Introverted Ethics Fi Described As "Resonance"

So I've been toying with some of the words in the old Information Aspects thread, because I have a (very skeptical) friend I talk to Socionics about, and she tends to pick apart how I explain the fundamentals such as IAs/IEs. Besides that we are different types, I want to eventually get to a place where I can clearly describe what IAs and IEs are without having to rely on completely abstract definitions that sound esoteric to those not familiar with Socionics, or any of Jung's work. So my main interest with words representing IAs is to easily communicate what process is about through a general "feeling," explaining a process in a manner that is both true to the IE but not so abstract that a person unfamiliar with Socionics would be able to understand. Predictably, I've been thinking the most about :Ne: and :Fi:, using the words of Permutation and Resonance (respectively) to communicate a general feeling, then describe a process that takes on these qualities that is more concrete. I'm still bouncing around :Ne:, but I figured I'd talk about :Fi: as Resonance.

I don't claim absolute originality with this, as it was more inspired by Ashton's list of words and descriptions of some, and maybe other people have mentioned. But the way they were described never felt truly whole, so I decided to take a whack at it. This idea requires the knowledge of what a theremin is, so here's a quick explanation for those who don't feel like reading up on it: A theremin is a musical instrument that doesn't need you to touch it to make sound, the proximity of your hands to it's antennae control the pitch and volume; so when you wave your hands around it at different distances, it makes different sounds depending on what kind of output is set. So, for an example, if you were to put your hand right up close to it, it might have a quiet high-pitched sound, but as your hand travels away, the pitch gets lower and louder. It might not be exactly near is high-pitched and loud, but the idea of your distance controls the sound is what is important, and that you can make a composition by fluctuating your distance.

With this in mind, let's say the information that :Fi: is privy to views everyone like they are theremins. The 'sounds' that are made are feelings, and instead of high- and low-pitched 'sounds,' we'll use pleasant and unpleasant feelings. What manipulates the feelings are certain types of qualities and actions that are emitted from another person (or "object" in Socionics colloquialism, which includes ideas and such), and whether they are a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance' differs from person to person. This might seem like a rather dynamic and oscillating process for something usually seen as a static system of sorts, but it is the IA as opposed to IE; the IE will be aware of that process and use that information for its respective function placement. The idea of "Resonance" is important to this processes because of that hard to pin down feeling that one gets from music and sounds that is being talked about here, especially when you're listening to something instrumental and you have a feeling from it even though there isn't a direct explanation of what kind of feeling that music is trying to evoke.

So, now that I've babbled for so long, I can say that now I can clearly describe how :Fi: works without ruining the integrity of what it actually is (or, at least, that's what I'm attempting to do). If this was to be applied, some ways :Fi: is described on this forum wouldn't really apply, though you could see how they came about. It could also be used in a practical manner to explain actions that would come about because of :Fi: placement without heavily relying on ideas that are prone to subjective interpretation. It is understood that using a theremin as an example is the product of a subjective understanding of :Fi:, but the process of how a theremin works is not, and therefore has an equal potential to be understood by all people practicing Socionics rather than relying on sketchy terms such as 'morals' and 'rules,' which differ from person to person. If we were going to take this way of describing :Fi: about an :Fi:-creative person, we could say they are adjusting or observing actions and qualities that would make a pleasant 'sound,' but these 'sounds' are not so much directly observable (to show how this differs from :Fe:, which looks for cues rather than placement) is but 'felt' to be harmonious or not. We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for :Fi: arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but :Fi: isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values :Fi:, and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted. It can also reveal the process clash of :Fi: vs :Ti: in a balanced manner, though I'd have to think more on :Ti: after I'm satisfied with :Fi:.

I have been thinking about this lately and wanted feedback so I can continue to stew a bit, not really intending to stick around. I moreso need to know what issues would come up when trying to explain :Fi: this way, and if it is clear enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for :Fi: arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but :Fi: isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values :Fi:, and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted.

---

Or you could skip the musical instrument analogy and talk about this. (Though I admit to liking the analogy, myself.)

But the basics is why we get analogies to magnetic force, orientation (as in orientation to/away from certain qualities), and such. As well as morals and ethics...which are ideals/rules based on how something affects a person/peoples.

If this friend of yours needs to experience what it might feel like to focus on Fi element, then use
* the musical instrument experience,
* two strong magnets with pole ends (--, ++, -+) and having her feel the force that pulls them together or pushes them apart (that cushion of force where the ends just won't meet without greater force pushing on them),
* and/or questions about how she feels towards different qualities of an item/person...or how do those qualities affect her and her own life/actions/beliefs/etc.

And if she says something like "well everyone is attracted/repelled by different things/qualities", you can respond with "yes, but not everyone focuses on those, nor use those to primarily make decisions with, nor use that to build up their understanding of the world, environment, situations, relationships, etc." In other words, not everyone uses that information as primary information to consider.

I personally liked expat's analogy of Fi/Fe, with the laser beams and fog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Or you could skip the musical instrument analogy and talk about this. (Though I admit to liking the analogy, myself.)

But the basics is why we get analogies to magnetic force, orientation (as in orientation to/away from certain qualities), and such. As well as morals and ethics...which are ideals/rules based on how something affects a person/peoples.

---

You're basically replacing the theremin with magnets, I'm guessing for simplicity's sake since everyone is aware how magnets work on a basic level. My goal was to have a term and example that generated a specific feeling; magnets as an example has the feeling of "attraction" and "repulsion," which isn't what I want to communicate, I don't see :Fi: as a push and pull process, more like things feel in and out of sync, which makes Resonance and the theremin more appropriate. And it isn't finding an example for example's sake, rather explaining something with a balance of integrity and clarity; the example of a process, such as how a theremin or magnets work, is the clarity, but the 'feeling' (attraction/repulsion vs being in and out of sync) those examples tries to keep true to the abstract aspect of IAs that is hard to put into words, which I tried to explain in my post. I don't think your example is bad if you think it's the best for that feeling, but I prefer mine, it lends better to what I think the 'feeling' of :Fi: is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

If this friend of yours needs to experience what it might feel like to focus on Fi element, then use
* the musical instrument experience,
* two strong magnets with pole ends (--, ++, -+) and having her feel the force that pulls them together or pushes them apart (that cushion of force where the ends just won't meet without greater force pushing on them),
* and/or questions about how she feels towards different qualities of an item/person...or how do those qualities affect her and her own life/actions/beliefs/etc.

And if she says something like "well everyone is attracted/repelled by different things/qualities", you can respond with "yes, but not everyone focuses on those, nor use those to primarily make decisions with, nor use that to build up their understanding of the world, environment, situations, relationships, etc." In other words, not everyone uses that information as primary information to consider.

---

I think it's less of a problem with my friend and more with Socionics, or, the understanding of Socionics as a whole. Being able to describe IAs/IEs without relying on self-referential information reflects a better understanding in both the speaker and listener; it's like using a word in it's own definition when explaining the word to another person, it means you don't fully know the definition since you can't figure out what it is on it's own, and therefore a person who doesn't have any idea about the word won't fully grasp the word. Which is why I wish there was more interest in clarifying the IAs (and in effect the IEs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon

I personally liked expat's analogy of Fi/Fe, with the laser beams and fog.

---

I remember reading that a while back, I think it just rehashes what is already established... It gave a visual of :Fi: vs :Fe: in how it was static vs dynamic and object vs field, but it felt rather... mechanical and not like an organic process. It was more about the IE than IA, and what I'm talking about here is more the IA.

I'm not trying to force the magnet example, but I did want to clarify that when holding the two magnets, one can feel the affect of distance between them. When holding the attraction at the right distance, with eyes closed, you can feel the draw between them, or if reversed then you can also feel the 'natural distance' effect.

Much like how you're using the instrument and how close the hand is to the instrument to alter the output of the instrument.

But also, when you add in other items that would be affected by the magnet, and you try to say, find a path for the magnet to travel, you could see how the different items affect or are affected by the magnetic force...which can also give a sense of in/out of syncness.



Some people may respond better to one kind of example or a couple of examples, but not to others. Which is why I like having a range of options when talking one-on-one with someone, as then I could pick and choose those that might make sense to the other person, to at least give them an idea of what's being referred to. So, as I said, I wasn't trying to push for any one example, and I think that instrument one is a good one to add to the repertoire.

This is a really helpful analogy for me. I agree that the theramin is a better example than magnets for the reasons you stated. Also, a magnet would suggest that distances or qualities (in the way that I'm talking about them) are fairly immutable. Though I understand that :Fi: is static, this just isn't the case in reality. To take it back to Expat for a brief moment, the laser beam color can change (though not always easily).

In addition, what about how the theramin can take into account both volume (e.g., distance between the objects) and pitch (e.g., quality of the field)? :Fi: would focus on both of these things, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

I'm not trying to force the magnet example, but I did want to clarify that when holding the two magnets, one can feel the affect of distance between them. When holding the attraction at the right distance, with eyes closed, you can feel the draw between them, or if reversed then you can also feel the 'natural distance' effect.

---

It doesn't feel forced :) I understand how you connected the magnets to :Fi: and my example, it doesn't sound far-fetched at all. But there's the overall feeling of attraction vs repulsion that comes with using that example that differs from the theremin one, and in my own deliberation I find that my example is closer to the idea of :Fi:, but it's very possible it's just my idea of :Fi: and most people think that the magnet might be closer, that's something I'm trying to field out here :) It mostly comes from a particular action that you can do with magnets that paints your example, when the theremin as a whole is representative, which would eliminate extraneous associations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

But also, when you add in other items that would be affected by the magnet, and you try to say, find a path for the magnet to travel, you could see how the different items affect or are affected by the magnetic force...which can also give a sense of in/out of syncness.

---

This furthers my point, I think that you're doing a good job showing how magnets would be a good example, but :Fi: doesn't feel like a push/pull to me; and the 'sync-ness' that you describe isn't the focus, and I want it to be :P I want someone to get the feeling of vibration, oscillation, and relational distance. I think your magnet example might be better suited for specifically :Fi:-creative, now that I think on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Some people may respond better to one kind of example or a couple of examples, but not to others. Which is why I like having a range of options when talking one-on-one with someone, as then I could pick and choose those that might make sense to the other person, to at least give them an idea of what's being referred to. So, as I said, I wasn't trying to push for any one example, and I think that instrument one is a good one to add to the repertoire.

---

You see, I'm trying to find THE example :P Similar in how you would explain something scientific. But of course, having a bunch of examples and knowing which would communicate the best is definitely a good thing. Something that I just realized is that I specifically wanted an example of "Resonance," because that's the word I've chosen to go with that describes :Fi:, the IA, the best as a word. So this might need to be refocused to a "Do you agree that 'Resonance' can describe :Fi: well, and does the theremin example fully support my reasoning of assigning 'Resonance,'" being that it is (hopefully) both a clear example that still holds true to the essence of the IA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by April

In addition, what about how the theramin can take into account both volume (e.g., distance between the objects) and pitch (e.g., quality of the field)? :Fi: would focus on both of these things, correct?

---

I thought about going further into the 'antennae' of people, if they were theremins, but I figured it would be too specific of a detail for a general understanding. But it would be along what you're saying there; I'd say the volume would be how much it affects the person, as in how it influences their behavior away from the norm, and the pitch would be the quality, as in judging if it was a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance.' That could use a little more fine-tuning, but could make the example stronger :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for :Fi: arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but :Fi: isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values :Fi:, and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted.

---

Your whole post is pretty good, but this part stood out to me as the most interesting. I've been trying to consider :Fi: on a level greater than simply "people," and I think this sums it up pretty satisfactorily. I know personally that some ideas I hold very close to myself, and others that are somewhat more psychologically distant yet still important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Your whole post is pretty good, but this part stood out to me as the most interesting. I've been trying to consider :Fi: on a level greater than simply "people," and I think this sums it up pretty satisfactorily. I know personally that some ideas I hold very close to myself, and others that are somewhat more psychologically distant yet still important.

---

I first came about this in a thought experiment with said friend, to find out if Socionics required a person involved in order to exist, and she used two objects and asked me to explain how Socionics worked between the two objects. I realized that "objects" in Socionics was an interesting term, and wondered what constituted an "object." It's pretty similar with what is known when talking about IAs, I would say when dealing with "objects" in Socionics, it is anything that is a noun that doesn't require a particular person's perception in order to exist. So a person can be an object, because they will exist beyond a person's perception, and an idea, say spirituality, also does. A person can have their own individual idea of what spirituality is, but the concept of spirituality exists outside of them. Socionics doesn't apply to anything outside of human (that we know of), and therefore only people can access these qualities about objects. So when it comes to "fields," that exist between two or so "objects" (and to relate this to :Fi:), one of those objects HAS to be a person, because it's their perception of the field that makes the field exist in the first place. But the other "object" doesn't have to be another person as well, so :Fi: applies to the Resonance (if I may) between a person and animal, piece of furniture, abstract concepts, and things that they can't directly interact with. A person's understanding of an idea or whatever can change over time and certain qualities will also change, making it resonate to make a more pleasant feeling.

I am so ripping this thread a new asshole as soon as I get some sleep.

*moan* But I just got off work and my brain is all furry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Go figure. Else you wouldn't be disagreeing with this thread.

---

Actually I agree with the general concept. But I still need to tear it open with a rant about stereotypes of Fi and Fe and a thorough dissection of both of the elements from a purely IM standpoint, leading into the specifics of the functions and how they operate when blocked with their complimentary functions...which my brain can't do right now. I am not capable of :Ti: after 11 pm unless I've had something to drink, and nobody is in the chat so I am probably going to just pass out.

Whatever.

The general theme I'm sensing in this thread, is that Fi types are jacking themselves off for generally being more uhh 'effectual' than Fe types, that Fe is somehow too frothy and airy. Because who wouldn't want to resonate? Who doesn't want to get into everybody's consciousness and completely rape their brain cells about all they are.

And maybe they're right. In that case, it makes Fe-types that much more pleasant to be around. Less emotional vampire like. More concerned with their own emotional sphere than sucking everything out from others. To me, Fi feels invasive like that. Please mind your own business.

I guess maybe I'm not being fair. I jack myself off for having no tempo and being a powerful one-note chord, so I guess you guys can jack yourselves off for resonating.

sigh

LOL

I think that as Bullets said, Betas see Fi as 'vampire-like'.

They think any kind of emotional connection to anyone which is real is 'vampirizing'... :shock:

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

---

I'm sure they'd drag that gay-orgy part of them into their public image too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Jung words blah blah blah

---

Everything you bolded is astonishingly descriptive of myself.

Don't take this so personally (to those who are). Fi has such a one-dimensional reputation in this forum, and it's not surprising because it's usually Ti-valuers describing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for :Fi: arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but :Fi: isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values :Fi:, and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted. It can also reveal the process clash of :Fi: vs :Ti: in a balanced manner, though I'd have to think more on :Ti: after I'm satisfied with :Fi:.

---

I said something of this sort in the "Fi and Attraction" thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

To simply put it: one way I am able to identify a person's attraction and repulsion to an object is by detecting the flux in their behaviour. That is, how a person's general behaviour changes, even slightly, when interacting with the object of interest. Assessments like "good" and "bad" hardly come into play in this level of analysis; it actually enters the framework when the person and relationship are parametrized. When this has been identified, values, resources and effort are adjusted and used to either sustain, develop or disintegrate the relationship.

---

"Fi" as "Resonance"

If we were to pick an all encompassing word that attempts to describe Fi, I am not sure I would agree with "Resonance". Even from your [Mattie's] analogy, it can be seen that Fi is more than just "resonance" in terms of information aspects (IAs). I only say this because it includes many different phases in which resonance is only one of its state.

I do agree with the general opinion in this thread, which is that Fi is viewed in a subjective manner; thus, the evolution of the perspective of Fi has become quite specific. That is, the only path Fi is credited for is:

People ---> Bonds --> Relationships --> Morals and Ethics

Which really is one of many, not necessarily so linear and even incomplete.

If I were to pick one word for Fi, and excuse the lack of mystic appeal, it would be "Anthropocentric Interaction". This is because it is the interaction between an individual (that needn't be the self) and an individual (that may be the self), an idea, an animal, an attire, or any other objects, that Fi is most attuned to and how they are able to know that dimension of a person. What Fi is also aware of is that a reaction, though caused by an object, is not necessarily correlated to it but, nevertheless, there is a homogeneity in the meaning behind that reaction.

What a person does with this information is a subjective matter.

I'm open to correction and revision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Really? Please say more, curious.

---

I guess what I identify with most specifically is the idea of an "internal vision" of sorts, one that doesn't necessarily exist in the world. To me that sort of my super basic, animalistic, even verging on "stupid" way of thinking (I say stupid because were I to explain such a vision to anybody else I'm sure it would come out really weird and cheesy). On a more physical level, sometimes I'll see some scene in the physical world, like a sky-scape or city-scape or any other kind of scape, and if it strikes me in a specific way it's almost as if that scene is a manifestation of the hyper-romanticized vision of the world I hold in my head. And those moments where my inner vision of how I want to the world to be meets the real-life manifestations of those visions is extremely, uh ... epiphanic? It's almost as if such moments justify my existence on Earth. I kinda talked about this with Dolphin and she seemed to like the idea too.

The part about seeking an "inner intensity" with objects being "accessory stimuli" also kinda reaffirms my ideas about :Fi:, the idea that "the things I like about something doesn't explain why I like it". It's like looking at the characteristics about the thing don't give me any real impression about what the thing actually is. Like I could go on and describe a bunch of things about my best friends, but what I'm really focused on is the sort of inner core/drive/intensity/whatever that defines the person. In that sense it almost seems like :Fe: by comparison, from my perspective, defines things by the seeming "accesory" characteristics they possess.

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

This furthers my point, I think that you're doing a good job showing how magnets would be a good example, but :Fi: doesn't feel like a push/pull to me; and the 'sync-ness' that you describe isn't the focus, and I want it to be :P I want someone to get the feeling of vibration, oscillation, and relational distance. I think your magnet example might be better suited for specifically :Fi:-creative, now that I think on it.



You see, I'm trying to find THE example :P Similar in how you would explain something scientific. But of course, having a bunch of examples and knowing which would communicate the best is definitely a good thing. Something that I just realized is that I specifically wanted an example of "Resonance," because that's the word I've chosen to go with that describes :Fi:, the IA, the best as a word. So this might need to be refocused to a "Do you agree that 'Resonance' can describe :Fi: well, and does the theremin example fully support my reasoning of assigning 'Resonance,'" being that it is (hopefully) both a clear example that still holds true to the essence of the IA.



I thought about going further into the 'antennae' of people, if they were theremins, but I figured it would be too specific of a detail for a general understanding. But it would be along what you're saying there; I'd say the volume would be how much it affects the person, as in how it influences their behavior away from the norm, and the pitch would be the quality, as in judging if it was a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance.' That could use a little more fine-tuning, but could make the example stronger :)

---

Again, I'm not pushing.
I think the sense of misunderstanding comes from the idea of the push/pull of the magnet. I tend to interpret it more as tension/release, aka the pleasure principle. Some tensions are considered positive or pleasurable (think sex and just before final part of orgasm), but even then, the release of tension is what is generally considered pleasurable. Yet, not lack of tension, as it's tension that gets us moving and thinking and doing.

Ideas, people, objects, etc can create varying levels of tension within us, as well as can release some tensions we're holding.

And it's not even an all or nothing thing. One idea can cause some tension, yet at the same time release other tension. Where and how the tension is felt in the mind/body will vary between people as well as vary between ideas, objects, etc. This is what I view as leading the sense of 'in-syncness', vibration, and relational distance.

In terms of the magnet, instead of interpreting it as push/pull, interpret the "push" as the level of tension being caused. You can increase the tension, which feels like the increase of pressure when physically pushing the magnets together (remember the focus of the example isn't on the pushing, but on how that cushion between the magnets feels...the levels of tension that can be created/released). The further the magnet is held away, the less tension is felt, until the magnet reaches a point of relational distance that doesn't cause tension anymore, allowing each of the magnets/people to focus on other ideas, objects, etc. (aka release from tension)

When holding the opposing poles towards each other, there is also the tension of trying to hold them apart. Again, one can feel the level of tension being created depending on how far apart they are. At the point of connection, there is a release from tension, which causes pleasure as well as a sense of the two magnets now being in sync with each other.


If using, say, a stringed instrument like a harp as an example, one can apply various levels of tension on each string, which creates the harps' pitch. Setting those various tensions in motion can create harmony or disharmony, depending on which strings/tensions are being triggered at any given moment. Such that an idea can cause...say...a major 5th feel, a minor 7th feel, or even a tritone or vii chord feel (lots of tension). A person will seek out those ideas, chords, or harmonic intervals that either release tension of previous ideas/chords, or that feel good (resonate) to the person.

But that resonation, imo, still comes from varied tensions/release levels occurring at the same time, or within a close time distance.


However, we might also want to consider that Fe deals with similar as well. The difference primarily being that Fe ego looks for the level of arousal, the level of tension, the level of release, the level of pleasure.....while Fi looks for what's causing the various tensions and releases.

For F creatives, both the level of arousals and the triggers are considered.
Fe creative has the subconscious Fi triggers pushing their Pi into action.
Fi creative has the subconscious Fe arousal levels pushing their Pe into action.

For F base, however, there's the tendency to somewhat ignore the subconscious influences of one so as to focus primarily on the other more.


In the example of the theremin, one can use it to give an example of both Fe and Fi. The sounds the instrument makes would be an example of Fe. How the sounds are made, aka the relationship between the person's hand and the instrument and how that influences the sounds the instrument makes...would be an example of Fi. (note, actually, even this example would be more complicated when one takes into consideration the Ti/Te parts involved as well, depending on how "explicit" one wants to get :lol:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

---

Deltas "don't need to feel free to be themselves" = people without a sense of self who have been drained of their own emotions and capacity for internal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plotter

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

---

Context and structure are actually pretty much the same thing...the relationship between things.
If you're going to do it this way, consider Xe=content and Xi=context.
When dealing with Te, it's the Pi that puts the Te into context..into it's system of interrelationships. (actually applies to Fe as well)

Such that say:
Te: content oriented....logical
Fi: context oriented....affective

Fe: content oriented....affective
Ti: context oriented....logical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

I guess what I identify with most specifically is the idea of an "internal vision" of sorts, one that doesn't necessarily exist in the world. To me that sort of my super basic, animalistic, even verging on "stupid" way of thinking (I say stupid because were I to explain such a vision to anybody else I'm sure it would come out really weird and cheesy). On a more physical level, sometimes I'll see some scene in the physical world, like a sky-scape or city-scape or any other kind of scape, and if it strikes me in a specific way it's almost as if that scene is a manifestation of the hyper-romanticized vision of the world I hold in my head. And those moments where my inner vision of how I want to the world to be meets the real-life manifestations of those visions is extremely, uh ... epiphanic? It's almost as if such moments justify my existence on Earth. I kinda talked about this with Dolphin and she seemed to like the idea too.

The part about seeking an "inner intensity" with objects being "accessory stimuli" also kinda reaffirms my ideas about :Fi:, the idea that "the things I like about something doesn't explain why I like it". It's like looking at the characteristics about the thing don't give me any real impression about what the thing actually is. Like I could go on and describe a bunch of things about my best friends, but what I'm really focused on is the sort of inner core/drive/intensity/whatever that defines the person. In that sense it almost seems like :Fe: by comparison, from my perspective, defines things by the seeming "accesory" characteristics they possess.

---

This isn't related to Fi; this is being Enneagram sx variant.

Uh, okay lol First of all, this is something I want to do for all of the IAs... Meaning I'm not elevating one thing over the other, and I find it curious that anyone would take that I'm promoting :Fi: over :Fe:. I'm the first person who will tell another that no IA/IE is better than the next, and I think my posts back that up... I chose :Fi: because it is the one I feel most comfortable talking about, and the bulk of the thread was trying to find another way of looking at IAs, :Fi: just happened to be the one I started with. My goal is to remove the stereotypes that have been planted on here by finding processes that a objective in function, so I honestly don't see what there's to be up in arms about in my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

I do agree with the general opinion in this thread, which is that Fi is viewed in a subjective manner; thus, the evolution of the perspective of Fi has become quite specific. That is, the only path Fi is credited for is:

People ---> Bonds --> Relationships --> Morals and Ethics

Which really is one of many, not necessarily so linear and even incomplete.

---

Right, I would like to dismantle this for all the IEs, and being NeFi, I've run into this being describe to me, about me. :Fi: being something like "morals" can't work because of it's specificity, and also because what constitutes as "morals" is up to subjective interpretation. I think if we were all to look back at IAs, start from the source and then work our way to the practical implementation, we would have something that realistically applies to people while retaining the essence of the IA. I think my OP does that and I hope to do it for other IAs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

If I were to pick one word for Fi, and excuse the lack of mystic appeal, it would be "Anthropocentric Interaction". This is because it is the interaction between an individual (that needn't be the self) and an individual (that may be the self), an idea, an animal, an attire, or any other objects, that Fi is most attuned to and how they are able to know that dimension of a person. What Fi is also aware of is that a reaction, though caused by an object, is not necessarily correlated to it but, nevertheless, there is a homogeneity in the meaning behind that reaction.

What a person does with this information is a subjective matter.

I'm open to correction and revision.

---

You'd have to provide more information, the term on it's own doesn't really provide much nor gives a feel so much to hint at what :Fi: is about. What dimension of a person are you talking about? As well, :Fi: is more aware about the "field" than the "object," and this seems "object" focused; the reason why Resonance works is because it describes what is going on in the 'space' between two "objects", it doesn't really encompass information about the "object". :Fe: is the flip side to this, it focuses on information from the "object" (How lowbrow, right? :8*). I generally just need more information on your term, from my anthropology knowledge, that term seems strange to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plotter

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

---

I'm not sure where this comes from, but the chase-phrases your're using for "Purpose" are subjective in nature and can be interpreted differently from person to person. Your idea of what Reliability is can be different from mine, and seeing that we're trying to keep a somewhat scientific methodology (and failing for the most part), you're going to want to remove what can be subjectively interpreted enough to influence your results. It's understandable to use dichotomies at first when something seems abstract and you can't understand it without something referential like those, but don't become reliant on them. Other than that, I don't know how this relates to my thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Again, I'm not pushing.
I think the sense of misunderstanding comes from the idea of the push/pull of the magnet. I tend to interpret it more as tension/release, aka the pleasure principle. Some tensions are considered positive or pleasurable (think sex and just before final part of orgasm), but even then, the release of tension is what is generally considered pleasurable. Yet, not lack of tension, as it's tension that gets us moving and thinking and doing.

Ideas, people, objects, etc can create varying levels of tension within us, as well as can release some tensions we're holding.

And it's not even an all or nothing thing. One idea can cause some tension, yet at the same time release other tension. Where and how the tension is felt in the mind/body will vary between people as well as vary between ideas, objects, etc. This is what I view as leading the sense of 'in-syncness', vibration, and relational distance.

---

Oh interesting, I didn't associate the push/pull with tension/release I see where you are coming from now. I'd say come up with a singular word to encompass your example, and it'd put things into a more practical model for me, as my point was to go from something abstract to a specific process to retain (as much that is possible) objectivity, and I guess you just skipped to the example :P The theremin does make it a bit complicated, but I think because my friend and I both saw a theremin at an art exhibit in Chicago, I was able to easily communicate my example and I didn't see it as difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

If using, say, a stringed instrument like a harp as an example, one can apply various levels of tension on each string, which creates the harps' pitch. Setting those various tensions in motion can create harmony or disharmony, depending on which strings/tensions are being triggered at any given moment. Such that an idea can cause...say...a major 5th feel, a minor 7th feel, or even a tritone or vii chord feel (lots of tension). A person will seek out those ideas, chords, or harmonic intervals that either release tension of previous ideas/chords, or that feel good (resonate) to the person.

---

Funny, my friend at first tried to replace the theremin with a piano for similar reasons that you have here, but it's that internal oscillation I want to communicate, like that feeling inside your body when you are near really loud music, or emotionally overwhelmed by music, rather than the actual sound of Resonance, I want the feeling of Resonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

However, we might also want to consider that Fe deals with similar as well. The difference primarily being that Fe ego looks for the level of arousal, the level of tension, the level of release, the level of pleasure.....while Fi looks for what's causing the various tensions and releases.

---

Hmm, I have to see how this meshes with what I understand about :Fe:. I see :Fe: as Induction for now, how it inducts from external cues to understand the internal state and therefore I can see what you're saying here, but I'd have to get back to you on the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Right, I would like to dismantle this for all the IEs, and being NeFi, I've run into this being describe to me, about me. :Fi: being something like "morals" can't work because of it's specificity, and also because what constitutes as "morals" is up to subjective interpretation. I think if we were all to look back at IAs, start from the source and then work our way to the practical implementation, we would have something that realistically applies to people while retaining the essence of the IA. I think my OP does that and I hope to do it for other IAs.

---

This is my whole approach to Socionics. I think you would find the thread I recently bumped about Aspects very relevant. I add some of my own subjective tidbits, namely about which aspects demonstrate the "methods of perception" and "what is perceived" within each function, but the OP is essentially universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Oh interesting, I didn't associate the push/pull with tension/release I see where you are coming from now. I'd say come up with a singular word to encompass your example, and it'd put things into a more practical model for me, as my point was to go from something abstract to a specific process to retain (as much that is possible) objectivity, and I guess you just skipped to the example :P The theremin does make it a bit complicated, but I think because my friend and I both saw a theremin at an art exhibit in Chicago, I was able to easily communicate my example and I didn't see it as difficult.

---

I can't do that, my vocabulary is quite limited. Even when I read things, I tend to mostly remember an overall feel of the term rather than the actual term itself. Which doesn't help in my attempts to communicate my ideas, heh.

As for the theremin, that would be awesome to be able to play with for a bit.

Quote:

---

Funny, my friend at first tried to replace the theremin with a piano for similar reasons that you have here, but it's that internal oscillation I want to communicate, like that feeling inside your body when you are near really loud music, or emotionally overwhelmed by music, rather than the actual sound of Resonance, I want the feeling of Resonance.

---

The problem is, you are using a musical instrument as the example, which leads to more attention paid to sound rather than feel. Some instruments, however, may be more helpful for getting that 'feel'. For example, the harp is played while the sound board rests against your body. As you pluck strings, you can literally feel the vibrations course through at least your chest, if not the rest of your body (depends on the size of the harp as well as the sound waves...lower pitches being felt deeper, higher pitches being felt more surfacely).

This, however, brings to mind of the music thread in Philosophy of Mind section. I described a brief conversation (more of a question-nonanswer) to the idea of music therapy and the tuning of an instrument. I believe that the harmonic tuning could enhance the therapeutic intent....or negate it. It is my opinion that if the instrument is tuned harmonically, then certain strings/chords will resonate clearer in the body, aiding in release of tension. While our current equal tempered tuning, which has just about every note slightly off from harmonic tuning...would cause tension even during chords that are meant to be releasing chords.

Off topic note: The woman I asked the question of is ExFj. I found it interesting that she didn't even want to talk about that and had so quickly dismissed it. (Which, is something that my ESFj neighbor does as well when we talk about alternative therapies.)

That sounds much more like Si. I don't see how it would be related to Fi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

I can't do that, my vocabulary is quite limited. Even when I read things, I tend to mostly remember an overall feel of the term rather than the actual term itself. Which doesn't help in my attempts to communicate my ideas, heh.

As for the theremin, that would be awesome to be able to play with for a bit.

---

It can be a work in progress :) And it was really fun, and it's what I think about for this example too. It was in a dark room, and about 16 or so amps lined the walls, on 3 sides, and in the middle was what looked like a microphone under the spot-light, but the microphone was actually a theremin hooked up to all of the amps. All the amps were playing one sound different from all of the rest, and depending on your location in the room, the overall composition was different. Because of how loud it all was, especially considering the feeling you get from music and then the ambiance from the set up, it was almost overwhelming; it was like the vibrations in my body changed when I moved around the room. My NeTi friend took it differently than I did, she was more intrigued with how they used a theremin and how it interacted with everything, and I think that day we learned we had to be careful talking about art with one another :P But I want to communicate that feeling through my example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

The problem is, you are using a musical instrument as the example, which leads to more attention paid to sound rather than feel. Some instruments, however, may be more helpful for getting that 'feel'. For example, the harp is played while the sound board rests against your body. As you pluck strings, you can literally feel the vibrations course through at least your chest, if not the rest of your body (depends on the size of the harp as well as the sound waves...lower pitches being felt deeper, higher pitches being felt more surfacely).

---

I was hoping that the sounds or music that comes from the theremin could be translated as "feelings," the product of the instrument. Might have to work on that then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

That sounds much more like Si. I don't see how it would be related to Fi.

---

Seeing that :Si: is more along the lines of Homeostasis, I don't know how you see :Si: in that. Also, we're more talking about the strength of an example rather than the IA itself, though the inner feeling of a vibration or bass, if you will, seems appropriate to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Hmm, I've no constructive input yet. I'm mostly just wanting the :Fi: egos to speak so I can better understand what :Fi: is actually like from their immediate POV.

---

Do you usually come into thread and comment on all the replies and not the OP? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

That sounds much more like Si. I don't see how it would be related to Fi.

---

There are two ways to make something more explicit:
Use one's sensory stimulus (S)
or use an unambiguous definition (T)

F is an involved element. It is also an implicit element.
To get a person to actually 'feel' what's being implied, requires translating it into, or creating a situation of, 'feeling' it, perceiving it for one's self. Basically, getting the person involved in the information element.
Any attempt to make it more explicit and less ambiguous will require translating it into S or T.

In the OP's case, she's attempting to make it more explicit while trying to maintain the involvement aspect, hence the use of an Si analogy.

This is one reason why I suggest a variety of methods to try to get the idea across. When dealing with various types, certain analogies or efforts or examples will work better than others.

Si is involved as well.

I would ascribe this experience, this general idea of "feeling music" in the manner that you describe, to the blocking of Si with Fe. Not to say that other people don't experience it, but it seems like a subjective assimilation of the general internal essence of the music being heard (internal object dynamics), derived from the direct integrated sensory experience of it (external involved dynamics).

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I'm not sure where this comes from, but the chase-phrases your're using for "Purpose" are subjective in nature and can be interpreted differently from person to person. Your idea of what Reliability is can be different from mine, and seeing that we're trying to keep a somewhat scientific methodology (and failing for the most part), you're going to want to remove what can be subjectively interpreted enough to influence your results. It's understandable to use dichotomies at first when something seems abstract and you can't understand it without something referential like those, but don't become reliant on them. Other than that, I don't know how this relates to my thread.

---

I know my post was a bit of, realized after posting. Started out with something else, and ended up with that instead... Why I thought it was relevant at first is that I thought the approach could be useful in deciding what Fi is. There seems to be more “correctness” in the Te/Ti descriptions so it would be a good way to work out what Fi is by comparing Fe to Te and see what differs and then Te with Ti. Then maybe you could work out what Fi would look like without “ethic” and “love”.

For example in choosing Reliability/Appliance, I thought:
Te → something. Te wants to know what something is, and classify it in the most efficient way and the keyword would be use or result. If there isn't any use or achievable result that comes from knowing that something is a non-alcoholic moisturiser for sensitive skin and not an after shave, the Te wouldn't care. At the same time the Te wants reliable information in that way that it seeks to minimize gaps in knowledge that may be needed when applying, without going to deep. The key would be Reliability in Appliance.
So Te dominant may be effective in daily life, but being strong in the function wouldn't equal an effective person. The effective would instead lie in the “enough reliability as needed for appliance”

I'm not sure this is correct though.

But hey. Sorry for ruining your thread. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

You're basically replacing the theremin with magnets, I'm guessing for simplicity's sake since everyone is aware how magnets work on a basic level. My goal was to have a term and example that generated a specific feeling; magnets as an example has the feeling of "attraction" and "repulsion," which isn't what I want to communicate, I don't see :Fi: as a push and pull process, more like things feel in and out of sync, which makes Resonance and the theremin more appropriate. And it isn't finding an example for example's sake, rather explaining something with a balance of integrity and clarity; the example of a process, such as how a theremin or magnets work, is the clarity, but the 'feeling' (attraction/repulsion vs being in and out of sync) those examples tries to keep true to the abstract aspect of IAs that is hard to put into words, which I tried to explain in my post. I don't think your example is bad if you think it's the best for that feeling, but I prefer mine, it lends better to what I think the 'feeling' of :Fi: is.

---

So um, did I understand this right, what you're describing with the theremin is the actual direction experience of the function, the IA, and how it's structured is the IE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Si is involved as well.

I would ascribe this experience, this general idea of "feeling music" in the manner that you describe, to the blocking of Si with Fe. Not to say that other people don't experience it, but it seems like a subjective assimilation of the general internal essence of the music being heard (internal object dynamics), derived from the direct integrated sensory experience of it (external involved dynamics).

---

What is :Fi: in my example is the process of how a theremin works, substituting the theremin for an individual. I feel like people are getting stuck on certain specifics, like the fact that it's music, or the type of instrument, etc, my friend did as well. So my next step is to wonder what I'm not being clear about, or what can I change to create less attachment to the details and highlight the process. Ultimately, if you take away everything, what matters the most here is how a theremin works, and then relating its function to a person and how that works out in describing :Fi:. This was inspired by assigning the word "Resonance" to :Fi:, and I feel that if we could say "Resonance" to describe :Fi:, then the theremin would do well. But if "Resonance" is the incorrect word, then this entire example is not applicable, because it was meant to get an objective process of how "Resonance" is :Fi:. But the reason I went through the trouble of writing out such an example is because I really do think "Resonance" describes :Fi: well, and chose this instrument because it would retain the feeling of "Resonance" while explaining an objective process; this is most useful for those outside of the Socionics/Jung community, because they aren't going to be like "Well, usually I think of music and sensations with Xx elements," therefore it is an effective example. This example isn't saying "Feeling music is under the realm of :Fi:," honestly something like that feels rather arbitrary to me, but either way it's not really relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

---

It's not the elements but the aspects, and the aspects moreso 'exist' and aren't used, which is why you don't really have to worry about an application issue. This isn't describing :Fi: as a whole, and I realize now I should have put :Fi: the IA Described as "Resonance," but oh well. :Fi: the IE would be something else, I'm not sure you really need an analogy for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plotter

But hey. Sorry for ruining your thread. :cry:

---

Nothing was ruined, I was just trying to see how this related to my OP because this is a thread focused on something rather specific, so if you had something to share, that's great. But if you're looking for something else, there might be another thread that is more appropriate and will help you out more than this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

So um, did I understand this right, what you're describing with the theremin is the actual direction experience of the function, the IA, and how it's structured is the IE?

---

The theremin example is only the IA and not the IE. I tried to toy with how this would be applied as an IE later in the post, but I haven't really committed to that just yet. I would say it's how the IA is working as a natural process, and possibly how one experiences it as well. The IE has access to the information revealed by the IA and is filtered through whatever function it is placed in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

The theremin example is only the IA and not the IE. I tried to toy with how this would be applied as an IE later in the post, but I haven't really committed to that just yet. I would say it's how the IA is working as a natural process, and possibly how one experiences it as well.

---

So the way I understand this part, IAs are direct perception, like our sense of touch, or smell, or hearing..is that correct? I'm sort of imagining someone as a human theremin? Like you have eyesight, and then you have pitches of feeling, high and low, loud and soft, as you move around and adjust your distance to them. So the nature of it is static, because it's you who is moving around within the perceptions.

Quote:

---

The IE has access to the information revealed by the IA and is filtered through whatever function it is placed in.

---

Er what do you mean by that? Could you possible give an example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

You'd have to provide more information, the term on it's own doesn't really provide much nor gives a feel so much to hint at what :Fi: is about. What dimension of a person are you talking about? As well, :Fi: is more aware about the "field" than the "object," and this seems "object" focused; the reason why Resonance works is because it describes what is going on in the 'space' between two "objects", it doesn't really encompass information about the "object". :Fe: is the flip side to this, it focuses on information from the "object" (How lowbrow, right? :8*). I generally just need more information on your term, from my anthropology knowledge, that term seems strange to me.

---

The emphasis in my description is actually on interactions rather than the objects, which is why there is always at least two objects involved in my rhetoric.

Also, like I said before, "Resonance" only describes one aspect of what Fi entails. What we're trying to do in this thread, I think, is abstract Fi -- a luxury that a number of the functions have attained. Why I add "anthropocentric" before "interaction" is because, fundamentally, all introverted functions deal with interactions between the entities it chooses to focus on, but the specialization of this with regards to all things "humane" is Fi.

Both Ti and Fi are social functions, but one of the major differences between these two functions is, Ti is devoid of the any "emotional" context and Fi is always taking this into account. Why Ti is considered "social" is because of its ability to organize the data provided by its supporting perception in a framework that can be understood by human beings.

There are many layers and perspectives to an individual. The dimension I speak of, that is related to Fi, is how the human and the object interacts. Inter-and intraspecific relations is but one aspect of an individual, and that which Fi understands best.

Quote:

---

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

---

Yeah. Idk, but it just creates a sense of smugness that I don't like. I don't even like myself when I act that way. I'm more charmed by people who can properly make fun of themselves. It really makes me lighten up and relax. It's not even one person being smug, it's just the general aura of the thread.

I don't understand. Why did it become about Fi jacking off to itself? Or smugness? She's putting a lot of effort into detailing an aspect of the theory that she wants to discuss, and I thought it's led to a lot of detailed, well thought out responses, and they don't seem particularly offensive..perhaps they are wrong, but who cares? If they are wrong then their wrongness speaks for itself. You can think that and still not attack their motives. I don't think the point of the thread wasn't to "charm" you in the first place. And I don't see how anyone would desire or feel obliged to communicate in a manner more conducive to your wishes when your first response to an emotionally neutral query/discussion is to attack the motives of the atmosphere or the people involved. wtf?

I suppose I can see the validity of the analogy, if we are assuming that it's a consistent sense of this resonance rather than an active one, which would be more related to a dynamic function. Personally I tend to focus more on the immediacy of interactions to gauge "resonance," taking for granted that if I am interacting with someone, it's because there are similarities or resonant characteristics, reasons for being in touch. My impressions of people are usually very strong; it doesn't take really any "playing" to establish resonance, which tends to be rather immediate and obvious to me, based on my gut impression of a person.

He's just being Sam. I don't even know what the fuck he's talking about, and it's my post he responded to.

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Si is involved as well.

I would ascribe this experience, this general idea of "feeling music" in the manner that you describe, to the blocking of Si with Fe. Not to say that other people don't experience it, but it seems like a subjective assimilation of the general internal essence of the music being heard (internal object dynamics), derived from the direct integrated sensory experience of it (external involved dynamics).

---

It could just as easily apply to 'involved fields', which, funnily enough, is Delta's field values.

I'm sure we could use the same example, with slightly different wording, and apply it also to Ni + Fe, Ni + Fi, and you already mentioned Si + Fe.

And again, her point wasn't so much about the music itself.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

---

My response probably won't mean much, but I'll try.

a) it's not so much a desire to hold something constant...as it is paying attention to that which is relatively constant. The whole "the more things change, the more they remain the same" kind of thing ;)

b) "So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. "

Yes, yet slightly different. For Delta NF, they are using their Ne to toss ideas around in their head. But unlike Ti who judges how well two or more ideas fit by their logical consistency (see that..consistency...static fields), The Fi instead judges how well two or more ideas fit based on the affects they are having on the person tossing the ideas around. (eg "What's 'true' or good for you may not be 'true' or good for others.")

For Beta NFs, they toss the ideas around with their Ni, and pay attention to how things interact together. There's more of an abstract view of how they all fit together. Like looking at it, but from a 2nd or 3rd person pov. But for Delta NFs, there is more of an involvement view of how it fits together. They have to see it and feel it for themselves, if they want to make sense of it. One could say that we feel it in our core. Even if it's not logically consistent, it IS or isn't consistent with the person.

So yes to "trying it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get".

And yes to "but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with," ....well, though one could see the thurmim as the idea and how well it resonates with the core of the Fi valuer....but then my understanding of the wordings (of both of us on this) may be off, heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

So the way I understand this part, IAs are direct perception, like our sense of touch, or smell, or hearing..is that correct? I'm sort of imagining someone as a human theremin? Like you have eyesight, and then you have pitches of feeling, high and low, loud and soft, as you move around and adjust your distance to them. So the nature of it is static, because it's you who is moving around within the perceptions.

---

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea :) But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

Er what do you mean by that? Could you possible give an example?

---

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, :Fi: the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really :Fi:-creative, :Fi:-suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. :Fi:-creative is taking the observations that can be gained from :Fi: the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

The emphasis in my description is actually on interactions rather than the objects, which is why there is always at least two objects involved in my rhetoric.

Also, like I said before, "Resonance" only describes one aspect of what Fi entails. What we're trying to do in this thread, I think, is abstract Fi -- a luxury that a number of the functions have attained. Why I add "anthropocentric" before "interaction" is because, fundamentally, all introverted functions deal with interactions between the entities it chooses to focus on, but the specialization of this with regards to all things "humane" is Fi.

---

Wouldn't adding that "regards to all things 'humane'" be too specific? I actually think "Resonance" covers the IA very well, but you might be wanting to cover the IE as well in some manner, which it doesn't do. You'd have to further break down (or maybe clearly list) what you think are the 'parts' of what :Fi: the IA is. I also don't think 'field' and 'interaction' are interchangeable either... I think the Xi IAs are more relational, maybe more effectual; it's less of the objects being present and more what it is that exists between them. It's possible I'm missing your point, I don't feel like I have a clear idea of what you're saying :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

Both Ti and Fi are social functions, but one of the major differences between these two functions is, Ti is devoid of the any "emotional" context and Fi is always taking this into account. Why Ti is considered "social" is because of its ability to organize the data provided by its supporting perception in a framework that can be understood by human beings.

---

Hmm, none this really settles well with me to be frank. I feel like these are relying on catch-qualities rather than what they are. Firstly, I don't think any of the IAs are inherently "social," or at least, more or less social than the other. Also, I don't think emotion and logic are factors in :Fi: and :Ti: either; when I said feelings in my example, I wasn't necessarily meaning emotions, more sensations. An emotion is a psychological state of being, and that's not really what I was trying to communicate, more the feeling along the lines of being affected by something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Greeter

There are many layers and perspectives to an individual. The dimension I speak of, that is related to Fi, is how the human and the object interacts. Inter-and intraspecific relations is but one aspect of an individual, and that which Fi understands best.

---

Again, this sounds more like of what I'm trying to avoid. :Fi: is less about being aware of certain things in people and more about an abstract sensation based on certain parameters that creates a relational web between objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

Yeah. Idk, but it just creates a sense of smugness that I don't like. I don't even like myself when I act that way. I'm more charmed by people who can properly make fun of themselves. It really makes me lighten up and relax. It's not even one person being smug, it's just the general aura of the thread.

---

All I can say is that it was never my intention to be smug nor convince anyone of anything. My main focus was to help create further clarity to my ideas:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I have been thinking about this lately and wanted feedback so I can continue to stew a bit, not really intending to stick around. I moreso need to know what issues would come up when trying to explain :Fi: this way, and if it is clear enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

I don't understand. Why did it become about Fi jacking off to itself? Or smugness? She's putting a lot of effort into detailing an aspect of the theory that she wants to discuss, and I thought it's led to a lot of detailed, well thought out responses, and they don't seem particularly offensive..perhaps they are wrong, but who cares? If they are wrong then their wrongness speaks for itself. You can think that and still not attack their motives. I don't think the point of the thread wasn't to "charm" you in the first place. And I don't see how anyone would desire or feel obliged to communicate in a manner more conducive to your wishes when your first response to an emotionally neutral query/discussion is to attack the motives of the atmosphere or the people involved. wtf?

---

You said it for me, thanks :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I suppose I can see the validity of the analogy, if we are assuming that it's a consistent sense of this resonance rather than an active one, which would be more related to a dynamic function.

---

I meant it to be a continual, non-situational process. Any ideas to make that more clear would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

---

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If :Fi: wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in :Fi: cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. :Fi: is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like :Fi:-creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of :Ne: and :Fi: and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get.

---

:Fi: the IE, maybe, but not :Fi: the IA, the IA is just a natural process that happens and the IE takes the information from the IA and channels it through the function placement. But yes, I think we're on the same page :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period.

---

Yes, I completely agree, though I'm not sure if :Ti: gets that resonant feeling, more like what you cited, it seems to be a more schematic process (I'm trying to figure out how to verb that word...). I thought of :Ti: as a building plan as well, makes me feel a little more confident about this :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

---

Right, as far as I can tell this aligns well with what I'm thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

---

Thank you, this reflects what I'm thinking. I'm just honestly trying to make a sound and clear example that is accessible to everyone. Appreciate it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

This isn't related to Fi; this is being Enneagram sx variant.

---

Feels like a combination of both to me. I'm sure the Sx stacking accentuates these feelings a lot, but I'd have to ask other sx stacking non-Fi valuing people to know if it's both in tangent.

I'm curious how you think it's related to Internal Statics of Fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

It could just as easily apply to 'involved fields', which, funnily enough, is Delta's field values.

I'm sure we could use the same example, with slightly different wording, and apply it also to Ni + Fe, Ni + Fi, and you already mentioned Si + Fe.

---

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

Quote:

---

And again, her point wasn't so much about the music itself.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

---

Actually I experience exactly what Galen was talking about.

Just viewing the world in a sort of hyper-idealized sense, like a certain sheen comes over it, but one that makes it clearer, not in a purely physical sense, although things seem more "present," but the impression it makes on me internally; a sort of momentary fascination or appreciation with the way things have come to be, the sheer beauty of organization and rareness of existence, and how beautiful it is that we have created a world where mostly everything has its place and things run smoothly; that, as much as I could imagine a "better" world, that this one is truly idyllic in some way.

How the fuck do you know? Words are just words, ******. I resonated with his description; who are you to say differently?

Honestly, I know what he is talking about, as well as the parts you bolded in the description, and I am extremely hesitant to ascribe it to a function that I do not value.

Actually now that I think about it, it makes sense that this is an unconscious function for me. It seems to be something that I sort of protect, something that I have hidden from the world and from myself to stop it from being "corrupted."

People who have this as their dominant function must live extremely painful/disenchanted lives. I feel like the rest of us must be here to make the world for them.

Now that I understand what Fi is subjectively, I realize that Fi valuers are selfish brats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

To make the world for them?

---

Well it's certainly the most idealistic function, the most, ah, disconnected from brute reality.

I think the first paragraph of Galen's description was describing a pre-existing internal vision/reality [or view of how reality should be] which exists in his mind - separately from the physical world - and that he feels at an instinctive, 'gut' level. Yet every now and then, the happenings within the physical reality neatly align with his own subjective "internal vision," and in those instances, the sort of transcendental internal vision itself, and by extension, his "existence," feels justified.

Gilly's "appreciation with the way things have come to be" and seeing beauty in the "rareness of existence" sounds almost like something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Something worth pointing out, is that :Ni: vs. :Si: valuing seems to modulate the :Fi: IE process in a certain key way. I'm not entirely clear on it yet, but the interpretational basis utilized by :Fi: appears to differ between γ and δ such that the former conveys :Fi: more in abstract/detached terms while the latter does so more in concrete/involved terms.

---

Yeah. That's the difference I noticed.

Yeah I think what I was describing is more Ti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

---

Eh. In practice, I'd have to go with "not type related" just because of all the musicians that can clearly "feel the music" of varying quadras. I'd be more inclined to say that Fe focuses on the changes that occur in the music and sort of "attaches" to them directly, like, Fe just pays attention to the internal dynamics of the music, or even of specific/individual aspects of the music (a bass line or a descant or whatever) and then the Fe-ego's own emotional state just naturally fluctuates along with the music, like the Fe-ego/-valuer is swept away by the music. In contrast, Fi would focus more on the relation between itself and the music, which is a very much one time, sudden thing, and resonance is a good term to describe it. As an IEI, I have very strong reactions to some music based on how it makes me feel. Like, I hate most really hard screamo/metal/whatever because it just makes me feel ick, like tasting something metallic (maybe that's like mini-synaesthesia related to the fact that the music is consciously labeled in my brain as "metal" and "unpleasant" and "sensation". Hmmm...). But since Fi is an unconscious and unvalued function for me, rather than dwelling on how the music makes me feel, I would either state flatly "I hate this music" and whine til the person I'm riding with turns it off, or withdraw into myself and ignore it if that's not possible. Or do this Ni distance thing and observe it while only minimally experiencing it, if that makes sense. Anyway, the Fi ego is not swept away by the music, as it were, but rather by the experience, that is, the relation of themselves to the music. It's just as real and just as intuitive a way of experiencing music, but it does differ somewhat in emphasis. It's like "this music takes me on a ride" vs. "this music makes me feel like flirty/playful/fun/whatever" almost. Also, I wonder if Fi-valuers also like music that accompanies and heightens their emotional state. Fe-valuers (or maybe just betas) seem to want to ride the emotional wave, so if you're in a bad mood, you listen to bad mood music. You don't use the music to "lift" your mood and even it out, you use the music to reinforce your mood and let it out, complete it, catharsis it so that you can move on.

But none of this is really relevant to the real main point of this thread, except perhaps slightly by way of analogy.

Quote:

---

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

---

This is my position as well, but I've chalked it up to different strokes for different folks, and I can clearly see how it's been useful, so why not. It does seem initially counter-intuitive to try to overcome the ambiguity of a system by using an even more figurative mode of communication, but perhaps better a conscious metaphor than an unconscious one like "subjective"?

Quote:

---

I'm curious how you think it's related to Internal Statics of Fields.

---

Instantaneous (i.e., not subject to time) observation of the cause-and-effect relation between two immaterial things (i.e., the "emotional content" or "vibe" of the music and the "feelings" or "emotional state" of a person).

Quote:

---

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

---

:p. Okay.

Quote:

---

the IE, maybe, but not the IA, the IA is just a natural process that happens and the IE takes the information from the IA and channels it through the function placement. But yes, I think we're on the same page

---

Sure, I buy that. I get why in socionics one would want to refrain from describing the functions "as they occur" in people, just because that's so much cloudier and so much more influenced by non-socionics factors, and necessarily involves a degree of generalization. But good that we're on the same page.

Quote:

---

Yes, I completely agree, though I'm not sure if :Ti: gets that resonant feeling, more like what you cited, it seems to be a more schematic process (I'm trying to figure out how to verb that word...). I thought of as a building plan as well, makes me feel a little more confident about this

---

lol. Glad we're on the same page here too. I really like schematic. You should do a thread on that one next. And I still don't think anyone came up with a fully satisfactory Se word, with us trying to avoid the typical connotations of Se.

Quote:

---

Thank you, this reflects what I'm thinking. I'm just honestly trying to make a sound and clear example that is accessible to everyone. Appreciate it

---

Can't please everyone? Appreciate the people who appreciate it and tell the haters to back off.[/Miranda]

Quote:

---

a) it's not so much a desire to hold something constant...as it is paying attention to that which is relatively constant. The whole "the more things change, the more they remain the same" kind of thing

---

Okay... I guess that makes some sense. But still, it seems that you see a tendency towards staticness in Fi-valuers and dynamicness in Fe-egos (I know neither of those are words, I just don't feel like remembering the nominalized form of either of those words right now). Like, Fe-egos always want the emotional atmosphere to be in motion, you like. Fe likes there to be as much internal motion as possible, never a dull moment, always some sort of energy, and, physically speaking, energy is only felt when something is in motion (otherwise it's more like potential energy, no?). Fi on the other hand seems to me to want to view things as static, but yeah, perhaps your right, perhaps it's just a focus on the consistent elements.

Quote:

---

Yes, yet slightly different. For Delta NF, they are using their Ne to toss ideas around in their head. But unlike Ti who judges how well two or more ideas fit by their logical consistency (see that..consistency...static fields), The Fi instead judges how well two or more ideas fit based on the affects they are having on the person tossing the ideas around. (eg "What's 'true' or good for you may not be 'true' or good for others.")

---

Good. This definitely aligns with how I see Fi.

Quote:

---

For Beta NFs, they toss the ideas around with their Ni, and pay attention to how things interact together. There's more of an abstract view of how they all fit together. Like looking at it, but from a 2nd or 3rd person pov. But for Delta NFs, there is more of an involvement view of how it fits together. They have to see it and feel it for themselves, if they want to make sense of it. One could say that we feel it in our core. Even if it's not logically consistent, it IS or isn't consistent with the person.

---

Hmm... yeah, that makes sense. The Ni approach is an observational one, so much so that as someone said in thread in beta not too long ago, the "real self" of an IEI is that self that does the watching, the part of the self that observes the self changing. Of course, Walt Whitman said that first ("apart from the pulling and hauling stands what I am/stands idle, unitary.../both in and out of the crowd..."), but you know, socionics is going to get on his level sooner or later. It must be interesting to actively feel the a mentally abstract world. Ni-egos need Se to force them into experience and out of abstraction, whereas it seems that Fi and Te are both experiential functions, and just help each other experience different things. You can see how Fi-leading types like the one sister in The Secret Life of Bees can be so emotional (she's a perfect example of an EII, btw. I think her name was April?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

To make the world for them?

---

To be honest this requires a lengthy conversation about quadra progression in order to properly explicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Admittedly, I get a morbid satisfaction seeing the :Fe: valuers writhing and suffering in this thread.

---

That's twisted. Ni+Fi is going to be the reason that Beta destroys the world: if you see it that way, then you don't deserve the world we could give you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

More like :Ni:+:Fi: having to rebuild the world you guys blew up because of your primordial urge to live as vermin.

---

Well you have to be there to stop us before we go too far, of course, but if you act like smug, entitled fucks, we'll do everything we can to ensure that you get nothing more and nothing less than exactly what you deserve.

And we only live as vermin because it's what's necessary to reinvent the structure that you lot failed to properly ingrain into Deltas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

---

Did you not read what I said? You quoted it, but did you actually read it?
For all the complaining you did in the information aspects thread, do you yourself actually apply the aspects?

a) She's using an ANALOGY for what Fi feels like to an Fi ego (more specifically to a Delta Fi ego). Stop focusing on the words she's using, or the analogy itself. Stop looking at her finger, and start trying to look for the moon she's trying to point to.

b) Delta processes Xi via the involved aspect. So her descriptions of Fi will naturally include a focus on the involved aspects of it. So yes, there will naturally be some Si in her description of the field portion of Fi.
Beta processes involved information via the Xe aspect.
Alpha processes involved information via the dynamics aspect.
Gamma processes involved information via the statics aspect.

c) Her analogy isn't that Fi literally 'feels music'. The whole thing as an analogy about how an idea, object, person, behavior, etc affects a person (or other idea, object, etc, but generally anthropomorphized) The person has relatively stable ideas, beliefs, values, etc, to which another idea, object, etc will resonant in certain ways.

But this resonation is internal/implicit, not external/explicit. The person would have a difficult time discussing what specifically is or isn't resonating with them. All those strings (or whatever) being plucked triggers multiple things at once, causing multiple fields happening at once. If the person were to take the time to go through each individual field and check each one explicitly to find out what happened...that's no longer involved and internal field (Fi's combo), but trying to abstract it and externalize it (Ti's combo).

d) For a more Gamma description of Fi, it would include Ni in it as well. So would likely be something along the line of an idea/object/whatever 'resonating' with previous beliefs/values/ideas...yet would have a more abstract description. They wouldn't feel it as much in their core as a Delta would. Gamma would probably have an easier time jumping back and forth between feeling the resonation within...and 'looking at' the resonation from without.

e) So in one way, Fi kind of gets lumped together with Si/Ni influences, which yes, are dynamic, not static.

But when we are talking about Information Processing, we are necessarily talking about a process. Which gives a dynamic feel. This is why (I think, and she can correct me on it if I'm wrong)...this is why she was trying to differentiate between IA and IE descriptions of Fi.

There is the concept of Fi as a solitary thing, and then there is Fi as it's being processed.

f) and this one is for Mattie, I don't believe there will every be a "THE example", nor "THE definition", as much as I would love there to be, as well. There are far too many variables that have to be considered, including 16 different ways of processing information, 8 different functions for Fi, 16 different quadra focuses, as well as variances in educational focuses and experiences.

When we deal with abstract information, there are numerous ways that it can be interpreted. When we use analogies, there are numerous ways that it can be interpreted...as well as numerous ways that the same analogy can be used to describe something else.

However, hopefully that won't stop us from trying. :D

This is why we would do better talking with one person, or a small group, instead of an entire forum/world. With one person, or a small handful of people, we can alter how we present the information so that it 'resonates' with their own understandings/beliefs/views, etc. , while still describing what we are pointing at. At least enough to the point that they can understand what we are trying to point at. (Whether they accept or not...is a different story.)

I wasn't talking about the analogy any more, just the part about "feeling music." I understand the analogy now; it really only makes sense in terms of being a "feeling," which is kind of overly vague for my taste, but whatever.

Good, now that we're back on topic, I'd like to know if there is anything I need to make more clear that would better communicate this example. So far, this thread has shown me that I have to provide more focus on the process and possibly present piece by piece as to not get caught up in extraneous details, as it is the process that is the focus; how this is related to music is more like 'purposeful flavor,' I want to give you a certain feeling when communicating this example, and the idea of the sensations you feel from music just happened to theme well with both Resonance, the theremin, and what I actually do think :Fi: is like. I think this example keeps the integrity at the expense of ease, but I think it's worth it.

BTW Thanks to everyone for making this such a hot thread, I like knowing what I'm thinking on is something pertinent. If this does seem to be settled down and satisfied, I'll put one up eventually about :Ne: as Permutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

lol. Glad we're on the same page here too. I really like schematic. You should do a thread on that one next. And I still don't think anyone came up with a fully satisfactory Se word, with us trying to avoid the typical connotations of Se.

---

:Ne:, :Se:, and :Ti: will most likely arrive next, I've just really been thinking about :Fi:. :Ne: will naturally be next, and :Ti: because my best friend and I talk about our relationship often, and there's :Ti: vs :Fi: clashes often, so I think about :Ti: a lot as well. I want to do :Se: because it seems the hardest and least figured out. I think once I have :Ne: down, :Se: will be easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Admittedly, I get a morbid satisfaction seeing the :Fe: valuers writhing and suffering in this thread.

---

I never understood what was so painful about what I posted :confused: Everything brought up seemed inapplicable and not type related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

a) She's using an ANALOGY for what Fi feels like to an Fi ego (more specifically to a Delta Fi ego). Stop focusing on the words she's using, or the analogy itself. Stop looking at her finger, and start trying to look for the moon she's trying to point to.

---

Okay, so I wasn't alone in thinking this lol :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

f) and this one is for Mattie, I don't believe there will every be a "THE example", nor "THE definition", as much as I would love there to be, as well. There are far too many variables that have to be considered, including 16 different ways of processing information, 8 different functions for Fi, 16 different quadra focuses, as well as variances in educational focuses and experiences.

---

Oh I know, that's just me being idealistic :P I want to get as close as possible, I don't know how everyone can't universally benefit from examples of objective processes... It seems to be the only way without feeling like I'm constantly pulling tricks out of a hat to make the light-bulb go off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Lol, I never understood it either. But I've seen these exact kinds of reactions before from :Fe: valuers re: :Fi:, where they get antagonized as a whole when someone or some situation gives off too much. Reacting as if they're being clobbered with nerve gas or something and its making them nauseous and rabidly unstable. It's really intriguing to watch.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Lol, I never understood it either. But I've seen these exact kinds of reactions before from :Fe: valuers re: :Fi:, where they get antagonized as a whole when someone or some situation gives off too much. Reacting as if they're being clobbered with nerve gas or something and its making them nauseous and rabidly unstable. It's really intriguing to watch.

---

Actually, I notice it too. It is an unusually violent reaction. But, I dunno, Fi is... yucky. Especially if you have a whole group of fi folks unexpectedly, and in a situation like this where you're accustomed to being able to speak your mind and suddenly you can't, because the room is against you. It sucks. Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight, cause fi people won't budge, and its fine if it's just two people and you can argue them down, like beating them over the head with Ti, but in a group that just doesn't work and you just have to listen to them spew garbage until you're almost convinced they're right, and you start second guessing things you know you're sure about. Like, really, I did get a smug vibe, like ooh, Fi is so deep, and of course I know it wasn't meant that way, and that's the problem. It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events. It's like, ugh, aren't you aware if what you're doing? And then they're going to get mad at you and defend each other... don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

Actually, I notice it too. It is an unusually violent reaction. But, I dunno, Fi is... yucky. Especially if you have a whole group of fi folks unexpectedly, and in a situation like this where you're accustomed to being able to speak your mind and suddenly you can't, because the room is against you. It sucks. Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight, cause fi people won't budge, and its fine if it's just two people and you can argue them down, like beating them over the head with Ti, but in a group that just doesn't work and you just have to listen to them spew garbage until you're almost convinced they're right, and you start second guessing things you know you're sure about. Like, really, I did get a smug vibe, like ooh, Fi is so deep, and of course I know it wasn't meant that way, and that's the problem. It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events. It's like, ugh, aren't you aware if what you're doing? And then they're going to get mad at you and defend each other... don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

---

Honestly, reading this and similar reactions, and remembering prior instances of things like this, make me think there's just too much looking for Socionics in something. Rather, you saw the title of the thread, saw who it was by, and automatically set yourself (not just you, but others as well, because people of every type do this to types/IAs they don't value) up for a reaction. Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism. You can show it to someone who doesn't know Socionics and you wouldn't get that interpretation. And it isn't that :Fi: valuers don't budge, it's you assign a stifling and unbudging feeling to something you don't value. In what you've typed, you're placed a lot of arbitrary qualities that you dislike :Fi: placing on you, and so does everyone else (I'm just calling out you all because you revealed yourself as such in this thread).

In short, all of you should just GET OVER IT. If anyone objectively thinks "Oh, this IA/IE is better than this because..." after understanding that we inherently value certain IAs over the other, then they are idiots. By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything. Just. Think. It. Through. Stop exaggerating what you value and what the other person does. I mean, for you particularly silverchris, you completely understood what I was trying to communicate and just objectively know I'm not trying to be a bitch. Is it HONESTLY that the way I typed it really violates what your Socionics type predicts, or did you come here apprehensive already (I remember asking you this before, and it seems like a pattern)? There was nothing blocking you from understanding what I was saying, because you did understand, and you were able to see how the others were over-reacting. It's all just taking IE valuing way too seriously and applying it to every single god-damned detail.

Jeez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

---

There's the ideas in the mind, that the mind has to try to find words to match with. But those words can be interpreted in different ways by different people, including within one's own mind. So, with this limited resources, the idea is put out there. The words can change, though the idea remains the same. Different ways of describing the same thing.

Then someone else reads those words, and interprets meaning from them. But they have different experiences that they are drawing from, which leads to them getting a different idea of what's being described ...or attempted description. They then have to find word that would match their idea or thoughts on the interpreted idea, and then put those out there, for the first person to interpret.

It's called feedback. If the feedback shows a different idea than what was meant, then there's an alteration in which words or methods used to make another attempt.

Since we are on the net, we don't have the luxury of focusing one-on-one during the discussion...which makes it difficult to choose words. Just as the reader doesn't have the luxury of seeing the body language nor how much emphasis is placed on any one portion of the attempt.

INFps have complained (rightly so) of the difficulties of communicating over the internet. As if they are having to function half-blind.

But the same applies to ENFps as well.

What causes us to be blind in such scenarios, differs, but both are having to try to work around that blindness, and will do so in different ways.


So yes, there is a reason people choose their words...but how do you expect a person to choose the exact words that will fit EVERY single person on this forum, and EVERY single possible interpretation? It's impossible, imo.

Also, I've known many INFps who get upset at being held to something they said a month ago, a week ago, heck, even just a couple of hours ago. It was the thought of the moment, for them, and they get agitated at being held to that. What makes that so much more different than using 'terminology of the moment'?


And you describe it as self-evident emotional rightness...but just because you interpret it that way...doesn't make it actually that. Just as just because we interpret some words a certain way doesn't mean that that interpretation was what was meant.

Would you describe the INFp's need to be understood as them being 'self-evident emotional rightness'? Would you consider a desire to be understood a normal human trait? And what happens when a person feels that the one they are talking to isn't quite understanding what's meant? Should they roll over and drop the whole thing? or would it be more likely that they'll make another effort instead?


Finally, there was a big difference between how you responded to Mattie, and how Gilly responded. A big difference between the efforts you each took, in this thread. Your response was one that showed an interest in at least trying to understand, even if you might not agree with it. Gilly wasn't even trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Just viewing the world in a sort of hyper-idealized sense, like a certain sheen comes over it, but one that makes it clearer, not in a purely physical sense, although things seem more "present," but the impression it makes on me internally; a sort of momentary fascination or appreciation with the way things have come to be, the sheer beauty of organization and rareness of existence, and how beautiful it is that we have created a world where mostly everything has its place and things run smoothly; that, as much as I could imagine a "better" world, that this one is truly idyllic in some way.

---

I know I'm late to this discussion, but my experience uses a shitton less conscious thought than what you seem to be describing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeAnte

I think the first paragraph of Galen's description was describing a pre-existing internal vision/reality [or view of how reality should be] which exists in his mind - separately from the physical world - and that he feels at an instinctive, 'gut' level. Yet every now and then, the happenings within the physical reality neatly align with his own subjective "internal vision," and in those instances, the sort of transcendental internal vision itself, and by extension, his "existence," feels justified.

Gilly's "appreciation with the way things have come to be" and seeing beauty in the "rareness of existence" sounds almost like something else entirely.

---

It does to me too. Gilly's description of his moments of fascination sound like he detaches himself from the world and is looking at it through an external lens, as if he plays no real part in the experience except for the physical analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea :) But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

---

Yeah I think that works. Cause it seems like there is a filtering process that takes place even from the beginning..I think.

Quote:

---

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, :Fi: the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really :Fi:-creative, :Fi:-suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. :Fi:-creative is taking the observations that can be gained from :Fi: the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

---

No that's clear. I think I've never actually understood the difference before. It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

Quote:

---

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If :Fi: wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in :Fi: cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. :Fi: is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like :Fi:-creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of :Ne: and :Fi: and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

---

I think this explanation is neat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

---

I haven't personally made anything like this, and one would be extremely helpful, especially if it could be stickied and linked to. A lot of what's being talked about here isn't common enough knowledge, which is why we can see the same names in this thread as there are in threads of similar caliber. Notice that I put this topic in Delta, and there isn't a strong Delta weight; all the usual Delta posters aren't in here. I think this illustrates how a lot of people are bewildered from not having clear, almost dictionary-style reference for what we're talking about here. I would say someone who can go through Gilly and Ann's thread (I'd volunteer Ashton :P) and pick out what terms are important to know and would be good to have a quick-reference guide so a larger audience could join in. I personally don't mind this organic way of teaching each other, but I definitely understand the practicality of having a list of terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

---

I'm a bad person to ask, mainly because I don't practice subtypes. Ashton and Ann are all about both the Accepting/Producing dichotomy and subtypes, and I'm sure others are too but they seem to yap about it the most :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I'm a bad person to ask, mainly because I don't practice subtypes. Ashton and Ann are all about both the Accepting/Producing dichotomy and subtypes, and I'm sure others are too but they seem to yap about it the most :P

---

'all about'? WHAT have you been reading?? :shifty:
I don't recall talking much about subtypes. And "yapping"? *sniff sniff* :cry:

(ok, I yap, but not about subtypes...I don't think)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

'all about'? WHAT have you been reading?? :shifty:
I don't recall talking much about subtypes. And "yapping"? *sniff sniff* :cry:

(ok, I yap, but not about subtypes...I don't think)

---

LOL I think I might have mushed the two of you together, I remember your video and some conversations on Accepting/Producing, and I know Ashton is one of the people who finds my disdain for subtypes silly. I just figured that someone else other than me could answer that question effectively :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Honestly, reading this and similar reactions, and remembering prior instances of things like this, make me think there's just too much looking for Socionics in something. Rather, you saw the title of the thread, saw who it was by, and automatically set yourself (not just you, but others as well, because people of every type do this to types/IAs they don't value) up for a reaction. Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism. You can show it to someone who doesn't know Socionics and you wouldn't get that interpretation. And it isn't that :Fi: valuers don't budge, it's you assign a stifling and unbudging feeling to something you don't value. In what you've typed, you're placed a lot of arbitrary qualities that you dislike :Fi: placing on you, and so does everyone else (I'm just calling out you all because you revealed yourself as such in this thread).

---

...you can't say it's not socionics and then do exactly what this "non-socionics" predicts you're going to do. That's silly. To wit:

Quote:

---

It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events... this sort of self-evident emotional rightness.

---

Quote:

---

Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism.

---

Quote:

---

By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything.

---

How's that for unconscious interpretation of events? You don't think that there's any valid interpretation of anything you've said that reveals, on some level, anything that could be described as smug, given the myriad events of reality covered under the term smug. Maybe smug isn't even the right word. It's just an attempt to provide a word that gives the reader some sense of the feeling that was engendered in me by some aspects of what some people have posted. For example:

Quote:

---

The idea of "Resonance" is important to this processes because of that hard to pin down feeling that one gets from music and sounds that is being talked about here, especially when you're listening to something instrumental and you have a feeling from it even though there isn't a direct explanation of what kind of feeling that music is trying to evoke.

---

Even "that is being talked about here" is an attempt to remove the subject that is speaking (i.e., you), and through depersonalization, create some sort of objectivity, as if the general universe is talking and not you. This is essentially literary critical nitpicking, but all I'm doing is investigating the features of your language that contributed to producing a response in me.

Even the word resonance automatically comes ready-packed with a positive connotation. And then you go on to compare it to pretty music. And you don't notice how that's a preconcieved interpretation of Fi as positive, like pretty music? Come on! Like I said, there's a reason that people use the words they use, and resonance is hardly a value neutral word (as if value-neutral words existed). You act like you're being objective, but from my perspective, there is really no such thing as objectivity, there's only less subjectivity, and it's much better to be conscious of the degree of subjectivity you have than to act as though it doesn't exist. Resonance implies all those Fi stereotypes you hate so much, and furthermore, as a word with a positive connotation, immediately relates to positive conceptions of Fi. But Fi-polr's experience of Fi is almost wholly negative, and your claim that a positive word like resonance is the true core of Fi totally ignores the fact that, according to socionics anyway, half the population has a generally negative response to Fi. I'm not saying you're wrong for trying to find an objective definition or anything like that. I'm not saying resonance is a bad word; in fact, I think it's great for Fi. But I am saying that there are reasons that I would have a negative reaction, reasons that I would find the description "smug," even if smugness isn't the primary component of the description "objectively".

Also, since we were talking about general Fe reactions to Fi-centered writings, what I had more in mind when I was talking about Fi being "so deep" was a post by Galen in another thread:

Quote:

---

The only real way I can describe :Fi: in a way that makes sense to me is a sort of view of "essences" in things/people. Within the first few minutes if not seconds of interaction, :Fi: valuers can pick up on a sort of essential nature of a person.

---

Now, my initial reaction to this is rather violent, like, please, you can't pick up on the essential nature of anything in a few minutes---if not seconds. You can make a damn good guess, but you can't know anything from an instant snapshot, not about the essence of a person. In fact, it's hubristic to think that you can. And it's a terrible way to judge a human being. People are WAY too complex for that. Now, that's my initial reaction. But then I stop and think, okay, but what is the person actually trying to describe? What aspects of it are an accurate description of the process of :Fi:? To what degree am I just reacting negatively 'cause I don't like it? How can I try to filter out my own prejudices to see the "meat" of the idea? That's what I did with this topic in the first two replies I posted. I reacted negatively to it, and then I reoriented myself and found the truth in it all. Then Ashton brought up Fe-valuers' tendency to have violent reactions to threads like this, and I thought that would be a pertinent moment in conversation to bring up my own initially negative reaction, and try to explain that reaction a bit on behalf of my fellow Fe-valuers.

Now, before anyone's panties begin bunching, my reaction to Galen's post is in no way a judgment upon the value of that post. In fact, I am objectively aware that it is clearly a very good post, since so many Fi-valuers agree with it. Same with your thread. I simply had an instantaneous subjective reaction, and I have a right to my own reactions, preferably without being attacked for said reactions, especially after I've gone out of my way to suppress the reactions in order to attempt to contribute productively to this thread.

And furthermore, I completely disagree with your mantra of "you're looking for socionics where it doesn't exist, confirmation bias confirmation bias confirmation bias," especially since you all reacted exactly like I said! I wasn't comfortable expressing my initial distaste for some aspects of this thread, and accordingly moderated my reaction to something like "ergh, I have trouble thinking like this." As socionics predicts, when I moderated my initial response in dealing with members of my opposing quadra, we got along fine and had a normal interaction. When I moderated the response less in a dialogue with a member of one of my adjacent quadras, said individual (Ashton) was not offended, but two members of my opposing quadra jumped all over it, despite the fact that I even included a bunch of "oh, but I know my reaction is unreasonable" fake-I-could-be-wrong bullshit. And then you say I'm looking for socionics where it doesn't exist. While you enact the very socionics you claim isn't there.

Like when I said:

Quote:

---

Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight,

---

I said it, and you immediately went and started a fight about it. Are you seriously still claiming that this is some sort of confirmation bias?

Now, I agree with you insofar as you don't see what you aren't looking for. So yeah, someone who doesn't know socionics probably isn't going to have as many words for describing how they dislike something that is a manifestation of a given IM/IE/Iwhatever as someone who does know socionics. But if they don't have a vague feeling of dislike, or at the least, of dis-preference, then the theory has no credibility, and there's no such thing as Fi-valuing, much less Fi-polr. An idea that is arrived at by means of Fi cognition and presented in language that reflects Fi cognition must be in some way disliked or dis-preferred by individuals who don't value Fi. If you don't agree with that, I don't see how you can agree with the theory of socionics at all.

Plus it reminds me of my mother. Ick.

Quote:

---

In short, all of you should just GET OVER IT. If anyone objectively thinks "Oh, this IA/IE is better than this because..." after understanding that we inherently value certain IAs over the other, then they are idiots. By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything. Just. Think. It. Through. Stop exaggerating what you value and what the other person does. I mean, for you particularly silverchris, you completely understood what I was trying to communicate and just objectively know I'm not trying to be a bitch. Is it HONESTLY that the way I typed it really violates what your Socionics type predicts, or did you come here apprehensive already (I remember asking you this before, and it seems like a pattern)? There was nothing blocking you from understanding what I was saying, because you did understand, and you were able to see how the others were over-reacting. It's all just taking IE valuing way too seriously and applying it to every single god-damned detail.

Jeez.

---

1) I feel like you're having a big emotional reaction to nothing.

2) Perhaps it would help if I mentioned that everything in that last post I made was simply me giving an unfiltered reaction describing my own subjective experience. I was describing what it "feels like," not what it "is." To me, this is a perfectly legitimate exercise. It seems that to you, it is not. When I read a piece of text, I automatically look for markers to tell me whether what is being discussed is intended to be a reflection of objective reality, or of subjective experience. When I read a post by BnD, I usually know, within seconds, that he is describing a subjective experience, and I read the post as such. Or even if he is making a claim regarding objective reality, he is doing it through the means of subjective experience. So the fact that you seem to have suddenly assumed that I was trying to describe something that exists in objective reality rather than my own personal, subjective experience is totally foreign to me.

To be clear, I mean that your claim that I am in some way viewing :Fi: as objectively inferior to :Fe: or any other function is false. Rather, I am subjectively experiencing :Fe: as preferable to :Fi:. This is literally the exact meaning of the phrase Fe-valuer or Fi-nonvaluer. Of course I subjectively prefer Fe to Fi. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an Fe-valuer. That's what the word "valuer" means.

3) The notion that it is in some way invalid to approach two similar events with a similar frame of mind is ludicrous. Of course it's a pattern. When I read one thread and it makes me feel uncomfortable, when I read another thread on the exact same topic, of course I should assume that it will also make me uncomfortable and psychologically prepare accordingly. I did those preparations in my first two posts, and we got along fine. I understood that I would need to put myself in a frame of mind different than my customary one, even if only slightly different, and I did so. And I learned by doing so. Haven't you noticed that even though I was extremely reluctant to incorporate your methods---because as I detailed in an earlier post, they seem(ed) counter-intuitive to me---I have been using your terms all over the place? That's because I benefited from viewing your posts from a different perspective, and yes, I do feel that the perspective shift bears some relation to socionics. We can agree to disagree about that if necessary. But my natural, organic reaction remains, and I don't see that it is any slight to you if I initially felt uncomfortable about this thread, if I initially reacted negatively. I initially reacted negatively to the post I am now responding to. If I were to give an unfiltered reaction to it, I would probably sound like an asshole, rather than a nice guy giving a relatively intelligent and considered response.

What I'm saying is, I have the right to my reactions to your posts, and a right to share that reaction with others, preferably without getting my head bitten off. I think it is mature and intelligent to surmount that reaction in order to focus the truth of the idea, rather than my aversion to its presentation. God, haven't you ever read a book that you didn't like at first, but then you found yourself using the ideas from that book? It's like that.

4) Your post reminds me of my mother. Ick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

There's the ideas in the mind, that the mind has to try to find words to match with. But those words can be interpreted in different ways by different people, including within one's own mind. So, with this limited resources, the idea is put out there. The words can change, though the idea remains the same. Different ways of describing the same thing.

Then someone else reads those words, and interprets meaning from them. But they have different experiences that they are drawing from, which leads to them getting a different idea of what's being described ...or attempted description. They then have to find word that would match their idea or thoughts on the interpreted idea, and then put those out there, for the first person to interpret.

It's called feedback. If the feedback shows a different idea than what was meant, then there's an alteration in which words or methods used to make another attempt.

Since we are on the net, we don't have the luxury of focusing one-on-one during the discussion...which makes it difficult to choose words. Just as the reader doesn't have the luxury of seeing the body language nor how much emphasis is placed on any one portion of the attempt.

INFps have complained (rightly so) of the difficulties of communicating over the internet. As if they are having to function half-blind.

But the same applies to ENFps as well.

What causes us to be blind in such scenarios, differs, but both are having to try to work around that blindness, and will do so in different ways.

---

I think you misunderstand my idea. I'm not saying that the word does not suit the thought. I'm saying that the choice of word does more than reflect the intentional, conscious idea that the speaker is trying to convey. It also reflects something about the speaker's mental state. It reveals something about the unintentional, unconscious ideas and associations that are going on in the speaker's mind. That's what I mean by "there's a reason why you choose the words you choose." Given that there are limitless combination of words that can express the same basic idea, for what reasons, conscious and unconscious, did the person choose the specific combination that they did? Of course, people will say that this is being overly nitpicky, overly analytical. And it doesn't have a use in all situations. But when your mind is trained to be sensitive to things like that, even to unconsciously collect information about why a speaker may have chosen the words that they chose, sometimes you can't help but "figure out" some of those unconscious, unintentional reasons people choose the words they do.

Quote:

---

So yes, there is a reason people choose their words...but how do you expect a person to choose the exact words that will fit EVERY single person on this forum, and EVERY single possible interpretation? It's impossible, imo.

---

I'm not claiming that her words don't "fit" every single person on the forum, nor that they ought to. I am claiming that her choice of words may seem to reveal assumptions, biases, associations, etc., that are not part of the intended "information content" of the text.

Also, I've known many INFps who get upset at being held to something they said a month ago, a week ago, heck, even just a couple of hours ago. It was the thought of the moment, for them, and they get agitated at being held to that. What makes that so much more different than using 'terminology of the moment'?

Quote:

---

And you describe it as self-evident emotional rightness...but just because you interpret it that way...doesn't make it actually that. Just as just because we interpret some words a certain way doesn't mean that that interpretation was what was meant.

---

Exactly! I was describing a subjective, personal experience. I was describing what it "feels like" to me. Now, I didn't explicitly say, "now this is just my personal opinion, just my experience," but I don't feel like I have to. To me, anyway, it's just obvious when someone is saying what it's like for them rather than what it's like period.

Quote:

---

Would you describe the INFp's need to be understood as them being 'self-evident emotional rightness'? Would you consider a desire to be understood a normal human trait? And what happens when a person feels that the one they are talking to isn't quite understanding what's meant? Should they roll over and drop the whole thing? or would it be more likely that they'll make another effort instead?

---

? What I was trying to describe in saying "self-evident emotional rightness" is the tendency of Fi-valuers to refuse to break their opinions down into building blocks. Fi-valuers (being Te-valuers as well) tend to view their emotional reactions as facts, i.e., "there is nothing in my post that even hints of smugness in any way at all." Again, I could put this in more neutral, objective language, but why should I have to do that? You know that I'm just describing what it's like for me, from my perspective, right? Of course I know that it's more value-neutral than that. I constantly say that the value-neutrality of information elements is the number one most basic lesson of socionics. Anyway, I feel like I understood what Mattie meant fine. I was just describing some other information that I also understood from her writing, and from the writings of Fi-egos in general.

Quote:

---

Finally, there was a big difference between how you responded to Mattie, and how Gilly responded. A big difference between the efforts you each took, in this thread. Your response was one that showed an interest in at least trying to understand, even if you might not agree with it. Gilly wasn't even trying.

---

That's because, at least on this internet forum, I am more inclined to moderate myself than gilly seems to be. He's not wrong for moderating himself less, I'm not wrong for moderating myself more. Different goals is all. But, since I know that this was meant kindly, I am glad to take it in the spirit in which it was intended. In other words, thank you.

FI IS LIKE RELIGION

KILL KILL KILL

Honestly, I just want to move past this. What is said is understood and nothing in this thread is really going to mediate or compromise between the different sides other than just to have sportsmanship when discussing ideas. If it is inherent that no matter what, my examples are going to be irksome to a certain group of people, then let's just all acknowledge that now and not make a big deal about it in the future. From these replies I haven't found any advise accept that whatever I'm doing is something I can't help, so it doesn't really make sense to try to justify/argue my way out of it. If this thread is done, it's done, I'll fine tune this and hopefully start one on :Ne: soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

I think you misunderstand my idea. I'm not saying that the word does not suit the thought. I'm saying that the choice of word does more than reflect the intentional, conscious idea that the speaker is trying to convey. It also reflects something about the speaker's mental state. It reveals something about the unintentional, unconscious ideas and associations that are going on in the speaker's mind. That's what I mean by "there's a reason why you choose the words you choose." Given that there are limitless combination of words that can express the same basic idea, for what reasons, conscious and unconscious, did the person choose the specific combination that they did? Of course, people will say that this is being overly nitpicky, overly analytical. And it doesn't have a use in all situations. But when your mind is trained to be sensitive to things like that, even to unconsciously collect information about why a speaker may have chosen the words that they chose, sometimes you can't help but "figure out" some of those unconscious, unintentional reasons people choose the words they do.

---

I agree with all but the intentional reasons portion. One of the biggest hurdles I've had (and still have) when interacting/communicating with INFps is their tendency to attribute intentions to my words/actions, and to the words/actions of some others, which are sometimes pretty farfetching from what the person has actually said/done.

Its similar to one of the arguments I had with a now ex-friend. He attributed some really nasty intentions to me. I was in shock that he thought I could ever think or respond that way. I asked him "what have I ever done that would make you think that I would have those intentions?" He responded with "well, most people in x situation..." I said "what did *I* ever do that would make you think that I would have those intentions?" Him: "well, most people in x situation..." Me: "No. I'm not "most people". I want to know what have I, personally, ever done that would make you think that about me." Him: "well, most people in x situation...." :reallymad:

Its also similar to one of the conversations I had with an INFp friend (self typed, and used to be on this forum). When we'd talk about Fi, he expresses a similar reaction as you've expressed here. When talking about the ID vs EGO and such as well, he had talked about how he sees the Fi in himself, but that if he were to use that as an ego function, he would consider it an evil thing to do. Previously, he'd kept attributing intentions that were based on that...on how he'd use it if it were part of his ego. In this conversation, he (not sure what word to put here, it came from himself, not me trying to drag it out of him)...'acknowledged'...'gave leniency'...that I haven't seemed to do anything with that intention, myself, though he still interprets other people's Fi with the same intentions.

(Similar to how expat kept making attributions to infps intentions, when it was more like entj intentions for using the Ni+Fe elements. Various INFPs tried to tell him he was wrong, but he insisted that his interpretation of their intentions for using Ni+Fe was correct.)

(oh, and I'm not trying to suggest that this is an infp related thing. I think it's a human bias thing, and a type/quadra bias as well. I only focused on the Fi/Te 'vs' infp thing because of this particular conversation.)

Quote:

---

I'm not claiming that her words don't "fit" every single person on the forum, nor that they ought to. I am claiming that her choice of words may seem to reveal assumptions, biases, associations, etc., that are not part of the intended "information content" of the text.

---

I agree, to a point.
I still say, though, that the interpretations of what's being perceived as 'revealed' may or may not be right/wrong.
But yeah, I think much of it might be related to whatever's behind those samples I gave above.

Quote:

---

Exactly! I was describing a subjective, personal experience. I was describing what it "feels like" to me. Now, I didn't explicitly say, "now this is just my personal opinion, just my experience," but I don't feel like I have to. To me, anyway, it's just obvious when someone is saying what it's like for them rather than what it's like period.

---

Ok.
I just ask that you keep in mind when reading enfp threads that we (the enfps I've observed interactions with) often sound like we are stating something as a fact, when it's not how we meant it, nor how we are thinking of it. Most of the time we are tossing ideas around, and while doing so take a temporary orientation of 'if this were so', or 'what if'. Our wording will often reflect that orientation, but not the double orientation of 'i'm imagining that' + 'if this were so'. I believe that this is one reason why a lot of what we write sounds more....fact oriented...than is actually thought in the enfp's mind. I'm not sure I got the wording of that right. Much easier to describe with hand gestures and body placement, heh.

Anyways, I do recognize that this is often an issue we have with many Beta and Gamma individuals.

On the other coin, this is a similar argument I had against Joy. It felt very strongly that she kept stating things as fact, with very little qualification that it was her opinion.

And also a similar argument I had with Expat. The difference with him though was that he seemed to keep insisting that 'yes this perception is his opinion' while at the same time continuing to push it. Whether trying to push it as fact....or to get people to change their own opinions, I'm not sure. But then niffweed does this sometimes to. As does Gilly, imo. And I'm sure many other types do...and alas, I may sometimes fall into the trap myself.

Quote:

---

That's because, at least on this internet forum, I am more inclined to moderate myself than gilly seems to be. He's not wrong for moderating himself less, I'm not wrong for moderating myself more. Different goals is all. But, since I know that this was meant kindly, I am glad to take it in the spirit in which it was intended. In other words, thank you.

---

I think both enfps and infps wind up doing quite a bit of moderating their word choices and such when dealing with each other. No, not when dealing with each other...when actively trying to communicate with each other. Moderating wouldn't be felt important to do when interacting with our identicals/mirrors. Such that when we read a post thread within our own quadra, we 'get' what a person is saying/meaning. But when reading a post/thread in the opposing quadra, where the initial OP doesn't have that moderating attempts, that it's at risk of causing some pretty big misunderstandings between the two different quadra club members.

I'm not suggesting that this is limited to beta/delta nfs, though. But I do think that xNFp tend to be more willing to attempt to moderate themselves when actively communicating with each other. Not that it's easy for either, and not feel misunderstood. But that our humanistic orientation and flexibility sets us up for more willingness to find a mutual understanding of the other.


Anyhoot, ummm, yeah. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Honestly, I just want to move past this. What is said is understood and nothing in this thread is really going to mediate or compromise between the different sides other than just to have sportsmanship when discussing ideas. If it is inherent that no matter what, my examples are going to be irksome to a certain group of people, then let's just all acknowledge that now and not make a big deal about it in the future. From these replies I haven't found any advise accept that whatever I'm doing is something I can't help, so it doesn't really make sense to try to justify/argue my way out of it. If this thread is done, it's done, I'll fine tune this and hopefully start one on :Ne: soon.

---

Nobody said the thread had to be over. Basically, what I'm saying is, don't take things so personally, especially when I'm already saying that I've learned plenty from your writing. I was just talking about me, with absolutely zero bearing on how useful or good or true or applicable your ideas are, even to betas, insofar as I am one.

Quote:

---

Its similar to one of the arguments I had with a now ex-friend. He attributed some really nasty intentions to me. I was in shock that he thought I could ever think or respond that way. I asked him "what have I ever done that would make you think that I would have those intentions?" He responded with "well, most people in x situation..." I said "what did *I* ever do that would make you think that I would have those intentions?" Him: "well, most people in x situation..." Me: "No. I'm not "most people". I want to know what have I, personally, ever done that would make you think that about me." Him: "well, most people in x situation...."

---

I just had this exact same argument with my little brother (SEE). And I had already read your post, so I kept thinking back to it, which made things sort of comical. Anyway, I think Ni-valuers/betas tend to think that the onus is on the "accused" person to prove that they are the exception to the rule, and Ne-valuers/deltas tend to think that the onus is on the "accusing" person to prove that the rule applies to them. We were arguing about listening to audiobooks vs. reading a book, and he kept saying that he learns better by listening to audiobooks, and how could I possibly contradict that, since he knows how he learns and I don't. But I was saying that it's impossible for anybody to have the same experience listening to an audiobook as reading a book, and as such, he could not learn what one learns by reading a book better by listening to the book instead of reading it, although I gladly conceded that he could reach certain goals, i.e., getting a decent grade, better by listening to an audiobook than by reading a real book. Also, I was just offended that he tried to conflate the two, when it's really two totally different experiences.

Quote:

---

I think both enfps and infps wind up doing quite a bit of moderating their word choices and such when dealing with each other. No, not when dealing with each other...when actively trying to communicate with each other. Moderating wouldn't be felt important to do when interacting with our identicals/mirrors. Such that when we read a post thread within our own quadra, we 'get' what a person is saying/meaning. But when reading a post/thread in the opposing quadra, where the initial OP doesn't have that moderating attempts, that it's at risk of causing some pretty big misunderstandings between the two different quadra club members.

I'm not suggesting that this is limited to beta/delta nfs, though. But I do think that xNFp tend to be more willing to attempt to moderate themselves when actively communicating with each other. Not that it's easy for either, and not feel misunderstood. But that our humanistic orientation and flexibility sets us up for more willingness to find a mutual understanding of the other.

---

Agreed. I can feel ENFps moderating themselves around me and me moderating myself around them. Sometimes it's okay, especially if I'm prepared for it and can anticipate it, but some times is no fun, especially if I'm hanging out with people I don't have to moderate myself around and then suddenly I do have to moderate myself, etc. And also agreed that misunderstandings can result from a lack of moderation, obviously.

Mattie, sorry for the delayed response. I hope I'm not too late. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

A
Wouldn't adding that "regards to all things 'humane'" be too specific? I actually think "Resonance" covers the IA very well, but you might be wanting to cover the IE as well in some manner, which it doesn't do. You'd have to further break down (or maybe clearly list) what you think are the 'parts' of what :Fi: the IA is. I also don't think 'field' and 'interaction' are interchangeable either... I think the Xi IAs are more relational, maybe more effectual; it's less of the objects being present and more what it is that exists between them. It's possible I'm missing your point, I don't feel like I have a clear idea of what you're saying :oops:


....

Again, this sounds more like of what I'm trying to avoid. :Fi: is less about being aware of certain things in people and more about an abstract sensation based on certain parameters that creates a relational web between objects.

---

Well, I'm starting to see the differences in our views in Socionics but I'll begin with what is actually similar.

To start with, everything you have written here, regarding the behaviour of introverted functions, I agree with.

Interactions and fields are not interchangeable, you are correct again, but the former is a (read: one) component of the latter; the sum of all interactions create the field, and the properties of the interactions give the holistic result a flavour. Of course, I acknowledge that the sum may not necessarily equate to the whole, but that is, or should be, already be known as a flaw in this theory.

Secondly, it is difficult to speak of fields, without indirectly speaking about the objects that contribute to the field. Even in your initial description, you had to implicitly define two objects, the theremin itself and the person who manipulates it. Despite this, I know that it is not these two objects that are your focus, but what happens between them. Because I am not speaking in metaphors, which in many ways does not demand precise language, but, rather, directly speaking about Fi, objects were unintentionally overemphasized.

Regarding my explanations over the what Fi understands about people, I realized that I went off topic by mentioning this, though I still maintain its validity. But the topic is about Fi itself, and not a consequence of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Hmm, none this really settles well with me to be frank. I feel like these are relying on catch-qualities rather than what they are. Firstly, I don't think any of the IAs are inherently "social," or at least, more or less social than the other. Also, I don't think emotion and logic are factors in :Fi: and :Ti: either; when I said feelings in my example, I wasn't necessarily meaning emotions, more sensations. An emotion is a psychological state of being, and that's not really what I was trying to communicate, more the feeling along the lines of being affected by something.

---

I used "emotional" for a lack of a better word, hence the quotation. I agree with the bolded sentence.

In my opinion though, logic does factor into both Fi and Ti, but they are both based on variants of it.

To be honest, your response (the none-bolded, directly above) completely missed what I was trying to convery.

Discussion of the social nature of the judging functions are best saved for another topic. But I will assert that perceiving functions focus on what the world is, and judging functions focus on giving human relevance.

The reason I considered Fi "humane" is because when it creates a relational web, there is always a human tangent with it, but it is not necessarily as "cold" as Ti when it creates one of its own. The problem is that your limits in the way you describe functions suffer from imprecision. Consequently, I feel, there are a lot of overlap of concepts. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, because Socionics as a whole has this problem, so the fact that this discussion pushes it, has a lot of benefit to our understanding.

I realized that I didn't give any reasoning to why I chose "Resonance," I just assumed people would just accept it and the example would prove itself on its own. I'm thinking that not opening with what I liked about "Resonance" might have made it more difficult to communicate what I wanted to, especially with the focus on music that happened here, I was thinking of a more multi-faceted definition of "Resonance" and was probably only communicating one. So here's the dictionary's definitions for the word, maybe they will lend more to the OP if we take all the definitions into account:

Quote:

---

1. the condition or quality of being resonant [1]
2. sound produced by a body vibrating in sympathy[2] with a neighbouring source of sound
3. the condition of a body or system when it is subjected to a periodic disturbance of the same frequency as the natural frequency of the body or system. At this frequency the system displays an enhanced oscillation or vibration
4. amplification of speech sounds by sympathetic[2] vibration in the bone structure of the head and chest, resounding in the cavities of the nose, mouth, and pharynx
5. electronics the condition of an electrical circuit when the frequency is such that the capacitive and inductive reactances are equal in magnitude. In a series circuit there is then maximum alternating current whilst in a parallel circuit there is minimum alternating current
6. med the sound heard when percussing a hollow bodily structure, esp the chest or abdomen. Change in the quality of the sound often indicates an underlying disease or disorder
7. chem the phenomenon in which the electronic structure of a molecule can be represented by two or more hypothetical structures involving single, double, and triple chemical bonds. The true structure is considered to be an average of these theoretical structures
8. physics
a. the condition of a system in which there is a sharp maximum probability for the absorption of electromagnetic radiation or capture of particles
b. a type of elementary particle of extremely short lifetime. Resonances are regarded as excited states of more stable particles
c. a highly transient atomic state formed during a collision process

---

[1] Resonant meaning resounding, echoing.
[2] Sympathy meaning harmonizing in this case.


I think my example focuses more on the first 3 definitions, but I think I overall created the example with all these definitions in mind. Note definitions 6 and 8, which you can apply to my example without the idea of music but of sensation, which is more of what I was aiming at.

Also, I'm going to be doing :Ti: next instead, as it has more relevance to my life and therefore I've been focusing on it more with my NeTi friend. So after that will be :Ne:. Right now I'm having a little difficulty with the exact word I want for :Ti:... It might be Schema instead of Schematic, as the versatility of the former word would suit my purposes better. The idea of an Axiomatic Schema fits what I think about :Ti:, but I will be deliberating and bouncing ideas off of my friend. I'll try to introduce my thread with a definition next time if that seems better, since it will give everyone a point of reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

II think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

---

I agree with labcoat

dynamic = of or relating to energy or to objects in motion

you're using Ne to distort clear cut meanings - its more accurate to say Fi has moments of being dynamic, but it isn't dynamic itself. 'resonance' applies to both feeling elements, although I would say it applies more so to Fe precisely because of labcoat's reasoning - resonance is a more dynamic term than a static one.

Actually, "resonance" by definition is a state. Something that static functions deal with. So, the way Mattie utilizes the term is not inaccurate. It does suffer from specificity though, as it is only one of many states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

I just had this exact same argument with my little brother (SEE). And I had already read your post, so I kept thinking back to it, which made things sort of comical. Anyway, I think Ni-valuers/betas tend to think that the onus is on the "accused" person to prove that they are the exception to the rule, and Ne-valuers/deltas tend to think that the onus is on the "accusing" person to prove that the rule applies to them. We were arguing about listening to audiobooks vs. reading a book, and he kept saying that he learns better by listening to audiobooks, and how could I possibly contradict that, since he knows how he learns and I don't. But I was saying that it's impossible for anybody to have the same experience listening to an audiobook as reading a book, and as such, he could not learn what one learns by reading a book better by listening to the book instead of reading it, although I gladly conceded that he could reach certain goals, i.e., getting a decent grade, better by listening to an audiobook than by reading a real book. Also, I was just offended that he tried to conflate the two, when it's really two totally different experiences.

---

Hi Silverchris!..wasn't sure if this was going to be considered off topic, so if it is perhaps a mod can move it, but I kind of thought it might be related to Fi, and if it's Gamma, perhaps you could excuse me, perhaps I could slide by on the Fi aspect, so fwiw..

I've been thinking about this concept of learning, or something in the realm of that, and it has to do with..just not learning in any linear, traceable sort of fashion. But perhaps before I start I just want to say that, reading this thread, I have the desire to ask people, perhaps like Silverchris, who took the time to communicate so extensively outside of his original preferences, I would like to say that I don't think I'm coming from the connected structured sort of viewpoint you might expected as a Ti/Fe valuer, so I think I want you to come into what I'm saying here automatically biased, or automatically on the sort of "defensive" or what have you. I don't want you to attribute your own quadra motives to my writing. I mean, after all of reading this thread and learning a lot about how people communicate, if there's one thing I don't wish you would do, it's that you misunderstand me here. So I ask that you please put your preconceptions on hold and do whatever it takes to do that. And I ask you to consider that it's actually quite easy...just put away what you think, put away what you know about the world. Just be in my words, and if you can't follow them, read them aloud, sometimes they make more sense that way. I ask that you be involved in my writing, and don't structure anything in your mind just yet, you can do that afterwards, but for now, for the purpose of understanding..

So it has to do with learning..communicating, learning, communicating learning. And I feel like, if I can make some sort of vague blanket statement here, it's that the Aristocratic quadras in my life have approached learning as this, as if you can't really escape the objectivity of it. It just seems inherent in their worldviews and if little pieces in their psyche broke away and considered the possibility of learning being a different way, it would be impossible or at least very hard for them..it makes them very weak because it feels like when they attempt it (which I have hardly ever seen them try to do) they are trying to speak on a subject they know very little about..

I don't know why I feel what I feel..I don't pretend to understand it perfectly..but the world is inherently chaotic. Just set aside perhaps your convictions that you may be having right now and the arguments you might be setting up in your head to justify to me that the world is indeed not chaotic, and everything has its order. "There are rules," says Neil Gaiman. "There are always rules."

Or something of the sort. I could actually go and look that up, the exact words, but I feel I would miss out and this expansive mindset that comes out of nowhere, I feel that would be stunted, like the kind of happening in which you stick something into a moving machinery, can't remember the phrase..so in this mindset, in the one that I know, I push aside that inconsistency because the meaning in this instance, that's what I'm trying to communicate. And it takes a sort of vunerability because you have to trust that the people which whom you are communicating are not going to jump on that perhaps logical inconsistency. Or perhaps they'll consider you a liar or redefine your motives because they can't seem to make a connection, after so many times, after so many years, that a person's subjective state is worth bearing, or considering, after the years, after the sacrifice, after moments when..

Ok so, I didn't want to get too vague here..I feel I've started to make rules about the universe in my own way, not because I believe there's any one way people function, or perhaps it's what I don't WANT to believe but have sort of been forced into for efficiency's sake. When I describe events, examples, I feel you're going to redefine them, perhaps in your own mind, perhaps for efficiency's sake of your own thought processes. That's...what happens. That's part of the crux of this Socionics bullshit.

But..I don't want you to redefine them. I just want you to, feel what I feel. For one second. For two. That's how you understand me, to feel what I feel. Now when you bring what you THINK into it, I can start troubleshooting for that. I could be lazy, or whimsical, inconsistent, troublesome..and adjust for that. It's painful, but it's what I'm used to. Because I love appreciation. I crave it. More than anything in the world, I want to be wanted. And adhering to these sort of objective standards can gain one recognition. It's not the idea sort of recognition, but it's approval all the same; I can't get pork so I eat shrubs, etc.

Now I just want to say, if it hasn't occurred to you, if you're in an Aristocratic quadra, (and I don't mean to project, if you don't think like this, and yes I could be completely wrong), that learning isn't all pain. Now, in my observation, the Aristocratic quadras come from different formulations, but in the end, you are left with relatively the same idea. In Beta, you're coming from the objective mindset, where things are externally correlated into general mostly unbreakable rules and theories and whatnot about humanity and ideas and how they work, etc. And most simply, that is pain to a Fi/Te valuer. Yes, I've tried to mold myself to that mindset, to trace the linear correlations with my fingertips, to apply those standards to my own life, to people, to ideas. And yes, it doesn't help. There is no fundemental belief to those things, and my motives are not being stubborn because I simply won't admit that these things are true. As if I actually believed in them and was just refusing to do so. There is just that, some things cause pain, and some things cause pleasure, or the feeling of rightness, and I don't know why.

Now, I am aware that that thought subjectively didn't iron itself it out, or finish satisfactorily. So if you are still here with me as a reader, I would ask you to refrain from categorizing these things in your mind just yet.

Feel the dissonance that causes you.

Of being in some following thought, and then it cuts off.

Don't try to tuck it away in a structure.

Just feel how it sort of reverberates in your chest as a slightly sick feeling.

Now, observe how I'm not going to take that out on anyone. I'm not going to emotionally barb them, or throw a fit, or say I'm crazy because of it. Before you get too caught up in the feeling of anxiety from how to deal with holding this dissonance, re-examine the circumstances.

What is there to blame? My intentions were good, my thoughts were following, I was trying very hard to communicate this thing..

And then suddenly it cuts off.

Now is that something to blame? To re-examine? There's an issue in my life I'm not addressing, I'm an evil person, I'm hiding shit?

Now if you're Fe/Ti, you should keep in mind that Fi/Te already have their own high standards. And that their instinctual examination of their motives and the rightness of their choices and what happens is already going to weigh heavily on them. And it seems that you don't see that process because they don't express it so externally. I'm not saying that you don't have a corresponding perception. I'm just saying, if you're in this perception right now, this is how it can be, and it's valid.

But anyway, with Betas, there is this appeal to objectivity. Don't try to redefine objectivity or hold me to something that I'm not saying, I know it's probably a shitty or cursory phrase that's not completely perfect. I'm going to share a more personal example so I hope I don't regret it or that you attack me for it. And I realize that there are perhaps different reasons instead of the one I'm referring to for this phenomenon. (But I don't believe that there are different reasons. No one, no one, has been able to give a better explanation. So I keep my own. And passing lines of "it's not that way" are not going to be convincing.)

He talks about life..well, he's my brother. And he sits with me in the car, and says objectively innocuous things about...about living. I don't actually remember all the exact phrases, it took me so much mental concentration just to bear it. Parents are parents. Don't be too hard on them. An education is beneficial. I don't know what I'm going to do but I'm just going to do it! I'm just going to go for it, whether or not I like it. I'll learn to like it. There are objective things you have to adjust for in the world. Learning is pain. He was looking for a girlfriend. You know sometimes girls learn to like someone after they go out with someone for a while. You don't have to like them from the beginning.

Now...I find it hard to argue with my brother. It makes me sort of physically sick. Because every time I just say what I feel, I get, "Are you ok?" Well yes, I am actually ok. Just because I'm crying doesn't mean I'm a blubbering nutcase or that I need sympathy. What I actually WANT is understanding, like a state of non judgment. In the back of my mind my life has happened to fall into some objective patterns perhaps, about work or growth or pain, but I ignore those patterns, because they had no bearing on my experience, or perception. They had nothing to do with how I acted, or my choices. They were irrelevant. I don't want someone else to pour my life like a vat of hot wax into a fucking mold that I didn't choose.

Now perhaps you thought I cried, because I referred to crying, but the fact is I didn't cry. I was sort of a zombie, from bearing all the emotional states seemingly deadpan, but I didn't cry.

Now they say this stuff. This stuff about family. Blood is thicker than water. Kinship. Family. Family. And it echoes in my head. Because none of it is true.

I don't feel ultimate kinship for my brother. Or my family. I'm always repressing my emotions with them. I don't think it can be another away. It..doesn't work. It doesn't work to connect with them, and that's a fact. They don't work. I mean, we don't work. As people. We don't connect. I wouldn't have chosen them, if they were in a crowd. They're not my people. I love them in my own way, but ultimately we're so different. Ultimately, I leave their presence, and I'm lost, sick, and confused. Family is family? But my feelings..say otherwise.

Now you can have a lot of silly ultimatums to throw at me. Like things will get better with time. Or everyone goes through this stuff. Or parents are parents. More of the same. And I'm not discounting your experience..I mean I don't want to. But there is something like, if acknowledging your experience is going to end up causing me pain, then I'm going to have to say no, and set some boundaries..

My brother is always going to be convinced of his objective theories about life. And we're always going to sit there, metaphorically, not connecting.

Communicating with Betas is like, sometimes you have to set the sort of fierceness of your opinions aside to communicate, and then you actually agree on a lot of the same things. But still, that underlying fierceness can't be ignored forever.

The way Deltas are different than Betas is how they come to the same conclusion despite sort of different methods. Deltas believe in feelings to some extent. To feelings trumping objectivity. Deltas start with feelings, and acknowledging them, and dislike/attraction/repulsion for the sake of those, and not objectifying them..Deltas seem merciful at first. And they are, always merciful. They are, always sort of a landing pad of peace in ways. But the way Deltas operate is that, they must take those perceptions and harness them in a peaceful way for the good of society. They basically perceive that society is going to fall apart if those feelings are...made anything of. If conclusions are drawn from them. They have a stalwartness. They seem to me to be perpetually struggling because they don't think that strong bold actions to change things based on those feelings have merit. They don't even think in terms of strong bold actions or anything. Deltas are harder for me to describe coherently at this point so I think I'm going to hold off a bit..

But it's like...you give the Aristocratic quadras a piece of learning. And they have a lot of opinions on it. But it helped for me to, learn away from anyone, by myself. Maybe you'll think this is a stupid example, but I read Silverchris' paragraph about his brother, and I thought to what I had been thinking of before this, of how I was given a stock list at work. And perhaps I could've accomplished it in an objectively better manner. Matched things and drew lines between their properties. But I just wanted to be left to myself, to do things my way, by feeling, without any apparent rhyme or reason. Without that sort of weight, I'm so...energetic. And enthusiastic. And I get things done very fast. And it doesn't end up mattering if I follow some predefined organization. I can run off my enthusiasm in a rather aggressive manner, and it's very effective. If someone chimed in with approval at seeing my enthusiasm and good intentions, it's even more of a good effect and I end up being able to work tirelessly. Approval is 100000x more effective for me than criticism. No matter what is learned through pain based methods, I end up not needing them because I already possess an internal mechanism for a shitload of pain and internal beratement if I do something that might be "wrong". So it's like the extra external judgment and criticism isn't necessary. I take my mistakes very hard. And I know to other people it looks like I'm ignoring them. And it feels like they don't know me and I can't really talk to them or communicate with them, that it would be pointless, because if I can pretend to not care about my mistakes and they really believe that, well then. I used to try a lot to get people like that to understand, but now perhaps I've become a bit more uncaring about that effect. Feelings can't be forced. People just have to end up believing what they will.

I feel that the way I've learned belongs to me, and certain types of external structure don't have any bearing on it. And I dislike it when people try to impose that. It's like in Silverchris' example, he conceded in this weird way that yes, it could be productive according to certain goals by utilizing this apparently non-superior way of learning. And if I react completely unrestraint-edly, I'd feel like, how arrogant is that. How arrogant of Silverchris. Or how silly. Like if it really is about goals and if you really want to get someone to do something you want, silly Beta, if you want him to stop chaffing at your bit and become your tireless supporter, try using positive reinforcement instead. Try some mute, dumb, unconditional approval and see where that gets you in his graces. lol. Goals. Like goals. It's all about getting to the top of the pile of bodies. Maybe he can't help the way he learns, like maybe it is possible that it's all true, what he's saying, and that's just the way things are. Maybe the semantics are all meaningless, and the lines you're drawing for goals don't matter. Like conflating the "holy" experience of audio learning vs reading. Like, holy, sacred, blah blah blah. But what is there to appeal to besides that sort of ohmigoddeathandsatansdentalcanals way of thinking. Betas make fun of themselves ironically and emo-ly sometimes, using all their double meanings to convey their angst, because they're distressed over the fact that they're this way and can't help it, and they're happy about their distress, and they're morbid about their happiness, and they're gleeful about their morbidity, and it's like describing their states makes their little heads explode. But anyway, I thought of the general concept of what Ann said somewhere in this thread, about making things more involved to facilitate understanding..this is called double involvement you N little mofos.

Oh I forgot to mention something I thought about learning...it's like when you just sort of let the weight of non-objective learning sink in, and just kind of feel it without attaching judgments to it. Aristocratic quadras scurry around..it seems not possible for them to talk about theoretical perspectives without attaching this "the world is going to explode" sort of fanaticism to those perspectives. It makes Aristocracy cute and helpless. Betas talk about their bling and Deltas..well...Deltas give you vegetables. Sorry guys. Sometimes you really suck.

That's the longest post in the history of 16 types.

hahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

Hi Silverchris!..wasn't sure if this was going to be considered off topic, so if it is perhaps a mod can move it, but I kind of thought it might be related to Fi, and if it's Gamma, perhaps you could excuse me, perhaps I could slide by on the Fi aspect, so fwiw..

I've been thinking about this concept of learning, or something in the realm of that, and it has to do with..just not learning in any linear, traceable sort of fashion. But perhaps before I start I just want to say that, reading this thread, I have the desire to ask people, perhaps like Silverchris, who took the time to communicate so extensively outside of his original preferences, I would like to say that I don't think I'm coming from the connected structured sort of viewpoint you might expected as a Ti/Fe valuer, so I think I want you to come into what I'm saying here automatically biased, or automatically on the sort of "defensive" or what have you. I don't want you to attribute your own quadra motives to my writing. I mean, after all of reading this thread and learning a lot about how people communicate, if there's one thing I don't wish you would do, it's that you misunderstand me here. So I ask that you please put your preconceptions on hold and do whatever it takes to do that. And I ask you to consider that it's actually quite easy...just put away what you think, put away what you know about the world. Just be in my words, and if you can't follow them, read them aloud, sometimes they make more sense that way. I ask that you be involved in my writing, and don't structure anything in your mind just yet, you can do that afterwards, but for now, for the purpose of understanding..

So it has to do with learning..communicating, learning, communicating learning. And I feel like, if I can make some sort of vague blanket statement here, it's that the Aristocratic quadras in my life have approached learning as this, as if you can't really escape the objectivity of it. It just seems inherent in their worldviews and if little pieces in their psyche broke away and considered the possibility of learning being a different way, it would be impossible or at least very hard for them..it makes them very weak because it feels like when they attempt it (which I have hardly ever seen them try to do) they are trying to speak on a subject they know very little about..

I don't know why I feel what I feel..I don't pretend to understand it perfectly..but the world is inherently chaotic. Just set aside perhaps your convictions that you may be having right now and the arguments you might be setting up in your head to justify to me that the world is indeed not chaotic, and everything has its order. "There are rules," says Neil Gaiman. "There are always rules."

Or something of the sort. I could actually go and look that up, the exact words, but I feel I would miss out and this expansive mindset that comes out of nowhere, I feel that would be stunted, like the kind of happening in which you stick something into a moving machinery, can't remember the phrase..so in this mindset, in the one that I know, I push aside that inconsistency because the meaning in this instance, that's what I'm trying to communicate. And it takes a sort of vunerability because you have to trust that the people which whom you are communicating are not going to jump on that perhaps logical inconsistency. Or perhaps they'll consider you a liar or redefine your motives because they can't seem to make a connection, after so many times, after so many years, that a person's subjective state is worth bearing, or considering, after the years, after the sacrifice, after moments when..

Ok so, I didn't want to get too vague here..I feel I've started to make rules about the universe in my own way, not because I believe there's any one way people function, or perhaps it's what I don't WANT to believe but have sort of been forced into for efficiency's sake. When I describe events, examples, I feel you're going to redefine them, perhaps in your own mind, perhaps for efficiency's sake of your own thought processes. That's...what happens. That's part of the crux of this Socionics bullshit.

But..I don't want you to redefine them. I just want you to, feel what I feel. For one second. For two. That's how you understand me, to feel what I feel. Now when you bring what you THINK into it, I can start troubleshooting for that. I could be lazy, or whimsical, inconsistent, troublesome..and adjust for that. It's painful, but it's what I'm used to. Because I love appreciation. I crave it. More than anything in the world, I want to be wanted. And adhering to these sort of objective standards can gain one recognition. It's not the idea sort of recognition, but it's approval all the same; I can't get pork so I eat shrubs, etc.

Now I just want to say, if it hasn't occurred to you, if you're in an Aristocratic quadra, (and I don't mean to project, if you don't think like this, and yes I could be completely wrong), that learning isn't all pain. Now, in my observation, the Aristocratic quadras come from different formulations, but in the end, you are left with relatively the same idea. In Beta, you're coming from the objective mindset, where things are externally correlated into general mostly unbreakable rules and theories and whatnot about humanity and ideas and how they work, etc. And most simply, that is pain to a Fi/Te valuer. Yes, I've tried to mold myself to that mindset, to trace the linear correlations with my fingertips, to apply those standards to my own life, to people, to ideas. And yes, it doesn't help. There is no fundemental belief to those things, and my motives are not being stubborn because I simply won't admit that these things are true. As if I actually believed in them and was just refusing to do so. There is just that, some things cause pain, and some things cause pleasure, or the feeling of rightness, and I don't know why.

Now, I am aware that that thought subjectively didn't iron itself it out, or finish satisfactorily. So if you are still here with me as a reader, I would ask you to refrain from categorizing these things in your mind just yet.

Feel the dissonance that causes you.

Of being in some following thought, and then it cuts off.

Don't try to tuck it away in a structure.

Just feel how it sort of reverberates in your chest as a slightly sick feeling.

Now, observe how I'm not going to take that out on anyone. I'm not going to emotionally barb them, or throw a fit, or say I'm crazy because of it. Before you get too caught up in the feeling of anxiety from how to deal with holding this dissonance, re-examine the circumstances.

What is there to blame? My intentions were good, my thoughts were following, I was trying very hard to communicate this thing..

And then suddenly it cuts off.

Now is that something to blame? To re-examine? There's an issue in my life I'm not addressing, I'm an evil person, I'm hiding shit?

Now if you're Fe/Ti, you should keep in mind that Fi/Te already have their own high standards. And that their instinctual examination of their motives and the rightness of their choices and what happens is already going to weigh heavily on them. And it seems that you don't see that process because they don't express it so externally. I'm not saying that you don't have a corresponding perception. I'm just saying, if you're in this perception right now, this is how it can be, and it's valid.

But anyway, with Betas, there is this appeal to objectivity. Don't try to redefine objectivity or hold me to something that I'm not saying, I know it's probably a shitty or cursory phrase that's not completely perfect. I'm going to share a more personal example so I hope I don't regret it or that you attack me for it. And I realize that there are perhaps different reasons instead of the one I'm referring to for this phenomenon. (But I don't believe that there are different reasons. No one, no one, has been able to give a better explanation. So I keep my own. And passing lines of "it's not that way" are not going to be convincing.)

He talks about life..well, he's my brother. And he sits with me in the car, and says objectively innocuous things about...about living. I don't actually remember all the exact phrases, it took me so much mental concentration just to bear it. Parents are parents. Don't be too hard on them. An education is beneficial. I don't know what I'm going to do but I'm just going to do it! I'm just going to go for it, whether or not I like it. I'll learn to like it. There are objective things you have to adjust for in the world. Learning is pain. He was looking for a girlfriend. You know sometimes girls learn to like someone after they go out with someone for a while. You don't have to like them from the beginning.

Now...I find it hard to argue with my brother. It makes me sort of physically sick. Because every time I just say what I feel, I get, "Are you ok?" Well yes, I am actually ok. Just because I'm crying doesn't mean I'm a blubbering nutcase or that I need sympathy. What I actually WANT is understanding, like a state of non judgment. In the back of my mind my life has happened to fall into some objective patterns perhaps, about work or growth or pain, but I ignore those patterns, because they had no bearing on my experience, or perception. They had nothing to do with how I acted, or my choices. They were irrelevant. I don't want someone else to pour my life like a vat of hot wax into a fucking mold that I didn't choose.

Now perhaps you thought I cried, because I referred to crying, but the fact is I didn't cry. I was sort of a zombie, from bearing all the emotional states seemingly deadpan, but I didn't cry.

Now they say this stuff. This stuff about family. Blood is thicker than water. Kinship. Family. Family. And it echoes in my head. Because none of it is true.

I don't feel ultimate kinship for my brother. Or my family. I'm always repressing my emotions with them. I don't think it can be another away. It..doesn't work. It doesn't work to connect with them, and that's a fact. They don't work. I mean, we don't work. As people. We don't connect. I wouldn't have chosen them, if they were in a crowd. They're not my people. I love them in my own way, but ultimately we're so different. Ultimately, I leave their presence, and I'm lost, sick, and confused. Family is family? But my feelings..say otherwise.

Now you can have a lot of silly ultimatums to throw at me. Like things will get better with time. Or everyone goes through this stuff. Or parents are parents. More of the same. And I'm not discounting your experience..I mean I don't want to. But there is something like, if acknowledging your experience is going to end up causing me pain, then I'm going to have to say no, and set some boundaries..

My brother is always going to be convinced of his objective theories about life. And we're always going to sit there, metaphorically, not connecting.

Communicating with Betas is like, sometimes you have to set the sort of fierceness of your opinions aside to communicate, and then you actually agree on a lot of the same things. But still, that underlying fierceness can't be ignored forever.

The way Deltas are different than Betas is how they come to the same conclusion despite sort of different methods. Deltas believe in feelings to some extent. To feelings trumping objectivity. Deltas start with feelings, and acknowledging them, and dislike/attraction/repulsion for the sake of those, and not objectifying them..Deltas seem merciful at first. And they are, always merciful. They are, always sort of a landing pad of peace in ways. But the way Deltas operate is that, they must take those perceptions and harness them in a peaceful way for the good of society. They basically perceive that society is going to fall apart if those feelings are...made anything of. If conclusions are drawn from them. They have a stalwartness. They seem to me to be perpetually struggling because they don't think that strong bold actions to change things based on those feelings have merit. They don't even think in terms of strong bold actions or anything. Deltas are harder for me to describe coherently at this point so I think I'm going to hold off a bit..

But it's like...you give the Aristocratic quadras a piece of learning. And they have a lot of opinions on it. But it helped for me to, learn away from anyone, by myself. Maybe you'll think this is a stupid example, but I read Silverchris' paragraph about his brother, and I thought to what I had been thinking of before this, of how I was given a stock list at work. And perhaps I could've accomplished it in an objectively better manner. Matched things and drew lines between their properties. But I just wanted to be left to myself, to do things my way, by feeling, without any apparent rhyme or reason. Without that sort of weight, I'm so...energetic. And enthusiastic. And I get things done very fast. And it doesn't end up mattering if I follow some predefined organization. I can run off my enthusiasm in a rather aggressive manner, and it's very effective. If someone chimed in with approval at seeing my enthusiasm and good intentions, it's even more of a good effect and I end up being able to work tirelessly. Approval is 100000x more effective for me than criticism. No matter what is learned through pain based methods, I end up not needing them because I already possess an internal mechanism for a shitload of pain and internal beratement if I do something that might be "wrong". So it's like the extra external judgment and criticism isn't necessary. I take my mistakes very hard. And I know to other people it looks like I'm ignoring them. And it feels like they don't know me and I can't really talk to them or communicate with them, that it would be pointless, because if I can pretend to not care about my mistakes and they really believe that, well then. I used to try a lot to get people like that to understand, but now perhaps I've become a bit more uncaring about that effect. Feelings can't be forced. People just have to end up believing what they will.

I feel that the way I've learned belongs to me, and certain types of external structure don't have any bearing on it. And I dislike it when people try to impose that. It's like in Silverchris' example, he conceded in this weird way that yes, it could be productive according to certain goals by utilizing this apparently non-superior way of learning. And if I react completely unrestraint-edly, I'd feel like, how arrogant is that. How arrogant of Silverchris. Or how silly. Like if it really is about goals and if you really want to get someone to do something you want, silly Beta, if you want him to stop chaffing at your bit and become your tireless supporter, try using positive reinforcement instead. Try some mute, dumb, unconditional approval and see where that gets you in his graces. lol. Goals. Like goals. It's all about getting to the top of the pile of bodies. Maybe he can't help the way he learns, like maybe it is possible that it's all true, what he's saying, and that's just the way things are. Maybe the semantics are all meaningless, and the lines you're drawing for goals don't matter. Like conflating the "holy" experience of audio learning vs reading. Like, holy, sacred, blah blah blah. But what is there to appeal to besides that sort of ohmigoddeathandsatansdentalcanals way of thinking. Betas make fun of themselves ironically and emo-ly sometimes, using all their double meanings to convey their angst, because they're distressed over the fact that they're this way and can't help it, and they're happy about their distress, and they're morbid about their happiness, and they're gleeful about their morbidity, and it's like describing their states makes their little heads explode. But anyway, I thought of the general concept of what Ann said somewhere in this thread, about making things more involved to facilitate understanding..this is called double involvement you N little mofos.

Oh I forgot to mention something I thought about learning...it's like when you just sort of let the weight of non-objective learning sink in, and just kind of feel it without attaching judgments to it. Aristocratic quadras scurry around..it seems not possible for them to talk about theoretical perspectives without attaching this "the world is going to explode" sort of fanaticism to those perspectives. It makes Aristocracy cute and helpless. Betas talk about their bling and Deltas..well...Deltas give you vegetables. Sorry guys. Sometimes you really suck.

---

Paraphrased version for the time-poor:

Hi,

Turn off your brain and FEEL my post. Let my words wash over you like a wave.

I eat shrubs.

Bear with me. I'm struggling to communicate..

EVERYONE SHOULD LEARN IN THE MANNER THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

You all suck.

no lol not at all :reallymad:

:? What did I get wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Paraphrased version for the time-poor:

Hi,

Turn off your brain and FEEL my post. Let my words wash over you like a wave.

I eat shrubs.

Bear with me. I'm struggling to communicate..

EVERYONE SHOULD LEARN IN THE MANNER THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

You all suck.

---

ahaha yes perfect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

:? What did I get wrong?

---

The effort. The intention. The actual insight. It's like everything I'm going to share is going to look bad. It's why it's hard for me here, because I want to post, and I want to share my insight, about Socionics and things, but I can't do it in certain ways, because I'm going to look pompous or constipated or contradictory or silly or to invested or emotional or people are going to say something like "I eat shrubs" lol. I mean I can laugh with you, because your reply was funny, but I just feel like by accepting your premises sort of contained within your reply, what I say is sort of being disvalued. And it's like well, if it takes so much effort to gather my thoughts, and if my intentions were for communication, and they're met with random bullshit, and seeming misunderstanding or exasperation..then, I don't know. I'll probably talk to the people for whom my observations and way of speaking make sense. I can be a pretty easy target for making fun because the way I say things is so apparently easy to ridicule. But I've found a few people don't do that, and it's a relief. It's like no matter what I do I get the feeling I'm screwed, like if I type too much I'm blowing something up out of nothing, or being pompous or talking too much, and if I just laugh and don't reply then it's because I don't know about the subject or I haven't thought about it..you know I really dislike being terse. I really fucking hate being terse. It's exhausting. But I dislike the alternative too, so I feel like I'm sort of driven to it. I have the feeling I'm sort of digging myself a hole here, so I might as well, I don't know, be myself I guess? I've really spent a lot of time trying to understand people and communicate differently and look, a thousand paragraphs and it goes fucking nowhere lol. I've tried coherant condensation and it just eats my brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

The effort. The intention. The actual insight. It's like everything I'm going to share is going to look bad. It's why it's hard for me here, because I want to post, and I want to share my insight, about Socionics and things, but I can't do it in certain ways, because I'm going to look pompous or constipated or contradictory or silly or to invested or emotional or people are going to say something like "I eat shrubs" lol. I mean I can laugh with you, because your reply was funny, but I just feel like by accepting your premises sort of contained within your reply, what I say is sort of being disvalued. And it's like well, if it takes so much effort to gather my thoughts, and if my intentions were for communication, and they're met with random bullshit, and seeming misunderstanding or exasperation..then, I don't know. I'll probably talk to the people for whom my observations and way of speaking make sense. I can be a pretty easy target for making fun because the way I say things is so apparently easy to ridicule. But I've found a few people don't do that, and it's a relief. It's like no matter what I do I get the feeling I'm screwed, like if I type too much I'm blowing something up out of nothing, or being pompous or talking too much, and if I just laugh and don't reply then it's because I don't know about the subject or I haven't thought about it..you know I really dislike being terse. I really fucking hate being terse. It's exhausting. But I dislike the alternative too, so I feel like I'm sort of driven to it. I have the feeling I'm sort of digging myself a hole here, so I might as well, I don't know, be myself I guess? I've really spent a lot of time trying to understand people and communicate differently and look, a thousand paragraphs and it goes fucking nowhere lol. I've tried coherant condensation and it just eats my brain.

---

lol Sorry.. I was just reacting to a big wall of text that I inexplicably felt the need to understand rather than feel. :-p Hey I'm probably Ti after all.. because I look for the point.. And it was like looking for a needle in a haystack to find a point in that post. :-p Heh.. but yeah.. be yourself by all means. I find myself with the opposite problem.. being too succinct. You and I should combine forces and together terrorise the forum with our native skills. Anyway, please excuse my rudeness. :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

lol Sorry.. I was just reacting to a big wall of text that I inexplicably felt the need to understand rather than feel. :-p Hey I'm probably Ti after all.. because I look for the point.. And it was like looking for a needle in a haystack to find a point in that post. :-p Heh.. but yeah.. be yourself by all means. I find myself with the opposite problem.. being too succinct. You and I should combine forces and together terrorise the forum with our native skills. Anyway, please excuse my rudeness. :love:

---

Mm the point is kind of personal :) I think I sort of trampled all over your objectivity though, and I know Ti valuers dislike that, if you were looking for a needle in the haystack, I was the proverbial bull in the china shop. Thanks for being gracious, it's nice.

Wow, I extremely appreciate your post dolphin :love: It was an extremely interesting read particular for the experience of how it felt when I read it... It was very fluid, like flowing down a meandering river that wasn't jarring at all. Almost drug-like, but not in a negative way. I am guilty of what you wrote here, and it did sting because I pride myself for being a good communicator. What was really interesting was your precise description of what the reader would probably be feeling while reading your words, and that you were accurate. I felt rather disarmed, but I decided to read your post a second time in the manner you described to get the entire message. I'm actually going to quote your entire post because I want others to have another change to read it after they've read your original. I really think it should be stickied, there's something everyone can learn from that. I read this while at a friend's house when checking my e-mail, and she's been on her fair share of internet forums, and agreed with me that this was something universal that anyone could benefit from if communicating their ideas and receiving others' was involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

It's why it's hard for me here, because I want to post, and I want to share my insight, about Socionics and things, but I can't do it in certain ways, because I'm going to look pompous or constipated or contradictory or silly or to invested or emotional or people are going to say something like "I eat shrubs" lol. [...] And it's like well, if it takes so much effort to gather my thoughts, and if my intentions were for communication, and they're met with random bullshit, and seeming misunderstanding or exasperation..then, I don't know. [...] I can be a pretty easy target for making fun because the way I say things is so apparently easy to ridicule. [...] It's like no matter what I do I get the feeling I'm screwed, like if I type too much I'm blowing something up out of nothing, or being pompous or talking too much, and if I just laugh and don't reply then it's because I don't know about the subject or I haven't thought about it..you know I really dislike being terse. I really fucking hate being terse. It's exhausting. But I dislike the alternative too, so I feel like I'm sort of driven to it. I have the feeling I'm sort of digging myself a hole here, so I might as well, I don't know, be myself I guess? I've really spent a lot of time trying to understand people and communicate differently and look, a thousand paragraphs and it goes fucking nowhere lol. I've tried coherant condensation and it just eats my brain.

---

This communicates a lot of what I feel; I would say a lot of "serious" posts I make are inherently 'defensive' because I feel like there's an impending backfire that will happen no matter how genuine I am in my cause, and even if I try to express that I mean well, it doesn't seem to matter. This was rather poignant and I guess I'm kinda glad my thread took the twists it needed to to get something like this, it really shows that you put effort in and that you are really trying to get a message past the BS that typically goes on. I'm going to further reflect on this and see how I could apply it to further acts of communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

Hi Silverchris!..wasn't sure if this was going to be considered off topic, so if it is perhaps a mod can move it, but I kind of thought it might be related to Fi, and if it's Gamma, perhaps you could excuse me, perhaps I could slide by on the Fi aspect, so fwiw..

I've been thinking about this concept of learning, or something in the realm of that, and it has to do with..just not learning in any linear, traceable sort of fashion. But perhaps before I start I just want to say that, reading this thread, I have the desire to ask people, perhaps like Silverchris, who took the time to communicate so extensively outside of his original preferences, I would like to say that I don't think I'm coming from the connected structured sort of viewpoint you might expected as a Ti/Fe valuer, so I think I want you to come into what I'm saying here automatically biased, or automatically on the sort of "defensive" or what have you. I don't want you to attribute your own quadra motives to my writing. I mean, after all of reading this thread and learning a lot about how people communicate, if there's one thing I don't wish you would do, it's that you misunderstand me here. So I ask that you please put your preconceptions on hold and do whatever it takes to do that. And I ask you to consider that it's actually quite easy...just put away what you think, put away what you know about the world. Just be in my words, and if you can't follow them, read them aloud, sometimes they make more sense that way. I ask that you be involved in my writing, and don't structure anything in your mind just yet, you can do that afterwards, but for now, for the purpose of understanding..

So it has to do with learning..communicating, learning, communicating learning. And I feel like, if I can make some sort of vague blanket statement here, it's that the Aristocratic quadras in my life have approached learning as this, as if you can't really escape the objectivity of it. It just seems inherent in their worldviews and if little pieces in their psyche broke away and considered the possibility of learning being a different way, it would be impossible or at least very hard for them..it makes them very weak because it feels like when they attempt it (which I have hardly ever seen them try to do) they are trying to speak on a subject they know very little about..

I don't know why I feel what I feel..I don't pretend to understand it perfectly..but the world is inherently chaotic. Just set aside perhaps your convictions that you may be having right now and the arguments you might be setting up in your head to justify to me that the world is indeed not chaotic, and everything has its order. "There are rules," says Neil Gaiman. "There are always rules."

Or something of the sort. I could actually go and look that up, the exact words, but I feel I would miss out and this expansive mindset that comes out of nowhere, I feel that would be stunted, like the kind of happening in which you stick something into a moving machinery, can't remember the phrase..so in this mindset, in the one that I know, I push aside that inconsistency because the meaning in this instance, that's what I'm trying to communicate. And it takes a sort of vunerability because you have to trust that the people which whom you are communicating are not going to jump on that perhaps logical inconsistency. Or perhaps they'll consider you a liar or redefine your motives because they can't seem to make a connection, after so many times, after so many years, that a person's subjective state is worth bearing, or considering, after the years, after the sacrifice, after moments when..

Ok so, I didn't want to get too vague here..I feel I've started to make rules about the universe in my own way, not because I believe there's any one way people function, or perhaps it's what I don't WANT to believe but have sort of been forced into for efficiency's sake. When I describe events, examples, I feel you're going to redefine them, perhaps in your own mind, perhaps for efficiency's sake of your own thought processes. That's...what happens. That's part of the crux of this Socionics bullshit.

But..I don't want you to redefine them. I just want you to, feel what I feel. For one second. For two. That's how you understand me, to feel what I feel. Now when you bring what you THINK into it, I can start troubleshooting for that. I could be lazy, or whimsical, inconsistent, troublesome..and adjust for that. It's painful, but it's what I'm used to. Because I love appreciation. I crave it. More than anything in the world, I want to be wanted. And adhering to these sort of objective standards can gain one recognition. It's not the idea sort of recognition, but it's approval all the same; I can't get pork so I eat shrubs, etc.

Now I just want to say, if it hasn't occurred to you, if you're in an Aristocratic quadra, (and I don't mean to project, if you don't think like this, and yes I could be completely wrong), that learning isn't all pain. Now, in my observation, the Aristocratic quadras come from different formulations, but in the end, you are left with relatively the same idea. In Beta, you're coming from the objective mindset, where things are externally correlated into general mostly unbreakable rules and theories and whatnot about humanity and ideas and how they work, etc. And most simply, that is pain to a Fi/Te valuer. Yes, I've tried to mold myself to that mindset, to trace the linear correlations with my fingertips, to apply those standards to my own life, to people, to ideas. And yes, it doesn't help. There is no fundemental belief to those things, and my motives are not being stubborn because I simply won't admit that these things are true. As if I actually believed in them and was just refusing to do so. There is just that, some things cause pain, and some things cause pleasure, or the feeling of rightness, and I don't know why.

Now, I am aware that that thought subjectively didn't iron itself it out, or finish satisfactorily. So if you are still here with me as a reader, I would ask you to refrain from categorizing these things in your mind just yet.

Feel the dissonance that causes you.

Of being in some following thought, and then it cuts off.

Don't try to tuck it away in a structure.

Just feel how it sort of reverberates in your chest as a slightly sick feeling.

Now, observe how I'm not going to take that out on anyone. I'm not going to emotionally barb them, or throw a fit, or say I'm crazy because of it. Before you get too caught up in the feeling of anxiety from how to deal with holding this dissonance, re-examine the circumstances.

What is there to blame? My intentions were good, my thoughts were following, I was trying very hard to communicate this thing..

And then suddenly it cuts off.

Now is that something to blame? To re-examine? There's an issue in my life I'm not addressing, I'm an evil person, I'm hiding shit?

Now if you're Fe/Ti, you should keep in mind that Fi/Te already have their own high standards. And that their instinctual examination of their motives and the rightness of their choices and what happens is already going to weigh heavily on them. And it seems that you don't see that process because they don't express it so externally. I'm not saying that you don't have a corresponding perception. I'm just saying, if you're in this perception right now, this is how it can be, and it's valid.

But anyway, with Betas, there is this appeal to objectivity. Don't try to redefine objectivity or hold me to something that I'm not saying, I know it's probably a shitty or cursory phrase that's not completely perfect. I'm going to share a more personal example so I hope I don't regret it or that you attack me for it. And I realize that there are perhaps different reasons instead of the one I'm referring to for this phenomenon. (But I don't believe that there are different reasons. No one, no one, has been able to give a better explanation. So I keep my own. And passing lines of "it's not that way" are not going to be convincing.)

He talks about life..well, he's my brother. And he sits with me in the car, and says objectively innocuous things about...about living. I don't actually remember all the exact phrases, it took me so much mental concentration just to bear it. Parents are parents. Don't be too hard on them. An education is beneficial. I don't know what I'm going to do but I'm just going to do it! I'm just going to go for it, whether or not I like it. I'll learn to like it. There are objective things you have to adjust for in the world. Learning is pain. He was looking for a girlfriend. You know sometimes girls learn to like someone after they go out with someone for a while. You don't have to like them from the beginning.

Now...I find it hard to argue with my brother. It makes me sort of physically sick. Because every time I just say what I feel, I get, "Are you ok?" Well yes, I am actually ok. Just because I'm crying doesn't mean I'm a blubbering nutcase or that I need sympathy. What I actually WANT is understanding, like a state of non judgment. In the back of my mind my life has happened to fall into some objective patterns perhaps, about work or growth or pain, but I ignore those patterns, because they had no bearing on my experience, or perception. They had nothing to do with how I acted, or my choices. They were irrelevant. I don't want someone else to pour my life like a vat of hot wax into a fucking mold that I didn't choose.

Now perhaps you thought I cried, because I referred to crying, but the fact is I didn't cry. I was sort of a zombie, from bearing all the emotional states seemingly deadpan, but I didn't cry.

Now they say this stuff. This stuff about family. Blood is thicker than water. Kinship. Family. Family. And it echoes in my head. Because none of it is true.

I don't feel ultimate kinship for my brother. Or my family. I'm always repressing my emotions with them. I don't think it can be another away. It..doesn't work. It doesn't work to connect with them, and that's a fact. They don't work. I mean, we don't work. As people. We don't connect. I wouldn't have chosen them, if they were in a crowd. They're not my people. I love them in my own way, but ultimately we're so different. Ultimately, I leave their presence, and I'm lost, sick, and confused. Family is family? But my feelings..say otherwise.

Now you can have a lot of silly ultimatums to throw at me. Like things will get better with time. Or everyone goes through this stuff. Or parents are parents. More of the same. And I'm not discounting your experience..I mean I don't want to. But there is something like, if acknowledging your experience is going to end up causing me pain, then I'm going to have to say no, and set some boundaries..

My brother is always going to be convinced of his objective theories about life. And we're always going to sit there, metaphorically, not connecting.

Communicating with Betas is like, sometimes you have to set the sort of fierceness of your opinions aside to communicate, and then you actually agree on a lot of the same things. But still, that underlying fierceness can't be ignored forever.

The way Deltas are different than Betas is how they come to the same conclusion despite sort of different methods. Deltas believe in feelings to some extent. To feelings trumping objectivity. Deltas start with feelings, and acknowledging them, and dislike/attraction/repulsion for the sake of those, and not objectifying them..Deltas seem merciful at first. And they are, always merciful. They are, always sort of a landing pad of peace in ways. But the way Deltas operate is that, they must take those perceptions and harness them in a peaceful way for the good of society. They basically perceive that society is going to fall apart if those feelings are...made anything of. If conclusions are drawn from them. They have a stalwartness. They seem to me to be perpetually struggling because they don't think that strong bold actions to change things based on those feelings have merit. They don't even think in terms of strong bold actions or anything. Deltas are harder for me to describe coherently at this point so I think I'm going to hold off a bit..

But it's like...you give the Aristocratic quadras a piece of learning. And they have a lot of opinions on it. But it helped for me to, learn away from anyone, by myself. Maybe you'll think this is a stupid example, but I read Silverchris' paragraph about his brother, and I thought to what I had been thinking of before this, of how I was given a stock list at work. And perhaps I could've accomplished it in an objectively better manner. Matched things and drew lines between their properties. But I just wanted to be left to myself, to do things my way, by feeling, without any apparent rhyme or reason. Without that sort of weight, I'm so...energetic. And enthusiastic. And I get things done very fast. And it doesn't end up mattering if I follow some predefined organization. I can run off my enthusiasm in a rather aggressive manner, and it's very effective. If someone chimed in with approval at seeing my enthusiasm and good intentions, it's even more of a good effect and I end up being able to work tirelessly. Approval is 100000x more effective for me than criticism. No matter what is learned through pain based methods, I end up not needing them because I already possess an internal mechanism for a shitload of pain and internal beratement if I do something that might be "wrong". So it's like the extra external judgment and criticism isn't necessary. I take my mistakes very hard. And I know to other people it looks like I'm ignoring them. And it feels like they don't know me and I can't really talk to them or communicate with them, that it would be pointless, because if I can pretend to not care about my mistakes and they really believe that, well then. I used to try a lot to get people like that to understand, but now perhaps I've become a bit more uncaring about that effect. Feelings can't be forced. People just have to end up believing what they will.

I feel that the way I've learned belongs to me, and certain types of external structure don't have any bearing on it. And I dislike it when people try to impose that. It's like in Silverchris' example, he conceded in this weird way that yes, it could be productive according to certain goals by utilizing this apparently non-superior way of learning. And if I react completely unrestraint-edly, I'd feel like, how arrogant is that. How arrogant of Silverchris. Or how silly. Like if it really is about goals and if you really want to get someone to do something you want, silly Beta, if you want him to stop chaffing at your bit and become your tireless supporter, try using positive reinforcement instead. Try some mute, dumb, unconditional approval and see where that gets you in his graces. lol. Goals. Like goals. It's all about getting to the top of the pile of bodies. Maybe he can't help the way he learns, like maybe it is possible that it's all true, what he's saying, and that's just the way things are. Maybe the semantics are all meaningless, and the lines you're drawing for goals don't matter. Like conflating the "holy" experience of audio learning vs reading. Like, holy, sacred, blah blah blah. But what is there to appeal to besides that sort of ohmigoddeathandsatansdentalcanals way of thinking. Betas make fun of themselves ironically and emo-ly sometimes, using all their double meanings to convey their angst, because they're distressed over the fact that they're this way and can't help it, and they're happy about their distress, and they're morbid about their happiness, and they're gleeful about their morbidity, and it's like describing their states makes their little heads explode. But anyway, I thought of the general concept of what Ann said somewhere in this thread, about making things more involved to facilitate understanding..this is called double involvement you N little mofos.

Oh I forgot to mention something I thought about learning...it's like when you just sort of let the weight of non-objective learning sink in, and just kind of feel it without attaching judgments to it. Aristocratic quadras scurry around..it seems not possible for them to talk about theoretical perspectives without attaching this "the world is going to explode" sort of fanaticism to those perspectives. It makes Aristocracy cute and helpless. Betas talk about their bling and Deltas..well...Deltas give you vegetables. Sorry guys. Sometimes you really suck.

---

Well, I don't really know how to respond to your post as a whole... or maybe I do but I just don't want to. But I thought this part was totally true, and, imo, elucidative of socionics conflict at the basic level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

But there is something like, if acknowledging your experience is going to end up causing me pain, then I'm going to have to say no, and set some boundaries.

---

There are some things that are true that you just can't believe in because, well, you have to make sense of the world somehow, you can't just deal with experience raw, no matter how much you think you want to, and if believing something or behaving in a certain way or letting yourself feel a certain way is going to break your way of seeing things you just can't let that happen, because it is like dying, it's exactly like dying. Losing your religion is like dying---that's the meaning of "I Felt a Funeral" by Emily Dickinson, and that's something I really like and I really firmly believe in it. And maybe that's a very "Ti" way of stating that but it's also very personal to me, and personal enough that I feel uncomfortable applying Jung/Augusta's label to it because no one wants to affix a label to their souls, at least not somebody else's label. Or maybe that's just me. Maybe the "Fi" way is more about "causing pain" than ruining somebody's system for understanding the world, but I think those two things are really the same thing, the same fundamental experience looked at from two different perspectives.

Also, you ask more than you think you're asking when you say, "turn off one side of your brain and see through my eyes." Or at least you're asking a lot, even if you know how much.

You what really bothers me? And it probably "shouldn't" bother me, but if everyone's being honest and sharing, what really bothers me is that you asked me to look at things your way. I don't mind it when people make me look at things their way, that's called persuasion, and I like persuasion. Persuasion is the basis of poetry. But to just nakedly ask? Not to be mean, but then it just feels like you didn't earn it, like you want me to give up my privilaged place as decider of what makes sense and what doesn't without even working at it, just as an act of "decency" or something, not even as an act of kindness that I could get charity points for, just somehow as one of the basic obligations of being a person, and you could say it's out of "love" or "charity" but I don't understand a universal charity that comes without emotion; and so I prefer to be charitable according to the laws (i.e., Ti). Ti morality is charity according to the law.

Quote:

---

So I ask that you please put your preconceptions on hold and do whatever it takes to do that. And I ask you to consider that it's actually quite easy...just put away what you think, put away what you know about the world. Just be in my words, and if you can't follow them, read them aloud, sometimes they make more sense that way. I ask that you be involved in my writing, and don't structure anything in your mind just yet, you can do that afterwards, but for now, for the purpose of understanding..

---

This is a lot to ask of a person. What am I except my mind? And you're asking me to put away my mind? So you want me to put away myself? Then what am I? I can't do that, it's too much work. How am I supposed to not react to things as they happen? I have to do that, because I have to defend my sovereignty over my own mind. It's like, I've always had a very selective, very small list of people who's opinions I care about, because to care about someone's opinion is to give them a large measure of power over you, and even greater, power over what you think, and therefore over who you are. And to not give things structure, to not interpret them as I read them, is to give people power over what I think. That's actually what Harold Bloom is talking about when he talks about the Anxiety of Influence, because in the act of reading if you're not interpreting constantly, if you're not on the defensive, then you'll just believe what someone else says, and what you read, what you understand, what you believe, becomes part of you. It sketches your "internal images" in pencil, and then starts to shade and then ink them like comic book characters. And god, dolphin, I think you're nice, but I don't want you defining me, not even part of me. Which is why I read on the defensive. I don't know that that's type related. It's related to having absorbed too much Harold Bloom at a (spiritually) young age, and as such having my "internal images" turn his colors. Which is a tremendous sense of freedom, certainly, but you want to at least be choosy about who colors in crayon on your spirit, and you want them to work for it a little, like a lover.

Quote:

---

I just feel like by accepting your premises sort of contained within your reply, what I say is sort of being disvalued. And it's like well, if it takes so much effort to gather my thoughts, and if my intentions were for communication, and they're met with random bullshit, and seeming misunderstanding or exasperation..then, I don't know.

---

I get that, and I think you're 100% right about that first part, by accepting the premises, making the handshake agreeing that you're even speaking the same lanaguage, in the same act that makes the communication intelligible to you, you are accepting premises, basic underlying agreements of communication that disvalue your way of seeing things. And you want to see your efforts reap a harvest I get that. But again, look at what your asking. Maybe it's not as dramatic as I made it seem up there, but it's pretty damn dramatic, at least for me, because I live on jealously guarding what I let get into my soul. Like Seryohza:

"He was nine years old, he was a child; but he knew his own soul, it was dear to him, he protected it as the eyelid protects the eye, and did not let anyone into his soul without the key of love." (Anna Karenina)

I can't just let my guard down, not when without my wall of mental defenses, I'll just believe whatever people choose to tell me. I can't let something else change the only thing that is precious to me, which is either my soul (if you're being lofty and think betas/I are/am cool), or myself (if you're being reductive and think betas/I are/am selfish and bad). And maybe reading your post without my guard up wouldn't change my soul or anything, but there are many things that would, and not just Shakespeare (who I've been reading lately), but my parents and my siblings and the people around me, especially those who judge me on a moral basis, not in the nice way I like (hey, here's the standard, you didn't live up to it, fix it), but in the "how do you think that made Bob or Suzy or Laura or Stephen or me feel?" way, which I hate. If I didn't protect myself, every time my mother started crying, I would think that she was absolutely right and start changing to better suit whatever it is that I'm supposed to suit better. But that's a shitty way to individuation, and you have to individuate before you can fulfill yourself (or "actualize" yourself). I've always thought, "there's more of me, somewhere, than I could be having, right now" and that's egotistical of me or whatever, but I like being inside my own mind and I wish I had the fullness thereof, and I can't get there if I let everything into my soul. The stoics thought this way too--a man should only let "cognitive impressions" into his soul, only things that were true. It's a very Aristocratic philosophy, as you were describing Aristocracy, dolphin.

Also also, nobody wants to feel like a jackass. And a lot of the time, "Fi/Te" people make betas (me) feel like jackasses. Mattie's post made me feel like a jackass. Your post made me feel like a jackass. My little brother made me feel like a jackass. So we (I) respond with lots of logical justification and "proof" that we're not jackasses, which we aren't (I'm not), but that's a really deep self you're impinging on, even unintentionally. If I thought I were a jackass for real, I dunno, I'd have to stop and reorient myself, more so than I'm really willing to do right now. (I'm willing to do it in poetry because "words alone are certain good" and so even when the world is crumbling all around you, you can trust that your words mean something, or at least that they have some structure, form, or value, something. So in that case words are like a safety net for me, and I'm not interested in breaking myself into pieces and pulling a phoenix afterwards.) So maybe in that case you can understand why I'd need to protect myself by "proving" I did nothing wrong, or nothing seriously wrong. I've been doing that all my life, since I was too small to know that I was doing it and then some. Because I feel a sort of emotional kinship with whatever you say, if it makes you feel bad, I can feel that you feel bad and there is an unassailable logic to emotion.

It's also like that whole mosque at ground zero thing. You can protest until you're blue in the face that to allow the mosque shows that we as Americans are truly dedicated to our highest values of religious tolerance and respect for others and freedom of religion and so on and so forth. But then you have to watch a widow from 9/11 cry about it and essentially say it hurts her feelings and all of a sudden you think you're wrong, even though nobody provided any argument. And you don't want to doubt yourself. I don't want to doubt myself; I want to be reasonably certain, when I can be, that what is proven to be right is right, regardless of what people feel about it. But then you put a widow on TV and have her say it hurts her feelings and offends her and every time she walks past it, it makes her feel her husband's death all over again or whatever (I can't put Fi rationale into any coherent representation), and your logic evaporates and you aren't sure about it after all, all over again. I know that's rambly, but if the goal is mutual understanding, maybe it gives you a better idea of why some people are the way they/we are.

I guess I get the impulse to want to speak without... worrying about the words you use, as if words were nothing more than a bucket to carry the thing that's in your head at that moment. That makes sense to me. But so does the impulse to use words as an aid to thought.

Anyway, dolphin, I'm glad you posted that. I'm not glad that you called me arrogant :reallymad:, but I'm glad you posted it, lol.