@Aylen, we seem to have quite a bit in common ^_^
@Aylen, we seem to have quite a bit in common ^_^
So much in common that the first day you joined I thought you were a troll account mocking me and some of my beliefs.Originally Posted by Kat
I was caught up in some forum drama then so I was so happy and relieved to see your video and know you were real.
You had me at "imagination"...
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
awwww! that's such an adorable thing ^_^
Yeah but what did you mean by "Introverted ethics in ego block's that value it is fluid, ever changeable informational element that can and does respond to the outside environment in dynamic and responsive ways."
What kind of "dynamic way"?
That sounds like hell
Yes I can see this because Fi types get moody and do not know how to express what is going on the inside with actual words. Like I may feel discontent that my SO decided to go to Costco when I wanted him to not go for whatever reason and when he returns instead of saying "I'm pretty upset that you went" I show moodiness or long "don't talk to me face" This is a "call" to speak with me to understand that I'm truly upset...but that I've found no way to change the situation in him or her or anyone else. So what must be done? How does one deal with a situation that they can't control other? Control is a disease...why would you want to control? Just do what you want.I think I see your point and could have rephrased that part to be more nuanced. I flipped those statements around very quickly because I was irritated. Reason being, I found your OP to be judgmental while disavowing judgmentality such as by using the word "looks" repeatedly.
For example, stating that Fe people are often ostracized, as if that's a matter of fact and particular to them as opposed to other people, is . . . questionable.It doesn't fit my experience, at any rate.
Anyway.
I sometimes really like Fi people, and those I don't like I just hold at a distance. Things can go wrong if I'd rather stay away from an Fi person but through force of circumstance don't have that option.
A worst-case interpretation is like this:
Fi seems to see itself as highly stable and steady. But from the outside, it doesn't look like that to me. Instead it looks volatile.
Not adaptable to externals --> pushed and pulled instead according to internal convictions. The disconnection from external facts leads to self-contradiction. Such as claiming to value being harmonious with people, even while fostering disharmony without realizing it.
It looks like chaos to me. I can't know what to expect from the person. The driving forces are invisible and not derived from information I have access to. It doesn't match up with anything in my world.
Where I do support your language of "looks" is that there's really nothing personal in this disconnection. This is hardly a revelation, but Fe and Fi just don't have much use for each other. They cover the same territory, but using different navigational equipment. I suppose an Fe person might evaluate an Fi person according to what s/he is actually looking for, which is Ti.
Fe is a good compliment to Ti because Ti trades in internally formulated structures regarding reality but needs it warmed up and loosened up to connect with people as they are, messy and complicated and shifting. As for me, I'm always looking for something to cool down my boiling mess, and for ways to resolve ambiguity, and Ti is very helpful in that regard. Confront me with Fi and I'll get sunk in more and more complications.
I assume some of these dynamics exist on the Fi/Te side too.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I think ethical types can get along very easily and a lot of the communication differences can be overcome as long as everyone is communicating in good faith. I think toxic self-absorbed ethical types can make things very difficult (as one could imagine).
I related to everything Golden said above. I try to be accepting of Fi but in the end, I don't really want to think about it nor do I feel that I need to.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Over time I've learned to give people the chart and not blow up the em just cause they mess up. I used to only focus on the outcome of the action and not the sentiment of the person which is useful to me now. So instead of blowing up there are calm signal lights that show the schematic
Shit starts blowing up upon repeated offenses, and an insistence on them. Even then my "fuck you and goodbyes" are alot calmer these days. You can move pretty big mountains with very little push If you do it right. Thanks for your perspective.
Fe demonstrative might have something to do with my flexibility In that domain.
What typically causes you to "blow up"?
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Very few things honestly. A lack of respect for my personal property or space is one. Though the blow up doesn't come from the situations themselves...but the number of times I have to enforce the boundary. Three strikes rule, upping the "force" every time. I think a "blow up" implies a loss of control, which isn't accurate. I just adjust the firmness to the occasion.
As for what will actually get me to erupt I'll keep to myself
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
