Conclusion about Feeling functions

[Hitta]

I have came to a new conclusion about feeling functions. I think there has been a mistake made in Socionics and MBTI, especially about Fi. Fi has nothing to do with people. This has been a mistake. Fi is about flaws and potentials. +Fi views things in the positive light, while -Fi sees the flaws in things. This is why INTps are critics. They have an unconscious need to see the mistakes in things.

[tcaudilllg]

I have came to a new conclusion about feeling functions. I think there has been a mistake made in Socionics and MBTI, especially about Fi. Fi has nothing to do with people. This has been a mistake. Fi is about flaws and potentials. +Fi views things in the positive light, while -Fi sees the flaws in things. This is why INTps are critics. They have an unconscious need to see the mistakes in things.

OK, I think I can adopt this. +Fi says things are suitable to successful relation, and -Fi says they aren't?

Another fine new direction in thought by hitta.

[aestrivex]

Argonian alchemists of the Black Marsh have long held that the phases of the moon dictate the precise positioning of the Calcinator. During the full moon, the Calcinator should face due South, aligned with the Southron pole star. It is well known that the Southron pole star is slightly offset from true south. The diligent Alchemist will refer to star charts for the specific day and time to more precisely align the Calcinator.
For each night of the phases of the moon after full, the Calcinator should be rotated clockwise one twenty-eighth of a circle. If the Alchemist is closer to the Southron pole star than the Northern Sisters, he should rotate it counter-clockwise instead. Set the device where the moonlight is shining on half of it. Of course, if it is a new moon, the Calcinator should be fully exposed instead.

Proper alignment of the Calcinator will create one part in forty-seven more purity of the distillate. Obviously this is a highly desired attribute, even though the effect may not be that noticeable.

[Slacker]

If you have to completely re-write Socionics in order for it to work for you, you simply don't understand it. Or maybe you need to just bow out of Socionics completely.

[Jonathan]

If you have to completely re-write Socionics in order for it to work for you, you simply don't understand it. Or maybe you need to just bow out of Socionics completely.

I think it's okay for hitta to come up with a new system, or variation on similar structures to Socionics. There already are a number of different Jungian-based systems available that have slightly different definitions and views about what people fit in each "type." I personally wish he'd make a cleaner and clearer distinction between his model and others, instead of describing his ideas as being statements about what "Socionics" is. However, I do understand why he and others see their observations as being about Socionics.

Overall, there's nothing wrong with variants; it's the way people state their ideas that arouses so much angst on the forum, especially since people are often struggling themselves to come to terms with the "official" or "core" version of things.

[Creepy-pokeball]

If you have to completely re-write Socionics in order for it to work for you, you simply don't understand it. Or maybe you need to just bow out of Socionics completely.

Why dont I know you irl? you keep saying the perfect things!

[Gilly]

t33 h33 someone tickle my pickle!

.

[aestrivex]

Overall, there's nothing wrong with variants; it's the way people state their ideas that arouses so much angst on the forum, especially since people are often struggling themselves to come to terms with the "official" or "core" version of things.

that's not true at all. there may be nothing wrong with variants, but there is certainly something very wrong with the structure inherent of these particular variants, which exist entirely in theory and provide absolutely no basis for their postulations.

[liveandletlive]

I have came to a new conclusion about feeling functions. I think there has been a mistake made in Socionics and MBTI, especially about Fi. Fi has nothing to do with people. This has been a mistake. Fi is about flaws and potentials. +Fi views things in the positive light, while -Fi sees the flaws in things. This is why INTps are critics. They have an unconscious need to see the mistakes in things.

I think it's hard to make the argument that any ethics has nothing to do with people. Without people and their interactions, ethics would not exist. I agree that Fi can be considered to be about flaws and potentials, but only in the sense that Fi is often associated with this utopian drive in relationships and life in general. IME, that is why I can get disappointed with others. The whole potential thing can be debatable though. It may just be applicable to Gammas because of how we try to improve upon things. I think we'd need some Delta insight into how they feel about this.

[Expat]

This is one of the most useful threads so far.

[Hitta]

that's not true at all. there may be nothing wrong with variants, but there is certainly something very wrong with the structure inherent of these particular variants, which exist entirely in theory and provide absolutely no basis for their postulations.

The only reason you disagree with me is because I wouldn't let you put the disclaimer on the wiki page. Its not my fault that you are so narrow minded; its as if you are against creativity in its entirety. You are extremely unoriginal; very absolutist. You lack the complete and utter understanding of what it means to be analytical; and to be able to see how things work at their core. In short, I believe that you are a waste of matter

[Expat]

The only reason you disagree with me is because I wouldn't let you put the disclaimer on the wiki page.

niffweed, he can see right through you. No use trying to hide your emotional motivations; hitta will always know what is it that really drives you. I suggest you drop the facade that you're just voicing your true views and admit that it's personal.

[munenori2]

The only reason you disagree with me is because I wouldn't let you put the disclaimer on the wiki page. Its not my fault that you are so narrow minded; its as if you are against creativity in its entirety. You are extremely unoriginal; very absolutist. You lack the complete and utter understanding of what it means to be analytical; and to be able to see how things work at their core. In short, I believe that you are a waste of matter

[Slacker]

The only reason you disagree with me is because I wouldn't let you put the disclaimer on the wiki page. Its not my fault that you are so narrow minded; its as if you are against creativity in its entirety. You are extremely unoriginal; very absolutist. You lack the complete and utter understanding of what it means to be analytical; and to be able to see how things work at their core. In short, I believe that you are a waste of matter

OK this is the funniest thing I've read in a while. I'm ready for the holiday now - this has gotten me into the spirit.

[Hitta]

If you have to completely re-write Socionics in order for it to work for you, you simply don't understand it. Or maybe you need to just bow out of Socionics completely.

With the apparency that you aren't an ENFp, I'd say you are the one that needs to reevaluate socionics.

[Slacker]

With the apparency that you aren't an ENFp, I'd say you are the one that needs to reevaluate socionics.

There's no laughing little smilie face anymore.

You don't think I'm ENFp? LOL What do you think I am?

[ScarlettLux]

i think this is just to do with presenting oppinions on "actualities" of potential. e.g. an ENTP got an idea that can be seen by other people and represents real something that can be noticed that does not have physical nature as primary, e.g. noticing systems that govern things in the world, it's very much discovery function of something, it's usage expands the perception of the world - it's like yo see more and more to the world, but this observation is not Se object but observation of systems, qualities, opportunities, potentials things actually have. INTP would provide personal oppinion on whether this is worthy of even consideration, wether the potential will be realized, it is a subjective view/judgement of an object containing a possibility of sharing its same perception by anyone.

..And yet again, dee offers the nonsensical O___o

Seriously man, I can't understand a word you ever type. =/ It reads like gibberish to me, as if you placed a bunch of Socionics terms that are popular: "opportunities, qualities, systems" and just strung them all together. Even when I slow down and attempt to understand your nonsense, it is useless.

[Hitta]

There's no laughing little smilie face anymore.

You don't think I'm ENFp? LOL What do you think I am?

Not sure, but you certainly aren't smart enough to make that decision; maybe you should seek a specialist.

[Hitta]

..And yet again, dee offers the nonsensical O___o

Seriously man, I can't understand a word you ever type. =/ It reads like gibberish to me, as if you placed a bunch of Socionics terms that are popular: "opportunities, qualities, systems" and just strung them all together. Even when I slow down and attempt to understand your nonsense, it is useless.

To be honest, I've always liked dee, but I've never understood anything he says either.

[Slacker]

Not sure, but you certainly aren't smart enough to make that decision; maybe you should seek a specialist.

LOL

[Jonathan]

...provide absolutely no basis for their postulations.

Well, that's part of what I mean when I say that hitta and others on the forum with "way out theories" don't state them in the optimal way. Often, they don't really give much clue as to why they came up with a certain postulate, and leave others to figure it out or to see if their casual observations of various people they know just happen to fit the assertion. Or, in some other cases, there are reasonings that seem random.

In those cases, sometimes it comes off like this: "I know you're an NNFt because you remind me of someone I met on an elevator once, who looked like Mickey Mouse, and Mickey Mouse is certainly NNFt, so you're one too."

[Minde]

There's no laughing little smilie face anymore.

Yes, there is. You might be able to find it by clicking the "[More]" link (I don't know - I haven't checked), but you can also just type it in - ": lol:" (minus that space between the first ":" and the rest.

See -

[Shazaam]

If you have to completely re-write Socionics in order for it to work for you, you simply don't understand it. Or maybe you need to just bow out of Socionics completely.

Yeah well either that or Socionics sucks donkey balls. Yeah...it might be that. *blinks twice*

I'm just sayin'....

The original model is nice, I think, but flawed as hell. Only so much a depressed Russian woman could do that couldn't find her soulmate.

[Creepy-pokeball]

There's no laughing little smilie face anymore.

You don't think I'm ENFp? LOL What do you think I am?

You are you, I hope. That is all that matters.

[Creepy-pokeball]

niffweed, he can see right through you. No use trying to hide your emotional motivations; hitta will always know what is it that really drives you. I suggest you drop the facade that you're just voicing your true views and admit that it's personal.

hollllllllllllly shit. please say this is honest sarcasm -- totally amusing! If so, it's a nice change from the usual monotone.

[Gilly]

Leave already, will you?

[Jonathan]

Yeah well either that or Socionics sucks donkey balls. Yeah...it might be that. *blinks twice*

I'm just sayin'....

The original model is nice, I think, but flawed....

Yeah, we should remember that when we criticize some of the innovators on the forum. The original model isn't perfect. Also, Augusta wrote some pretty "wacky" stuff she and/or others latter corrected.

[liveandletlive]

This is one of the most useful threads so far.

hehe says the Fi DS type!

[aestrivex]

Well, that's part of what I mean when I say that hitta and others on the forum with "way out theories" don't state them in the optimal way. Often, they don't really give much clue as to why they came up with a certain postulate, and leave others to figure it out or to see if their casual observations of various people they know just happen to fit the assertion. Or, in some other cases, there are reasonings that seem random.

In those cases, sometimes it comes off like this: "I know you're an NNFt because you remind me of someone I met on an elevator once, who looked like Mickey Mouse, and Mickey Mouse is certainly NNFt, so you're one too."

it would seem to me that if there's no basis for an assertion, then it's probably not true.

rather than "maybe true but who knows because the person trying to tell us is an idiot."

and with assertions like those of hitta's system, which take the already arcane, strange, wholly unsourced and unobservable-in-practice concept of +/- functions and bastardize them into something so senselessly nonsequential, there's zero reason to take it seriously.

[mikemex]

Can you people find another place to chit chat? Name calling and insults are useless. Just stick to your arguments against or in favor to an hypothesis and leave the personal discussion out of the picture. The more impersonal the discussion, the more the quality of it.

I have came to a new conclusion about feeling functions. I think there has been a mistake made in Socionics and MBTI, especially about Fi. Fi has nothing to do with people. This has been a mistake. Fi is about flaws and potentials. +Fi views things in the positive light, while -Fi sees the flaws in things. This is why INTps are critics. They have an unconscious need to see the mistakes in things.

Not exactly, but it's similar to what I've been saying for a while: Fi and Ti are the "true" logical functions.

Fi is comparative/relational logic. It doesn't analyze things against themselves like Ti does, but instead makes different analyzes (let's make an easy to understand analogy: opinions) and focuses on differences and similarities between them. For Fi truth is something which is valid from various perspectives, not unlike Ti's objectivity.

Now, I know that it's been argued before that ISFj demonstrate that it's Ne the ability to handle multiple points of view, but I don't think so. I do believe that ISFj have no trouble understanding many different sides of things, but they are often unwillingly to accept them, so they use that understanding in order to force their own opinions in.