Fe valuing and desire for good quality relationships

[The Exception]

So in my past posts I have mentioned multiple times about how I dislike rude, inconsiderate people. Why do I dislike this so much? Because it hampers good relationships. Good relationships is said to be associated with Fi in socionics.

But then I could dig deeper and ask myself why I want good relationships? And the answer I get is because having good relationships makes me feel good *emotionally*. Well guess what? Fe is the ethics of emotions.

So in other words an Fe valuer could value relationships for an Fe reason.

But then again, why would someone want a relationship if it didn't make them feel good emotionally? Even Fi valuers, I think would want to feel good emotionally in their relationships, have a good emotional atmosphere.

So is there a difference between Fi and Fe valuers if you were to ask them why they want good relationships? I know it sounds like a dumb question and please don't give me flack for asking this. It's just that almost everyone I know, Fi or Fe valuing wants good relationships *and* good emotions.

[ashlesha]

But then again, why would someone want a relationship if it didn't make them feel good emotionally? Even Fi valuers, I think would want to feel good emotionally in their relationships, have a good emotional atmosphere.

things that come to mind otoh: a sense of security in knowing people have your back, someone safe to tell your secrets and dreams to, advice and support in areas you struggle with, a sense of usefulness in being able to provide something to others, relief from boredom...

i guess any of these, or anything, could reductively come back to "feeling good emotionally," but its not the first thing that comes to mind when i think about why i want relationships. relationships that are all about having a good time without roots like trust and intimacy feel empty.

(I don't mean to imply that you don't need things like trust and intimacy. i think it probably just didn't come to mind for you to articulate it that way.)

[Chae]

My take on it, I use jokes as an example:

Fe relationship: "rude jokes ruin the flow in our interaction, I don't want to be with someone who kills the vibe"
Fi relationship: "rude jokes simply aren't right, I don't want to be with that anti-ish person"

[The Exception]

things that come to mind otoh: a sense of security in knowing people have your back, someone safe to tell your secrets and dreams to, advice and support in areas you struggle with, a sense of usefulness in being able to provide something to others, relief from boredom...

i guess any of these, or anything, could reductively come back to "feeling good emotionally," but its not the first thing that comes to mind when i think about why i want relationships. relationships that are all about having a good time without roots like trust and intimacy feel empty.

(I don't mean to imply that you don't need things like trust and intimacy. i think it probably just didn't come to mind for you to articulate it that way.)

I think of all of these things in regards to relationships. But then if I ask myself why I want someone safe to share secrets to, support in areas I struggle with, sense of usefulness, etc. it all boils down to wanting to feel good emotionally in the end.

[ashlesha]

I think of all of these things in regards to relationships. But then if I ask myself why I want someone safe to share secrets to, support in areas I struggle with, sense of usefulness, etc. it all boils down to wanting to feel good emotionally in the end.

I thought so. I mean, everything a person does can come down to that in the end.

[Muddy]

I see Ti/Fe and Te/Fi as each a method for establishing trust and operating with others.

Ti/Fe- Lets establish trust by openly showing each other how we feel, using rules, principles and guidelines in order to keep interaction smooth.

Te/Fi- Lets establish trust through mutual assistance in practical problems, using an innate sense of right and wrong in order to keep interaction smooth.


Interacting with a type with different rational functions thus creates a huge barrier in communication and understanding. The people that you are around daily but never talk to very likely have different rational functions.

[LuckyOne]

So in my past posts I have mentioned multiple times about how I dislike rude, inconsiderate people. Why do I dislike this so much? Because it hampers good relationships. Good relationships is said to be associated with Fi in socionics.

I absolutely loath rudeness too, but it's because when directed to me, it's disrespect and to others, it hurts them. The possibility of it ruining a relationship or the prospect of one doesn't even factor, it's a question of respecting the individual and knowing your place. You don't attack a person's dignity and value without good reason. My reaction is always "How dare you? What's wrong with you???"

things that come to mind otoh: a sense of security in knowing people have your back, someone safe to tell your secrets and dreams to, advice and support in areas you struggle with, a sense of usefulness in being able to provide something to others, relief from boredom...

The bolded is what I'm looking for too. But the first thing on my list is warmth and clear external signs of affection, which is something I have difficulty in providing myself and it mostly is either awkward or weirdly unfulfilling. My best friends are the kind of people who will touch me all the time, cuddle, compliment me etc, basically make me feel loved and treasured. Also secure, I don't need to ever ask for support or consolation, they provide me with it naturally. I'm more of a tiger mom myself, if anything happens to then, I go batshit crazy looking for the culprit so I can avenge them

Never understood how can people feel bored. I never experienced that feeling myself. Also never understood how could people expect others to entertain them with that end in mind.

My take on it, I use jokes as an example:

Fe relationship: "rude jokes ruin the flow in our interaction, I don't want to be with someone who kills the vibe"
Fi relationship: "rude jokes simply aren't right, I don't want to be with that anti-ish person"

I can relate to the that. But I don't see the connection to antiness.

I see Ti/Fe and Te/Fi as each a method for establishing trust and operating with others.

Ti/Fe- Lets establish trust by openly showing each other how we feel, using rules, principles and guidelines in order to keep interaction smooth.

Te/Fi- Lets establish trust through mutual assistance in practical problems, using an innate sense of right and wrong in order to keep interaction smooth.


Interacting with a type with different rational functions thus creates a huge barrier in communication and understanding. The people that you are around daily but never talk to very likely have different rational functions.

[Chae]

@LuckyOne by anti-ness, I mean going against the right/wrong codex of Fi.

[Myst]

So in my past posts I have mentioned multiple times about how I dislike rude, inconsiderate people. Why do I dislike this so much? Because it hampers good relationships. Good relationships is said to be associated with Fi in socionics.

But then I could dig deeper and ask myself why I want good relationships? And the answer I get is because having good relationships makes me feel good *emotionally*. Well guess what? Fe is the ethics of emotions.

So in other words an Fe valuer could value relationships for an Fe reason.

But then again, why would someone want a relationship if it didn't make them feel good emotionally? Even Fi valuers, I think would want to feel good emotionally in their relationships, have a good emotional atmosphere.

So is there a difference between Fi and Fe valuers if you were to ask them why they want good relationships? I know it sounds like a dumb question and please don't give me flack for asking this. It's just that almost everyone I know, Fi or Fe valuing wants good relationships *and* good emotions.

Fe vs Fi valuing is just about which orientation of judgment about relationships and people and other people related things is prioritized (in the way valued functions are - that is, it's rewarding). Both are still Ethics, don't forget that.

I like Golihov's way of presenting Fi base vs Fe base:

Fe:
The person lives through manifested relationships between people, their emotions and feelings, can make a favorable impression, create a positive atmosphere. Conservative in his estimates of how people relate to one another as well as to himself, as long as their attitude does not change - this may cause irritation for him. Categorically rejects those who treat others badly or act from base motives - for him such people are like a red rag to a bull. Attached to those in whose sympathies he is confident. Knows how to make people feel valued. Relations are perceived as something permanent and if a person has changed, he won't believe it - it's an area of conservation for him. The "good" should be "good" and "bad" - "bad". If they start behaving in a contrary manner, this irritates him. Therefore, he doesn't want to believe that relations are changing until he can no longer deny the facts, and even then he can try to blame someone else. Never deliberately exacerbates relations. Multiple stable relationships and personal connections form the foundation of his personality. Cannot spend time alone, if there is nobody to relate to, if nobody needs him, then he doesn't exist. The world around him should be good, kind, loving and caring. Sometimes he can search for a place among the religious sects that preach the principle "love each other". If they cannot achiever favorable disposition of others, this provokes anger and inferiority complex. Can be a zealot about such things as behavioral norms, that people in certain situations must demonstrate appropriate sense of the situation deviations from which can be annoying to him. Needs a public. Any situation is primarily a combination of relations.

Fi:
This person is very tenacious in his attachments and conservative in his feelings and attitudes towards another, keeps true to the feelings he develops. If someone does not agree with his valuation, it irritates him immensely. Someone who has deceived him once he will consider a liar forever, even if the person changes. Due to this, from aside he is often seen as a moralist, as these feelings and evaluations are the main part of his life. The product of leading function is often not shown to the outside world but instead is kept inside. Thus this happens most often when something annoys him in terms of its values. The negative is often seen more clearly than the positive. Thus he may hold onto such false impressions. Attempting to challenge their assessment is useless, for them something is just "good" and something is just "bad" and they will not be able to communicate clearly why this is so, except for making some general statements. Tries to keep himself near those with whom positive relationship was once established. Their division of people into "good" and "bad" is very clear-cut. The "good" people are liked and the "bad" people are despised; often this is hidden but if the person evoke a strongly negative response they may express it openly. If there are not enough people around him whom he values, this may inspire in him aggression, because this means that he doesn't exist. He is very sensitive to such concepts as duty, honor, dignity, morality, that is - to his own perception of these concepts. For him his own feelings, emotions, attitudes are important, not external, public ones, which may not be given any importance. He rarely changes his attitude towards anyone, especially from low evaluation to a higher one. He has a large supply of different emotions and their various nuances. He is very sensitive to other people deviating from his own moral code - it is as if he is constantly controlling them in this respect and taking care of them. His positive feelings are something that should be confirmed by behavior that coincides with his expectations of what is "good" and "bad". In society, they are sometimes misunderstood since their ethics are personal, subjective, and therefore may deviate significantly from what is accepted as a norm. But he is deeply entrenched into this subjective perception, thus his only resort is to find those who agree with him and accept him for it.

[Exodus]

I see Ti/Fe and Te/Fi as each a method for establishing trust and operating with others.

Ti/Fe- Lets establish trust by openly showing each other how we feel, using rules, principles and guidelines in order to keep interaction smooth.

Te/Fi- Lets establish trust through mutual assistance in practical problems, using an innate sense of right and wrong in order to keep interaction smooth.


Interacting with a type with different rational functions thus creates a huge barrier in communication and understanding. The people that you are around daily but never talk to very likely have different rational functions.

"Establishing trust" is really more of an Fi idea than an Fe one. It's very tricky to compare the objective differences between them, since they are viewing the world through different lenses.

Fi/Te uses people's actions as evidence of their character, the status of the relationship, and how you feel about the person, including how much you trust them.

I would say that in the context of relationships Ti is less about rules than it is about expectations. Like, if we are friends I expect that when I call you you're gonna pick up the phone. That kind of stuff. It is a rule, but it's an implicit one. The idea is just that you can rely on consistent communication patterns and signals of how the other person is doing. Actually, Fi users also have expectations, but when their expectations are not met they react by updating their internal sense of the other person's character, rather than trying to change the behavior that is going on.

[Muddy]

I would say that in the context of relationships Ti is less about rules than it is about expectations. Like, if we are friends I expect that when I call you you're gonna pick up the phone. That kind of stuff. It is a rule, but it's an implicit one. The idea is just that you can rely on consistent communication patterns and signals of how the other person is doing. Actually, Fi users also have expectations, but when their expectations are not met they react by updating their internal sense of the other person's character, rather than trying to change the behavior that is going on.

So in your opinion, in a workplace scenario, is it Ti egos that expect things to get done a certain way and become upset when others don't follow through even when it's arbitrary to do so, or Te? Do you think there is any connection between Fe/Fi and a tendency to get upset, salty, emotional and confrontational in an outwardly visible and rash manner? I don't do so well what the kinds of people who easily fly into a rage and make caustic remarks over petty details.

[wacey]

So in your opinion, in a workplace scenario, is it Ti egos that expect things to get done a certain way and become upset when others don't follow through even when it's arbitrary to do so, or Te? Do you think there is any connection between Fe/Fi and a tendency to get upset, salty, emotional and confrontational in an outwardly visible and rash manner? I don't do so well what the kinds of people who easily fly into a rage and make caustic remarks over petty details.

That sounds like devalued Fe.

[Exodus]

So in your opinion, in a workplace scenario, is it Ti egos that expect things to get done a certain way and become upset when others don't follow through even when it's arbitrary to do so, or Te?

This mostly has to do with valuing . It depends on what you mean by "arbitrary" -- can look like making arbitrary rules, having a very specific idea about how things should be.

Do you think there is any connection between Fe/Fi and a tendency to get upset, salty, emotional and confrontational in an outwardly visible and rash manner? I don't do so well what the kinds of people who easily fly into a rage and make caustic remarks over petty details.

Somewhat, yes -- but again is also a factor. Gammas are often confrontational but probably less than Betas, because they don't care about influencing others quite as much, in general. You're most likely describing Beta ST behavior. LIEs can also be domineering but they care more about the strategic, large-scale aspects, and I wouldn't exactly say that they "fly into a rage."

[Pookie]

So in my past posts I have mentioned multiple times about how I dislike rude, inconsiderate people. Why do I dislike this so much? Because it hampers good relationships. Good relationships is said to be associated with Fi in socionics.

But then I could dig deeper and ask myself why I want good relationships? And the answer I get is because having good relationships makes me feel good *emotionally*. Well guess what? Fe is the ethics of emotions.

So in other words an Fe valuer could value relationships for an Fe reason.

But then again, why would someone want a relationship if it didn't make them feel good emotionally? Even Fi valuers, I think would want to feel good emotionally in their relationships, have a good emotional atmosphere.

So is there a difference between Fi and Fe valuers if you were to ask them why they want good relationships? I know it sounds like a dumb question and please don't give me flack for asking this. It's just that almost everyone I know, Fi or Fe valuing wants good relationships *and* good emotions.

I think they may differ the most on what a good relationship is. But if you were to ask any quasi identical pair why they want good relationships, theoretically they should agree.

[Petter]

So in my past posts I have mentioned multiple times about how I dislike rude, inconsiderate people. Why do I dislike this so much? Because it hampers good relationships. Good relationships is said to be associated with Fi in socionics.

But then I could dig deeper and ask myself why I want good relationships? And the answer I get is because having good relationships makes me feel good *emotionally*. Well guess what? Fe is the ethics of emotions.

So in other words an Fe valuer could value relationships for an Fe reason.

But then again, why would someone want a relationship if it didn't make them feel good emotionally? Even Fi valuers, I think would want to feel good emotionally in their relationships, have a good emotional atmosphere.

So is there a difference between Fi and Fe valuers if you were to ask them why they want good relationships? I know it sounds like a dumb question and please don't give me flack for asking this. It's just that almost everyone I know, Fi or Fe valuing wants good relationships *and* good emotions.

This is a very good post, which questions the relevance of "valued" functions.

"feel good *emotionally* ... Fe is the ethics of emotions."? So you are using SSS definitions, right? Aushra's description of black ethics is not directly about emotions.

"Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people. "

[Myst]

This is a very good post, which questions the relevance of "valued" functions.

"feel good *emotionally* ... Fe is the ethics of emotions."? So you are using SSS definitions, right? Aushra's description of black ethics is not directly about emotions.

"Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people. "

I don't think that's using SSS definitions A lot of socionics users think Fe is just that.

[Petter]

I don't think that's using SSS definitions A lot of socionics users think Fe is just that.

But that doesn't make it right. We must distinguish between social cognition and emotions. "Perceives information about processes...". 'Processes' refers to emotions. 'Perceives' refers to (the use of) black ethics.

[Myst]

But that doesn't make it right. We must distinguish between social cognition and emotions. "Perceives information about processes...". 'Processes' refers to emotions. 'Perceives' refers to (the use of) black ethics.

I didn't say it made it right.