The Most Preposterous Notion in Socionics

[jason_m]

I've thought about it, and the most preposterous premise in socionics is the whole notion of Fi choosing based on 'likes and dislikes.' That notion is just absolutely preposterous. I simply don't think there is any way to choose something unless you 'like it.' Quite simply, there is no difference between 'valuing' something and 'liking it.' This therefore undermines the whole idea of quadra values - as this assumes that certain types 'like Fe' or 'like Si' or 'don't like Se', etc.; all types therefore value what they value because of what they 'like' and what they 'dislike.' It therefore is stupid to assume that only certain types choose based on liking or disliking something as this is present throughout the whole theory.

Wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: Also assume that people who are Fi 'know what other people like.' If the person who created the theory is Fi-PoLR, then she didn't know this at all. But it is a theory entirely based around what people like and what they dislike. Then, if this was her weakest function, how could she surmise what people like (or don't) like? She doesn't know this at all, but the whole theory is based around it. That's another reason why the whole concept should be thrown into the garbage...

[ashlesha]

this is basically the gist of my a large part of my griping about socionics over the years - the idea that logical types are ultimately uninfluenced by such animalistic things as personal preference (that by no means influence their naturally objective views of the world) and the subsequent denial of human nature.

it's true that "like and dislike" or "value or devalue" doesn't quite capture Fi, but i've frequently described it that way, hueristics, yadda, yadda. i'm curious how it could be expounded upon accurately.

[jason_m]

Another one is that Fi is just ethics or ethical principles. Although this article is saying otherwise about crime, only three percent of the US population has been to jail: http://www.notguiltynj.com/how-many-...-incarcerated/ and less than one percent is in jail at any one time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...rceration_rate. This tells me that it isn't just some 'privileged few' who have ethics or ethical principles, and so that is another notion that should go into the garbage...

[Dangerouslandsvape]

this is basically the gist of my a large part of my griping about socionics over the years - the idea that logical types are ultimately uninfluenced by such animalistic things as personal preference (that by no means influence their naturally objective views of the world) and the subsequent denial of human nature.

I've no doubt that some people think this way, but it really flies in the face of typology's Jungian roots. Not being aware of personal preferences doesn't mean they're non-existent; it means you have no conscious control over them.

Jung writes:

No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness.

There's a lot more in Psychological Types, but you get the drift.

[AWellArmedCat]

I simply don't think there is any way to choose something unless you 'like it.'

Really?? I'm honestly completely baffled by this statement unless I just am misunderstanding you (in which case sorry, please correct me), but I choose things I dislike all the time. Probably every functional human does I would think. I don't like cleaning my house at all but I choose to do it anyways because I feel the voice of my mother in the back of my head scolding me for not cleaning if I don't. It's simply something you "ought" to do whether you like it or not

[timber]

It could also mean that Aushura was very high intelligence, as in more intelligent than the people she studied.

There are people who have already cracked the code. You can "be the thing" without being the thing. lol.

[jason_m]

Really?? I'm honestly completely baffled by this statement unless I just am misunderstanding you (in which case sorry, please correct me), but I choose things I dislike all the time. Probably every functional human does I would think. I don't like cleaning my house at all but I choose to do it anyways because I feel the voice of my mother in the back of my head scolding me for not cleaning if I don't. It's simply something you "ought" to do whether you like it or not

Right. But those things don't follow under the umbrella of things you value in socionics. Cleaning your house is something you don't value that you do. When you freely choose something, you would not choose to do it unless you liked it. And that is basically what I was saying...

[AWellArmedCat]

Right. But those things don't follow under the umbrella of things you value in socionics. Cleaning your house is something you don't value that you do. When you freely choose something, you would not choose to do it unless you liked it. And that is basically what I was saying...

Ohhhh okay, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I see what you mean now!

[jason_m]

I've no doubt that some people think this way, but it really flies in the face of typology's Jungian roots. Not being aware of personal preferences doesn't mean they're non-existent; it means you have no conscious control over them.

Jung writes:



There's a lot more in Psychological Types, but you get the drift.

I find what he writes to be somewhat mystical and superstitious. The notion that one becomes altruistic when they are a thinking type, and this is always compensated for by some repressed 'dark feelings' smacks of Freudian psychology (which I suppose is similar to Jungian psychology), but I'm not sure I agree...

[jason_m]

Ohhhh okay, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I see what you mean now!

It's okay. I looked at what I wrote, and I think I should have said 'freely choose.' That would have been more clear...

[Dangerouslandsvape]

I find what he writes to be somewhat mystical and superstitious. The notion, for instance, that one becomes altruistic when they are a thinking type, and this is always compensated for by some repressed 'dark feelings' smacks of Freudian psychology (which is similar to Jungian psychology, I guess), and I'm not sure I agree...

I don't think those particular ideas come from a place of superstition or mysticism (other than being connected to underlying ideas about balance and the relationship between opposites). But Jung was a practicing psychologist, and that means many of his examples are more extreme than the day-to-day descriptions we often use in socionics.

That anecdote isn't meant to describe what always happens to thinking types (in regards to them being altruistic, or having dark feelings underneath) but is an example of how repressed feeling can manifest. It's not too far removed from common reality. I'm sure you've met people who are obsessed with doing what's practically "best" for the situation but trample over everyone around them (which is almost certainly not the best approach). Or people who are very logical but come across as very emotive/angry/have favourites (these are, in fact, descriptions within socionics).

In simple terms, ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People think this is obvious when it comes to logical matters (e.g. ignoring your rent doesn't mean there aren't consequences) but tend to lose that rigor in ethical matters.

[SGF]

I've thought about it, and the most preposterous premise in socionics is the whole notion of Fi choosing based on 'likes and dislikes.' That notion is just absolutely preposterous. I simply don't think there is any way to choose something unless you 'like it.' Quite simply, there is no difference between 'valuing' something and 'liking it.' This therefore undermines the whole idea of quadra values - as this assumes that certain types 'like Fe' or 'like Si' or 'don't like Se', etc.; all types therefore value what they value because of what they 'like' and what they 'dislike.' It therefore is stupid to assume that only certain types choose based on liking or disliking something as this is present throughout the whole theory.

Wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: Also assume that people who are Fi 'know what other people like.' If the person who created the theory is Fi-PoLR, then she didn't know this at all. But it is a theory entirely based around what people like and what they dislike. Then, if this was her weakest function, how could she surmise what people like (or don't) like? She doesn't know this at all, but the whole theory is based around it. That's another reason why the whole concept should be thrown into the garbage...

That is a oversimplification/ misunderstanding of what Fi is. Imo @Adam Strange will find this also useful.

Relations Ethics (R) — introverted ethics; function of the psyche forming modest and responsive behavior.

R — The intellectual and communicative aspect of R is manifested as veiled, hidden estimates. Arguing in R-form, this person is afraid to admit to himself that he prefers one object to another. In this state, a choice is made between two completely equivalent options in terms of logic. There is another strategy of R-thinking: a conscious choice of the opposite of what we really want. Thus, R-judgments are rational, or they have their own cause, even if it is hidden, but absolutely illogical.

At the social level, a person in the state of R is able to play the informal role of the harmonizer in the team. His actions are aimed at maintaining a warm and friendly psychological climate, smooth out acute angles, and reconcile people. A person performing an R-role does not appear as a judge or resolver of conflicting opposites, but as their conciliator. He can calm people down and relieve emotional tension. Personal commitment in this case, of course, does not disappear, but is carefully hidden.

Psychologically, the state of R is experienced as an inner attraction to someone or something as a deep affection. It is interesting that this condition is not emotional. There is no expression in it, but there is a long term dependence of the moral and ethical nature. The state of R is a guarantee of loyalty in a relationship. It is like the arrow of a compass, which, in any attempt to turn its body, returns to its native northern direction. Thanks to R, we perceive people, places and times as our own, native or as strangers, alien.

Physically, the state R is very difficult to identify precisely because in it the true relationship is hidden either for indifference or for the opposite. It can be detected by subtle discrepancies and minor disruptions in ordinary communication. His voice trembles slightly, his complexion changes, his eyelids flutter and take their usual position: all these are reliable signals of relationships. Indirectly manifested sympathies-antipathies, attraction to or repulsion from a person, accompanied by a slight inner excitement, physically indicate that you are observing the state of R.

IN ESI 1. Command Function -R — Relations Ethics
She easily sees how people open up in communication. She can’t be fooled with amiable friendliness. She critically assesses the behavior of others, but expresses her opinion only when she is very touched.

At first acquaintance, she sharply divides people into two categories: “her own” and “others.” “Others” seem to disappear to her, but to her relatives and friends, she is strongly attached and feels responsible for them. She is faithful to her inner ethical assessments of another person. It is very difficult to convince her of anything. She hardly makes compromises with strangers but she forgives a lot for “her” people. She freely manipulates psychological distance, moving away and then bringing people closer to herself, thus showing how she regards them.

IN EII 1. Command Function +R — Relations Ethics
Eli is good at distinguishing the relationships that develop between people. She knows who gets along with whom or who does not get along; however, others’ attitudes toward herself sometimes go undetected, and she may be excessively trustful. Honesty and decency in human relationships mean a lot to her; therefore, she doesn’t easily forgive treason and betrayal. She will break off relationships with people who have significantly let her down; however, she is able to forgive even her enemies if they sincerely repent. She is characterized by caution and softness in communication with those who are not close to her. Her humanism manifests itself in deeds as she avoids declarations and words. Eli is endowed with the gift of generosity. With everybody she supports an even, friendly relationship.

Example of Fi lead Maya Plisetskaya Gamma ESI:



Example of Fi lead Carl Rogers Delta EII:

[The Reality Denialist]

Arguing in R-form, this person is afraid to admit to himself that he prefers one object to another.

lol least of my problems although mostly silent. Te egos probably like to put weight on their indecision in this hence they can be led.

[Sol]

Fi is about subjective emotional evaluation. Your sympathy relates to this.

Among most preposterous in Socionics is when noobs disagree with its basics.

[jason_m]

Fi is about subjective emotional evaluation. Your sympathy relates to this.

You picked up on this? I am glad.

Among most preposterous in Socionics is when noobs disagree with its basics.

You noticed this as well? It's a simple, simple theory, and nothing could be more disappointing than when some 'moron' screws it up.

[jason_m]

@Sol is actually right(about what Fi is about, not that you're a noob), but that doesn't mean you're completely wrong.

Simply said: Fi is about emotional static dis-/liking, which is just a small, limited perspective on valuation. So when people do choose freely, using their own criteria for valuation, that might not encompass Fi. There are other ways of valuing, i.e. one can value stuff without "Fi-liking" it. Someone with Te ego might value efficiency or an accomplishment, someone with Se in ego might 'admire and desire' an object, Fe might value someone for the 'emotional energy', but it's not the same as having a purely emotional attachment that draws you towards something regardless of exterior factors(introverted) for extended periods of time(static). (It's not that Fi egos like something regardless of external factors, but Fi as a cognitive process works like that, it's about analysing and perpetuating emotional states.)

The problem for me is: how do you differentiate between being drawn to something because it is interesting (Ne) vs. liking it emotionally (Fi)? I cannot differentiate between those two processes. I also find it unusual that someone would find something interesting (Ne) but not be drawn to it - even if they are Ti. By definition, how could something be interesting to you, but there is no attachment to it? The more interesting, the more the attachment, the less interesting, the less the attachment. That is how it should work. If one is not attached and only interested for practical reasons, then they are using Te and not Ti. That is the problem I have with the theory.

[BrainlessSquid]

The problem for me is: how do you differentiate between being drawn to something because it is interesting (Ne) vs. liking it emotionally (Fi)? I cannot differentiate between those two processes. I also find it unusual that someone would find something interesting (Ne) but not be drawn to it - even if they are Ti. By definition, how could something be interesting to you, but there is no attachment to it? The more interesting, the more the attachment, the less interesting, the less the attachment. That is how it should work. If one is not attached and only interested for practical reasons, then they are using Te and not Ti. That is the problem I have with the theory.

I know a girl who I am pretty much attracted to but I don't make the move because she is not interesting to me in terms of potential. She's not the right girl for me but she is pretty good for someone else. Very attractive regardless

[jason_m]

@Sol is actually right(about what Fi is about, not that you're a noob), but that doesn't mean you're completely wrong.

Simply said: Fi is about emotional static dis-/liking, which is just a small, limited perspective on valuation. So when people do choose freely, using their own criteria for valuation, that might not encompass Fi. There are other ways of valuing, i.e. one can value stuff without "Fi-liking" it. Someone with Te ego might value efficiency or an accomplishment, someone with Se in ego might 'admire and desire' an object, Fe might value someone for the 'emotional energy', but it's not the same as having a purely emotional attachment that draws you towards something regardless of exterior factors(introverted) for extended periods of time(static). (It's not that Fi egos like something regardless of external factors, but Fi as a cognitive process works like that, it's about analysing and perpetuating emotional states.)

I should also add that I'm not angry at Sol - his ideas are interesting to say the least...

[jason_m]

Here is more:

I like fettucine alfredo: I like the buttery and rich taste of the cream and the salty taste of the parmesan cheese. I would assume that this is 'Si.'

I like the 1980s: I just have an attachment to the decade. I cannot really say why. This is probably 'Fi.'

I like innovative ideas: there is something modern and creative about many of them that I like. I assume this is 'Ne.'

I like hockey: there is something beautiful about the big slap shot and seeing the players speed through the ice. This could be 'Si,' but it could also be 'Fi' (because of the notions of 'beauty' and 'grace.')

I don't like most business ideas: I simply don't find them as creative as Ne or Ti. (Unvalued 'Te.')

Do you see where I am going with this? Assuming it is even about likes and dislikes (as poster "One" stated otherwise), it depends on how you like something. Now with respect to emotional attachments, for instance, with fettucine alfredo, because of the delicious buttery and salty taste of the sauce, I am attached to it, and therefore order it again and again. But I would still call it 'Si.' You see?

[jason_m]

Fi is about subjective emotional evaluation. Your sympathy relates to this.

Among most preposterous in Socionics is when noobs disagree with its basics.

Is it pronounced "Saul" or "Soul." I assume it is pronounced "Saul." Are you Jewish, may I ask? I think I know you from somewhere...

[CR400AF]

The problem for me is: how do you differentiate between being drawn to something because it is interesting (Ne) vs. liking it emotionally (Fi)? I cannot differentiate between those two processes. I also find it unusual that someone would find something interesting (Ne) but not be drawn to it - even if they are Ti. By definition, how could something be interesting to you, but there is no attachment to it? The more interesting, the more the attachment, the less interesting, the less the attachment. That is how it should work. If one is not attached and only interested for practical reasons, then they are using Te and not Ti. That is the problem I have with the theory.

Ne is a perception elements. It is perceptional, it doesn't make any judgement.

Ne is the static internal of objects: It perceives the internal essence of objects. That's Ne.

Ne itself doesn't make judgements. However, from the perspective of other people, a Ne type might seem to be interested in a lot of things. This is because that Ne is in need of fulfillment that it is keep perceiving the essence of various objects. It's not judgemental.

[jason_m]

Ne is a perception elements. It is perceptional, it doesn't make any judgement.

Ne is the static internal of objects: It perceives the internal essence of objects. That's Ne.

Ne itself doesn't make judgements. However, from the perspective of other people, a Ne type might seem to be interested in a lot of things. This is because that Ne is in need of fulfillment that it is keep perceiving the essence of various objects. It's not judgemental.

If I have the thought: "Wow, is that an interesting idea...." then which function is that? Is that Fi or Ti or what? Or if I have the thought, "Wow, is that ever delicious spaghetti sauce..." is that a judgement and therefore 'Fi'?

[CR400AF]

Here is more:

I like fettucine alfredo: I like the buttery and rich taste of the cream and the salty taste of the parmesan cheese. I would assume that this is 'Si.'

I like the 1980s: I just have an attachment to the decade. I cannot really say why. This is probably 'Fi.'

I like innovative ideas: there is something modern and creative about many of them that I like. I assume this is 'Ne.'

I like hockey: there is something beautiful about the big slap shot and seeing the players speed through the ice. This could be 'Si,' but it could also be 'Fi' (because of the notions of 'beauty' and 'grace.')

I don't like most business ideas: I simply don't find them as creative as Ne or Ti. (Unvalued 'Te.')

Do you see where I am going? Assuming it is even about likes and dislikes (as poster "One" stated otherwise), it depends on how you like something. Now with respect to emotional attachments, for instance, with fettucine alfredo, because of the delicious buttery and salty taste of the sauce, I am attached to it, and therefore order it again and again. But I would still call it 'Si.' You see?

"like dislike" is a description of Fi. The definition of Fi is: static field of internals. So if you check the definition everything could be defined.

From my experience, an ILE I encountered eagers to explore a lot of things, but she is unable to decide whether she like someone/something. That shows how Ne and Fi differs.

Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fully satisfied.

His aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is similarly orientated. For true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and devotedness.

Jung described Se type as aiming to concrete enjoyment, but he noted that such enjoyment is unselfish.

[CR400AF]

If I have the thought: "Wow, is that an interesting idea...." then which function is that? Is that Fi or Ti or what? Or if I have the thought, "Wow, is that ever delicious spaghetti sauce..." is that a judgement and therefore 'Fi'?

I think the definitions by Aushra is clear. For instance the spaghetti thing. If you are eating it and it causes you to feel comfort, it's dynamic relationship of external so it's Si. From Jung's words it is a process to link sensations to an archetype.

However, if you claim that you like a specific kind of spaghetti, it is static and internal. So at this stage it is Fi.

[jason_m]

"like dislike" is a description of Fi. The definition of Fi is: static field of internals. So if you check the definition everything could be defined.

From my experience, an ILE I encountered eagers to explore a lot of things, but she is unable to decide whether she like someone/something. That shows how Ne and Fi differs.





Jung described Se type as aiming to concrete enjoyment, but he noted that such enjoyment is unselfish.

If I am Fi, then why don't I 'like' Te? That makes no sense... Also, I don't know anyone who goes into a restaurant, orders a dish, and has no clue whether or not they liked it to any extent. I simply have never heard of that... Even Richard Feynman, who is ILE, I read didn't 'like' fish soup, except for the way they made it in Japan, and he couldn't find it like that anywhere else in the US. Is he not ILE because of that?

[CR400AF]

An example: When I was talking about digital products with Fi-types. I find that they tend to to judge by their likes or dislikes. They tend to prefer Huawei to Lenovo (that's common in China because they think that Huawei is a good company while Lenovo doesn't develop many original techniques) even when a Lenovo product is more suitable to their requirements.

[jason_m]

An example: When I was talking about digital products with Fi-types. I find that they tend to to judge by their likes or dislikes. They tend to prefer Huawei to Lenovo (that's common in China because they think that Huawei is a good company while Lenovo doesn't develop many original techniques) even when a Lenovo product is more suitable to their requirements.

If I am Fi, then why don't I 'like' Te? That makes no sense... Also, I don't know anyone who goes into a restaurant, orders a dish, and has no clue whether or not they liked it to any extent. I simply have never heard of that... Even Richard Feynman, who is ILE, I read didn't 'like' fish soup, except for the way they made it in Japan, and he couldn't find it like that anywhere else in the US. Is he not ILE because of that?

[Poptart]

I think the definitions by Aushra is clear. For instance the spaghetti thing. If you are eating it and it causes you to feel comfort, it's dynamic relationship of external so it's Si. From Jung's words it is a process to link sensations to an archetype.

However, if you claim that you like a specific kind of spaghetti, it is static and internal. So at this stage it is Fi.

The only kind of spaghetti I like is capellini. Am I ESI now?

[jason_m]

If you don't know what you like, how could one say who their dual is then? Your dual could be anyone in the theory... Except for self understanding, why even study it?

[Robin Gosens]

The only kind of spaghetti I like is capellini. Am I ESI now?

You always seem to have a very coursing and smooth aura to your posting and history, undressing and finding the magic carpet of tsunami like jolt to your potions. It's a good synthesis of mania and the mystic.

[Poptart]

You always seem to have a very coursing and smooth aura to your posting and history, undressing and finding the magic carpet of tsunami like jolt to your potions. It's a good synthesis of mania and the mystic.

Not totally sure if I understand what you mean, but thank you.

[Singu]

You'd have to realize that these are all just labeling and categorizing of observations... which is the cause of confusion for most people.

For example, you might say "I like eating food", and say that is Si. If you like eating food, then you must be a "Si type" or "using Si". But actually all you did was to relabel "eating" as "Si". Or to categorize anything that is related to eating as Si. So you might say that cooking is Si. Taste buds are Si. Enjoying food is Si. Whatever. Now you're categorizing whatever that might be vaguely related to food as "Si".

So what is wrong with that? Well nothing really, other than that it doesn't really create any new knowledge than just how to categorize things. For example, in physics you don't just observe a ball dropping, then categorize whatever that might be related to that. And it might not even be obvious how they're related. For example, it's difficult to ascertain how a ball dropping to the ground is related to the fact that a moon orbits around the Earth. Unless we try to find out why and how a ball drops to the ground. Newton could make the connection, because he found out "gravity" and figured out how that works. New knowledge in physics is created from knowing why and how a ball drops to the ground, for example.

So we can say that Socionics is kind of working from backwards. It's perhaps saying that a ball dropping to the ground is vaguely related to a moon orbiting around the Earth, but it's not really clear why or how, because we have yet to find gravity. In fact we're not even asking why or how, we're just saying that they're related for some reason. And we may not even be able to make the connection because they're not immediately or intuitively obvious. So there are only correlations and not causation. And those correlations could be wrong.

[Robin Gosens]

Not totally sure if I understand what you mean, but thank you.

Well, just basically things that are more bright hearted and more in the spirit of juice rather than negative destruction, increasing the spirit of special twists and daylight.

A more merry Christmas.

[jason_m]

I figured why ILEs (and SLEs) can have a distaste for likes/dislikes as their PoLR function (it came as a 'eureka' moment):

Likes and dislikes are an emotional phenomena. Fi-vulnerable types have weak/unvalued emotions in that position in their psyche. Fi-vulnerable types may therefore not be able feel emotions very well, and therefore not be able to determine what they like or dislike. People questioning them about this might make them upset. This would therefore be their vulnerable function.

That makes a lot of sense. The only caveat is that Fi-PoLR can manifest itself in other ways:

- not being able to determine what is morally right/wrong, and therefore having to decide about moral issues might be painful.
- not being able to determine the distance of one's relations very well.
- being weak emotionally in other ways.

You see? It makes a lot of sense why someone Fi-PoLR would have problems with likes/dislikes. The problem is that there are other possibilities as to how Fi-PoLR could manifest itself... However, the idea that likes/dislikes can be Fi then makes sense...

[Rebelondeck]

F-rationalization is based on relative values; one's choice has the higher value. Value is a rather subjective term: a petite, sexy figure quickly loses its value when a strong back is desperately needed. Value indicates a rating of some sort which usually involves context, and in some cases, could be based on a whim or first impression -a liking that could change tomorrow. Some things have values that are absolute so won't change while the value of things around them will. In many contexts, F-rationalizations are far more valid than T-rationalizations.

a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

I figured why ILEs (and SLEs) can have a distaste for likes/dislikes as their PoLR function (it came as a 'eureka' moment):

Likes and dislikes are an emotional phenomena. Fi-vulnerable types have weak/unvalued emotions in that position in their psyche. Fi-vulnerable types may therefore not be able feel emotions very well, and therefore not be able to determine what they like or dislike. People questioning them about this might make them upset. This would therefore be their vulnerable function.

That makes a lot of sense. The only caveat is that Fi-PoLR can manifest itself in other ways:

- not being able to determine what is morally right/wrong, and therefore having to decide about moral issues might be painful.
- not being able to determine the distance of one's relations very well.
- being weak emotionally in other ways.

You see? It makes a lot of sense why someone Fi-PoLR would have problems with likes/dislikes. The problem is that there are other possibilities as to how Fi-PoLR could manifest itself... However, the idea that likes/dislikes can be Fi then makes sense...

Blaablaablaa. Fe mobilizing types do not really handle their own moods that they internalize. Hence they have depressive episodes which is not really indicative of a depression as an illness but inner moody dramatics that wrecks havoc in their own state.

[Singu]

It's just that you're unable to come up with a decision without emotions

How Only Being Able to Use Logic to Make Decisions Destroyed a Man’s Life

What was even more confounding is that Elliot could think up lots of options for a decision. When given assignments of assessing ethics (like whether or not to steal something for his family, Les Miserables–style), business (like whether to buy or sell a stock), or social goals (like making friends in a new neighborhood), he did great. But, even with all the idea generation, he could not choose effectively, or choose at all. “I began to think that the cold-bloodedness of Elliot’s reasoning prevented him from assigning different values to different options,” Damasio writes, “and made his decision-making landscape hopelessly flat.”

If "T types" were as emotionless as it is claimed, then it would contradict the discovery that a man who lost his ability to feel emotions were unable to make any decisions at all. It also doesn't have much to do with the ability to understand ethics. Which would suggest that ethics can be rationally understood.

So things like "Like/love" and "Dislike/hate" seem to put ranked orders of values on things. We are attracted to things that we like, we make choices based on things that we like or feel good about. It's just not really clear how those choices are being made by our feelings. Why do we pick choice A over choice B? Why do we choose person A over B?

[jason_m]

So things like "Like/love" and "Dislike/hate" seem to put ranked orders of values on things. We are attracted to things that we like, we make choices based on things that we like or feel good about. It's just not really clear how those choices are being made by our feelings. Why do we pick choice A over choice B? Why do we choose person A over B?

That was what I was trying to say originally. In my case, I often prefer one thing to another because it makes more logical sense in some way. For instance, I used to love the 1980s, and this was a logical choice because of all the innovative stuff that came out in that decade. I remember watching a CNN documentary on computers in 'The Eighties' series, and man was that decade innovative wrt technology and computers. I.e., the 1980s fit my quadra values very well in some ways, and hence why I liked it.

[jason_m]

That was what I was trying to say originally. In my case, I often prefer one thing to another because it makes more logical sense in some way. For instance, I used to love the 1980s, and this was a logical choice because of all the innovative stuff that came out in that decade. I remember watching a CNN documentary on computers in 'The Eighties' series, and man was that decade innovative wrt technology and computers. I.e., the 1980s fit my quadra values very well in some ways, and hence why I liked it.

Here is the episode: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6u63wu. (I know the technology looks old, but think of how new this was compared to what came out before, and how much was coming out compared to prior decades... i.e. it was 'ahead of its time.')

[jason_m]

For all intents and purposes: in Star Trek, look at Ti-PoLR as McCoy and Fi-PoLR as Spock. I would then be Captain Kirk - someone in between - and I don't know exactly how Spock and McCoy would receive me...