Fe: needs a warm emotional atmosphere, and the relationship follows
Fi: needs a relationship, and the warmness follows
Does this sound about accurate, generally speaking?
Fi vs. Fe: quadra values
Fe: needs a warm emotional atmosphere, and the relationship follows
Fi: needs a relationship, and the warmness follows
Does this sound about accurate, generally speaking?
How do you want to relate that to quadra values.
Alpha and Delta?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
actually that sounds to me like the difference between Fp and Fj (respectively) though i have encountered extreme exceptions (as social particulars tend toward extremes. example, a former neo-nazi who has become more rigid in mindset as a consequence)
AND magnitude of interaction which is why i said what i did
(just out of curiosity --- are you an INTj , as opposed to INTp, soggy?)
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
A little, but I really am not sure. I haven't read much of your posts. So I cannot say.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Alpha and Beta: FeOriginally Posted by UDP II
Gamma and Delta: Fi
the whole Fj/Fp thing kinda bothers me pedro...
I was totally against using E, I, N, S, T, F, P, and J for a while, but I'm starting to see some validity to the Ej, Ep, Ij, and Ip temperaments. Things like "NT" sorta work, but only on a very superficial level. I am having a hard time seeing how things like that or Fj, etc. are more valid than Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, and quadra values. Right now, the Information Elements are of interest to me more than anything. When people start talking about "ST" or "Fj", it's pretty much comparing apples to oranges. The two systems are incompatible, and while one may not be any more valid than the other, if we're going to talk about both of them, we have to understand that we're talking about two entirely different things.
it is more useful to have those delineations in addition to the prevailing ones than to only have the prevailing ones. it is more useful to have an infinite dichotimization language though
Re: Fi vs. Fe: quadra values
I'm pretty sure I'm Fi and I don't need warmth if there's no relationship. But if there is one, I'd like it to be warm.
Agreed. I was pointing out that I was refering to a different typology in my original post, and that while it never hurts to use both, I find functions and model A more useful than I, E, S, N, T, F, P, and J.
Re: Fi vs. Fe: quadra values
i'm not using them that way. i am using them as functions. if you want to interpret that in terms of functions you can just as easily say types which have a creative rather than primary F function. this would lead to applications for T types however where it may apply even less.
just so we are clear this is joy's personal idea and not a staple of socionics/type theory not that you should relate your personality around either
gotcha, thanks. just offering the info-
I think it does describe the main difference betweenand
and is consistent with how Jung described it.
I see where you are coming from in attributing that to irrationality and rationality but I disagree. It would almost nullify the distinction between ISFj and ESFj.
Personally I find that using Quadras and Temperaments as reference points works best. But I also see some value in thinking of the Clubs - NT, NF, SF, ST - and even of the Keirsey-like temperaments, NT, NF, SJ, SP. It is not just an illusion that people can sometimes be easily grouped along those lines. For instance, I do think that XSxj types share some recognizable characteristics but rather than being due to some SJ "temperament", I think it's due to weak.
Gulenko proposed an alternative approach to looking at relationships by combining the EJ, IJ, EP and IP temperaments with the NT, NF, ST and SF clubs. He arrives at the same kind of relationships as with Model A but with somewhat different reasoning.
Where's the contradiction? I didn't say anything about tradition or societal norms. The comparison I provided was in no way mean to include all things Fe or Fi, just as the quote you provided certainly isn't the complete writings of Jung regarding Fe. The comparison wasn't intended to be consistant with Jung's theory anyways... I find the information elements much more useful.I disagree. In fact, the Fe contradiicts Fe as Jung described it.I think it does describe the main difference between
Nowhere in this can it be inferred that:Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.
Jung, Carl G. (1921/1923). General description of the types. Chapter 10 of Psychological types (H.G. Bayes, Trans.). (Original work published 1921) [Key chapter of Jung's major treatise on personality.]
In fact, Fe requires a relationship in which "traditional or generally valid standards" have already been established.Fe: needs a warm emotional atmosphere, and the relationship follows
I dislike these topics because there is always an implicit superiority of one function over the other, which is always, always a result of a misconception of the function's characteristics.
To cite an example of such implications, at least to me, it is heavily implied here that Fe is more "frivolous" and "meaningless" whilst Fi promotes more "mature," and "meaningful" relationships. This doesn't even begin to be true.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I don't see how such is the case. I'm not even sure how it could be confused. I don't see Fe as frivolous or meaningless. I seriously don't see how one description could be superior over the other, in description or in reality. Just as each type is different from the other, each function is different... different but not better.
Is there a different wording you would prefer?
The intended idea is that Alpha/Beta have a difficult time building a close relationship with someone if the interactions are not warm, and Gamma/Delta have a difficult time being familiar/warm with people who they don't have close relationships with.
For some reason, I like this wording better. I've been thinking about the first wording and it didn't feel right, but this does. Assuming the second beta is a typo for delta. Otherwise, I'm Fe.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Yes. It doesn't mean these topics are garbage to throw though, it means people have to cut the bullshit when they see it. BTW i encourage people to do it more as i can't believe how much shit talk there is about functions sometimes. Discussions about people's cognitive functions can be hard on an internet forum since we don't have indicators such as voice tone nor any rapid way of knowing when someone generalizes to save time or to bash, but i still think we can pinpoint some basic definitions we are almost all looking for.
As for how meaningfulbias which can't be of any use for Betas and Gammas, who often complain about Deltas and Alphas being too relativistic.
Yes, any grouping can be used because it always creates a group of types with similar functions or "function dynamics".Personally I find that using Quadras and Temperaments as reference points works best. But I also see some value in thinking of the Clubs - NT, NF, SF, ST - and even of the Keirsey-like temperaments, NT, NF, SJ, SP. It is not just an illusion that people can sometimes be easily grouped along those lines. For instance, I do think that XSxj types share some recognizable characteristics but rather than being due to some SJ "temperament", I think it's due to weak
Good thing, as the Model-A relationship system overlooks (Maybe voluntarily to keep the chart light) the fact that for example,is not to
.
I like things to be warm first, most of the time. There has been accpetions where I've pretty much convinced myself their was a warm atmosphere, because I wanted to get to know someone who....just wasn't making things between us warm. But that takes a lot of effort and I hardly put that much into it anymore.
For some reason, I like this wording better. I've been thinking about the first wording and it didn't feel right, but this does. Assuming the second beta is a typo for delta. Otherwise, I'm Fe.
yes, my point exactlyAs for how meaningful
Yeah, but this way of thinking can be very dangerous. While it may be true in many cases, you will find places where people make unfair distinctions between functions and then justify them this way. For example, many people used to think (and still do think) that Ti is a function of understanding and Te is a function of use, so that Ti seeks to understand something fully but Te only seeks to apply it somewhere, not necessarily understanding it. The justification of this was that Ti can be impractical alot of the times, and Te has the benefit of being practical and efficient. But that is wrong, because using something without understanding it is detrimental no matter how you look at it. Plus, being able to effectively apply an idea requires that you understand it a great deal, especially how it fits in with other ideas.yes, my point exactlyAs for how meaningful
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
So anytime some one makes a distinction between introverted functions and extroverted functions there should be a disclaimer that reads "CAUTION: ALL TYPES USE ALL FUNCTIONS AND FUNCTION/TYPE GENERALIZATIONS DO NOT APPLY IN EVERY SITUATION"?
How is it a consequence of acknowledging that one has to be foreign to one of the two functions? Your example implies that one pretends to know both functions and treats the one he doesn't know as a bad function simply because he doesn't relate to it naturally (Or correctly).
Also, the rest of my post basically discouraged the process you described in your example and i consider it a part of the complete "way of thinking". Maybe you didn't read it though, since you only quoted the part of my post Joy quoted.
exfjs which grow up in more traditional/conservative communities are not like this at all (at least at first). i do not think the distinction between the two with respect to this particular dimension is that great at all. imo the difference (later on) is that exxjs are more pragmatic while ixxjs are not and this leads to the differences you observe. if you had an all esfj world such would be much less likely to occur
No, it is a consequence of incorrect functional descriptions. My example implies that one does know the functions for what they are but that one may not understand the value of one of the functions. Thus he takes into account your type of thinking and realizes that other people do understand and do value that function, even though he cannot. He may be free from intentional bias, but the problem lies in the functional descriptions themselves. If the bias is implicit in the definitions, then one unintentionally screws himself.How is it a consequence of acknowledging that one has to be foreign to one of the two functions? Your example implies that one pretends to know both functions and treats the one he doesn't know as a bad function simply because he doesn't relate to it naturally (Or correctly).
EDIT: Actually I think this sentence may have thrown you guys off: "While it may be true in many cases, you will find places where people make unfair distinctions between functions and then justify them this way." What I should have said is that people make unfair distinctions unintentionally because of unfair functional descriptions. Sorry.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
No, it is a consequence of incorrect functional descriptions. My example implies that one does know the functions for what they are but that one may not understand the value of one of the functions. Thus he takes into account your type of thinking and realizes that other people do understand and do value that function, even though he cannot. He may be free from intentional bias, but the problem lies in the functional descriptions themselves. If the bias is implicit in the definitions, then one unintentionally screws himself.How is it a consequence of acknowledging that one has to be foreign to one of the two functions? Your example implies that one pretends to know both functions and treats the one he doesn't know as a bad function simply because he doesn't relate to it naturally (Or correctly).
EDIT: Actually I think this sentence may have thrown you guys off: "While it may be true in many cases, you will find places where people make unfair distinctions between functions and then justify them this way." What I should have said is that people make unfair distinctions unintentionally because of unfair functional descriptions. Sorry.
Yes.
So you mean the person deduces a function's value even though he doesn't understand it and takes his information from his interpretation of what others appreciate from said function? If that's the case i agree that it would be a problem, but i thought it was implied that one should absolutely not do that. Also, it started from an example about how a function is meaningful, which is a "parameter" that should never be in a description, unless it is clearly stated to whom (Functionally speaking) the function is meaningful and why it is (Again, under the condition that it is known and understood).No, it is a consequence of incorrect functional descriptions. My example implies that one does know the functions for what they are but that one may not understand the value of one of the functions. Thus he takes into account your type of thinking and realizes that other people do understand and do value that function, even though he cannot. He may be free from intentional bias, but the problem lies in the functional descriptions themselves. If the bias is implicit in the definitions, then one unintentionally screws himself.How is it a consequence of acknowledging that one has to be foreign to one of the two functions? Your example implies that one pretends to know both functions and treats the one he doesn't know as a bad function simply because he doesn't relate to it naturally (Or correctly).
EDIT: Actually I think this sentence may have thrown you guys off: "While it may be true in many cases, you will find places where people make unfair distinctions between functions and then justify them this way." What I should have said is that people make unfair distinctions unintentionally because of unfair functional descriptions. Sorry.
If i look at the situation from the start, i actually have a hard time figuring out where the problem lies, because to me, none of
There are four more or less precise scenarios that i currently have in mind:
1) I misunderstand you
2) You misunderstand me
3) I left out important information in my explanations
4) You consider a course of action based on "idle" information i gave
It might also be something else but when i read the suppositions in your answers, i think:
"Why do someone deduces specific things about what he doesn't know?"
It seems like a worst case scenario of someone "using" the fact that a function's value is relative to fill in the blanks even though he priorly acknowledged his incapacity to judge or appreciate.
I agree with this and see functions the same way.If i look at the situation from the start, i actually have a hard time figuring out where the problem lies, because to me, none of
NiTe | Socionix
Uh, isn't that what you are saying here?
As for how meaningful
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
No i said a function's value is relative.Uh, isn't that what you are saying here?
As for how meaningful
Seriously though... I think I'm going to excuse myself from this particular conversation and suggest that we agree to disagree.
Oh.
Nevertheless, even though a person values a function one way, when he tries to understand how other people value it, he can fall into the trap I had described.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Ok, "relationship" is a nominalization of the act of relating. (Nominalization: turning a verb or an adjective into a noun)
Seriously though... I think I'm going to excuse myself from this particular conversation and suggest that we agree to disagree.
All Kioshi is saying in that statement is that at the point that we begin to interact with someone, we begin relating to them...whether we relate well to them...or not well....whether it be superficially relating...or relating in depth.....does not change the fact that we ARE relating to them.
I am curious, which part of this do you disagree with?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
the premis
*sighs*
.
Which premise?
that relationships are about relating to others?
that we relate to others as we interact with them?
something else i'm missing?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
For me too.It's true in my case for Delta anyway.*sighs*
I'd add at the end, "or the illusion of a close relationship", which I think it's the source of many misunderstandings.
The statement was so far off the point of this thread that I didn't care to argue. Yes, was Kioshi said is true. It irritates me to have to say "I meant close relationships" because it was implied and I don't want to argue about the way I word things AGAIN today. That's why I restated my point... so as not to get into exactly what I just got into and to steer the conversation back to the topic at hand.Which premise?
that relationships are about relating to others?
that we relate to others as we interact with them?
something else i'm missing?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote