Examples of Fi

[Exodus]

As someone who is currently involved in an internal vs debate as to which one is more dominant in my life, I find this topic to be highly interesting.

In my own case, I feel that the most important thing is to genuinely relate to and mirror the needs of the individual involved. If the person is feeling happy/upbeat, I certainly encourage that. Likewise, if the person is feeling not-so-good/upset/angry etc., I try my best to deeply listen to and provide support for the person at the emotional level that is warranted. My job is not necessarily to lift the spirits of the person involved (although I would certainly be happier if that other person was happy), but rather to provide an open and receptive space where that person and his/her concerns feel deeply heard. My job is not necessarily to cheer a person up if he/she is down. Rather, it is to genuinely meet the person at the level where he/she is. Of course, I wish that better days would happen for the person who feels lousy, but I don't try to pretend that the issue doesn't exist and that the person should automatically cheer up. That does not sound genuine to me, and it doesn't meet the problem head-on either.

Yeah, definitely sounds like you value .

[Blaze]

i stand by my 3 year old posts.

i still see it the same way, and yes mariella is right, it is FiSe....*shiver* ewww.

*runs away*

[mikesilb]

Thank you as well for this feedback! Well appreciated!

Yeah, definitely sounds like you value .

[Exodus]

Thank you as well for this feedback! Well appreciated!

Actually, looking at what you said there is a lot of in there too.

An example of :

Some friends and I are talking about Megan Fox (probably in relation to socionics, actually). An EII happens to be around and says "Oh, I hear a lot of people who have met Megan Fox say she's a real bitch." This is , commenting on someone's character (plus some too because it's based on hearsay).

[Marie84]

Actually, looking at what you said there is a lot of in there too.

An example of :

Some friends and I are talking about Megan Fox (probably in relation to socionics, actually). An EII happens to be around and says "Oh, I hear a lot of people who have met Megan Fox say she's a real bitch." This is , commenting on someone's character (plus some too because it's based on hearsay).

I'm not sure what you mean by Te=hearsay, if anything making judgments on presumptions opposed to factual information is rather anti-Te

[shakealittle]

Well it is weird that Fi is a judgement on someone's character because as a Ti I try to be on my BEST behaviour with them and I can feel like I be as nice as I possibly can (or rather, say little negative/controversial things) and I just get a vibe from them that their judgement is made up almost instantly. AND with Fi types, you could have two people doing the same thing but the Fi will judge them in completely different ways. It feels like Fi people have different rules for everybody based on how much they like them....how they choose who they like...i don't know.
For example, my mum is a ESI. There will be 2 people who don't talk much. My mum can judge one as 'shy/quiet/reserved' and the other as 'elitist/snob' when they are both doing the same thing. I will tell her the one who she thinks is a 'snob' may be just shy and she will come up with some explanation of 'bad behaviour' to justify her reasons.

[Beautiful sky]

Well it is weird that Fi is a judgement on someone's character because as a Ti I try to be on my BEST behaviour with them and I can feel like I be as nice as I possibly can (or rather, say little negative/controversial things) and I just get a vibe from them that their judgement is made up almost instantly. AND with Fi types, you could have two people doing the same thing but the Fi will judge them in completely different ways. It feels like Fi people have different rules for everybody based on how much they like them....how they choose who they like...i don't know.
For example, my mum is a ESI. There will be 2 people who don't talk much. My mum can judge one as 'shy/quiet/reserved' and the other as 'elitist/snob' when they are both doing the same thing. I will tell her the one who she thinks is a 'snob' may be just shy and she will come up with some explanation of 'bad behaviour' to justify her reasons.

Fi is subjective evaluation of everything.

[Suz]

eh, sort of. If someone possesses a strength in one they'll have it in the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can be used simultaneously with the same value.
It becomes even more difficult to do so if the person in question possesses Fe or Fi as a base, since they will naturally ignore one method over the other.
Fi creatives, on the other hand, can easily generate Fe

So I do agree with what you're saying, though it applies more so to IEE's and SEE's than ESI's and EII's. Same applies to Fe creatives, they're better at generating Fi than Fe dominants

Marie I just re-read your post and I think i totally understand what you're saying now. Not sure what was going through my head in my earlier response.

So, what you said makes total sense to me in this regard:

In IEEs and SEEs, Fi is creative, which is a more deliberate function (as opposed to the primary function which is like second nature). So, Fe is going to be generated in service to the creative function in stronger way than in an Fi-primary who is being more deliberate about their own creative function (e.g. EII putting more energy into Ne, with Ni demonstrative in service to the creative).

Is this what you meant?

[Singu]

An example of :

Some friends and I are talking about Megan Fox (probably in relation to socionics, actually). An EII happens to be around and says "Oh, I hear a lot of people who have met Megan Fox say she's a real bitch." This is , commenting on someone's character (plus some too because it's based on hearsay).

You're joking... pretty much anyone could have made a comment like this.

Fi is subjective evaluation of everything.

I think it's better to say that it's the subjective evaluation of relationships, since Fe-Ti has also to do with subjective evaluation of a lot of things.

[Beautiful sky]

You're joking... pretty much anyone could have made a comment like this.



I think it's better to say that it's the subjective evaluation of relationships, since Fe-Ti has also to do with subjective evaluation of a lot of things.

yes

[Mattie]

Fi is subjective evaluation of everything.

I definitely don't agree with this. All Xi IEs are subjective evaluations, and I think = subjective judgment is what creates a really bad stereotype for valuing types around here. Everything Xi is based of an internal notion, information that is attached to the person and can't be directly experienced by anyone else. While you can make an argument for Xe being reliant on one's perception, it isn't dependent on the viewer and everyone can observe Xe information because it is outside of the viewer and dependent on an "object." For example, is an internal notion of equilibrium with other "objects" (people, environment, etc) that can't be detached from the one perceiving it. This is why, even though SiTe are technically "weak" in and , they still have a keen awareness to other people feeling agitated, out of place, or silently at odds with other objects or themselves and can understand how to balance the equilibrium again. as well, while it deals with quantitative information, it is organized and evaluated by an internal understanding of how that it should be, not by some genetic "objective" memory, or else all types would have the same exact internal set-ups. And while there may be jokes of types being robots, they aren't all programed to be automatically and strictly "objective."

[The Greeter]

I definitely don't agree with this. All Xi IEs are subjective evaluations, and I think = subjective judgment is what creates a really bad stereotype for valuing types around here. Everything Xi is based of an internal notion, information that is attached to the person and can't be directly experienced by anyone else. While you can make an argument for Xe being reliant on one's perception, it isn't dependent on the viewer and everyone can observe Xe information because it is outside of the viewer and dependent on an "object". For example, is an internal notion of equilibrium with other "objects" (people, environment, etc) that can't be detached from the one perceiving it. This is why, even though SiTe are technically "weak" in and , they still have a keen awareness to other people feeling agitated, out of place, or silently at odds with other objects or themselves and can understand how to balance the equilibrium again. as well, while it deals with quantitative information, it is organized and evaluated by an internal understanding of how that it should be, not by some genetic "objective" memory, or else all types would have the same exact internal set-ups. And while there may be jokes of types being robots, they aren't all programed to be automatically and strictly "objective."

I agree with this; I think introverted functions are intrinsically subjective. I think it stems from the very nature of "introversion". That is, introversion, socionically speaking, implies fields between objects or subjects, and fields implies connections, and the way an information element connects entities is significantly dependent on the individual (and his or her experience, environment, et cetera).
Additionally (and consequently), I think introverted functions also naturally create "systems", systems which can either be based on logic (Ti), emotion (Fi), notions (Ni) or senses (Si).

[Beautiful sky]

I agree with this; I think introverted functions are intrinsically subjective. I think it stems from the very nature of "introversion". That is, introversion, socionically speaking, implies fields between objects or subjects, and fields implies connections, and the way an information element connects entities is significantly dependent on the individual (and his or her experience, environment, et cetera).
Additionally (and consequently), I think introverted functions also naturally create "systems", systems which can either be based on logic (Ti), emotion (Fi), notions (Ni) or senses (Si).

That's what we just said about Fi being subjective.

[Mattie]

That's what we just said about Fi being subjective.

Maybe I took it the wrong way, and if so I apologize, but the way you phrased it made it seem like = subjective evaluation, therefore implying that is objective evaluation, which neither are the case. It is more like the active use of any Xi IE is subjective evaluation, at least, within the context of this conversation/Socionics-related information.

[The Greeter]

That's what we just said about Fi being subjective.

You seem to imply that Fi is the lone subjective function. And, I am aware I was echoing look.to.the.sky's statements, and possibly be yours. But thanks for letting me know.

[Beautiful sky]

You seem to imply that Fi is the lone subjective function. And, I am aware I was echoing look.to.the.sky's statements, and possibly be yours. But thanks for letting me know.

I thought we were only addressing Fi in this case and not the other functions, but yeah we all seem to be on the same page.

[Erk]

There was a girl I used to work with that people started spreading rumors about; some probably true. My personal reaction to this was that I started liking her more and more. I do not know, but for some reason I could just felt like there was more to her than just the actions. I thought this might be a good example of in action.

I also have a tendency to offer better service to certain customers over others even though both were technically being polite. Reason being, I can tell who really meant it and who was just doing it because they are suppose to.

Now that thing about showing emotion when you hear a sad song or something might be , but I do that also, so I think you cannot just assign these actions directly to functions, they need to be tied to their functional placement. Even then it can not be completely certain.

[The Exception]

I also have a tendency to offer better service to certain customers over others even though both were technically being polite. Reason being, I can tell who really meant it and who was just doing it because they are suppose to.

I'll offer good service to customers even if they aren't being polite but its mainly because my job expects that from me. I have to be cordial to all of the customers, even the really rude and nasty ones, otherwise my job's at stake. However, while I provide good service to all of the customers, the ones who are polite and sincere about it are the ones I'll go that extra mile for, to provide service beyond their expectations. The rude ones, I'll just provide just enough service so that they don't go complaining to the manager about me. I rarely go the extra mile with them.

[Aiss]

I agree with this; I think introverted functions are intrinsically subjective. I think it stems from the very nature of "introversion". That is, introversion, socionically speaking, implies fields between objects or subjects, and fields implies connections, and the way an information element connects entities is significantly dependent on the individual (and his or her experience, environment, et cetera).
Additionally (and consequently), I think introverted functions also naturally create "systems", systems which can either be based on logic (Ti), emotion (Fi), notions (Ni) or senses (Si).

I would also say subjective/objective is qualitative/quantitative evaluation, and it's field/objects (Xi/Xe). Internal/external is more along the lines of implicit/explicit.

Everything Xi is based of an internal notion, information that is attached to the person and can't be directly experienced by anyone else. While you can make an argument for Xe being reliant on one's perception, it isn't dependent on the viewer and everyone can observe Xe information because it is outside of the viewer and dependent on an "object."

I agree with this. Field elements are our own unique views, object elements are our attempt at seeing the "real" world. This is clearly visible in case of Ti and Te - the latter strives for accuracy, to be in sync with external world, much more than "independent" Ti. It's similar for other IEs. This "synchronization" with reality happens when we try to unify our observations and experiences with those of others (mostly) - hence information related to valued object elements is what we want there to be a consensus about. It should work both ways, which would explain why ILIs hate "making guesses official by agreeing on them", which often happens (not only here).

[shakealittle]

In my opinion, Fi is like a static opinion about someone and everything that person does, in some way, is influenced by that opinion. For example, a mother with her child...the child can be mean and cruel but that underlying bond is still there....those same sentiments sort of remain "they are my child and I will love them regardless." That was not the best example because Ti/Fe ppl are like that too but I guess it suggests that it all falls back to that sentiment towards someone. Like when I hang out with my conflictor, she is NeFi, and I can tell that if I forget to do something, she will take that as a sign to confirm that yes, I don't have good intentions.

Ti is more likely to evaluate things in isolation of those sentiments. So it can have one opinion about an aspect of a person, and it can be totally different for another aspect of the same person. I guess how this works with Fe is that Ti will judge that yes, if they give me a smile, it is a good part of the relationship and the more harmonious the Fe is, the Ti will point more towards establishing that Fi sentiment.

That's how I see things as Ti with little Fi so yeahhhhh

[sarinana]

I can see it being Fi specifically paired with Se. I think you're both right. Since she's ILE, she'd be particularly sensitive to Fi paried with Se.

mhm not sure about Fi part... but I expect my friends to do these things for me too and betas or gamma they are ok with helping their friends but this friend of mine who is probably alpha NT never does things like that unless I tell her before.
Ne is quite individualistic while Se is more I'll help you and later you will help me there is no need to ask.

[marooned]

mhm not sure about Fi part... but I expect my friends to do these things for me too and betas or gamma they are ok with helping their friends but this friend of mine who is probably alpha NT never does things like that unless I tell her before.
Ne is quite individualistic while Se is more I'll help you and later you will help me there is no need to ask.

I think it is more Se/Fi because I could see SeTi/TiSe going "if I help you, what do I get out of it?" or "I don't care about this/it's not important to me, so help yourself." I think Fi brings more of the obligation of doing things for others at close relational distance just because that's what you do at close relational distance. I think Ti is more not wanting to feel obligated, although obviously Alpha more than Beta as I agree about the Ne independence thing.

[thePirate]

Fi types force people to do things they wouldnt want to do otherwise - spend excess time with them, not be friends with certain people, etc - because of close relational distance, its 'owed'.

[Mattie]

Fi types force people to do things they wouldnt want to do otherwise - spend excess time with them, not be friends with certain people, etc - because of close relational distance, its 'owed'.

This sounds more like a bad experience than something that is related to . The whole "owing" thing is taken too much out of context here and other places. Think of it like a perceived scale, and when it tips too much one way, wants to either balance it. For me personally, this is because I develop a sense of responsibility for a relationship (I'm more capricious now I'd say) and need to know if something is worth putting effort into or not. I don't think -types go about their relationships expecting things and keeping a tab on what needs to be done. Are there people who do this? Sure, but it's not representative of those who value at all. One thing I notice about types is wanting to be independent and not owe anything to other people unless a natural symbiosis appears and you don't have to worry about checking the relationship anymore.

[thePirate]

This sounds more like a bad experience than something that is related to . The whole "owing" thing is taken too much out of context here and other places. Think of it like a perceived scale, and when it tips too much one way, wants to either balance it. For me personally, this is because I develop a sense of responsibility for a relationship (I'm more capricious now I'd say) and need to know if something is worth putting effort into or not. I don't think -types go about their relationships expecting things and keeping a tab on what needs to be done. Are there people who do this? Sure, but it's not representative of those who value at all. One thing I notice about types is wanting to be independent and not owe anything to other people unless a natural symbiosis appears and you don't have to worry about checking the relationship anymore.

this is just a really sugarcoated way of saying what I just said; the whole
tipping the scales thing is related to owing, forcing, keeping tabs etc. in order to balance it you would need to know what 'the score' is, what is owed.

this is the nature of Fi.

[Aiss]

Fi types force people to do things they wouldnt want to do otherwise - spend excess time with them, not be friends with certain people, etc - because of close relational distance, its 'owed'.

Funny, that sounds exactly like what Fe crowd does to me. Along with wanting to talk all the time, even when there's nothing to talk about.

I often manage to get them to promise they'll never speak to me again, but I have yet to meet one who'll keep their word for longer than thirty seconds.

[Mattie]

this is just a really sugarcoated way of saying what I just said; the whole
tipping the scales thing is related to owing, forcing, keeping tabs etc. in order to balance it you would need to know what 'the score' is, what is owed.

this is the nature of Fi.

No, I've just noticed over the course of my time being back that you have something against the / pairing, not that I stalk your posts, but I can count on you randomly popping out of no where to say how much you hate / and give a really extreme and stereotyped experience or description. And it's not that I don't think you can have your opinion, it's just that you have some sort of embitterment towards it, and talk of it as inferior, when all of these IEs may be "valued" but are all equal. I didn't sugarcoat anything, I gave a more realistic description. You gave a one-dimensional one and use it as the only view, and you do it often enough for me to respond the first time and write this now.

Funny, that sounds exactly like what Fe crowd does to me. Along with wanting to talk all the time, even when there's nothing to talk about.

I often manage to get them to promise they'll never speak to me again, but I have yet to meet one who'll keep their word for longer than thirty seconds.

I felt something along these lines, that whatever you say about the IEs you don't value, I feel similarly to the corresponding IEs that I don't value. I really think stepping away and not seeing things as preferred and not lends more integrity.

[sarinana]

I think it is more Se/Fi because I could see SeTi/TiSe going "if I help you, what do I get out of it?" or "I don't care about this/it's not important to me, so help yourself." I think Fi brings more of the obligation of doing things for others at close relational distance just because that's what you do at close relational distance. I think Ti is more not wanting to feel obligated, although obviously Alpha more than Beta as I agree about the Ne independence thing.

yea I know one SLE female and she would always go like "what I will get for helping you?" when her friends would ask something from her. And her bestfriends probably IEI and LSI would teasingly parody this trait of hers all the time until SLE stopped saying that.
But other than that all these girls would stick for one another in all situations. if one is late others take care that there will be a seat left for their friend. If one gets bad grade all three goes to talk with the teacher. If one gets in an argument the others also joins it. Now the last example is something I've seen among delta groups too. Just Betas never protects the person in an argument who is wrong even if it's their friend. Deltas will protect him/her even if his opinion is obviously wrong. here.

And there was an alpha group... those people didn't even seemed like group at all. They would be talking shit about a person one minute and next minute going to talk with that person being all friendly. Gammas are very similar in this fashion but and in gammas makes them look more "stable" as a group. You can really feel that there are people that are more important than the others and those "more important" people are treated better.

So if that woman Blaze was talking about was ESI then her idea went according to this: You are his friend and this is why you MUST take care of your friend(save a handout) in a way.

More about alphas.. some alpha people even seem like big loners among many many "friends". Younger alphas often try to join other groups. If they manage to get into delta atmosphere they find it pleasant but boring. If they join betas they often end up being the punch bags of the beta group. But that's only common among teens.

[thePirate]

No, I've just noticed over the course of my time being back that you have something against the / pairing, not that I stalk your posts, but I can count on you randomly popping out of no where to say how much you hate / and give a really extreme and stereotyped experience or description. And it's not that I don't think you can have your opinion, it's just that you have some sort of embitterment towards it, and talk of it as inferior, when all of these IEs may be "valued" but are all equal. I didn't sugarcoat anything, I gave a more realistic description. You gave a one-dimensional one and use it as the only view, and you do it often enough for me to respond the first time and write this now.

Of course I think they are inferior, I don't value them. You think the same about the elements I value, regardless if you express the sentiment or not.

You did sugarcoat, more 'realistic; is one interpretation of what you wrote; but to deny that Fi types do what I said is completely erroneous; would you like to debate this with me?

I really don't think you do

I have noticed your posts in the course of my time here too, and frankly have considered them a waste of time ; your attempts at 'reinterpreting the wheel' have been excessively redundant - in your attempts to remain politically correct, you mislead. Its funny that you say my view is one dimensional - yours isnt?

Aiss - if an Fe type does that, and you don't do it, it most likely wont hurt the Fi bond between you too - however if you don't do said thing with the Fi type, your bond will suffer. Hence, it is truley 'forced' and 'owed'

[Suz]

I think i see what thePirate is trying to say with the "forcing" thing. At first I too kind of thought "but isn't that Se or Fi+Se?" But then i kept reading, and I think there is an element of truth to that about Fi, especially perhaps in the eyes of an Fi-nonvaluer but Se-valuer.

So, the way I see it is, Fi pays attention to and judges interpersonal interactions, how something is "nice" or "mean" or "selfish" or "uhoh this person is trying to use me" or "this person must think i'm a doormat" Things like that. So, yeah, if i keep giving and giving (especially nonmaterial things like gestures of friendship), and the other person is just taking and taking (e.g. not returning the gestures, or brushes them off), that friendship isn't going to work out. Fi-egos tend to be more attuned to this by nature and tend to not let things progress to that point, and Fi-valuers probably see it as how things should be, but I can definitely see how an Fi-nonvaluer would see that as the Fi-person keeping score and expecting something in return. And an Se-valuer, especially an Se dual-seeker like thePirate, might see it as a gesture of force.

On the flip side, like Aiss, I too feel something of the same thing in regards to Fe from Fe-valuing friends and acquaintances. I feel an expectation of emotional expression to meet their emotional expression, and often an expectation of conformity to what their group is doing, otherwise I may not be welcome.

So it does go both ways. But these differences are to be expected, otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as Fi-valuing vs Fe-valuing.

[Blaze]

I have noticed your posts in the course of my time here too, and frankly have considered them a waste of time ; your attempts at 'reinterpreting the wheel' have been excessively redundant - in your attempts to remain politically correct, you mislead. Its funny that you say my view is one dimensional - yours isnt?

you slam everything she posts whereas her criticism was about your reaction to Fi/Te. i mean, i too, find Fi esp to be fairly rule bound and picky....but still i wouldn't slam everything one person writes about here. that's no good.

On the flip side, like Aiss, I too feel something of the same thing in regards to Fe from Fe-valuing friends and acquaintances. I feel an expectation of emotional expression to meet their emotional expression, and often an expectation of conformity to what their group is doing, otherwise I may not be welcome.

interesting. the group conformity thing might be an Se thing. Ne=more individualistic. Se=more group/conformity. i kind of relate to that piece, but not to the emotional expression piece. as an Fe valuer, emotional expression gives me some kind of feedback or compass to read. with out it, i'm in an ethical sea of confusion and doubt.

[thePirate]

you slam everything she posts whereas her criticism was about your reaction to Fi/Te. i mean, i too, find Fi esp to be fairly rule bound and picky....but still i wouldn't slam everything one person writes about here. that's no good.

an ILE lecturing about Fi

how rich

[Blaze]

an ILE lecturing about Fi

how rich

ah yes yet another baseless slam based on some category of abstract information. instead of using your head. good luck with that in life.

[Mattie]

Of course I think they are inferior, I don't value them. You think the same about the elements I value, regardless if you express the sentiment or not.

This isn't something you can decide for me or anyone else, just for yourself. In the way I feel Socionics can be used, having an attachment to that idea is counter-productive and isn't how Socionics can bring a perspective to intertype relations. Understanding that you "value" an IE and then it's hierarchal position outside of your value system are two separate things, and if you can't separate your view from what actually is, then that says more about you than me. Going into a relationship with anyone other than with your dual isn't denying the inevitable break down of a relationship but understanding the differences to work through. That's my take on how to use Socionics at least.

You did sugarcoat, more 'realistic; is one interpretation of what you wrote; but to deny that Fi types do what I said is completely erroneous; would you like to debate this with me?

I guess by your logic, then viewing what I wrote as sugarcoated is only one interpretation that may only be experienced by you. I didn't say that types don't do that completely, just that it isn't characteristic of types. You put it into the logic of having a causal relationship with what you described, which I found untrue. And as Aiss pointed out, the feeling that you talked about isn't uniquely shared by just valuer's experience with , therefore it cannot be a causal relationship at least unique to , which was my point. You may see the way I handle topics as "politically correct," but what I'm really trying to accomplish is universality and what I consider closer to the truth, which would be to exclude how you gave your post as it is overall misleading. As well, I wasn't aiming to insult you nor do I think what I said was really insulting, just noticing how you handled the particular topic at hand, so insulting me doesn't really keep this open to friendly debate.

[strrrng]

Ti views Fi standards as limiting because they are implicit and not amenable to the behavioral changes that Fe brings about.

I don't find gamma Fi burdensome, overall. it's the passively obligatory -- "you're doing your own thing, but are still part of an operating collective" -- attitude in delta that grates on me. if you want me to do something, tell me, and if not, then don't deal with me.

yeah, I'm sure deltas might feel that betas burden them with an undesired 'position' that isn't open to much debate, and which feels like a prescriptive measure of their worth, so whatever.

either way, I think this is what pirate was getting at, despite being clouded by frustration.

[Aiss]

interesting. the group conformity thing might be an Se thing. Ne=more individualistic. Se=more group/conformity. i kind of relate to that piece, but not to the emotional expression piece. as an Fe valuer, emotional expression gives me some kind of feedback or compass to read. with out it, i'm in an ethical sea of confusion and doubt.

So that makes both thePirate and myself non-Se-valuers?

[Blaze]

So that makes both thePirate and myself non-Se-valuers?

do you really think so?

[Blaze]

So if that woman Blaze was talking about was ESI then her idea went according to this: You are his friend and this is why you MUST take care of your friend(save a handout) in a way.

yes something like that. except we weren't friends at all. i would hardly even ever go to that meeting. and they were late. why is it my job to get your hand outs, get your own handouts and next time be on time. it was a pretty small incident, not really a big deal, but one that i thought was a good example.

More about alphas.. some alpha people even seem like big loners among many many "friends". Younger alphas often try to join other groups. If they manage to get into delta atmosphere they find it pleasant but boring. If they join betas they often end up being the punch bags of the beta group. But that's only common among teens.

alphas are a diffuse group. our contacts are extreme in breadth and influence. ILE and LII can be on the fringe of the mainstream, but ESE and SEI are right in the mix, among the most social people in the socion. i put somewhere else, ESE knows everybody, most people like them. ILE fits better with beta; LII fits better with delta, but alphas as a group, their relationships with each other are extremely close. alphas, unlike other quadras, will be open with almost anyone though.

my crowd in hs had an alpha core with a delta wing and a beta wing. we are all friends to this day, 30 years later, and i have never had the same kind of friends since.

[Mattie]

The extent to which I'm bothered by anyone's / (or whatever it is) depends on the psychological health of that person. Sane, balanced people without hangups are pleasant to be around no matter what type they are. Dysfunctional people suck to be around no matter what type they are.

This is ultimately what I wanted to get at The person themselves are more of a factor than their type, as I'm sure we've all experienced someone who shares our valued IEs who we don't get along with and do with someone who is opposite of our valued ones.

[sarinana]

yes something like that. except we weren't friends at all. i would hardly even ever go to that meeting. and they were late. why is it my job to get your hand outs, get your own handouts and next time be on time. it was a pretty small incident, not really a big deal, but one that i thought was a good example.



alphas are a diffuse group. our contacts are extreme in breadth and influence. ILE and LII can be on the fringe of the mainstream, but ESE and SEI are right in the mix, among the most social people in the socion. i put somewhere else, ESE knows everybody, most people like them. ILE fits better with beta; LII fits better with delta, but alphas as a group, their relationships with each other are extremely close. alphas, unlike other quadras, will be open with almost anyone though.

my crowd in hs had an alpha core with a delta wing and a beta wing. we are all friends to this day, 30 years later, and i have never had the same kind of friends since.

I just said this because I remembered two ILE guys. One from school, 7th grade who would be always pushed down by other kids who were beta STs because he was not so strong(didn't played sports) but he would be okay with all that pushing because he wanted to be accepted to that beta group.
And another ILE friend of mine who joined skinheads (most of members were Se egos also) and so he was not counted as equal to them and after 2 years he quit.

The group I hang out with has 2 members of betas (if i am beta then 3), 2 deltas, 2 gammas and one ESE.
And I often have these little conflicts with the ESE girl. The moment those conflicts are happening my beta and gamma friends starts visibly demonstrating on whose side they are (well they are ALWAYS on my side probably because I seem to be more powerful but that doesn't matter) and then those two deltas(EIIs) they get along with ESE very great yet they are not protecting her. Seems like they want to be in peace with everybody and because of that ESE is left to protect herself alone.

I even remember once ESE asked EII to talk with me but instead of that EII came to me laughing and started quoting her.