dbmmama and Fi?

[strrrng]

allie,

you and i obviously do not see eye to eye. i understand that and i also understand that i've matured enough over my life (i am more than double your age) to know when to shut my mouth over things you say. it takes a strong will to do that. because when i was your age, my will came out in ways that would tear you apart (or at least we'd have one good fight about it.)

i appreciate maturing for many reasons. i will not further discuss this aspect to our relationship. it would do neither of us any good for what we want in life.

Well, that sure isn't transparent

Stop using the "maturity" card to evade rational discussion. Allie didn't insult you; she laid out an argument right in front of you lol.

And you're basically saying, "I would get mad and yell at you for contradicting what I think, but I'm *mature* now, so I have an excuse to ignore you." And that just screams alpha lol, at least Se void.

[dbmmama]

This description means absolutely nothing; an ESFj could do the exact same thing if they wanted to. If you're going to use stupid, superficial trait descriptions to type yourself, go back to myers briggs. This is about information processing, not petty behaviors.



I really doubt that's "what you're talking about" lol. Seems more like you just cherry-picked some generic ESFp description and used it to encompass all the random stuff you were saying before.



Appreciation does not come from Fi; I have no idea why you think that. Fi is not morals and personal sentiments.

what i have to go by is the descriptions of what the elements are by the socionics out there. if i didn't and went with my own descriptions and definitions, then it wouldn't be socionics anymore.

if YOU happen to "get" what these elements are about on a deeper level, great for you. i can only really go by what i'm reading that socionists have said about them. otherwise, i get lost, as has been evidenced on this forum.

[strrrng]

what i have to go by is the descriptions of what the elements are by the socionics out there. if i didn't and went with my own descriptions and definitions, then it wouldn't be socionics anymore.

if YOU happen to "get" what these elements are about on a deeper level, great for you. i can only really go by what i'm reading that socionists have said about them. otherwise, i get lost, as has been evidenced on this forum.

You do realize that the description you pasted said absolutely NOTHING about information elements, right? That was my entire point. If you want to paste something from rick's site about how Fi processes information, and then give an example to illustrate how you do that, fine; but just pasting some astrology-esque behavioral description lends absolutely no credence to your argument.

[dbmmama]

Well, that sure isn't transparent

Stop using the "maturity" card to evade rational discussion. Allie didn't insult you; she laid out an argument right in front of you lol.

And you're basically saying, "I would get mad and yell at you for contradicting what I think, but I'm *mature* now, so I have an excuse to ignore you." And that just screams alpha lol, at least Se void.

no, not at all actually. i never said she insulted me. now who's reading into my words meaning that was not there?

i know she doesn't like me, for whatever reason. and she was trying to get me going by saying that i'm not Se because i don't counter her arguments when she presents them to me. is that her idea of an Se ego? i do not believe that that is indicative of someone without Se ego. i HAVE matured in a lot of ways, whether you understand what that means or not, since both of you haven't yet. and yes, when someone said that to me when i was you guys age, i reacted the same damn way. the irony is very funny to me.

it's not an excuse, it's wisdom over what's truly important.

and what's important right now is that i get off the computer and get ready for our homeschool group's kickoff party. see ya!

[Lotus]

i appreciate the interest and time people are putting into this for me, everyone.

to clarify what *I* meant. Slacker Mom has it right:

2. Introverted ethics

An SEE knows exactly how to make other people feel a certain way. He can offer genuine, believable praise to an individual he wants to reward, and likewise can make a person very upset and/or ashamed in themselves. However, if an offender changes their ways in favor of the SEEs point of view, the SEE will be quick to reward the offender with praise, and appreciation, treating them like a good friend. Moral ground to an SEE completely depends on the situation and is anything but set in stone.
"Fake niceness" rarely fools an SEE. The SEE can easily tell whether a person is being genuine or just selfishly trying to fulfil their own needs.

THAT is what i'm talking about.

That honestly means nothing. Almost everyone thinks that they're good at spotting someone being fake. What makes you different?

It would be heaven if I was around straightshooting, straighttalkers that genuinely expressed their emotions when and if the time/place, whatever, called for it.

I think the reason people here see me as Fe valuing as well as Fe base is just because I like to play and have fun. and just because i can read vibes easily doesn't mean that's what i'm all about.

No. I wrote two posts on why you're Fe valuing. I never said it was because you liked to play and have fun. If you actually read it, you'd see why people think you're Fe valuing.

i'm not going back to find it, but allie said something about me expressing myself in an Fe way irl. NOT! if my sister read that one, she'd laugh her head off. this is ONLINE people! putting your finger on a button that makes a smiley face does not make one Fe. choosing to put a smiley face does not make one Fe. BEING Fe irl makes one Fe. that i am not. reading other people's vibes feels more like a curse than anything else. yeah, i do it, but PREFER that people talk straightup not all over the top "happy, giggly, fake emotions" all over the place. i sure don't do that irl. i was always my sister's "straight man" growing up.

Don't talk about something I said without a direct quote in its proper context. I'd like to know what you're referring to.

and i never said that i couldn't understand what someone's words mean. i just prefer that emotions are expressed genuinely not to "keep the vibe going." now my sister on the other hand, that's her.

I've been very genuine here in telling you what I think. You've been continually turning things personal when they were never intended to be. I don't know why this is, why you're incapable of talking about this without feeling criticized or attacked.

when my children express their emotions about something, i am the first to jump on the situation to see what can be DONE about helping them deal so that they calm themselves from within. i do NOT manipulate, i allow. emotional manipulation through "fake emotional displays" is the devil to me. that is the worst bullshit anyone can do to another. back, back i say!!

Fe does not mean emotional manipulation. Half of the INFps on this forum would roll over and die if they read that.

allie,

you and i obviously do not see eye to eye. i understand that and i also understand that i've matured enough over my life (i am more than double your age) to know when to shut my mouth over things you say. it takes a strong will to do that. because when i was your age, my will came out in ways that would tear you apart (or at least we'd have one good fight about it.)

i appreciate maturing for many reasons. i will not further discuss this aspect to our relationship. it would do neither of us any good for what we want in life.

We obviously have different perspectives on what "maturity" means. To me, it means that I can speak my mind on something in a strictly intellectual context without reacting emotionally and taking it personally. I'm sorry if you're too "mature" to consider my points and that your "wisdom" is beyond my logic. Hopefully in a few years I'll learn, yah?

no, not at all actually. i never said she insulted me. now who's reading into my words meaning that was not there?

i know she doesn't like me, for whatever reason. and she was trying to get me going by saying that i'm not Se because i don't counter her arguments when she presents them to me. is that her idea of an Se ego? i do not believe that that is indicative of someone without Se ego. i HAVE matured in a lot of ways, whether you understand what that means or not, since both of you haven't yet.

You don't understand me at all, obviously. And no surprise there. You do NOT know I do not like you. I NEVER said my idea of Se ego is someone who counters arguments. I DO understand what "matured" means. And tbqh I don't think you would know whether I have "matured" or not.

Your attempts at reading into me are completely pointless. Because I have nothing better to do, I'll clarify:

I don't dislike you. I do find the majority of the things you say on this forum somewhat annoying and "" for my taste, but I wouldn't argue someone's type for those reasons. That's extremely trivial and it's too time-consuming for me to waste like that. Anyway, if you actually read over what I wrote, I'd hardly call it an argument. I quoted what you said and compared it to the function descriptions. I showed how what you wrote supports ESE and points away from SEE. To completely ignore all of that and then latch onto one sentence from an SEE description (that anyone could relate to!) doesn't seem that "mature" to me.

And since everything I wrote is based on what YOU wrote, the following cop-outs really shouldn't be used here:
1. "You don't understand me" - I am assuming what you wrote is true and accurate. Unless you lied, you've basically argued yourself to be ESE. I didn't have to do anything but quote you.
2. "This/that does not mean Fe leading" or "SEEs have strong Fe too" - I am comparing what you write to the Wikisocion descriptions without much input from myself. I bolded the similarities. You support ESE. You contradict SEE. I cannot make that simpler. And tbh, I really hate using descriptions from Wikisocion to support my arguments, but I wanted to make this as clear to you as possible.
3. "I've met her in real life, she doesn't seem like an ESE" - I'm quoting her words exactly, and finding them to relate to the ESE descriptions to an extreme degree and yet contrast the SEE ones in several places. Either the descriptions are innaccurate, or what she tells us is inaccurate. I haven't done anything, and I've barely made an argument. As I have said previously, she argued it for herself. I was just pointing it out by displaying the commonalities.

[strrrng]

no, not at all actually. i never said she insulted me. now who's reading into my words meaning that was not there?

i know she doesn't like me, for whatever reason. and she was trying to get me going by saying that i'm not Se because i don't counter her arguments when she presents them to me. is that her idea of an Se ego? i do not believe that that is indicative of someone without Se ego. i HAVE matured in a lot of ways, whether you understand what that means or not, since both of you haven't yet. and yes, when someone said that to me when i was you guys age, i reacted the same damn way. the irony is very funny to me.

it's not an excuse, it's wisdom over what's truly important.

and what's important right now is that i get off the computer and get ready for our homeschool group's kickoff party. see ya!

Fair enough, I can be an immature dick at times lol.

Regardless, the rest of her argument was logical, and you didn't respond to any of it.

[Slacker]

Well, that sure isn't transparent

Stop using the "maturity" card to evade rational discussion. Allie didn't insult you; she laid out an argument right in front of you lol.

And you're basically saying, "I would get mad and yell at you for contradicting what I think, but I'm *mature* now, so I have an excuse to ignore you." And that just screams alpha lol, at least Se void.

Maybe she's not putting a logical counter-argument out because she has a Ti PoLR? She seems to be strong in Se to me if you read through the whole thread and other threads she's contributed to. I don't understand how other people aren't seeing this.

[Lotus]

Maybe she's not putting a logical counter-argument out because she has a Ti PoLR? She seems to be strong in Se to me if you read through the whole thread and other threads she's contributed to. I don't understand how other people aren't seeing this.

What is strong Se iyo?

[strrrng]

Maybe she's not putting a logical counter-argument out because she has a Ti PoLR? She seems to be strong in Se to me if you read through the whole thread and other threads she's contributed to. I don't understand how other people aren't seeing this.

Um, that's bullshit. Ti polr does not mean you are incapable of logical argument. I've seen anndelise present arguments that made other people look silly, and tereg write out very logical and thorough arguments. Stop using functions as excuses. If she knows herself and knows socionics, she should have no problem illustrating logically how she is an ESFp.

[hellothere]

i know she doesn't like me, for whatever reason. and she was trying to get me going by saying that i'm not Se because i don't counter her arguments when she presents them to me. is that her idea of an Se ego? i do not believe that that is indicative of someone without Se ego. i HAVE matured in a lot of ways, whether you understand what that means or not, since both of you haven't yet. and yes, when someone said that to me when i was you guys age, i reacted the same damn way. the irony is very funny to me.

yeah I don't see how being sensitive to your reasoning being picked apart is evidence against SEE/Ti-polr. If its got nothing to do with Ti, what's it got to do with Se? And even then, how is it an argument for ESE, who has Se-demonstrative?

I don't dislike you. I do find the majority of the things you say on this forum somewhat annoying and "" for my taste, but I wouldn't argue someone's type for those reasons. That's extremely trivial and it's too time-consuming for me to waste like that. Anyway, if you actually read over what I wrote, I'd hardly call it an argument. I quoted what you said and compared it to the function descriptions. I showed how what you wrote supports ESE and points away from SEE. To completely ignore all of that and then latch onto one sentence from an SEE description (that anyone could relate to!) doesn't seem that "mature" to me.

I still don't think your interpretation of what she wrote (which if anything, showed confidence in use of certain IM elements, but not necessarily what she valued) is necessarily the correct one, so its not surprising that she wasn't convinced by it.

[strrrng]

I still don't think your interpretation of what she wrote (which if anything, showed confidence in use of certain IM elements, but not necessarily what she valued) is necessarily the correct one, so its not surprising that she wasn't convinced by it.

If she wasn't convinced by it, why didn't she point out what was wrong with it? If she saw that things were off, why did she only select one paragraph and write some cop-out crap about maturity and wisdom?

[hellothere]

If she wasn't convinced by it, why didn't she point out what was wrong with it? If she saw that things were off, why did she only select one paragraph and write some cop-out crap about maturity and wisdom?

yeah fair enough, good point (at least the first one). i dunno, maybe she was overwhelmed by everything being thrown at her. oh well

[dbmmama]

yeah fair enough, good point (at least the first one). i dunno, maybe she was overwhelmed by everything being thrown at her. oh well

or i have other more important things to do with my time, at least at that time. i'll write what i see as SEE in me, probably later tonight. if those things don't make sense to some or do to others, i'm open to hearing what people have to say.

[strrrng]

or i have other more important things to do with my time, at least at that time.

Yet you took the time out to make other relatively long posts and paste descriptions. It would make sense for you to take the time to respond to Allie's argument if you were so convinced of your type, as it brought up valid points that contradict what you have said.

[dbmmama]

Yet you took the time out to make other relatively long posts and paste descriptions. It would make sense for you to take the time to respond to Allie's argument if you were so convinced of your type, as it brought up valid points that contradict what you have said.

you're so funny. and i don't think you're a dick either.

if you look at what i posted earlier today, one was long and there were a few shorter ones. and the quote came from Slacker Mom, i just copied it from her post. lol

when i said i didn't have time then, after the last post i typed, i was out the door, literally. to spend that much time arguing is just not worth it to me. i had to go live my life irl.

to me, to counter every single thing that allie posted would be asinine (i love that word by the way.) that's not my way. i prefer offense, not defense. that is why i said i will write my own explanation. if it is not sufficient for being an SEE, i'm ok to hear about that. if it is, i would like to hear about that as well.

right now, i literally have 2 little girls who are getting ready for bed, we have a garage sale to prepare for in the morning, the beds are not made, i have to change a diaper, brush their teeth, i just got off the phone with a homesick boy and that's just the tip of the iceberg. i will get to my explanation when i get to it.

[Joy]

I won't discuss your opinions, just say I don't think you are Fi-valuing. The way you describe your opinions here seems to be very little Fi-valuing.

At least my Fi-rules don't allow me to EVER make my laws universal. In my perception, the Fi-rules are about feelings (fields) - "I can't hurt people", "I should respect others and their believes", etc. The Fi-rules are NEVER about "objects", like the rules you describe here are. You talk about how MOTHERS and KIDS are and should behave to live happy lives. Also, my Fi would never, ever allow me to think that what is right for me is right for anyone else, not even for my children. And I treat my children differently as well, according to how I see them responding to different care taking. I work, but I don't judge anyone not working, nor others working more than me. Nor fathers working, nor fathers staying at home. Nor parents leaving their kids with the grand parents or in day care. I "judge" all by the different feelings I pick up, and I see that some people are happy with how they live, some are not. And it's not about staying home or not. Both can be good, both can be bad, even simultaneously or different from person to person, depending on a lot of things. I think that is how my Fi works, and that's why I think you are wrong when you think your "rules" are about Fi. Your rules limit choices and thus the flow of energy, the very flow of energy I perceive to be Fi. If your rules limit Fi, how can they be Fi-valuing? Your rules, as I perceive it, limit Fi as they limit it's freedom.

I think the way you argue actually talks about Fe and EJ-personality. I think you are ESFJ. Are you totally foreign to that thought?

What say other Fi-valuing types in here? How are your Fi-rules?

I think this is more about Ne + Fi than Fi ego.

[dbmmama]

I just lost confidence in my understanding of Fi and Fe, so I have nothing intelligent to add....

oh sweetie, no, what you wrote sounds more like Ne/Fi for YOU. MY Fi just does it differently. I'm not as OPEN naturally as Ne/Fi folks. I do work on it, a lot, but it doesn't come naturally.