So, you don't think I am an LIE?

[Skepsis]

Yes, exactly. And if that standard is not met, an Fi-user will drop you like a hot rock.

Not necessarily. You have to meet the standard to get in to begin with. These are standards of ethical principles which can include mutual respect, reciprocity, honesty, consideration, empathy, compassion, trust, etc. They define the type of relationship. The more you meet them, the more your character is valued. It makes sense that if one is not returning the needs of the relationship, that it deteriorates. Slow to accept the relationship, but if valued, slow to let go as well. It would have to be major to be dropped so quickly.

[ashlesha]

What still seems out of place to me w EIE is the explicitness ie, "this is what I like/dislike in a person," "if you want to get along w me, you have to __," etc, ime beta nfs are so much more like... You either get it or you don't.... (I wonder what beta nfs would say about this). But if it's only one thing, I guess it's not worth sticking on and I don't really see much sign of Te other than being goal-oriented, but that's not strictly Te. And I think EJ temperament is right.

Yeah ESIs do that too but I get the feeling it´s not their preferred method. They would rather have a stable relationship and use their energy for self development in say career, creative pursuits, family, obtaining financial security (Se+ creative, after all every type wants to obtain the maximum for its creative function). Not that they´re necessarily going to get that with a LIE, you need a good alignment of everything external.

LSIs maybe like fighting a little bit more. Or sometimes they want an excuse to start a little fight, win, and make the other submit. Just my personal impression...

I don't think this is what Adam was going for with the "drop them like a hot potato" thing, but I don't take any issue with this. Cuivs relationship posts are pretty high drama, but I'm not sure how much at face value to take them and how much is poetic license (but that would point away from LIE too).

Not necessarily. You have to meet the standard to get in to begin with. These are standards of ethical principles which can include mutual respect, reciprocity, honesty, consideration, empathy, compassion, trust, etc. They define the type of relationship. The more you meet them, the more your character is valued. It makes sense that if one is not returning the needs of the relationship, that it deteriorates. Slow to accept the relationship, but if valued, slow to let go as well. It would have to be major to be dropped so quickly.

The qualities you listed are all good and I know they were just examples, but I feel like it's important to say Fi is really idiosyncratic w what resonates w them and what repels them. I just want to say that bcuz of the notion that fi is all empathy & light or something. An unhealthy fi type might resonate w bad qualities in someone. You're right about the dropping, though, at least w fi base, if you think you were "dropped like a hot potato" you weren't being held as close as you thought to begin with.

[Skepsis]

What still seems out of place to me w EIE is the explicitness ie, "this is what I like/dislike in a person," "if you want to get along w me, you have to __," etc, ime beta nfs are so much more like... You either get it or you don't.... (I wonder what beta nfs would say about this). But if it's only one thing, I guess it's not worth sticking on and I don't really see much sign of Te other than being goal-oriented, but that's not strictly Te. And I think EJ temperament is right.



I don't think this is what Adam was going for with the "drop them like a hot potato" thing, but I don't take any issue with this. Cuivs relationship posts are pretty high drama, but I'm not sure how much at face value to take them and how much is poetic license (but that would point away from LIE too).



The qualities you listed are all good and I know they were just examples, but I feel like it's important to say Fi is really idiosyncratic w what resonates w them and what repels them. I just want to say that bcuz of the notion that fi is all empathy & light or something. An unhealthy fi type might resonate w bad qualities in someone. You're right about the dropping, though, at least w fi base, if you think you were "dropped like a hot potato" you weren't being held as close as you thought to begin with.

That may be. I'm not confident enough about it to say with certainty. It just seems like that is mixing MBTI, subjective feelings that motivate one to act in response to that feeling and socionics Fi which are subjective feelings, but are more restricted in that they are toward an ethical standard. ESI is referred to as the Guardian for a reason. They aren't the "do what feels good type", but "do what IS right to them. It appeals to what they believe is objective ethics.

But it is all overly vague to me really, so idk. There really seem to be inconsistencies in the theory.

[ashlesha]

That may be. I'm not confident enough about it to say with certainty. It just seems like that is mixing MBTI, subjective feelings that motivate one to act in response to that feeling and socionics Fi which are subjective feelings, but are more restricted in that they are toward an ethical standard. ESI is referred to as the Guardian for a reason. They aren't the "do what feels good type", but "do what IS right to them. It appeals to what they believe is objective ethics.

But it is all overly vague to me really, so idk. There really seem to be inconsistencies in the theory.

fair enough - jung, mbti, and socionics are all kind of mixed & converged in my head holistically in a way that jibes w/ my observations & i've kinda pieced things together that way bcuz its the only way it can sorta work for me. so my understanding of the types isn't very on the nose with a strict classical/aushra understanding.

as far as "what IS right" and "objective" though I'd appeal to the information aspects. Fi is an internal field, so it operates implicitly and subjectively, not with explicit 'rules' like Ti or 'objectively' like an extroverted element.

[Skepsis]

fair enough - jung, mbti, and socionics are all kind of mixed & converged in my head holistically in a way that jibes w/ my observations & i've kinda pieced things together that way bcuz its the only way it can sorta work for me. so my understanding of the types isn't very on the nose with a strict classical/aushra understanding.

as far as "what IS right" and "objective" though I'd appeal to the information aspects. Fi is an internal field, so it operates implicitly and subjectively, not with explicit 'rules' like Ti or 'objectively' like an extroverted element.

I think Ti valuers still use Fi, but its like "since there isn't an objective morality, I will do what I want." Again idk because we all have(or most) have a sense of right and wrong. It is the human, not type, condition.

[ashlesha]

I think Ti valuers still use Fi, but its like "since there isn't an objective morality, I will do what I want." Again idk because we all have(or most) have a sense of right and wrong. It is the human, not type, condition.

lol, that's why I struggle w/ socionics definitions in the very literal sense that they're often used. if Fi were simply "having morals" and Fe were simply "expressing emotions" they would just be part of the human condition and that makes things too confusing...

Ti types could come up w/ a system of morals that is more explicit using Ti, or they could relinquish their values to the prevailing social milieu w/ Fe suggestive, or they could have a poofed up role function - idk, maybe its more confusing to have so much variation but if I tried to fit ppl into slots that were so neatly defined and created false mutual exclusions, I'd have to just forget it altogether (and I haven't been able to do that, in spite of myself).

[squark]

lol, that's why I struggle w/ socionics definitions in the very literal sense that they're often used. if Fi were simply "having morals" and Fe were simply "expressing emotions" they would just be part of the human condition and that makes things too confusing...

Ti types could come up w/ a system of morals that is more explicit using Ti, or they could relinquish their values to the prevailing social milieu w/ Fe suggestive, or they could have a poofed up role function - idk, maybe its more confusing to have so much variation but if I tried to fit ppl into slots that were so neatly defined and created false mutual exclusions, I'd have to just forget it altogether (and I haven't been able to do that, in spite of myself).

Yes, Ti types can easily have a moral code, Fi types can be immoral, Fe polr can cry etc and so on. You'd have to ignore a large part of just being human to fit into the kinds of strict definitions that some people use.

But in some ways I think it's also simpler than assumed, and part of why we don't distinguish types is because we're not realizing how we're using elements or how they differ from other people's use, especially ego elements because they're so natural. You tend to think "doesn't everyone do that?" and it's interesting to see that no, not everyone does that. People operate in different ways. It's when I notice "hey, this person is taking a very different approach from me" that socionics seems more real, but the ways that those differences can merge into a common goal or be overcome to work with someone make it seem like less of a real thing and more like a system of prejudices. So, I guess that's to say that yes there are differences that you can see, but a deterministic hard-line separation of people and relationships seems self-defeating to me.

---
As for Cuiv's type - I find the whole "need to find a mate and breed" thing and the way he's going about it rather cold and formal, like he's looking to fill a job position. It might just be sp + horniness in overdrive. I'm not seeing the Fe in what he says regardless of the colorful way he may describe things as it all comes down to sounding more like an elk in rutting season than anything else. There's no subtlety to it. No nuance or play in his words or emotional tug. It's all rather straightforward, "someone please throw yourself at me and rape me." My 2c

[Sol]

I think Ti valuers still use Fi, but its like "since there isn't an objective morality, I will do what I want."

They like anyone have subjective feelings (Fi) - own personal sympathy, personal relation/feelings. There is objective/social "good" and personal - always, and sometimes they match.