primitive and has been outdated since humans developed speech, even more so after writing was developed. Everything that can be signaled non-verbally, can also be said or written. It's redundant. (now is the time for anti-Fe paranoia haha). Fe still isn't entirely about that.

Quote:

:Fe: would be weak and conscious, but not non-existent. Just because I have a :Se: PoLR does not mean that I'm naturally colorblind or that I can't be confrontational.

True.
03-10-2008, 03:01 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

wtf man?:confused: If you think your signature, or you being Alpha, or any of that would interfere in my (or Salawa's) interpretation of your posts, then you are utterly wrong.

Am I? When Expat talks about the importance of the individual itself in Te-Fi communication, am I really that wrong to possibly see that happening? If Expat were telling you the same thing that I am now, would you be insisting that he is wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

Of course, follow sequentially backwards what was said before that.

Would you mind showing me more explicitly to what you were referring? I am was not trying to be smart with the "was it?" comment, but I was honestly unsure what you were referring to, because I could think of several possible back links.

Quote:

I haven't been ignoring that.

Okay.

Quote:

"Then you would seem to have a lot to learn still of the world." That's condescending, there's no need to even read between the lines.

And that is truth. If you ignore that aspect of the world, then you are blinding yourself to a crucial part of reality. But even there I was not being condescending, though I can see why you would interpret it as such.

Quote:

Now you are being paranoid. You haven't said what makes it so important, what's the gain? Because it's not that it really improves understandability.

Implicit content within 93 percent of communication in an interpersonal conversation is not a gain? :confused:

Quote:

Sure probably a whole lot. But weak Fe makes you miss it anyway. If you start paying attention to it. You just get confused, because you can't be sure about your interpretation. It could be a real gesture, faked, related to some "body condition" like itching, sore neck etc. or the person could be sending messages for no apparent real reason, or the person could be not sending anything at all when he should, or you could still be missing relevant cues or they could just have poor skills in that type communication and therefore sending wrong messages.

If you mostly ignore it, then you can concentrate on the information that you can process better.

But not to the extent that either you or Winterpark make it out to be. I can understand if you had weak-:Fe: (weak interpretation skills) you would not want to rely on it to heavily, but that does not make it meaningless, valueless, or something that should so readily be ignored or downplayed.

Quote:

It shouldn't be that important. It's primitive and has been outdated since humans developed speech, even more so after writing was developed. Everything that can be signaled non-verbally, can also be said or written. It's redundant. (now is the time for anti-Fe paranoia haha). Fe still isn't entirely about that.

But it is that important. Our bodies transmit signals that sometimes we are not even aware of. How is this evolutionary mechanism outdated? Of course Fe is not entirely about that; I said as much in my first reply to Winterpark.
03-10-2008, 03:16 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Am I? When Expat talks about the importance of the individual itself in Te-Fi communication, am I really that wrong to possibly see that happening? If Expat were telling you the same thing that I am now, would you be insisting that he is wrong?

I can't speak for anyone else directly, but personally I have a "Fi-filtered view" (or whatever) of a particular person called Logos; and the Alpha, LII etc thing comes into play later, if interactions need to be explained or I make a point in socionics referring to Alpha or LIIs.
03-10-2008, 03:35 PM
Warlord

Quote:

Would you mind showing me more explicitly to what you were referring? I am was not trying to be smart with the "was it?" comment, but I was honestly unsure what you were referring to, because I could think of several possible back links.

Quote:

Body languages importance diminishes when it doesn't convey any meaningful message. Over-emphasizing it's importance means that you get lot of meaningless information, that you interpret as somehow relevant.

That chain started from that one. If it's even important anymore.

Quote:

Implicit content within 93 percent of communication in an interpersonal conversation is not a gain? :confused:

Nope. If you get 93% more e-mail but it's spam mail. It doesn't improve your e-mail communication.

If the people who send you spam mail, start instead sending you useful information in clear language, instead of concentrating on spamming you. It's more useful to you.

Quote:

But it is that important. Our bodies transmit signals that sometimes we are not even aware of. How is this evolutionary mechanism outdated?

We could like replace them with pie charts over heads, that say:" you have now 0.0000495% chance to get laid". Or: "I dislike you 43.4%". Now that would be progress :)

But seriously, why retort to a communication system that's based on sending vague multi-interpretative cues, that you are supposed "to get". When there's far superior system available. People could just state the same messages. Speech & writing etc. should be the primary system of communication for everyone.
03-10-2008, 03:37 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by glamourama

any particular reason this is posted in gamma and not in general discussion?

I am gamma, and I wish it so.
03-10-2008, 04:18 PM
xyz

You're all talking out of your ass, we see what we want to see, and hear what we want to hear.
03-10-2008, 04:39 PM
inumbra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

But seriously, why retort to a communication system that's based on sending vague multi-interpretative cues, that you are supposed "to get". When there's far superior system available. People could just state the same messages.

Lol. These “vague multi-interpretative cues that you are supposed to get” are not seen as this fuzzy or vague or arbitrary by Fe/Ti valuing types. Just because you’re better at Fi/Te interpretations and don’t care about Fe does not make Fe/Ti interpretations inferior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

Speech & writing etc. should be the primary system of communication for everyone.

You can’t escape Fe so easily! :p For instance, I can read between the lines with content alone without even seeing another person... like on this forum (it’s all written communication… aside from the images and youtube videos). And I think it still has a lot to do with Fe. Every post I read, information about its tone, possible hidden meanings, attitude of the poster, possible feelings behind the post, etc. naturally just pop into my mind. It's not that I try to do this. I can't help it. I analyze what comes into my head and try to sort out what it likely is from what it likely is not (something that can be difficult online at times because I can't see the person's face, hear their voice, etc.). This becomes more automatic with the more I know about the person posting, and the more I start to see trends in what they say/express, and other connections. I feel that sometimes Fi/Te logical types discount this sort of information as meaningless or irrelevant, which is essentially like telling me that my perception is invalid. I think that Fi/Te logical types don’t trust information about the Fe aspect of reality as much (because Fe is not one of their strong suits). And that is perfectly understandable. But that doesn’t mean Fe information is in any way irrelevant, or that there aren’t Fe/Ti valuing sorts that are good at interpreting it.

It seems that Fi/Te types are more likely to directly say what they mean and go for direct, literal interpretations. This may be rather central to how they communicate. So maybe most of their meaning is already present in the words they say. I think that Fe/Ti types may communicate somewhat differently… I generally like it when people read between the lines of what I say. In person my way of communicating is less direct… I don’t generally care as much about which words I use as long as the meaning gets communicated… When I care to, I do try to say what I mean, but sometimes I can’t seem to express it adequately. When someone else tries to read between the lines of what I say (or analyze it) and find my meaning, this is extremely helpful to me. Fe/Ti logical types tend to be more sensitive to the meaning behind your words, and won’t discount what you’re trying to say because you haven’t been able to precisely state it in the precisely correct words. They don’t invalidate your Fe perception and I find this very helpful. If their analysis of your Fe perception informs them that it’s way off the mark, they’ll explain why. I don’t expect people to do this—the burden of expressing what I mean when I care to fully rests on me. It just takes more effort to get it across to some people than it does to others (which probably happens with everyone).

That said, I wouldn’t want someone else to entirely ignore the content of what I say (who would?) or obnoxiously try to keep putting words into my mouth… that would bug me a lot, and I’d probably just explain that what I said happened to be exactly what I meant. If they continued to try to read things into it, I’d probably repeat myself and say something like “what part of <repeat what I said before word-for-word> do you not understand?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point of “reading between the lines” is not to invent things that you don’t mean and annoy you by pointing these things out. The aim is the same as it is for any communication: to understand what you actually do mean as precisely as possible. For instance if I say “ah ha! so you mean… x, y and z!” (borrowing from Winterpark), this doesn’t mean that I’m trying to read things into what you said or make things up… it means I’m trying to get on the same page with you, to confirm that my understanding matches yours. I’m trying to connect. Unfortunately what you say is pulled in by Ni(/Se) and Fe, and analyzed with Ti. I can’t help that, you’ll just have to deal with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

But at the same time if you say “I love you” when everything inside your head and heart is saying “I hate you” and is evident in the way that you’ve been expressing yourself around me for the past 8 weeks… yes you may have meant for me to hear “I love you” but it doesn’t seem that’s how you honestly feel. Should you be believed word-for-word when everything else about you is saying the exact opposite?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I said all of this because I'm trying to defend Fe/Ti more... I don't quite know why I feel inclined to...
03-10-2008, 04:43 PM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

I'm reconsidering this now. I think I might be Te/Fi.

As most of your test results and type profile identifications also indicate ... What can you learn from that?
03-10-2008, 04:56 PM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

It seems that Fi/Te types are more likely to directly say what they mean and go for direct, literal interpretations. This may be rather central to how they communicate.

I'm an extreme example of that, but it is probably not necessarily related to Fi-Te.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

So maybe most of their meaning is already present in the words they say.

Definitely so in my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

I generally like it when people read between the lines of what I say.

And I literally hate it.
03-10-2008, 05:07 PM
inumbra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

I generally like it when people read between the lines of what I say.

And I literally hate it.

You do seem to hate that. :o
03-10-2008, 05:33 PM
Phaedrus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

You do seem to hate that. :o

Yes, but only because people so extremely often misinterpret what I am trying to say and also my motives for saying it. If they were better at it, I wouldn't have any reason to complain. They might be better at reading correctly between the lines of what others are saying, because normally people probably tend to be "readable" in that sense. But I am not a normal person, and since people as a matter of fact tend to misinterpret me, I want to be treated as an individual. The method doesn't work on me, and therefore it should not be used.
03-10-2008, 05:35 PM
FDG

Quote:

For instance, I can read between the lines with content alone without even seeing another person... like on this forum (it’s all written communication… aside from the images and youtube videos).

You do imply, though, that there is always something between the lines that the person is trying to convey. Believe me if I say that the majority of - for example - my posts do not have this as a component.

Quote:

I generally like it when people read between the lines of what I say.

Similarly to Phaedrus, I do not necessarily like it. I do not dislike it either, at least if the person makes it clear and thus we can reach an agreement on the way we tend to converse. However, such an unspoken assumption would tend more often than not to get in the way of conversation and (for me) building of trust.

Reading between the lines is something that is very different from reading body language, though, give that one is rooted on an interpretation of what is being said, whereas the other stems from an interpretation of what is not being side (which, given its not-well-defined nature, is by composition necessarily object of a meaning assignment).

Quote:

This is starting to irk me. The way people says things, their gestures, their expressions (body language), their intonations, the way they organize and present their information, how their presentation of information relates to previous ways they have presented information, the trend of how they've been expressing themselves in general, things you know about them from memory, when they pause in their speech or not, when they look at you or not, how they attempt to affect the flow of conversation, etc. All of these things speak volumes about what they mean. This cannot be denied. The content of what they say *also* speaks volumes about what they mean.

I think it does speak volumes, however I would hesitate to say it speaks volumes about what they mean. I will give you an example related to myself (hoping not to appear too boastful): most of the times my intonation, my gestures, my expressions and how many pauses I make while speaking are related to only one variable: how tired I am. By no means this reveals my attitude towards the person I'm speaking to - sometimes I might be slightly indifferent when speaking to a good friend of mine simply because I biked 150 kms the same day.
03-10-2008, 07:21 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

One of the things I have learned in life is that people rarely if ever say what they truly mean.

One of the things that got me thinking about this is that, according to my observations, the Gamma/Delta dualities develop precisely towards the direction of increasingly saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and becoming increasingly "robotic" to outside observers. Those types see having to "read between the lines" as a concession, and are glad when an interaction does not require that.

It may be less so with irrationals, and/or Deltas, perhaps Slacker Mom could comment.

My own observations of my Alpha parents, SEI and ESE, was that after decades of marriage, they still, indeed, did not say what they meant to one another.
03-10-2008, 07:39 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

Am I? When Expat talks about the importance of the individual itself in Te-Fi communication, am I really that wrong to possibly see that happening?

No, you're not (wrong to see it), but you would be wrong if you actually believe it. I will tell you this; Even though I might disagree with you on many things, I still respect you very much, admire your intelligence and you're definitely not (yet) 'filtered out' as some others are.

Quote:

If Expat were telling you the same thing that I am now, would you be insisting that he is wrong?

The thing is that I know that Expat would never do that. But if, as you say, (for whatever reason) he did, then yes, I would disagree with him, but I know I would not need to insist because he wouldn't be so stubborn in defending his view like you are here. Hell, he might even agree with me, if I have some valid arguments. :lol:
03-10-2008, 07:42 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

My own observations of my Alpha parents, SEI and ESE, was that after decades of marriage, they still, indeed, did not say what they meant to one another.

Haha, how can you NOT find that absurd.
03-10-2008, 07:49 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

Those types see having to "read between the lines" as a concession, and are glad when an interaction does not require that.

Geez, how can I not be. "Reading between the lines" and especially having to make a decision based on "between the lines" observation can be extremely stressful and energy-consuming. For me, that is.
03-10-2008, 07:53 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

Geez, how can I not be. "Reading between the lines" and especially having to make a decision based on "between the lines" observation can be extremely stressful and energy-consuming. For me, that is.

While, on the other hand, I've heard women say things like this:

"I shouldn't have to say it to you. If you were a sensitive man, you'd have noticed what's going on with me without my having to say it. If you don't notice it, it's because you don't care, we're not compatible, and there isn't anything to this relationship."
03-10-2008, 08:05 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

While, on the other hand, I've heard women say things like this:

"I shouldn't have to say it to you. If you were a sensitive man, you'd have noticed what's going on with me without my having to say it. If you don't notice it, it's because you don't care, we're not compatible, and there isn't anything to this relationship."

The only time I would accept that as a valid and true statement is when it would be about (or would involve a lot of) Si disregards. Then it would make sense and I would probably agree. But taking it from a Fe perspective is..... I don't know, unfair, strange, even hurtful if I actually cared for the person...
03-10-2008, 08:16 PM
Park

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

The point of “reading between the lines” is not to invent things that you don’t mean and annoy you by pointing these things out.

For instance if I say “ah ha! so you mean… x, y and z!” (borrowing from Winterpark), this doesn’t mean that I’m trying to read things into what you said or make things up…

Unfortunately, it comes out that way sometimes. For me personally it's often because I think that if you wanted to get on the same page with me, you would easily understand what I said even by just taking me literally and cannot think of any other reason for misunderstanding me but the one quoted above. Or I am automatically beginning to think you are a really stupid person and are lacking mundane thought-processing skills.
03-10-2008, 08:28 PM
Minde

To the original post - a couple of things:

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

Second, in addition to narrow-mindedness, I think there can be mutual accusations of willful blindness to reality and lack of care for the other person. But that's already sort of covered.

Third... I think there's more to Fi-Te/Fe-Ti than what's described here.
03-10-2008, 08:32 PM
implied

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minde

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

this is an extremely good point.
03-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warlord

That chain started from that one. If it's even important anymore.

So let me go back and address it.

Quote:

Body languages importance diminishes when it doesn't convey any meaningful message. Over-emphasizing it's importance means that you get lot of meaningless information, that you interpret as somehow relevant.

I definitely agree with that assessment, but once more, expressing words does not necessarily express meaning or coherence, and deemphasizing the importance of body language can be just as potentially harmful.

Quote:

Nope. If you get 93% more e-mail but it's spam mail. It doesn't improve your e-mail communication.

If the people who send you spam mail, start instead sending you useful information in clear language, instead of concentrating on spamming you. It's more useful to you.

Fairly poor analogy. You do not miss what is going on in your e-mail without spam, but you do with non-verbal communication. And your e-mail that is not spam, may not always be particularly meaningful. The Mehrabian rule that you yourself posted indicates as much. But what you have you do not seem to get is that "word content" can be spam as well and that the body language and tone of voice can very much be meaningful. Yes there are the written words, but even the words and the 7 percent content contains a great deal of :Fe: or more than you perhaps realize. Your word choice affects your message. You may say what you literally mean, but is that even literally possible? Words are laden with meaning, infused with connotation, reinforced by their context, evocative of experience and understanding, and agitators of our emotions. We are animals. Although we are animals who have developed more complex methods of communication, that does not mean that our biological programming has somehow become outdated, especially not when it is a potential survival mechanism to ensure the propagation of the species. It is still an essential mode of our operation and not something that can be turned off like a light switch.

Quote:

We could like replace them with pie charts over heads, that say:" you have now 0.0000495% chance to get laid". Or: "I dislike you 43.4%". Now that would be progress :)

Or you are 4.56 percent beautiful.

Quote:

But seriously, why retort to a communication system that's based on sending vague multi-interpretative cues, that you are supposed "to get". When there's far superior system available. People could just state the same messages. Speech & writing etc. should be the primary system of communication for everyone.

Because it is there not supplant or replace the meaning of what you say, but to support and supplement it. And sometimes although we are indeed saying something meaningful in the content of our words, sometimes our bodies are transmitting other messages. You once said in a past discussion that the ILI thrives in vagueness of what you said, as it allows you to be better debaters. Now you claim that ILIs say what they mean and that they hate such vagueness? Your inability to read these "vague multi-interpretative cues" by no means indicates that they are worthless cues or meaningless cues. Yes, you can and should not over-emphasize body language, but conversely you can also deemphasize its importance in communication. I am arguing that balance exists in terms of meaning and that such cues are more meaningful than you may think they are. While I am sure that you also think that I am placing too much emphasis on body language, I am not arguing for communication without verbal and written language.

Should I call :Fi: useless, worthless, and stupid just because I myself do not place much focus or attention on it? If I cannot "read" it, does that mean that my actions do not contain :Fi: or affect the sense of :Fi: in others? I cannot draw or paint well, nor do I particularly like going to art museums, but that does not mean that I think that art is something the world would be better without or that art is not meaningful. And the same holds true in the case of body language, non-verbal communication, and tone of voice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FDG

I think it does speak volumes, however I would hesitate to say it speaks volumes about what they mean. I will give you an example related to myself (hoping not to appear too boastful): most of the times my intonation, my gestures, my expressions and how many pauses I make while speaking are related to only one variable: how tired I am. By no means this reveals my attitude towards the person I'm speaking to - sometimes I might be slightly indifferent when speaking to a good friend of mine simply because I biked 150 kms the same day.

And while an ESE may listen to the content of what you say, that is what else they will pick up on and latch to: you are tired, how your emotional attitude (not necessarily towards that person) is affected by your physical condition of tiredness.
03-10-2008, 09:34 PM
inumbra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

Unfortunately, it comes out that way sometimes. For me personally it's often because I think that if you wanted to get on the same page with me, you would easily understand what I said even by just taking me literally and cannot think of any other reason for misunderstanding me but the one quoted above. Or I am automatically beginning to think you are a really stupid person and are lacking mundane thought-processing skills.

It seems like you've automatically translated what I said into meaning that "reading between the lines" = "not understanding what you said." It does not.
03-10-2008, 09:56 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minde

One, as I've brought up before, I don't consider myself particularly the best judge of character. Not initially, anyway, and sometimes not even after awhile of knowing someone. I get bamboozled far too easily, I think. I love to trust, so I do it too often it seems. And, yet, I'm Fi-dominant. How does that fit into the scheme of things, especially if I'm the one who's supposed be doing the discerning?

That's not how it looks like to me, as an outsider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minde

Third... I think there's more to Fi-Te/Fe-Ti than what's described here.

Well, obviously. That's always the case in socionics.
03-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterpark

No, you're not (wrong to see it), but you would be wrong if you actually believe it. I will tell you this; Even though I might disagree with you on many things, I still respect you very much, admire your intelligence and you're definitely not (yet) 'filtered out' as some others are.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Quote:

The thing is that I know that Expat would never do that. But if, as you say, (for whatever reason) he did, then yes, I would disagree with him, but I know I would not need to insist because he wouldn't be so stubborn in defending his view like you are here. Hell, he might even agree with me, if I have some valid arguments. :lol:

I do not think that I am any more stubborn in this case than either your or Warlord. Have I not also agreed with Warlord when he presented valid arguments on over-emphasizing body language?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

One of the things that got me thinking about this is that, according to my observations, the Gamma/Delta dualities develop precisely towards the direction of increasingly saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and becoming increasingly "robotic" to outside observers. Those types see having to "read between the lines" as a concession, and are glad when an interaction does not require that.

It may be less so with irrationals, and/or Deltas, perhaps Slacker Mom could comment.

My own observations of my Alpha parents, SEI and ESE, was that after decades of marriage, they still, indeed, did not say what they meant to one another.

Case in point: you are interpreting what I said in a manner that is not how I meant it. So I will explain myself and hopefully address some of the concerns that Warlord seems to be having.

I am lost.
I cannot find my way back.
I do not know which direction I need to go.

If I were to say what I mean, in all cases these three statements may adequately express that, but only approximately. The first statement is about the state of the person. The second statement is about the orientation of the person. The third statement deals more with what the person knows. We may be trying our hardest to say what we mean, but by no means does this mean that we are successful in fully doing so.

Or if I were to say to my dream girl, "I love you," would that three word statement truly get across how I feel in that moment? Is the extent of my emotional attachment to her and the state of my relationship capable of being expressed in these simple words? I may very well love her, but would saying that be enough for her to understand what I truly mean in that moment and in that connection? If I do not have the appropriate words to express what I mean in my feelings or thoughts, then how could I possibly say what I mean?

Or why should I try and say anything when the look of my face says it all? Does this not exist between couples in :Te:/:Fi: relationships? To know the person so well that you can understand them with an unspoken glance? Even then, of what value are my words if they cannot reach the person to whom I am speaking? I may try and literally say what I mean, but will the listener find any meaning in it? We adjust our language to attempt to match between individuals. We subtly alter our language

Perhaps I say, "I think her dress is ugly," but what I was really trying to express with my words (if I had the proper words at the time or vocabulary) is "I think that her dress is distasteful for our present setting." Or what if I said, "My basketball team was annihilated."? Would you take that literally? Was the existence of my basketball team destroyed and brought to a state of ruin? Or do I simply mean that my basketball team was defeated by a perceived large amount of points?

The overall point: People never say what they truly mean, because we are limited by the very nature of language.

This is not an issue about :Te: vs. :Fe:, or the development of "robotic" Gamma relationships, or Expat's Alpha parents, but of language. If your parents are not saying what they mean to each other there may be a problem, but just because you say what you mean does not mean that there is not one. Nor should you necessarily assume "it's a Gamma or Alpha thing," when the dynamics of reality reveal themselves to be far more complex than how we want them to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

It seems like you've automatically translated what I said into meaning that "reading between the lines" = "not understanding what you said." It does not.

Well there seems to be the assumptions that "reading the lines" = "understanding what you said," which is definitely not always the case. If it were so, then there would be far less clarification and discussion on this discussion board.
03-10-2008, 10:00 PM
Minde

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

That's not how it looks like to me, as an outsider.

What's the truth - inner perception or outside?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

Well, obviously. That's always the case in socionics.

Yes, I know it's obvious, but it hadn't been said that I had read so far, so I thought I'd say it.
03-10-2008, 10:12 PM
Expat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minde

What's the truth - inner perception or outside?

The truth is out there.
03-10-2008, 10:17 PM
Minde

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expat

The truth is out there.

"Out there" is right...

..."Perception is reality"?

Anyway, I still have problems with that part.
03-10-2008, 10:18 PM
Logos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minde

"Out there" is right...

..."Perception is reality"?

Anyway, I still have problems with that part.

I think it might be best to say that perception in part defines our reality.
03-10-2008, 10:49 PM
Minde

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logos

I think it might be best to say that perception in part defines our reality.

Yes, that works for me.

"Perception is reality." The first time I heard that phrase was from an ESTp critiquing me on how I present myself, how I come across to other people. For my job I needed to be more forward and enthusiastic, and while I was feeling all the right things on the inside, it wasn't making its way adequately to the surface. I do agree in theory - that what people see in you is reality to them, and that's how they'll interact with and react to you, thus putting it into your reality. The thing is, different people see different things even when looking at the same object at the same time, which is a big part of what this thread is about. Because he knew me, the ESTp understood how I was from my perspective - happy and giving - but he also had the (as I see it in hindsight) Ti-Fe perspective as described here and because of that also saw me as being withdrawn, shy, and weak. He believed other people, particularly the ones for whom my job was meant, saw me that way, too, and that was unacceptable to him. I needed to change "reality."

But I'm not sure that has much to do with how I don't consider myself an exemplary discerner of character and how placing such an expectation on me seems a bit unfair and frightening.
03-10-2008, 11:04 PM
inumbra

bah
03-10-2008, 11:11 PM
xyz

Is saw what you deleted Loki. I liked it better ;)
03-10-2008, 11:13 PM
inumbra

Quote:

Originally Posted by LokiVanguard

Is saw what you deleted Loki. I liked it better ;)

Well, Carla deleted what I was quoting... so I had to in turn delete my quoting her... I do not like to quote things others have deleted, because it holds them in place when they shouldn't exist anymore.
03-10-2008, 11:15 PM
xyz

Let us never speak of this ill again.
03-10-2008, 11:17 PM
inumbra

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolphin

Do you want me to delete what your quote, too?

What? No. :lol: I don't care either way.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.

Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Username Changing provided by Username Change v1.3.1 (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.