Judging People - Fi vs Fe

[Logos]

This is a silly post. Your being irrational, and not in the socionic sense. No one said that, your insistence of putting words in peoples mouths is not conducive to a conversation.

Or perhaps you are seeing things that are not there for some sort of Fe crusade.

Everything I have said makes perfect sense. And I have not accused any function of being what you say here.

Feel free to post your own views on Fe and Fi, and we can examine your credibility on this matter.

Now you are sounding like Phaedrus. It does not make perfect sense because you are conforming a theory to what does not strictly seem to be the case. So it seems that you are pushing for a case that is not necessarily there when looked at observational experiences and behavior. I have personally experienced your explanation of the Fi vs. Fe approaches fall flat. I have seen my share of Fi-egos doing exactly what you described for the Fe behavior and vice versa.

[dbmmama]

Yeah, I think so. To me, being in a heated argument with someone is somewhat refreshing - no seriously - because everything is being brought out into the open. You're not wondering what the other person is thinking or feeling, having to dig for underlying meanings. It's like a purging process - you argue it all out, then it's over. And if hurtful, negative things are dredged up that aren't going to be easily forgotten, well - at least they're out in the open and can be dealt with. To me, blaming Fe for causing hurt is like shooting the messenger. It's just conveying true feelings. Does it really matter in what way it's done? If a person's upset enough about something to be yelling, then it seems like you're sort of missing the point by focusing on the yelling rather than what they're yelling about. It's sort of like hearing your smoke alarm go off, and just being focused on turning it off because the noise of it is annoying you - rather than looking for the fire and being grateful that it's warned you in time.

yes, that's also what i mean by "clearing the air." for me...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Now you are sounding like Phaedrus. It does not make perfect sense because you are conforming a theory to what does not strictly seem to be the case.

Sounding like Phaedrus is now another irrelevant comment... redundant even.. sounding like or not sounding like someone is not and should not detract from what is being discussed, why bring your personal observation on this up? And what theory do you refer to precisely? Socionics? When you say strictly, what infact are getting at? ... it seems you are therfore expecting socionics to explain every single action in a consistently consistent fashion. Is this what you expect from socionics?

So it seems that you are pushing for a case that is not necessarily there when looked at observational experiences and behavior.

On your observational experiences? Yet you choose to ignore or contradict others...speaking from themselves as opposed to your "third party" view. I see no reason to give merit to your views in such a circumstance.

To get here you should first explain there.. ie the theory of socionics supports what I say (as I have demonstrated) and what others have said.

I have personally experienced your explanation of the Fi vs. Fe approaches fall flat. I have seen my share of Fi-egos doing exactly what you described for the Fe behavior and vice versa.

So on what I touched on, of course people behave in different ways at different times... but there is a general overall *clear* pattern taking place over the course of interaction, if you can't observe this trait perhaps you are not looking properly. And please also remember we are talking about socionics here... there is no harm (except apparently to you) to work at describing this phenomena in a socionic context, and that what has been done, and is the point of the thread.

I have elaborated with with the socionic theory in my first post, made further clarifications in the second post, both with and relating to examples. And based on the theory, coupled with observations of the types that have spoke here, and my own observations, what I say makes perfect sense.

What exactly have you shown here? What you have done, I re-iterate, is put words in my mouth, and it would perhaps be useful if you detracted that comment, will you?

I would at present like to see your own views on the subject of Fe and Fi here yourself, i re-iterate also. I have elaborated with the theory in my first post, made further clarifications in the second post, both with and relating to examples. What exactly have you shown here? Pulling out random quotes from people and twisting them, that's what I see.

[Slacker]

Jem, that was a good way of describing it. I like a formal clearing of the air, and that seems unnecessary to Fe-valuers, which can cause misunderstandings between us.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

Fe egos use negative Fe in others to acknowledge what exactly? That they are bothered by something? That I understand. But how do Fe egos go about expressing knowledge of their own words (via emotional outburts) causing severe emotional pain in those to whom they direct their negative Fe?

They say, "I'm sorry." But you are misreading what I said. I said that Fe-egos can and will often acknowledge the negative effect that their words had on the other and respond to it. The problem arises, however, in what constitutes an appropriate response.

I did not get the impression that Sirena's mother fully understood or even acknowledged that her outburst may have caused Sirena lingering emotional pain and doubts based soley on the manner in which she supposedly carried on as if "nothing ever happened."

Maybe in your life and in your experiences, Fe egos are prone to address the causes of their emotional outburts and perhaps offer reassurance of where they and the person to whom they directed their outbursts stand in their relation to one another (after the confrontation has taken place), but Sirena did not feel that her mother had offered such acknowledgement.

Some other Fi valuers may have already agreed to having had similiar experiences with Fe egos in this type of interaction. I know I have.

Perhaps Sirena as much missed her mother's acknowledgment as her mother did not provide what Sirena felt to be the appropriate one for her. But yes, they are from my experiences, and this element seems to be forgotten just as much on the other side, so to speak, when Fi-valuers try to paint how Fe-egos are in their grand schema of things. But the description of these occurences seems quite alien and artificial to my ears beyond the fact that I am of a Ti-valuing quadra.

I do not believe I was doing that and was definitely not my intention. Though admittedly, I was arguing from a Fi 'heavy' perspective.

Which is understandable.

I didn't say that they did. But merely that's how it's perceived by a Fi ego/valuer.

When person A yells something incredibly emotional at person B and a few minutes later, carries on the interaction almost as if the outburst didn't occur and at least appears to expect person B to do the same, then person B (the Fi ego) will get the impression that person A wants or expects them to "sweep" the incident under the rug.

Except it is rarely like that in even my Fe-bias experience.

No one here has closed their minds to the possibility that perhaps there is a method to what a Fi ego/valuer may perceive as 'madness' coming from the Fe ego during these types of emotional interactions, but I do not think you have done an adequate job of expressing just what that is, being this thread's self appointed devil's advocate and all.

You may disagree, but you do appear (to me) to be twisting the statements presented in favor/explaination of the Fi point of view into being some sort of generalizations or definite conclusions about the Fe egos perspective and intentions.

During such times, the Fe is telling you how they are feeling in that point in time about whatever it is they are mad about. Sometimes it is swept under the rug, because the other person may be aware that the Fe ego has been under a tremendous amount of pressure before she snapped. But Fe ego is about emotional transparency and being a reflection of forthmost honesty about how they are feeling. They do not really leave you second guessing about it. If they are feeling negatively about you in that moment, then that is what they will try and get across to you. It does not try to preserve or maintain set relationships, but to go with the dynamic flow of emotions within themselves and their environment. So there is a great deal of method to their madness, but it is a method that leaves Fi-valuers uncomfortable since they want stable relations.

[Slacker]

Fi can cause hurt too, and of course anyone strong in Fi is strong in Fe and vice versa. But if someone is using Fi to cause hurt it wouldn't be about creating strong emotions, it would be about manipulation, using the relationship to cause feelings of guilt or something more internal like that. Both functions can cause hurt in other people.

[duality is cringe]

Perhaps Sirena as much missed her mother's acknowledgment as her mother did not provide what Sirena felt to be the appropriate one for her.


During such times, the Fe is telling you how they are feeling in that point in time about whatever it is they are mad about. Sometimes it is swept under the rug, because the other person may be aware that the Fe ego has been under a tremendous amount of pressure before she snapped. But Fe ego is about emotional transparency and being a reflection of forthmost honesty about how they are feeling. They do not really leave you second guessing about it. If they are feeling negatively about you in that moment, then that is what they will try and get across to you. It does not try to preserve or maintain set relationships, but to go with the dynamic flow of emotions within themselves and their environment. So there is a great deal of method to their madness, but it is a method that leaves Fi-valuers uncomfortable since they want stable relations.

This is more along the lines of what I wanted to read about. How the interaction goes down from the eyes of the other side.

Thanks for explaining.

[Logos]

Sounding like Phaedrus now seems to me like a somewhat irrelevant comment... redundant even.. sounding like or not sounding like someone is not and should not detract from what is being discussed, why bring your personal observation on this up?

I'm just noting it to in fact note it.

And what theory do you refer to precisely? Socionics? When you say strictly, what infact are getting at? ... it seems you are therfore expecting socionics to explain every single action in a consistently consistent fashion. Is this what you expect from socionics? On your observational experiences? Yet you choose to ignore or contradict others...speaking from themselves as opposed to your "third party" view. I see no reason to give merit to your views in such a circumstance.

I am merely saying that at times the expected outcomes or explanations of Socionics theory fly in the face of counterevidence, and in such cases, the theory should be reevaluated in light of that.

*Note: Sirena, Cyclops's excerpt here is what dissecting statements looks like.

To get here you should first explain there.. ie the theory of socionics supports what I say (as I have demonstrated) and what others have said. So on what I touched on, of course people behave in different ways at different times... but there is a general overall *clear* pattern taking place over the course of interaction, if you can't observe this trait perhaps you are not looking properly. And please also remember we are talking about socionics here... there is no harm (except apparently to you) to work at describing this phenomena in a socionic context, and that id what has been done, and is the point of the thread.

But you are interepreting the theory at an extreme dichotomy of Fi vs. Fe that does not necessarily hold up on closer inspection to the behavior of people. There is a clear pattern, and I agree, but I disagree with the extent of the interpretation of that pattern of Fe behavior. I do not appreciate the pointed comment in bold either.

I have elaborated with with the socionic theory in my first post, made further clarifications in the second post, both with and relating to examples. And based on the theory, coupled with observations of the types that have spoke here, and my own observations, what I say makes perfect sense.

And I had little problems with what you wrote then. Truthfully, I realized that my use of "insensitive" was a mistake, but "irrational" should have been what I used instead. Your post was incredibly rational and close to Socionics, but it still created misconceptions about Fe-ego behavior. It was also the straw of misconception that broke the camel's back.

What exactly have you shown here? What you have done, I re-iterate, is put words in my mouth, and it would perhaps be useful if you detracted that comment, will you?

I would at present like to see your own views on the subject yourself, i re-iterate also. I have elaborated with the theory in my first post, made further clarifications in the second post, both with and relating to examples. What exactly have you shown here? Pulling out random quotes from people and twisting them, that's what I see.

Apart from that response to you, I have done nothing of the sort that you have suggested, and I am personally insulted by your comment. I have shown that the issue is not as clear-cut as Fi-egos perceive the situation to be. That Fe-egos do not just sweep things under the rug or pretend that conflicts never happen. I have shown that there is counterevidence that goes against popular conceptions of F type behavior in these cases. But yes, I will retract my statement because I was being irrational, in that instance.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm just noting it to in fact note it.

I am merely saying that at times the expected outcomes or explanations of Socionics theory fly in the face of counterevidence, and in such cases, the theory should be reevaluated in light of that.

*Note: Sirena, Cyclops's excerpt here is what dissecting statements looks like.

But you are interepreting the theory at an extreme dichotomy of Fi vs. Fe that does not necessarily hold up on closer inspection to the behavior of people. There is a clear pattern, and I agree, but I disagree with the extent of the interpretation of that pattern of Fe behavior. I do not appreciate the pointed comment in bold either.

And I had little problems with what you wrote then. Truthfully, I realized that my use of "insensitive" was a mistake, but "irrational" should have been what I used instead. Your post was incredibly rational and close to Socionics, but it still created misconceptions about Fe-ego behavior. It was also the straw of misconception that broke the camel's back.

Apart from that response to you, I have done nothing of the sort that you have suggested, and I am personally insulted by your comment. I have shown that the issue is not as clear-cut as Fi-egos perceive the situation to be. That Fe-egos do not just sweep things under the rug or pretend that conflicts never happen. I have shown that there is counterevidence that goes against popular conceptions of F type behavior in these cases. But yes, I will retract my statement because I was being irrational, in that instance.

Ok, my comment was merely in response to what you had being saying, and thank you for your appreciation of my post also, and I think this is pretty good...

During such times, the Fe is telling you how they are feeling in that point in time about whatever it is they are mad about. Sometimes it is swept under the rug, because the other person may be aware that the Fe ego has been under a tremendous amount of pressure before she snapped. But Fe ego is about emotional transparency and being a reflection of forthmost honesty about how they are feeling. They do not really leave you second guessing about it. If they are feeling negatively about you in that moment, then that is what they will try and get across to you. It does not try to preserve or maintain set relationships, but to go with the dynamic flow of emotions within themselves and their environment. So there is a great deal of method to their madness, but it is a method that leaves Fi-valuers uncomfortable since they want stable relations.

Seems to tie in with what we've all been saying (you and I especially), simply in different words. Glad we can all agree

[Logos]

Seems to tie in with what we've all been saying (you and I especially), simply in different words. Glad we can all agree

Good.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It does not try to preserve or maintain set relationships, but to go with the dynamic flow of emotions within themselves and their environment. So there is a great deal of method to their madness, but it is a method that leaves Fi-valuers uncomfortable since they want stable relations.

Ugh. Fe people want stable relationships too, what are you implying there? Stable, healthy... long-term relationships are great for everybody. You think fe people are all ditzy blah blahers or something? We just prefer that yes, our actual emotions were respected for their own sake and not get pushed aside due to 'productivity.' Whether you think so or not, that's sheer nazism. There's no point or purpose or rhyme or reason to human emotions but they still need to be celebrated. You think your love is so special and great and other people don't know what it's like to have a one-on-one connection with somebody? Isolationist crap.

You loooove humans and our feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings you do, admit it. ADMIT IT.

[Logos]

Ugh. Fe people want stable relationships too, what are you implying there? Stable, healthy... long-term relationships are great for everybody. You think fe people are all ditzy blah blahers or something? We just prefer that yes, our actual emotions were respected for their own sake and not get pushed aside due to 'productivity.' Whether you think so or not, that's sheer nazism. There's no point or purpose or rhyme or reason to human emotions but they still need to be celebrated. You think your love is so special and great and other people don't know what it's like to have a one-on-one connection with somebody? Isolationist crap.

You loooove humans and our feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings you do, admit it. ADMIT IT.

I'm not implying that Fe people want chaotic relationships, but rather, more organic ones.

[Sirena]

Dolphin, what happened to your post? The one you directed at me. I just came looking for it to reply to you and it's gone!

[Sirena]

Oops. I didn't save it. Crap!! I'm sorry.

Ohhh dolphin! Your post was gold! I've been meaning to come around to reply to it, but it's been a crazy week. Anyway, a lot of what you said makes sense and I wanted you to know that I appreciate your words and your taking the time to clarify your intentions. I got a little defensive there for a bit, but it was mostly at myself for feeling I wasn't getting the message across the way it was in my head. Oh well, you're cool! <3

EDIT: we're both marine creatures afterall! hehe

EDIT: Sirena=mermaid

[XoX]

fwiw i intend to remove that in the near future. overall i don't think it's necessarily an inaccurate tendency, but the description as a whole is full of statements like this which abjectly fail at painting the picture that you need to understand in order to grasp what Fe polr means.

I remember seeing that kind of reference in some other ILI descriptions too. It seems to me ILIs do lose control of their (negative) emotions much more easily than SLIs.

See? Look, everyone. I don't say that people with Fe get upset more often or worse than anyone else. I say that they get upset and then are friends again as if nothing happened.

I think I understand what you mean. Fe people do see strong expression of emotions as a natural thing. However it is not that simple. For example Beta NFs seem to have a long memory if someone hurts them emotionally. Especially EIEs.

Very true. Periodically for a healthy LSE. I was almost in a fist fight with one today (NOT healthy), but the violence was miniscule. Hot-headed fuckers they can be. Can't be rational or calm for shit. I mean, even they can set me off and that's almost impossible to do.

Haha.

[suoko]

The T and the F are J-functions. And the P and the N are P-functions. There is no such thing as judging in the personality theory. Here, it makes no difference if one is a dominant J or a dominant P, and it makes no difference if one's F/T are introverted or extroverted. The feeling or whatever being introverted or extroverted just means that one's feeling is dominantly extroverted or it's dominantly introverted.

[jason_m]

The T and the F are J-functions. And the P and the N are P-functions. There is no such thing as judging in the personality theory. Here, it makes no difference if one is a dominant J or a dominant P, and it makes no difference if one's F/T are introverted or extroverted. The feeling or whatever being introverted or extroverted just means that one's feeling is dominantly extroverted or it's dominantly introverted.

The way you are describing things makes me think that you are talking about the MBTI, not socionics, because you are talking about dichotomies and saying that Fi and Fe are very similar. Yes, there is a big difference between socionics and the MBTI.

Jason

[Lobo]

Reading this thread there is something that I don't quite understand. I know that this is an old discussion and all, but I'm curious. How is it that Fe is related to quick resolution of an emotional argument, while Fi is more of holding a grudge? I see holding a grudge a matter of pride instead of it being related to a function... I don't feel like I have the energy or the desire to maintain a grudge, I'd much rather resolve the matter at the moment it happens. As a negative situation lasts, as in not resolving the issue by not taking appropriate measures like just ignoring each other, it has a draining effect on me as time goes by. It's straining for me to deal with people who have problems apologizing or accepting apologies because they are too proud. To me this is a matter unrelated to socionics, though certain types maybe more prone to it?

[Sirena]

The way you are describing things makes me think that you are talking about the MBTI, not socionics, because you are talking about dichotomies and saying that Fi and Fe are very similar. Yes, there is a big difference between socionics and the MBTI.

Jason

Exactly!

[Ms. Kensington]

bumped for a more generalized discussion brought on by a recent thread.

all people are capable of judging. Fi people do it primarily by Fiing and Ti(Fe quadra) people do it primarily by Tiing. Judging is not equal to one or the other, though may be related somewhat to the type of cognitive process being used.

[Sirena]

bumped for a more generalized discussion brought on by a recent thread.

all people are capable of judging. Fi people do it primarily by Fiing and Ti(Fe quadra) people do it primarily by Tiing. Judging is not equal to one or the other, though may be related somewhat to the type of cognitive process being used.

Can you talk some about the differences between Fi-based judgments and Ti-based judgments? Or link me to the thread you mentioned, if discussed there? This is interesting.

[strrrng]

Can you talk some about the differences between Fi-based judgments and Ti-based judgments? Or link me to the thread you mentioned, if discussed there? This is interesting.

She's right that they both function essentially in the same way, just using different means. Both draw invariant relations between things; 'distance' is a good word to relate to it. Obviously Ti is explicit, looking for a holistic sense of the logical relationships throughout a system, while Fi is implicit, rendering the system more along the lines of an attraction/repulsion spectrum. Fi judgments can seem absolute, in the sense of, a self-contained, peremptory assessment of something; but the cause-and-effect processes that Te observes in the external world will help reshape these internal states over time. Similarly, a Ti judgment may seem more overtly absolute (more so in beta), but the latent processes Fe observes give variations to the things which are being structured. One may think Fi is about subjective relationships, but the truth is, Ti/Fe and Fi/Te are both about subjective relationships, and just determine them in different ways.

[Brilliand]

She's right that they both function essentially in the same way, just using different means. Both draw invariant relations between things; 'distance' is a good word to relate to it. Obviously Ti is explicit, looking for a holistic sense of the logical relationships throughout a system, while Fi is implicit, rendering the system more along the lines of an attraction/repulsion spectrum. Fi judgments can seem absolute, in the sense of, a self-contained, peremptory assessment of something; but the cause-and-effect processes that Te observes in the external world will help reshape these internal states over time. Similarly, a Ti judgment may seem more overtly absolute (more so in beta), but the latent processes Fe observes give variations to the things which are being structured. One may think Fi is about subjective relationships, but the truth is, Ti/Fe and Fi/Te are both about subjective relationships, and just determine them in different ways.

So the difference between and is the difference between explicit and implicit? That doesn't seem quite right to me - perhaps I'm not understanding the terms as you intend them.

I seem to remember Expat having somethign to say on the matter...
: Filters known information, discarding the garbage
: Filters sources of information, ignoring the liars

So can be about people, but will be about the "sum total of humanity"... not particular people, except as they relate to the categories they're in. will be about particular people, and will have trouble working where there isn't a particular source involved - perhaps a single person, or a single source of information, which would skim over as part of a category.

(Mostly just a brainstorm)

[strrrng]

So the difference between and is the difference between explicit and implicit? That doesn't seem quite right to me - perhaps I'm not understanding the terms as you intend them.

That's a general reduction of the differences in their natures, but sure.

I seem to remember Expat having somethign to say on the matter...
: Filters known information, discarding the garbage
: Filters sources of information, ignoring the liars

Sounds dumb. Like I said, they both do the same thing—establish a holistic sense of coherence within a framework—in different ways. It's not about people vs. ideas, etc.

So can be about people, but will be about the "sum total of humanity"... not particular people, except as they relate to the categories they're in. will be about particular people, and will have trouble working where there isn't a particular source involved - perhaps a single person, or a single source of information, which would skim over as part of a category.

(Mostly just a brainstorm)

That's not a bad interpretation, although I think it's a bit too limiting, in terms of demonstrating the breadth of what the functions do. Yes, Ti is more categorical, while Fi is self-contained; but I don't think that necessitates Ti only seeing people in categories, or Fi not being able to function without some individual source.

[Brilliand]

Sounds dumb. Like I said, they both do the same thing—establish a holistic sense of coherence within a framework—in different ways. It's not about people vs. ideas, etc.

So you would disagree with this? Or did I just oversimplify it?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=17347

[strrrng]

So you would disagree with this? Or did I just oversimplify it?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=17347

That was a really good post IMO. But I do think you sort of simplified it, so I couldn't see everything you were referring to immediately.

[Trevor]

produces arbitrary categories. Therefore it is subjective. Are those categories useful? It is not on to decide that.

[aka-kitsune]

Don't know how I missed this thread back in August 2008... glad it was bumped.

Jem, that was a good way of describing it. I like a formal clearing of the air, and that seems unnecessary to Fe-valuers, which can cause misunderstandings between us.

Weighing in as creative, I disagree.

I DEFINITELY prefer an acknowledgement of the issues that cause my upset, in fact, and usually look for a way to address the matter directly. I want things to be "OK" with someone who is important to me after we've had a disagreement. But yet, I also don't allow myself to ever get really personally mean in conflict, no matter how upset I am. I might think it, but I know that what is said cannot be unsaid. I generally get the impression from people whether they're comfortable addressing an issue afterwards. I'll try gently, by asking if they want to talk about what happened, or for otherwise looking for a natural opening to bring it up.

With some people (and some issues), I might get the impression they just seem to prefer not talking about difficult feelings or disagreements once they've past. Very "let sleeping dogs lie". I don't particularly like this state of affairs, but I also don't really relish always being the confrontational one. But it REALLY bugs me when things go unacknowledged. In fact, there was an issue I had with a friend back in Sept. that he (an creative) never got around to talking about with me. I didn't push it, because I'd never seen him so upset and didn't want to be the one to upset him again.

[anndelise]

So the difference between and is the difference between explicit and implicit? That doesn't seem quite right to me - perhaps I'm not understanding the terms as you intend them.

explicit vs implicit is one of the main differences between Ti and Fi.
The other main difference is that Fi is more personally based, while Ti is more impersonal. Fi doesn't remove the individual(s) involved. Whether it be the Fi person judging something as it relates to them, or judging something as it relates to another person. (ie, is this information appropriate for me...and/or is this information appropriate for him/her... other examples would apply but I'm not going to think too deeply on this.) While Ti is more easily capable of removing personal references from involvement.

Note: It's kind of funny when having an Fi ego type dealing with impersonal information. They will almost constantly engage in...i think the term is anthropomorphism?? Talking/Thinking about the relationship between two inanimate objects as if one or both of them are animated.

Note also: The resulting decision/judgment of Ti&Fe vs Fi&Te can appear the same, the process of how they each reached the decision would differ, however.


(this description, of course, is removing the influences of the N and S functions)