# Thread: Evaluating Fe dimensionality. 2D or 3D?

1. ## Evaluating Fe dimensionality. 2D or 3D?

I was reading this article on Dimensionality, and I came across the section on Normative perceptions on Fe. Literally the first bullet: "You can not have fun at a funeral."
Which is basically the same example I gave in my questionnaire: "Inappropriate: laughing at a funeral, laughing excessively at work, screaming at coworker"
Also, another example from the article "You can not laugh out loud in public places." maps to my example, "laughing excessively at work"

So this suggests my Fe is at least 2D.

But tbh, I think my Fe is variant with respect to situations, so at least 3D.

The reasoning is that there are second-order Fe norms determining which first-order Fe norms are to be applied in which situations.

Examples:
- First-order norm is "You cannot scream at your coworker." But the second-order norm adds context: "Unless your coworker is in danger and you're warning them!"
- First-order norm is "You cannot cry at work." But the second-order norm adds context: "Unless it's your retirement party!"

These second-order Fe norms allow for context-dependence, i.e. situational flexibility, in Fe. I'm very aware of these second-order norms, as you can see. Thus, my Fe is at least 3D. (Realistically, I don't think it can be 4D, though, because I only ever apply it situationally.)

I create my own Fe norms, too. For instance, I wouldn't apply the norm "You cannot have fun at a funeral" so flatly. What if the deceased had expressed desires/left instructions for an unconventional funeral in which attendees were expected to celebrate and not mourn?

Originally Posted by article
This decision is often based on the personality and requests of the deceased, but not always. Some people want their friends and family to turn their passing into a party. [...] When you attend a celebration of someone's life, you should expect to experience a joyful event. As the name implies, you're there to celebrate rather than mourn. This is often at the request of the deceased before he or she died. [...] The event may appear to be more of a party than something commemorating the person's death.
The 2D Fe norm remains "You cannot have fun at a funeral". But I would confidently reject this norm in favor of a situational judgment based on the principle of informed consent: the deceased gave informed consent to -- in fact, specifically requested -- this unconventional funeral, and in accordance with this principle, I would comply with their wishes instead of imposing the 2D norm.

Thus, my Fe is at least 3D.

Refinement in Fe

I also have more refined classifications/subclassifications of situations than normative Fe does.

Using the above examples, normative Fe would create two broad classifications of situations: funeral, workplace.

But I can create whole hierarchies of classifications of situations within these two broad classifications. Each of these situations corresponds to subtly different behavior, and I can tell this, which indicates my Fe is above the 2D normative level.

Examples. These are only simple examples. I can get a lot more refined with these classifications and there are obviously a lot more possible branches. Just examples.

Code:
```- funeral
- of relative
- immediate family member
- extended family member
- of friend
- casual friend
- serious friend
- serious friend I have known for a long time
- serious friend I didn't know for that long
- of acquaintence
- of coworker
- coworker I worked with a long time or worked a lot with
- coworker I did not work with that much
- coworker I barely knew
- other acquaintence

- workplace (only considering workplace through lens of Fe situations)
- pre-hire
- interview
- first interview
- subsequent interviews
- post-hire
- meeting
- with boss
- with senior management
- with peer
- with other departments
- with customer
- with others
- lunch
- formal business lunch
- with internal personnel
- with personnel outside organization
- normal lunch
- with peers/teammates
- with others```

2. What the fuck did you just paste lol. Yes you might be Fe creative or something like that. However, a bulleted list about human interaction does scream logical type.

Also, Fi polrs are the kind of people who laugh at funerals, like in that Barenaked Ladies, One Week song. I think that song is a pretty good example of normative Fe or at least Fi polr.

3. Originally Posted by sbbds
Also, Fi polrs are the kind of people who laugh at funerals, like in that Barenaked Ladies, One Week song. I think that song is a pretty good example of normative Fe or at least Fi polr.
Fi PoLRs have normative Fe. According to the article, normative Fe types know not to laugh at funerals.

I pasted it in a code box because otherwise it messes up the indents lol and the indents are needed to show the hierarchical structure

4. How do you feel about the Normative Fi list, @redundantoxymoron ? Here I’ll do a review on the Fi Normative list for you to see. Feeling like you make your own norms that seem to work for you doesn’t necessarily mean you have higher than normative dimensionality with the IE, just that you are less likely to have normative Fe. It could also be lower. Also, I would not pinpoint this one tiny aspect with Gulenko’s opinions and redetermine your type over it.

Normative perceptions on Fi

“–You have to be polite.
–Must follow the rules of etiquette.
–You have to be nice to people.” -> NO
–Support the perception by others of himself as a good, decent man. ->Never occurred to me
–"I do not have a hundred rubles, and a hundred friends."
-> Ok Putin
–A true friend is always around to help.
-> Hmm maybe
–"A friend in need is known."
-> ?!
–"An old friend is better than two new ones."
-> Yeah maybe
–Do not use foul language in public places, with children and women.
-> I avoid it around children
–Return good for good.
-> If you want to
–Not to change their promises.
-> Sure, with people you like
–Respect their parents and elders.
-> To an extent
–Respect the religious and personal feelings.
-> No
–Courtesy call / response invitation if I was invited to visit, then I also have to invite. If I had guests and I was invited back - impolite to refuse.
-> I’m not completely sure what this shitty translation means but it seems nowhere near hard fast rules.
–Between friends, no bills.
-> Normal for small things but not for big ones
–Talk shit behind my back - badly.
-> LOL I can’t believe “talk shit” is in a socionics article. All types talk shit, especially Fe leads IME who feel the least bad about it. @redundantoxymoron
–Climb into the personal life or feelings - bad.
-> Yeah I dislike this as well.
–Between family members should be a good relationship.
-> Ok boomer
–The mother must love children.
-> Well I sure hope so but it’s not always the case sadly
–Grandchildren love more children.
-> ??
–A woman should not be rude.
-> Oops, threw that one out a long time ago. Social rules shouldn’t be sexist. See I am creating my own norms @redundantoxymoron .
–"Do not wash dirty linen in public."
-> If possible, but in wide open spaces you could get away with arguing a bit
–Need to provide emotional support to loved ones.
-> Yes
–You can not make fun of physical defects.
-> Yes that’s mean
–A woman may be late for a date.
-> No lol that’s sexist

5. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
Fi PoLRs have normative Fe. According to the article, normative Fe types know not to laugh at funerals.
Yeah, I have eyes and can read. My point obviously was that it is bullshit. That list is based off of outdated observations of Russian / Slavic society, and may not even pertain to anybody’s reality now.

I pasted it in a code box because otherwise it messes up the indents lol and the indents are needed to show the hierarchical structure
Wow, how high-D Fe and low-D Ti of you.

6. Funerals are an emotional shitfest... If someone laughs, and you aren't able to tell that it's a "I'm freaked out from all these emotions" laugh and not a "I'm totally laughing at this dead person and people's suffering" laugh, that may suggest lower Fe than 3D.

7. I got a notification I was mentioned here but now I cannot find it.

I may need some more time for this to settle later but here is what I think is at the core of normative Fe: a near inability for the individual themselves to know the morality/their personal preference behind not laughing at a funeral, and so substituting the generally agreed upon external social rule that one does not laugh at a funeral (which is why Fe is dynamic - as the situation changes, let’s say, we are in another country where you do laugh at a funeral, then it “makes sense” that one would then change to this agreed upon externally based Feeling rather than their own belief or own personal experience about what is right or wrong to do at a funeral).

So in the end - do you understand what it means to personally feel why one should not laugh at a funeral?

8. Originally Posted by remiges
I got a notification I was mentioned here but now I cannot find it.

I may need some more time for this to settle later but here is what I think is at the core of normative Fe: a near inability for the individual themselves to know the morality/their personal preference behind not laughing at a funeral, and so substituting the generally agreed upon external social rule that one does not laugh at a funeral (which is why Fe is dynamic - as the situation changes, let’s say, we are in another country where you do laugh at a funeral, then it “makes sense” that one would then change to this agreed upon externally based Feeling rather than their own belief or own personal experience about what is right or wrong to do at a funeral).

So in the end - do you understand what it means to personally feel why one should not laugh at a funeral?
I guess your underlying point here is that everyone with exactly 2D normative Fe, also has 1D Fi.

I don't have a personal preference about laughing or not laughing at funerals. I wouldn't say I don't know about my preference -- I just don't have one.

But as mentioned in OP, if deceased wanted to have a unconventional funeral party instead of a traditional funeral, I would confidently reject the norm of not laughing at a funeral, in favor of a situational judgment based on the principle of informed consent: the deceased gave informed consent to -- in fact, specifically requested -- this unconventional funeral, and in accordance with this principle, I would comply with their wishes instead of imposing the 2D norm.

So, while I don't have a personal preference, I am still able to make a situational judgment in Fe matters.

9. Originally Posted by voider
Funerals are an emotional shitfest... If someone laughs, and you aren't able to tell that it's a "I'm freaked out from all these emotions" laugh and not a "I'm totally laughing at this dead person and people's suffering" laugh, that may suggest lower Fe than 3D.
I could definitely tell the difference.

I'm also aware that (a) not everyone is neurotypical (b) people react to sadness differently/ cope differently. Some people laugh because that's their coping mechanism. I've seen it in person too.

10. Originally Posted by sbbds
Yeah, I have eyes and can read. My point obviously was that it is bullshit. That list is based off of outdated observations of Russian / Slavic society, and may not even pertain to anybody’s reality now.

Wow, how high-D Fe and low-D Ti of you.
OK.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic, but you did write in the other thread that:

Originally Posted by sbbds
This is seriously so 1D Se and Te. Things that are true about the world are not just a function (in the non-Socionics sense too) of people’s minds. It’s more the other way around. Your mind perceives reality, but logic itself alone does not alter reality.
If this is not sarcastic, how do you reconcile 1D Te with HD Ti then?

If I have 1D Te, then I can have at most 2D Ti.

11. Originally Posted by sbbds
How do you feel about the Normative Fi list, @redundantoxymoron ? Here I’ll do a review on the Fi Normative list for you to see. Feeling like you make your own norms that seem to work for you doesn’t necessarily mean you have higher than normative dimensionality with the IE, just that you are less likely to have normative Fe. It could also be lower. Also, I would not pinpoint this one tiny aspect with Gulenko’s opinions and redetermine your type over it.
Thanks.

It would be lower if I was not able to point out the norms. In OP, I was able to explain the norms and then transcend them with my own norms. So, in this context, it is higher dimensionality.

Meanwhile, in your example below where you created your own norm, you didn't first supply the 2D norm; you just copied it from a list. I specified the 2D norm on my own in my questionnaire.

I agree with your last sentence, but I'm not redetermining my type -- this is my first ever typing.

Normative perceptions on Fi

“–You have to be polite.
–Must follow the rules of etiquette.
–You have to be nice to people.” -> NO
–Support the perception by others of himself as a good, decent man. ->Never occurred to me
–"I do not have a hundred rubles, and a hundred friends."
-> Ok Putin
–A true friend is always around to help.
-> Hmm maybe
–"A friend in need is known."
-> ?!
–"An old friend is better than two new ones."
-> Yeah maybe
–Do not use foul language in public places, with children and women.
-> I avoid it around children
–Return good for good.
-> If you want to
–Not to change their promises.
-> Sure, with people you like
–Respect their parents and elders.
-> To an extent
–Respect the religious and personal feelings.
-> No
–Courtesy call / response invitation if I was invited to visit, then I also have to invite. If I had guests and I was invited back - impolite to refuse.
-> I’m not completely sure what this shitty translation means but it seems nowhere near hard fast rules.
–Between friends, no bills.
-> Normal for small things but not for big ones
–Talk shit behind my back - badly.
-> LOL I can’t believe “talk shit” is in a socionics article. All types talk shit, especially Fe leads IME who feel the least bad about it. @redundantoxymoron
–Climb into the personal life or feelings - bad.
-> Yeah I dislike this as well.
–Between family members should be a good relationship.
-> Ok boomer
–The mother must love children.
-> Well I sure hope so but it’s not always the case sadly
–Grandchildren love more children.
-> ??
–A woman should not be rude.
-> Oops, threw that one out a long time ago. Social rules shouldn’t be sexist. See I am creating my own norms @redundantoxymoron .
–"Do not wash dirty linen in public."
-> If possible, but in wide open spaces you could get away with arguing a bit
–Need to provide emotional support to loved ones.
-> Yes
–You can not make fun of physical defects.
-> Yes that’s mean
–A woman may be late for a date.
-> No lol that’s sexist
I disagree with a lot of items on this list for cultural reasons as you've already pointed out, but overall, I think I'm quite well versed in things like this and think of them as "common sense".

12. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
OK.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic, but you did write in the other thread that:

If this is not sarcastic, how do you reconcile 1D Te with HD Ti then?

If I have 1D Te, then I can have at most 2D Ti.
I’m reacting to your posts individually as I’m getting to know you more, obviously. I don’t really give a shit about you or have the time to study all of your posts to give you one final sage typing, sorry. You are not that special.

13. Anyway if you really are an ethical type, then riddle me this: Why are you such a chode on here?

14. Wait a minute... are you Singu?

15. No your English is too good and you’re much less charming.

16. Originally Posted by remiges
I got a notification I was mentioned here but now I cannot find it.

I may need some more time for this to settle later but here is what I think is at the core of normative Fe: a near inability for the individual themselves to know the morality/their personal preference behind not laughing at a funeral, and so substituting the generally agreed upon external social rule that one does not laugh at a funeral (which is why Fe is dynamic - as the situation changes, let’s say, we are in another country where you do laugh at a funeral, then it “makes sense” that one would then change to this agreed upon externally based Feeling rather than their own belief or own personal experience about what is right or wrong to do at a funeral).

So in the end - do you understand what it means to personally feel why one should not laugh at a funeral?

1D functions are based on experience. I can imagine how it personally feels for why, but I have experienced funerals before. Before that, I’m not sure if I would have been able to understand or imagine it. I think that theoretically it’d possibly be okay in some scenarios though, like if you were their spouse or child or something, or if the dead would have preferred a happier atmosphere.

17. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
I guess your underlying point here is that everyone with exactly 2D normative Fe, also has 1D Fi.

But as mentioned in OP, if deceased wanted to have a unconventional funeral party instead of a traditional funeral, I would confidently reject the norm of not laughing at a funeral, in favor of a situational judgment based on the principle of informed consent: the deceased gave informed consent to -- in fact, specifically requested -- this unconventional funeral, and in accordance with this principle, I would comply with their wishes instead of imposing the 2D norm.
Well, yes, that is what it ‘literally’ says. I was trying to guide you to see what I was seeing... which would be that an SEI - when asked about a funeral - would have actually talked about a funeral that they went to, how it made them feel, how it affected them physically, and how they reached out to others using emotional expression, rather than just conjure up a hypothetical funeral. Also, you have actually had experience with people over identifying with HA - in fact, it’s a pretty well described phenomenon as far as I can tell. Any reason you would not see yourself susceptible to the same?

But anyway, fun discussion, thanks for the learning opportunity.
@sbbds: Yeah, 1d is indeed based on experience. I know personally I have a hard time relating to people’s inner states unless I actually have had the experience, and even then, it takes some time for it to come to the surface. If someone laughed at a funeral of my loved one, while I would be able to use the general group consensus (ie, Fe - it is an agreed upon social rule that one does not laugh at funerals, so perhaps if they are laughing it reveals their inner state that they do not care about me), I cannot see the action as actually offensive to me personally unless I backtrack from this social rule... the point being I still did not feel it for myself.

18. Originally Posted by remiges
Well, yes, that is what it ‘literally’ says. I was trying to guide you to see what I was seeing... which would be that an SEI - when asked about a funeral - would have actually talked about a funeral that they went to, how it made them feel, how it affected them physically, and how they reached out to others using emotional expression, rather than just conjure up a hypothetical funeral.
But I don't remember any of that from the funeral I was last at. It's all a blur. I'm sure you can understand.

Also, you have actually had experience with people over identifying with HA - in fact, it’s a pretty well described phenomenon as far as I can tell. Any reason you would not see yourself susceptible to the same?
Exactly, it's common, and I believe I overidentified with my Ti HA (or, more likely, role) which led me to consider LII and other Ti ego types, and it's also why my questionnaire appears to show strong Ti/Te - all because of overidentification with HA. It's actually amazing how much overidentification can cause a function to appear strengthened.

19. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
Exactly, it's common, and I believe I overidentified with my Ti HA (or, more likely, role) which led me to consider LII and other Ti ego types, and it's also why my questionnaire appears to show strong Ti/Te - all because of overidentification with HA. It's actually amazing how much overidentification can cause a function to appear strengthened.
This seems rather contradictory. Your theory is about people thinking their HA is stronger than it is (as I did with my Se) which makes sense. But you then go on to say your Ti was was what you overidentified with which would be much more in line with an SEI typing than an ESI typing.

20. Originally Posted by queentiger
This seems rather contradictory. Your theory is about people thinking their HA is stronger than it is (as I did with my Se) which makes sense. But you then go on to say your Ti was was what you overidentified with which would be much more in line with an SEI typing than an ESI typing.
Note "Ti HA (or, more likely, role)"

Role is also 2D so people can overidentify with it too, thinking it's stronger than it is

Also you really are pathetic, following me into another thread. You just can't get enough of me. LIEs are so cute. We are definitely dualizing

21. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
Note "Ti HA (or, more likely, role)"

Role is also 2D so people can overidentify with it too, thinking it's stronger than it is
I mean, to an extent as that has also happened with me. That being said, the reason it would make more sense to overidentify with your HA is because it is valued. This post of yours seems to at least indicate valued Fe.

22. Originally Posted by queentiger
I mean, to an extent as that has also happened with me. That being said, the reason it would make more sense to overidentify with your HA is because it is valued. This post of yours seems to at least indicate valued Fe.
Yes, it can happen more often with HA because HA is valued and role is not. But I am not Ne valuing, I do not see any point at all in coming up with options or whatever, so I'm not SEI by any stretch. And nor do I want help with this - because I don't see the point.

23. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
Yes, it can happen more often with HA because HA is valued and role is not. But I am not Ne valuing, I do not see any point at all in coming up with options or whatever, so I'm not SEI by any stretch.
I mean, that's a rather shallow understanding of Ne.

24. Originally Posted by queentiger
I mean, that's a rather shallow understanding of Ne.
I've read more in depth descriptions too, it's a function I don't see the point of. When I come up with ideas, I always implement them immediately. I'm very pragmatic. I don't care about unrealistic ideas, only ones that I can implement quickly. If someone talks to me about some zany space elevator shit, I roll my eyes and walk away.

25. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
I've read more in depth descriptions too, it's a function I don't see the point of. When I come up with ideas, I always implement them immediately. I'm very pragmatic. I don't care about unrealistic ideas, only ones that I can implement quickly. If someone talks to me about some zany space elevator shit, I roll my eyes and walk away.
4D Si in any sense of the function wouldn't really care much for "unrealistic ideas". Needing ideas you can implement quickly could be unvalued Ni - not seeing the long term benefit.

26. Still bored af. I shouldn't have to search this hard to find Fi from an alleged ESI. I'm trying to find something, anything that's remotely cognitively attractive about you and...nothing. Ah, well.

27. Originally Posted by Alonzo
Still bored af. I shouldn't have to search this hard to find Fi from an alleged ESI. Trying to find something, anything that's remotely cognitively attractive about you...and, nothing. Ah, well.
inb4 "you're not LIE" because everyone else is the issue and she can do nothing wrong.

28. Originally Posted by sbbds
1D functions are based on experience. I can imagine how it personally feels for why, but I have experienced funerals before. Before that, I’m not sure if I would have been able to understand or imagine it. I think that theoretically it’d possibly be okay in some scenarios though, like if you were their spouse or child or something, or if the dead would have preferred a happier atmosphere.

LOL, OK this funeral emo stuff [although funerals and death have the dimension I'm going to describe later on] brings me no challenge. Being safely/securely contended happy is close to dunno. Hence seeking a safe place in terms of human contact is pretty non existent for me but still knowing how people work as in mechanistic theory has given me a place to not wander off to the distance.

#### Posting Permissions

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