valuing Fe

[Joy]

dreikin, I relate very well to much of what you said.

Olga, no.

Jadae, I wasn't suggesting that no one should value Fe... just that I don't.

[Creepy-pokeball]

My comment was "in general."

[Rocky]

edit: Oh yes, forgot to mention http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4678 - Might shed some light, and according to Expat is more about Te over Fe than just particular to ISTp's.

This reminds me, I wonder what Fabio and Expat exactly identified with, and what they didn't.

[Olga]

It is a bit strange to me that ENTJ whose role function is Fe, either does not like it or bear it. I remember when I had arguement with my ex ENTJ I knew it is better to be qiet. That was not good for him because he want it arguement. It was not often but when he had a mood for arguement I had no control on it whatsoever. I had to take it as a storm and juast wait when it is gone...after three days or so. And if I would dare to show my emotions it all was worse - like a wood for fire.

Most of the time thought he was very cheerful and playfull and happy going. He was good at expressing emotions without saying much- little clues and that was enough for me.

My INTJ husband is so much better: the same temper and if he starts to be emotional because of a child it is never really bothers me: I just need to listen and then he may be quiet for a while but never for long. He rearly agrees with me when he is emotional and I also know where I can argue and when is better not. Most of the time he is quiet.

[FDG]

It was not often but when he had a mood for arguement I had no control on it whatsoever.

Yeah, because you wanted to control even his mood. Go figure

[Olga]

And my ENTJ husband wanted me to show more cheerfulness Fe? I think he was a bit bored with my levelled and peaceful nature.

On the other hand if joy and some other people are possibly so sensitive to their role function - then why? Socionincs said we suppose to be not emotional about the critics to the role function. Is it right for everyone or not? Socionics suggests that the most painful critics or pressure is for the 4 th function. Are we going to agree upon this or not or we better change the theory to suit our own experiences?

[FDG]

And my ENTJ husband wanted me to show more cheerfulness Fe? I think he was a bit bored with my levelled and peaceful nature.

On the other hand if joy and some other people are possibly so sensitive to their role function - then why? Socionincs said we suppose to be not emotional about the critics to the role function. Is it right for everyone or not? Socionics suggests that the most painful critics or pressure is for the 4 th function. Are we going to agree upon this or not or we better change the theory to suit our own experiences?

I agree, it gets frustrating when you're the one to always have to cheer the mood up. Anyway, for me it wouldn't be that I'd be sensitive on ; it was more related to the way you phrased your sentence, which seemed to imply that you felt entitled to be the one influencing his mood.

[Olga]

I do not like control people as such - I just do not want them to be angry or sad. I tried to talk to him - he did not hear. It was like talking to the wall - one of the signs of incompatibility! Plus imagine i have got weak Ne. I was pretty scared at this times because i could not understand why he was going mad - he just changed for 180 degrees and became a person I never knew. My Fi - was nothing worth with him, we spoke different langauge.

[FDG]

When Fi equals sadness and constant criticism...

[Ms. Kensington]

yes, thanks FDG for finally saying what people mean by not liking Fe

"it was more related to the way you phrased your sentence, which seemed to imply that you felt entitled to be the one influencing his mood." (bold mine)


Olga: so your husband is indeed ENTj and not INTj like you thought?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[dreikin]

1. Generally, I try not to give those signals out - but when I do, I'd rather people didn't ask questions or bug me about it. If I wanted to share, I would - verbally (this applies more to negative states than positive ones).

If I limited my understanding of the world around me to verbal cues, then even in normal human interactions I'd be limited to something like 6-11% of the available information. Some people may prefer to be clueless. I am not one of them.

Like I said, people who don't want to be heard generally keep quiet. People who don't want to be seen generally stay hidden. If people act in ways that attract attention, then they should accept the consequences of those actions. I don't force people to act.

No matter how quiet a person may try to be, they'll probably still make sound from breath and heart. No matter how invisible a person may try to be, they'll probably be visible somehow. Likewise with expression, it's not entirely under control - a lot is unconscious. Also, I don't expect anyone to ignore the signals - you're right in that it would be rather stupid to ignore available information like that.

2. Not that they're capable of picking up on it - I wish I could. It's when they think that those signals are an invitation of some sort. (Whether or not it's manipulation, I try not to send signals [I believe] largely because I don't want this type of intrusion. I consider it less rude than just telling everyone around me who irritates me in this way to bug off [which is quite likely to have results other than intended].)

I am not sure I understand how it is considered intrusive after it has been made public. It's OK to put out shit that intrudes on me because it is unintentional. But it is rude for me to react to protect my interests because it might intrude on them.

Think of it like a diary: I wouldn't consider it intrusive that someone knows it exists, or even can make a guess or two about what it contains. Trying to get inside the diary is.

For "It's OK to .... intrude on them" (no, I'm not trying to change the meaning of those two sentences) could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I'm talking about the same thing as you in this part.

3. Again, if I wanted them to know, or their help, I'd tell/ask them.

If you didn't want people to know your shit, then you wouldn't be making it public. And if I offer to help, consider the fact that I am acting to protect my interests. And you certainly have the right to protect yours. Politely declining the offer is generally sufficient.

Again, I try not to. I rarely consider the person to have 'evil' intentions when they do anything in response to whatever signals (or lack of them) - quite the opposite, but that doesn't make it any less irritating to me. It's only after constant exposure to such that I may lash out.

(erk, dinnertime - may post more later..)

[Olga]

Diana wrote:

I don't think using my 3rd function (Ti) is a problem for me. Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and I just don't realize it. And my 4th (Se) is something that I wish I was better at, had better control of using it productively.

I feel exactly the same. It is possible however to suggest that meaning and expression of the 4th and 3rd functions are not fully explored and described. The functions are given to us for usage to support us in daily life and if we would be distressed by using them, especially conscious functions in Ego and Superego block (how much the Superego block is conscious is debatable though) - we would be neurotic.

So we can suggest that using function should not be a problem. Weak function will be limited in the quality/degree of usage. But because it is weak it could be sensitive to criticism. Criticism can be different too. It may hit you more if it is combined with your base function, for example: "you will be never able to produce any clever theory, baby", soething like that. i believe that each person on the fourm knows thatir dark fears and they are not related to one funciton. I noticed that psychological disturbances hit the most strong function - the 1st. As if something which is bread of your existance is now in question.

On the other hand, I believe and describe it in model B, that Superid block is a real disability and not the 4th function or interacton of functions. 4th function may give you inhibition. These hypotheses need to be explored furhter.

Kioshi, I had such a hard times with ESTP and it is nice to hear your voice here. My boss ESTP was not a bad person but she was not capable to look at ethical types differently. She was picking very subtle clues of distress or puzzle in my face and behavour as extraverts are really tuned into surroundings and what others feel. She was friendly and I never felt intend to harm me on purpose but rather compliance to her own obligation. She always tried to explain to me that it is not personal between us but rather I am not good enough in my job and so the system does not benefit from my services. She did though make sure that I am kiked out as soon as possible. She might felt unbearable to work with me. ESTPs are reactive and protective and will not sit and wait if something is in their way to put their will through. Kings of animal kingdom. What colours are your favourite, Kioshi?


FDG wrote:

When Fi equals sadness and constant criticism...

The dimension Fi .......Fe must be balanced then it is positive. Teaching must be fun anf fun must be inspirational.

I do not personally consider myself as sad or critical. In my relationship with ENTJ (my second husband, the present one is INTJ) I was never sad or critical. Arguements were because he did not like something or even something would happen at work and he could come and complain that I am not a good housewife. I think, sometimes he was not happy internally but was not 100% sure himself about the reason. So he needed to dump his emotions in outbirst to something hardly relative. I also think that ENTJ is an Ego type and they like to do what they want to do (free spirit) and not to comply with circumstances which could tie them up one way or another. Disturbed Superid block (subconscous block) may be a driving force for a change in thier lifes. Again...hypotheses.

My expereinces of Entjs on the forum show me that they may be quick to judge but never "heavy" for me which is a sign of sensorics as 4th function. But I do feel sometimes other types on the fourm as powerful and heavy and it seems not the issue of rationality but sensorics somewhere in Ego block. Fe as a base funciton can have a feeling of the person as being very powerful as well to a degree that I mix up Fe for Se.

[implied]

i don't think anyone (or many) has issues with their role function. maybe overuse would cause it to be an issue. or having it constantly pointed out. it's just viewed as something you don't want to overuse, something to compensate for the weak function.

[Joy]

honestly... I'm just bitter because I've been harassed by a few Fe types, most recently the most ESFj of ESFjs ever.

Most of the time I can just ignore them, but I still HATE getting hit on because I feel all put on the spot, and it's Fe that I'm required to use.

Sometimes I almost enjoy using Fe... like when I successfully complete an inspection and have to use Fe with those particular clients. In those times I'm a bit proud that I was able to do it... and then I'm exhausted. I don't *hate* Fe or *hate* Fe types. I just don't enjoy them as much as other types and feel a little bit uncomfortable around them.

But yeah... if INTp wasn't an impossibility for me, my distaste for Fe would make me strongly consider it!

[dreikin]

Think of it like a diary: I wouldn't consider it intrusive that someone knows it exists, or even can make a guess or two about what it contains. Trying to get inside the diary is.

For "It's OK to .... intrude on them" (no, I'm not trying to change the meaning of those two sentences) could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I'm talking about the same thing as you in this part.

I am not sure the diary is a good metaphor. I think Fi would be more interested in the contents of the diary. Fe deals with action-reaction relations (process formations).

well,

extraverted ethics types like to discuss these passions and to analyze and discuss their own and others' feelings — not necessarily to change them, but more to bring them out in the open and understand them in order to base one's actions on one's true passions.
[...]
extraverted ethics types like to help others talk about and come to terms with their passions (strong inner sentiments)

I tried to provide an example in the post that followed. It is an emotional-behavioral pattern most likely to trigger an aggressive response from me that others might interpret as intrusive, manipulative, or whatever.

Not every action is significant, only recurrent actions. For example, a delayed reaction means very little to me. There are natural differences in timing. But an increased delay with each interaction cycle is significant. It distresses most people and I am no exception. It also deprives others of initiative in the interaction. Generally I just turn my attention to others things, thus reducing stress. But there are times when I do not have the luxury of taking it easy. In these cases I tend to have an adrenergic reaction. I get extremely excited. I begin to react more quickly with each interaction cycle. This deprives them of initiative in the interaction. It prods them into acting more quickly.

What entitles them to act as they do? And why should I not feel entitled to react as I do?

If I understand that correctly, you perceive the delayed reactions as intrusive because they deprive you of momentum/initiative? I actually find that hard to understand (not that I doubt it's true, mind). To me, the reaction you have of trying to prod 'them into acting more quickly' is perceived as intrusive and pushy (though admittedly there are circumstances where it's justified - i.e., where action must be taken quickly), and my likely reaction is to purposefully react more slowly (outwardly, that is) as a way to retain at least some control.

I can see how this can escalate badly, If I have it right.