Fe and Fi Valuing: What do they look like?

[Sir Knight]

So while there's no set of behaviors that can be easily and quickly applied any one type, generally Fe-valuing types look more at presentation and Fi-valuers look more at substance? Fe-valuers get offended if you deliver your message in a way they don't like and take care to make sure they're delivering their message in a tone they feel it will be best received in, while Fi-valuers get offended more at the actual content of your message and take care to make sure that they're phrasing their message in a way that they feel will be best received.

So if you told a Fe-valuer, to his face, that you think he was an asshole, he wouldn't get offended if you were giving off the emotional signals to let him know that you're just pulling his leg, and then he'd give you an, "Oh You!" expression and call you a name back, while if you called a Fi-valuer an asshole to his face, he'd be more likely to go, "What?! What the hell did I do?" You know, to use a crude example.

And Ti-egos and Fi-ids desire actual expressions of what one's relationship to another is rather than leaving it implicit and having to figure it out, and so Ti-egos will do things to prod Fe-egos into expressing what they feel (like when my SLE friend makes horribly racist jokes just to get a rise out of me) and, contrariwise, Fe-egos prod Ti-egos into explaining "the way things work" to them?

How does that dynamic work with Te/Fi? How and for what do Te/Fi egos prod each other for?

[EyeSeeCold]

Fe valuers like/dislike humor for the effects.
Fi valuers like/dislike humor for the content.

Fe "Hey you shouldn't say that, it's gonna cause a fight!"
Fi "hey you shouldn't say that, it's mean"

[golden]

Though I appreciate dialogue's ability to communicate information and perspectives, it's my contention that a promise is a comfort to a fool. Am I now invalidated as an Fi-valuer or merely displaying the dominance of pragmatic Ni-Te ego over wait-and-see Se-Fi super-id?

No, because I don't think it's just words that communicate things to Fi-valuers. Words ... verbal expression re. relations ... depend on more than Fi versus Fe, including specific types and just individual differences that have little or nothing to do with Socionics.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that specific actions, duties, comportment ... a whole host of things matter to Fi valuers. Now, those matter to me, too, but they stack up really differently, almost the opposite.

IOW--which actions, and why, are important?
What do I feel dutiful about, versus the Fi-valuer?
What self-conduct shows affection, dislike, and why?

What constitutes connection, where does it arise from, how is it maintained, etc.?

[golden]

Well Fi is good at reading BS. So whereas Fe detects BS in how people present themselves, Fi will detect BS based on the actual words, vibes and history of the person.

But can't you see that Fe also might be good at reading BS, but have a completely different idea of what constitutes BS in the first place?

[golden]

this.

Though Fe people can be mega-fake polite for the sake of the mood. In particular LIIs ime.

Okay, but why is it "fake"? I trust it seems fake to you, but as I'm saying (here and in other Fe/Fi threads), fake is often in the eye of the beholder. I could enumerate years of personal stuff in which I have experienced Fi-valuers as fake, or, more precisely, hypocritical. And it just comes down to different modes, different goals, and different stances on what is important in human relations.

I guess, in general, I really think Socionics should give us an opportunity to shed the idea that certain people are just fake.

[Slacker]

One of the potential miscommunications between people who value Fi and people who are strong in Fe is that we can doubt their sincerity even when they are being sincere. And yeah it's possible that goes in the reverse as well.

[golden]

So while there's no set of behaviors that can be easily and quickly applied any one type, generally Fe-valuing types look more at presentation and Fi-valuers look more at substance?

No, imo. I think this might be how Fi- and Fe-valuers describe each other. As in, an Fi-valuer might think that my mode of behaving and interacting is presentation over substance, that maybe I don't mean what I say because I show them what feels like affection to me, but they are looking for something else. And I might conclude that an Fi-valuer, well, does something really shitty to me but still is very "correct" in general and sends me a Christmas card every year. That's a stereotype, but one I've experienced. And to me, that looks like presentation over substance. We've talked about these differences before.

You can't say that Fe types don't care about substance. You can't say that Fi types don't care about presentation. That's just not true, ime.

Fe-valuers get offended if you deliver your message in a way they don't like and take care to make sure they're delivering their message in a tone they feel it will be best received in, while Fi-valuers get offended more at the actual content of your message and take care to make sure that they're phrasing their message in a way that they feel will be best received.

Maybe. I've seen things like this happen.

So if you told a Fe-valuer, to his face, that you think he was an asshole, he wouldn't get offended if you were giving off the emotional signals to let him know that you're just pulling his leg, and then he'd give you an, "Oh You!" expression and call you a name back, while if you called a Fi-valuer an asshole to his face, he'd be more likely to go, "What?! What the hell did I do?" You know, to use a crude example.

Again, maybe.

And Ti-egos and Fi-ids desire actual expressions of what one's relationship to another is rather than leaving it implicit and having to figure it out, and so Ti-egos will do things to prod Fe-egos into expressing what they feel (like when my SLE friend makes horribly racist jokes just to get a rise out of me) and, contrariwise, Fe-egos prod Ti-egos into explaining "the way things work" to them?

Maybe.

[golden]

One of the potential miscommunications between people who value Fi and people who are strong in Fe is that we can doubt their sincerity even when they are being sincere. And yeah it's possible that goes in the reverse as well.

Yep. It's frustrating to know I'm being experienced as insincere no matter what I do. And it definitely works in reverse. Definitely.

[Suz]

One of the potential miscommunications between people who value Fi and people who are strong in Fe is that we can doubt their sincerity even when they are being sincere. And yeah it's possible that goes in the reverse as well.

Agree, and experienced it myself. From both directions.

[Sir Knight]

Okay, but why is it "fake"? I trust it seems fake to you, but as I'm saying (here and in other Fe/Fi threads), fake is often in the eye of the beholder. I could enumerate years of personal stuff in which I have experienced Fi-valuers as fake, or, more precisely, hypocritical. And it just comes down to different modes, different goals, and different stances on what is important in human relations.

I can relate to how she phrases it though. It's like when you meet an acquaintance and you don't have anywhere you really need to be and you think, "I really really don't want to listen to this person talk for half an hour, but I'm going to smile and nod and act interested anyway because I don't want to come off like an asshole or make a potential enemy or something like that."

You can't say that Fe types don't care about substance. You can't say that Fi types don't care about presentation. That's just not true, ime.

I was under the impression that Fe was responsible for taking in information about emotional presentation and Fi was responsible for taking in information on emotional content, and that an ethical type is going to be good at noticing both of these but will naturally prefer one over the other, and give that information the more immediate reaction.

[golden]

With Fe valuers, such as those I based my rushed description off of, there is a strong dislike of fakeness and feel that feelings should be out in the open (if you don't like someone, say it. if you like something, express it). I actually prefer an atmosphere that allows for me to choose whether I want to speak my mind and heart because say I dislike something about my friend, I'm not just going to express it right away. Not my thing. I prefer stability in my relations which allows for my friend to be himself even if parts of that is not always something I like.

I figure it's not my business to express what I don't like, unless it's pervasive, hurting someone else, or himself. To me, being too open about all that can give him the idea that my intentions are to make him feel bad and not accept him for the good and the bad while also making him uncomfortable with me and with himself. To me, it's not so bad to keep a lid on certain things for the sake of a friendship/relationship that is important to me. I feel there is a time and a place for that sort of honesty where it's not going to needlessly hurt someone's feelings and bring someone to think I don't appreciate him for who he is (even if expressing feelings on the matter does not indicate that, but it can be taken that way too easily).

His comfort and trust that I won't judge him>my feeling on some small aspect.

Although this is your experience, so how can I argue with it, I must say I've never seen an Fe-valuer walk around just letting all their negative assessments of various people hang out in every direction. Even an SLE with Fi-PoLR, I have seen him show tremendous restraint in dealing regularly with people he really does not like, being tolerant, showing respect, making an effort, and absolutely NOT letting the person know that maybe ... he doesn't like them so very much. And in some cases he will change his mind with time--the person isn't so bad, he judged them wrong, etc.

So somehow this doesn't really add up for me. Much as there are times I would loooooove to tell someone to such my nonexistent dick, I almost never do. I keep trying to find ways to understand, connect, improve relations.

[Galen]

The extent to which I'm upset about something tends to be inversely correlated with the apparent magnitude of my visible reaction over it. So, if I'm yelling about something and raising hell, this is paradoxically a good sign that, contrary to how I might be appearing, I'm actually not that upset. More than likely I'm just transiently annoyed, or having instant hate impulses about something or someone which I'll be over in 10 mins or less. So don't read into my ostensible reactions too deeply. Because they don't necessarily have any intrinsic value… aka, sometimes they're really just that—reactions. No great meaning or message in them, other than maybe being a means to vent. Which kinda helps keep me from getting bogged down in unnecessaries and maintain a state of relevant perspective towards… well, stuff that actually matters. Other times reactions can be a temporary filler too, until I can crystallize the true feeling and communciate it intelligibly.

This is something I've noticed in you too. I always assume that when you get overblown like that, you're not really as upset as you present yourself to be. It's sort of like passing off the thing that's only somewhat annoying you as something that can be laughed at, whereas the things that really bug you bury themselves inside.

Actually come to think of it, my dad does things like that too. He'll get into some tiffy about how "there are boxes everywhere" or "we have to clean up everything," just small little things that shouldn't really be seen as anything to get worked up about. Trouble is, I can never tell when he's legitimately upset at something or if he's just having a "reaction." Either way, it all seems to be based around having control of his environment; don't know if that's the same case with you though. I'm thinking it could kinda be an E8 thing.

Lol. The more I sit here thinking about it, the more I realize how so many of my apparent reactions are strongly misleading in ways, and even intentionally duplicitous at times. Like throwing out chaffs, flares, and ECM signals to distract people from trying to hone in too much. Just because I don't want them asking me questions, wanting me to talk about myself, or explain myself, wtf. Which makes it easy to act like a dumb asshole for sake of deflecting pressure of those expectations off me. Otherwise being too honest w/ someone and then realizing I made a mistake overestimating what they can awarefully comprehend, makes me feel jarringly gross and violated somehow, as if I just made the mistake of having sex with an ugly girl or something.

I've had experiences like this too, where a friend will ask me about what exactly I'm feeling and I can't bring it upon myself to explain. One time I actually decided to share those feelings with a good friend of mine, and it felt like a part of me that shouldn't be exposed became ... well, exposed. And there was just this overbearing fear that the friend would misinterpret what I was feeling or turn it into something that can be measured externally or whatever. Seems like an Fi valuing against Ti valuing thing.

[Galen]

I was under the impression that Fe was responsible for taking in information about emotional presentation and Fi was responsible for taking in information on emotional content, and that an ethical type is going to be good at noticing both of these but will naturally prefer one over the other, and give that information the more immediate reaction.

"Emotional content" for Fi doesn't really fit imo. Content would consist of discrete objects that can be observed "objectively," from any standpoint. As a field function, Fi would be more concerned with a subjective context than anything content-based.

[Sir Knight]

Although this is your experience, so how can I argue with it, I must say I've never seen an Fe-valuer walk around just letting all their negative assessments of various people hang out in every direction. Even an SLE with Fi-PoLR, I have seen him show tremendous restraint in dealing regularly with people he really does not like, being tolerant, showing respect, making an effort, and absolutely NOT letting the person know that maybe ... he doesn't like them so very much. And in some cases he will change his mind with time--the person isn't so bad, he judged them wrong, etc.

Heh. The SLE I know is almost too willing to express his profound dislike for the people he interacts with daily. It actually bit him in the ass at his last job when he tried to look into getting a promotion. Fi-PoLR is hilarious. Like when he's perfectly willing to bitch about people standing five feet away.

But, yeah, I wouldn't say that I'm a huge demonizer of fakeness. I value it when someone is honest and tells me exactly how they feel, or allows me the chance to do the same, but I'd think it requires the right timing. Like, we'd have to be alone and sufficiently serious for me to express a grievance I have with someone. I mean you don't just do that in front of other people or when that person is in a good mood. That's just dickish. Why bring someone down when they're up?

Which would make sense from a Fe-creative, "I want all my interactions to be positive" perspective.

"Emotional content" for Fi doesn't really fit imo. Content would consist of discrete objects that can be observed "objectively," from any standpoint. As a field function, Fi would be more concerned with a subjective context than anything content-based.

Right. Right, I forgot about that. So it would be more... "What does what he said imply about/effect our relationship, and how do I feel about what he said," whereas Fe is more "What does the way he said that imply about how he's feeling?"

[silverchris9]

With Fe valuers, such as those I based my rushed description off of, there is a strong dislike of fakeness and feel that feelings should be out in the open (if you don't like someone, say it. if you like something, express it). I actually prefer an atmosphere that allows for me to choose whether I want to speak my mind and heart because say I dislike something about my friend, I'm not just going to express it right away. Not my thing. I prefer stability in my relations which allows for my friend to be himself even if parts of that is not always something I like.

I figure it's not my business to express what I don't like, unless it's pervasive, hurting someone else, or himself. To me, being too open about all that can give him the idea that my intentions are to make him feel bad and not accept him for the good and the bad while also making him uncomfortable with me and with himself. To me, it's not so bad to keep a lid on certain things for the sake of a friendship/relationship that is important to me. I feel there is a time and a place for that sort of honesty where it's not going to needlessly hurt someone's feelings and bring someone to think I don't appreciate him for who he is (even if expressing feelings on the matter does not indicate that, but it can be taken that way too easily).

His comfort and trust that I won't judge him>my feeling on some small aspect.

I just want to reformulate what you said a little. I think it's more accurate to say that Fe valuers have a strong dislike of fakeness in close relations. With Fi-valuers, the closer you are to them, the nicer they are to you, the more accommodating they are to you, etc. (especially Gamma SFs and Delta STs). They consider this a sign of love. With Fe-valuers, the closer you are to them, the more emotionally open and reactive they will be towards you. The closer we are, the less I have to hold back, and that goes for you too. And Fe-valuers consider this to be a sign of love. Summary: Fe-valuers are less likely to hold back their emotions they closer you are to them; Fi-valuers are more likely to hold back their emotions (or at least negative opinions) the closer you are to them.

That isn't a hard-and-fast rule, because there are none in socionics, but I've found that to be largely true over a broad number of examples, both people close to me and people I've observed from a distance. Also, it's more true of betas (who don't value Si, or to put it another way, who value -Fe) than of alphas, who are a little bit more focused on keeping harmony (that said, an ESE frequently will not hesitate to scream their heads off at their family and turn around and be the sweetest person ever to the perfume counter lady).

You can formulate it in terms of ideals too. The ideal Fe-valuer's relationship is one in which you can "say anything," share anything that comes to mind. The ideal Fi-valuer's relationship is one in which both parties care enough about each other to control their momentary impulses to say something that might be hurtful for the sake of the long-term relationship. Again, Fe-valuers see the Fi way as unhealthy, and vice versa, and it would be, for an Fe-valuer. But if both parties do it their way, it works for them.

The reason I wanted to add that caveat is because I quite like being fake. It's 100% necessary. I can hate my boss all I like, but I'm sure as hell gonna be nice to him/her until I can change jobs, or, better yet, somehow get around them/get them kicked out/get promoted, etc. Or if I'm a reporter, I can think Joe-Schmo is a dumbass, but if I need him as a source for my story, I'm going to cajole him and be as kind as possible.

Especially for betas (but definitely for alphas too) "fakeness" is an essential tool in achieving one's goals. An SLE can learn to be quite socially adroit and polite and avoid offending people (although the radar will never quite be perfect, but ya know, Fe-HA; if you keep avoiding things that weaken the emotional atmosphere, eventually you'll manage to at least avoid offending the wrong people), as can any other type, if it suits their goals.

I know that personally, I see people that I'm close to as deserving to actually see me, good parts and bad. It means I trust them. I feel like the other people, who I'm not my real self with, I'm manipulating or deceiving in some way, and while I'm comfortable with that for people I don't really care about/trust/love, I would hate above all to feel like I was being dishonest with the people I care about most.

Now, I will say, I also know some people who are 100%, however-you-feel-express-yourself. They consider it oppressive to live your life being fake, not expressing your true self, serving the man, smiling for Mistuh Charlie, etc. A lot of betas are that way, and either they're so talented that they can do whatever the hell they want (Kanye West) or they live sort of on the fringes of society, or at least find a way to avoid the rat race (somebody like the Kate Winslet character from Eternal Sunshine, perhaps). But I would say that the majority of Fe-valuers are likely to use Fe both to express their emotions with full force with those they are close to, AND to tamp down their emotions and project a completely different emotion for the sake of achieving goals. In fact, it is more alpha NTs and beta STs who don't know how to do that.

[Suz]

I think you have a point there, Silverchris, but the Fi "niceness" in closer relationship is not fake--it's genuine. You even contradicted yourself that way--you're right it IS a sign of love--well the niceness reflects the love better imo than the meanness you describe for the Fe-valuers.

Maybe it feels fake to you, well that's another issue altogether. To me, it seems that with you Fe-valuers, it seems everything is opposite--when you dont know someone you pretend to be nice, then when you get to know them better you reveal your real self and how you REALLY feel. I dont see how that's genuine in any way.


We should stop calling each other's expression of emotions "fake". I know i've been guilty of that myself. But obviously it's due to socionic perspective.


I think you're right though, in the objective parts of your description. Astute observation.

[Aiss]

I just want to reformulate what you said a little. I think it's more accurate to say that Fe valuers have a strong dislike of fakeness in close relations. With Fi-valuers, the closer you are to them, the nicer they are to you, the more accommodating they are to you, etc. (especially Gamma SFs and Delta STs). They consider this a sign of love. With Fe-valuers, the closer you are to them, the more emotionally open and reactive they will be towards you. The closer we are, the less I have to hold back, and that goes for you too. And Fe-valuers consider this to be a sign of love. Summary: Fe-valuers are less likely to hold back their emotions they closer you are to them; Fi-valuers are more likely to hold back their emotions (or at least negative opinions) the closer you are to them.

Fix for Fe-PoLR:

The closer the relation, the more emotionally open I am. I don't remember any exceptions, really. Sorry, but the idea of being more open and/or showing my feelings to strangers sounds like a nightmare . I'm definitely more likely to not hold back my emotions with close people.

You can formulate it in terms of ideals too. The ideal Fe-valuer's relationship is one in which you can "say anything," share anything that comes to mind.

I thought that was a universal ideal.

The reason I wanted to add that caveat is because I quite like being fake. It's 100% necessary. I can hate my boss all I like, but I'm sure as hell gonna be nice to him/her until I can change jobs, or, better yet, somehow get around them/get them kicked out/get promoted, etc. Or if I'm a reporter, I can think Joe-Schmo is a dumbass, but if I need him as a source for my story, I'm going to cajole him and be as kind as possible.

Especially for betas (but definitely for alphas too) "fakeness" is an essential tool in achieving one's goals. An SLE can learn to be quite socially adroit and polite and avoid offending people (although the radar will never quite be perfect, but ya know, Fe-HA; if you keep avoiding things that weaken the emotional atmosphere, eventually you'll manage to at least avoid offending the wrong people), as can any other type, if it suits their goals.


I know that personally, I see people that I'm close to as deserving to actually see me, good parts and bad. It means I trust them. I feel like the other people, who I'm not my real self with, I'm manipulating or deceiving in some way, and while I'm comfortable with that for people I don't really care about/trust/love, I would hate above all to feel like I was being dishonest with the people I care about most.

You're speaking of both taking on roles and emotions here. I would say the former is far more Ni related; I recall a description that put an emphasis on it that resonated very much with me early on, so maybe I'm biased towards this, but I seriously see it as more of a Ni thing. Fe gives an advantage of controlling emotional expression, of being convincing, I suppose, but it doesn't seem related to the mindset. Seeing how often it is mentioned by Beta NFs, I suppose it might be hard to separate the concepts, but neither does branding it all as Fe work.

I also think you miss what I think is the biggest issue with Fi, Fe and "fakeness", which is that Fi and Fe valuers can accuse each other of being fake when perfectly sincere. That is what I'd call type related, not accusations of hypocrisy or pretending. Another thing is, most people adapt, more or less, even many of those who like to call others out on it, regardless of how they feel about playing a part, so those are not very likely to be socionics-related conflicts.

Now, I will say, I also know some people who are 100%, however-you-feel-express-yourself. They consider it oppressive to live your life being fake, not expressing your true self, serving the man, smiling for Mistuh Charlie, etc. A lot of betas are that way, and either they're so talented that they can do whatever the hell they want (Kanye West) or they live sort of on the fringes of society, or at least find a way to avoid the rat race (somebody like the Kate Winslet character from Eternal Sunshine, perhaps). But I would say that the majority of Fe-valuers are likely to use Fe both to express their emotions with full force with those they are close to, AND to tamp down their emotions and project a completely different emotion for the sake of achieving goals. In fact, it is more alpha NTs and beta STs who don't know how to do that.

I happened to be thinking about it earlier today, before reading your post. What if you don't know what is your true self?

[golden]

I like your latest post, Silverchris, as it both matches some of my experiences and gives me food for thought.

As for "fake," well, I agree that I don't like the term being hurled across the Fi-Fe divide. It's one thing for Chris to say, basically, "Yeah, sometimes I'm fake."

I can say the same of myself. That is, in some social situations, someone has to do the dirty work of being fake. But again, it's not a word I really resonate with, because it just seems like sometimes I'm called on to to be diplomatic, upbeat, direct, you name it, where others will not. And of course getting along with one's boss and other co-workers is pretty important. But speaking for myself, I try to find a way to make this be genuine. I try to understand the person or people I'm dealing with and show an honest and earnest interest in them and find the ways to make them most comfortable, if that's what's needed.

This happens sort of automatically. I might be using Fe in service to my values (example: I'm the maid of honor at a friend's wedding, and the families don't like each other, and apparently I'm the only one who can bridge this gap through greasing the social wheels generously, and I think this is important to everyone's well-being and am happy to do it). But it's something that flows outward in response to specific situations, again and again.

So how does that fit into being with loved ones and friends? It comes down to wanting to not have to be "on" all the time when I'm with someone I'm close to. If I can drop my guard, then I know you get me and accept me and care about me.

If I can't, I'll always feel a distance from you.

Doesn't mean I don't wanna show you respect, or that I'll say absolutely any awful thing, but I need to relax!

[golden]

I think you misunderstand or I come off vague or both.

In any case, we're talking about friends. Fe group wants discrepencies out in the open and don't really like it when people hold back on expressing how they feel on a subject, as a general rule.

It's cool. I wasn't sure you were talking about friends per se. So in that case, yeah, I agree with you.

[golden]

I thought that was a universal ideal.

A lot of good things in your post, and I'm still considering them. Re. this, ime, no, it isn't.

Could be that it comes down to how Fe- and Fi-valuers define "holding back."

Could be that it varies from one family or group or culture to another somewhat.

But to me, it's more like Chris put it. Maybe an Fi-valuer will let down his/her guard with me if we get closer and tell me a lot of worries, candid opinions, etc. But something, from my pov, is still being restrained in the relations between us. And being closer may mean I can drop my own guard somewhat, but not to the extent that really makes me comfortable and happy.

[Aiss]

A lot of good things in your post, and I'm still considering them. Re. this, ime, no, it isn't.

Could be that it comes down to how Fe- and Fi-valuers define "holding back."

Could be that it varies from one family or group or culture to another somewhat.

But to me, it's more like Chris put it. Maybe an Fi-valuer will let down his/her guard with me if we get closer and tell me a lot of worries, candid opinions, etc. But something, from my pov, is still being restrained in the relations between us. And being closer may mean I can drop my own guard somewhat, but not to the extent that really makes me comfortable and happy.

You obviously have more experience, so I guess you're right. That's one of the things people often say they want, though. I agree with your sentiments here; having to always be on your guard means I don't trust someone completely, and it's exhausting if it's someone you spend a lot of time with (like living together, not just seeing each other every other day for a while). Again, I'm not sure if it's type related. There's a reason duality is described as "relation of maximum psychological comfort", too - you can relax, and to make a relationship out of any relation, probably the same is needed in other aspects.

WA said the other day in the chatbox that she sees some Fi-valuers as rather being upset about the situation, not at the person. That's the sort of thing I tend to associate - maybe wrongly - with Fi and Fe. I don't mind people being emotional about something by definition, though it's not easy to deal with some situations, obviously. It's more about expressing momentary emotions which don't reflect feelings as if they did, and that's the "fakeness of Fe" for me. I'm more likely to show anger to someone close to me and play it down in front of a stranger, but I won't act as if I hated them for it (unless I do). With Ti/Fe valuers, the distinctions don't seem so clear, it's like I'm supposed to magically know what they did or didn't mean, and it sounds like excuses in the end. I can get better at recognizing it with people I know very well, but it takes a lot. That's why I tend to look at it as a perspective - it's only "fake" when interpreted from the other side.

[golden]

You obviously have more experience, so I guess you're right.

Not necessarily, but thanks.

That's one of the things people often say they want, though.

Yeah. This is why I guess I'll continue to suggest that although people may have universal desires for closeness and comfort and disclosure, the way Fi and Fe people define those things must by nature be different. I mean, in practice to me, over a period of years in many relationships, the differences are significant.

I agree with your sentiments here; having to always be on your guard means I don't trust someone completely, and it's exhausting if it's someone you spend a lot of time with (like living together, not just seeing each other every other day for a while). Again, I'm not sure if it's type related. There's a reason duality is described as "relation of maximum psychological comfort", too - you can relax, and to make a relationship out of any relation, probably the same is needed in other aspects.

It can be exhausting, disappointing, frustrating, lonely, and worse. I think it's prob type-related, but I don't think that type is the be-all end-all here. We're always pointing out the many non-Socionics factors that come into play in people's relationships, and those count. There are ways to connect outside of just Fi/Fe. And just sharing the valuing of one or the other is not going to provide all the answers.

I'm finding so far that typologically speaking, quadra and E-type matter in this regard.

WA said the other day in the chatbox that she sees some Fi-valuers as rather being upset about the situation, not at the person. That's the sort of thing I tend to associate - maybe wrongly - with Fi and Fe.

That's a good observation and fits with my experience. Although here again, I find that Fi-valuers may interpret the situation itself differently than I and other Fe-valuers do. I would say that if I'm upset about a situation, it often derives from how a person's actions are causing the situation, and preventing its resolution, so I'm more apt to see interpersonal problems in terms of human deeds than simply as impersonal situations.

That's why I tend to look at it as a perspective - it's only "fake" when interpreted from the other side.

Yep.

I sorta need a guidebook on how to overcome Fi/Fe differences. But threads like this are always really helpful.

[Exodus]

So while there's no set of behaviors that can be easily and quickly applied any one type, generally Fe-valuing types look more at presentation and Fi-valuers look more at substance? Fe-valuers get offended if you deliver your message in a way they don't like and take care to make sure they're delivering their message in a tone they feel it will be best received in, while Fi-valuers get offended more at the actual content of your message and take care to make sure that they're phrasing their message in a way that they feel will be best received.

So if you told a Fe-valuer, to his face, that you think he was an asshole, he wouldn't get offended if you were giving off the emotional signals to let him know that you're just pulling his leg, and then he'd give you an, "Oh You!" expression and call you a name back, while if you called a Fi-valuer an asshole to his face, he'd be more likely to go, "What?! What the hell did I do?" You know, to use a crude example.

Definitely, good example.

Environments that involve a lot of ribbing, jokes at each other's expense, etc. will usually be more Fe (really, more beta). Fe is archetypally that large, loud gathering of people, all talking over one another, constantly interrupting each other, fighting for who can tell the best joke, the best story, whatever. Simmering conversation followed by explosions of laughter. ESEs like to give frequent "I love you"s whenever someone does something that meets their approval.

Sounds like you're mixing some in there - this doesn't sound like my kind of environment. isn't about being loud or attention-grabbing - that's more related to . All the other stuff is definitely though - poking fun, provoking reactions, etc.

Another Fi/Fe difference is in how close you are comfortable being with another person. I find that if an valuer likes you, they'll want to close the distance of the relationship a lot more quickly (and start talking about personal feelings and stuff) than an valuer would. This can make me uncomfortable, and I like to develop relationships through doing fun stuff with other people, rather than talking about personal feelings and relationships with others (I have to be really close to someone for this to happen). This seems to be a general trend; types bond best by participating in activities and common interests.

valuers put a lot of importance on trying to include people in social groups, whether they like them or not. valuers are much more willing to discriminate based on how much they like someone.

[Sir Knight]

So, to sum up, as a method of typing, if a person:

-reacts positively to expressed emotions

-becomes more expressive in response to expressed emotion

-acts towards you or others in a way that does not necessarily match the kind of relationship they have

-is concerned with the emotional well-being of their friends, and wants to do what they can to improve their friends' emotional condition

-picks up on changes of mood quickly

-looks to escape/fight against a perceived hostile atmosphere

-becomes upset if someone delivers information in a tone they don't like

-Has a very expressive face, emotionally-charged tone of voice, and uses hand gestures to punctuate important points

-is more likely to bring up complaints about another person rather than leave those complaints unstated

-is more likely to ignore their past history with a person so long as they aren't being an asshole right this second in order to have a good time with said person

-is invested in interactions containing loud, emotional ebullience and joking and cajolery

-interprets the actions of any given person based upon their relationship with that person

-is less likely to talk about grave, serious, personal stuff unless the mood calls for it

- is willing to commit murder for monetary gain

-will, in a fight, resort more to shouting and explosive gestures than
"cool" steel-eyed ethical condemnation

...then they are more likely to be Fe-valuing, yes?

Anything you would change/add?

[Exodus]

Good list. Just a few comments.

-picks up on changes of mood quickly

-Has a very expressive face, emotionally-charged tone of voice, and uses hand gestures to punctuate important points

This is more/also related to strong .

-looks to escape/fight against a perceived hostile atmosphere

not really...

-is more likely to ignore their past history with a person so long as they aren't being an asshole right this second in order to have a good time with said person

Very good!

-interprets the actions of any given person based upon their relationship with that person

This is more .

-is less likely to talk about grave, serious, personal stuff unless the mood calls for it

Serious in the sense of boring, factual or productive communication, not serious as in "I'm at a funeral".

- is willing to commit murder for monetary gain

lol, what? Sounds like to me.

-will, in a fight, resort more to shouting and explosive gestures than "cool" steel-eyed ethical condemnation

Yes.

[Sir Knight]

Good list. Just a few comments.

This is more .

That was what Aiss was getting at. That Fi-lers are more likely to reinterpret their relationship with a person based upon how that person acts towards them (This "friend" of mine constantly tries to take advantage of me and uses my resources without my permission. I don't think he's much of a friend at all) where as Fe-lers are more likely to reinterpret a person's actions based upon their relationship (He keeps taking advantage of that poor kid and normally I'd hate that kind of thing but he's my friend and I'm not going to drop him just because of that).

Serious in the sense of boring, factual or productive communication, not serious as in "I'm at a funeral".

Hm. To put it a better way, a Fe-valuing person would be less likely to discuss topics that don't fit the current emotional mood (Discussing the heartbreak one is going through after a tough breakup at a friend's bachelor party or talking about one's big promotion at a funeral. But, yes, less likely to discuss one's tax return, too.

lol, what? Sounds like to me.

That was just something CILi said. He was being true to his (phonetic) name.

[Slacker]

People with strong, unvalued Fe are going to display some Fe too, and often more than people wtih weak but valued Fe. So just a display of Fe doesn't make a person Fe valuing. Stuff like using hand gestures and showing outward emotion aren't so much valuing Fe as having strong Fe.

But some things on the list are good because they talk about actually valuing the one IE over the other, like:

-is more likely to ignore their past history with a person so long as they aren't being an asshole right this second in order to have a good time with said person -is more likely to ignore their past history with a person so long as they aren't being an asshole right this second in order to have a good time with said person

is more likely to ignore their past history with a person so long as they aren't being an asshole right this second in order to have a good time with said person

[jessica129]

Threads like this seem to do more harm than good. I guess we're all trying to learn as much as we can but I've noticed one person will have a completely different definition than the other of certain functions and it just confuses people more.

There needs to be a clear cut, black and white description of the functions and whoever doesn't have those ARE NOT THAT TYPE, END OF STORY. It shouldn't be this hard and this back and forth. Fi should be this, this and that and Fe should be this, this and that AND STOP CHANGING IT AND STOP INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY, IT IS WHAT IT IS LIKE IT OR NOT. UGH. The whole point of personality typing is to lump people into category and everyone here is so afraid of that...of falling into a 'stereotype'. Here's a newsflash, personality typing is all about lumping someone into a stereotype. I'm so sick of getting a set idea of what a certain function is then someone will come along and completely ruin it with their "ideas". You guys need to learn something from the enneagram. It's very straightforward and a lot less bullshit. FDSAFJKLJGKAFJSDGKLFDJGFADFAGREFVKDLJGK

[Computer Loser]

Threads like this seem to do more harm than good. I guess we're all trying to learn as much as we can but I've noticed one person will have a completely different definition than the other of certain functions and it just confuses people more.

There needs to be a clear cut, black and white description of the functions and whoever doesn't have those ARE NOT THAT TYPE, END OF STORY. It shouldn't be this hard and this back and forth. Fi should be this, this and that and Fe should be this, this and that AND STOP CHANGING IT AND STOP INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY, IT IS WHAT IT IS LIKE IT OR NOT. UGH. The whole point of personality typing is to lump people into category and everyone here is so afraid of that...of falling into a 'stereotype'. Here's a newsflash, personality typing is all about lumping someone into a stereotype. I'm so sick of getting a set idea of what a certain function is then someone will come along and completely ruin it with their "ideas". You guys need to learn something from the enneagram. It's very straightforward and a lot less bullshit. FDSAFJKLJGKAFJSDGKLFDJGFADFAGREFVKDLJGK

[glam]

The whole point of personality typing is to lump people into category and everyone here is so afraid of that...of falling into a 'stereotype'.

+100

[golden]

Haha.

I don't mind BEing a sterotype--go ahead 'n' lump me.

One of the problems I have w/ learning Socionics, though, is that some types seem to me more stereotyped than others in places like Wikisocion, which is where noobs end up. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's an impression I've gotten. It's just a hurdle to get past, though.

[Aiss]

Threads like this seem to do more harm than good. I guess we're all trying to learn as much as we can but I've noticed one person will have a completely different definition than the other of certain functions and it just confuses people more.

There needs to be a clear cut, black and white description of the functions and whoever doesn't have those ARE NOT THAT TYPE, END OF STORY. It shouldn't be this hard and this back and forth. Fi should be this, this and that and Fe should be this, this and that AND STOP CHANGING IT AND STOP INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY, IT IS WHAT IT IS LIKE IT OR NOT. UGH. The whole point of personality typing is to lump people into category and everyone here is so afraid of that...of falling into a 'stereotype'. Here's a newsflash, personality typing is all about lumping someone into a stereotype.

You're looking at the wrong typology then. Psychologists tend to agree with you that it's easier to label people based on explicit criteria, so you'd probably be happier with something scientifically accepted. Like Big5.

I'm so sick of getting a set idea of what a certain function is then someone will come along and completely ruin it with their "ideas". You guys need to learn something from the enneagram. It's very straightforward and a lot less bullshit. FDSAFJKLJGKAFJSDGKLFDJGFADFAGREFVKDLJGK

[717495]

Haha.

I don't mind BEing a sterotype--go ahead 'n' lump me.

One of the problems I have w/ learning Socionics, though, is that some types seem to me more stereotyped than others in places like Wikisocion, which is where noobs end up. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's an impression I've gotten. It's just a hurdle to get past, though.

In terms of not fitting any of the stereotypes from type descriptions or what people say online, I understand what you're talking about. I think they should be rewritten/clarified. It all comes down to people making assumptions off of too limited information, and others trusting these assumptions because they come and go around. I think we have a fairly good basis however for Socionics as for now, those being the personality observations of Jung and Augustinaviciute. In any case, Socionics is a lot more technical than stereotyping and making rush associations, its primary concern is of identifying the deeper more expansive information elements within people, and I don't think descriptions right now are very concerned about not stereotyping. Instead descriptions should paint a loose picture and be a guide, not an obvious categorization, stereotype or set of these. If not, there is no room for new information to develop as part of a personality, and types will remain stereotypes.

[Exodus]

Threads like this seem to do more harm than good. I guess we're all trying to learn as much as we can but I've noticed one person will have a completely different definition than the other of certain functions and it just confuses people more.

There needs to be a clear cut, black and white description of the functions and whoever doesn't have those ARE NOT THAT TYPE, END OF STORY.

Sorry, there just isn't such a black and white description. Coming up with a list of things as Sir Knight did is about the best you can do, and it's very helpful to clarify basic things like vs. values. It's possible to tie all the things together, but not in a single sentence or something like that.

[Galen]

The whole point of personality typing is to lump people into category and everyone here is so afraid of that...of falling into a 'stereotype'. Here's a newsflash, personality typing is all about lumping someone into a stereotype.

That has never been the point of socionics as far as I'm concerned. It's not meant to delineate between "personalities" per se as it is simply trying to classify types of information processing and cognition; information metabolism etc. This is why it's stupid to call socionics a "personality psychology," because were it truly concerned with personality it would simply look at ways in which people act and the more concrete motivations behind those actions.

[silverchris9]

Socionics isn't supposed to be straightforward. It is essentially literary criticism on Jung with a heruistic from Augusta (kind of like a Lacanian or Derridean reading of Hamlet, or an analysis of Whitman using Harold Bloom's revisionary ratios). It is supposed to be polyvalent and involve multiple interpretations. It's not supposed to be straightforward categorization based on a few silly external markers. If it were, it would be boring. The reason socionics is interesting is precisely because it is open to interpretation.

[jessica129]

Socionics isn't supposed to be straightforward.

Then I don't need to be here, bye.

It's not supposed to be straightforward categorization based on a few silly external markers. If it were, it would be boring. The reason socionics is interesting is precisely because it is open to interpretation.

Then what on earth is anyone doing here? Throwing around a million different ideas as to what each function means...why even have a designated function then? The whole point is to narrow it down so we can type each others and ourselves. Half of what I attempt to learn about socionics is completely pointless because it seems as if everyones opinions differ on what a certain function means. I get that you want to "debate" and "discuss" all this crap, but COME ON DAMNIT. If we're saying that each function cannot have a certain set of characterists, then wtf are we doing here? It's pointless and i hate this place.

[Sir Knight]

Then what on earth is anyone doing here? Throwing around a million different ideas as to what each function means...why even have a designated function then? The whole point is to narrow it down so we can type each others and ourselves. Half of what I attempt to learn about socionics is completely pointless because it seems as if everyones opinions differ on what a certain function means. I get that you want to "debate" and "discuss" all this crap, but COME ON DAMNIT. If we're saying that each function cannot have a certain set of characterists, then wtf are we doing here? It's pointless and i hate this place.

From what I've experienced, Socionics seems to be a beautiful, simple, easy model for describing how a person sees a world and a really clumsy, awkward model for describing how that method of seeing causes them to interact with it, despite the seemingly endless supply of subtypes to try and classify behaviour

A person can prefer certain kinds of behaviours based on their type, but ultimately they aren't bound into that. A person can see the world a certain way, but what they do with that sight is entirely up to them.

People with strong, unvalued Fe are going to display some Fe too, and often more than people wtih weak but valued Fe. So just a display of Fe doesn't make a person Fe valuing. Stuff like using hand gestures and showing outward emotion aren't so much valuing Fe as having strong Fe.

Well yes, of course. If a person exhibits any one of these behaviours in a vacuum then they could be of any type, but if they not only consistently display several of these behaviours over a long period of observation, but also prefer these modes of behaving, then they are more likely to be Fe-valuing than Fi-valuing.

No. I've always engaged in friendly shit-talking with people.

I'd say there's a little more to it than that. It'd be like treating your boss as you would any other co-worker or treating your parents like you do your friends (something my Fe-devaluing dad has gotten quite pissed at me for on occasion) or putting your crush upon the pedestal. Essentially the whole Merry "relationships should happen naturally and shouldn't have such formality and stiffness attached to them

Who the fuck isn't?

To put this a different way, Fe-lers would be more inclined to improve the mood of a friend who is down (Hey come on, you can't sit here and sulk forever, let's go and get hammered, it'll be fun!) whereas a Fi-ler would be more inclined to explore the feelings of downness and see what they can do to fix them (What's wrong? Do you want to talk about it? It might help you feel better)

I don't really like talking about grave personal stuff and I resent the idea that is about maudlin self-indulgent Oprah stuff. In the right time and place, if someone needs to get something out and be understood, I'm down with that. But if it's going on all the freaking time… seems neurotic to me. I'm going to start feeling like I'm just enabling the person to continue being sick if they don't seem be resolving anything and they keep rehashing the same issues.

This was targeted more at Fe-superego, and specifically Fe-PoLR. If someone is largely "blind" to the information they receive from their PoLR function then a Fe-PoLR would have a difficult time grasping the general emotional mood of a situation and could say or do something that's not apropos with that mood. That's not to say a Fe-PoLR is compelled or forced into making social faux pas everywhere they go, just that there is a greater danger of it happening due to the Fe-blindness.

[Galen]

Then what on earth is anyone doing here? Throwing around a million different ideas as to what each function means...why even have a designated function then? The whole point is to narrow it down so we can type each others and ourselves. Half of what I attempt to learn about socionics is completely pointless because it seems as if everyones opinions differ on what a certain function means. I get that you want to "debate" and "discuss" all this crap, but COME ON DAMNIT. If we're saying that each function cannot have a certain set of characterists, then wtf are we doing here? It's pointless and i hate this place.

I think the bulk of people on here have the same frustrations about it all. I also wasn't aware that being so open to interpretation was a positive thing? (@silverchris)

[Sir Knight]

You would treat all those kinds of relationships equivalently…? I'm missing something here I think.

Ideally, I'd like to. Going with the example of my dad, sometimes, when he does something I feel doesn't make sense or is inconsiderate I'll act condescendingly towards him, as a means of goading him into, like, "reconciling his ways" or something like that. And then he gets pissed at me for talking to him like that when he's my father and I'm his subordinate, which makes me pissed at him for even daring to think that he's immune to criticism just by virtue of the fact that he's my father, especially when he feels that he can talk condescendingly to me and I can't return the favor.

Which is something I'd think would map out to Fe versus Fi: He feels that I've committed a Fi-transgression when I talk down to him even though he's above me. Ideally, I'd like to be able to treat a person how I feel they should be treated without regard to their station. I should be able to condescend and tell my boss or my dad when they're doing something wrong without it being seen as some kind of huge faux pas because I'm going "above my station."

I don't like formality and stiffness either, and I dislike boundaries set for sake of arbitrary social conventions. I avoid people who uphold things like that. Names and titles don't define my relations to people. People define my relations to them.

I was thinking of it more in the way the two see relationships progressing. From what I've read, and what I've heard from my Fi-valuing sister and a co-worker, Fi-lers see relationships develop in discrete phases (we're interested in each other=>We're seeing each other=>We're dating=>We're boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.) of progressive intimacy whereas Fe-lers skip one or more of those steps and let the relationship progress in intimacy based on how they feel in the moment.

Yeah, but empathy can improve mood too. Like for me, just knowing that somebody understands, quite often makes the negative feeling evaporate. And I'm relieved and back to normal again.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Fi-lers would try to empathize with you and understand and commiserate with you in order to help you work through those negative feelings and solve them and hopefully the problem causing those negative feelings in the first place, while a Fe-ler would try to improve your mood forcibly, essentially pulling you away from your negative emotions and making you feel good which, while it wouldn't actually help you solve your problem, it would put you in a healthier, more emotionally positive state of mind to deal with that problem, rather than letting you sulk and self-deprecate and hate yourself.