Examples of Fi

[Mattie]

I doubt either of these functions have any bearing at all on said tendencies.

Yeah, I was trying to think of how to put it. I think that if we just look at a certain quality, like "individualism," and assume that every type has it, the interesting part is how would manifest through each type rather than thinking it belongs only to one or a couple. So an NeFi might express individualism this way, SeTi this way, etc. And we could also look to the opposing example, see how each would conform, or at least, what would be the frame of thinking that might lead to such behavior, because there are lots of non-type related factors that promote individualism or conformity.

Certainly. Socionics doesn't capture the entire range of all things relevant to human interaction. I am convinced that it does play a significant role in the matter, but at the same token it needs to be kept in perspective as only 1 layer among many.

I think that it's like shaking off an old habit on this forum, to attribute personality traits directly to type. It would be nice to have a conscious revamping of this idea and the information that promotes it.

[Blaze]

I doubt either of these functions have any bearing at all on said tendencies.

really? beta definitely has a pecking order and a code to live by. if you deviate, you're out. gammas are usually in tight little in-groups where you only get in if you're gamma. i attribute this in part to Se ego.

[Blaze]

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.

junior high school is a bitch for anyone including Se egos. lol. but yeah i've seen that where the nerdy kid isn't allowed in. luckily we all grow up or we'd have to live in that cesspool of middle school forever.

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.

that doesn't sound like much fun for the ESE. or anybody, really. when you are trying to hang out with mostly the opposing quadra, it hardly ever works out. you're just not speaking the language.

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

you were frustrated with ESE? or EII?

i know i'm not gamma when i read your post.....seems like way too much tension....uncomfortable dynamics. you think you are what type sariana?

[Beautiful sky]

I'm whatever you want me to be.

what type are you?

[Beautiful sky]

Pick a type for me.

I can't, yet.

[Blaze]

Fallacy. You're equating (apparent) pecking orders and (apparent) cliques with conformity.

every group has social norms and enforces them through consequences of various sorts. if you don't conform to the social norm, then one such consequences is rejection by the group. in my experience, betas and gammas expect greater compliance, but i am willing to consider the idea that this is an alpha related value judgment.

[Suz]

I agree with you that any social group will have some semblance of social norms by which it operates under. But as I was getting at earlier here—your own sociotype/quadra engenders bias on what you'll see as a social imposition. The norms most conducive to your preferences (i.e. quadra) will be too implicit and 2nd nature for you to generally see them as constricting or prohibitive in any way. And in a genuine sense, they're not—for you. However, from the POV of someone in an alternate quadra, your preferred norms may seem demanding of compliance in just the same way you see theirs.

excellently said. this is my understanding also.

[sarinana]

you were frustrated with ESE? or EII?

i know i'm not gamma when i read your post.....seems like way too much tension....uncomfortable dynamics. you think you are what type sariana?

I am either SEE or EIE.

Fact is that I've been bestfriends with INTp girl for 6 years but at this moment when we are graduating it seems like our friendship is vanishing. Even EII once said "I don't understand how can you stand each other! You are way too different" INTp started dating xSFp guy and I didn't liked him. He was way too uncultured and tiring for my taste. And that's when we ended constantly meeting each other.
The same thing is happening with other people from my group. I still get along greatly with IEI(in 6 years we never had any argument) and EII(well she just tries to have good relations with everybody and she does it well. 10 times better than me because I have a tendency to put my thoughts on pedestal).

[Blaze]

I agree with you that any social group will have some semblance of social norms by which it operates under. But as I was getting at earlier here—your own sociotype/quadra engenders bias on what you'll see as a social imposition. The norms most conducive to your preferences (i.e. quadra) will be too implicit and 2nd nature for you to generally see them as constricting or prohibitive in any way. And in a genuine sense, they're not—for you. However, from the POV of someone in an alternate quadra, your preferred norms may seem demanding of compliance in just the same way you see theirs.

that's what i just fucking said.

[Beautiful sky]

No. You made an absolute statement that "Betas and Gammas are more conformist" as if it were an objective fact which stands apart from your own subjective reference frame. You didn't qualify what you said with something like, "From my POV, they seem to expect..."

You two are having functional related misunderstandings, it would help if you two stepped back a little and reevaluated how the other person sees your perspective then approach each other. That will avoid you two from getting into a conflict with one another.

[717495]

Lol, this thread is getting so basic and simple. Reminds me of when I thought about this stuff many months back.

[Blaze]

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.

well. this is what i orginally said. that it might be an Se thing.

@maritsa: i'm not really in conflict with dynamicism...i'm just messin w him.

[Beautiful sky]

well. this is what i orginally said. that it might be an Se thing.

@maritsa: i'm not really in conflict with dynamicism...i'm just messin w him.

I'm sorry.
I'm a little sensitive to conflict.

[strrrng]

no, you just made an incorrect statement and now you're backpedaling. where is the logic in saying, "trait x might be related to function x," followed by the reduction, "function x = trait x, function y = trait -x" ?

[Gilly]

God Blaze, sometimes I just have to smack you.

[Blaze]

no, you just made an incorrect statement and now you're backpedaling. where is the logic in saying, "trait x might be related to function x," followed by the reduction, "function x = trait x, function y = trait -x" ?

[Gilly]

lmao.

[strrrng]

"the group conformity thing might be an Se thing."

"Ne=more individualistic. Se=more group/conformity."


if you can't see the flaw in this sequence, I have nothing more to say.

[Blaze]

"the group conformity thing might be an Se thing."

"Ne=more individualistic. Se=more group/conformity."


if you can't see the flaw in this sequence, I have nothing more to say.

if you can't see that this statement is a tentative opening statement meant to elicit brainstorming and discussion then you must be even more of a rigid minded dickweed than i thought.

[strrrng]

if you can't see that this statement is a tentative opening statement meant to elicit brainstorming and discussion then you must be even more of a rigid minded dickweed than i thought.

how does a "tentative, opening statement" excuse a faulty one? And if your intention actually was to inspire "brainstorming," that only reaffirms the flaw in positing, "Ne = more individualistic, Se = more group/conformity." ideas with solid premises warrant discussion; mindless theoretical reductions do not.


either way, you have been corrected, and seem unable to do anything but excuse yourself, so I'm done.

[Mattie]

Well, now that we're past that... How about, to get somewhat back on topic, maybe we can look at the process of seeing how is in theory and how that is translated into reality and interactions while at the same time not relying on traits that are universal (for example, a use of isn't monologuing about morals, though, WHY they are monologuing about morals, you might have a case).

Playing on this individualism/conformity topic, we can provide examples on how a type could express such traits through their specific placement of in their functions. Drawing on anecdotal evidence of myself, I feel like I establish independence through by actively applying what I feel responsible for and what I don't, and living with that rule until it needs adjustment. is qualitative in nature (as opposed to quantitative ), so it is easier to apply them to social rules and behaviors. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't feel like I have to "keep peace" or give anyone any amount of attention if they don't mean anything in particular to me. This can come off as harsh, but once someone attains a certain level of meaning, it is like they moved up in some rewards program and have more access to my emotional availability When it comes to conformity, I would say there are times I act a certain way once I am familiar with the social "game" or environment I am in; if there are particular people I want to get to know, I will act a certain way to establish something with them, if my co-workers tend to be non-confrontational to each other's faces but are completely snarky behind each other's backs, I'm going to be overall less vocal in order to keep true to my values and not making myself a target. I think this idea of conformity concerning NeFi (and possibly SeFi) is when this type is considered a "social chameleon" at times, when I tend to fit in to very different group, pronouncing and withdrawing certain aspects of myself to be socially cohesive to situations I want to be cohesive with.

Well, I thought I'd at least start it off. Wasn't the best, but I hoped to get more conversation going

[Blaze]

how does a "tentative, opening statement" excuse a faulty one? And if your intention actually was to inspire "brainstorming," that only reaffirms the flaw in positing, "Ne = more individualistic, Se = more group/conformity." ideas with solid premises warrant discussion; mindless theoretical reductions do not.


either way, you have been corrected, and seem unable to do anything but excuse yourself, so I'm done.

faulty? how is that exactly? corrected? like you are some kind of authority? do you really think this?

[Blaze]

No, to me it just looked like somebody ego-tripping and aggrandizing their own quadra's functions over others. It happens a lot so its an easy assumption to make.

I'm not claiming this was your intention—maybe you were just trying to spark discussion. I'm not privy to what goes on in your skull, so I can't know your real intention. But I am telling you how it came across to me.

if you think i'm on an ego trip i don't see how you're getting that from what is quoted from me on this page.

do i think alpha is the most socially open and tolerant quadra? i do. do i think that other quadras have other things to offer, that alpha doesn't, that are superior to alpha? absolutely. do i think that there may be a correlation between a certain type of conformity related to Se that is found in beta and gamma? possibly but so what? can you handle it? or do you and your little buddies there just dismiss it out of hand without serious consideration because your values don't allow you to consider things that conflict with your own self concept?

don't you think it's fairly well established that all types are biased in the direction of their own quadra values? haven't we said this again and again? why does this have to be yet one more time? why do you not seem to be able to consider how beta and gamma and in what ways do beta and gamma enforce conformity. you accuse me of some kind of logical or relational error when you don't see your own. and, when you don't read what you want to read or what would resonate with you better, you revert to a group mentality in attempting to de-value my perspective and comments. how is that not faulty logic?

end rant.

[strrrng]

faulty? how is that exactly? corrected? like you are some kind of authority? do you really think this?

are you just dense? reread the posts where I demonstrated the error in your reasoning.

and I don't have to be an "authority" to correct someone's flawed ideas, Ms. Individualist.

[Blaze]

are you just dense? reread the posts where I demonstrated the error in your reasoning.

and I don't have to be an "authority" to correct someone's flawed ideas, Ms. Individualist.

your error. there is no "reasoning" in my statement. rather, hypothesis based on some observations. Mr. Wikipedia.

[Gilly]

Holy crap. Please remind me why I don't ban you for stupidity, before I do it.

[Blaze]

are we banning people now for your estimation of their qualities gilly?

[Gilly]

"We" don't ban people. I ban people.

[Blaze]

you go brother lol

[strrrng]

your error. there is no "reasoning" in my statement. rather, hypothesis based on some observations. Mr. Wikipedia.

lol. "hypothesis." as if observations suddenly justify any correlation, no matter how hopelessly flawed.

the funniest thing is, it is only by virtue of your statement's uselessness, that you are in a position to excuse yourself under the pretense of "brainstorming."

[Mattie]

Isn't this going way out of control over something not that serious?

[Blaze]

lol. "hypothesis." as if observations suddenly justify any correlation, no matter how hopelessly flawed.

the funniest thing is, it is only by virtue of your statement's uselessness, that you are in a position to excuse yourself under the pretense of "brainstorming."

excuse me? excuse myself? excuse myself for what.

how can observations be "flawed"?

[Blaze]

Isn't this going way out of control over something not that serious?

yes sky. it certainly is.

[strrrng]

excuse me? excuse myself? excuse myself for what.

failing to substantiate a claim.

how can observations be "flawed"?

observations aren't; ideas are. and your idea about Se/Ne being related to conformity/individualism, is.

[Gilly]

YouTube - He-man and She-ra - I have the Power

you go brother lol

If your input meant anything at all to me, you would have been gone a long time ago. Thank your lucky stars that you appear to me as nothing more than a pesky fly.

[Aiss]

Playing on this individualism/conformity topic, we can provide examples on how a type could express such traits through their specific placement of in their functions. Drawing on anecdotal evidence of myself, I feel like I establish independence through by actively applying what I feel responsible for and what I don't, and living with that rule until it needs adjustment. is qualitative in nature (as opposed to quantitative ), so it is easier to apply them to social rules and behaviors.

I would say both Fi and Ti are qualitative, as opposed to Fe and Te being quantitative. Emotions are for Fe what facts are for Te. Relationships are for Fi what rules are for Ti. Both introverted elements generalize by quality, focusing on relations. Extroverted do the opposite, looking at each object, only being able to assess it quantitatively.

It's clearly visible in often-contrasted Fi focusing on bonds between individuals and Fe on emotional atmosphere, just like Ti focuses on logical reasoning and Te on evidence.

Internality/externality makes for a huge difference, probably exactly in what you speak of here, but I think qualitative/quantitative in particular goes with introversion/extroversion. This is similar to the problem of measuring quality - any and all attempts to make qualitative assessment less reliant on relations/experience/situation, to take it out of context - which is what fields element deal with - inevitably lead to quantification.

I suppose I'm not so much arguing your point as your use of qualitative/quantitative, which terms don't reflect the relationship between Fi and Ti so much as between these and Fe and Te.

[Mattie]

I suppose I'm not so much arguing your point as your use of qualitative/quantitative, which terms don't reflect the relationship between Fi and Ti so much as between these and Fe and Te.

I see where you're coming from, I've always had a hard time with the internal/external way of looking at Tx and Fx IEs and specifically use quantitative and qualitative instead to conjure a certain idea I think actually does exist.. and have to do with descriptive, non-measurable information that doesn't necessarily have to be dependent on the viewer. The idea that they are qualities you can't necessarily do a 1:1 to, for example, one person's happy isn't exactly another's, a certain relationship between two brothers isn't comparable to any other two brothers. There isn't an expectation being measurable distinctly against anything else, they are meant to exist uniquely how they are. and all deal with measurable information that you can do 1:1 to, which is why often enough is coined as "facts" and as "logic" (I don't necessarily agree, but it paints the picture). is subjective, but what is subjective is how it aligns and relates its information, not the information itself (well, at least the most unsubjective that you can get in Socionics). I always imagine as a grid and as a web, not sure if that's helpful though.

[Aiss]

I see where you're coming from, I've always had a hard time with the internal/external way of looking at Tx and Fx IEs and specifically use quantitative and qualitative instead to conjure a certain idea I think actually does exist.. and have to do with descriptive, non-measurable information that doesn't necessarily have to be dependent on the viewer.

is subjective, but what is subjective is how it aligns and relates its information, not the information itself (well, at least the most unsubjective that you can get in Socionics).

As far as I know, subjective means "dependent the on the viewer", objective means "independent of the viewer" (in practice, we can at best attempt objectivity through synthesis of differing viewpoints).

That hits my point exactly - field (introverted) information is dependent on a viewer, bodies (extroverted) attempts not to be. Specifically about Fi and Fe, short but sweet, from wiki:

>>Also, these [] types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics () approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). <<

I would like to know how much you relate to it as -ego - from my observation of myself and others, both here and in real life, it's spot on, but then I'm not strong in . I don't think of the phrases literally, of course, but attitude.

What I mean about measurability or lack thereof is that in assessing quality, you need to quantify it in order to effectively work with information from different sources. Qualitative only works for you; you need to make it more universal - quantitative - for purpose of exchange. That's how I view introverted/extroverted elements. The only way we can synchronize our views with outer reality (extroversion) is by applying this standard. Of course the standard itself is subjective, but it's adjusted to allow for exchange of information with other people. This is exactly what happens in case of in the above example, IMO. The opinion allows for arguing and adjusting it. In particular, I've seen Fe types being convinced that "it doesn't suck this much", metaphorically speaking, in the past. personal opinion isn't subject to discussion; it can change depending on "it", but in itself it isn't meant to be universal nor attempts to win others to its side.

Internal/external don't relate so much to inner/outer reality as to implicit/explicit, in my opinion. So Ne relates to outer reality, but perceives implicit qualities (potential of people, things, etc.); Ni is directed inside, creating an inner, implicit understanding, which results in focusing on potential of situations ("playing out scenarios in one's head" is about as close as I can express it. It's not explicitly thinking what-will-cause-what, but letting it play.)

I always imagine as a grid and as a web, not sure if that's helpful though.

I imagine Ni as a web . Or rather, more like an irregular weaving. (I think whoever made up this ancient Greek stuff about Moirae was in all likelihood Ni-ego; or maybe it's just me that always read it as interweaving life threads.)

[Mattie]

As far as I know, subjective means "dependent the on the viewer", objective means "independent of the viewer" (in practice, we can at best attempt objectivity through synthesis of differing viewpoints).

That hits my point exactly - field (introverted) information is dependent on a viewer, bodies (extroverted) attempts not to be.

What I mean about measurability or lack thereof is that in assessing quality, you need to quantify it in order to effectively work with information from different sources. Qualitative only works for you; you need to make it more universal - quantitative - for purpose of exchange.

This is where our difference lies. I don't think qualitative information is personal and only applicable to the person who produces it. If that were so, case studies would be useless, and large parts of psychology, sociology and anthropology wouldn't be considered sciences. Something qualitative is descriptive and can be communicated as such, I can describe anything and you'd understand through my words. Is there room for interpretation? Sure, but not much differently as there is room in any other communication. Qualitative doesn't mean subjective.

Specifically about Fi and Fe, short but sweet, from wiki:

>>Also, these [] types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics () approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). <<

I would like to know how much you relate to it as -ego - from my observation of myself and others, both here and in real life, it's spot on, but then I'm not strong in . I don't think of the phrases literally, of course, but attitude.

I'm not really sure, I guess I do put my feelings in relation to myself, as in "that makes me feel ___" or my emotions never seem immediate, always like I've thought about them first and then told you. There's a little of both, I'm not sure they are so distinct from one another really. When I read it I had to think about it.

[Gilly]

Not bad. I suppose the irrational functions could be done the same way

Field Dynamics:
Ni: Internal Cohesion
Si: External Cohesion
Object Statics:
Ne: Internal Contours
Se: External Contours