Introverted Ethics Fi not like emotions or feelings

[jimbo]

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?

[717495]

Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.

[ArchonAlarion]

Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.

You are on the right track, I think.

[Wynch]

Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does

Sure it does. Fi is static, and in the case of an IEE like jimbo, judging objects is exactly what it does. Ne base perceives in object form and Fi creative judges it. Static thinkers (especially EPs) will always be thinking in the mode of object judgement.

I think the issue here is the difference between Static and Object/Dynamic and Field. I'll talk about this later as I have to get to work.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't believe "judgement" is always via a subjective element. Wouldn't the perception of every element involve judgement? For instance, judging the presense of objective data.

Perhaps its just the way you are using the term. Do you mean specifically "determining if an object fits criterion for its inclusion within some wider framework"?

Yeah, Fi would focus on determining inclusivity of actions... like, "This action is not allowed due to my beliefs." Ti behaves in a similar way, although its the criterion not the actions themselves which are demonstrable and explict.

For Ti/Fe, the rules are solid and the actions intuited and for Fi/Te the rules are intuited and the actions solid.
This is a grand over simplification, but may be useful for a realization.

So, okay Vero, I agree lol.

[Park]

Fi is more connected with ethical values, principles and personal sentiments rather than expressed emotion which is a focus of Fe. But,

It totally seems to have nothing to do with emotions.

it does have something to do with emotions, in the sense that, subjective judgment and personal sentiments are often expressed through (or followed by) some sort of emotion.

[jimbo]

it does have something to do with emotions, in the sense that, subjective judgment and personal sentiments are often expressed through (or followed by) some sort of emotion.

Yep agreed. Yeh actually this makes a lot of sense.

So could we say that it is the Fi that leads to emotions because things are looked at subjectively, because personal involvement leads to emotions about the event/issue etc??

And that an expression of Fi could be seen as an emotion when personal sentiments are expressed. Eg. I like this, love that etc.

(pretty sure I pretty much just said exactly what you did...)

Man now I think that Fi does have to do with emotions.

Well definitely in this context anyways.

[jimbo]

Fi doesn't judge the object like Fe does, so it's not about the emotions, motivation, and intentions of a person. It's about the broad picture of humanity, the field of ethics, where humanity is one large intention and there are no objects separate from it. All of the objects, the people, are in ideal working together, and Fe unvaluing comes from an Fe valuer trying to separate themselves or an object from the Fi big picture of ethics. So there are emotions that spring from Fi, however Fi does not see how they pose of any merit to the larger picture. You can see how this idea of Fe separation, ethics out of context to pure information, makes Fi analysis uncomfortable, for the variable is still being thought of as undefined, and it can not be defined by self.

I like this. I don't understand the last sentence though.

I would add something to this though. I think Fi can take a person and separate them from the broad picture of humanity. Relating everything to this broad picture and the formation of ethics is just one aspect of Fi.

A person can be separated from this big picture however it is still not the objective emotions of the person that are assessed. As you said. In this context Fi could asses ,like I said in the original post, the attraction and repulsion between that person and objects, other persons, beliefs etc. Basically; what the person would like/dislike.

Then on an even smaller context it could asses different aspects of the same person and the repulsion and attraction between them.

Basically I think that Fi can get small scale, but it always deals with relationships of attraction and repulsion.

Like you said I also think this works well on the large scale. ie, taking into account all of humanity.

Perhaps it could be said that it cannot just take one aspect, as Fe does, and look at it on it's own, without relating it to anything else.

To clarify further; Fi Looks big picture but the scale can be small (e.g. the entire person becomes the big picture in a small scale context). Where as Fe looks little picture but the scale can be large.

[ArchonAlarion]

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?

I'd be interested to here about this in greater detail.

You may be getting Fi confused with another element...

or this may be an example of the silliness of "F" as Fi and Fe are miles apart. Also no element has to do with emotions. That is a separate biological/psychological issue.

[anndelise]

The F elements deal with affect, as in influences.
In terms of "ethics vs logics", F seems to be treated as a combination of Ethos + Pathos.

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos are methods of persuasions.
Logos methods attempt to appeal to the intellect and includes such things as symbolic logic, mathematical logic, and formal logic.
Ethos methods refers to the trustworthiness of the speaker/writer.
Some of the ways of gaining trust of those you are attempting to persuade is to
* establish yourself as an authority figure on the topic (assuming the audience respects "authority")
* establish yourself as knowledgeable on the topic
* demonstrate respect for the audience's ideas and values
* know your audience's preferences
* know your audience well enough to know what kinds of things they trust or distrust
* know the kind of language to use with your audience
Pathos methods deal with sympathy and empathy. Giving someone a logical reason why to do something doesn't get that internal energy moving inside them that would prompt them into motion. But touching a nerve of theirs helps to compel them into action.

Ethos and Pathos both utilize awareness of the audience's emotional potential and values (among other things) as a way to influence their audience. Their both aimed at attempting to produce a mental or emotional effect, to act upon a person's emotions, to recognize what influences the audience.


The OP is a good example of what I mean.
The OP said,
* "[Fi] is an analysis of certain characteristics of people"
* "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."

Each of those examples deals with awareness of what influences the person, knowing the person's values ("will likely have this, this, and that"; "will like this but not that"), and what influences their behaviors and actions (which is a combination of their values + the nerve that prompts them into motion).



As an aside note: Even "Ethics" as is commonly referred to on this forum deals with values, and rules and principles of behavior. (The problem comes when "morals" are referred to instead of ethics. Morals deals with "correctness" of behavior, character, and conduct. Attempting to persuade an audience of 'correct' behavior is one possible goal of ethos/pathos persuasion attempts, but it is not the only possible goal.)

[jimbo]

Also no element has to do with emotions. That is a separate biological/psychological issue.

This is basically what I was thinking. It is interesting that F types, especially Fe types, seem to display more emotions??? maybe display is the key work here???

[Beautiful sky]

What is Fi?

[Beautiful sky]

@kingslayer - this may seem familiar to you from our conversation in the chat box

Fi interprets, analyzes, helps you understand why some human beings are out of the expected box of rational behavior

[consentingadult]

@kingslayer - this may seem familiar to you from our conversation in the chat box

Fi interprets, analyzes, helps you understand why some human beings are out of the expected box of rational behavior

For this to be meaningful, one has to ask: "but how does it work?"

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...fi-and-fe.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...ork-floor.html

Now 'interpret' and 'analyze' are not good words to describe what Fi does, as these words imply conscious thinking processes to most people. But Fi does 'interpret' and 'analyze', but it does so at an emotional level, probably in deeper regions of the brain, not in the cortex.

[Beautiful sky]

For this to be meaningful, one has to ask: "but how does it work?"

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...fi-and-fe.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...ork-floor.html

Now 'interpret' and 'analyze' are not good words to describe what Fi does, as these words imply conscious thinking processes to most people. But Fi does 'interpret' and 'analyze', but it does so at an emotional level, probably in deeper regions of the brain, not in the cortex.

You should read my other post. You’ll love it

[Beautiful sky]

For this to be meaningful, one has to ask: "but how does it work?"

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...fi-and-fe.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...ork-floor.html

Now 'interpret' and 'analyze' are not good words to describe what Fi does, as these words imply conscious thinking processes to most people. But Fi does 'interpret' and 'analyze', but it does so at an emotional level, probably in deeper regions of the brain, not in the cortex.

This
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1332715

[consentingadult]

This
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1332715

I think this is actually not an example of how Fi works, but of how Ne works. It is the intellectual understanding that EIIs and IEEs come up with after they have already passed value judgements. These are highly verbalized abstractions and generalizations of their experiences. An EII confronted in real life with someone like Trump will first and foremost feel disgust and resistance at the bodily/emotional level, instinctively (quite literally) sensing this is a 'bad' person. The intellectual understanding follows as a rationalization/intellectualization afterwards.

See how your example the IEE keeps things simple and the EII goes full throttle with an explanation: that's creative Ne in action!

[Beautiful sky]

I think this is actually not an example of how Fi works, but of how Ne works. It is the intellectual understanding that EIIs and IEEs come up with after the have already passed value judgements. These are highly verbalized abstractions and generalizations of their experiences. An EII confronted in real life with someone like Trump will first and foremost feel disgust and resistance at the bodily/emotional level, instinctively (quite literally) sensing this is a 'bad' person. The intellectual understanding follows as a rationalization/intellectualization afterwards.

I have passed off Trump actions as equating to an attention seeking person... already made the judgements before proving the example

[The Reality Denialist]

how one even formalizes it? Would be interesting to see.

[Beautiful sky]

how one even formalizes it? Would be interesting to see.

Lmao

[Aylen]

Basic Elements of Informational Metabolism

To describe the IM process Aušra Augustinavičiūtė divided it into eight elements, together
they reflect the variety of ways a human being communicates with the world. The number of
elements does not contradict the general scientific informational concept of all communication
types studied in terms of information, energy, space and time.

Now let us examine the elements of informational metabolism; we will be using symbols
developed by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. These symbols proved to be rather convenient and are
widely used by socionists.

The semantic fields of IM elements could be described as follows:

- 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.

- Objective logic. Logic of the objective world - objective circumstances, facts.
Example: the day began and it started raining. Systems, statistics. Event queue.
Example: “I am late for work because the bridge collapsed". Laws, political policies of
the government, stamps in the passport, traffic laws, prices, private summerhouse
property, my territory, and design drawing of a unit. Thinking objectively people usually
ask: “I want to know the reality of the matter.”

- Subjective intuition. The inner harmony. A state, a mood, and a sense of time.
Personal evaluation of events, of people's actions and morals.

- Objective intuition. The order of events from the beginning to the end, i.e. the
sets of events known beforehand, the schedule. Potential opportunities. Behavior
program, the way of life, the rhythm of life. Scenario of any action, acting in accordance
to predetermined scenario.

- Subjective sensoring. My inner feelings: gustatory sense, tactile sensoring, and
sexual sensoring. State of health. Ability to discern between the pleasant and the
unpleasant.

- Objective sensoring. It is the form, the action, the motion, the act, the
appearance, the gestures and the mimics. It is the person’s will.

- Subjective ethics. It is my attitude to people. It is the liking/disliking of
people/things. It is the emotions I experience.

- Objective ethics. It is the external relationship, the relationships between other
people and their attitude towards me. It is the emotions of other people.

These are the semantics of the eight basic elements of informational metabolism. And
now let us turn to Table 1.

Agree or disagree?

[Number 9 large]

Agree or disagree?

Ni is not a state or mood.

[Aylen]

Ni is not a state or mood.

Yeah I wondered about the mood thing. It is as if Reinin was pairing Ni/Fe there. The link goes into IMs.

Nvm, seems he means mood as in a temporary state of mind which makes more sense. Things translated from Russian are tricky sometimes.

[Aeris]

Yeah I wondered about the mood thing. It is as if Reinin was pairing Ni/Fe there. The link goes into IMs.

I can see how Ni could be experienced as a "mood" in itself while having nothing to do with moods. I can't "show" it though.

[Aylen]

I can see how Ni could be experienced as a "mood" in itself while having nothing to do with moods. I can't "show" it though.

It's ok I know what you mean. I was just not sure how Reinin meant it at first. The Ni summary does align with Jung's description as well.

[Number 9 large]

I can see how Ni could be experienced as a "mood" in itself while having nothing to do with moods. I can't "show" it though.

Makes no sense

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Fi is exactly what it says, the internalized feelings and sensations of attraction/repulsion, like or dislike. Four dimensional Fi/or mb valued Fi too, for example knows exactly why deep in its heart of hearts why it loathes a particular thing and can write a 50,000 page essay on it. It can do this with multiple topics many times. Fi is loving and sweet as it is harsh, unforgiving and brutal. But objectively speaking, it definitely lacks the diplomacy that Fe has because Fe is about creating a certain emotional atmosphere for others rather than 'I personally like/dislike this and here is a 50,000 page essay explaining why.'

My fi polr ILE buddy for example... accepts everybody equally even though he's a huge jerk at times that doesn't take people's own personal fields of like/dislike into account very well. It's because he isn't paying enough attention to this stuff, is why he can accept people better than an angry, self-righteous EII with a stick up their ass. So fi polr is also very ethical as it is non-ethical, just like Fi is loving/deep/moral/kind as it is harsh/brutal/unforgiving. Of course to a Fi valuer Fi polr its going to seem highly unethical.

Fi polr can also make you not judge situations accurately and then you can overreact the same way a Fi-ego would. The eighth function is probably the strongest we have.

[Sol]

Fi is feelings. another kind of them

[Number 9 large]

Yeah I wondered about the mood thing. It is as if Reinin was pairing Ni/Fe there. The link goes into IMs.

Nvm, seems he means mood as in a temporary state of mind which makes more sense. Things translated from Russian are tricky sometimes.

No it sounded more like Fi.

[Aylen]

No it sounded more like Fi.

Not really.

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

You ignore that it is also describes a state of mind or atmosphere.

[Beautiful sky]

Agree or disagree?

Fi seems to encompass ethics (system of values within Intertype relationships).

[ooo]

Agree or disagree?

NFs are doomed to be mystepd forever... for real. I mean, in that article Ni/Ne Fi/Fe are really inverted compared to other socion theories. I agree, the Ni and Fi especially so.

[Aylen]

NFs are doomed to be mystepd forever... for real. I mean, in that article Ni/Ne Fi/Fe are really inverted compared to other socion theories. I agree, the Ni and Fi especially so.

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.

[ooo]

I had fallen asleep, as I woke I read your post. I thought it said, "NFs are doomed to be my redheaded stepchild forever.."

ahahahahahahahah whyyyy <3

(yes they are)

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.

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 lol

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).

[Beautiful sky]

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

[The Reality Denialist]

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.

[Singu]

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.

[Beautiful sky]

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.

okay, but looking at it in an overall picture; EII lack will power to do shit so they need a strong doer to do shit for them. That's N supported by S; simple.

[Singu]

okay, but looking at it in an overall picture; EII lack will power to do shit so they need a strong doer to do shit for them. That's N supported by S; simple.

Well who says that you can't do "strong shit", you're just limiting yourself.

[Beautiful sky]

Well who says that you can't do "strong shit", you're just limiting yourself.

get real dude; i'm fragile; that means I am TINY