Introverted Ethics Fi not like emotions or feelings

[Skepsis]

Everybody has things like ethics and emotions.

You don't have some kind of special ethics or feelings just because you supposedly have "Fi", whatever "Fi" is supposed to be.

It just seems to be another way of saying "I'm special because I have something special, which is too special for you to understand", which is just a big circlejerk.

In the same way, everybody has the ability to reason and understand a fact. You're not a special snowflake.

Incidentally, I think feelings can produce ethics, but I don't think that ethics are necessarily based on feelings. I think that ultimately, ethics are rational and they can be explained rationally. Neither are feelings necessarily irrational, it's just a summarization of particular events. It seems irrational, or perhaps it is irrational if seen from a bigger picture. But that's only because feelings have to quickly and instantaneously decide on something and produce a result.

I still think that typology is cognitive extremes and most people can't be typed because our brains don't actually work in the prescriptive way defined by socionics. They do lay an interesting theory of the boundaries of cognition. I was thinking the other day about how socionics deals with the Fe polr. Now wouldn't it make just as much sense for a Te dominant to be descriptively as Fe polr as a Te creative? It could be argued that Fi dominants are as much descriptively Fe polr due to the nature of Fi.

One of the problems is that some possible explanations are taken as absolute facts, as are some of the axioms. If you take away some of the axioms such as which functions are supposedly conscious and unconscious in some people, while the reverse in others, you wouldn't have a reliable theory, and in typology, sticking to your axioms is important to convince others of its validity.Well it's the basis of convincing anyone of anything really.

Going back to Jung, there is no logical reason why someone who values Ti as a leading function has to prefer a particular set of functions in the way defined by socionics. It is interesting, sure, but there is no law that demands a Ti user must next prefer Ne or Se as a creative functions. What will happen if they don't? Will the user die instantaneously? Will the universe cease to exist?

I don't deny that there exists people that fit each of the types perfectly. It is just most people do not. You can make more people fit by adjusting qualify parameters, but because this is arbitrary, people will endlessly debate and argue about it, much like arguing whether the room feels too warm or too cold. For a supposedly logical theory, it doesn't logically follow that just because some of the population fits the theory, that all people do.

I agree with you, we all have ethical, emotional, logical, and intuitive abilities and we would serve Truth better if we were to keep an open mind of our cognitive commonalities and differences. We really don't have to have a system or a rigid typological system to understand something as fluid and dynamic as consciousness, as consciousness is the basis for such beliefs to begin with. It is difficult, if not damn well impossible to objectively define and categorize consciousness and its various aspects. There is nothing to fear and we don't need to create dogmatic systems to comfort. We should embrace the uncertainties of life. It moves us toward understanding.

[Singu]

One of the problems is that some possible explanations are taken as absolute facts, as are some of the axioms. If you take away some of the axioms such as which functions are supposedly conscious and unconscious in some people, while the reverse in others, you wouldn't have a reliable theory, and in typology, sticking to your axioms is important to convince others of its validity.Well it's the basis of convincing anyone of anything really.

Well I think the main problem is that Socionics doesn't actually offer any explanations, it instead shuts off from giving explanations by labeling things.

So we may ask, "Why does this person do this?" and it answers with "Because of Fi" and we say "Ah... that's why". But that's not an explanation for that behavior, it's just about giving a label for that behavior.

So we may think that we have satisfied our curiosity of finding out the answer to the question of "why?", but it actually hasn't. Perhaps labeling things is a kind of an explanation, but that label itself remains unexplained.

What exactly is Fi, other than an observation? It's like saying "an apple drops to the ground of because of gravity", but there's no theory or an explanation for what that "gravity" is.

So I think that's one of the main reasons why Socionics remain unsatisfactory, because it doesn't enlighten us by explaining the things that it purports to explain, which are human behaviors, why do people do things the way they do, etc.

[Beautiful sky]

Well I think the main problem is that Socionics doesn't actually offer any explanations, it instead shuts off from giving explanations by labeling things.

So we may ask, "Why does this person do this?" and it answers with "Because of Fi" and we say "Ah... that's why". But that's not an explanation for that behavior, it's just about giving a label for that behavior.

So we may think that we have satisfied our curiosity of finding out the answer to the question of "why?", but it actually hasn't. Perhaps labeling things is a kind of an explanation, but that label itself remains unexplained.

What exactly is Fi, other than an observation? It's like saying "an apple drops to the ground of because of gravity", but there's no theory or an explanation for what that "gravity" is.

So I think that's one of the main reasons why Socionics remain unsatisfactory, because it doesn't enlighten us by explaining the things that it purports to explain, which are human behaviors, why do people do things the way they do, etc.

that's why we ask and we explore.

[Singu]

that's why we ask and we explore.

Well that's true, but we'll need to come up with theories and explanations, instead of just kind of observing and describing things, which then the unexpressed theories and explanations just remain inside of our heads.

So if we were going to "type" then we'll need to explain how typing works, and if we want to know how typing works then we'll need to know how types work, and if we want to know how types work then we'll need to know how our brains or our psychology work. If we can put them into words and give them clarity, then people can objectively pick them apart. If we don't then all we can do is agree or disagree but give no explanation or rationale as to why.

Newton enlightened us by coming up with an explanation for what gravity is, which came in the form of the theory of universal gravitation. In the same way, someone needs to come up with a theory on what Fi or emotions are, or whatever.

[End]

I'm not sure how most people perceive Fi but I was just thinking about it and to me it totally doesn't seem like emotions or feeling at all, which I sometimes find in descriptions and have also inferred from how people talk. To me Fi doesn't seem like feeling at all. But rather it is an analysis of certain characteristics of people, well this is how it predominantly comes across anyway... there are also other ways. So yeh, I think Fi has pretty much nothing to do with feeling. To me it is totally a thinking function. For example Fi "says" to me "based on what I have previously seen in this person he/she will likely have this, this, and that on his/her wall. Will behave like this in this situation and that in that situation. He/she will like this but not that.... etc. It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.

Does anyone else identify with this?

Is this pretty much the description of Fi?

Not really feeling that one. has everything to do with personal feeling. Could you admit that someone has a point yet still wanna see em' get screwed over/dead because "that's how it ought to be" for instance? Y'know, like knowing someone killed an earnestly loving parent in cold blood because reasons (let's say they're good for argument's sake). That... was still family dude. Not even a tear at least? Didn't even try to defy fate even if it was a million to one odds? I mean hell, even if the odds are that bad, the prospect of that ultimate happy ending is worth it just on basic principle!

Pretty sure that's also an trait. We will act on basic principles because someone has to damnit!

[Rebelondeck]

Fi has nothing to do with ethics, emotions or feelings because all types have these; it does relate to their rationalization. The IEs should be restricted to observations of cognitive processes, thus, treated separately from emotions. F-rationalization is associative in nature and the only difference between Fi and Fe is processing configuration. Fi isn't interested, for example, in specific input objects or responsible for specific output concepts. Information processing works on everything and what differentiates types is perspective and priority - affecting the way things are perceived and how the information (with emotions included) is rationalized.......

a.k.a. I/O

[FDG]

Fi is an involved function so yes Fi types will tendentially show more emotions and feelings compared to their same-temperament static counterparts.

[Number 9 large]

I'm not sure how most people perceive Fi but I was just thinking about it and to me it totally doesn't seem like emotions or feeling at all, which I sometimes find in descriptions and have also inferred from how people talk. To me Fi doesn't seem like feeling at all. But rather it is an analysis of certain characteristics of people, well this is how it predominantly comes across anyway... there are also other ways. So yeh, I think Fi has pretty much nothing to do with feeling. To me it is totally a thinking function. For example Fi "says" to me "based on what I have previously seen in this person he/she will likely have this, this, and that on his/her wall. Will behave like this in this situation and that in that situation. He/she will like this but not that.... etc. It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.

Does anyone else identify with this?

Is this pretty much the description of Fi?

ur confusing Fi with Ti now

[Beautiful sky]

Here are some ethics of relationship quotes that I made for you all:

"A husband helps his wife with the household"
"A husband gives his wife a set time when he will return"
"A child listens to his father/mother"
"A family respects their elder"

Here's another I made my husband do on the weekend that I posted in the box

[Today 06:37 PM] Beautiful sky : They follow my ethics when I say "honey it's Easter you should call your mom" because in ethics of relationships for EII (where we are aristocratic and ceremonious) you call your parents on Easter (right thing to do).

[Lord Pixel]

Here are some ethics of relationship quotes that I made for you all:

"A husband helps his wife with the household"
"A husband gives his wife a set time when he will return"
"A child listens to his father/mother"
"A family respects their elder"

Here's another I made my husband do on the weekend that I posted in the box

[Today 06:37 PM] Beautiful sky : They follow my ethics when I say "honey it's Easter you should call your mom" because in ethics of relationships for EII (where we are aristocratic and ceremonious) you call your parents on Easter (right thing to do).

You are the most Si EII I a have ever seen? Do you even have Ne as a function? This is an honest question.

I've seen you interview with an "LSE" cousin and tbh you seem more fun in person.

[Singu]

Well I guess the most basic thing that people do everyday is "Delta Fi" and "Socionics related".

Really how is this exclusive to Fi, and something that only "Fi types" can do and understand? The same goes for any other functions. The only time that they're exclusive is when they're so vague and nebulous that nobody can understand what the hell they're saying.

I simply call BS. Either this is a forced categorization, or a parlor trick to make themselves feel special for having special abilities.

[Beautiful sky]

Well I guess the most basic thing that people do everyday is "Delta Fi" and "Socionics related".

Really how is this exclusive to Fi, and something that only "Fi types" can do and understand? The same goes for any other functions. The only time that they're exclusive is when they're so vague and nebulous that nobody can understand what the hell they're saying.

I simply call BS. Either this is a forced categorization, or a parlor trick to make themselves feel special for having special abilities.

You are not observing people’s relationships on a regular basis. Trust me.

[Lord Pixel]

Fi people tend to experience deeper and quieter emotions. What's the big deal.

[sbbds]

To me it’s knowing about people’s values and about how they tick on a human level.

[Lord Pixel]

To me it’s knowing about people’s values and about how they tick on a human level.

2 you it's 1D. if you really are SLE.

[sbbds]

2 you it's 1D. if you really are SLE.

*4 you

[Lord Pixel]

Hah, yu are right, 4 you it is 1D Fi. So you have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about Fi. No experiential knowledge at least.

[sbbds]

Hah, yu are right, 4 you it is 1D Fi. So you have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about Fi. No experiential knowledge at least.

The very definition of a 1D function is that it’s limited by experience, actually. https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...y-of-Functions

1D functions are the most experientially-based ones.

[The Reality Denialist]

People can get emotional over many things. Not just in context of being a human.

Like Andrew Wiles who cried when found a proof to Fermat's Last Theorem and it does not certainly move humans in general. Maybe some get it from dusting things.

This completes the proof.

[Singu]

Well I'd suppose having "4D Te" means blindly accepting something as true, just because a Socionist says so.

If being a "T type" means believing in Socionics, then it must be crap.

[Number 9 large]

Well I'd suppose having "4D Te" means blindly accepting something as true, just because a Socionist says so.

If being a "T type" means believing in Socionics, then it must be crap.

How can socionics be real if our eyes arent real - 4d Teist

[ooo]

I have 1 D Se and the more I use it, the more I realize how great its power is. Instinctual Intelligence. saves a lot of time.

[Singu]

We can only see things that we have expectations of:

"If we ask what really comes first, it is not an observation or even a hypothesis, but an entire organism in which there are built-in expectations and built-in ways of reacting. These expectations and ways of reacting are themselves a kind of built-in way of knowing. And our sensations and observations really have meaning only relative to them. Jet planes, for example, do not, as a rule, even disturb the birds. A human being might look up when he hears a plane, but a cat would not. This is because the plane lies outside of a cat’s framework of expectations. It just doesn’t ring a bell. And in order to observe something, it has to ring a bell, which means that you observe only those things that your organism is prepared to observe by your inborn reactions and earlier experiences."

- Karl Popper

http://www.the-rathouse.com/Intro-Ph...-Problems.html

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol that sort of thing is considered very strong, at least in 'Murica. The 4D ego function definitely has more finesse tho yeah. The pretentiousness of it is how we troll our supervisees with it.

[sbbds]

Hurr-durr-reeeeeee-ca

[Skepsis]

Socionics in practice is not about understanding, but creating a new, or alternative social order. It needs to be kept in check. Look how horribly people treat each other on this site. No one takes the time to understand one another. So many think they are the typist Supreme. Now extend this into a global context and it spells disaster.

[Number 9 large]

Look how horribly people treat each other. No one takes the time to understand one another.

Thats the internet in a nutshell

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It ignores the all sorts of complexities and logical chains of events that must lead to that certain kind of behavior, such as the creation of complex systems of morality or the managing of relationships.

Of course it does, but when you define something you have to ignore the complexities otherwise you talk in demonic babble-tongue. And of course people are going to have motivations beyond like/dislike, the point of Fi itself as a definition is not motivations though.

[Singu]

Of course it does, but when you define something you have to ignore the complexities otherwise you talk in demonic babble-tongue. And of course people are going to have motivations beyond like/dislike, the point of Fi itself as a definition is not motivations though.

We're saying that Fi is likes/dislikes, attraction/repulsion etc, and therefore, this will lead to observed "Fi" behaviors in "Fi types".

The definition of Fi is simple, yet the resultant observed behavior of people are complex. They both don't jibe.

If we focus exclusively on likes/dislikes... then that must only lead to very simplistic behaviors. It can't possibly lead to complex ideas like interpersonal relationships or systems of morality.

[sbbds]

@roger557 Also, do you put that derpy stuffed puppet up your anus and play with your prostrate with it?

[judywriter]

Which personality types have introverted feeling?

If you need to buy an essay, visit https://writepaper.com/write-my-term-paper

[The Reality Denialist]

That was almost OK response. Let's welcome our machine ovelords.

But yeah I'd say that Te types experience uncomfortable emotions [Fe] and needs good suppressor [via Fi] who tells them what they feel. Ti types probably find this intrusive on some level because it is like telling them what to be.

[Ave]

I think Fi manifests itself more through acts of help/compassion and Fe through need for emotional purging/expression.

I think both tend to "feel" something in an emotional sense but Fi supports Te in constructive actions whereas Fe expands what it feels via expression.

Edit: but Fe leads can feel compelled to help others. Fe and Fi overlap in some ways in terms of their manifestation.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I have a standard set of ethics

1. Be kind and compassionate (I’m human too so I get upset) - It's an ideal. Nobody can really be kind and compassionate 24/7.
2. Don’t lie, have integrity - The truth often gets you killed or hurt, or ppl can twist the truth against you. Or not see the truth accurately because the truth is too polluted with their own version of 'truth' - which is just another lie that they cannot see. People can't handle the truth and everybody has to lie sometimes for their own protection.
3. Concentrate on your own work. Never mind what anybody else does - I agree in principal, but in reality people are hatefully nosy and people are not going to follow this.
4. Realize that some kinds of teasing is hurtful and offensive to others. - If somebody doesn't have sadistic or malicious intentions, people shouldn't really get so sensitive over teasing. And even if they do, maybe a better way to handle that is to punch a sadist in the mouth so they stop. 'That's hurtful!' - How weak and also unfair because it's too cruel to people who mean no harm and not cruel enough to those that do. Being made fun of can potentinally be somebody's way of trying to bond with u, anyway.
5. Love - What's love got to do- got to do with it. Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken.
6. Rescue puppies when you can - I hate this Delta virtue signaling BS to be honest. 'Oh look what a good person I am cuz I rescued this puppy from a shelter/donated soup cans to homeless people.' I don't care. Maybe Beta really is evil - but seriously I don't care. I don't want animals to be harmed, what kind of psychopath wants that- but I loathe virtue signaling.
Lol - Yeah you realize it's ridiculous right. =D

Ethics is such a funny thing I like this post cuz it probably really helped view how Beta and Delta values are different, so thank you.

[Beautiful sky]

If Fi is dissolved in the inner world where the subject of Fi is not haunting the INFJ then the INFJ comes off more of a thinker. But, if the Fi starts to surface and haunt the INFJ or ISFJ anxiety, depression and other moods start to grip the Fi base types. Then, repeat what your dual would tell you to do in that moment to get out of this Fi frenzy or just try other lesser successful methods and strategize trying all that you can from roominating and letting your feelings go into a black hole