Rearranging Fe Fi Te Ti confusional fuss

[FDG]

Fe = emotional expression, giving/receiving of it.
Fi = d33p feelings
Te = thought expression, producing/understanding
Ti = d33p thought structure

(let's not argue those defintions ok? I'm just using them to futher my clarification)

If a Fi type needs to express is feelings, he/she must go through Fe. That's why a Fe HA type can seem to respon well to an ExFp: being an extravert, the ExFp will feed the HA irregardless of the fact that he, personally, has a Fi preference. What counts is the external manifestation.

Same for Ti/Te. A Ti type needs to express his thought structure via Te, otherwise it's called autism. ExTps can look Te because of this: the content of the thought can be absolutely similar even if the underlying structure is absolutely different. This feeling is strenghtened if the Ti model is correspondant to reality, which, theorethically, should most of the times happen for ExTps, since it's modeled by extraverted functions.

So what do we get from this? That going narrowing down the defintions in order to always excavate till the essence can sometimes be absolutely fruitless.

Case in point, final example. Interaction between IxFj and ExTp. Both parties can, at first, sustain Fe and Te. In IxFjs case, Fe is used in order to build a precarious relational castle of warmth with the ExTp. In the ExTp case, Te is used in order to consciously adapt his behaviour to dating society's expectations, which is what an IxFj awaits. What happens then? The IxFj feels like there is no need for further warmth, since the relationship is estabilished. The ExTp feels there is no need for further formalities, since the warmth is estabilished. Therefore, the castle BOOOOMS simultaneously. Either the couple dismantles, or both parties keep up with a forced relationship.

[Joy]

d33p

is it just me, or is this like... a Beta calling card?

[Zeia]

d33p

is it just me, or is this like... a Beta calling card?

Well he said it, and you showed up, does that make you beta?

Since you'll say no, you're not beta or lol or something, that means it must be you.

[Joy]

d33p

is it just me, or is this like... a Beta calling card?

Well he said it, and you showed up, does that make you beta?

Since you'll say no, you're not beta or lol or something, that means it must be you.

um........ why would it mean that?

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Errr...

[Jonathan]

I think FDG is onto something. In Socionics, Te seems to have a lot to do with outward expression of thought.

The pattern of couples having problems ones the relationship is established, and they feel they don't have to do various things they did before, is a very common, well-documented phemonemon, which I think can apply to any types, even duals. However, the Socionics twist to it is that duals, in theory, please each other more naturally, whereas conflicting types would have to make more effort.

That doesn't mean that the relationships of conflicting types are necessarily artificial or devoid of true feeling; it's just that they'd have a much harder time satisfying each other.

[Zeia]

d33p

is it just me, or is this like... a Beta calling card?

Well he said it, and you showed up, does that make you beta?

Since you'll say no, you're not beta or lol or something, that means it must be you.

um........ why would it mean that?

A=Joy
B=Beta
C=Called
D= it being just you

You were called so:
A=True=C
According to what you said:
A=B||D
So if
A=B is False.
and A is true.
D must be true.

So A=D=True.

[Joy]

<3

English translation: "It's just you, Joy"

[Zeia]

<3

English translation: "It's just you, Joy"

There's no reason to equate boolean logic with Ti, in fact, I would say that Boolean logic is probably more Te than Ti. I said it in english and you asked me why that was, so I did it mathematically for you because I'm bored.

[Joy]

oh right Ted

[FDG]

<3

English translation: "It's just you, Joy"

There's no reason to equate boolean logic with Ti, in fact, I would say that Boolean logic is probably more Te than Ti. I said it in english and you asked me why that was, so I did it mathematically for you because I'm bored.

I think Boole was IxTj though, probably INTj, by reading about his life and the way he elegantly thought his system.

[aestrivex]

A=Joy
B=Beta
C=Called
D= it being just you

You were called so:
A=True=C
According to what you said:
A=B||D
So if
A=B is False.
and A is true.
D must be true.

So A=D=True.

ack.

use appropriate logical terminology.

[FDG]

d33p

is it just me, or is this like... a Beta calling card?

Well he said it, and you showed up, does that make you beta?

Since you'll say no, you're not beta or lol or something, that means it must be you.

um........ why would it mean that?

Question: d33p = Beta call or not Beta call?

since Joy showed up

-> either Joy = Beta, or d33p != not beta call.

Since Joy != Beta, then d33p != beta call.

I think FDG is onto something. In Socionics, Te seems to have a lot to do with outward expression of thought.

Not only in socionics: Jung himself clearly stated that outward expression of thought is always to be considered as Te.

The pattern of couples having problems ones the relationship is established, and they feel they don't have to do various things they did before, is a very common, well-documented phemonemon, which I think can apply to any types, even duals. However, the Socionics twist to it is that duals, in theory, please each other more naturally, whereas conflicting types would have to make more effort.

Exactly, and that's what I described. The adaption patterns can resist only up to a certain break even point, which is actually coincident with the moment in which both parties enter their comfort zone. This means that a conflicting relationship forces both types to always remain outside of their zone of natural expression.

That doesn't mean that the relationships of conflicting types are necessarily artificial or devoid of true feeling; it's just that they'd have a much harder time satisfying each other.

Yeah, exactly. There's no reference to feelings: they're actually, and probably unfortunately, somewhat independent from compatibility.

[Ms. Kensington]

ExTps can look Te because of this: the content of the thought can be absolutely similar even if the underlying structure is absolutely different. This feeling is strenghtened if the Ti model is correspondant to reality, which, theorethically, should most of the times happen for ExTps, since it's modeled by extraverted functions.

yay

There's no reference to feelings: they're actually, and probably unfortunately, somewhat independent from compatibility.

yay

Did you have to wait until you were ESTp to say this?

[Expat]

Not only in socionics: Jung himself clearly stated that outward expression of thought is always to be considered as Te.

I have to look for precise quote but, even assuming that Jung did say that, I wonder how true that is and how it can make sense in the context of intertype relationships.

If I have a analysis and I just express it verbally, does it make it automatically into ? Where is then the difference between the PoLRs of IXFps and EXFps? Since the only way to slap someone's else's PoLR is by voicing our thoughts, if outwardly expressed = then there should be no distinction.

In fact, the PoLR-hitting for those types goes like this:

: "A minute ago you said A=B, now you are saying A=D and B=/=D, can't you see that your argument is logically inconsistent?"
: "The problem with your argument is that all the 'facts' you listed are fallacies.

Even if you disagree with the specific examples, the fact remains that "verbally expressed " is not necessarily the same as .

If a Fi type needs to express is feelings, he/she must go through Fe. That's why a Fe HA type can seem to respon well to an ExFp: being an extravert, the ExFp will feed the HA irregardless of the fact that he, personally, has a Fi preference. What counts is the external manifestation.

Same problem as above. How does that account for the differences in and PoLR?

In fact, IXTps and EXTps react to them very differently.

For instance, an INTp has no problem with a quiet discussion of one's deepest feelings and personal ethics; what bothers them is someone going into extravagant outward displays of emotions, like "ooooh, how woooonderful to see you here! Let me give you a biiiiiiiiig hug!" For an ESTp, it's the opposite.

And that is precisely why INTps get along with ISFjs but not with ESFjs, and ENTps get along with ESFjs but not ISFjs.

If you say, quietly but truthfully, "I love you", or "I am really disappointed at your lack of scruples and any sense of morality" you are voicing your . That does not make it . If you jump out of joy when hearing that, or into a display of rage, that is .

Case in point, final example. Interaction between IxFj and ExTp. Both parties can, at first, sustain Fe and Te. In IxFjs case, Fe is used in order to build a precarious relational castle of warmth with the ExTp. In the ExTp case, Te is used in order to consciously adapt his behaviour to dating society's expectations, which is what an IxFj awaits. What happens then? The IxFj feels like there is no need for further warmth, since the relationship is estabilished. The ExTp feels there is no need for further formalities, since the warmth is estabilished. Therefore, the castle BOOOOMS simultaneously. Either the couple dismantles, or both parties keep up with a forced relationship.

From the Socionics point of view, it would be useful to remark that such relationships are either conflict or supervision.

In the ExTp case, Te is used in order to consciously adapt his behaviour to dating society's expectations

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost. An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is . Of course, from the point of view of the IXFj's -dual seeking, an EXTp can also provide but only when it doesn't clash with .

In IxFjs case, Fe is used in order to build a precarious relational castle of warmth with the ExTp

I think this is probably true and it will be "fed" by , but it does not follow that verbally expressed necessarily becomes .

[FDG]

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost. An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is .

Blah. Do you think I'm really gonna reply seriously after this line?

By the way, I think there are many stereotypes that have to be broken.

[Gilly]

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost. An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is .

Blah. Do you think I'm really gonna reply seriously after this line?

By the way, I think there are many stereotypes that have to be broken.

Only because you're sucvh an arrogant asshole who isn't willing to acknowledge your own negative aspects, even if they aren't as extreme as they are portrayed.. Grow the fuck up.

[FDG]

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost. An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is .

Blah. Do you think I'm really gonna reply seriously after this line?

By the way, I think there are many stereotypes that have to be broken.

Only because you're sucvh an arrogant asshole who isn't willing to acknowledge your own negative aspects, even if they aren't as extreme as they are portrayed.. Grow the fuck up.

I have many negative aspects, but my life plan is not built upon fucking girls and then dumping them, sorry. Oh, and moralistic crap from you is above funny, lol. Keep up with the cocaine, man.

[Gilly]

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost. An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is .

Blah. Do you think I'm really gonna reply seriously after this line?

By the way, I think there are many stereotypes that have to be broken.

Only because you're sucvh an arrogant asshole who isn't willing to acknowledge your own negative aspects, even if they aren't as extreme as they are portrayed.. Grow the fuck up.

I have many negative aspects, but my life plan is not built upon fucking girls and then dumping them, sorry. Oh, and moralistic crap from you is above funny, lol. Keep up with the cocaine, man.

You're just proving my point. Keep it up.

[Expat]

Blah. Do you think I'm really gonna reply seriously after this line?
.

I was poking fun at you and exaggerating to make the point.

I would be interested in a serious reply.

[Ms. Kensington]

I have to look for precise quote but, even assuming that Jung did say that, I wonder how true that is and how it can make sense in the context of intertype relationships.

If I have a analysis and I just express it verbally, does it make it automatically into ? Where is then the difference between the PoLRs of IXFps and EXFps? Since the only way to slap someone's else's PoLR is by voicing our thoughts, if outwardly expressed = then there should be no distinction.

In fact, the PoLR-hitting for those types goes like this:

: "A minute ago you said A=B, now you are saying A=D and B=/=D, can't you see that your argument is logically inconsistent?"
: "The problem with your argument is that all the 'facts' you listed are fallacies.

Even if you disagree with the specific examples, the fact remains that "verbally expressed " is not necessarily the same as

yeah expat, i think that is not in conflict with what fdg said. he said the content could be the same, and now i add , but not have to be. in your example the content is not the same. The other statement is, when a Ti thought is expressed that person uses Te to express it. Correct me if I got this statement wrong.

[Expat]

Where I disagree with FDG is that he said - or so I understood - that any external expression of thought necessarily becomes . That is of course true according to many definitions of Extraverted Thinking, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with intertype relationships.

[Expat]

I have many negative aspects, but my life plan is not built upon fucking girls and then dumping them, sorry.

I know it isn't. I was being stereotypical on purpose to poke fun at you.

[Expat]

when a Ti thought is expressed that person uses Te to express it.

If you define any external expression of a thought - Ti or Te - as Extraverted Thinking, then, of course Te is needed to express Ti.

However, since we can see a difference between how types react to Ti and Te, then, logically, even Ti expressed via Te is distinct from Te expressed via Te.

FDG seemed to be defining things according to the means of expression, I am looking at the content of what is expressed.

[FDG]

I'll reply later editing this post, but I think the differences can be summed up in the different perispective vs

[FDG]

I have to look for precise quote but, even assuming that Jung did say that, I wonder how true that is and how it can make sense in the context of intertype relationships.

It makes sense because it's not biunivocal.

If Ti -> Te, then NOT Te->Ti

Therefore, the example your provide:

Where is then the difference between the PoLRs of IXFps and EXFps? Since the only way to slap someone's else's PoLR is by voicing our "thoughts, if outwardly expressed = then there should be no distinction.

Incorrect. If Ti->Te, you can still directly utilize Te. The content of the two sentences will be different and therefore not PoLR-slapping.

For example (warning, not necessarily correct)
A Ti->Te will

: "A minute ago you said A=B, now you are saying A=D and B=/=D, can't you see that your argument is logically inconsistent?"

A Te->Te will

"Look, the correct procedure is X"

: "The problem with your argument is that all the 'facts' you listed are fallacies.

Now, I am not sure of whether this is Te slapping? I think it should be more "You're doing/say everything in the wrong way!"

Even if you disagree with the specific examples, the fact remains that "verbally expressed " is not necessarily the same as .

I agree, totally. The content is going to be different.

Same problem as above. How does that account for the differences in and PoLR?

Mh? I wasn't even talking about that. I was merely explaining what happened, not accounting for differences. Both parties just use functions that make them weak a "social mask", because the "dating ritual" is on the first stages.

For instance, an INTp has no problem with a quiet discussion of one's deepest feelings and personal ethics; what bothers them is someone going into extravagant outward displays of emotions, like "ooooh, how woooonderful to see you here! Let me give you a biiiiiiiiig hug!" For an ESTp, it's the opposite.

DING DING DING STEREOTYPE ALARM. Big hugs can look fake. When they're not, they're welcomed. Discussion of deep feelings can be done with people of trust.

And that is precisely why INTps get along with ISFjs but not with ESFjs, and ENTps get along with ESFjs but not ISFjs.

On the long run, yes. Because ISFjs will always want to discuss deep feelings, and ESFjs will always welcome with big hugs that probably will look fake. Though, I'm sure ENTps definitely CAN discuss deep feelings, as well as INTps demostrate emotions. Therefore, my point stand stills.

If you say, quietly but truthfully, "I love you", or "I am really disappointed at your lack of scruples and any sense of morality" you are voicing your . That does not make it . If you jump out of joy when hearing that, or into a display of rage, that is .

Yeah, but when you speak you use , actually. acts more like a mood-comfort creater. acts more as an equalizer. If we keep concentrating ourselves on words, it's going to be difficult to differentiate.

From the Socionics point of view, it would be useful to remark that such relationships are either conflict or supervision.

Of course, that's why the booming end!!

That is more than : achieving goals at any cost.

Mh? Which cost? There isn't really any cost. You like a girl and you do what she likes. Seems kinda natural. Of course in the long run, if what she likes do not coincide with what you like, problems arise.

An ESTp uses to analyze such expectations but his pandering to them consciously in order to get into a girls' pants is . Of course, from the point of view of the IXFj's -dual seeking, an EXTp can also provide but only when it doesn't clash with .

I agree that probably is used for adaptation. I don't exactly understand what you mean by clashing values. Suppose that ESTp analyzes with and he realizes that he must use (It's really NOT as calculated as it sounds). Then there ain't gonna be any visible difference. Except that since the Ixfj feels secure with Te, she's going to use less Fe. Since the ExTp felt secure with Fe, he might start to use less Te and more of his natural functions...as I explained, everything booms.

I think this is probably true and it will be "fed" by , but it does not follow that verbally expressed necessarily becomes .

Yeah, but verbal expression of can count as warm-creating atmoshpere. I avoid stating the ->-> transition every time because it's unnecessary.

[Expat]

For instance, an INTp has no problem with a quiet discussion of one's deepest feelings and personal ethics; what bothers them is someone going into extravagant outward displays of emotions, like "ooooh, how woooonderful to see you here! Let me give you a biiiiiiiiig hug!" For an ESTp, it's the opposite.

DING DING DING STEREOTYPE ALARM. Big hugs can look fake. When they're not, they're welcomed. Discussion of deep feelings can be done with people of trust.

No I disagree with that. If it's a stereotype, it's confirmed by long, close and even intimate observations of INTps and ESFjs. INTps are unsure of how to react when being put on the spot by an ESFj's "extravagant" open display of emotion, even if they know it's genuine. Of course it bothers them far less in that case than if they think it's fake, but they still go "does s/he really have to act that way?"

From the ESFj's point of view, they will accept the INTp's "coldness" if they know it's not personal but still think, "I really wish s/he could be less shy and make an effort to be more affectionate".

I will address the other points later but it seems we are in agreement on the different in contents of expressed and .

[FDG]

Well then, it's valid for INTp ESFj. Not necessarily for all the others. And it doesn't imply the lack of willingness to share feelings. Sure, I'll first need to have violent sex with you, rape you, absue you and probably eat your liver, but I'm probably going to share feelings.

[Expat]

: "The problem with your argument is that all the 'facts' you listed are fallacies.

Now, I am not sure of whether this is Te slapping? I think it should be more "You're doing/say everything in the wrong way!"

Yes that is also a good example. But I think a demonstration of someone's lack of knowledge of data is also a hit of PoLR - at least if the person is not aware that their data is incomplete.

[XoX]

Fe = emotional expression, giving/receiving of it.
Fi = d33p feelings
Te = thought expression, producing/understanding
Ti = d33p thought structure

Hmm...I'm or . I think I'm mostly because it is easier to understand the concept of "deep thought" than "deep feelings". I mean how do I know if my feelings are deep or not?

[Slava]

I think in order to make discussion of functions more clear, we need to separatly define the models that the function allows the user to see, and thennnn separatly define the methods they use to manipulate those objects. Because we have all been mushing these things together. We need to narrow down what it is they see, and then narrow down, how they deal with what they see, and what is the primary desire/objective to each perception, and by perception i also mean judgement. Or do we just see through any information we adapt? and the information type is what functions are? just something to think about. Is having a type the oldest religeon, that has begun to evolve into us?