From the user's experience, what are and like? Sorry if this is such a stupid question.
From the user's experience, what are and like? Sorry if this is such a stupid question.
Take this all with a grain of salt:
is about your personal ethics that have almost nothing to do with the outside world, but your own deep rooted unique morals developed from within that you will valiantly and stubbornly defend because of moral reasons rather than logical reasons.
is about understanding the emotional minefield and unwritten rules social environments have and learning how to navigate around them successfully. It is also about understanding the general mood and beliefs that specific social environments consist of.
So in my case I try to use my demonstrative 4D to express my creative 3D ideas that may possibly conflict with other people's and/or values due to being developed internally rather than externally IMO.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
According to my brick wall hitting frequency, I'm becoming quite sure that group bears a moral (aristocratic could say: I'm a male and I sell propane...) as well. Which is like the weirdest thing for democratic Fi PoLR member. As in outside of society's norm I tend to find this Fi stuff much clearer.
When in Rome...
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
Fe is like the raw feelings of loving or hating a person, and then defining it with Ti categories as you can't really have Fe without Ti. Fe is deceptively 'like Fi' in this sense. Fe isn't about smiling in a fake corny way or being too gay/nice with feelings. It is way, way deeper than that.
Fi is more about realistically how relationships work in a business sense, as you can't have Fi without Te so its kinda like 'is this going to work mechnically/technically or not.' Fi also naturally keeps itself very distant from those it doesn't want to connect with. And seeks more to destroy/punish what it is repulsed by. Fe is like 'let's fight each other.' Fi is like 'I will destroy your life because you're not as morally good as me.'
if I'm making Fi sound like its the bigger asshole, that's because it is. (But being an asshole helps keep your values safe.) Any Fi valuer should just readily admit this already. Fi just seeks out to destroy what it can't bond with, that is the nature of it and also cut-throat capitalist Te competition. =D Fe works more on pretty ribbon categories and clear cut definitions.
Fe wants to win too of course, but it will keep you alive and around longer for the entertainment (Fe) and categorical purposes (Ti). It also will do so by shitting on the Fi values of course, hence huge quadra conflict.
If I meet someone who repels me in some way, usually character wise, sometimes I will want to punish them especially if I think they wrong others - usually though, I'll just try to distance myself from the person.
Dat Β aristocracy.Originally Posted by Aramas
As a goatherd learns his trade by goat, so a writer learns his trade by wrote.
This prolly isn't relevant to you since you type me logical but it's a cool idea for a thread that should have more responses (:
Fi: A relatable example is when you look at a painting and develop a feeling either in favor of it or against it. You could do it immediately, viscerally and primitively. Or you could take into account how much work went into it or how creative it is and stuff like that, which might take time and research. But in the end, do you like it or hate it? Having it as a base function is like having that emotionally based discernment with respect to everything (and everyone! that's what gets the focus, even if it could be towards ideas, which is kinda important.) And being constantly aware of that and tending to act based upon it.
Fe: Jeez, I dunno, and it's been one way that I've thought you have a point, you know, that it's 1D for me or something. But I think i feel it in terms of being attuned to this emotional energy and being able to tap into it (or deflate it, lol). (Sometimes, depending on the people around me and how close they are, fi blah blah.) There's a vibe, you know, everywhere, all the time, a flavor, and you might wanna make it taste like mango, if that's your thing, or like dill pickles if you think the situation calls for it (it might. Gross.). Im sure you taste it too, even if Fe is a weak element so it's just kinda out there like sun or rain. (Sometimes its like that for me.)
If you're talking about what "feelings" feel like in general, then I almost always know what I'm feeling, and I always know what other people are feeling. All I can say is that I don't know why, and I assumed that everybody was like that too.
I often visually imagine emotional states in others, like being angry or being happy. I often imagine what people will feel if I do this or if I say that.
Of course, it's too simplistic to say that you're only this way or that. Of course there are moments where I would think "Well I should say this no matter what, because it is true" or something like that. Or if I'm angry, then my anger tend to override any consideration for others'. I think that's fairly universal for most people.
The fact is that people are constantly making choices, and people are not only this way or that. This makes people fundamentally unpredictable.
And sure much of that is supposed to go in line with socionics blah blah blah... "low unconscious Fe", standard "2D Fi role" and whatever lol. But eventually that just doesn't explain enough for me.
Emotional bias is inherent in decision-making eventually. The role of objective logic imo is just to have an untainted process for calculation when that's needed, to maximise efficiency/logistics/optimisation/accuracy/preciseness of things/conclusions. The stronger your inclination is for such objectivity, the more refined and untainted the process will be but emotional bias will eventually be required to interface that process with actual life/the world. Think of a (computer's) command line waiting for input. Without that input (emotion) it will not produce anything.
Also it's not true that everyone just has a feeling first. I personally do not necessarily have a feeling reaction originally. I have to collect data, details, organise them based on unemotional criteria, and if this is for a decision then I can also eliminate options based on purely unemotional logic, and yes so far all this is just "maths" calculations, and then at one point if I can't eliminate anymore options logically, or enough time passed so that I can finally have some emotional reactions too where I originally did not, and then I classified and organised those reactions enough too, then at that point I can get impatient (emotion!), and then I'll be able to quickly decide the final choice based on all the rational calculations up until then plus the organised emotional reactions. Happens quickly because I already see a system so I can "look through" it fast and also because that impatient emotion makes me more in touch with real desires and simplifies the process of decision-making further by my being able to organise the emotions even better (since they get more visible). So yeah... both play a role.
But originally I do not often have a feeling/emotional reaction. I look at stuff as a more "two-dimensional", not colourful (not emotional) thing/"picture". It's detached, and it'd feel really clinical to you I think.
Another area besides the decision-making about choices... would be say, in an argument I'm told facts that may feel uncomfortable. But if they are presented as direct objective facts, I can't ignore them, I just can't, I often don't actually feel uncomfortable even. If during an argument or while doing some task or just in general I previously had emotional investment a bit in some view I've always had before, even if simply because it all seemed so neat and working well logically - yes that on its own can create investment, a feeling of liking the reasoning - then the new fact could feel uncomfortable even if only due to my having to do more work to integrate it or due to cognitive dissonance, but I just easily step past that, bc I guess it's not a strong feeling. I do feel good that way overall though because objectivity does tend to be rewarding to me. So in this type of situation... emotion barely plays a direct role in my accepting a fact or not. You could claim that my valuing of objectivity leads to a good feeling and that determines it but not really. It's more like I just have to accept the objective data. I have no choice, no matter how I feel about it. It eventually is rewarding so that is where emotion may still play a role but it is not a direct role.
And here's a difference I observed with different people. You said in another thread that you don't believe people differ in degree of objectivity. I really strongly disagree on that. I've observed that with some people in an argument I'm more easily able to pass objective facts to them even if they got emotional. They'll calm down at that point and try to process the new fact. Then with some other people, they are just incapable of doing so. You can't claim that this does not lead to a difference in degree of objectivity/logical rationality between these people.
Damasio's famous patient did get very out of touch with emotions as the social emotion processing areas in both of his prefrontal lobes were destroyed. He was like that computer command line receiving too random inputs for picking up which calculations to perform.
Btw you can see very logical-detached people stalling on decisions actually. Part of some psychiatric disorder stuff is pretty much overdone logic, with connection lost to feelings.
EDIT: I looked at the article you linked. I lol'd at the last lines: "But in general, if you can get the other party to reveal their problems, pain, and unmet objectives, then you can build a vision for them of their problem, with you and your proposal as the solution. They won’t make their decision because it is logical. They’ll make their decision because you have helped them feel that it’s to their advantage to do so."
No one's gonna help me *feel* that it's to my advantage to do a decision I decide that myself, thank-you. It's gonna have to make logical sense and gonna have to be in my *actual* interest, good luck giving me emotional visions about your proposal, random stranger.
Last edited by Myst; 08-17-2019 at 10:22 PM.
How to be objective in a scientific way is a relatively new concept that was only introduced after the Enlightenment. And that has to do with the new philosophies that people came up with, or the way they think about things. I'm sure that people were very un-objective thousands of years ago, or during pre-historic eras, as they believed in myths and superstitions. Yet our brains then and now are still practically the same. Basically, we know how to be objective because we go to school and we get educated and we have a whole culture and social context on how to be objective and what makes something objective.
People don't really have an inherent way of being objective, especially as Socionics claims. You can't say that one is a Te type, therefore he is automatically objective. Because that doesn't explain how he's being objective. Besides objectivity is made by an argument, not who's making the argument.
Obviously though, both statements are incorrect.
Even though both emotion and objectivity are indispensable parts of life, it doesn't follow that everyone does or can do any of these to the same degree.
No need to overcomplicate this. Google dictionary says "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.".Some people may be very un-objective, but that has to do with the way they think about things. And we don't *truly* know what makes something *truly* objective, as people make new arguments about what is considered to be objective or not, and they move onto that if that's a better way to be objective.
That's all it means.
Sure the scientific method imo is the most refined way of being objective. But people had objectivity before that too.How to be objective in a scientific way is a relatively new concept that was only introduced after the Enlightenment. And that has to do with the new philosophies that people came up with, or the way they think about things. I'm sure that people were very un-objective thousands of years ago, or during pre-historic eras, as they believed in myths and superstitions. Yet our brains then and now are still practically the same. Basically, we know how to be objective because we go to school and we get educated and we have a whole culture and social context on how to be objective and what makes something objective.
When you thought @Adam Strange 's way of looking at wife material was distasteful, that was him being objective with feelings being controlled by it / feelings not being as determining as objectivity. Even though yes feelings are still there and are very important.People don't really have an inherent way of being objective, especially as Socionics claims. You can't say that one is a Te type, therefore he is automatically objective. Because that doesn't explain how he's being objective. Besides objectivity is made by an argument, not who's making the argument.
No, not everyone can or even wants to be objective to that degree, sounds like you don't either.
And. Not to get me wrong. I did not use Adam as some "bad example". I am actually more like him (I just use different "ideologies" for my logic, but I am like him otherwise a lot.) I used Adam as the example because you already showed in that thread that you do not do objectivity to that degree, you instantly cut in with feelings of "it's distasteful".
PS: And note how I used a disclaimer that I did not use Adam as a bad example. I wanted to avoid feely connotations mucking up things here. See, that is where some people are more feely and will have more of such connotations and see, that is where some people will just have fewer of them. Even though even "more objectively logical people" can have them sometimes. And what would replace the focus on such connotations if not the factual viewpoint? If you are unable to see this, then let's just not continue this "discussion".
Last edited by Myst; 08-18-2019 at 01:04 PM.
< it's when I feel myself, I feel happy, I laugh. I feel with all my heart. ... Though, I see that same thing in my LSE dad everyday, so idk lol
Fi: filtering the world through your inner feelings, supported by one's personal previous experiences in case of Se (ESI) or by one's ideas of possibilities in case of Ne (EII). reason why ESI are called traditionalists and EII humanitarians. goal of Fi is infusing the objective world of Te with passion.
Fe: communicating with the world through feelings, in case of Si (ESE) the focus is on the objective sensorial world, in case of Ni (EIE) the focus is on the abstract world of hidden meanings. the goal of Fe is to bring to light the Ti understanding of the world.
F types have more emotions in the consciousness.
They more decide by emotional reasons. For example, to choose a product which they emotionally liked more instead by better specs.
They also tend to adopt thoughts to emotions in more degree, - are more selective on what they think and facts they notice to fit to emotions they've got before.
It's not possible to make any decisions without a feeling. It's likely that a feeling is a condensation or a summarization of data. Since the information available in the world is infinite, you'd have to condense at some point if you ever want to decide and take an action.
You know, there's someone who had a brain damage and lost all emotions, and he couldn't even make the simplest of decisions.
Decisions are largely emotional, not logical: the neuroscience behind decision-making
At the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
So apparently, a very "logical" person can't make a decision. You don't see "T types" stalling and never being able to decide on things.A few years ago, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides—shall I have the chicken or the turkey? With no rational way to decide, these test subjects were unable to arrive at a decision.
Personally I doubt that people are capable of doing purely logical decisions. For such decisions you need complete detachment, but that is incompatible or even contradicts the needs of own existence and possibly of other people, in most cases, taken to extremes.
Living creatures can't behave entirely logical, in my opinion.
Last edited by WinnieW; 07-13-2019 at 03:25 PM.
There's always emotions in our decision, but not always the first.
I feel base Fi people with warmness and light.
"like magnets attracting" - is an interest. conflictors catch an attention by the interest the most, for example
Another arguments against your Fi type.
Ethical is an unfortunate labelling of observations of relative rationalization so shouldn't "feel" like anything; all types feel and can behave ethically. Relative rationalization compares A with B to determine the higher value, which implies needing a value system that has been developed through upbringing, education and experience. Values can change which means that outcomes from this type of rationalization also change. Making decisions based on relative values is very subjective - different from T-rationalization which deals in absolutes, meaning A plus B equals C; for T-types to get a different answer, direct input has to change because rationalization is absolute - but absolute doesn't imply that outcomes are any more correct......
Or is it?
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
Starti about IEE's Fi
Strati's SEE FiThe IEE is endowed with the ability to "find a master key" to any person and to each soul - even the most distant, closed off, and mysterious one. To accomplish this, the IEE is in possession of a mass of means and methods:
- The ability to boisterously and openly admire an interesting to him person and become charmed by him or her. To learn everything about their habits, preferences, interests, likes and dislikes, and with readiness adapt and mimic their style of living.
- The ability to agree with the opinion of the majority (and "seniority"). Ability to adapt his views to changing circumstances, influences, and movements.
- The ability to see the degree of self-confidence of lack of thereof in each person - a quality that allows the IEE to manipulate people very well, to play on their own ambitions, desires, flaws, and complexes.
- The ability to offer his help and his services, or to impose them: to make a person interested in IEE's possibilities, influence, and connections. (Even though the IEE won't allow anyone close to his valued connections - he is very much apprehensive that someone else may intercept a good opportunity or a chance he could have used himself, i.e. his own winning ticket.)
Eh, looks like SEE has a globalist Fi while IEE has a localist Fi. Or something along those lines.Despite having relatively strong ethical orientation, despite the fact that "ethics of relations" is SEE's strong creative function, it cannot be said so that SEE's ethical relations develop easily and smoothly. To SEE generally nothing comes easily, because he always and everywhere has to conquer. SEE's problem is that he frequently conquers that which no one else has claimed or disputed. Moreover, he has a habit of conquering that which already rightfully belongs to him.
It seems: what prevents the SEE from simply and naturally receiving his natural attractiveness, charm, ease and freedom in making contact? But in this lies the problem - a constant and general acknowledgement of these qualities is needed to the SEE. Additionally, he needs proof that his superiority has been acknowledged, proof of his unquestionable influence. It is precisely in pursuit of these proofs that the SEE tends to lose all of his "majestic" qualities. Sometimes an impression arises that he is asking for compliments, either by force or by inappropriately "pulling" attention to himself, becoming too engrossed in self-love.
In short it looks like adapting to wishes of a target when it is creative.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
Then explain to me how I'm wrong then. Otherwise I'm gonna think I'm actually very right and you are just pissy that I see through Fi's bullshit.
Anyway, how functions make somebody feel/how they interpret it is of course going to be subjective depending on if you value it or not, so even if you give a good answer I'm still going to be like 'yeah but that's how Fe valuers interpret Fi.' I don't think a 'non-biased' answer can really exist but it wouldn't hurt to try.
It's not empathy but it does feel like a sort of extra carefulness about how something I say or do *might* affect how someone feels, and a lot of paranoia around it too. On the other hand I feel better at triangulating who ppl are, what kinds of opinions they would have about things, how generally emotionally stressed they may be ... etc. Maybe I feel more confident about reasoning around someone's character traits than something more detached (like a system or a process), although it's not like I feel I know some magical truth. I think w weak IMs you feel like someone is taking a lot of liberties in analysis, whereas with strong ones it's like this information just exists and you're sifting thru it.
Fi: melancholy (which I can enjoy, but can be too sad)
Fe: merriment (which I like)
F functions feel like just knowing, without facts, without arguments. It's subjective certainty. This is good, this is what I want etc.
In a social setting it makes the person seem more involved with his heart. So it can help you connect with others.
They say "Facts don't care about feelings". But one should also remember that "Feeling doesn't care about facts".
I dislike the emphasis on emotions and being merry for Fe. Even if it has a point, that's not really what a developed use of Fe looks like.
...and when you feel something the origin more likely from a perception function, not from a judgement function.
In reality it's like you feel someting (perception) and then you take up your position to that perception (judgement).
Gulenko defines Ne as searching answers without logic. Where the brain is doing fuzzy synthesis of emerging images.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
I came across a quote by Henry Miller about how the definition of a true artist is someone who has antenna plugged into the overall emotional current (paraphrasing) which I thought was interesting cuz it's like my perception of fe.
Fe is adaptation to the social needs of your surroundings, especially in the domain of knowing how to express emotion in a way favorable to others.
Fi is knowing how you feel about others and knowing how others feel about you, and acting accordingly. It's understanding, respecting and trying to shift the boundaries of relationships.
I would guess that "Fe" has more focus on being liked, therefore they're more likely to adapt themselves to others. But this must also mean having more ability to grasp and understand the feelings of others, because in order to know what they like, they must understand their needs and feelings.
I don't think there's much difference between Fi and Fe.
It's dynamics of objects (Fe) vs statics of fields (Fi).
If the feelings are supposedly different, then what are they? Or how are they different? These are just observational outward behaviors of people, but it doesn't go into the inner-mechanisms of those feelings.
Fi can feel like intimacy or love, or conversely repulsion, disgust, resentment.
Fe feels like radiating some kind of energy into the world ("like the sun" is a good description) or giving a performance. It feels brighter or more overtly positive but can also be angry and indignant. It means selecting your words in such a way as to produce an intended effect.