Feelings aren't always applicable...you have to think sometimes to make sense of the world.Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Definitely better
Maybe a little bit better
Maybe a little bit worse
Definitely worse
I don't really think about Socionics all that much, so this poll doesn't really apply to me.
Feelings aren't always applicable...you have to think sometimes to make sense of the world.
Of course.
.
I actually took it to be more of a S vs. N view of the world than T vs. F.
How so? BTW, that is known as alexithymia.
Good point.
"lifeless and flat" = Fe
I thought the guy was meaning 'lifeless and flat' more in terms of people analysing everything to the point where they don't just feel or experience things without first trying to understand and compartmentalise them. So you miss out on 'real' living and just end up experiencing things in a one-dimensional way.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
.
Not to be devil's advocate, but the world "making sense" could exclusively be an illusion of logic (which I partake in shamelessly, of course).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, thank you. (That "one dimension" is that of analyzation, regardless of the number of forms of mental abstractions one uses.)
Anyways, about the general idea behind this topic: I think the negative effect Socionics has on one's life is directly related to the extent which they identify themselves and others as types. One who thinks "this is the way my mind works on a certain level, but it is not who I ultimately am" won't be as negatively effected as those who very strongly identify who they ultimately are with a type/quadra/dichotomy/whatever.
thanks
I believe that feeling is usually expressed using emotions, as a general construct, and thinking with thoughts; so if you have no emotions you are not feeling (though you may have felt before when you did), and if you have no thoughts you are not thinking.
Have you considered ESE? That statement (and a preference for sensation untainted by abstraction or taxonomy) is not characteristic of intuitive-types. Also, your conclusions seem to be based on a subjective measure of 'is this influence bad' rather than 'does this event happen', which is typical of feeling-types:
I have a few different answers.
First of all, there's no chance that I'm ESE, or any sensory type. I'm not asking you to believe me, but stating my stance on the matter based on how different information elements come to play in my mind and life.
Secondly, the things that I'm talking about here aren't ideas that I have always held at the forefront of my mind. My "automatic" mode is Te + Ni.
Lastly... I don't entirely care what type I "am" anymore. I don't doubt LIE, and Socionics is an interesting and (imo) valid theory. However, it's losing its draw for me. I no longer see "my type" as who I am (or who anyone else is).
.
I agree with Huitzilopochtlis' definition of this. As a general construct I think it is reasonable.
If someone has no emotions at all, one could say they do not possess any F. Everyone possesses some F.
Diana, I believe he is saying that if there is no emotions present at all, then at that moment there is no F. Diana, it is you who does not understand.
Negative.
Ethics is not the same as "feelings". Logic is not the same as "thinking". (Logic and Ethics don't even mean "logic" and "ethics" if you look at the English definitions of those words.)
What those who say "T" and "F" are referring to is pop MBTT, not Socionics.
.
@Joy, I never said ethics are the same as logic etc.. it seems you confused about the socionic definition of these terminologies. You are chopping and changing from a dictionary definition which is not a socionic definition. It would help if you clarified your definitions of socionic dichotomies of T and F rather than confusing it with common English definitions.
If definitions were clarified and agreed on, then Huitz's statement could be refined more. It's ok enough in general.
@Diana, I know what you mean, Tcaudligg may use his F functions at times. You will use your T functions at times. Now what I wonder is, if someone had their F functions removed, how do you think they would act?
What other type of logic and emotion exists, that requires socionics to be explained? Feeling is an ethical distinction, and thinking a is logical one. What you described is a combination of 'sensing' and 'intuition', it has nothing to do with the conclusions that you derive from the experience of gathering data. Once you do reach a conclusion, you will have thought or felt (this is why T/F dominant types are more likely to make judgments, and S/N types are likely to perceive...BTW feel can also mean touch-response, in which case it is sensory...but we are discussing emotions, which would otherwise be left quite unaddressable by the rest of socionic theory although they have a huge influence on individual behaviors and social relations). And you are the only one that is taking T and F stereotypes to the extreme.
To be ethical you need to feel (thinking alone will not cover all of considerations that are necessary and probably lead you off track or negligent of the other's emotions). To be logical you need to think (there is no other way to do this). They are both dependent on each other to some degree, but a preference to use either one excessively will cause you to behave differently. MBTT is irrelevant, and if you were a proponent you wouldn't cast ambiguous doubts on it.
What is intestead to me interesting is to not that they do not use their ethical functions when, for example, they become irritated when they defend their theories: their ethical functions are not under their conscious control and thus they are not particularly good at using them. This is why it is important to make the distinction between emotions, which are inherent to every human being - be it F or T - and ethical functions, which are a way to organize and deal with information. They're definitely better suited than logical functions at dealing with emotions of every kind, but this does not mean that Ts will be less emotional than Fs.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
To clarify, emotions are the result of the use of ethical functions.
That is completely nonsensical. Would you say that when I get a rush of adrenaline and the corresponding emotion I am using an ethical function?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You feel adrenalin (unless you just took a lot of stimulants) as a result of emotively processing a stimuli that was either very good (a thrill) or very bad (danger). This wakes you up and prepares you to deal with very good or bad stimuli effectively, requires very little thought, and is an ethical judgment. Thinking 2 + 2 = 4 will not leave you with excess adrenalin or major depression as much as it will give you a logical foundation for thought. And thank you for immediately deciding that it was nonsensical. I'm seeing a trend in mistyped LIEs on this thread.
Emotively processing a stimuli does not equate with using an ethical function, every human being is capable of such (except special cases, perhaps like autism and such - I am not an expert on the matter). You're basically saying that hearing or seeing something implies the usage of the Se function. Type-calling is an incorrect logical procedure in deciding which side of a dispute is right.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
That has nothing to do with the dispute (to say that it it does, like calling my claim nonsensical without logical evidence of your own, is simply an appeal to emotional persuasion and a logical fallacy at that). You didn't use any reason, and I'm still waiting to hear your rebuttal concerning adrenalin...
You're not hearing my rebuttal - I simply said that reacting to basic stimuli is not something that can be related to a function, and that you will not find any socionics literature that supports such assertion. Basically, you're completely and utterly wrong.
That has an influence with the dispute, because (and many people employ this technique, so don't think you're particularly smart for doing so) you indirectly discredit your opponent by saying that he is mistyped as a logical type - simply due to the fact that he disagrees with your opinion.
There is no attempt at persuasion in me saying that something is nonsensical, given that I am not adressing anybody.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Naturally we are only referring to the action of thought and emotion (of which we are sufficiently aware), we are not defining them completely.
Ah, so according to you feeling and thinking are both ignorant of sensed reality, and instead respond to hallucinations and imaginary friends...and please go back and read the revised post if want to see why I think you're mistyped...it has nothing to do with you not defending your definitions, which you might just suck at, it has more to do with completely abandoning logic and becoming very emotional. If there is nothing in the research literature it does not mean that I am wrong (another logical fallacy). You can be an F-type and still provide a logical conclusion, but feeling about it (as you are doing) will not help.
You're clearly completely mis-interpreting my point, and this discussion will not end in anything productive for any of the parties. From my perspective, it is you that have gotten emotional over the matter. Probably we both have. Bye.
(and, getting emotional over something is not a sign of being an F type - you are still making a very big mistake)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Let me know when you figure out how thought (or any function besides emotion) causes adrenalin.
I apologize, but he was ignoring the logic of my argument and appealing to emotions. At first he said it was decidedly nonsensical (with no support), then that there was no research supporting this (which I disbelieve but likewise would be indicative of paranoia in the context of my rational argument), and when I mentioned on the side that he might be an F-type he began using that as an excuse to ignore my original logic and feigned a personal attack. I can't help but assess everything simultaneously, even if it seems irrelevant to the argument (which it is in this case). I also never claimed that an F-type cannot make a good argument (in fact I stated the opposite). FDG implied this when he began to use this taxonomy to dodge the logic even further.
I didn't say that you did.
That's exactly what I'm not doing.it seems you confused about the socionic definition of these terminologies. You are chopping and changing from a dictionary definition which is not a socionic definition.
It wouldn't make a difference, aside from making me sound like I'm talking about pop MBTT instead of Socionics. Equating Fe/Fi with "feelings" is a better example of confusing a term with the English definition of a word.It would help if you clarified your definitions of socionic dichotomies of T and F rather than confusing it with common English definitions.
.
I agree with Diana, FDG, and Joy (apart from the idea that analysis creates a "one dimensional" life) on this matter.
Type does not define who you are; it defines how well you know who you are and in what ways. Type defines your personality, not your person.
Humans have evolved, it seems, only to observe personality. (or maybe this only applies to thinking types?) You may have many components of who you are, but you will repress those components of which your awareness is poor when in social situations, choosing instead to accentuate your strengths however possible.
So now isn't that supposed to be the domain of the enneagram? What motivations actually exist in people?
Once again, your feel is known as intuition in socionics. If a word makes you moody, you have felt emotional about it whether because of the auditory or visual sensation, or the intuitive connotations (F) or denotations (T). In fact, feeling about words and making intuitive associations with other words is what gives them their unique connotations (aka intuitive 'feel'). If you can't apply something to any hypothetical situation then you haven't understood it at all, only the context in which you can predictably manipulate it. If you feel bad about that then you have felt, and this does not require understanding beyond the one instance that you need to apply it, which is the circumstance that is upsetting you. I never said that feeling types don't think, I said that they are likely to come to a conclusion with more subjective than objective value (see, you are the one who is using stereotypes to make a point). By the way, the process of thinking is based on the positive reinforcement of correct syntax, so on a more subconscious level you really are feeling good about logical ideas when you think. Likewise when you feel, you are thinking about which emotion is most relevant to your understanding, thus neither is independent as you seem to suggest. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about SFs, but if you are going to use that as proof of your argument I will agree that you're probably not logical-type.
Last edited by Nexus; 07-07-2008 at 12:22 AM.
You know I think all this type business is only a prelude to the discussion of the real self that lies within, the self that exists whether it has social utility or not. Now, with type, we're discussing the persona that is not a mask which "hides" the real person, but is the conscious choice of the individual in relating themselves to society effectively.
The social mask is too strong to be broken through by people we think of as psychologically healthy. Only the personality disordered feel comfortable enough, in youth at least (some Jung is coming to mind here, especially his later works), to grapple with the real self within, that is filled with rage at being denied. They don't want to destroy us; they want to force us to see ourselves for what we really are, and to grapple with it. We call them personality disordered (or the common term, sociopath) because they engage in this grappling at society's expense, just as we engage in social necessity at our "own" expense.
.
Again, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Can I say that socionics is socionics, or is it something different in socionics?Holy crap, you can't tell if I'm being sarcastic about SF types?A blind man could see that. It follows contextually with "you'll come away with some very odd ideas about people."
And you're wrong. Please educate yourself before you try to correct other people. F is not emotion, T is not thought, N is not quite intuition in the way you think it is, nor is S purely the 5 senses.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote