“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Would you say she was using role function in some form there according to this? That is if you agree with the summary at all.
Sorry about your brother.- Subjective logic. It is my own logic, my understanding, explanation, description,
concept, and theory of things. It is my hierarchy of notions of the things that are closer
or farther, higher or lower. It is what I was taught, my view of this world, my world
outlook. It includes my education, i.e. the system of my ideas and my schooling.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Not really.
You ignore that it is also describes a state of mind or atmosphere.A mood is less specific than an emotion or feeling, less intense and less likely to be triggered by a particular action or event. Moods can be described as being either positive or negative. Here are some common moods that can be used in everyday conversation or in descriptive writing.
Positive Mood Examples:
- Amused
- Blissful
- Calm
- Cheerful
- Content
- Dreamy
- Ecstatic
- Energetic
- Excited
- Flirty
- Giddy
- Good
- Happy
- Joyful
- Loving
- Mellow
- Optimistic
- Peaceful
- Silly
- Sympathetic
Negative Mood Examples:
- Angry
- Annoyed
- Apathetic
- Bad
- Cranky
- Depressed
- Envious
- Frustrated
- Gloomy
- Grumpy
- Guilty
- Indifferent
- Irritated
- Melancholy
- Pessimistic
- Rejected
- Restless
- Sad
- Stressed
- Weird
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/mood-examples.html
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I have a standard set of ethics
1. Be kind and compassionate (I’m human too so I get upset).
2. Don’t lie, have integrity
3. Concentrate on your own work. Never mind what anybody else does
4. Realize that some kinds of teasing is hurtful and offensive to others.
5. Love
6. Rescue puppies when you can
Lol
Ethics is such a funny thing
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I had fallen asleep, as I woke I read your post. I thought it said, "NFs are doomed to be my redheaded stepchild forever.."
I tried to read Reinin book again. He merges functions together in a different way. It is confusing. Looks like some are reversed Filatova book descriptions.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-25-2019 at 03:25 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I used to care about what made sense: facts, proofs, explainations... I don't anymore. I find life much more interesting when I don't brush off things because they don't make sense and I just agree to live the present experience. Being alone in my facts and proofs proved to suck and keep my mind closed to many wonders of life. I want more from life than stuff that make logical sense.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Usually it seems like Fe is about connective ethics
and Fi is internal ethics. When it comes to word ethics outside of socionics usage it encompasses all the IE's.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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!
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.
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
ahahahahahahahah whyyyy <3
(yes they are)
yes, and also for other functions.. like Te/Ti too are described invertedly in other theories... but it's interesting, if Reinin was using these description to build his dichotomies, it makes sense I'm an SLE in there lolI tried to read Reinin book again. He merges functions together in a different way. It is confusing. Looks like some are reversed Filatova book descriptions.
actually I took the Reinin dichotomy test again, ended up with LII or ESE, to which I suspected I was being played by some socionics master troll (It was BS maybe).
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Fi is an involved function so yes Fi types will tendentially show more emotions and feelings compared to their same-temperament static counterparts.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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).
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
Fi people tend to experience deeper and quieter emotions. What's the big deal.
To me it’s knowing about people’s values and about how they tick on a human level.
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.
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.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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.