Overly nice people

[Myst]

When you are faking expression you are still doing a type of Fe, a more fake version that won't hold up under scrutiny. Method acting is better.

Let's get things clarified then. Please, for the sake of a clear discussion, replace the encoded "Fe" "term" with normal everyday language - or ofc technical language is fine too but please not socionics shorthands.

So like. Do you just mean "emotional expression" by "Fe". If so, let's stick to saying "emotional expression" for the rest of the discussion. If you mean "objective etiquette", I'd expect a bit more on the framework for what is meant by "objective" but preferably I'd like a simple enough phrasing to convey all of it instead of circumstantial and vague paraphrasing. If it can be made simple enough, then it's got a greater chance that it aligns with actual reality. Unless of course it's a term from a theory way more complex and detailed than the socionics model ever was. But even then... should still strive for a simple enough term to translate the idea instead of vague paraphrasing out of touch with reality. Even with some complex physics ideas, it is possible to do so.

In socionics context when you are interacting with a Role Fe type person, you can see that they fake expression in certain situations because you just know that they feel they should be nice and smiling and friendly with a coworker, or an employee in a socially contrived situation, ie: good morning how are you, how was your weekend? oh good thank-you mine was great as well, good

You can tell they don't really give a shit, but the socially contrived situation has a need for a display of objective ethics.

Key words "should" and "need". These shoulds and needs are cues for super-ego: internalized societal expectations. Fit in the moment requires some overt display of Fe emotional ethics so as to command the proper objective etiquette for said moment.

Well what you just said about "role Fe", this fits perfectly well also people who declared themselves "Fe HA/Fe mobilising", and then who complained that they go home and it all feels like they've done a lot of fake acting (Herzy, etc - not just Herzy but she specifically had a post once describing exactly this).

So I don't really think this is about "role Fe", it's simply... a well-known social expectation to put on expressions in certain situations. Of course it's going to feel like super-ego then or similar. But it really is just adjusting to social norms where it's deemed necessary and is possible to do so.

Also I've known people who are supposedly "role Fe" in socionics, who are doing the nice etc stuff and I feel - when tuning into such people, to the degree that I can and will do so, which degree differs based on situation etc - that these people actually can have real interest in the situation, depending on the situation.

So, it's not necessarily all fake.

The same for people who are supposedly "Fe mobilising", btw. They can also seem like they do have real interest in the situation while doing this.

And the same for many other people who are supposedly not "2D Fe" even.

And then some people who are supposedly "Fe ego", say "Fe creative" or "Fe base" even, they can be totally fake with this, more than "role Fe" as described by you is supposed to be fake. Or they can also be genuine with real interest.

And then, on the whole... I've seen "Fe devaluers" plenty of times display real emotion and express pretty strongly and enjoy the emotional state in the moment, and I've seen "Fe valuers" do the same too.

Going further, I would also say it makes no sense to say that "Fe valuers" enjoy emotional expression more, since I find it makes more sense that some expressions are just by their nature enjoyable in the right situation, while it also makes no sense to say that "Fe devaluers" desire deep feelings more for the glue of a relationship, since everyone who's not a psychopath will desire this glue. Differences in emphasis for these aspects seem determined a lot by the specific culture and yes by personality too, but not in the manner Socionics would try to predict it from sociotype and ITR. Since Socionics and its IE definitions and model all neglect many sophisticated psychological factors that determine emotional expressions and relationship glue and so on.

These moments are the right kind of reactions yet are clearly faked and if you know their sociotype you can begin to explain why they are relating to you in this way as I have just described.

I would say it's only truly fake if the person has zero interest in the situation emotionally or ethically and they just have self-serving goals. Otherwise, it's just a normal social expectation, where you need to do this to contribute to society's well-being (if we want to get very general), to oil the workings of some of it. Much like with other social expectations (that have nothing to do with whatever you meant by "Fe").

So overall, I would respectfully disagree that sociotype helps explain how or why they are relating to you in this way. It does fuck all to explain it. Common sense knowledge on people and more sophisticated psychological knowledge all explain better and in a way more refined or more realistic - and actually *usable* way than sociotype.

Just because you may see some valid ideas in socionics, it does not mean the socionics model is a good framework for them at all.

Personally, I find socionics barely gives anything to *really* understand relationships or other interactions while it is supposed to do just that with the ITR etc... and same for the internal workings of the mind, cognition, emotion, behaviour of yourself or other people's outside interactions/relationships.

This, while I find that other frameworks DO give way more to understand all that but ofc these other frameworks in psychology do not promise magic like Socionics does. They do not promise that it will all magically be as simple as one single model doing all that. Sure. It doesn't mean though that you have to drop hope for having things work out like apparently some people investing into Socionics need that hope (I was told this by more than one person so far). It's just not simple magic for that hope, but instead - actual reality.

Socionics may look like it *really* explained it, until you find it did not.


Finally, tidbit from research (from a writing of Damasio): you can have either real or "acted" expressions, and these are done by two different neural pathways in the brain. The real ones are accomplished through the basal ganglia - a very deep basic brain part - automatically controlling the facial etc movements required for the expression. The acted ones are done through another neural pathway and are done consciously, by consciously controlling facial etc muscles. Actors (for movies etc) apparently can attempt to do either way: really really live the emotions and states required for the acting, and display true emotion that way; or they can painstakingly learn the conscious control and act the expressions that way by controlling the face in really refined ways and so on. Neither is a trivial method to be really good at acting.