The Fe Misconception

[redbaron]

Emotional expression is exertion . I do it very well actually, but it's circumstance-dependent and it's not easy to show on a forum.

We see ****** going into a "spaz", and think it's strong . But it's not, and our very ridicule of him is proof of this. ******'s enthusiastic expressions come off to us as out of control, as though he's having a tantrum. We can look at him and say, "how ever did people find it in their hearts to follow this madman!?" A strong argument may be made that his methods of expression do not show strength at all, but rather weakness and vulnerability.

dominants may very aware of what they and others are enthusiastic about. But there are dominants in existence who are uncomfortable creating emotion in others, therefore the identification of these individuals immediately disproves the overt expression = classical socionics hypothesis.

IM type goes no further than -awareness-. IM information may influence the form of emotional expression BUT IS NOT THE MEANS OF THE EXPRESSION ITSELF. Think about it: sometimes it is better to retrain the expression of one's own enthusiasm, something EIEs do very well.

Okay, I find this very interesting.

[tcaudilllg]

Case in point as regards exertion : I've been told by many people that I tend to "wear my heart on my sleeve", but I'm not often criticized for it. My emotional outbursts are very controlled, even calculated, and I often write to acheive emotional affect. For me to do this effectively must mean that my ability to create emotion in others is very reliable.

[inumbra]

****** was absolutely off his rocker, so of course his behavior indicates weakness... even though I can't fathom why people actually listened to him, people did listen to him... he must have somehow moved them... and that is I would think. Whether that means ****** was an dominant I don't know. He must have been doing something right with Fe since he was able to get people to buy into his insanity... hmm... ???

[redbaron]

I like this:

"sometimes it is better to retrain the expression of one's own enthusiasm"

aye there's the rub. being in control of the direction of one's emotions and emotional energies.

[inumbra]

Case in point as regards exertion : I've been told by many people that I tend to "wear my heart on my sleeve", but I'm not often criticized for it. My emotional outbursts are very controlled, even calculated, and I often write to acheive emotional affect. For me to do this effectively must mean that my ability to create emotion in others is very reliable.

So are you saying this makes you strong in ? Where as someone who frequently "loses it" may actually be weak in it?

[tcaudilllg]

Emotional expression is exertion . I do it very well actually, but it's circumstance-dependent and it's not easy to show on a forum.

We see ****** going into a "spaz", and think it's strong . But it's not, and our very ridicule of him is proof of this. ******'s enthusiastic expressions come off to us as out of control, as though he's having a tantrum. We can look at him and say, "how ever did people find it in their hearts to follow this madman!?" A strong argument may be made that his methods of expression do not show strength at all, but rather weakness and vulnerability.

dominants may very aware of what they and others are enthusiastic about. But there are dominants in existence who are uncomfortable creating emotion in others, therefore the identification of these individuals immediately disproves the overt expression = classical socionics hypothesis.

IM type goes no further than -awareness-. IM information may influence the form of emotional expression BUT IS NOT THE MEANS OF THE EXPRESSION ITSELF. Think about it: sometimes it is better to retrain the expression of one's own enthusiasm, something EIEs do very well.

Okay, I find this very interesting.

It contrasts with exertion , which says that you have to express yourself in very methodic channels. To express yourself effectively, you've got to shut out the "rigor" and instead use "common sense" to communicate. The pool of all strong energy creates a public attitude of common sense perception and shared attitude; thus you have people who rely more on logical argument to get their point across, debating all the little intricacies whatever their type, and others who rely on a sense of "obviousness". When I don't appeal to the obvious, I find myself getting misunderstood.

Interesting point: strong exertion people are often criticized for making "common sense" assumptions, but only by strong people. Einstein himself said that "common sense is the prejudice instilled in people before the age of 16." We all know how weak his emotional expression was.

Strong energy people are more scrupulous about mincing words and getting their grammar right; Strong people are more concerned about making themselves understood given the current situation.

[tcaudilllg]

Case in point as regards exertion : I've been told by many people that I tend to "wear my heart on my sleeve", but I'm not often criticized for it. My emotional outbursts are very controlled, even calculated, and I often write to acheive emotional affect. For me to do this effectively must mean that my ability to create emotion in others is very reliable.

So are you saying this makes you strong in ? Where as someone who frequently "loses it" may actually be weak in it?

Strong with energy. I know how to channel my emotional energy to get a desired effect. There is a difference between being aware of how energy is percieved, and directing one's energy in the first place. You can have one without the other.

Put it this way: I'm clueless as to how my emotional expressions affect you: the point is to communicate with you effectively at that moment, and especially to control your own body language. But beyond the immediate effect I'm oblivious to what's going on inside you: I have to be if I am to consciously attempt to control your expression at all, because you might find that offensive.

I'm not completely clear on how energy creates common sense, but energy is definitely antagonistic to it.

I estimate that fully half the forum has strong energy, so what I'm saying should not come across as completely foreign. I suspect that since energy is created as a byproduct of information metabolism (extending the concept of metabolized energy in bodies and cells to the psyche, which is reasonable), then common sense should has an aspect specific to each of the eight IM elements. It also seems reasonable that the influence of an element should carry over the nature of its function into its energy.

[redbaron]

Strong energy people are more scrupulous about mincing words and getting their grammar right; Strong people are more concerned about making themselves understood given the current situation.

Hmmmm, well that's interesting. I am very scrupulous about getting my grammar right. But that could be habit or something (lit. major in college). I usually have to hold myself back from correcting other people in that regard. I probably am MORE concerned about making myself understood. But only in a situation when I care. There are times that I just don't care whether or not people understand me. They either get me or they don't.

[Megan]

Fe dominants are going to be emotionally expressive, too. The point here though is that they're not the only ones.

Not all Fe dominants are emotionally expressive however.

dominants are very aware of what they and others are enthusiastic about; but there are dominants in existence who are uncomfortable creating emotion in others, therefore the identification of these individuals immediately disproves the overt expression = classical socionics hypothesis.

I agree with this part.

[Joy]

I have a really, really hard time picturing a healthy Fe dominant that didn't feel comfortable creating emotions in others or being emotionally expressive.

[Megan]

I have a really, really hard time picturing a healthy Fe dominant that didn't feel comfortable creating emotions in others or being emotionally expressive.

and I have a really, really hard time believing that all Fe dominants who are healthy are going around trying to create emotions in others or being emotionally expressive in the way some people here think they are. I have not experienced this to be true myself.

[redbaron]

I have a really, really hard time picturing a healthy Fe dominant that didn't feel comfortable creating emotions in others or being emotionally expressive.

and I have a really, really hard time believing that all Fe dominants who are healthy are going around trying to create emotions in others or being emotionally expressive in the way some people here think they are. I have not experienced this to be true myself.

I'm not always comfortable being emotionally expressive. It totally depends on the situation, people, etc. I am beginning to wonder if I have, in the past, attracted male Fe-dominants due to the fact that I initially come across as hard to read and more of a stoic personality (which I absolutely am not, but can appear to be at first).

[Joy]

I have a really, really hard time picturing a healthy Fe dominant that didn't feel comfortable creating emotions in others or being emotionally expressive.

and I have a really, really hard time believing that all Fe dominants who are healthy are going around trying to create emotions in others or being emotionally expressive in the way some people here think they are. I have not experienced this to be true myself.

that's the key

[Joy]

I'll love whoever I want to love, and there's nothing they can say or do about it. It's my decision.

That said, I'm not the type who would fall in love with or stay in love with someone who I didn't feel the same. This is something I have to be certain about. If there's any room for doubt, I will lose interest.

[anndelise]

I'll love whoever I want to love, and there's nothing they can say or do about it. It's my decision.

That said, I'm not the type who would fall in love with or stay in love with someone who I didn't feel the same. This is something I have to be certain about. If there's any room for doubt, I will lose interest.

You made the same mistake I made.

his scenario is:
you feel you love someone
but...they don't feel that you love them

so they say you don't love them
you say you do

edited to add: basically, they don't feel that you are doing anything that would make them feel loved...it could be you don't talk to them, or you don't spend time with them, or you don't touch them like they want to be touched..etc etc etc

[anndelise]

Current thoughts on Fe:

Xi deals with relationships
Xe deals with concepts/objects

F and S are "personalized" (for lack of a better word at the moment)
T and N are "abstract" (separate from the self)

So Fi would deal with personalized relationships between concepts/objects,
Fe would deal with the personalized aspects of concepts/objects.

Fe seems to deal in concepts, such as love, confidence, patriotism, respect, family, etc.
Those are just simple and brief examples of personalized concepts..not the full list, nor the full arena.

Fe and Ti fit well because Ti can give explicit abstract relationships between those concepts/objects
Fe and Ni deal with these personalized concepts, the relationships between the concepts/objects are still abstract (separate from self), however, Ni is still dealing with the implied relationships.
Fe and Si deal with these personalized concepts, however the relationships between the concepts/objects are sensory based and far less abstract.

(Note: this is one idea based on the internal/external (as implicit/explicit), object/relationship, abstract/"personalized" definitions given to N F S T Xi Xe from sites I've previously linked the forum to)