Printable View
Could someone please explain the difference between :Fi: creative and :Fe: creative in a coherent, organized way devoid of bias and stereotypes? :S Please? A compare/contrast chart..something applicable and identifiable in real life and real people? Just the main points...not how the functions manifest? I need to get this down pat, hehe. Please..
Creative fi = the ability to deal with people (with friends, with co-workers, with clients...), the ability to create/evaluate/modify links between people
Creative fe = the ability to alter the emotional state of people (via words, hugs or even pieces of art, painting, music, etc)
I would think Fe/Fi leads would walk around living life in a state that is constantly aware of Smoke/Lasers without even thinking about it.
I would think Fe/Fi creative types would generally just view the smoke/lasers as something they can change or manipulate in some way.
So, essentially, the leading types would just naturally interact with it and the creative ones would be aware of it but only try to affect it when they want to.
But my explanation is too simplistic to be factually correct.
Thanks so much guys. I've read the smoke/laser thing before, but..ehh.
So in what different way would :Fi: creative and :Fe: creative change/manipulate it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JWC3
Well assuming the smoke/lasers represent prefered method of emotional expression, and color represents mood they would exhibit some ability to change the color or thinkness/intensity of the smoke/lasers.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenryrr
I suppose red could represent anger and blue calm and so on and so fourth if you've taken an art class or something it would be similar to that.
If it helps you could think of the smoke/lasers in terms of who is affected by them. Smoke affects everyone who breaths it in while lasers affect only who they are directed at.
If this doesn't help, I'm more than willing to try and make this clear.
Perhaps another example.
Consider if you will that each quadrant represents a different animal. Theres a bear, a badger, a couger, and a squirrel. The squirrel best functions around the badger but is often intimidated by the bear. The bear has mutual respect for the cougar and the cougar despises the badger. In a nutshell this is socionics. If your interested in further exploration I invite you to cosider the subdivision of said animals FOR INSTANCE bears can be divided into black bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, and elusive but still docile panda bear.
Squirrels on the other hand have only two subdivisions: Gray and Flying. Badgers are stubborn and can not be divided any more and cougars can best be categorized as Mountain dwelling or Courtney Cox i.e. Cougar Town.
I have some time, so I'd like to know if this helps you at all or if you think I'm misunderstanding something. The way I understand it is by first breaking everything down into conceptual parts and explaining it from there:
introversion/extroversion: introverts have the world impact them and extroverts impact the world (keep reading, it'll become clearer).
Function Duality: Involves repression and Fi-Te are related together through it; same with Ti-Fe (keep reading, it'll become clearer).
How are static and dynamic different from each other?
dynamic introversion: perceives where things are going and adjusts to the world.
dynamic extroversion: takes a perception of where things are going and adjusts the world.
static introversion: formulates an understanding of how things occur, in order to have and decide upon scenarios.
static extroversion: takes a scenario and goes after fulfilling it.
How are static and dynamic related to each other?
Function Polarities - Si<->Se, Ni<->Ne, Ti<->Te, Fi<->Fedynamic introversion can contradict static extroversion: the dynamic introvert might express how a scenario fails to succeed.
static extroversion can contradict dynamic introversion: the static extrovert might express how a failed scenario can succeed.
dynamic extroversion can contradict static introversion: the dynamic extrovert might express how scenarios about the world are inaccurate, useless, and/or unnecessary.
static introversion can contradict dynamic extroversion: the static introvert might express how adjusting the world leads to poor outcomes.
Function Dualities and Their Repression - Ti<->Fe, Fi<->Te, Ne<->Si, Se<->NiSimilar to the Function Polarities, Function Dualities (Ti<->Fe, Fi<->Te, Ne<->Si, Se<->Ni) create the same conflict of the Function Polarities, but are metaphysically internalized here in a person, causing a repressive conflict specific and unique to that person. Since these relate by forms of repression, the opposite function in another person is capable of recognizing and alleviating the problems of that repression, potentially relieving the repressive conflict at times or altogether.
Ti vs Fi (Function Ideality):
How are they the same?
Ti and Fi both take a situation and determine various scenarios that could occur in order to choose between those scenarios.
How are they different?
Ti is related to logos in that it has no sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Fi is related to pathos in that it has sentiment to the world that it analyzes. Both analyze and both use logic, albeit the logic of Fi tends not to be as rigorous as Ti, perhaps because humanity makes the mistake in thinking impersonal logic is the only true, greatly preferred, or correct form of logic to be used. But Fi focuses on the personal aspects of how people affect one another and the Fi user, whereas Ti focuses on the impersonal aspects of how people affect one another and the Ti user.
Function Non-Ideality
More realistically, Ti and Fi both relate to Fe and Te through repression. But I do think it's still appropriate to single them out from their repressed unconscious, since that doesn't change their metaphysical form, but relates mainly to their motivation.
Fe vs Te (Function Ideality):
How are they the same?
Fe and Te both take a perception of where things are going and use that to adjust the world.
How are they different?
Te is related to logos in that it has no intention of adjusting the sentiment of other people, but the impersonal nature of the world. Fe is related to pathos in that it has intention of adjusting the sentiment of other people, but does not care for adjusting the impersonal nature of the world. So Fe aims to sway or mold the personal sentiments of other people and Te aims to sway or mold the impersonal nature of the world.
Function Non-Ideality
Again, more realistically, Te and Fe both relate to Fi and Ti through repression. But I do think it's still appropriate to single them out from their repressed unconscious, since that doesn't change their metaphysical form, but relates mainly to their motivation.
Putting it together
So, from this, we see that Fi and Fe are a bit different in that Fe has a perception of where things are going in the world (dynamic introversion) and aims to adjust the sentiments of others from that, while Fi is concerned with analyzing (producing and sifting scenarios of) the personal aspects of how people affect one another and then aims on fulfilling a particular scenario (static extroversion). And from the Function Polarities, we see that Fi and Fe can contradict each other in two different people. From Function Dualities, we see that Fi has a metaphysical conflict with Te within the same person, while Fe has a metaphysical conflict with Ti within the same person; and that an Fi user with a Te user does not produce a theoretical contradiction between them, as well as with an Fe and Ti user.
gambit: you messed up some things. Here's a table of the IEs:
IE --- Bodies/Fields --- Dynamic/Static --- External/Internal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fi --- Fields -------------- Static ----------------- Internal
Ti --- Fields -------------- Static ----------------- External
Ni --- Fields -------------- Dynamic ------------ Internal
Si --- Fields -------------- Dynamic ------------ External
Ne --- Bodies ----------- Static ----------------- Internal
Se --- Bodies ----------- Static ----------------- External
Fe --- Bodies ----------- Dynamic ------------- Internal
Te --- Bodies ----------- Dynamic ------------- External
Where Extroverted/Introverted is directly related to Bodies/Fields, they are used interchangeably. E.g. Fe (Extroverted Ethics) is Bodies.
^ Thanks. The dynamic/static dichotomies seem to apply to what I've written, although Bodies/Fields would need to be amended somewhat into the explanations for clarity (I think my concept of scenarios for situations versus seeing where things are going or moving is pretty similar though).
So intuition and feeling are internal, while thinking and sensing are external. I looked it up and found that it's likely to mean implicit/explicit; I guess that makes sense since feelers have to understand other people's emotional qualia, without it being explicitly verbalized or stated; and intuition needs to have an idea of how things are occurring or relate to one another, without being able to prove it with experience, since proving it could make the intuition go from true to false.
What are your thoughts on this dichotomy?
The Fi-creative would be good at manipulating the bond between people, e.g. creating friendships or alternatively, distancing themselves when they dont want to be friends, etc. What I've noticed about myself is that when i'm trying to decide whether i want to be friends with someone or not, i'll bring them very close (figuratively, in a psychological distance sense) to evaluate them. Then if something is amiss (like they seem to take advantage of people or show some dishonesty or something else I dont respect), or if i get the sense they dont want to be friends with me, I'll distance myself accordingly.I think this sort of thing might be why IEEs can be misunderstood by potential romantic partners, because that initial phase where I bring someone close to evaluate them can be misinterpreted as flirting, or being more interested in them than I am. Well, in such a case, I obviously had enough interest to want to get to know them better but decision is definitely not final! Then, once I get to know them and decide they're not who i want to be in a relationship with and distance myself, then i become a Don Juan... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by fenryrr
The Fe-creative would be largely focused on manipulating the emotional atmosphere... Is everyone smiling? if not, that means everyone isnt happy yet, they'll inject some smiles or fun to make things better. Alternatively, say everyone is at a funeral... sooo sad, friend or family member died... I imagine the Fe-creative would be good at making the atmosphere one of proper sadness yet comforting the bereaved and trying to cheer them up. I'm actually not totally sure about this funeral scenario, can an Fe-creative weigh in?
For example, at a funeral, I'm also pretty good at behaving appropriately solemn and respectful, but if others arent i wouldn't necessarily be trying to change that. I'd be appalled at how dishonorable they are being to the memory of the deceased person, and maybe I would glare or something. I guess an Fe-creative would be more talented at actually influencing those jerks into more appropriate behavior?
The matter is more complex - and having many implications - but definitely YES, I agree. Everything that is assumption, presumption or belief, everywhere one has to fill in the dots, that is Internal IE. For instance including in one's plans a promise, or a deal with someone. Another random example is the concepts of "huge", "great", "insignificant" and things like these. Internal information is in no way limited to these examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit
I normally look at this as possessing justification (External) and not possessing justification (Internal). I think implicit and explicit can create confusions due to their multiple sense (just like the "objective/subjective" pair) or simply can tell nothing in some cases, I don't remember why but I remember just that a while ago I encountered issues using it.
There is External information that cannot be verbalized, as a rule of thumb Irrational (Sensing). Identification which IMO is Se, it just "is".
This isn't too bad of a comparison, although I don't think it's fair to say that Fi logic isn't as rigorous than Ti logic. Both are equally as logical in their own rights, they simply go about their analysis in different and incompatible ways. The Fi "logic" resides in how the situation is experienced as opposed to overt mental cognition. It will undoubtedly come across as less logical to Ti/Fe valuers because the results it produces are not based in externally verifiable consistency.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
oh okayQuote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. I just meant that the thinking of Ti seems to encourage predictable complexity, whereas Fi seems to prefer a spontaneous simplicity. I get the sense that Fi absorbs something, maybe a transference, and can feel bogged down with too much of that to deal with. But Ti on the other hand, the more Ti seems to have to work with, the better it is at synthesizing everything into a better kind of perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
Am I stereotyping? It's hard to explain, but I think I'm too logical to communicate it well otherwise; maybe somebody could try to put this into perspective?
Hmm, what you're describing could easily be the Te side of Fi valuing. I do get how Fi can be seen as emotional absorption though, taking the experience of something and meshing it into his/her own personal system. The predictable complexity part could just as easily apply to Fi valuing, but not in the sense of outright cognitive complexity. You seem to be comparing the two along more of a Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi line, which still makes sense given that Te valuing inherently implied Fi, and likewise with Ti and Fe.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit
That makes a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
One thing though that I'm kind of seeing as a problem (that I'm trying to differentiate in some way) is that Fi seems to involve not just the Fi-valuer, but also other people to some metaphysical degree. In a way, Ti is separate and unique to the individual; and it can be pin-pointed as something explicit and separate, given fundamental axioms, that can be applied into an infinite number of contexts. Fi on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything like this; rather because it depends on another to some extent, it can't be pin-pointed, but is implicitly contextual. Maybe rigorous isn't the right word, but then what do you think would be a good way to summarize this difference? I'm out of ideas.
I would say that Fi and Ti are a lot more similar than you're giving them credit. By definition they're both static, field, and rational, so the sorts of routes that each process takes is very similar. What's different is the realm in which they operate, being Internal/External or Involved/Abstracted respectively. They can both be equally as rigorous in what they accept, but Ti processes depend on some sort of external validity for its conclusions to be reached, simply due to it being External. Conversely, Fi being an internal and involved IE doesn't depend on externally-verifiable information in order to operate, instead working on a more internalized, experiential plane. I'd argue that both Ti and Fi are equally as subjective, since any sort of information has to be processed by an individual's senses and cognitive faculties in order to be considered information in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit
It's difficult to really explain what I really mean by "experiential" vs "externally-verifiable," and since my head isn't in the right place for thinking about that sort of thing right now I'll leave it be for a while. If anybody wants to be a dear and dig up some old posts I have on the subject, feel free.
Let's see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
Before I say anything else, in my mind I see conflicting definition between experiential and externally-verifiable, since the experiential is produced from direct, verifiable experience. Would it be better to say 'experimental' over experiential because the experimental doesn't "need" verification? Since you can't answer as I type, I'll assume you're okay with that for now. :biggrin: Experiental seems like it would belong to the irrational functions, where intuition synthesizes unrefined experience (Se/Si) and derives some form of conclusion (Ne/Ni) from it.
Since the functions act as filters that represent their own definitions to the world, it might be a good idea to talk about discrepancies with how we are defining concepts versus type in general.
Case in point, an Fi type might actually use Ti to some reasonable degree and end up confusing the two in conceptual understanding (or vice versa). The problem then isn't with the definitions, but that we have a difference in talking about the type, as it relates to reality in a given person, versus talking about the concepts as filters. The two aspects are separate in this way. Because of this, I should say I don't necessarily agree with prescribing personalities, but do find the functions as filters particularly interesting. All that said,
*TL;DR Marker*
My interpretation of what you wrote was that Fi paired with Te would like to have many options to choose from for a given situation; perhaps because the motivation of its feeling has an experimental aspect to it that works best with having many options on the fly to pick from (Te), rather than one or a few (Ti). Fi wants to choose its options of doing things.
Fe paired with Ti would like to narrow their options for a given situation; perhaps because the motivation of its feeling has an experimental aspect to it that works best when the options are decided (Ti), rather than changing or undecided (Te). Ti wants to choose how things will be done.
Is this a bit better?
I may be phrasing my ideas incorrectly. What I mean to emphasize is the difference between experiential and cognitive information, information that is felt vs thought. Experiential information is probably most easily grasped in the sense of sensory information, the experience of seeing/touching/tasting/etc. Likewise, one can think of cognitive input as so-called "images" that come to one's mind. The primary difference between these two types of information is that experiential information cannot be immediately expressed to a 3rd party, rather it can only be felt by the individual. Try explaining to someone the experience of seeing the color blue, or what the touch of cotton feels like. While you may be able to communicate abstracted chunks of information about the experience, such as the wavelength of the light entering your eyes or the mechanisms behind color vision, doing so will not instantly allow the other person to experience the thing for his or herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit
*As a side note, I don't think it's fair to say that Ne/Ni are at all responsible for forming conclusions by themselves. As irrational IEs, they would be responsible for sheer information input of an abstracted and cognitive nature.*
In the case of S vs. N IEs, you're right in saying that the experience must be produced from something direct and verifiable (unless you're straight-up hallucinating). This would be due to Si and Se both being external and involved IEs. For the F vs T dichotomy though, the experiential aspect lies in an internal frame of reference, that being feelings. In a similar fashion, try explaining to somebody the feeling of jealousy. As far as I can tell, the closest anybody can get to doing so is to either describe a situation in which one may feel jealous, or the visceral autonomic reactions someone may have when feeling it. But again, this knowledge alone doesn't allow someone to instantly internalize and recall the feeling of jealousy.
I haven't combed my way through the details of the rest of your post, so excuse me if I don't get to them.
edited for gayness
There are a LOT of F-types and Fi-users here, and they have to validate their superior intelligence and abilities somehow. It's called bullshitting themselves and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
nothing galen said had anything to do with F types being superior.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
duh. Can ya' explain that again? ;) It's not necessarily superior compared TO anything that I'm speaking of, just in-general, superior intelligence and a lot of F-types and Fi-users here need to validate themselves, I've noticed. Make sense? Alot of people on the net in-general need to believe they are intelligent/logical in order to reinforce their own self-esteem. Their self-image is based on it. Some forums are NT-based, "Oh, NT's are obv the most intelligent and F-types are dumb!", for example. This site seems to be very F-oriented, and more of "Well, F-types are just as intelligent/logical as Ti-users!", for example, and the most popular ideas will be those of that nature/leaning toward that arena, because F-types understand them and want to believe it, and the F-types who are "leading the pack" are understood by other F-types, and it reinforces their self-image and esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
I personally find it strange to describe any F-function as "logical" or even as being involved in Thinking without the T-function involved. But I see functions as in-and-of themselves unless working together to form ideas in a Te/Fi way. So saying "Fi logic" at all, is just strange to me, and yes, it's as-if the people describing it that way need to believe their main or F-function is involved in logical analysis/thinking.
okay, so who is bullshitting...?
i'm not going to speak about Fi as a concept but my own experience is that the frameworks and judgments in my head and the factors i use for decisions are mostly feeling-based. which might leave out important details that somebody else with a more brainyish disposition might catch but IMO(!) has an honesty that gets brushed away when things are rationalized and some more flexibility. i don't really see myself as using "rigorous Fi logic" or whatever and i don't really feel much need to assign "logic" as a major component of the way i usually function because i don't see it as particularly important to be honest.
Where the fuck did you come from? I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Fi creative indicates the individual easily recognizes attachments, feelings between individuals, and held sentiments as well as easily manipulates this sort of information and does so on deliberation. Fe creative indicates recognizing emotional states, moods, and what someone is experiencing on a subjective emotional basis at a given time and manipulates this information quite readily.
Fi creative is more inclined toward dealing with these relational ethics and sentiments than dealing with inner states that can fluctuate while Fe creative is more concerned with reading emotional states and manipulating them.
Example: Fi creative might find it more interesting to try and mediate two people's differences and settle them to promote truthful and harmonious relations. Fe creative might try to dispel tension in a situation and lighten the mood or be one to point out what a person is really feeling despite the person's efforts to mask their true feelings. I also notice Fe creatives might say or do things that play on a person's real feelings in order to bait the person to say something or act in a way that lets their "true colors show" so to speak.
More visible examples include those from the few shows I watch. One is Ellen Morgan from Ellen who often goes out of her way to make two people like each other or to smooth over hard feelings someone feels for her. She is Fi creative. I also commonly cite Okita from the sitcom anime, Gintama for Fe creative and basically using his ability to convey whatever emotion he desires to fuck with other people in line with his sadistic nature. He can tell what they are feeling and thinking and knows what to say and do and how to say it and do it to get the desired reaction and to put people through hell. I'd think of a less sadistic example, but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
the irony :o
I don't really see it in myself as much. I don't consider myself an intellect, even. I don't consider myself super-intelligent or well-versed or extraordinary in that manner, and certainly am not as educated as many. (I don't have enough time for it normally, as I have a business I'm starting, an S.O., and a house to decorate and take care of, and other hobbies.) But I will use it in order to troll others who need it. :lol: I'm sure you're familiar with this approach. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
If someone's bullshitting me telling me about "Fi logic", yea, I'm gonna call bullshit. Feeling functions are not about logic. I've also got my NT/ISTP brothas/sistas to take care of. ;) :lol:
Oh I see, you came to be LSI pretty fast. Good riddance.
Lol, I don't really KNOW what type I am yet. I'm just trying different ones on for size as I learn about them. If you're nice, tho, you can be included in my little inner circle. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Judging by those not very overt hate threads about me, I think you're replying to the wrong person. Wrong number, different other job.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Regarding "Fi-logic". It might be more appropriate to refer to it as 'Fi-reasoning' (or similar).
To deny that Fi types have their own reasoning process is..well...not all that reasonable. :lol:
If you look at the aspects involved, socionics' Fi and Ti have similarities. Mainly those of dealing with the 'static relationships between things, people, and events'. In other words, both Fi and Ti deal with how things relate to other things, people to people, people to things, people to events, events to events, concepts to concepts, etc. Unlike the dynamic fields however, the static fields deal with those relationships which are relatively stable and/or consistent. So yes, both Fi and Ti reason out how these things, people, events, and concepts are connected/related to other things, people, and concepts.
The distinctive differences between Ti and Fi is that Ti makes those connections through a process of abstracting and expliciteness. While Fi makes those connections based on how each item influences the psyche...which is a process of experiencing and impliciteness.
Iow
Ti-reasoning would be along the lines of reasoning out the connections based on what's been made clear and explicit.
Fi-reasoning would be along the lines of reasoning out the connections based on how the psyche was influenced.
Asking the Fi to clarify and make their reasoning more explicit is akin to asking them to Ti their Fi. Such that when it's heard...it's easy to assume that it's based off of Ti processing, rather than a translation attempt.
Being capable of reasoning and making connections between things, people, events, concepts, etc does not equate to being an intellectual.
Hate threads? ??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Supposedly judgments are formed with Fi, and I disagree that it is done through reasoning. Reasoning is the process of forming judgments from facts or premises. Fi forms judgments based on feelings, specifically. Feelings lead to the forming of judgments, which is the basis. So, it's not based on reasoning or facts, but feelings. No, I don't think that Fi-types lack reasoning or logic lol.... I just think that reasoning and logic aren't coming from Fi. It can be argued that judgments are formed based on feelings with Fi, and therefore, reasoning is being used. According to definition, I don't agree with it, tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Consider the instinct subtypes thread. You FELT something to be true, and continued to assert its veracity in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Unfounded belief that you labeled "optimism" was nothing but your own feelings about the subject. You claimed that nobody could understand you because of "Ti" which wasn't Ti at all. You have a belief that you wish to hold, but it doesn't follow an explicit or clear line of thought or reason. Pointing out the errors in the way you were thinking, and how it was neither coherent nor logical was met with nothing but more "nobody understands me" whining. Radio most definitely has a point when he says that you project.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Anyway, if you wish to take issue with the word "reasoning" for how Fi types describe their thinking, at least realize that it is a cause-and-effect, how things are related means of processing, and instead of picking at the semantics, consider the idea that they are attempting to communicate. Anndelise described the difference between Ti and Fi very clearly, and it'd be worth your while to read it without trying to nitpick.
I agree, somewhat. Some of my views in the "instinct types" thread ARE based on Fe, and therefore, aren't based on reasoning. Ti is used with Fe in order to create reasoning and logic, and to argue. Make sense? I picked and chose from the cultural beliefs surrounding me, and it's about that. It's also about granting myself as much freedom as possible, which actually is something that i learned from experience, that i can manipulate my thoughts in order to achieve maximum results and get more of what I want, based on Fe. Yes, the base is of a non-reasoning nature, and Ti is definitely involved there.....Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
No, lol. You're just digging yourself further into a hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Then, what do you think? If it's wrong, tell me why you think it's wrong, Mr. Se. I suppose you think Fe is doing all the reasoning and thinking... hmmm, fancy that. How would I create reasoning and logical arguments without Ti? I guess Fe is doing it, according to you all. All that Fe logic....Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
Okay. You said, "Ti is used with Fe in order to create reasoning and logic, and to argue." Ti doesn't need Fe to argue or for reasoning and logic. And if you are using emotion and your feelings at the expense of logical coherence then Ti isn't involved at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Ok, you misunderstood the statement. It means that in the case we are speaking of in the instincts thread, Ti is used with Fe in order to create arguments. Ti doesn't need Fe to argue, and I never meant to imply that. "Ti IS/was USED WITH" in that particular instance, not "Ti NEEDS." lolol......Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
This is what undeveloped Fi is like. Fi-users feel bad when they violate their values, but they don't know why until they develop Fi.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
According to definition, reasoning is "the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction."Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Reasoning is used to "form conclusions, inferences, or judgments."
Yes, one method of reasoning is to attend to evidence, premises, and proofs. Notice how these are describing attending to explicit information. Notice also that this is what is commonly used when referring to 'logic', more particularly formal logic. Ti might be said to be the explicit grammar of such reasoning.
But that is just one method of reasoning, and not the only method.
Another way of forming conclusions, making decisions, and basing motives for action is by attending to the emotional and psychological impacts that occur or might occur.
Notice that both Fi and Ti are making connections, discovering them, and using them to aid in whatever their intent/interest is. They are just doing so in different ways.
---
Think of it this way. Socionics calls TiNe the analyst, and the NeFi the psychologist. So the 'psychologist' is exploring the emotional and psychological impacts that things, people, events, and concepts might have upon a person. They have to make pretty darned usable connections between these if they are to be successful in helping others deal with these issues. They also have to reason through the info (aka analyze the relationships in the given context).
YET, the NeFi has Ti polr.
Meanwhile, the 'analyst' (who is Ti base), has a difficult time really understanding and reasoning through the emotional and cognitive impacts occuring within a person in a given context...with given implicit relationships between the things, people, events, and concepts of that context...without referencing an explicit set of rules/theories.
Rules and theories which the Fi 'psychologist' doesn't need.
Remove the 'client', so the Ti person only has to deal with the premises and data, and the Ti type can reason through that info. But that doesn't mean that their conclusions will be relevant to actual people and their actual emotional and cognitive impacts.
Meanwhile, the Fi person feels more at home reasoning through the emotional and cognitive impacts occuring, and less at home dealing with abstract relationships between premises and data.
sigh. Like I already said, "if you are using emotion and your feelings at the expense of logical coherence then Ti isn't involved at all." which is what you were doing. There's nothing wrong with arguing based on some belief or feeling that you have about something, but you are in error by calling that "Ti" and trying to imply that you were using Fe in service of Ti is laughable. Yes, I understood your statement, but I'm telling you that if you wish to claim that any part of your argument was actually based on "Ti" you wouldn't need to employ Fe to back it up. It should be able to stand on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Basically, you felt something, and then tried to make it sound like something objective. That's not Ti, and it's not using Fe with Ti, it's just an emotion-based argument. Nothing else.
Did you misspell or missword something here?Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Why did you edit this after the fact? Anyway, you weren't creating any logical arguments. Hopefully that clears things up for you. And I'm female, so not "mr." anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
WHaTtttttt /?Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
This is what I do all the time.
Yea, this is bullshit, and there's so many things wrong with it that I don't have the patience to argue with you. You're missing it. You're forming judgments based on arguments and ideas you don't understand at all. And I don't have what it takes to get you to understand, so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
I ALWAYS edit after the fact lol, usually 3 or 4 times as I make it more true in my mind. I'm an initially-impulsive poster, and usually type up my first post in .0000001 seconds lol, then I might edit for hours after, sporadically as I think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
Not to my knowledge..... do you think so?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by CONFIMED
I see you're playing the "nobody understands me" card again. Well, you're wrong. Everyone understands you just fine. I guess it's some kind of defensive thing, easier on the ego to believe that you're just misunderstood?Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
you edited it after I'd already responded, and added some joking sarcasm that showed you weren't aware of the point I was making. It's okay, just disingenuous. You know, it's all right to admit when you're wrong. Defensiveness doesn't serve you well. Listen to what people are saying, and trying to explain. It's not a criticism of you for someone to try to show you what's wrong in what you've said, and correct it. Acting trollish, trying to make jokes, and proclaiming how misunderstood you are just makes you look foolish, whereas contemplating what someone is trying to tell you, without defensiveness will take you a lot further. You might even find that you no longer have to resort to the "I'm misunderstood!" plea anymore.Quote:
I ALWAYS edit after the fact lol, usually 3 or 4 times as I make it more true in my mind. I'm an initially-impulsive poster, and usually type up my first post in .0000001 seconds lol, then I might edit for hours after, sporadically as I think about it.
I wouldn't have asked, if it had made some kind of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
So you think Fi types feel bad when they violate their values,
But don't know why they feel bad until they develop their Fi,
But would have great difficulty reasoning through why they feel bad,
(Due to their weak Ti,)
Thereby resulting in....undeveloped Fi.
Wouldn't that, then, make them NOT Fi types? :confused2:
That happens too. Sometimes I find things wrong with my own statements too, after others have responded lol.....Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
As for the rest of it, I really don't care.
I don't assume that Fi-types have weak T-functions. And I don't think it necessarily takes a strong T function to develop Fi, although that will make their ideas more sound. I think it just takes finding out what it is they feel bad about in order to form their judgments.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Socionics typology has as one of its basis that F types have strong F, weak T; and T types have strong T, weak F.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Your argument earlier in this thread included saying/suggesting that Fi does not reason. Ti is what does the reasoning.
Figuring out "why" anything, requires reasoning.
Socionics says Fi types have weak Ti (reasoning ability, according to you).
Which, if you were correct, would mean that Fi types couldn't develop their Fi unless they could reason it out (use Ti), but since they have weak Ti (reasoning abilities, according to you) they'd barely be able to develop their Fi.
Now do you understand why I asked if you had misworded something there?
anndelise, I admire your patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
This is why Socionics, MBTI and JCF is more voodoo than it is psychology. It tries to incorporate psychology but can't even get introversion and extraversion right. Those who use it confuse the abstract and the subjective as being intuition and feeling when it is introversion, and confuse the concrete and the objective as being sensation and thinking when it is extraversion. Socionics, just like MBTI and JCF, fails at every aspect because it was based on misconceptions of Jung's Collective Work and is now collective diarrhea.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
It should be treated like a game. That is all.
I don't think I agree with this. It just depends.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Not necessarily. In this case, I think it takes introspection possibly, but not necessarily reasoning. (And notice I wrote, "finding out why", not "figuring out why". :) ) More about discovering, I suppose.....Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
This is a socionics typology forum,Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
In the section of discussions related specifically to socionics,
In a thread specifically asking about socionics Fi and Fe as a socionics function.
I would think that it's fairly safe to assume that the people responding to the OP were talking about socionics.
If you choose to pretend to be talking about socionics theory, but then not really be talking about socionics, then it'll be no surprise when you're "misunderstood". If you wanted to be understood, then I would think that you would clarify that you are not referring to socionics' theory when you answer socionics theory related questions.
It's still a "why" thing, which is answered by "because [insert reason]".Quote:
Not necessarily. In this case, I think it takes introspection possibly, but not necessarily reasoning. (And notice I wrote, "finding out why", not "figuring out why". :) )
It still requires making a connection (including "finding" the relationship) between the value, the situation, and/or their 'feeling bad'.
It still requires making inferences, drawing a conclusion(s), and possibly lead to making a decision relevant to the situation.
In other words...it still requires a reasoning process.
Introspection from free dictionary: The examination of one's thoughts, feelings, impressions. Synonyms include self-examination and self-analysis.
Yep...still requires reasoning of some kind. Not rigid reasoning, not 'intellectualized' reasoning, but still a reasoning process.
-----
Since it has become clear that you are not talking of socionics theory, nor socionics' elements and functions, while that is my focus here, I think it's safe to say that further communications between us on this topic here will likely lead to "misunderstandings".
There are a number of people on this forum who are willing to discuss alternative typologies. Perhaps you would feel less misunderstood in that section of this forum.
Ti -know what they think
Fi -know how I feel
Yea pretty much. I don't know why you get so much flack, except for the reason that you aren't exemplifying the Fi logic attitude lolol........Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Truth is always appreciated. (AND I wish I always knew how I felt.... I have to wait for that time of the month.)
what's the "Fi logic attitude"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
See this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Judgements are formed with all Rational functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Fi-my judgements are based on my emotional reactions to things; I think that movie is good because it makes me or others feel good; what's good and bad is the judgment and once this is made the person can react quickly, making them seem purely a reactive type.
Te-judgments based on facts.
Fe-judgments about their feelings about this world; this is what I think is TRUE and this how it makes me feel; examines facts and makes emotional reactions based on this fact.
Ti-I know this is true
No function decides reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
I see what you're trying to do: You're trying to get to the bottom of a system that is fundamentally shallow. And I can tell you right now: That, it won't work. You're going to bang your head against the wall repeatedly for a couple of years until you realize this. That is, only if you get your hands on Jung's Collective Works and read for yourself how they got it all wrong to begin with. You need to treat Socionics (MBTI and JCF) like spiritual hoodoo and let the people who believe in it judge you.
re: projection. it seems like you're insecure about your own "smartness" so anything or anyone that threatens to bring you down from your ivory tower, you dismiss as "inferior fi logic" or some trash.
the thing is, like squark said, we understand you just fine. what you don't realize is that we don't have anything to prove, but you do. you seem to want to uphold the belief that you are correct, so anything that hinders your path and potentially offers opposition is instantly dismissed as inferior and intellectually incapable of understanding the complexity of your arguments.
dismissing people based on "weak fi" and such is telling of your insecurities, and nothing else. anndelise and squark both have elaborated their positions and made good arguments -- but because taking them seriously would mean discarding your carefully constructed worldview, or picking pieces out such that the entire structure falls apart, you continue to inflate your ego with deluded superiority, so-called "objectivity" and wankery that holds no weight in real life.
[this sort of stubbornness and rigidity is typical of Ij + positivist, for anyone who cares. @octo]
here's a secret: there is no fi or ti. the concept you are so dearly hanging on to, the image of being the "pragmatist" and being "logical" is grandiose bullshit you tell yourself to make you feel superior. likewise, the labels you are so abhor, of being a "feeler", are only really circling back to you in the form of insecurity/anxiety and the ensuing projection.
anyway, i really just wanted to say, you are a dumb fuck and reading your posts makes me rage so i hope a truck runs over you some day.
@Kald
If you treat Socionics as a game then you haven't grasped the theory yet. Being realistic is a much healthier attitude to take.
I understand what you're saying since I'm reluctant to take many definitions in Socionics as seriously as some others. It takes no genius to know that Aushra used many concepts from real life (time, space, etc) and a bit deeper ones from physics and other disciplines (bodies, fields, etc) to convey her understanding. The point most people miss is these concepts do not wholly represent the reality that Socionics tries to model. In fact they seize to be when they become impractical. If you truly understand the theory then you wouldn't need to argue semantics. What the fuck is internal statics of fields? How about sensing? Are these definitions even relevant nowadays?
This isn't to say that Socionics is useless. Forget about relationships. In fact forget about psychology in general. Socionics allows you to analyse almost everything related to or governed by human intellect.
"Why do people follow religions? How did we invent electricity? Why did Europe decide to have one currency?" You haven't asked yourself any of these questions before?
I may not come to any answer after all the research I do on each of those questions and many other. In fact I dig much deeper than that. But I can't deny that Socionics hasn't been a crafty tool that has proved to be relevant to many of my interests. It's an interesting theory.
However, Socionics isn't everything there is to be about human intellect and the moment it seizes to expand my understanding of the world around me I'll leave it behind me.
Directed to the original poster:
Having an ethical creative function in general implies, in my case, that my own pursuits, whether intellectual, recreational, and so on are a top priority. So I may appear detached from the emotional needs of others depending on my mood. However, when I choose to interact with people, it's to improve my standing with others. I really liked the analogy brought up here describing Fi as a laser and Fe as a fog machine. When I choose to interact with people, usually for reasons that I want to make agreement among people, I take zaps at the ties between two people in particular with my hypothetical phasor gun! This is why I usually prefer to be with two other friends as opposed to just one because I can observe the line between person A and B, A-------------B, and insure that the ------------------ is in good condition as a way of supporting my base's selfish motives. Though selfish is a strong word, I'm not necessarily selfish as in willing to hurt other people for my own gain. That's counter to my own moral code unless a person is upsetting me by placing too much demand on me.
Of course, if you have ethics in one direction as a creative function, you will also use the opposite direction of the ethics function which you are capable of doing, but is a so-called "hidden agenda". Do you believe that by manipulating (hopefully in a good way) the ties between individuals that you will create the right atmosphere of fog or by creating or reinforcing the right atmosphere of fog, you will get the right ties between people?
It is pretty much evident to me, for example, that Fi lies in my ego because I need to apologize and resolve conflicts between me and other individuals before I feel like I can have a good social atmosphere. This might not be a good example by the book, but at least that's my way of looking at things...
I think the same thing would apply to intuition. Somebody like hitta claims to be a super intuitive capable of using both Ni and Ne strongly. No kidding! He has the attitude of what I believe to be the foresight and multi-perspective hypothesizing of Ni which he also uses to suggest how the present as is could change as well, but how he goes by doing that doesn't come from observing the potential of objects and ideas stemming from the present world. He mostly talks about paranormal hypotheticals anyway. I, having Ne in the ego also can predict possible future trends and can think about alternate realities and I often enjoy this, but what drives Ni-motivated behavior in me stems from my observations of things I see having potential.
Yes, I'm sulking. Anyway, what is this inner circle. Like the fellowship of the ring or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
You're wrong and I don't have the patience for you. But put it this way: You don't know me. I didn't even read this so don't waste your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
Pretty-much sure at this point. 6w5's can be very doubtful and indecisive.Quote:
Originally Posted by octo
Who said I wasn't discussing socionics? We just disagree on the "reasoning" aspect. It's arguable. No biggie. We all have our interpretations, and many of them don't appear to have anything to do with socionics lol....Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I don't necessarily disagree with socionics but with your interpretation of it. It seems you jumped to a conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Jetson, you don't have to read everyone's post. If what you want is substance, you have to also accept that not all people are here or exist to provide that and not everyone's going to understand you and relate to you. Don't get upset. :)
Thanks. :) I'm not upset. Maybe a little irritated, but not upset. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Wanna go to a graveyard and dig up graves? :hyper:Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
As long you're buying.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
You showed that you were obviously NOT discussing socionics' theory the moment you disagreed that socionics says that F types have strong F, weak T; and T types have strong T, weak F.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
The strong/weak thing is NOT an interpretation. It is a fundamental part of model A.Quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with socionics but with your interpretation of it. It seems you jumped to a conclusion.
According to model A, functions 1, 2, 7, 8 are strong; functions 3, 4, 5, 6 are weak.
If F 1, then F 8, T 3, T 5; switch F/T for T types.
If F 2, then F 7, T 4, T 6; switch F/T for T types.
That is socionics' model A. Not an interpretation.
Why don't you actually read a little about socionics' model A, so you won't blunder quite so badly next time.
From http://socionics.us/theory/model.shtml
Quote:
strong (1, 2, 7, 8): Individual has a confident command and large amount of information of a certain kind and can forcefully influence other people and his surroundings in a certain way.
weak (3, 4, 5, 6): Individual has a weak command and insufficient amount of information of a certain kind and is subject to others' influence in this area.
Ok, thanks. There's a lot of stuff in socionics I think is poorly described and/or I don't agree with in description or interpretation (and it seems biased).:lol: How was I not discussing socionics theory because I disagreed (and I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that socionics said that necessarily; I didn't know whose interpretation that was; I don't know what socionics.us says, although some sites don't describe it that way)? But yea, I definitely don't know the material at this point.... there's a lot to be studied. (They don't seem to describe it that way in Wikisonian, or several other sites I am finding. Not sure what this means yet.....) Not sure if that is written in stone or not. At the end of the day, yes, it's an interpretation, and I'm not sure if I like what it says lol....Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Why do guys these days never want to pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
I'm not paying for corpses. See living dead everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
lol...... K, then. You can pay next time, when we bungee jump from a helicopter. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Ladies first.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetson
Ahh, the good old T/F dichotomy discussion. You know, these happen on just about every typology forum without fail. It doesn't matter if it's Socionics, MBTI, Hersey/Blanchard, etc. etc.
While I admit being biased with jetson as I know jetson IRL, I'm also of similar age/peer/generation group so I think I have the benefit of understanding the communication style and word usages a bit more as well...
That being said, we're on the cusp of the debate right here (from anndelise):
... and ...Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
And there you have it, in bold.Quote:
But that is just one method of reasoning, and not the only method. Another way of forming conclusions, making decisions, and basing motives for action is by attending to the emotional and psychological impacts that occur or might occur.
Traditionally, "reasoning" has not always been popularly considered to be a product of emotional processing, but instead commonly used to refer to a purely intellectual/cognitive processing result.
For example, stating "Bill used reasoning to deduce the best path from point A to point B." would not often be associated with an emotion-based judgement or decision, but instead one of rational/intellectual processing.
But in the example, the best path might have been to avoid his ex-wife's street since driving on that street might cause feelings of anxiety or depression, so the reasoning process was purely based on an emotional process vs. an intellectual process.
It seems more like a generation gap with popular word usage than anything else. I can say clearly that any time someone referred to "reasoning" in the last 40+ years to me, I'd instantly and by default associate that with an intellectual or intellectually cognitive process. A feelings-based or emotional process would not come to mind at any capacity.
If we simply define reasoning to mean a method from which to arrive at judgements (as I believe Marisa suggested), then we define reasoning to also include feeling-based AND intellectual-based process... which in the case of us old-timers seems a bit disingenuous or at least a semi-revisionist (or perhaps progressive) definition of the word "reasoning."
Just my $0.02
I'm going to find you, kill you, eat you and shit you out, Finale, plus you're write way too lengthy posts. Death to LIEs. No offence Ashton, but this one is marked for death.
You know it's a well known fact that LIE's are high in fiber, so if you eat me and shit me out, your colon will be thanking you.
And in English?Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
En boca cerrada, no entran moscas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Ah crap, another weirdo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
Ashton, seriously, keep you sheep in line.
LOL...this belongs in the hall of fame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
So then, if they aren't decisively influenced by the motive of reflection, they are not rational functions...... which, I think I was making the point initially that it appears to be more of a discovery process in some cases than it is a case of reason aiding in creation and understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Which, come on, can we concur that every human being reflects?
Yea, I get it, my maltese reasoned. K.
Just seems so..... subject to interpretation...... obv.
Fe creative is self-absorbed and usually artistic/expressive one way or another; Fi creative is political and almost chameleonic.