Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 65 of 65

Thread: What do ethical functions feel like?

  1. #41
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,886
    Mentioned
    884 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe feels kind of amorphous like bouba. Fi feels more spiky like kiki.



    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I said people's ability to be objective is the same.
    Well, and people's ability to feel is also the same, then.

    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.


    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.
    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.".

    That's all it means.


    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.
    Sure the scientific method imo is the most refined way of being objective. But people had objectivity before that too.


    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.
    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.

    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 12:04 PM.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    It's been shown with science (Google antonio r. damasio emotion decision making). So I guess that means it's objective? People who are injured in the part of the brain that generates emotion have trouble making decisions.
    Using logic and refining or rationalizing is another layer.
    This is why I've gotten annoyed with some logical types. When they think they're skipping that part. It's like convincing yourself u don't poop.
    If you're good at making intelligent decisions or justifying them logically it's still a fantastic skill to have and you should be happy about it, even if they were formed by emotion at first. I won't tell anyone else.
    No, emotion does play a part in decision-making, but the decision is not always formed by emotion at first. You might find that hard to imagine but it's actually the case. Quick example for you from my own life. There was a point once where I decided I had to go on a vacation because I noticed I started getting overworked too much. Which obviously is not a thing I'd want. So... afterwards, I did have emotions at that point, liking the idea of the vacation obviously, was looking forward to reallllly throwing myself into it hard and enjoying it intensely. These emotions were coming up second though. And then, I couldn't decide when I wanted to get the vacation (I can decide this myself because I work by contracts, not as an employee). I do get a mental block when my emotional system is not ready yet to give me anything for a decision when the decision would be easier to do with emotions. It feels like a mental block anyhow. I'm familar with it and then I either don't rush things and just wait for my emotions to come up at their natural pace, or I force it by making myself impatient (this is an emotion too I guess and somehow I do easily have access to this if I really need to get decisive asap so I am overall fine with all this). With the vacation question I chose to wait to get over the mental block because I figured I had time to wait bc I had to sort out some jobs first. Then eventually that question sorted itself out because of how some other things in my life were going. As things were arranged at that point, it was just logical to pick a certain date. Emotions were not involved whatsoever. Unless you count my rationally being aware that I need to pay attention to my own emotional well-being. But thats not the same as actually going by feelings. So some decisions are easier to do by taking emotion into account and some don't require emotion as much, but of course even then indirectly it is important, by having some focus on your emotional well-being.

    So yeah, I guess "logical types"' don't always poop.

    Maybe you'll want to accept that people do really differ in big ways. For you it's prob. hard to imagine this yeah but it's how it works. This isn't simply about skills... anyone can have a high IQ, regardless of being a very "touchy-feely" person or not.

    I also won't tell anyone haha. BTW there is one thing I do agree with: that when people more into the logical objective stuff say they don't have feelings, it's not literally true. I still had feelings in the above example too but not in the way you sounded like you assumed.

    ***

    @Aylen that's funny, to me all the descriptions on feelings I've seen (Fe, Fi, whatever) feel more like Bouba. It's more the logical stuff that feels more Kiki to me. The feely stuff just simply is less defined and less clear/strict and whatever. And btw I always preferred sharp corners and shapes to rounded ones in many things. So I guess there are individual differences. Hm, also the 2015 research (Salgado-Montejo) you referred to, I don't really see them the same way. It's not unpleasant for me to see sharp/jagged stuff by default, instead it's more definite/distinct which I actually do like. Interesting overall
    Last edited by Myst; 08-18-2019 at 12:16 PM.

  4. #44
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,886
    Mentioned
    884 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    ***
    @Aylen that's funny, to me all the descriptions on feelings I've seen (Fe, Fi, whatever) feel more like Bouba. It's more the logical stuff that feels more Kiki to me. The feely stuff just simply is less defined and less clear/strict and whatever. And btw I always preferred sharp corners and shapes to rounded ones in many things. So I guess there are individual differences. Hm, also the 2015 research (Salgado-Montejo) you referred to, I don't really see them the same way. It's not unpleasant for me to see sharp/jagged stuff by default, instead it's more definite/distinct which I actually do like. Interesting overall
    I wasn't being too serious. I had seen the chart and thought of this thread so I posted what came to mind. It's funny because to me Ti, Ni and Si is bouba and Te, Ne and Se is is kiki so Fe and Fi was an exception to the pattern.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  5. #45

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,442
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Well, and people's ability to feel is also the same, then.

    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.
    In a way, yes. But emotions are a sort of programs that have been "hard-coded" into our brain. Some may have more of, less of. Some may be completely lacking in, as in the case of autism or aspergers. It doesn't seem that we can change our level of emotions easily.

    But as for our thoughts, that's more malleable. We can learn new things, and we can think in completely new and different ways. This is why I think rationality acts more as a stopper or restrainer to emotions.

    Basically, I think people have the ability to think about anything. People have the ability to think about total nonsense, fantasies or completely random stuff. It's just that one of the millions of possible ways happens to be what is considered as "objective".

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Sure the scientific method imo is the most refined way of being objective. But people had objectivity before that too.
    Well not really, or not for very long. The scientific way of thinking was a completely new way of thinking.

    If people knew how to be objective, then how did they go on about it? And how do we know that it's objective? We only know that it's objective, because we now have new thoughts and new theories and new "common sense" on what makes something objective or not.

    Basically, before science, what was considered to be objective was "what worked". The bridge or the architecture didn't collapse, so that "worked" and the same design was repeated again and people built the same things. It was a whole heap of constant trial-and-error. But they didn't have a grand theory of the physics of the architecture that made them understand what makes it stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    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.
    It depends on whether my explanation is valid or not. "Objectivity" is not set in stones, it could change, it could be wrong. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, anyone could be wrong. In fact, we're all wrong.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu

    Actually you can learn new social skills, discover new feelings/emotions. Regardless of that too, it's not all that hard-coded, look up the constructivist theory of emotion. Lisa Barrett isn't bad. And the level of emotions can change from one situation to the next too but also can change as the person changes throughout their lives. Though granted, some people will probably always want to focus more on feelings than some other people, there is just variation within that limit.

    Also I find it funny that you see emotions as fixed and thoughts as malleable ... I don't really want to think in completely new and different ways all the time. : P I don't want to think about completely random stuff. That's not even rational anymore, since by rationality I do refer to the predictable and explainable regularities in the world.

    Again objectivity simply means that, or in a simpler way: dealing with inanimate objects and facts while removing personal feelings from the equation. That's not that hard to do, it's a basic skill for anyone for some tasks/situations, but some people do rely on it more than some other people. And then it varies also by situation as to how much you rely on it. You can also learn to do it more, like you can learn new skills for emotional material too.

    And yes, what you said, again, if you go by what works, regardless of how it makes you feel, that's objective. You don't need a grand theory to determine what works. It does take more though than just randomly doing one thing and seeing that it happens to work. The predictable and explainable regularities need to be determined enough to be able to do some things.

    Being wrong doesn't mean you didn't remove personal feelings from calculating the equation. Objectivity doesn't automatically mean holding the Absolute Truth. We can only strive for it lol.

    So yes people always had objectivity a long time ago too. It is your bias with assuming that people could only do trial and error. I imagine you do a lot of trial and error while trying all those new things you spoke of. But some people don't do trial and error as much as that... I personally hate the trial and error approach.

    And yes science is a newer sophistication... how about our new morals about emotional well-being of people at the same time, they are more sophisticated too than a long time ago. Yes I like to think humanity/society is (slowly) improving like that.

  7. #47
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Fe feels kind of amorphous like bouba. Fi feels more spiky like kiki.


    lol, sounds ligit.

    I wonder sometimes if we knew this stuff all along, but science (aka the rational mind) had to come to a exploratory understand of it in order to admit, okay guys its real.

    Example: Nothingness (aka the Black Hole) lies in the center of every Universe. Just as Nothingness lies in the center of every person aka Emptiness.

    A collection of cells interlinked within cells interlinked.

    The Universe is not perfect for Nature, it's the other way around, Nature is perfect for the Universe. Nature reflects, via adapted, to be a reflection of the physical principles of reality.

  8. #48
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    @Singu

    Actually you can learn new social skills, discover new feelings/emotions. Regardless of that too, it's not all that hard-coded, look up the constructivist theory of emotion. Lisa Barrett isn't bad. And the level of emotions can change from one situation to the next too but also can change as the person changes throughout their lives. Though granted, some people will probably always want to focus more on feelings than some other people, there is just variation within that limit.

    Also I find it funny that you see emotions as fixed and thoughts as malleable ... I don't really want to think in completely new and different ways all the time. : P I don't want to think about completely random stuff. That's not even rational anymore, since by rationality I do refer to the predictable and explainable regularities in the world.

    Again objectivity simply means that, or in a simpler way: dealing with inanimate objects and facts while removing personal feelings from the equation. That's not that hard to do, it's a basic skill for anyone for some tasks/situations, but some people do rely on it more than some other people. And then it varies also by situation as to how much you rely on it. You can also learn to do it more, like you can learn new skills for emotional material too.

    And yes, what you said, again, if you go by what works, regardless of how it makes you feel, that's objective. You don't need a grand theory to determine what works. It does take more though than just randomly doing one thing and seeing that it happens to work. The predictable and explainable regularities need to be determined enough to be able to do some things.

    Being wrong doesn't mean you didn't remove personal feelings from calculating the equation. Objectivity doesn't automatically mean holding the Absolute Truth. We can only strive for it lol.

    So yes people always had objectivity a long time ago too. It is your bias with assuming that people could only do trial and error. I imagine you do a lot of trial and error while trying all those new things you spoke of. But some people don't do trial and error as much as that... I personally hate the trial and error approach.

    And yes science is a newer sophistication... how about our new morals about emotional well-being of people at the same time, they are more sophisticated too than a long time ago. Yes I like to think humanity/society is (slowly) improving like that.
    I love it when fourmites are also University students, I pick up so much and they get a chance to share their newly learned knowledge, which helps them solidify their own understanding and remember the concepts by sharing them with laymen.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,442
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Actually you can learn new social skills, discover new feelings/emotions. Regardless of that too, it's not all that hard-coded, look up the constructivist theory of emotion. Lisa Barrett isn't bad. And the level of emotions can change from one situation to the next too but also can change as the person changes throughout their lives. Though granted, some people will probably always want to focus more on feelings than some other people, there is just variation within that limit.
    I doubt that emotions can change very much. It seems to me that people can "access" their emotions but can't "modify" them. Maybe because emotions happen so rapidly and automatically. It's beyond our conscious control. It'd be like trying to control unconscious motor reflexes. Maybe we can try to control or steer our emotions in a certain way using our rationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I don't really want to think in completely new and different ways all the time. : P I don't want to think about completely random stuff. That's not even rational anymore, since by rationality I do refer to the predictable and explainable regularities in the world.
    Your "rationality" could be wrong, which means that the thought was just as random as anything else. You could easily have a thought that has nothing to do with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Again objectivity simply means that, or in a simpler way: dealing with inanimate objects and facts while removing personal feelings from the equation.
    And what exactly is a "fact"? In the end, it's just an appeal to an authority of some kind. Even science doesn't deal with "facts", as it deals with reproducibility and explaining the causal mechanisms of how things work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    And yes, what you said, again, if you go by what works, regardless of how it makes you feel, that's objective. You don't need a grand theory to determine what works. It does take more though than just randomly doing one thing and seeing that it happens to work. The predictable and explainable regularities need to be determined enough to be able to do some things.
    It's not complete objectivity, since "what works" can only see the result. Objectivity also contains things that you can't see, such as laws or causality. All of those things need theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    So yes people always had objectivity a long time ago too. It is your bias with assuming that people could only do trial and error. I imagine you do a lot of trial and error while trying all those new things you spoke of. But some people don't do trial and error as much as that... I personally hate the trial and error approach.
    They had no theory to speak of, so they could only do trial-and-error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    And yes science is a newer sophistication... how about our new morals about emotional well-being of people at the same time, they are more sophisticated too than a long time ago. Yes I like to think humanity/society is (slowly) improving like that.
    Well morals are improving, which means that morals can be objective. Sometimes morals are based on new knowledge about the world, such as scientific knowledge.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finaplex View Post
    I love it when fourmites are also University students, I pick up so much and they get a chance to share their newly learned knowledge, which helps them solidify their own understanding and remember the concepts by sharing them with laymen.
    Are you referring to Singu? I didn't know he was going to university if so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I doubt that emotions can change very much. It seems to me that people can "access" their emotions but can't "modify" them. Maybe because emotions happen so rapidly and automatically. It's beyond our conscious control. It'd be like trying to control unconscious motor reflexes. Maybe we can try to control or steer our emotions in a certain way using our rationality.
    Actually you can modify them. Some people are better at this, some are worse, it's also a skill to improve to some degree.


    Your "rationality" could be wrong, which means that the thought was just as random as anything else. You could easily have a thought that has nothing to do with reality.
    Like I said in my previous post: Being wrong doesn't mean you didn't remove personal feelings from calculating the equation. Objectivity doesn't automatically mean holding the Absolute Truth. We can only strive for it lol.

    You are still not reading me : )

    And btw no, rationality being wrong doesn't mean it's random...


    And what exactly is a "fact"? In the end, it's just an appeal to an authority of some kind. Even science doesn't deal with "facts", as it deals with reproducibility and explaining the causal mechanisms of how things work.
    Science definitely deals with facts in terms of reproducibility.

    Your idiosyncratic interpretations of words that you try to use to justify your arguments is not my problem.


    It's not complete objectivity, since "what works" can only see the result. Objectivity also contains things that you can't see, such as laws or causality. All of those things need theories.
    The bolded is plain wrong.


    They had no theory to speak of, so they could only do trial-and-error.
    Lol... this claim is on the level of your other claim that people creating taxonomies in biology were totally confused and overwhelmed...


    Well morals are improving, which means that morals can be objective. Sometimes morals are based on new knowledge about the world, such as scientific knowledge.
    Sometimes. Sometimes not

  11. #51
    Nairda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Eastern United States
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    It's been shown with science (Google antonio r. damasio emotion decision making). So I guess that means it's objective? People who are injured in the part of the brain that generates emotion have trouble making decisions.
    Using logic and refining or rationalizing is another layer.
    This is why I've gotten annoyed with some logical types. When they think they're skipping that part. It's like convincing yourself u don't poop.
    If you're good at making intelligent decisions or justifying them logically it's still a fantastic skill to have and you should be happy about it, even if they were formed by emotion at first. I won't tell anyone else.
    This is hilarious

  12. #52
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,294
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol accurate Te types description

  13. #53
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,788
    Mentioned
    689 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Speaking of Te types, I mentioned this article here a couple years ago: https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-o...yed-a-man.html

    I have long believed that Fi is the assignment of relative "value" to Te objects.





  14. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Speaking of Te types, I mentioned this article here a couple years ago: https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-o...yed-a-man.html

    I have long believed that Fi is the assignment of relative "value" to Te objects.
    I would think Damasio's research is a better framework for all this than calling it Fi and Te.

    But yeah well no, you want the socionics duality magic added to it?


    BTW the article says "Therein lies the problem of the high-reason view: without the filtering provided by emotions and their somatic markers, the data sets for any given decision — whether it’s what to get for lunch or whom to marry — would be overwhelming. The working memory can only juggle so many objects at once. To make the right call, you need to feel your way — or at least part of your way — there."

    Actually I don't think that for complex decisions you need to only use working memory... you can systematise and that will end up relieving the true short-term working memory from having to hold all the data without familiarisation and organisation making it simpler and quicker to look through it all.

    I also additionally think that somatic markers do not have to be complex refined feelings like some people on here possibly assume ....

    More like, they can be just emotional reactions that you can keep detached from and organise them logically to aid the decision.

    On the simplest level they can even just be binary + and - values. Or perhaps quantified negative vs positive: how desirable vs undesirable the option is.

    The feely people here would find trying to do this outrageous for themselves eh ?

    Jk. And btw there can be more complex feelings too despite only using these simplest ones for some of the impersonal decisions.
    Last edited by Myst; 08-25-2019 at 11:05 PM.

  15. #55
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,294
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    min 14.10

  16. #56
    BabelFish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chile
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Fe feels kind of amorphous like bouba. Fi feels more spiky like kiki.


    I had never made this association, but I must say it's surprisingly accurate.
    Fi is spiky indeed, and not that flexible (well, if it's your first ego function at least.)

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BabelFish View Post
    I had never made this association, but I must say it's surprisingly accurate.
    Fi is spiky indeed, and not that flexible (well, if it's your first ego function at least.)
    Umm the way "Fi" is defined is about attitudes and relations to feely stuff in relationship/people contexts. To me that's pretty flexible and indefinite stuff. It's a lot about adjusting to other people.

    I guess maybe it all feels soft and pliable to me just compared to how I am lol

  18. #58
    YXPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    INFp-Fe-D
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They feel either really good or really really bad.

  19. #59
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,564
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Umm the way "Fi" is defined is about attitudes and relations to feely stuff in relationship/people contexts. To me that's pretty flexible and indefinite stuff. It's a lot about adjusting to other people.

    I guess maybe it all feels soft and pliable to me just compared to how I am lol
    I suppose supposed role tends to take care of things in adaptive way. Like those real life objects have very little meaning to me but I supposedly can show some level of object manipulation to make things clearer [I hope, lol].

    Well IEI's at least my experience show spiky stuff but that is hardly directed to people around them and furthermore I suppose it helps them to avoid bad consequences in the future in terms of relations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    I suppose supposed role tends to take care of things in adaptive way. Like those real life objects have very little meaning to me but I supposedly can show some level of object manipulation to make things clearer [I hope, lol].

    Well IEI's at least my experience show spiky stuff but that is hardly directed to people around them and furthermore I suppose it helps them to avoid bad consequences in the future in terms of relations.
    I'm not following how you got to this from my post but nvm too much Socionics mumbo-jumbo for me : p By this point my brain has pretty much locked itself out of most of that...

  21. #61
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,564
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I'm not following how you got to this from my post but nvm too much Socionics mumbo-jumbo for me : p By this point my brain has pretty much locked itself out of most of that...
    Role: I do this for the sake of it. Underlying core is unimportant because for Fi in reality it is really divisive and stuff ie. you are not holding every relations with equal importance.

    Probably the reason why there are so many successful LSI lawyers.
    Last edited by Heretic 007; 09-08-2019 at 05:17 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  22. #62

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    503 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    Role: I do this for the sake of it. Underlying core is unimportant because for Fi in reality it is really divisive and stuff ie. you are not holding every relations with equal importance.

    Probably the reason why there are so many successful LSI lawyers.
    Thanks for trying to flesh it out

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    514
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like Fi feels like liquid in the heart, and tense heart and stomach flexes. I feel like Fe feels like a fast moving jolt of energy that rises and slowly comes down.

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    514
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    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.
    Are you kidding? Fi just doesn't want to be around people it doesn't agree with. Does the mean it wants to destroy them? No. It means my Fi is different from yours, so you stay over there with your Fi and I'll stay over here and then we can agree not to mess with and respect each other's Fi space. My Fi just wants the respect to exist even if in disharmony with other's Fi.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    514
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    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.
    Yes I completely agree with this.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •