Introverted Ethics Fi Described As "Resonance"

[Gilly]

I suppose I can see the validity of the analogy, if we are assuming that it's a consistent sense of this resonance rather than an active one, which would be more related to a dynamic function. Personally I tend to focus more on the immediacy of interactions to gauge "resonance," taking for granted that if I am interacting with someone, it's because there are similarities or resonant characteristics, reasons for being in touch. My impressions of people are usually very strong; it doesn't take really any "playing" to establish resonance, which tends to be rather immediate and obvious to me, based on my gut impression of a person.

[Gilly]

He's just being Sam. I don't even know what the fuck he's talking about, and it's my post he responded to.

[krieger]

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

[silverchris9]

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

[anndelise]

Si is involved as well.

I would ascribe this experience, this general idea of "feeling music" in the manner that you describe, to the blocking of Si with Fe. Not to say that other people don't experience it, but it seems like a subjective assimilation of the general internal essence of the music being heard (internal object dynamics), derived from the direct integrated sensory experience of it (external involved dynamics).

It could just as easily apply to 'involved fields', which, funnily enough, is Delta's field values.

I'm sure we could use the same example, with slightly different wording, and apply it also to Ni + Fe, Ni + Fi, and you already mentioned Si + Fe.

And again, her point wasn't so much about the music itself.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

[anndelise]

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

My response probably won't mean much, but I'll try.

a) it's not so much a desire to hold something constant...as it is paying attention to that which is relatively constant. The whole "the more things change, the more they remain the same" kind of thing

b) "So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. "

Yes, yet slightly different. For Delta NF, they are using their Ne to toss ideas around in their head. But unlike Ti who judges how well two or more ideas fit by their logical consistency (see that..consistency...static fields), The Fi instead judges how well two or more ideas fit based on the affects they are having on the person tossing the ideas around. (eg "What's 'true' or good for you may not be 'true' or good for others.")

For Beta NFs, they toss the ideas around with their Ni, and pay attention to how things interact together. There's more of an abstract view of how they all fit together. Like looking at it, but from a 2nd or 3rd person pov. But for Delta NFs, there is more of an involvement view of how it fits together. They have to see it and feel it for themselves, if they want to make sense of it. One could say that we feel it in our core. Even if it's not logically consistent, it IS or isn't consistent with the person.

So yes to "trying it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get".

And yes to "but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with," ....well, though one could see the thurmim as the idea and how well it resonates with the core of the Fi valuer....but then my understanding of the wordings (of both of us on this) may be off, heh.

[Mattie]

So the way I understand this part, IAs are direct perception, like our sense of touch, or smell, or hearing..is that correct? I'm sort of imagining someone as a human theremin? Like you have eyesight, and then you have pitches of feeling, high and low, loud and soft, as you move around and adjust your distance to them. So the nature of it is static, because it's you who is moving around within the perceptions.

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

Er what do you mean by that? Could you possible give an example?

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really -creative, -suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. -creative is taking the observations that can be gained from the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

The emphasis in my description is actually on interactions rather than the objects, which is why there is always at least two objects involved in my rhetoric.

Also, like I said before, "Resonance" only describes one aspect of what Fi entails. What we're trying to do in this thread, I think, is abstract Fi -- a luxury that a number of the functions have attained. Why I add "anthropocentric" before "interaction" is because, fundamentally, all introverted functions deal with interactions between the entities it chooses to focus on, but the specialization of this with regards to all things "humane" is Fi.

Wouldn't adding that "regards to all things 'humane'" be too specific? I actually think "Resonance" covers the IA very well, but you might be wanting to cover the IE as well in some manner, which it doesn't do. You'd have to further break down (or maybe clearly list) what you think are the 'parts' of what the IA is. I also don't think 'field' and 'interaction' are interchangeable either... I think the Xi IAs are more relational, maybe more effectual; it's less of the objects being present and more what it is that exists between them. It's possible I'm missing your point, I don't feel like I have a clear idea of what you're saying

Both Ti and Fi are social functions, but one of the major differences between these two functions is, Ti is devoid of the any "emotional" context and Fi is always taking this into account. Why Ti is considered "social" is because of its ability to organize the data provided by its supporting perception in a framework that can be understood by human beings.

Hmm, none this really settles well with me to be frank. I feel like these are relying on catch-qualities rather than what they are. Firstly, I don't think any of the IAs are inherently "social," or at least, more or less social than the other. Also, I don't think emotion and logic are factors in and either; when I said feelings in my example, I wasn't necessarily meaning emotions, more sensations. An emotion is a psychological state of being, and that's not really what I was trying to communicate, more the feeling along the lines of being affected by something.

There are many layers and perspectives to an individual. The dimension I speak of, that is related to Fi, is how the human and the object interacts. Inter-and intraspecific relations is but one aspect of an individual, and that which Fi understands best.

Again, this sounds more like of what I'm trying to avoid. is less about being aware of certain things in people and more about an abstract sensation based on certain parameters that creates a relational web between objects.

Yeah. Idk, but it just creates a sense of smugness that I don't like. I don't even like myself when I act that way. I'm more charmed by people who can properly make fun of themselves. It really makes me lighten up and relax. It's not even one person being smug, it's just the general aura of the thread.

All I can say is that it was never my intention to be smug nor convince anyone of anything. My main focus was to help create further clarity to my ideas:

I have been thinking about this lately and wanted feedback so I can continue to stew a bit, not really intending to stick around. I moreso need to know what issues would come up when trying to explain this way, and if it is clear enough.

I don't understand. Why did it become about Fi jacking off to itself? Or smugness? She's putting a lot of effort into detailing an aspect of the theory that she wants to discuss, and I thought it's led to a lot of detailed, well thought out responses, and they don't seem particularly offensive..perhaps they are wrong, but who cares? If they are wrong then their wrongness speaks for itself. You can think that and still not attack their motives. I don't think the point of the thread wasn't to "charm" you in the first place. And I don't see how anyone would desire or feel obliged to communicate in a manner more conducive to your wishes when your first response to an emotionally neutral query/discussion is to attack the motives of the atmosphere or the people involved. wtf?

You said it for me, thanks

I suppose I can see the validity of the analogy, if we are assuming that it's a consistent sense of this resonance rather than an active one, which would be more related to a dynamic function.

I meant it to be a continual, non-situational process. Any ideas to make that more clear would be appreciated.

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get.

the IE, maybe, but not the IA, the IA is just a natural process that happens and the IE takes the information from the IA and channels it through the function placement. But yes, I think we're on the same page

Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period.

Yes, I completely agree, though I'm not sure if gets that resonant feeling, more like what you cited, it seems to be a more schematic process (I'm trying to figure out how to verb that word...). I thought of as a building plan as well, makes me feel a little more confident about this

Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Right, as far as I can tell this aligns well with what I'm thinking.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

Thank you, this reflects what I'm thinking. I'm just honestly trying to make a sound and clear example that is accessible to everyone. Appreciate it

[Galen]

This isn't related to Fi; this is being Enneagram sx variant.

Feels like a combination of both to me. I'm sure the Sx stacking accentuates these feelings a lot, but I'd have to ask other sx stacking non-Fi valuing people to know if it's both in tangent.

[Gilly]

I'm curious how you think it's related to Internal Statics of Fields.

[Gilly]

It could just as easily apply to 'involved fields', which, funnily enough, is Delta's field values.

I'm sure we could use the same example, with slightly different wording, and apply it also to Ni + Fe, Ni + Fi, and you already mentioned Si + Fe.

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

And again, her point wasn't so much about the music itself.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

[Gilly]

Actually I experience exactly what Galen was talking about.

[Gilly]

Just viewing the world in a sort of hyper-idealized sense, like a certain sheen comes over it, but one that makes it clearer, not in a purely physical sense, although things seem more "present," but the impression it makes on me internally; a sort of momentary fascination or appreciation with the way things have come to be, the sheer beauty of organization and rareness of existence, and how beautiful it is that we have created a world where mostly everything has its place and things run smoothly; that, as much as I could imagine a "better" world, that this one is truly idyllic in some way.

[Gilly]

How the fuck do you know? Words are just words, ******. I resonated with his description; who are you to say differently?

[Gilly]

Honestly, I know what he is talking about, as well as the parts you bolded in the description, and I am extremely hesitant to ascribe it to a function that I do not value.

[Gilly]

Actually now that I think about it, it makes sense that this is an unconscious function for me. It seems to be something that I sort of protect, something that I have hidden from the world and from myself to stop it from being "corrupted."

[Gilly]

People who have this as their dominant function must live extremely painful/disenchanted lives. I feel like the rest of us must be here to make the world for them.

[Gilly]

Now that I understand what Fi is subjectively, I realize that Fi valuers are selfish brats.

[Gilly]

To make the world for them?

Well it's certainly the most idealistic function, the most, ah, disconnected from brute reality.

[duality is cringe]

I think the first paragraph of Galen's description was describing a pre-existing internal vision/reality [or view of how reality should be] which exists in his mind - separately from the physical world - and that he feels at an instinctive, 'gut' level. Yet every now and then, the happenings within the physical reality neatly align with his own subjective "internal vision," and in those instances, the sort of transcendental internal vision itself, and by extension, his "existence," feels justified.

Gilly's "appreciation with the way things have come to be" and seeing beauty in the "rareness of existence" sounds almost like something else entirely.

[duality is cringe]

Something worth pointing out, is that vs. valuing seems to modulate the IE process in a certain key way. I'm not entirely clear on it yet, but the interpretational basis utilized by appears to differ between γ and δ such that the former conveys more in abstract/detached terms while the latter does so more in concrete/involved terms.

Yeah. That's the difference I noticed.

[Gilly]

Yeah I think what I was describing is more Ti.

[silverchris9]

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

Eh. In practice, I'd have to go with "not type related" just because of all the musicians that can clearly "feel the music" of varying quadras. I'd be more inclined to say that Fe focuses on the changes that occur in the music and sort of "attaches" to them directly, like, Fe just pays attention to the internal dynamics of the music, or even of specific/individual aspects of the music (a bass line or a descant or whatever) and then the Fe-ego's own emotional state just naturally fluctuates along with the music, like the Fe-ego/-valuer is swept away by the music. In contrast, Fi would focus more on the relation between itself and the music, which is a very much one time, sudden thing, and resonance is a good term to describe it. As an IEI, I have very strong reactions to some music based on how it makes me feel. Like, I hate most really hard screamo/metal/whatever because it just makes me feel ick, like tasting something metallic (maybe that's like mini-synaesthesia related to the fact that the music is consciously labeled in my brain as "metal" and "unpleasant" and "sensation". Hmmm...). But since Fi is an unconscious and unvalued function for me, rather than dwelling on how the music makes me feel, I would either state flatly "I hate this music" and whine til the person I'm riding with turns it off, or withdraw into myself and ignore it if that's not possible. Or do this Ni distance thing and observe it while only minimally experiencing it, if that makes sense. Anyway, the Fi ego is not swept away by the music, as it were, but rather by the experience, that is, the relation of themselves to the music. It's just as real and just as intuitive a way of experiencing music, but it does differ somewhat in emphasis. It's like "this music takes me on a ride" vs. "this music makes me feel like flirty/playful/fun/whatever" almost. Also, I wonder if Fi-valuers also like music that accompanies and heightens their emotional state. Fe-valuers (or maybe just betas) seem to want to ride the emotional wave, so if you're in a bad mood, you listen to bad mood music. You don't use the music to "lift" your mood and even it out, you use the music to reinforce your mood and let it out, complete it, catharsis it so that you can move on.

But none of this is really relevant to the real main point of this thread, except perhaps slightly by way of analogy.

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

This is my position as well, but I've chalked it up to different strokes for different folks, and I can clearly see how it's been useful, so why not. It does seem initially counter-intuitive to try to overcome the ambiguity of a system by using an even more figurative mode of communication, but perhaps better a conscious metaphor than an unconscious one like "subjective"?

I'm curious how you think it's related to Internal Statics of Fields.

Instantaneous (i.e., not subject to time) observation of the cause-and-effect relation between two immaterial things (i.e., the "emotional content" or "vibe" of the music and the "feelings" or "emotional state" of a person).

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

. Okay.

the IE, maybe, but not the IA, the IA is just a natural process that happens and the IE takes the information from the IA and channels it through the function placement. But yes, I think we're on the same page

Sure, I buy that. I get why in socionics one would want to refrain from describing the functions "as they occur" in people, just because that's so much cloudier and so much more influenced by non-socionics factors, and necessarily involves a degree of generalization. But good that we're on the same page.

Yes, I completely agree, though I'm not sure if gets that resonant feeling, more like what you cited, it seems to be a more schematic process (I'm trying to figure out how to verb that word...). I thought of as a building plan as well, makes me feel a little more confident about this

lol. Glad we're on the same page here too. I really like schematic. You should do a thread on that one next. And I still don't think anyone came up with a fully satisfactory Se word, with us trying to avoid the typical connotations of Se.

Thank you, this reflects what I'm thinking. I'm just honestly trying to make a sound and clear example that is accessible to everyone. Appreciate it

Can't please everyone? Appreciate the people who appreciate it and tell the haters to back off.[/Miranda]

a) it's not so much a desire to hold something constant...as it is paying attention to that which is relatively constant. The whole "the more things change, the more they remain the same" kind of thing

Okay... I guess that makes some sense. But still, it seems that you see a tendency towards staticness in Fi-valuers and dynamicness in Fe-egos (I know neither of those are words, I just don't feel like remembering the nominalized form of either of those words right now). Like, Fe-egos always want the emotional atmosphere to be in motion, you like. Fe likes there to be as much internal motion as possible, never a dull moment, always some sort of energy, and, physically speaking, energy is only felt when something is in motion (otherwise it's more like potential energy, no?). Fi on the other hand seems to me to want to view things as static, but yeah, perhaps your right, perhaps it's just a focus on the consistent elements.

Yes, yet slightly different. For Delta NF, they are using their Ne to toss ideas around in their head. But unlike Ti who judges how well two or more ideas fit by their logical consistency (see that..consistency...static fields), The Fi instead judges how well two or more ideas fit based on the affects they are having on the person tossing the ideas around. (eg "What's 'true' or good for you may not be 'true' or good for others.")

Good. This definitely aligns with how I see Fi.

For Beta NFs, they toss the ideas around with their Ni, and pay attention to how things interact together. There's more of an abstract view of how they all fit together. Like looking at it, but from a 2nd or 3rd person pov. But for Delta NFs, there is more of an involvement view of how it fits together. They have to see it and feel it for themselves, if they want to make sense of it. One could say that we feel it in our core. Even if it's not logically consistent, it IS or isn't consistent with the person.

Hmm... yeah, that makes sense. The Ni approach is an observational one, so much so that as someone said in thread in beta not too long ago, the "real self" of an IEI is that self that does the watching, the part of the self that observes the self changing. Of course, Walt Whitman said that first ("apart from the pulling and hauling stands what I am/stands idle, unitary.../both in and out of the crowd..."), but you know, socionics is going to get on his level sooner or later. It must be interesting to actively feel the a mentally abstract world. Ni-egos need Se to force them into experience and out of abstraction, whereas it seems that Fi and Te are both experiential functions, and just help each other experience different things. You can see how Fi-leading types like the one sister in The Secret Life of Bees can be so emotional (she's a perfect example of an EII, btw. I think her name was April?).

[Gilly]

To make the world for them?

To be honest this requires a lengthy conversation about quadra progression in order to properly explicate.

[Gilly]

Admittedly, I get a morbid satisfaction seeing the valuers writhing and suffering in this thread.

That's twisted. Ni+Fi is going to be the reason that Beta destroys the world: if you see it that way, then you don't deserve the world we could give you.

[Gilly]

More like + having to rebuild the world you guys blew up because of your primordial urge to live as vermin.

Well you have to be there to stop us before we go too far, of course, but if you act like smug, entitled fucks, we'll do everything we can to ensure that you get nothing more and nothing less than exactly what you deserve.

[Gilly]

And we only live as vermin because it's what's necessary to reinvent the structure that you lot failed to properly ingrain into Deltas.

[anndelise]

I just don't see how "feeling music" could be a static thing, really. Maybe certain music appeals to quadra values in some way, but I'm pretty sure the idea of "feeling music" is mostly related to Fe blocked with either Ni or Si.

Did you not read what I said? You quoted it, but did you actually read it?
For all the complaining you did in the information aspects thread, do you yourself actually apply the aspects?

a) She's using an ANALOGY for what Fi feels like to an Fi ego (more specifically to a Delta Fi ego). Stop focusing on the words she's using, or the analogy itself. Stop looking at her finger, and start trying to look for the moon she's trying to point to.

b) Delta processes Xi via the involved aspect. So her descriptions of Fi will naturally include a focus on the involved aspects of it. So yes, there will naturally be some Si in her description of the field portion of Fi.
Beta processes involved information via the Xe aspect.
Alpha processes involved information via the dynamics aspect.
Gamma processes involved information via the statics aspect.

c) Her analogy isn't that Fi literally 'feels music'. The whole thing as an analogy about how an idea, object, person, behavior, etc affects a person (or other idea, object, etc, but generally anthropomorphized) The person has relatively stable ideas, beliefs, values, etc, to which another idea, object, etc will resonant in certain ways.

But this resonation is internal/implicit, not external/explicit. The person would have a difficult time discussing what specifically is or isn't resonating with them. All those strings (or whatever) being plucked triggers multiple things at once, causing multiple fields happening at once. If the person were to take the time to go through each individual field and check each one explicitly to find out what happened...that's no longer involved and internal field (Fi's combo), but trying to abstract it and externalize it (Ti's combo).

d) For a more Gamma description of Fi, it would include Ni in it as well. So would likely be something along the line of an idea/object/whatever 'resonating' with previous beliefs/values/ideas...yet would have a more abstract description. They wouldn't feel it as much in their core as a Delta would. Gamma would probably have an easier time jumping back and forth between feeling the resonation within...and 'looking at' the resonation from without.

e) So in one way, Fi kind of gets lumped together with Si/Ni influences, which yes, are dynamic, not static.

But when we are talking about Information Processing, we are necessarily talking about a process. Which gives a dynamic feel. This is why (I think, and she can correct me on it if I'm wrong)...this is why she was trying to differentiate between IA and IE descriptions of Fi.

There is the concept of Fi as a solitary thing, and then there is Fi as it's being processed.

f) and this one is for Mattie, I don't believe there will every be a "THE example", nor "THE definition", as much as I would love there to be, as well. There are far too many variables that have to be considered, including 16 different ways of processing information, 8 different functions for Fi, 16 different quadra focuses, as well as variances in educational focuses and experiences.

When we deal with abstract information, there are numerous ways that it can be interpreted. When we use analogies, there are numerous ways that it can be interpreted...as well as numerous ways that the same analogy can be used to describe something else.

However, hopefully that won't stop us from trying.

This is why we would do better talking with one person, or a small group, instead of an entire forum/world. With one person, or a small handful of people, we can alter how we present the information so that it 'resonates' with their own understandings/beliefs/views, etc. , while still describing what we are pointing at. At least enough to the point that they can understand what we are trying to point at. (Whether they accept or not...is a different story.)

[Gilly]

I wasn't talking about the analogy any more, just the part about "feeling music." I understand the analogy now; it really only makes sense in terms of being a "feeling," which is kind of overly vague for my taste, but whatever.

[Mattie]

Good, now that we're back on topic, I'd like to know if there is anything I need to make more clear that would better communicate this example. So far, this thread has shown me that I have to provide more focus on the process and possibly present piece by piece as to not get caught up in extraneous details, as it is the process that is the focus; how this is related to music is more like 'purposeful flavor,' I want to give you a certain feeling when communicating this example, and the idea of the sensations you feel from music just happened to theme well with both Resonance, the theremin, and what I actually do think is like. I think this example keeps the integrity at the expense of ease, but I think it's worth it.

BTW Thanks to everyone for making this such a hot thread, I like knowing what I'm thinking on is something pertinent. If this does seem to be settled down and satisfied, I'll put one up eventually about as Permutation.

lol. Glad we're on the same page here too. I really like schematic. You should do a thread on that one next. And I still don't think anyone came up with a fully satisfactory Se word, with us trying to avoid the typical connotations of Se.

, , and will most likely arrive next, I've just really been thinking about . will naturally be next, and because my best friend and I talk about our relationship often, and there's vs clashes often, so I think about a lot as well. I want to do because it seems the hardest and least figured out. I think once I have down, will be easier.

Admittedly, I get a morbid satisfaction seeing the valuers writhing and suffering in this thread.

I never understood what was so painful about what I posted Everything brought up seemed inapplicable and not type related.

a) She's using an ANALOGY for what Fi feels like to an Fi ego (more specifically to a Delta Fi ego). Stop focusing on the words she's using, or the analogy itself. Stop looking at her finger, and start trying to look for the moon she's trying to point to.

Okay, so I wasn't alone in thinking this lol

f) and this one is for Mattie, I don't believe there will every be a "THE example", nor "THE definition", as much as I would love there to be, as well. There are far too many variables that have to be considered, including 16 different ways of processing information, 8 different functions for Fi, 16 different quadra focuses, as well as variances in educational focuses and experiences.

Oh I know, that's just me being idealistic I want to get as close as possible, I don't know how everyone can't universally benefit from examples of objective processes... It seems to be the only way without feeling like I'm constantly pulling tricks out of a hat to make the light-bulb go off.

[Suz]

Lol, I never understood it either. But I've seen these exact kinds of reactions before from valuers re: , where they get antagonized as a whole when someone or some situation gives off too much. Reacting as if they're being clobbered with nerve gas or something and its making them nauseous and rabidly unstable. It's really intriguing to watch.

LOL

[silverchris9]

Lol, I never understood it either. But I've seen these exact kinds of reactions before from valuers re: , where they get antagonized as a whole when someone or some situation gives off too much. Reacting as if they're being clobbered with nerve gas or something and its making them nauseous and rabidly unstable. It's really intriguing to watch.

Actually, I notice it too. It is an unusually violent reaction. But, I dunno, Fi is... yucky. Especially if you have a whole group of fi folks unexpectedly, and in a situation like this where you're accustomed to being able to speak your mind and suddenly you can't, because the room is against you. It sucks. Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight, cause fi people won't budge, and its fine if it's just two people and you can argue them down, like beating them over the head with Ti, but in a group that just doesn't work and you just have to listen to them spew garbage until you're almost convinced they're right, and you start second guessing things you know you're sure about. Like, really, I did get a smug vibe, like ooh, Fi is so deep, and of course I know it wasn't meant that way, and that's the problem. It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events. It's like, ugh, aren't you aware if what you're doing? And then they're going to get mad at you and defend each other... don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

[Mattie]

Actually, I notice it too. It is an unusually violent reaction. But, I dunno, Fi is... yucky. Especially if you have a whole group of fi folks unexpectedly, and in a situation like this where you're accustomed to being able to speak your mind and suddenly you can't, because the room is against you. It sucks. Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight, cause fi people won't budge, and its fine if it's just two people and you can argue them down, like beating them over the head with Ti, but in a group that just doesn't work and you just have to listen to them spew garbage until you're almost convinced they're right, and you start second guessing things you know you're sure about. Like, really, I did get a smug vibe, like ooh, Fi is so deep, and of course I know it wasn't meant that way, and that's the problem. It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events. It's like, ugh, aren't you aware if what you're doing? And then they're going to get mad at you and defend each other... don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

Honestly, reading this and similar reactions, and remembering prior instances of things like this, make me think there's just too much looking for Socionics in something. Rather, you saw the title of the thread, saw who it was by, and automatically set yourself (not just you, but others as well, because people of every type do this to types/IAs they don't value) up for a reaction. Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism. You can show it to someone who doesn't know Socionics and you wouldn't get that interpretation. And it isn't that valuers don't budge, it's you assign a stifling and unbudging feeling to something you don't value. In what you've typed, you're placed a lot of arbitrary qualities that you dislike placing on you, and so does everyone else (I'm just calling out you all because you revealed yourself as such in this thread).

In short, all of you should just GET OVER IT. If anyone objectively thinks "Oh, this IA/IE is better than this because..." after understanding that we inherently value certain IAs over the other, then they are idiots. By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything. Just. Think. It. Through. Stop exaggerating what you value and what the other person does. I mean, for you particularly silverchris, you completely understood what I was trying to communicate and just objectively know I'm not trying to be a bitch. Is it HONESTLY that the way I typed it really violates what your Socionics type predicts, or did you come here apprehensive already (I remember asking you this before, and it seems like a pattern)? There was nothing blocking you from understanding what I was saying, because you did understand, and you were able to see how the others were over-reacting. It's all just taking IE valuing way too seriously and applying it to every single god-damned detail.

Jeez.

[anndelise]

don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean, and this sort of self-evident emotional rightness. But what you say is what you mean, these a reason people choose their words. Anyway, yeah, it's just all kinds of unpleasant, and I can't even accurately describe why. Argh.

There's the ideas in the mind, that the mind has to try to find words to match with. But those words can be interpreted in different ways by different people, including within one's own mind. So, with this limited resources, the idea is put out there. The words can change, though the idea remains the same. Different ways of describing the same thing.

Then someone else reads those words, and interprets meaning from them. But they have different experiences that they are drawing from, which leads to them getting a different idea of what's being described ...or attempted description. They then have to find word that would match their idea or thoughts on the interpreted idea, and then put those out there, for the first person to interpret.

It's called feedback. If the feedback shows a different idea than what was meant, then there's an alteration in which words or methods used to make another attempt.

Since we are on the net, we don't have the luxury of focusing one-on-one during the discussion...which makes it difficult to choose words. Just as the reader doesn't have the luxury of seeing the body language nor how much emphasis is placed on any one portion of the attempt.

INFps have complained (rightly so) of the difficulties of communicating over the internet. As if they are having to function half-blind.

But the same applies to ENFps as well.

What causes us to be blind in such scenarios, differs, but both are having to try to work around that blindness, and will do so in different ways.


So yes, there is a reason people choose their words...but how do you expect a person to choose the exact words that will fit EVERY single person on this forum, and EVERY single possible interpretation? It's impossible, imo.

Also, I've known many INFps who get upset at being held to something they said a month ago, a week ago, heck, even just a couple of hours ago. It was the thought of the moment, for them, and they get agitated at being held to that. What makes that so much more different than using 'terminology of the moment'?


And you describe it as self-evident emotional rightness...but just because you interpret it that way...doesn't make it actually that. Just as just because we interpret some words a certain way doesn't mean that that interpretation was what was meant.

Would you describe the INFp's need to be understood as them being 'self-evident emotional rightness'? Would you consider a desire to be understood a normal human trait? And what happens when a person feels that the one they are talking to isn't quite understanding what's meant? Should they roll over and drop the whole thing? or would it be more likely that they'll make another effort instead?


Finally, there was a big difference between how you responded to Mattie, and how Gilly responded. A big difference between the efforts you each took, in this thread. Your response was one that showed an interest in at least trying to understand, even if you might not agree with it. Gilly wasn't even trying.

[Galen]

Just viewing the world in a sort of hyper-idealized sense, like a certain sheen comes over it, but one that makes it clearer, not in a purely physical sense, although things seem more "present," but the impression it makes on me internally; a sort of momentary fascination or appreciation with the way things have come to be, the sheer beauty of organization and rareness of existence, and how beautiful it is that we have created a world where mostly everything has its place and things run smoothly; that, as much as I could imagine a "better" world, that this one is truly idyllic in some way.

I know I'm late to this discussion, but my experience uses a shitton less conscious thought than what you seem to be describing.

I think the first paragraph of Galen's description was describing a pre-existing internal vision/reality [or view of how reality should be] which exists in his mind - separately from the physical world - and that he feels at an instinctive, 'gut' level. Yet every now and then, the happenings within the physical reality neatly align with his own subjective "internal vision," and in those instances, the sort of transcendental internal vision itself, and by extension, his "existence," feels justified.

Gilly's "appreciation with the way things have come to be" and seeing beauty in the "rareness of existence" sounds almost like something else entirely.

It does to me too. Gilly's description of his moments of fascination sound like he detaches himself from the world and is looking at it through an external lens, as if he plays no real part in the experience except for the physical analysis.

[Creepy-female]

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

Yeah I think that works. Cause it seems like there is a filtering process that takes place even from the beginning..I think.

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really -creative, -suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. -creative is taking the observations that can be gained from the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

No that's clear. I think I've never actually understood the difference before. It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

I think this explanation is neat.

[Mattie]

It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

I haven't personally made anything like this, and one would be extremely helpful, especially if it could be stickied and linked to. A lot of what's being talked about here isn't common enough knowledge, which is why we can see the same names in this thread as there are in threads of similar caliber. Notice that I put this topic in Delta, and there isn't a strong Delta weight; all the usual Delta posters aren't in here. I think this illustrates how a lot of people are bewildered from not having clear, almost dictionary-style reference for what we're talking about here. I would say someone who can go through Gilly and Ann's thread (I'd volunteer Ashton ) and pick out what terms are important to know and would be good to have a quick-reference guide so a larger audience could join in. I personally don't mind this organic way of teaching each other, but I definitely understand the practicality of having a list of terms.

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

I'm a bad person to ask, mainly because I don't practice subtypes. Ashton and Ann are all about both the Accepting/Producing dichotomy and subtypes, and I'm sure others are too but they seem to yap about it the most

[anndelise]

I'm a bad person to ask, mainly because I don't practice subtypes. Ashton and Ann are all about both the Accepting/Producing dichotomy and subtypes, and I'm sure others are too but they seem to yap about it the most

'all about'? WHAT have you been reading??
I don't recall talking much about subtypes. And "yapping"? *sniff sniff*

(ok, I yap, but not about subtypes...I don't think)

[Mattie]

'all about'? WHAT have you been reading??
I don't recall talking much about subtypes. And "yapping"? *sniff sniff*

(ok, I yap, but not about subtypes...I don't think)

LOL I think I might have mushed the two of you together, I remember your video and some conversations on Accepting/Producing, and I know Ashton is one of the people who finds my disdain for subtypes silly. I just figured that someone else other than me could answer that question effectively

[silverchris9]

Honestly, reading this and similar reactions, and remembering prior instances of things like this, make me think there's just too much looking for Socionics in something. Rather, you saw the title of the thread, saw who it was by, and automatically set yourself (not just you, but others as well, because people of every type do this to types/IAs they don't value) up for a reaction. Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism. You can show it to someone who doesn't know Socionics and you wouldn't get that interpretation. And it isn't that valuers don't budge, it's you assign a stifling and unbudging feeling to something you don't value. In what you've typed, you're placed a lot of arbitrary qualities that you dislike placing on you, and so does everyone else (I'm just calling out you all because you revealed yourself as such in this thread).

...you can't say it's not socionics and then do exactly what this "non-socionics" predicts you're going to do. That's silly. To wit:

It's this kind of unconscious interpreting of events... this sort of self-evident emotional rightness.

Honestly, there is NOTHING about my post that's smug and shows some sort of elitism.

By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything.

How's that for unconscious interpretation of events? You don't think that there's any valid interpretation of anything you've said that reveals, on some level, anything that could be described as smug, given the myriad events of reality covered under the term smug. Maybe smug isn't even the right word. It's just an attempt to provide a word that gives the reader some sense of the feeling that was engendered in me by some aspects of what some people have posted. For example:

The idea of "Resonance" is important to this processes because of that hard to pin down feeling that one gets from music and sounds that is being talked about here, especially when you're listening to something instrumental and you have a feeling from it even though there isn't a direct explanation of what kind of feeling that music is trying to evoke.

Even "that is being talked about here" is an attempt to remove the subject that is speaking (i.e., you), and through depersonalization, create some sort of objectivity, as if the general universe is talking and not you. This is essentially literary critical nitpicking, but all I'm doing is investigating the features of your language that contributed to producing a response in me.

Even the word resonance automatically comes ready-packed with a positive connotation. And then you go on to compare it to pretty music. And you don't notice how that's a preconcieved interpretation of Fi as positive, like pretty music? Come on! Like I said, there's a reason that people use the words they use, and resonance is hardly a value neutral word (as if value-neutral words existed). You act like you're being objective, but from my perspective, there is really no such thing as objectivity, there's only less subjectivity, and it's much better to be conscious of the degree of subjectivity you have than to act as though it doesn't exist. Resonance implies all those Fi stereotypes you hate so much, and furthermore, as a word with a positive connotation, immediately relates to positive conceptions of Fi. But Fi-polr's experience of Fi is almost wholly negative, and your claim that a positive word like resonance is the true core of Fi totally ignores the fact that, according to socionics anyway, half the population has a generally negative response to Fi. I'm not saying you're wrong for trying to find an objective definition or anything like that. I'm not saying resonance is a bad word; in fact, I think it's great for Fi. But I am saying that there are reasons that I would have a negative reaction, reasons that I would find the description "smug," even if smugness isn't the primary component of the description "objectively".

Also, since we were talking about general Fe reactions to Fi-centered writings, what I had more in mind when I was talking about Fi being "so deep" was a post by Galen in another thread:

The only real way I can describe in a way that makes sense to me is a sort of view of "essences" in things/people. Within the first few minutes if not seconds of interaction, valuers can pick up on a sort of essential nature of a person.

Now, my initial reaction to this is rather violent, like, please, you can't pick up on the essential nature of anything in a few minutes---if not seconds. You can make a damn good guess, but you can't know anything from an instant snapshot, not about the essence of a person. In fact, it's hubristic to think that you can. And it's a terrible way to judge a human being. People are WAY too complex for that. Now, that's my initial reaction. But then I stop and think, okay, but what is the person actually trying to describe? What aspects of it are an accurate description of the process of ? To what degree am I just reacting negatively 'cause I don't like it? How can I try to filter out my own prejudices to see the "meat" of the idea? That's what I did with this topic in the first two replies I posted. I reacted negatively to it, and then I reoriented myself and found the truth in it all. Then Ashton brought up Fe-valuers' tendency to have violent reactions to threads like this, and I thought that would be a pertinent moment in conversation to bring up my own initially negative reaction, and try to explain that reaction a bit on behalf of my fellow Fe-valuers.

Now, before anyone's panties begin bunching, my reaction to Galen's post is in no way a judgment upon the value of that post. In fact, I am objectively aware that it is clearly a very good post, since so many Fi-valuers agree with it. Same with your thread. I simply had an instantaneous subjective reaction, and I have a right to my own reactions, preferably without being attacked for said reactions, especially after I've gone out of my way to suppress the reactions in order to attempt to contribute productively to this thread.

And furthermore, I completely disagree with your mantra of "you're looking for socionics where it doesn't exist, confirmation bias confirmation bias confirmation bias," especially since you all reacted exactly like I said! I wasn't comfortable expressing my initial distaste for some aspects of this thread, and accordingly moderated my reaction to something like "ergh, I have trouble thinking like this." As socionics predicts, when I moderated my initial response in dealing with members of my opposing quadra, we got along fine and had a normal interaction. When I moderated the response less in a dialogue with a member of one of my adjacent quadras, said individual (Ashton) was not offended, but two members of my opposing quadra jumped all over it, despite the fact that I even included a bunch of "oh, but I know my reaction is unreasonable" fake-I-could-be-wrong bullshit. And then you say I'm looking for socionics where it doesn't exist. While you enact the very socionics you claim isn't there.

Like when I said:

Like, there was a lot I disagreed with about the way this thread was presented, but I don't want to say that because it'll start a fight, and it's an unwinnable fight,

I said it, and you immediately went and started a fight about it. Are you seriously still claiming that this is some sort of confirmation bias?

Now, I agree with you insofar as you don't see what you aren't looking for. So yeah, someone who doesn't know socionics probably isn't going to have as many words for describing how they dislike something that is a manifestation of a given IM/IE/Iwhatever as someone who does know socionics. But if they don't have a vague feeling of dislike, or at the least, of dis-preference, then the theory has no credibility, and there's no such thing as Fi-valuing, much less Fi-polr. An idea that is arrived at by means of Fi cognition and presented in language that reflects Fi cognition must be in some way disliked or dis-preferred by individuals who don't value Fi. If you don't agree with that, I don't see how you can agree with the theory of socionics at all.

Plus it reminds me of my mother. Ick.

In short, all of you should just GET OVER IT. If anyone objectively thinks "Oh, this IA/IE is better than this because..." after understanding that we inherently value certain IAs over the other, then they are idiots. By looking at my posting history, it is obvious that I do not objectively value any IA over the other, and have tried my best to treat them all equally, and therefore no one should think I'm trying to be smug or elitist about anything. Just. Think. It. Through. Stop exaggerating what you value and what the other person does. I mean, for you particularly silverchris, you completely understood what I was trying to communicate and just objectively know I'm not trying to be a bitch. Is it HONESTLY that the way I typed it really violates what your Socionics type predicts, or did you come here apprehensive already (I remember asking you this before, and it seems like a pattern)? There was nothing blocking you from understanding what I was saying, because you did understand, and you were able to see how the others were over-reacting. It's all just taking IE valuing way too seriously and applying it to every single god-damned detail.

Jeez.

1) I feel like you're having a big emotional reaction to nothing.

2) Perhaps it would help if I mentioned that everything in that last post I made was simply me giving an unfiltered reaction describing my own subjective experience. I was describing what it "feels like," not what it "is." To me, this is a perfectly legitimate exercise. It seems that to you, it is not. When I read a piece of text, I automatically look for markers to tell me whether what is being discussed is intended to be a reflection of objective reality, or of subjective experience. When I read a post by BnD, I usually know, within seconds, that he is describing a subjective experience, and I read the post as such. Or even if he is making a claim regarding objective reality, he is doing it through the means of subjective experience. So the fact that you seem to have suddenly assumed that I was trying to describe something that exists in objective reality rather than my own personal, subjective experience is totally foreign to me.

To be clear, I mean that your claim that I am in some way viewing as objectively inferior to or any other function is false. Rather, I am subjectively experiencing as preferable to . This is literally the exact meaning of the phrase Fe-valuer or Fi-nonvaluer. Of course I subjectively prefer Fe to Fi. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an Fe-valuer. That's what the word "valuer" means.

3) The notion that it is in some way invalid to approach two similar events with a similar frame of mind is ludicrous. Of course it's a pattern. When I read one thread and it makes me feel uncomfortable, when I read another thread on the exact same topic, of course I should assume that it will also make me uncomfortable and psychologically prepare accordingly. I did those preparations in my first two posts, and we got along fine. I understood that I would need to put myself in a frame of mind different than my customary one, even if only slightly different, and I did so. And I learned by doing so. Haven't you noticed that even though I was extremely reluctant to incorporate your methods---because as I detailed in an earlier post, they seem(ed) counter-intuitive to me---I have been using your terms all over the place? That's because I benefited from viewing your posts from a different perspective, and yes, I do feel that the perspective shift bears some relation to socionics. We can agree to disagree about that if necessary. But my natural, organic reaction remains, and I don't see that it is any slight to you if I initially felt uncomfortable about this thread, if I initially reacted negatively. I initially reacted negatively to the post I am now responding to. If I were to give an unfiltered reaction to it, I would probably sound like an asshole, rather than a nice guy giving a relatively intelligent and considered response.

What I'm saying is, I have the right to my reactions to your posts, and a right to share that reaction with others, preferably without getting my head bitten off. I think it is mature and intelligent to surmount that reaction in order to focus the truth of the idea, rather than my aversion to its presentation. God, haven't you ever read a book that you didn't like at first, but then you found yourself using the ideas from that book? It's like that.

4) Your post reminds me of my mother. Ick.

[silverchris9]

There's the ideas in the mind, that the mind has to try to find words to match with. But those words can be interpreted in different ways by different people, including within one's own mind. So, with this limited resources, the idea is put out there. The words can change, though the idea remains the same. Different ways of describing the same thing.

Then someone else reads those words, and interprets meaning from them. But they have different experiences that they are drawing from, which leads to them getting a different idea of what's being described ...or attempted description. They then have to find word that would match their idea or thoughts on the interpreted idea, and then put those out there, for the first person to interpret.

It's called feedback. If the feedback shows a different idea than what was meant, then there's an alteration in which words or methods used to make another attempt.

Since we are on the net, we don't have the luxury of focusing one-on-one during the discussion...which makes it difficult to choose words. Just as the reader doesn't have the luxury of seeing the body language nor how much emphasis is placed on any one portion of the attempt.

INFps have complained (rightly so) of the difficulties of communicating over the internet. As if they are having to function half-blind.

But the same applies to ENFps as well.

What causes us to be blind in such scenarios, differs, but both are having to try to work around that blindness, and will do so in different ways.

I think you misunderstand my idea. I'm not saying that the word does not suit the thought. I'm saying that the choice of word does more than reflect the intentional, conscious idea that the speaker is trying to convey. It also reflects something about the speaker's mental state. It reveals something about the unintentional, unconscious ideas and associations that are going on in the speaker's mind. That's what I mean by "there's a reason why you choose the words you choose." Given that there are limitless combination of words that can express the same basic idea, for what reasons, conscious and unconscious, did the person choose the specific combination that they did? Of course, people will say that this is being overly nitpicky, overly analytical. And it doesn't have a use in all situations. But when your mind is trained to be sensitive to things like that, even to unconsciously collect information about why a speaker may have chosen the words that they chose, sometimes you can't help but "figure out" some of those unconscious, unintentional reasons people choose the words they do.

So yes, there is a reason people choose their words...but how do you expect a person to choose the exact words that will fit EVERY single person on this forum, and EVERY single possible interpretation? It's impossible, imo.

I'm not claiming that her words don't "fit" every single person on the forum, nor that they ought to. I am claiming that her choice of words may seem to reveal assumptions, biases, associations, etc., that are not part of the intended "information content" of the text.

Also, I've known many INFps who get upset at being held to something they said a month ago, a week ago, heck, even just a couple of hours ago. It was the thought of the moment, for them, and they get agitated at being held to that. What makes that so much more different than using 'terminology of the moment'?

And you describe it as self-evident emotional rightness...but just because you interpret it that way...doesn't make it actually that. Just as just because we interpret some words a certain way doesn't mean that that interpretation was what was meant.

Exactly! I was describing a subjective, personal experience. I was describing what it "feels like" to me. Now, I didn't explicitly say, "now this is just my personal opinion, just my experience," but I don't feel like I have to. To me, anyway, it's just obvious when someone is saying what it's like for them rather than what it's like period.

Would you describe the INFp's need to be understood as them being 'self-evident emotional rightness'? Would you consider a desire to be understood a normal human trait? And what happens when a person feels that the one they are talking to isn't quite understanding what's meant? Should they roll over and drop the whole thing? or would it be more likely that they'll make another effort instead?

? What I was trying to describe in saying "self-evident emotional rightness" is the tendency of Fi-valuers to refuse to break their opinions down into building blocks. Fi-valuers (being Te-valuers as well) tend to view their emotional reactions as facts, i.e., "there is nothing in my post that even hints of smugness in any way at all." Again, I could put this in more neutral, objective language, but why should I have to do that? You know that I'm just describing what it's like for me, from my perspective, right? Of course I know that it's more value-neutral than that. I constantly say that the value-neutrality of information elements is the number one most basic lesson of socionics. Anyway, I feel like I understood what Mattie meant fine. I was just describing some other information that I also understood from her writing, and from the writings of Fi-egos in general.

Finally, there was a big difference between how you responded to Mattie, and how Gilly responded. A big difference between the efforts you each took, in this thread. Your response was one that showed an interest in at least trying to understand, even if you might not agree with it. Gilly wasn't even trying.

That's because, at least on this internet forum, I am more inclined to moderate myself than gilly seems to be. He's not wrong for moderating himself less, I'm not wrong for moderating myself more. Different goals is all. But, since I know that this was meant kindly, I am glad to take it in the spirit in which it was intended. In other words, thank you.