WorkaholicsAnon's type: IEE or ILE? (thread split)

[Suz]

different subtype maybe? I have trouble seeing you as Fi-PoLR tbh (can't shake off your previous self-typing, cause it felt right to me), but I haven't met you irl, so that's that...

Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should stick with my old self-typing. I've been trying to gain a revised understanding on what Fi is...But more in-depth interaction at least with one ILE here in private chat kind of brought what i think was his Fi-POLR to the surface and it REALLY bothered me. Like, I don't treat people that way, and I'm embarrassed to call myself an ILE if that's typical behavior of them.

You're right, things did feel right before.

[Iris]

Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should stick with my old self-typing. I've been trying to gain a revised understanding on what Fi is...But more in-depth interaction at least with one ILE here in private chat kind of brought what i think was his Fi-POLR to the surface and it REALLY bothered me. Like, I don't treat people that way, and I'm embarrassed to call myself an ILE if that's typical behavior of them.

You're right, things did feel right before.

IEE seemed like a good typing for you. Of course, who wouldn't want an awesome SEI for a dual?


To reverse things, who needs you to be their dual - SEI or SLI?

[Eliza Thomason]

IEE seemed like a good typing for you. Of course, who wouldn't want an awesome SEI for a dual?


To reverse things, who needs you to be their dual - SEI or SLI?

Good question for WA!

Yes, SEIs are awesome. Such loyal, helpful friends, and so kind.

[Suz]

IEE seemed like a good typing for you. Of course, who wouldn't want an awesome SEI for a dual?


To reverse things, who needs you to be their dual - SEI or SLI?

Good question for WA!

Yes, SEIs are awesome. Such loyal, helpful friends, and so kind.

Yeah I'm sure i'd be plenty happy with either SEI or SLI as duals, in fact I have at least one friend who I think is SEI (mannerisms very similar to Sharon Osbourne). Being with this friend is always very therapeutic for me, and when i'm nervous in a new place and she's there, I feel relieved, calm and at ease. As far as who needs me... i have no idea actually...

My mission in establishing my type, though, isnt just for dual-searching, but rather to also implement socionic intertype knowledge to my many other professional and personal interactions with a wide variety of different people and personalities.

Recently, about a year ago, I made a bad decision to work with a boss who has a not-so-savory personality, perhaps ignoring all the warning signs because I was really excited about a particular topic and he was the only one working on something related to it (I can be implusive that way sometimes). Idk if that reflects weakness in Fi for me, but I keep kicking myself at how badly I had misjudged his character back then (he is highly manipulative too, though, so perhaps not entirely my fault).

[Eliza Thomason]

Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should stick with my old self-typing. I've been trying to gain a revised understanding on what Fi is...But more in-depth interaction at least with one ILE here in private chat kind of brought what i think was his Fi-POLR to the surface and it REALLY bothered me. Like, I don't treat people that way, and I'm embarrassed to call myself an ILE if that's typical behavior of them.

You're right, things did feel right before.

Wow, WA, you're being ILE now? I did not "feel" ILE from you. Yeah, maybe you are not. A couple ILE guys I know are friendly and personable and always busy with their multiple interesting pursuits. What they do they do well. Pretty much do well at whatever they do. Pretty smart at figuring things out, too. Can be messy because their minds are so many places but can be quite organized too. Work long hours. Work hard, play hard. But you would never see them as a "psychologist".

But do YOU see yourself as a "psychologist" at all? [As for me I see myself as many things but a psychologist is one of them]..

[Suz]

Wow, WA, you're being ILE now? I did not "feel" ILE from you. Yeah, maybe you are not. A couple ILE guys I know are friendly and personable and always busy with their multiple interesting pursuits. What they do they do well. Pretty much do well at whatever they do. Pretty smart at figuring things out, too. Can be messy because their minds are so many places but can be quite organized too. Work long hours. Work hard, play hard. But you would never see them as a "psychologist".

But do YOU see yourself as a "psychologist" at all? [As for me I see myself as many things but a psychologist is one of them]..

That is pretty much the description of my life. Not sure what "play hard" refers to... i dont play hard the way some people do (e.g. partying hard, drinking, etc) but i kill a lot of time with "fun" instead of working sometimes... especially when I'm burned out. In my case it would be more like watching TV shows or being on this forum

I do see myself as a psychologist... I consider myself pretty good at understanding what individuals are all about (e.g. their attitudes, intentions, "style", are they the manipulative sort, etc.). I'm also pretty good at dealing with a variety of different personalities, and conveying my thoughts in a convincing yet diplomatic and professional way (especially in written form).

I struggle currently to understand what exactly is this Fi-POLR thing, because that would really clinch ILE vs not for me... how does that manifest?

[chemical]

Like, I don't treat people that way, and I'm embarrassed to call myself an ILE if that's typical behavior of them.

I strongly believe what most people see as polr isn't really anything theoretically insightful but rather merely an immature or weak spot in general, not necessarily anything about mental/cognitive functioning, where basically people over-emphasizing something that bothers them or what they care very little about. For instance, how many Se-polr are explained by just hating confrontation? I don't think that's how these things should be decided. I think people take the thing that gives them the most trouble in life, and then paste the closest socionics fit onto it.

It should really be in some sense the most hopeless information element to turn to, simply because in an irrational type, it is both rational and unpreferred to the creative. A rational type finds it hard to simply observe, experience, pay attention to irrational content. They must keep rationalizing. They need to shut off this tendency to even perceive. But then when they have to do so in a nonpreferred way, it is nearly impossible.
With irrational types, it's opposite. They are very energized by perceiving, before there is much rationalization in the picture. It can be tough to turn to rationalization at times, but when they do so, it's worst if they need to use the nonpreferred version.

The issue is ethics/logic can be poorly distinguished. Really smart psychological individuals can be logical types. They actually can be better at getting people than are ethical types, simply due to their expertise. For instance, you could have a Fe-base type who is a great actor, but actually pretty bad at healing people psychologically, whereas a logic type may be there which may be great for this position, due to high psychological knowledge and generally being full of good will.

Ethics involves the humane component crucially. Logic is still extremely good at comprehending psychological problems, but where ethics comes in is when you must specifically relate to a situation as a human subject, based on feelings, in order to know a part of the truth, I think. Logic may be able to discern that two people are attracted to each other and predict their actions entirely, based on the psychology of love and attraction. But most certainly ethics gets inside a dimension of it which logic won't quite cover, because it could involve for instance putting yourself abstractly in their shoes and abstracting the feeling content from the situation (aka, in simple words, just sort of implicitly knowing how it would be to feel that way).

Some logic types undoubtedly do both of these, with an accent on one. They know what it's like to be ethically fulfilled, beyond having a logical understanding, and they figure that in, but their predominant way of approaching situations is to convey the logical content. Simply because you put things like feelings, love, etc in the mix does not make it ethical reasoning until you put yourself, relationally, in the realm of tuning into those feelings yourself as part of your advice. Ethics asks "is it agreeable/acceptable/valuable" as part of deciding, and this requires subjectively relating to the situation at hand rather than merely characterizing its contents, making your humanity and ability to relate ethically to the content an integral part of the decision-making.

If you are very comfortable with ethics and even emphasize the ethical aspects over other kinds of reasoning (and mostly turn to other kinds to realize your ethical aims) you are probably an ethical type. If not, you are probably a logical type who has a healthy ethical side (we all have all the sides as per the model and common sense). I think for ethical types, the logic almost flows more easily once they try to reason it from an ethical standpoint, and often this means when understanding human relationships, the ethical types will give very accurate logical explanations because just starting the ethical analysis gets at a lot of the right factors needed for logical analysis as well, just not quite the same way.

Understanding people's motivations is honestly something I chalk up that any type whatsoever should be able to do. People aren't magically different from things, objects, animals, fields. They are still things to logically understand.

Also for what it's worth, non-psychologically-inclined logic types seem to be the worst with people whereas logic types who do want to get people often have to foray into ethical aspects of things more, even if ethics isn't their primary motivation to uncover. Having the ability to think ethically does help you get a lot of info automatically about how people operate, because ethics is indeed more directly people-oriented. But logic can make people its object of study certainly. Ethics also probably helps more in terms of how to deal with people, rather than merely comprehending them. Using your comprehension to know how to act towards them could involve plenty of ethical questions.

[Suz]

I strongly believe what most people see as polr isn't really anything theoretically insightful but rather merely an immature or weak spot in general, not necessarily anything about mental/cognitive functioning, where basically people over-emphasizing something that bothers them or what they care very little about. For instance, how many Se-polr are explained by just hating confrontation? I don't think that's how these things should be decided. I think people take the thing that gives them the most trouble in life, and then paste the closest socionics fit onto it.

It should really be in some sense the most hopeless information element to turn to, simply because in an irrational type, it is both rational and unpreferred to the creative. A rational type finds it hard to simply observe, experience, pay attention to irrational content. They must keep rationalizing. They need to shut off this tendency to even perceive. But then when they have to do so in a nonpreferred way, it is nearly impossible.
With irrational types, it's opposite. They are very energized by perceiving, before there is much rationalization in the picture. It can be tough to turn to rationalization at times, but when they do so, it's worst if they need to use the nonpreferred version.

The issue is ethics/logic can be poorly distinguished. Really smart psychological individuals can be logical types. They actually can be better at getting people than are ethical types, simply due to their expertise. For instance, you could have a Fe-base type who is a great actor, but actually pretty bad at healing people psychologically, whereas a logic type may be there which may be great for this position, due to high psychological knowledge and generally being full of good will.

Ethics involves the humane component crucially. Logic is still extremely good at comprehending psychological problems, but where ethics comes in is when you must specifically relate to a situation as a human subject, based on feelings, in order to know a part of the truth, I think. Logic may be able to discern that two people are attracted to each other and predict their actions entirely, based on the psychology of love and attraction. But most certainly ethics gets inside a dimension of it which logic won't quite cover, because it could involve for instance putting yourself abstractly in their shoes and abstracting the feeling content from the situation (aka, in simple words, just sort of implicitly knowing how it would be to feel that way).

Some logic types undoubtedly do both of these, with an accent on one. They know what it's like to be ethically fulfilled, beyond having a logical understanding, and they figure that in, but their predominant way of approaching situations is to convey the logical content. Simply because you put things like feelings, love, etc in the mix does not make it ethical reasoning until you put yourself, relationally, in the realm of tuning into those feelings yourself as part of your advice. Ethics asks "is it agreeable/acceptable/valuable" as part of deciding, and this requires subjectively relating to the situation at hand rather than merely characterizing its contents, making your humanity and ability to relate ethically to the content an integral part of the decision-making.

If you are very comfortable with ethics and even emphasize the ethical aspects over other kinds of reasoning (and mostly turn to other kinds to realize your ethical aims) you are probably an ethical type. If not, you are probably a logical type who has a healthy ethical side (we all have all the sides as per the model and common sense). I think for ethical types, the logic almost flows more easily once they try to reason it from an ethical standpoint, and often this means when understanding human relationships, the ethical types will give very accurate logical explanations because just starting the ethical analysis gets at a lot of the right factors needed for logical analysis as well, just not quite the same way.

Understanding people's motivations is honestly something I chalk up that any type whatsoever should be able to do. People aren't magically different from things, objects, animals, fields. They are still things to logically understand.

Also for what it's worth, non-psychologically-inclined logic types seem to be the worst with people whereas logic types who do want to get people often have to foray into ethical aspects of things more, even if ethics isn't their primary motivation to uncover. Having the ability to think ethically does help you get a lot of info automatically about how people operate, because ethics is indeed more directly people-oriented. But logic can make people its object of study certainly. Ethics also probably helps more in terms of how to deal with people, rather than merely comprehending them. Using your comprehension to know how to act towards them could involve plenty of ethical questions.

Thanks chemical, this is socionics gold. Quoting this for myself (and others ) in the future if you ever decide to leave the forum and take your posts with you


OK here's a scenario, and let me know if this reflects Fi-POLR or not. Person #1 ridicules another's religious beliefs because those beliefs are keeping the person #2 from eating things that person #1 enjoys, and person #1 is an atheist who scorns any religion.

For example, I personally approach the subject of religion as very laissez faire as long as others' human rights aren't being violated. People are allowed to have their own personal beliefs and any restrictions that come with that --- I do my best to respect those choices (even if i dont believe that or follow the same restrictions myself). I also operate by the premise that discussing religion among friends is a no-no. If done towards positive aims (e.g. greater understanding of one another), it's ok, but still treading risky territory as far as friendship turning sour.

Would person #1's behavior towards person #2 reflect Fi-POLR, or is it just a non-type-related social retardedness of person #1?

[chemical]

OK here's a scenario, and let me know if this reflects Fi-POLR or not. Person #1 ridicules another's religious beliefs because those beliefs are keeping the person #2 from eating things that person #1 enjoys, and person #1 is an atheist who scorns any religion.

First, thank you for your kind words about the information I gave!

Regarding this scenario, it is quite tricky what is actually playing into it, but suffice it to say it is definitely not a clear giveaway of logical/ethical to me. I could see, for instance, even (or in some instances, especially) an ethical ego type being quite scornful. Ethics makes us judge ethical issues, not ignore them, and some ethical base types essentially have it decided how they're going to treat people who are ethically unreasonable to them. Atheism is one of those cases.

Basically, whether someone decides being considerate is a "good thing" is type-independent. Both you and I may prefer to spend time around people who are considerate, but I'd say this could mean certain logic types and certain ethical types. Some ethical types take a dark approach to these sorts of things, and while quite well-read and well thought out in ethics, may be quite brash, rude, scornful about those who hold beliefs they don't ethically value positively.

It does convey that they are not socially smooth, yes. However, the ethical focus of someone may not be to adapt to society (which is easier if you're considerate). Sometimes a polite, considerate logical type is a lot more "likeable" than many of the ethical types out there.

still treading risky territory as far as friendship turning sour.

Basically your belief is friendship isn't worth risking over these beliefs. I know both logical and ethical types who would believe such a thing.

[Suz]

First, thank you for your kind words about the information I gave!

Regarding this scenario, it is quite tricky what is actually playing into it, but suffice it to say it is definitely not a clear giveaway of logical/ethical to me. I could see, for instance, even (or in some instances, especially) an ethical ego type being quite scornful. Ethics makes us judge ethical issues, not ignore them, and some ethical base types essentially have it decided how they're going to treat people who are ethically unreasonable to them. Atheism is one of those cases.

Basically, whether someone decides being considerate is a "good thing" is type-independent. Both you and I may prefer to spend time around people who are considerate, but I'd say this could mean certain logic types and certain ethical types. Some ethical types take a dark approach to these sorts of things, and while quite well-read and well thought out in ethics, may be quite brash, rude, scornful about those who hold beliefs they don't ethically value positively.

It does convey that they are not socially smooth, yes. However, the ethical focus of someone may not be to adapt to society (which is easier if you're considerate). Sometimes a polite, considerate logical type is a lot more "likeable" than many of the ethical types out there.

thanks for this (more socionics gold from you!). Well according to what you are saying, my behavior does not necessarily go against being ILE, and the other person's behavior does not necessarily reflect Fi-POLR.

So how does Fi-POLR manifest then?

Basically your belief is friendship isn't worth risking over these beliefs. I know both logical and ethical types who would believe such a thing.

not exactly. I just take it as a fact of life that everyone has their own personal beliefs and I respect and love that diversity, and love having friends of that kind of diversity. Some religions and philosophies can be contradictory, however, so striking up a conversation about that inevitably invites criticism of one anothers' views and possible offense. I think my "rule" is more about being respectful of others' beliefs than a concern of risking friendship. It's called religious tolerance. Ironic though that in my recent interaction, it was the atheist that was the religiously intolerant one.

[Eliza Thomason]

That is pretty much the description of my life. Not sure what "play hard" refers to... I don't play hard the way some people do (e.g. partying hard, drinking, etc) but i kill a lot of time with "fun" instead of working sometimes... especially when I'm burned out. In my case it would be more like watching TV shows or being on this forum

I was thinking of the two ENTP guys I know. They rather shine in their chosen fields. Both happen to be married to their SEI Duals, which probably helps them be the best they can be. Both seem to be the best they can be.

ENTp#1: For profession he is a high level corporate computer programmer, at the top of management and latest positions include running computer security, and is now consulting for a major city to get their computer security in order. He is an amazing musician; he can play anything. He used to play piano for our Baptist choir, when I was Baptist, and he was really the life of the party and made it fun, and also encouraged me engagingly, who was unsure, as I did not read music, and 2nd soprano group was small and we had complicated music to read and not always a strong reader with us. He could play ANYTHING, including music to match the antics or comments of the choir member's! He plays at a lot of weddings just because he likes it. When his family came to my house for dinner he brought his electronic piano and played all evening; it was great. I would prefer to just enjoy company but I think he can do both. He is an astounding multi-tasker, like, its kind of scary what he can do while he drives, fast.

When he was a kid he used to take everything apart to figure out how to put it together. He was told, "Just don't EVER touch this cockoo clock!" Of course he had to, and did when no one was home, and got caught only because he put something back on the face backwards! (probably in his haste not to get caught. He just HAD to satisfy his curiosity!). I'd say he plays seriously in that he constantly plans GREAT vacations for his whole family, he buys the best quality everything researching for the best possible price, so great pool., great deck, great TV, great recliners for the whole family for TV night, and no small aquarium for him, has to be a giant well-stocked sea aquarium with tons of intersting fish. I am sure he lives at 2x the comfort level he should be able to afford because of using his brain and ingenuity, too.

ENTp#2: Did about 7 years jail for a murder he probably did not commit.. long story, but that's the fact. He'd play with drugs as a teen and thought he had a PCP flashback and believed his friend who said he had committed the murder he did not remeber and took the fall for it...weak Fi IMO! His SEi wife was faithful through college years waiting for him though a LONG time that might well have been longer, and they are as in love now as then. (She had Fi enough to see, after the fact, that the friend lied). Went into business with who had had worked with through his school before the jail, became partner and also financially successful. Thriftily finds ways for his while family to have lots of fun, like sailing, in ever-upgraded sail boats, usually including family but also with friends, great deal on place on mountain lake and jet-skiing, speed-boating, ski-do'ing, all very actively.

So that's what I mean by "play hard". They do the work with have the brains and persistence to make it affordably happen - all kinds of fun stuff for themselves and for their family. They seem to love life and love getting all they can out of it. Also I told you about them so you could compare yourself because type seems to relate to type.

I do see myself as a psychologist... I consider myself pretty good at understanding what individuals are all about (e.g. their attitudes, intentions, "style", are they the manipulative sort, etc.). I'm also pretty good at dealing with a variety of different personalities, and conveying my thoughts in a convincing yet diplomatic and professional way (especially in written form).

I doubt these two guys would see themselves a psychologists. I think they both rely on their SEI wives to reign them in when they might be being insensitive. I think they REALLY "get" people at least on a level to work well with them. But I don't think they are ones to figure out their inner lives and motives as a psychologist would.

I am driving tonight to meet that #1 ENTp friend, who is one his to work in an NE city and is, for me, bringing stuff that did not fit in my moving van and maybe I will ask him the psychologist question if I remember it. (I have to drive through mtns. in the dark and not looking forward to that but I am so fortunate he is doing this for me.)

I struggle currently to understand what exactly is this Fi-POLR thing, because that would really clinch ILE vs not for me... how does that manifest?

OK here's a scenario, and let me know if this reflects Fi-POLR or not. Person #1 ridicules another's religious beliefs because those beliefs are keeping the person #2 from eating things that person #1 enjoys, and person #1 is an atheist who scorns any religion.

For example, I personally approach the subject of religion as very laissez faire as long as others' human rights aren't being violated. People are allowed to have their own personal beliefs and any restrictions that come with that --- I do my best to respect those choices (even if i dont believe that or follow the same restrictions myself). I also operate by the premise that discussing religion among friends is a no-no. If done towards positive aims (e.g. greater understanding of one another), it's ok, but still treading risky territory as far as friendship turning sour.

Would person #1's behavior towards person #2 reflect Fi-POLR, or is it just a non-type-related social retardedness of person #1?

I just take it as a fact of life that everyone has their own personal beliefs and I respect and love that diversity, and love having friends of that kind of diversity. Some religions and philosophies can be contradictory, however, so striking up a conversation about that inevitably invites criticism of one anothers' views and possible offense. I think my "rule" is more about being respectful of others' beliefs than a concern of risking friendship. It's called religious tolerance. Ironic though that in my recent interaction, it was the atheist that was the religiously intolerant one.

As to this scenario, I just don't see either ENTp being that way; the ones I know seem more laissez faire, as you say, in relation to other's religious beliefs. The person you mention [#1] seems to just be an intolerant atheist, and I have seen enough of those everywhere to the point it seems religiously intolerant is politically correct these days. People expect and get approval for this kind of intolerance, to the point that a good deal of the time I think that's the basis for the intolerance [greed for approval]!

And yes, in the name of tolerance, certain atheists CAN be the MOST intolerant of others religious beliefs! But I haven't noticed it being type-related, just as I do not see bigotry or drunkenness as type-related. Dysfunction seems to be equal-opportunity as far as I can see... .

Recently, about a year ago, I made a bad decision to work with a boss who has a not-so-savory personality, perhaps ignoring all the warning signs because I was really excited about a particular topic and he was the only one working on something related to it (I can be implusive that way sometimes). Idk if that reflects weakness in Fi for me, but I keep kicking myself at how badly I had misjudged his character back then (he is highly manipulative too, though, so perhaps not entirely my fault).

Once Bitten, Twice Shy. Probably you know now, and will recognize his type this time. IEE can usually learn from people-mistakes. Unlike poor SEE, who has a type-related handicap here, and can choose to trust the same type all over again! (They need their Duals to look out for them!)

Of course I am assuming your are IEE here - I am open that you MIGHT not be.

After my bad divorce I truly worried I woudl hook up with another Narcissist, which was a big part of my commitment not to date. Especially when I realized, looking back, I had likely dated other Narcissists before I married... It took me some time to get confident that I did now recognize the type, mow that I knew it, and would be quite unlikely to date another.

It does seem IEE-like to avoid the topic of religion with friends in order to avoid any negativity in relations. That might be IEE points for you there Not sure ILE woudl avoid the topic because of worrying about negative feelings in relations (ILE might avoid the topic for differing reasons though).

As for me, it has been a struggle to deeply understand what is to be a Christian witness. I see it now as sharing what I have experienced and I should not hide my light under a bushel basket, or withhold from people what they might find enlightening or good because I am afraid they will disapprove of me if I share. I should push myself to be more bold. But my biggest concern is negative interactions. My faith and religion has evolved over the years. When I was Evangelical Protestant, in my opinion, this caused me to see the world as divided into two groups, black and white: "Saved" or "Unsaved". That, to me, put a wedge in religious discussion with people. Everyone got slotted. Now my Catholic view is richer and more diverse. For anyone interested, this article explains my Catholic belief that I fully accept now instead, that rather than just being "Saved", it is a more fluid state "I have been saved, I'm being saved, and I have the hope that I will be saved, while I work out my salvation with fear and trembling". It helps avoid the arrogance that one who you deem "unsaved" needs your input. Since you recognize yourself as being in a state of "being saved", you are imbued with a natural humility as you realize that this complex other-person may have a thing or two to teach YOU about being a better person.

^^^ ( If you have no interest in Protestant/Catholic views of Christianity you may well find that, above, a useless donnybrook, so you can ignore it, but I shared for the sake of any one person who might).

Well, WA, this is a long post and I did not yet share the Socionics Fi-polar info I found on this site; I will do that in a next post. I just got real interested in your little Socionics what-type mystery. Seems to me it should be sort of easy to figure, wither with the Fi-polar info I will post below or with Reinin Dichtonomies. Because I can't help but think you might be stuck on F vs. T because your field of work and study causes you really, really strengthen your T... so that you might be an ENFp with real well-developed "T"-- [and probably J, too, at work and study.. sorry I know that's a rather MBTI way of explaining it!].

Well, while I typed all this fun stuff my dear SLI build amazing pantry shelves in the basement staircase for me, so I could unpack and place the last of he kitchen stuff. He is the best. He is exhausted, napping now...

[Suz]

@point

[mu4]

FWIW, don't consider Fi polr types to be logical types. These are intuitive or sensor types. Ethical creative types also aren't ethical types they're intuitives or sensors.

Creative function expression depends a lot on development. Whether people consider you polite/considerate/whatever is largely a personal thing, and can vary greatly between individuals. Some types might make a conscious effort so they appear considerate, kind, whatever to people around them, but this doesn't necessarily make it so either.

Fi polr types are often just frank and they can even be a bit cruel to the people around them, this is as much a test for them as a way of determining the thought of others. If someone is just kissing ass or truly believe the things they say. I would say that Fi-polr tactlessness eventually can become a tool, or a desirable value, people want them to be frank for them because they might not want to hurt their own reputation, people might want them to get their hands dirty for them in other more physical ways as well.

[FDG]

FWIW, don't consider Fi polr types to be logical types. These are intuitive or sensor types. Ethical creative types also aren't ethical types they're intuitives or sensors.

THANK YOU. That's an important and often forgotten point.

[chemical]

FWIW, don't consider Fi polr types to be logical types. These are intuitive or sensor types. Ethical creative types also aren't ethical types they're intuitives or sensors.

Creative function expression depends a lot on development. Whether people consider you polite/considerate/whatever is largely a personal thing, and can vary greatly between individuals. Some types might make a conscious effort so they appear considerate, kind, whatever to people around them, but this doesn't necessarily make it so either.

Yes, exactly. There is a sense in which rationalization is just ultimately secondary to those driven by perception - it gives a place in which to realize your intuitive motivations. You can view the rational types as basically driven by rationalizations - the very power and ability to rationalize is foremost to them. People try to decide intuition versus thinking or whatever based on scattered versus structured, and in my view this skirts the point. People are often less structured and so forth in rational areas if they just don't know enough about the topic yet, and are still building. The question is what is all their cognition going for? Rationalization isn't about precision, it's about the power of the rational faculty to build a certain symmetry, or a certain algorithm, which thoroughly conceptualizes a process or subjective idea. Intuition on the other hand has the characteristic perceptive "uncovering" attitude, towards the implicit. There's an intensity to the perception prior to it even being clear what the rational aim may be.

The POLR to me is the thoroughest philosophical rebellion to opposition of the rational/irrational preference in the psyche. Where the creative offers a domain to explore the irrational program, for instance in the realm of ethics, uncovering intuitions in the ethical sphere of things, the POLR openly rebels against the irrational principle's application.

While logic is secondary to the ethical type, say EII, they may welcome it (grudgingly perhaps) as part of clarifying their rationalizations in the realm of ethics. This could be, for instance, as simple as welcoming new psychological logical data in helping determine the proper ethics for establishing the manner of dealing with around certain people-related situations. The difficulty of reacting to observations pre-rationalization, that is, without fitting it into one of the rational frameworks being built, creates extreme stress to these types however. It is thus hard for them to see this information element's demands as in any way sensible to their purposes.

Perhaps point is better here, because he's a truly established irrational type. Irrationality is a lot more spontaneous in how it attains insights, and why not, the point of it is to uncover data, that is perceive, not rationally explain. Rationality occurs through deliberated logical/ethical comparison to establish the soundness of certain principles.

Fi POLR is basically the irrational intuitive type's way of emphasizing that the way they get places is by increasing the intensity of their perception, and a sort of resignedness/detachment from rationalizing too much in ethics. Even when someone rationalizes in Ti too much, for ILE, they'll I think tend to bring the emphasis back to intuition, that is, uncovering fresh perceptions.
It's sort of similar to a logic base type arguing against having neglected a perception form by saying, look, there was nothing logical or reasonable about it, whether I look at it abstractly or concretely, so naturally it's all lost.

[Eliza Thomason]

[highlighting things I especially see as true! But all the IEE stuff seems true, so I won't bother with that.]

How ENFp uses Fi:Fi – Creative function. All possibilities must be made aware to others so that they may act on them. IEE easily makes contact with others and rapidly becomes the soul of the company. Is able to connect with spectators and students, and is ready to play with their attention. Her behavior is noticeably impulsive, her mood frequently varies, but she tries to hide all of her negative experiences from others to avoid their judgments.

IEE possesses the gift of inspiring those that surround her towards activities, which can be considered promising and revealing in the long-term. She finds it rather interesting to manipulate – literally to juggle with the moods of others. Here she is an experimenter, curiously observing the reactions of others to her emotional provocations. She wonderfully manages the emotional sphere, she gives compliments to others and is sincere for she is always ready to notice the positive traits inherent in others, but she may sometimes chaff, and attempt to tease a little… this is never done with actual spite but in a playful manner, as if it’s a game.

Benevolence and optimism are generally inherent in people of this psycho-type. They are eager to offer aid, but one ought not to rely too heavily on their promises for they are often forgetful, and easily distracted by other people.

By wonderfully understanding the moods of people IEE knows how to deftly avoid conflict, to extinguish such with a joke. But when the reason for conflict aligns with her inherent interests she may get caught up in the conflict, in such situations she acts actively and decisively.

How ENTp uses Fi:Fi – Vulnerable function. The ILE feels nervously in the sphere of human relations. He usually interprets his relations badly, therefore he allows relations to develop with care, he waits until he learns something for sure rather than assuming. Thus he behaves with restraint in front of people he doesn’t know.

He cannot always discern the state of another person; he may therefore offend others in the manner by which he expresses what he’s discovered for he doesn’t seem to take into account other’s feelings in regards to the situation.* But this is never the consequence of evil intent, envy or arrogance. ILE simply believes that he is speaking about something objectively, and that the truth will not offend anyone…

ILE places vast value on the decency of a person. The criterion of decency, as a rule, is overstated. If someone seeks his company he assumes that mutual respect exists. He strongly suffers offense and injustice. He will not reconcile with others, unless the offender apologizes before him.**

ILE frequently has a wide circle of friends. He loves to consider different problems with them. They, alongside reading, radio and television, provide him with an excellent source of information.

_________________________

*I can usually intuitively know the state of another person at first glance. Even a stranger. Sometimes even at a great distance! And I think that ability is IEE-type-related.

**This is NOT true of me, IEE. I am happy to reconcile without an apology. I guess because reconciliation is important to me, and I realize there are many legion of inner reasons that a person has trouble apologizing that has nothing to do with me or the situation we are in. I wonder if other ILEs agree this "need for an apology in order to reconcile" is the case with them, though. [ @point ?] Since I never had the opportunity to see it in the ILEs I know. (Though their SEI wives would know and would tell me if I asked. I would not want them to feel defensive about their husband's weakness, though, so, I might not ask).

[Eliza Thomason]

To be fair, after explaining IEE creative function which is poor ILEs vulnerable one, we IEEs have a vulnerable function, too. Yeah, see, we are really not "all that"...

This is IEE vulnerable function: Ti – Vulnerable function. Represents “working activity” and always supposes a definite organization. By this is meant punctuality, the function of responsibilities, instruction, regulation, the hierarchy of subordination, accountability… And these are all which serve to drive the IEE away – any weighty framework that dictates to her “to fulfill responsibilities.” Her creativity sees nothing as predetermined. Therefore it is especially important that she find work in which her gifts are revealed.

The nontrivial course of thoughts characteristic for many representatives of this psycho-type may lead them to realize themselves in scientific research work, where with ease they propose unexpected views on problems. However, they poorly respond to manual labor and logical analysis. Anything that requires they be thorough and systematic in their investigations will lead them to quickly tire. They prefer to hand these aspects of scientific work to others and instead assume the role of “generator of ideas.” However, when they fail to find creative work, in which something new can always be seen, their previously indefatigable inquisitiveness severely weakens.

After having tried 10 – 15 different specialties she may prove to be without anything, to have attained nothing in life, the entirety of her talent gone unrealized. After completing necessary preparations in a new project, if she sees something, which she finds more attractive, she may throw away everything. She prefers not to plan, but to improvise; it is dangerous to rely on her business qualities for she can get caught up in the moment.

She doesn’t respond well to templates and standards. IEE recognizes no formal subordination, feels no piety towards authorities; this may lead to trouble. The observations of authorities, especially if they, in her opinion, are wrong, are answered to sharply disregarding of who they are. It is therefore understandable that she is not at place in conditions subordinate to strict authority.

[Suz]

[highlighting things I especially see as true! But all the IEE stuff seems true, so I won't bother with that.]

How ENFp uses Fi:Fi – Creative function. All possibilities must be made aware to others so that they may act on them. IEE easily makes contact with others and rapidly becomes the soul of the company. Is able to connect with spectators and students, and is ready to play with their attention. Her behavior is noticeably impulsive, her mood frequently varies, but she tries to hide all of her negative experiences from others to avoid their judgments.

IEE possesses the gift of inspiring those that surround her towards activities, which can be considered promising and revealing in the long-term. She finds it rather interesting to manipulate – literally to juggle with the moods of others. Here she is an experimenter, curiously observing the reactions of others to her emotional provocations. She wonderfully manages the emotional sphere, she gives compliments to others and is sincere for she is always ready to notice the positive traits inherent in others, but she may sometimes chaff, and attempt to tease a little… this is never done with actual spite but in a playful manner, as if it’s a game.

Benevolence and optimism are generally inherent in people of this psycho-type. They are eager to offer aid, but one ought not to rely too heavily on their promises for they are often forgetful, and easily distracted by other people.

By wonderfully understanding the moods of people IEE knows how to deftly avoid conflict, to extinguish such with a joke. But when the reason for conflict aligns with her inherent interests she may get caught up in the conflict, in such situations she acts actively and decisively.

How ENTp uses Fi:Fi – Vulnerable function. The ILE feels nervously in the sphere of human relations. He usually interprets his relations badly, therefore he allows relations to develop with care, he waits until he learns something for sure rather than assuming. Thus he behaves with restraint in front of people he doesn’t know.

He cannot always discern the state of another person; he may therefore offend others in the manner by which he expresses what he’s discovered for he doesn’t seem to take into account other’s feelings in regards to the situation.* But this is never the consequence of evil intent, envy or arrogance. ILE simply believes that he is speaking about something objectively, and that the truth will not offend anyone…

ILE places vast value on the decency of a person. The criterion of decency, as a rule, is overstated. If someone seeks his company he assumes that mutual respect exists. He strongly suffers offense and injustice. He will not reconcile with others, unless the offender apologizes before him.**

ILE frequently has a wide circle of friends. He loves to consider different problems with them. They, alongside reading, radio and television, provide him with an excellent source of information.

_________________________

Yeah i've seen these descriptions lately, and i relate overwhelmingly to the latter, except that I dont think that I offend people usually (i used to be concerned about it though, and would sometimes ask a group things like "did that come across ok?" "was that too crass?" I remember eliciting some smirks from time to time, whenever I would ask that, so as to say "what a weird question to ask" but i think over time it taught me proper ways to act). Sometimes, though I will go ahead and criticize someone without caring what they think of me, like recently I chewed out a friend of mine for behaving in an irresponsible manner at work (she recently started at my workplace); i dont feel bad about having done so, and I hope she didn't take it to mean we're not friends anymore, but if she did, oh well. What she did just really made me mad (and I dont get mad easily).

I most certainly dont try to manipulate other peoples' moods, heck i have no interest in doing so, nor the time nor the energy. I dont tease people unless it's me trying to criticize them in a "nice" benign way (and then i'll usually say "just kidding" afterwards, even though i wasn't really kidding). I hold a person's decency as highly important to me, in terms of who i choose to be friends with. If at first i think someone is decent, and they prove me wrong in some way, I may cut off all contact and put up a wall with them (if their transgression was bad enough or frequent enough). I used to think that represented creative Fi, but obviously i was mistaken. I can be forgiving, It really depends on the situation, what it was that happened, track record, etc. And if the situation is bad enough, even apologizing to me wont necessarily help. It's a step in the right direction, but I may still be wary of that person until they prove themselves to be better than what their transgression implies.

[Eliza Thomason]

Yeah i've seen these descriptions lately, and i relate overwhelmingly to the latter, except that I don't think that I offend people usually (i used to be concerned about it though, and would sometimes ask a group things like "did that come across ok?" "was that too crass?" I remember eliciting some smirks from time to time, whenever I would ask that, so as to say "what a weird question to ask" but i think over time it taught me proper ways to act). Sometimes, though I will go ahead and criticize someone without caring what they think of me, like recently I chewed out a friend of mine for behaving in an irresponsible manner at work (she recently started at my workplace); i dont feel bad about having done so, and I hope she didn't take it to mean we're not friends anymore, but if she did, oh well. What she did just really made me mad (and I dont get mad easily).

Wow, this sounds to me so much like my ENTp friend (that I am meeting tonight, whom I mentioned above) that I am really leaning "ENTp" for you now.

He, also, does not offend people often at ALL, and in fact seems to all as especially personable and easy to get along with. He has great manners, and a willingness to do things the right way including going out of his way to help you if he can (like he is doing for me tonight). Yet I can imagine him asking someone like his wife or someone else he trusts that very question ("Did that come off wrong?"). And I can see how with him, as with you, it might elicit surprise because he seems too competent socially to need any feedback at all for regular interactions.

And its not something I would have to ask. I can see/feel immediately if something came off wrong. In fact, being misunderstood in the past, in professional situations, taught me that face-to-face interactions are always best for important conversations. Because I can see immediately if I have been misunderstood or if a person has reservations they are not expressing, so things can be resolved immediately, unlike with written communications, where things can go wrong and you never find out til you ask in surprise, "Whats wrong?", when you see them and a misunderstanding that could have been avoided has been brewing over something basically trivial...

And I can see how my ENTp friend's success with people is due partly to his willingness to learn..

Yeah, so I, IEE, would not have to ask people about how folks might react to what I just said, I can pretty much ALWAYS see and feel a mood change when I have said a wrong thing. However, instead, when explaining a practical thing I make a great effort to communicate clearly, but still I often have to ask, "Did that make any sense?" ENTp, on the other hand is excellent at explaining a thing, like, how something works, even to people who are slow at the thing!

You said:

" Sometimes, though I will go ahead and criticize someone without caring what they think of me, like recently I chewed out a friend of mine for behaving in an irresponsible manner at work (she recently started at my workplace); i dont feel bad about having done so, and I hope she didn't take it to mean we're not friends anymore, but if she did, oh well. What she did just really made me mad (and I dont get mad easily)."

This reminded me of my ENTp friend the only time he ever sort of chewed me out. Just prior to that I had asked him abut his new job in charge of computer security at a corporation heavily relying on computer for what it did. This particular position involved him "policing" co-workers, telling them they could not do many things of the seemingly okay things they liked/desired to do on computer at work, in order not to breach corporate security. It was the first time ever I saw him weary when he talked about work, and he told me that people did not like being told this stuff. But he had to do his job.

Now, he is a very ethical person, too, and I called to ask him how I could get Word for my computer, for free. I thought there must be some way, and of course he would know. So when he said immediately basically I had to buy it, I pressed on that there must be some way, and he surprised me with a little sort of sharp brief lecture on patent laws and ethics or something and I was really offended actually. First time ever with him, but I wanted to defend myself because I would not purposely break the law; I didn't know, is all. I said as much briefly but focused more on thanking him for the info rather than on my excuse, because I think he was tired of people telling him they didn't like being told "no", and so I wanted him to feel appreciated...

Anyway his current job involves more his brilliance and not having to spend too much of the day telling people stuff that will inevitably make them offended! Glad for him.

I most certainly dont try to manipulate other peoples' moods, heck i have no interest in doing so, nor the time nor the energy. I dont tease people unless it's me trying to criticize them in a "nice" benign way (and then i'll usually say "just kidding" afterwards, even though i wasn't really kidding). I hold a person's decency as highly important to me, in terms of who i choose to be friends with. If at first i think someone is decent, and they prove me wrong in some way, I may cut off all contact and put up a wall with them (if their transgression was bad enough or frequent enough). I used to think that represented creative Fi, but obviously i was mistaken. I can be forgiving, It really depends on the situation, what it was that happened, track record, etc. And if the situation is bad enough, even apologizing to me wont necessarily help. It's a step in the right direction, but I may still be wary of that person until they prove themselves to be better than what their transgression implies.

As IEE, if I intuit that I can make a persons mood better I will. I like to do that. Its an orientation for me. I guess its a kind of manipulating. Ethics will not allow me to manipulate someone for ill use in any way, or even selfish use. It has to be for their own good. Otherwise it will make me feel sick for feeling wrong. I can think of two instances in my life where i manipulated other's mood for not just making a person feel good. They stood out to me both times because it felt so wrong, but circumstances compelled me in both instances. And according to Catholic morality, which I did not know then, but do now, I reflect that it was a matter of "greater good". I won't explain those two instances unless someone wants to hear that long, personal story and how I thought and felt about he interactions especially because some types find such talk the biggest yawn ever.

Tease, yes, I like that at times but only when its all for a positive intention. I like to tease my SLI. Like if he is ignoring me, I like to tease out his attention. Touch always works for SLI that way. And yes, sometimes I will get peeved with a person doing the wrong thing and react by teasing but only if I can do it in a positive way that doesn't make the person feel bad or defensive, but teases at the action alone, not the person.

I could probably think up a bunch of examples but here is one recent one. We were unpacking on the second day here after a long stress of stressful packing and moving and not much sleep and me getting rid of half my belongings to fit into this smaller space. I was in a room with my SLI and his brother who had helped us PLENTY, and we were all tired. I had most of the decision-making in my hands for this whole move-out and move-in (since it was mostly my stuff, and my SLI is not good at organizing stuff, and is glad to leave that to me) and had a TON of misc. things figured out in my head, and my SLI said: "We should keep these boxes [we just emptied]" and I, tired, just said, "No." And SLI just felt like defending his idea, and began to go on how these could be very useful, which annoyed me because I was so tired and I did not want to explain, so I just said, "Okay! Great! We can keep them in our GIANT STOREROOM!". SLI and his brother looked confused and both said at the same time, "What giant storeroom?" and I just teasingly said, "Oh, right! We don't have a giant storeroom!". And SLIs brother said, "Oh! You're being facetious", in a surprised way, like it was a side of me he hadn't seen before. (Sides of you come out no one's seen before when you are completely exhausted! And we all got to see each other stressed this month!). But I never would have bossed SLI with an annoyed "No!" that would have put him down. So, a sort of teasing was the way to express myself without being mean or bossy..

However, like it says above of IEE, I can at times get caught up in conflict, and I am very decisive and direct when I do. Its usually when some ideal dear to me or sense of justice has been violated.

But what you said about cutting off contact made me think abut my ENTp friend, who has had some difficult people in his life. As well as really great ones, like his wife, his in-laws, and some of his colleagues. He keeps coming up on top, though, after some tough run-ins with some tough people. I often think God blessed him with his lovely Dual wife so he would be able to handle some of tough things that have come his way...

I leave soon to drive nearly an hour and a half through mountains in the dark to meet my ENTp friend bringing me my stuff, then back. I am going to pray for a lot of people in my long drive time and I will pray for everyone here on the forum, too. And SLI will be here sleeping, and he will think of me, and miss me, and he will be glad when I get home. So nice. I feel so blessed.

[ryoka14]

I see Fi polr as in not having strong opinions about people.

If someone asked for your real opinion, how you feel about John Smith, it would manifest by making you uncomfortable. You feel everyone is "pretty good" but no strong feelings negative or positive.

[chemical]

WorkaholicsAnon, for what it's worth, this is the sort of thing I was bringing up earlier:

If you are very comfortable with ethics and even emphasize the ethical aspects

The point is whether ethics is a comfortable focus, and perhaps even more so if it becomes the priority to reason ethically. For instance, if logic content becomes more psychologically meaningful (meaning your processes tend to filter to include it rather than ignore or exclude) if it feeds into ethical musings, that's a clear sign of an ethical orientation and the cognitive program being dominated ethically.

I think some logic types are more comfortable having strong ethical feelings about people than others, though. Some are dispassionate in every way, and others are more of a mixture with a priority than simply one or another. I don't think merely having some strong feelings violates being a logic type. It's unfortunately a balancing act. I've seen and thought through a number of cases, and ultimately you always need to ask - where does the mental orientation give priority, naturally lean, and all that, and all you can do is make as intelligent an argument as possible here.

A good question would be where do you execute your intuitive program? You are foremost intuitive, so you should constantly go back to what kinds of ways intuitions show up. Unfortunately you could end up being some funny mix of ethics and logic if you're primarily irrationally motivated, and have a very hard time selecting one.

[SyrupDeGem]

@WorkaholicsAnon I do find you to be more IEE than ILE from your forum posts. People can come across very differently in person though as much intonation and expression is lost in text. In the vids I'm in I come across as much more extroverted and playful than I would in a lot of new social interactions and more formal settings. In those I tend to be much more reserved, introverted and held back and can come across as deathly serious.

Maybe you should make a vid????

[Suz]

@WorkaholicsAnon I do find you to be more IEE than ILE from your forum posts. People can come across very differently in person though as much intonation and expression is lost in text. In the vids I'm in I come across as much more extroverted and playful than I would in a lot of new social interactions and more formal settings. In those I tend to be much more reserved, introverted and held back and can come across as deathly serious.

Maybe you should make a vid????

I'm a little shy, but i'll think about it...

[MensSuperMateriam]

I think Anon has been convinced about ILE, more than actually being an ILE. Not too uncommon situation.

[Suz]

I think Anon has been convinced about ILE, more than actually being an ILE. Not too uncommon situation.

I'm not convinced of anything. Still deciding, hence the posts.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I'm not convinced of anything. Still deciding, hence the posts.

Well, that's the impression you have given. At least in your first posts about this issue, even if you're now re-reconsidering it.

[suedehead]

I think you're IEE.

[anndelise]

Fi creative doesn't mean having strong opinions about people.
Nor does it mean voicing the strong opinion if they do have one.

Especially in the case of IEE, who looks at situations from a variety of viewpoints. For example, Just because I don't like something about a person doesn't mean the person is unlikeable. Nor does it mean others might not like it. Looking at things from such differing points lessens the feelings the IEE might have about the person as a whole.

Except in cases where the IEE has a very strong ideal and the other person consistently goes against that. Then at that point the IEE is definitely capable of having a strong opinion about the person and even choose to just cut them out of their life.

I also don't think the "John is intolerant" vs "I hate John" is a good example to differentiate between Ti and Fi creatives.

Also, regarding further towards the beginning, IEE are fully capable of overlooking negative signs and giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc. In the case of WA's boss, interest and excitement in the job/opportunity can easily influence overlooking or hoping for the best in regards to the boss' personality. And yes, IEE are fully capable of misjudging people. Despite what some people might believe, intuition is not a super power that is always correct/accurate. It draws from personal beliefs, personal experiences, personal understandings, etc. And those rarely accurately reflect reality.

[Radio]

WA, if you still want to discuss this, and i'm not sure how open you are towards hearing my thoughts but w/e. here goes.

we've spoken quite a bit, i won't say a lot but a fair bit and you've always had a certain flexibility towards my opinions, which i think throws Ti-creative out of the window to begin with, if only for the reason that my views of type tend to be rather impressionistic and i can't always fully form a coherent reasoning behind a lot of it, but you seem to be OK with that and you seem to build up on it with your own opinions which is a somewhat Te approach to things. i had an old post here that's lost somewhere in the ether, where i wrote down my thoughts on what i understand Te to be, but basically: Ti often comes off as narrow-minded to me, because Ti tends to seek out things that are principally true, and that's something they pay naturally more attention to, for instance, in Socionics, Ti types tend towards focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of types more so than how they actually manifest in people. you can even see this on the forum.

on the other hand, Te tends to seek out things that are a little more heuristic and experiential. i don't mean to imply that this is solely the domain of Te, just that both those tend to rely on 1. external points of focus and 2. need to be validated externally by other people to "count" for anything. Ti is absolute (for instance, arguing that ENFps have base Ne and creative Ti will remain a fact principally regardless of anything, a Ti based "truth") whereas Te types tend to focus on knowledge that is externally validated, and in a sense, dependent on consensus (for instance, discussing external characteristics like commonalities, traits, habits or even facial features and vibes and so forth and creating a sort of database for things that more people agree on).

think of how Fe is rather dynamic in the sense that the moods and expressions of everyone involved affect the "collective" environment, and everyone has the freedom in their limited ability and within the confines of a sort of vague Fi-based value system, to direct as well as adapt to the external emotional resonance, so in a way Fe is more of a communal feeling that counts for more in everyone feels included. Ti types who are a little less confident about their Fe appreciate an opportunity where their slightly-clumsy attempts at dynamically altering or affecting the emotional atmosphere of the situation won't be criticized or offend anyone (hence the "vague" Fi-based value system). this is how IXTjs and EXFjs are duals, in that EXFjs can blanket over the "emotional" environment in a way that IXTjs can be clumsy and broken at their Fe and still feel included, without being judged or invalidated. similarly with Te/Fi types this sort of thing happens with Te, whereas Te is the dynamic function, and even if Fi types are kind of wrong or slightly wrong or slightly right or w/e, the Te types include their opinions and points of view in the discussions in a way that is inclusive, and dynamically being adapted into the discussion. it counts for more if you add something to the discussion, and if you ever see Te/Fi-types discuss something, you'll notice how it's much more flexible and sometimes Ti-based "rules" are bent or altogether abandoned in favor of what is externally verifiable and true in experience. also why Te types get accused of appealing to consensus, because while it's not consensus that really counts, it's that if several people have added something to the discussion, on the whole it must be more valuable than if only 1 person had contributed to it. Ti is insular, and derives a priori truths and facts, whereas Te is kind of like "communal knowledge", in a sense.

anyway, all this diatribe aside, from our discussions you've always leaned towards the latter a bit, and you tend to "build up" on what i say and vice versa, and somehow these "built up" facts or opinions count for more, even if there is less of a theoretical underpinning behind it (talking about socionics here). like in some thread, you were adamant on a certain typing being wrong, and i took that into consideration and suggested some other type, and you were like "yeah that's more true, but this is less true" or something of that sort in spirit, and that's not how Ti types consider knowledge, there is no more or less, it's either true or it's not. in fact (i could look up these posts but too lazy), you've also used my typings to reference some of your typings, which again is sort of referencing the "communal" knowledge base to build up on what you already have. it's interesting, and it's very very dynamic T. there's no Ti anywhere in you.

sorry, maybe this is too long, i couldn't stop typing after i started so now this post is super long but hope you can see a bit of what i'm seeing here.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Excellent post, @Radio.

An user in another typology forum once described these combos as:

Ti-Fe: I think, we feel.
Fi-Te: I feel, we think.

Which is an extreme oversimplification of this issue, but could work as a simple descriptor of the attitude presented in both groups and sum up what you were commenting.

For avoiding misunderstandings, "we" does not necessarily mean "people", but just "more". More data, more opinions... more cases. Te would work as situational thinking, and Ti as absolute thinking, so to speak. Similar for ethics.

[Olly From Wally World]

i had an old post here that's lost somewhere in the ether, where i wrote down my thoughts on what i understand Te to be, but basically: Ti often comes off as narrow-minded to me, because Ti tends to seek out things that are principally true, and that's something they pay naturally more attention to, for instance, in Socionics, Ti types tend towards focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of types more so than how they actually manifest in people. you can even see this on the forum.

on the other hand, Te tends to seek out things that are a little more heuristic and experiential. i don't mean to imply that this is solely the domain of Te, just that both those tend to rely on 1. external points of focus and 2. need to be validated externally by other people to "count" for anything. Ti is absolute (for instance, arguing that ENFps have base Ne and creative Ti will remain a fact principally regardless of anything, a Ti based "truth") whereas Te types tend to focus on knowledge that is externally validated, and in a sense, dependent on consensus (for instance, discussing external characteristics like commonalities, traits, habits or even facial features and vibes and so forth and creating a sort of database for things that more people agree on).

... it counts for more if you add something to the discussion, and if you ever see Te/Fi-types discuss something, you'll notice how it's much more flexible and sometimes Ti-based "rules" are bent or altogether abandoned in favor of what is externally verifiable and true in experience. also why Te types get accused of appealing to consensus, because while it's not consensus that really counts, it's that if several people have added something to the discussion, on the whole it must be more valuable than if only 1 person had contributed to it. Ti is insular, and derives a priori truths and facts, whereas Te is kind of like "communal knowledge", in a sense.

This is how I viewed some of the differences. Nice post.

[golden]

Over the years I've seen you chat at great length about your life in terms of relationships. That includes your work -- you've repeatedly spotlighted interpersonal work matters. I've also seen you replay in minute detail every teensy facet of an unfolding infatuation. I've watched you draw out meaningful conversations with people I find inscrutable and show tremendous interest in their dull (to me) commentary.

ENTps are probably not a "cool" type, objectively, but to me they have a kind of cool edge and I find myself really intrigued by how they think. You do not seem cool. You are warm. Even hot--you take offense readily, not unlike some IEEs I know. Also, democratic quadra? One time in chat I trolled you by pretending to be a foreign-born nurse and you were really lookin' down on me archly, plus you were mad-easy to troll.

I know you're smart, I know you're a good person, I have no problem with you, yet I find it hard to connect with what you say. IEE is therefore mah vote.

[chemical]

it will be prone to constant second guessing because they recognize there is no logical reason for them to be feeling this way (trust feelings? NO

Ti always tries and succeeds in overpowering Fi if there is some sort of inconsistency.

Since both T and F are elaborating on rational premises, they both must seek consistency. Otherwise, how could it be said they are rational/reasonable? F operations rationalize ethical and feeling-based content.

Having feelings as an experience in my view is essentially not rational - it is irrational. How temperamental, bored, angry, passionate you get isn't a feature of type strictly in and of itself. You simply note that it happened, and that is it. There is no consistency when feelings just pop up. Where there is consistency is in organizing the meaning of the feelings, and here we obtain valuations of complex feelingful associations toned with acceptables and unacceptables. That is where you can elaborate on whether there's any rhyme or reason to your feelings - reason allows you to extract some sort of framework by which you make assessments about what is happening in your experience, and at times your reasoning is flawed, and at times you find you'd have reasoned differently had you more data. Often one of the bases of this is comparison of one body of feelingful associations to another body, that is, comparing one complex valuation to another. Anyway, all this can grow into a set of highly carefully considered ethical valuations which have a definitive consistency about them.

If you want to approach the realm of feelings and ethics from the standpoint of logic what you could do is attempt to classify the basis under which they occur in accordance with some logical axioms. But of course, this doesn't mean someone did not need to reason ethically before this became possible - you hardly produced the ethical reasoning yourself, thus you might not actually know what it means without at least trying to see where they were coming from, by considering ethical reasoning yourself. It's rather similar to how if you never, through sensation, perceived evidence suggesting certain physical phenomena exist, you cannot create logical axioms which encapsulate what they are and aren't about. You cannot rationalize what doesn't exist to you.

And note that even if you read all the logical axioms on how certain particles operate, the skill of observing them and knowing a certain principle is at work when you see it is separate. Similarly, you may have logically analyzed all the ethics in the world but until you attempt to reason ethically yourself, you'll be stumped when ethics questions hit you. If they never hit you, great.

What this is noting is the need for the separate information forms. Each can interact with the others, but they are each dealing with a separate feature.

[ryoka14]

Since both T and F are elaborating on rational premises, they both must seek consistency. Otherwise, how could it be said they are rational/reasonable? F operations rationalize ethical and feeling-based content.
.

But they don't act simulatenously do they?

Say a feeling comes, you feel GRATITUDE for someone giving you a gift.

For a Ti-ego they take that feeling in and compare it to its logic: Say for this Ti his internal logic is: A gives to B and B feel gratitude:: B should feel closer to A

In this way it would completely bypass the Fi function.

If there is some inconsistency, A gives to B and B feels ANGER then Ti cannot logically compute that so it moves to the Fi function

Say for this particular Fi function ANGER = DISLIKE so Fi forms the judgment of dislike for person B.

Now if they were Fi dominant this would be it, there might not be further logical analysis of the process itself, it might move to how to fix it

but since Ti dominates they might be disturbed with this logical inconsistency A has done something for me and I dislike him?

[mu4]

But they don't act simulatenously do they?

Say a feeling comes, you feel GRATITUDE for someone giving you a gift.

What is your response, do you say "thanks", do you say nothing at all, do you say, "I don't need this, what a useless thing, but thanks." (honest but kind of tactless)

A Fi-polr type is still a intuitive type, they might just rattle off whatever comes to mind, and that could start a chain of events which can result in hurt feelings and various other issues. Most of you wrote doesn't even matter, who's to say that an individual will even feel gratitude, they might feel annoyed at a gift, especially a bad one.

Also, it's not like a Fi polr type can't use it, they can be genuinely touched by things and act in a really ordinary manner and expresses a sincere gratitude in a very ordinary manner. Anyways I think your thoughts after what I've quoted is full of misunderstanding, I'm not sure if it's something that I can address except to say, it's incomprehensible to me. A more harsh way for me to say it is that I don't think you understand what you've written.

[ryoka14]

What is your response, do you say "thanks", do you say nothing at all, do you say, "I don't need this, what a useless thing, but thanks." (honest but kind of tactless)

A Fi-polr type is still a intuitive type, they might just rattle off whatever comes to mind, and that could start a chain of events which can result in hurt feelings and various other issues. Most of you wrote doesn't even matter, who's to say that an individual will even feel gratitude, they might feel annoyed at a gift, especially a bad one.

Also, it's not like a Fi polr type can't use it, they can be genuinely touched by things and act in a really ordinary manner and expresses a sincere gratitude in a very ordinary manner. Anyways I think your thoughts after what I've quoted is full of misunderstanding, I'm not sure if it's something that I can address except to say, it's incomprehensible to me. A more harsh way for me to say it is that I don't think you understand what you've written.

That's what I mean though, you are seeing the output of all this, but not the internal processing that is happening.

It's my understanding that these functions process subjective and objective inputs and continually turn them into usable information which can then be expressed.

Just because the expression is the same doesn't mean that people reach that same expression through the same processes.

I'm just coming at it from a very simplified point of view to try to understand the mechanism of action that an Fi polr might take when turning feelings into information.

[mu4]

That's what I mean though, you are seeing the output of all this, but not the internal processing that is happening.

It's my understanding that these functions process subjective and objective inputs and continually turn them into usable information which can then be expressed.

Just because the expression is the same doesn't mean that people reach that same expression through the same processes.

I'm just coming at it from a very simplified point of view to try to understand the mechanism of action that an Fi polr might take when turning feelings into information.

Socionics isn't really predictive on action, it's information processing. There are perhaps correlations to actions.

Also feelings don't get turned into "information", feelings are information, but information can undergo various transformations as described by the socionics information transformation mechanism. If you want to talk about concrete mechanism of actions in reality, you need to bring in all the relevant particulars which gets really complicated fast and it's not something to simplify. That's a macroscopic simulation requiring vast computing resources, it could be your brain as a whole or a massive supercomputer, but simplifying doesn't really work when dealing something macroscopic like context sensitive behavior. In day to day analysis you can use your brain and use its facilities within those specific context to make an analysis but once you remove that local context, it's much harder to talk about.

[chemical]

Ryoka, the thing I noted in your post is the "internal logic" you spoke of was one which dealt with ethics. What you "should feel" is not determined independent of ethical judgment. Some primitive ethical functioning individuals essentially just absorb and parrot an ethical code without much deliberation. Some people exhibit great nuance around both kinds of reasoning.

The feeling that they experience (gratitutude, anger, etc) is not a rationalization. It is an automatic response. When you hear of all these apparently fake Fe-leads, responding to the emotional atmosphere present without meaning it, it's because even if they experience boredom or anger or whatever, they have an ethical sense of what they "must do" in accordance with the present atmosphere. It's not always all happy either, some of them may be very dark.

How you ethically respond to automatic responses is what requires reasoning/rationalization, not the ability to experience basic feelings.

[ryoka14]

Ryoka, the thing I noted in your post is the "internal logic" you spoke of was one which dealt with ethics. What you "should feel" is not determined independent of ethical judgment. Some primitive ethical functioning individuals essentially just absorb and parrot an ethical code without much deliberation. Some people exhibit great nuance around both kinds of reasoning.

The feeling that they experience (gratitutude, anger, etc) is not a rationalization. It is an automatic response. When you hear of all these apparently fake Fe-leads, responding to the emotional atmosphere present without meaning it, it's because even if they experience boredom or anger or whatever, they have an ethical sense of what they "must do" in accordance with the present atmosphere. It's not always all happy either, some of them may be very dark.

How you ethically respond to automatic responses is what requires reasoning/rationalization, not the ability to experience basic feelings.

Ah I see, thanks. Yeah I think I don't really understand why "should feel" cannot be determined independent of Fi. When it's first encountered I'm sure you have to use your Fi, but once it becomes "coded" into your internal logical system, then why wouldn't you be able to use Ti?

Internal logic might deal with ethics which are internally consistent with your preconceived beliefs, i.e. already experienced them.

Like you said, if a new ethical situation represented itself then you would have to use Fi, but for every other experience which has been "written in" to your Ti function through experience you could achieve the exact same result every time without having to go through your Fi function.

Just like how T dominant types might use perceiving functions (N/S) to deal with their objective/logical view of the world, F dominant types might happily use their perceiving functions to explore new ethical and moral possibilities.

It might follow then that T dominant type would shy away from new ethical situations, which could manifest in using their T functions to deal with most standard ethical considerations, until one presented itself where it is not consistent with their internal logic (new experience)

I don't know, this is making sense to me lol, but I have a very low knowledge of this, so I might have a very basic principle of socionics/psychology messed up here.

[chemical]

"coded" into your internal logical system, then why wouldn't you be able to use Ti?

It is coded into your information bank. Which holds Ti information, Fi information, etc. If a situation merely requires application of a preconceived Fi ethics, then all that is needed is the situation is matched to the ethical system encoded in your existing bank, this information that is processed by Fi doesn't then get encoded in Ti. Ti can analyze what you ethically determined, yes, on its own terms. But your ethics is your ethics, and it is determined by some combination of Fe and Fi (though static types emphasize Fi in their mental processing).

I think the problem you are experiencing is with the unfortunate term "logic" - it's too generic, and you feel like once a function handles something, it gets "relegated" to logic. In reality, all you're doing is applying pre-learned knowledge which still exists in the realm of the function/information element which you first applied.

And yes, ethical types are much more likely to accept new ethical situations (accept meaning, wish to further their ethics) and challenges, I think. New ethical situations which demand subtle ethical adaptation are more the forte of ethics than logic types.

But to some extent, you run into the plain issue of mental capacity. A really mentally active logic type may have more ethics and logic knowledge than a less mentally active ethics type. In such cases, you must decide based on the overall mental priority relative to the individual's psyche, rather than using preconceived standards like "ethical types can do this, logical types can do that." And also understand the interplay among all these information forms - their positions in the psyche beyond mere order, which are detailed in various ways in various models, give you an idea.