The Most Preposterous Notion in Socionics

[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

[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]

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.

[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?

[LukaDoncic]

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.

[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?