Yeah I know one ESI who hates me and has that kind of attitude.Originally Posted by ashlesha
Im not e9 but I plead guilty to this.
My thinking...her loss.
Yeah I know one ESI who hates me and has that kind of attitude.Im not e9 but I plead guilty to this.
My thinking...her loss.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The flip side would be making excuses for people you like. I think everybody does it to some extent. Otherwise there'd be no friends or enemies or anything cuz everybody would just be who they are in the moment and there'd be no permanence to any of it.
It seems to me that people I get on with are those who agree with me, or if they disagree with me, we still have an understanding in that it's a way to work things out.
I honestly don't know how or if socionics fits in with this.
Yes everybody does it to some extent, I agree. For example I agree that my girlfriend is far too lenitent with some of my downsides. (Thank god)
I think the only problem to that attitude is that...it should arise over a long time frame. Like at least 4-5 years. Otherwise people's behavior may have a lot of variance and you may end up trusting too much the wrong people, or closing yourself off to decent people.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't ascribe to those nuggets because all types can be passive aggressive and gossipy. I found Socionics useful for me as a manager who had to put teams together, because I don't have the natural abilities that other types have. However, it only works for me when I put in the time to do analysis because on the fly, I run essentially blind to most interpersonal cues. For SLIs, understanding better why people do the things that they do may help to diffuse some inner suspicions and anger since they likely have the tools to pick up the body language but may misinterpret a lot of it..............then one ascribes behaviors such as, 'Fi are passive aggressive', 'Fe types gossip', well, there's a nugget of truth to it.
I just can't work out how much truth of it is going to help me in my life(ie, is it theory, or useful)............
a.k.a. I/O
You got that rightI don't ascribe to those nuggets because all types can be passive aggressive and gossipy. I found Socionics useful for me as a manager who had to put teams together, because I don't have the natural abilities that other types have. However, it only works for me when I put in the time to do analysis because on the fly, I run essentially blind to most interpersonal cues. For SLIs, understanding better why people do the things that they do may help to diffuse some inner suspicions and anger since they likely have to tools to pick up the body language but may misinterpret a lot of it.
a.k.a. I/O
Thank you for being a mature rational type (rational type, not necessarily socionics related, I just find mature LIIs are full of sense, so thank you
PS, I think it works well with the ESE I work with, I understand the job well, i'm good at it, can help her (she's got good 'Te' it seems to me too), however, my personality is mostly relaxed, with a practical groundwork, so it's OK. I sometimes tell her stuff I think about others, she tells me how to think (socioncs would say 'feel') better about it, so if it's supervision, we both have a mutual respect and mostly helpful feeling towards each other.
I think we can also say that Fe is really sensitive about and easily hurt by Fi sensitivity. Just look at the countless number of threads about Fi sensitivity created by Fe type people who is angry or upset that Fi s are sensitive. Its like you guys take the real offence and begin whining when Fi type are sensitive or responds negatively to sth you said or did.
I feel like its analogous to a Te type having trouble with their car and asking a Ti for more specific knowledge in relating how to solve the problem. Fe types know when they've got a problem by way of feedback they don't like, but its not in their nature to accumulate a rigorous underlying subjective ethical understanding of the issue, so they need to ask questions of this nature to learn how to better navigate future potential problems. eventually with enough nuggets of this kind they may actually build up their own understanding but it gets sort of transformed into a Ti thing somewhere along the way. Sort of like how Te types maybe learn "I better read the manual, before diving in" where Ti gets turned into a Fi principle that feeds into Te
So what is being learned with these threads ? Which information they have gathered so far ?
Its likely to turn into a crying fest with a bunch of people telling personal stories about how they offended Fi types before and how this restricts their freedom and energy in social gatherings...
Last edited by Mr inappropriate; 12-23-2017 at 09:49 PM.
a crying fest sounds awesome
let it out
See? I don't have Fi. Im not sensitive guys
Wake up.
Type more accurately lol
I do not quite agree to this: what needs to be differentiated here, are cause and effect, or in this particular case, motivation and behavior. You can perform the same act twice, resulting in similar behavior on the outside, but getting differences in response from an Fi-valuer. What causes the difference in response? The difference in underlying motivation for the actions.
It might seem idiosyncratic from a behavioral perspective, but it isn't from a motivational POV. Fi valuers do not so much pass judgment on behavior, but more on character. It also looks at long term effects of actions, which also has to do with result-oriented Te.
Fe valuers, on the other hand, are more inclined to judge outward behavior, irrespective of what motivated the behavior, and no motive can justify certain behaviors. This also ties in with Ti, which lays down the rules, irrespective of contexts.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
!!!!this
this is why stuff like enneagram which blankets motive pisses me off, and why I really do think intentions matter a shitload in the ethical evaluation of any given situation
when you really start concerning yourself with motives you really see what a reduction it is, and it becomes counter productive in relating to other people past a certain point
in a certain sense you could say the same thing about sociotype except its not a theory of motivation, although it does become counter productive in relating to other people, for other reasons
I'm totally like the OP described. When somebody mistreats me I can process it for a very long time and then "randomly" hint at it a few months (or even longer) later. I usually can't react immediately when somebody pushes my bottom and it takes me longer than other people to acknowledge and process whatever is happening, but the effect is usually long lasting and hidden deep within me until I get a chance to hint on it.
That's actually a very accurate distinction
Yeah, @consentingadult seems to be on the spot there. As I'm still not 100% sure of my type (delta vs beta NF) take what I'll say with a grain of salt. But it would make sense to me if Fi would look beyond just the sheer reaction of an individual in order to make judgements. I don't think they (Fi users) are as picky as some stereotypes make out to be.
A little anecdote, I'm not sure how it ties to 'sensitivity' but it might tie to the Fe vs Fi deal.
I woke up at 5 AM because I had to catch a bus and go to the airport. I had a city break planned for Berlin, and off I went. On the highway, we stopped at a Gas station to stretch for a bit and buy breakfast. It was summer, the sun was barely shying out of the horizon and it was still pretty early. I went inside to buy a sandwich and a coffee. As I'm still too young to leave the country without a parent coming alongside me, I had my mother acompany me throughout the journey. While we were waiting at the counter, the girl serving the customers was behaving *strange* to say the least. She was muttering stuff like 'I can't do this anymore...' or 'I will collapse'. And she was visibly angry. She threw sandwiches in the heater instead of just placing them there, knocked money from the counter aside (and even threw some stuff on the floor). Despite all of this, she was still trying to mimic a smile when addresing customers. My mother and another woman from the bus were criticizing her behaviour, visibly upset and even a bit angry at the barista's attitude and calling her 'rude'. I wasn't angry, nor upset. I felt bad for the poor girl. Why? Because it occured to me, on the spot, that it might not be her fault entirely. Maybe she had a terrible shift, maybe she was sick. It was still early, maybe she was forced to work overtime (I heard of such horror stories from gas station employees). I was justifying her behaviour first, without even criticizing it. And I think that's what I do 70% of the times (though with people I hate, that's an entirely different story).
Is this related to the feeling functions? No idea, you should tell me, reader. I just figured it would fit here.
There is not enough information in your post to draw conclusions, but this article might shed some light on the social aspects of Fi and Fe:
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...fi-and-fe.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ork-floor.html
Otherwise it might be related to another function as well.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
For me it just all depends if I detect any malice coming off the other person or not. A few vulgar words doesn't bother me as long as I know the other person are good feelings going around and I know the person isn't directing what they are saying at me. However if the person is being a cold little upset salty bitch while at the same time saying nasty things you can bet I'm going to get butthurt.
I remember getting my feelings hurt once when these 4 or 5 boys in third grade kept making fun of me for not knowing about sports terms. And I hated it because I knew if I told anybody about it they would just say that I needed a thicker skin or something, or that I should learn more about 'typical boy things' so I wouldn't get harassed so much- so I kept all this pain inside of that inward for many years. Looking back at it though, I am a typical ****** that knows nothing about sports and it is okay to have a laugh at my expense because of that, I suppose.
If they would just have left it at that though I wouldn't get so offended. But they also violated my physical boundaries often, on top of the verbal teasing/abuse. And I should have punched them in the jaw the first time they did it- I eventually did, but it took me way too long and too much damage was done by the time I finally was physical. I'm not actually the type to get offended very easily - but if you consistently harass me, yes I am only human. And I will break and kick your ass. In society we are taught not to be physical.
Society needs to be more Se and less Te.
sry for the double post but I've found out that often if we simply say 'That hurt my feelings' to somebody- surrending to them, and being honest about how they made us feel with their words - it can help mend the relationship. There's no need to attack them back/try to censor them or respond with too much anger (depending on the type of offense) - simply say 'that hurt my feelings.' Not with the suggestion that getting your feelings hurt puts you morally above anybody else- on this special plane of victim hood existence, but with the intent to repair the relationship between you two.
It doesn't always work, but I found out that it often does more than we think. And yeah some people will use it in a mocking way like 'ooh you are hurting my feelings' to a rape victim or some fucked up shit like that but you know, obviously I am talking about situations that are more salvage-able.
The possibility to generalize experiences of many ones and to see how it fits to the theory.
Not effective in the case of T types which have primarily logical motivation to make better, and think that your minute feelings are nothing compared to the result. It will be perveived as your caprice.
> It doesn't always work, but I found out that it often does more than we think.
It does in the degree others will understand your emotions better which sometimes overweight the expected use from what they are doing.
For Fi to rationalize, a certain amount of detachment is required so short isolation cycles are very typical. Also Fi-types try to objectify and it can be hard to do that in a crowded environment. Eps usually require more time alone than Ips in order to function at peak effectiveness. I make a distinction here between needing isolation and choosing it......
a.k.a. I/O
Last edited by Rebelondeck; 12-24-2017 at 02:24 PM.
There are many layers to the sensitivity of Fi. Person X saying a few crude words might be a-okay, but if those words were to be uttered by Person Y? Then we've got problems. This could seem inconsistent to an outsider, because the behaviors that the Fi reacts to (or doesn't) are the same, but as is mentioned in this thread, it is not the behavior that gets evaluated as much as the motivation and thus, the character of the person, behind it.
When I have voiced my criticism in the past, a complaint I would receive was that it was hypocritical of me to condemn them for something when another person did the same thing and I left them alone. However, I'm fully aware of this, and to me it is not hypocritical at all since I am judging the action in its appropriate context; that of one's character.
I don't let many people in, because I feel like most people aren't worth the investment. That's as much a sensitivity to them as it is to my own person. I know what kind of person meshes well with me, and what kind doesn't. Oftentimes people are seen as relatively neutral by me, which means I act cordial and friendly and pleasant, but nothing of my personal life and values are to be shared with them. It can be read as me being sensitive or hard-to-reach, I suppose, but I prefer "guarded." It saves everyone time.
Still, I am not easily offended. I am hard to surprise with offense since I know who to expect it from. As such, I take it as my own responsibility to either react to it or leave it be. I take an extra effort to be conscious of my decision to act or not to act. Most of the time, I choose not to act because the offense is minor and not deserving of reproach. I also am not in the habit of bringing up past offenses, because I already made the choice to let it slide and I don't want to be petty. I never forget past offenses though.
When I react to an offense, I force myself to do this in a timely manner. If too much time has past, then I have to deal with my feelings myself and I can't blame anyone else for them ... this didn't come as easy for me when I was a teenager, I can tell you that! I am very aware of my own sensitivity and so I make sure to be accountable for that. Making some snide comment months later is a BIG no-no for me. I see that as weak, petty, cowardly. If I had a problem with someone months ago, then I should've reacted in a timely manner. Anything after is on me.
But then, if there really is an "anything after," I'll make sure to be as distant and removed from the person as possible. This is as much to protect me from hurt as it protects them from my (potentially out of proportion) reaction.
There are many layers to the sensitivity of Fi. Person X saying a few crude words might be a-okay, but if those words were to be uttered by Person Y? Then we've got problems. This could seem inconsistent to an outsider, because the behaviors that the Fi reacts to (or doesn't) are the same, but as is mentioned in this thread, it is not the behavior that gets evaluated as much as the motivation and thus, the character of the person, behind it.
When I have voiced my criticism in the past, a complaint I would receive was that it was hypocritical of me to condemn them for something when another person did the same thing and I left them alone. However, I'm fully aware of this, and to me it is not hypocritical at all since I am judging the action in its appropriate context; that of one's character.
I don't let many people in, because I feel like most people aren't worth the investment. That's as much a sensitivity to them as it is to my own person. I know what kind of person meshes well with me, and what kind doesn't. Oftentimes people are seen as relatively neutral by me, which means I act cordial and friendly and pleasant, but nothing of my personal life and values are to be shared with them. It can be read as me being sensitive or hard-to-reach, I suppose, but I prefer "guarded." It saves everyone time.
Still, I am not easily offended. I am hard to surprise with offense since I know who to expect it from. As such, I take it as my own responsibility to either react to it or leave it be. I take an extra effort to be conscious of my decision to act or not to act. Most of the time, I choose not to act b
When I react to an offense, I force myself to do this in a timely manner. If too much time has past, then I have to deal with my feelings myself and I can't blame anyone else for them ... this didn't come as easy for me when I was a teenager, I can tell you that! I am very aware of my own sensitivity and so I make sure to be accountable for that. Making some snide comment months later is a BIG no-no for me. I see that as weak, petty, cowardly. If I had a problem with someone months ago, then I should've reacted in a timely manner. Anything after is on me.
But then, if there really is an "anything after," I'll make sure to be as distant and removed from the person as possible. This is as much to protect me from hurt as it protects them from my (potentially out of proportion) reaction.
Yes, brilliantly put. I find myself in this. In a nutshell, it's all about "case-by-case": adjusting distance and agree-/engagement - in the eyes of, this would all seem elusively unfair in a way.
"case by case" is a logical Te principle, but too often it gets used to justify being contradictory, which non contradiction is a Ti principle. Te and Ti are compatible because "case by case" is an inherently non contradictory proposition when done correctly. at worst it creates apparent contradictions that are dissolved when you link the unique circumstances to the confusing outcome. The problem is when IEE creates confused outcomes without actually having done the logical work and is ethically in the wrong because of clear logical problems, but refuses to admit it. In that case the apparent contradictions are real and not imagined, and "case by case" is just a cop out to be stupid. In other words, it would be a mistake to think that if you seem unfair its not because you're not actually being unfair. this is something IEE conveniently ignores because they're prone to exaggerations so they never "mean" what they say. In the end distance regulation is the solution for everyone involved because IEE operates under the assumption everyone wants their presence as if it doesn't cut both ways, sometimes the best solution is for Fi to go off and be alone and Ti wants that just as much as Fi types. In the end there's a cosmic regulation to how if you "seem unfair" sufficient to annoy a significant amount of people, and your solution is distance via case by case bases, ostracization is perfectly appropriate in your case by your own logic. the bottom line is this is where IEE begins to check themselves, when its "no longer fun" etc. So it has a way of working itself out. You could say this is the Fe way of seeing how "seeming unfairness" is not without consequences and there is a working regulatory scheme despite Fi's surface immunity to criticism along those lines
IEE wanting to be alone a lot is just a Ti polrism to get a upper hand on the ethical situation, the truth is they want people as much as any ethical extrovert, its their own self assessment using words that differs for reasons unique to them. if you go by their actions IEE regulates themselves just as effectively despite being a zany snowflake in their self concept. EIE Ni in the philosopher variant is probably the biggest loner they just don't try to get ahead of the situation by exaggerating it as if that confers some kind of immunity to people not liking them for legitimate reasons
This is a very interesting take, and i somewhat agree even if in my head i hadn't rehashed it to this degree just yet, but why do you think the bold is the case?
I think they just get so obsessed with their ideas they spend all their time on them and they are generally sort of anti social in regard to socializing as a priority. they're not anti social in the sense that if you corner them they're very congenial but they set their life up as a legit cloistered one, because their "intellectual mission" is so totalizing. the other subytpe is more "walk with the people" type and sort of goes about it the opposite... if you sat him down and made him write something it would probably be quite good, but he spends time in the opposite fashion
I also think Fi in the above example can "regulate distance" in a bad way, which is to say sometimes they remain too close, as is often the case with abusive relationships. Also once IEE realizes they depend so much on others they can suffer from low self esteem and become so "object dominated" that they likewise will rationalize abusive situations. So its not like Fi and "regulating distance" inoculates one from harm or creates super powers. it gives and it takes, it can be kind of a vicious dynamic at times
I've noticed some people doing this in the past and it usually just leaves me confused, because I'll see them be upset by a certain behavior and think, "Ah okay, they don't like when people do that" so when they're fine with someone else doing the same thing it's justAnd because the reasons they are okay with one person and not the other person are subjective, I'm not going to be able to pin it down. You think you understand a person, and then they throw you for a loop.
Heh, this can lead to some weird conclusions on my part too - like there have been times when I've been kind of mean to a person and they just laugh and are friendly and fine, and then I can do or say something that is meant to be nicer, and they get upset. . . so I'm left with the conclusion, "They must prefer people being mean to them," when that could be very far from the truth lol. It's sometimes actually been that I made them upset without knowing it the first time around and they're only reacting to it later.
a lot of this just goes to strong ethics in general and "exceptions" as a category they navigate well, if you add in strong intuition it starts to become kind of inscrutable from a logical sensing point of view. I would not peg it to Fi in of itself so much as an emergent property of strong ethics in general, since Fe likewise entails a shitload of apparent inconsistencies based on situation. its why they get accused of being "fake" a lot. "liking" one thing with one group and the opposite with a different one etc
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote