Anyway, cope is not self suppression, the association is foreign to the words meaning:
Cope, verb: (of a person) deal effectively with something difficult.
Never read about the categorical denial of sentiments like love as a trait related to Ne Fi, honestly, though, they can ramble and think about a bunch of things or controversial topics or have unusual opinions (but yours is not unusual I swear, I've heard it before).Ne focus on different possibilities leads to a questioning or critique of the accepted reality,because that is 1 reality out of many. Best example is NeTi which is a questioning of institutions and ideology such as the Church. Questioning true love is the NeFi equivalent. Ne needs to sift through these possible realities to find the 1 true reality.
Anyway, you were not questioning, you were stating with bunch of certainty that True love didnt exist as it was just chemicals and Disney. You are changing your argument all of a sudden.
Also IEEs are often optimistic more than cynical, radical or close minded.True love isn't real. It's Disney marketing material.
There is physical attraction i.e. love at first sight which is just your body recognizing similar facial aesthetics.
There is psychological attraction i.e. Socionics.
Skepticism and pessimism or cold cynism is more like Ni in ILI also than Ti Ne of LII for example:
"This type of fatalism is spurned by their ability to see the negative in anything, which has its roots in the ILI's general dislike of expressing or reinforcing positive emotions. To an ILI, it may be easier to predict pessimistic results in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional reaction. Likewise, the ILI's sense of general self doubt leads him to be very conservative in his general outlook; why unnecessarily subject oneself to the uncertainty of possible disappointment? x "
I dont have to make it, the words already exist. There are at least 7 words for different type of love designed by the greeks. Plus you were saying that love is not real beyond psychological attraction so how do you explain love for kids according that limited understanding? again, its attraction? Or is a decision parents do for their kids as a man or a woman does for loving each other?Loving a child would be either a subsection of psychological love or you could make it a 3rd type of love.
Ethics and moral are commonly mistaken and used by english native speakers as if they were synonyms but they aren't. Its an extended social mistake and it just happens in english afaik, not in the rest of the languages.Morality… synonyms ethics. - m.w dictionary. Morality/Ethics is what people use to make decisions involving other humans. They are the same.
Is the same with feeling and emotion. English native speakers use the words interchangeably because its easier (not necessarily true) so they don't have to make distinctions, but both have different meanings in dictionaries and they have different etymological roots.
"Ethics (ethics) and moral (morals) are related to "good" and "bad" behavior. Although sometimes used interchangeably, they are different. Ethics (ethics) refers to rules provided from an outside source, such as codes of conduct in workplaces or the Ten Commandments (religious principles), while morals (morals) refer to the individual principles that the person has about good and evil.x"
Using ethics and moral indistinctly leads to misunderstandings in socionics functions (and life in general), this case is an example:
"In example of professional ethics (confusing with morals) is the work of a defense lawyer. The morality of said lawyer may indicate that the homicide is reprehensible and that the murderers should be punished, but their ethics as a legal professional requires that they defend their client as best they can even if they know that the client is guilty. Another example comes from the medical field. In many parts of the world, a doctor can not euthanize a patient, even if the patient requests it, due to the code of medical professional ethics. However, within his moral, the doctor may believe that his patient has the right to die to avoid further suffering."
Much of the confusion between the two words can be traced back to their origins. The word "ethics" (ethics) comes from the old French (etique), from the Latin modero (ethica) and the Greek (ethos) and they all refer to moral customs or philosophies. The word "moral" (morals) comes from modern Latin (moralis), which refers to appropriate behavior and manners in society. Both words, therefore, have similar meanings, but they are not synonymous, even in their original roots."
So according that, we can say that everyone has an internal sense or code of good an evil (ethicals, logicals, sensors, intuitives). However, not everyone behave with others ethically. The sense of Fi is behaving ethically with the other person (and how the other with you), thats why its called Ethics of relations, and thats why is ethic, not moral, because its conscious of how its actions, feelings and emotions will affect and be perceived by other (in relation to), plus the nature of the function is Introverted (has not expansive energy as Fe). Fi is ethics of relations, Fe is ethics of emotions. Thats it.
Its stated in most definitions:
"Introverted ethics is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics. Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics (Fe) approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people)."
"Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. "<--- this is very similar at your own understanding in here:
Conflict relationships may have physical attraction but they will NOT have psychological attraction. In fact it will be the opposite: repulsion. "coping with each others faults," is a euphemism for censorship. Neither person has faults, rather they are perceived as faults by the other party. So each person coupes by censoring themselves, They think, "Should I tell my partner X....nah it'll start a fight." This is an example of increasing psych distance. If a couple ignores these issues and stays together that's insanity, not true love.
It wasnt me who started this conversation. I already said that you can think what you please or understand love as what you like the best, but still, you keep on with the replying. So, unless you are expecting me to agree with you in every word you speak to me even if I think that what you say is incorrect, I dont see why you think me answering back is being too argumentative. Plus, I hope this conversation ending up soon, since information is out there for everyone to look at. And for future reference, I dont enjoy so much this kind of conversations. So, in regards of you and I having so different perspectives, we can save energy and time in more pleasant/productive stuff in the future.P.S. You are being way too argumentative.
For the rest, its not a type hunting and I'm not saying you are X or Y type, because honestly I dont care, I'm just saying your concerns and statements are plain strange for Ne Fi valuing. I'm suspecting you are probably new into socionics stuff too, so mistypes can happen.
I'm reading sources in english which states the opposite of my source:
"The word Morals is derived from a Greek word “Mos” which means custom. On the other hand, if we talk about Ethics, it is also derived from a Greek word “Ethikos” which means character. Put simply, morals are the customs established by group of individuals whereas ethics defines the character of an individual. x"
I dont know if the source is trustworthy. I prefer the other one because it has more support and makes more sense (as the example of field ethics vs moral shows). Anyway apart from the definitions of Ethics or moral, the fact is that both are different, and in relation to Fi Fe, definitions doesn't allow to think in Fi=moral, Fe=Ethics or the inverse. Both are ethics, the difference is the focus,Fi introverted (1x1, sentiments) or Fe, extroverted (groups +3, emotions). Just wanted to clarify to avoid further derailment in this point.
Last edited by Tommy; 02-22-2018 at 12:15 AM.
I think this all super accurate
just want to add I think of ethics in the socionics sense as the domain of the "should" in regard to human choices, whereas morality I think of as a general term for personal ethical stances and statements. in other words, ethics has a specific meaning in a socionics context, whereas morality is a general term without a specific meaning that gets thrown around in society a lot to mean different things, but it generally centers on ethical (in the socionics sense) content in some way (morality means different things in the mouths of Fe/Fi valuers, etc--yet both are ethical stances).
i also think if Ne means any stance at all, including absolutist ones, then all views are Ne by default and Ne loses all meaning. I think Ne/Fi does have a more specific meaning with certain aspects that you can't just subsume into "Ne can look like literally anything". its more like Ne egos can nevertheless speak from super ego and that becomes one more possibility but its not arising out of a characteristic of Ne ego stance. essentially posting to reiterate: inasmuch as a statement cannot be associated with Ne/Fi "all love is chemicals" is probably that statement, whereas it is very closely associated with a Ti physicalist stance, i.e. Ti/Se. that doesn't mean an IEE can't ever utter the words and mean it, it just means, to me, its not coming from a characteristically Ne/Fi place, its coming from perhaps a Ne/Fi ego person but not the Ne/Fi ego itself (inasmuch as it is a sub personality) but rather a statement of the super ego. or it could just be a statement of a Ti/Se ego, or be a statement of other kinds for other reasons, but I think Crystal's point is correct in saying, its antithetical to Ne/Fi inasmuch as Ne/Fi stands for anything without collapsing into meaninglessness under the guise of Ne encompassing everything
Ne/Fi is characterized by exploring far flung ethical possibilities in the face of difficult (hopeless) situations, "all love is chemicals" is the kind of Ti/Se lockdown that Ne/Fi typically exists to explode and subvert through imagination. its hard for me to imagine a more hopeless situation than love being merely a mirage produced by chemical reactions or that relations between non duals are doomed on some level
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-21-2018 at 11:45 PM.
1.What have groups to do in this whole situation? Is that some sort of Fe attempt of shaming or something? Your concern about leadership and effective communication with groups over 1x1 interactions could point again at Fe>Fi. SLIs are Fe PoLR btw.
Thats a very strange assumption anyway. I could apply the same faulty logic and say exactly the same thing to you. Also maybe my communication is ineffective with you because you and I have different quadra values?
You dont have any argument to say that I'm close minded. I said to you first that you were close minded in regards of your totalitarian statements expressed above.
2. I doubt it.
3. Is semantics forbidden when talking about theory and concepts the same to present arguments to those who direct to me at first? Thats like forbid logic.
Last edited by Tommy; 02-22-2018 at 01:17 PM.
Hey @domr I had to take you off ignore, your posts are too good At least not in the way you might think I mean...
On the subject of identical relations, I think you could maybe speak to @Cuivienen, he seems to exhibit the same creative as you. As people go, he's a good guy IMO. I think he might be your identical, and seems to be coming round to the self-typing of EIE.
Is nobody going to point out the fact that an IEE and an SLI are fighting over socionics? Ah, love at first sight
"Time is my horse that stays always my own,
A helmet’s mask-visor – the grate on a hole,
The walls are my armor that’s made of the stone,
My permanent shield is the door’s iron fold.
Time! I desire to speed your hooves’ rattle!
My stony armor is heavy to rise on!
Death, when we’ve come, will help me by the saddle;
I will dismount and rise up my visor."
> I think there's an official ordering somewhere
There is nothing else official besides Jung and Augustinavichiute.
There is Augustinavichiute's opinion about duality as best and conflictor as worst. This may be taken as "official". With other IR she seems did not said clear rank opinion, but described from point of suplementing functions and same values.
> Identical relations are supposed to be the 2nd "best" matches for any given type
opinion common in MBT. and the other "good" there was seems a conflictor
Identity is good for co-operation on _same work_ between equals with similar skills and duties. Like between students of same specialization, especially when it fits good to their strong functions. This partly leads that people of same type may establish informal communications to support this kind of help to each other. But it's not soul attraction and deep friendship, it's more mutual esteem and surface sympathy. They join easy and may depart easy, as there is no deep personal support.
From point of IR compatibility identity has middle/neutral rank. Worse than semi-duality, activation, mirrage, mirror and mb orderer (in case you'll find the one which loves you indeed).
> perhaps a scenario where one party has healthy* self-esteem
Jung's type is personality disorder from his point. You can't have this and be healthy - you keep internal conflict. And your weak functions may express as wild and inferior to get unacceptance by other people which expect you to fit the norms.
> maybe two healthy* conflictors could actually get along pretty well
They'll have negative IR effects. They may tolerate it, to establish compromistic rules and behave ok on the surface or in limited situations. Mb even to love each other and such to have mutual understanding and compassion to support the motivation for adoptation. But all this will need the efforts. The stronger and healthier psyche - the easier will be to apply the needed efforts.
Conflictors would be interesting to research in love situations, as this may create psyche states for rising weak functions through nonvalued ones. Especially if it's possibly to switch to quasi-identity psyche state with trance technique - you'll get dualisation. But it can be risky for a psyche.
alternatively, you have to acknowledge that semantics sometimes matter and arguing semantics is only a dodge if someone knows they're arguing it and knows it doesn't matter and already understands what you meant entirely, which are a bunch of assumptions which amount to assuming moral guilt and also that you already know that the semantics don't matter (which is an assumption of logical clarity) in this case, and in a world full of people who go by the more or less literal meaning of words without recourse to more, to those people words do matter and so the speaker must likewise take responsibility for what they put out not just shift the burden to the listener and assume guilt if they want to clarify the label. because even if all those assumptions are nevertheless true there is still the matter of third party onlookers who need to be considered in how things in are labeled, and there are degrees of better or worse that do matter, as to the whole world, and so in that sense there tends to always be room for improvement when it comes to accuracy, so inasmuch as discussion works on that angle it can't be said to be totally useless and therefore a culpable manifestation of moral failure. in other words just clarify the language and move forward, it takes two to allow things to degenerate
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-25-2018 at 05:43 AM.
well if she's not actually at fault it makes sense not to admit any, further, characterizing them as dodges is highly debatable, and I'm not sure what "victory" in this context even means. I don't think Crystal is trying to "win" anything. I could be wrong, but I think you've just erroneously perceived her as some kind of bad actor and are generating a narrative in keeping with that assumption, but I don't think that's warranted
I would imagine that someone with good communication skills (I assume you class yourself as this, typing as IEE) would be better placed to circumvent this?
I just don't know if accusing someone of these things in this manner is the best way to resolve anything, but to escalate a problem than resolve it.
Anyway i'm curious how you see all this as ethical type.
BTW I disagree with you too - there are different types of love.
Grow up. Become better person yourself then you can help others to develop ethics. Not before. You cant ask me and point out me while you communicate in such disrespectful way yourself (and not just towards me).
Asking for apologies because you don't have more arguments is ridiculous. I responded to all of your claiming then I did it too with semantics (but you didnt do it, instead you started to saying about leadership, groups, online time and else, all invented). Giving logical explanations about a topic in whatever shape or form, is not worthy of an apology even if you feel bad for not having arguments. Thats the nature of discussion. Talking logically is not an offense even if you are an ethical. But you know what is offensive and aggressive? Quoting me over and over with totalitarian statements about subjective issues, then derailing the conversation to attack me personally with invented stuff for at the end asking me to apologize. All of that with 0 zero proof to back any of your sayings.
Now lets do this short and just ask me in a nice way for letting you "win" (as you think about victory) this argument so you can feel better about youself. Then maybe I'll reconsider. I like to be nice too.
Last edited by Tommy; 02-25-2018 at 03:05 PM.
Last edited by Tommy; 02-25-2018 at 02:47 PM.
I said to you that ppl love each other even when there is no attraction (example kids, brothers, etc) Then there are a lot of ppl that arise attraction and then what? All ppl cheat each other or change partners when they find someone more appealing? How do you explain loyalty? I said your understanding was partial as you dont take into account different situations nor possibilities. Your answer? Attacking me.What is the reason or rational? How does this contradict what I said?
Then about conflictors, there are conflicting descriptions from various authors. There is no repulsion in conflicting relations, there is more likely psychological attraction at first since dual is quasi identical to conflictors (same strong IEs) but with the time and interactions, differences arise and seeking functions arent satisfied. Values are different. In the same way, duals relations can start not so good then going better and better with the time if they get dualization (at least SLI-IEE). Links later.
Plus I said 'I'm one to think' when talking about love in conflicting. Are you arguing against my belief/theory about lasting love being possible between conflictors? Whats your reason for doing that if its just my personal opinion? Ppl have the right of having personal opinions or theories too.
Thats my same question for you.
And again what is the reason or rational?
I did and pointed out how closed and partial it is.She doesn't address my logic or reasoning.
I did but you cant or dont want to understand better. Your response was talking about leadership and bad communication skills with groups.She isn't trying to explain herself better.
Thats why I said maybe the information elements of you and me are valued different.
?She is writing contradictory sentences.
no, it was a response at your Fi is moral instead of relational ethics (how is defined in theory). I see the same in you, and what's with that? Thats just more personal attack towards me since there is no logical support from your side. Btw, I'm not even angry at you.And as a result of these mistakes, she escalated the conversation and that devolved into aruging semantics.
Bad character and poor communication skills, that is what I see.
Last edited by Tommy; 02-25-2018 at 03:53 PM.
Anyway, your friend was right, I'm not going to talk with someone like you either, its a total waste of time. According your own words, you are the one who doesnt know how to communicate with others since your logic is poor and your ethics deceitful, its useless to say anything, you are contentious and your arguments are fallacious. Still, you try to project your own failures in others, saying for example that I (Crystal), communicate wrongly when its you the one who has had problems in communication with ppl before (ie, ur "conflictor", I bet he even wasnt LSI but you typed him like that just because you were all argumentative with him always and expected of him to remain in silence or agree with you, which is what you were doing with me). Finally you are young and you probably are clueless about what I'm talking about and referring to with the word 'love' since you havent experienced it properly yet beyond sexual attraction.
Anyway...as I said before, think what you please about whichever matter, I couldnt care less. Just dont quote/address me again. Have fun.
Last edited by Tommy; 03-07-2018 at 03:22 PM.
What a stupid argument.
It's like you guys were arguing semantics, and knew full well you were arguing semantics, but then acted like you guys didn't see each other's points. Of course you did! You were arguing the meaning of each other's words.
But at the same time, you guys were arguing semantics over something it sounds like you don't understand fully. Either of you. As neither of you are wrong, you just have an ideological viewpoint blocking you from seeing the differing viewpoint as complimentary and not contradictory.
Love is quite literally your golden standard of ethical behavior towards another. Something only has value if it can effect another, otherwise it's masturbation. Your idiological/emotional/spiritual/mental/psychogical stance towards them affects your treatment of them.
Love isn't real unless it's a thing you do. An action. If it's something you feel, then it would only be for you, and definitionally love is about union or consolidation, not mental masturbation.
So you're both right, and you're both wrong. It's not really anyone's fault, but both of you should feel bad about it. So at least you remember it.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Argument was stupid indeed, and unnecessary.
Guys were arguing over something, at the same time, it sounds. But ts like you cant see our viewpoints are contradictory instead of complimentary differing from blocking ideological viewpoints that we just have. Wrong are you, neither. Fully understand, you don't like semantics.
Another towards ethical behavior of golden standard, your love is literally quite. Masturbation is otherwise, another effect it can has. If only. Your stance of value psychological/mental/spiritual/emotional/ideological affects towards them treatment.
Then, union about love and mental consolidation is, definitionally, not masturbation. A love unless isn't real, you do its thing. Feel you. And you would be something and do an action only if it.
But about it, feel bad you should, both. It remember you wrong are, at least, so, both you are right. Fault anyone is, really, its not.
Last edited by Tommy; 03-07-2018 at 08:04 PM.
My answer to OP is that you have to keep in mind to what extend one identifies with type and allows for various factors. In my case i have misgivings about my type but let's just say that it is the closest type to me given the options and my life experiences etc. I notice another ESI at work and i see a lot of differences like her Se is much more physical and pronounced: like she grabbed some documents off of my hands one day, like literally physically took them. It's not a matter of her being rude, just her volition-ally noticing something about me and my situation at the moment and deciding to act on that impulse. I didn't like that action - the papers were confidential and she shouldn't have access to those - , and there are several other things I notice about her that irk me. I don't think it's a matter of self-esteem, in short, and it is not a given that you'll have to like an 'identical' so to speak. I think i've partially addressed your question, sorry for whatever i've missed.
1. You focus on " behavioral ethics" of my person, you convert discussion in a personal attack. You do this as an attempt to escape from the main topic in question. Thats playing dirty. (Weak Fi)I identified that 1) You refuse to address parts of my posts that appear contradictory to your POV. 2) The parts of my posts you answer at nit-picked where you choose to ignore the forest for the trees. 3) When I do have a valid point, you dismiss it with statements such as “At least not the part.” From my experience, you appear to be a classic internet troll i.e. a socially inept person that argues to win (which is a word you used) rather than to be right. So I asked you a basic behavioral interview question to test this hypothesis, do you have experience influencing or working with other people? You could not even give me a straight answer "Yes..detail detail detail" or "No." Instead you turn a standard question into an attack on me. I've seen enough. You lack character and I would advise you to focus on developing your ethics functions. Assuming you are an SLI, it does not appear you know how to use Fi to make judgements.
Pookie it was not not a meaningless argument. I saw that Crystal has poor character and now I know to not trust her opinions. NeFi
2. You have derailed this thread completely = you are a troll, and disrespectful towards OP.
3. Your logic and arguments make no sense at all.
4. You dont know "how" or "when" to stop. Thats hardly Ne and Fi.
Last edited by Tommy; 03-14-2018 at 04:02 AM.
2. Then, I didnt confronted you more than with reality and your own faulty logic. You were the one quoting me and pushing over and over, pretending to be always right and thinking that your pov is the only one, being disrespectful towards personal views and life experiences of older ppl.
3.Your posts doesnt have any logic, they are all derailments, just look at this thread all. You went from cinfusinf love with attraction to justify that "love doesnt exist" (which wasnt the topic of thread), to attacking me in several levels (which wasnt the topic either) to argue about my ethics, to finally push me to answer at you nonsensical off topic questions. Where's the logic?
4. You seem very childish and immature.
5. I dont have any interpersonal relationship problems at all. Just because you and I dont have a common ground or understanding doesnt mean that its the same with all my relations. Plus, I do talk with other ppl normally besides you (and not just in forums, lol). Again, just more baseless personal accusations off topic.
Finally, fine, and I really hope you dont decide to show up again in a week or so.
You stopping talking is what I've been waiting all this time since you started this meaningless and totally unrequested conversation.
Last edited by Tommy; 03-14-2018 at 05:04 PM.