Creative Fi vs Ignoring Fi
Could someone explain what creative Fi looks like and what it's like to use creative Fi? I've always had a hard time describing Fi in a positive way and I don't really understand it as a creative function.
I realize when I'm using Fi but it's not really something I would consciously use.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Instrumental vs Negligent ethical relation?
Fi creative : Contact/Accepting
Fi ignoring : Inert/Producing
Instrumental or creative,
as the name said, is rather elucidating the program's main attention towards the environment by contacting with objects such as people.
Ignoring or Negligent,
is compromised by importance of priority according to the program's attention towards the environment, since it's "sacrificed" or neglected.
And in theory, should be easier for Fi creative to "connect" with others since it's about flexibility (contact/accepting) towards ethical relation.
And as you were to talk about conscious and unconscious stage... it reminds me of something.
Going by the iceberg model, if Freud were to be right of his theory, ID would be a sub-conscious ice block.
I don’t know if this will be helpful but some of my observations of ExEs vs xEEs...
ESE and EIE are both prone to forming strong attachments to people, and it bothers them when these attachments are interrupted or they perceive a person they care about is distancing. They use their base Fe to express grievances with this and to try to reset the psychological distance, but this can sometimes come off as smothering to others.
SEE and IEE are both prone to blowing hot and cold. They are moody and willing to be a bit selfish to get what they want (usually as related to each’s respective base function). Both are prone to fluctuating attitudes, expressing one conviction one day and upholding a different one with the same vehemence the next (also partly due to Ti PoLR). Their feelings themselves may not have even changed, but their inclination to rely on their feelings does very frequently.
Fi ignoring, being an inert element, is more consistent in its expression. Fi creative, as the name suggests, is more situational and subject to variable expression.
Originally Posted by PinKDiGiT18
The bolded part sounds a lot like me. Its something people have said about me. But both sounds like me.
I just can't figure out how to explain Fi in a way that doesn't sound manipulative.
I don't really use Fi for anything, I don't really know what using would look like really.
Is it using statements like "You are a good friend to me, I can only trust you to do this for me"?
I'm trying to find a way to explain it in an everyday way where someone who doesn't know socionics will understand.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Both types will share some characteristics related to weak logic as both are 1D Ti types, the way all the 1D Te types are prone to conflict avoidance.
I do think things related to personal confidence in another person would fall under the Fi umbrella, because trust denotes a certain psychological distance with respect to another person.
Fi is static emotional energy (psychological distance between people/objects, reflecting on one’s internal feelings), while Fe is dynamic emotional energy (engaging people, interacting with the emotional atmosphere outside as well as inside a person).
This statement could be from a place of Fi, if you think this to yourself. However, if said to convince or persuade someone to do something for you, then it's used for another function's goal, maybe Fe or Te, depending what you ask for. I think it's common for EJs wanting to use Ti and Fi instead of seeing them for what they are, since they are their most repressed aspects. Trust is just trust(Fi is valued for it's own sake), not some argument you use. Fi is about regulating emotions to create standards of behaviour, the same as Ti is about regulating thought. To use your signature as example: "never doubt I love" is very Fe to say, because Fe valuers have to externalize their feelings for them to be "real". Fi doesn't need such declarations because how the Fi user behaves already tells it all(Fi standards of behaviour).
Accoring to Gulenko, the creative function is in the self-assertion block. Creative Fi: I have a good understanding of how close I feel to people and them to me, so that I can basically "create" and "maintain" good relationships with people who are compatible with me. By good relationships I mean to create an emotionally stable environment, where people know they can express hurts, worries, thoughts without being ostracized. However those relationships stay flimsy because of the impulsivity of being Ep, the fact that I have my own strong emotions(Fe demonstrative) and my bad understanding of ideological differences(Ti Polr). In most relationships there will be a moment where I'll be like "Fuck this, I want to be free/I don't agree with your ideas/standards but don't know how to reconciliate our differences using Ti, so I need personal space/distance from you(Fi)". SEE/IEE are not considering Fi a priority or nor how to use Ti to stabilize things, that's why it might look erratic. There is nothing "manipulative" about IEE or SEE as in "deceiving" or "misusing", it's just that personal relationships are mostly a secondary goal that are created and maintained for the Fi creative's personal happiness.
However, a word of caution. There are manipulative people of any type, and most of the time, they'll try to manipulate using their creative functions. Those Fi-creative people might use psychological closeness, make you believe they are your "friends" for some ulterior motive, like a favor or smth.
I knew like 2 EIE that were manipulative with Ni too, they'd gauge every of my reactions, trying to get into my head, looking for buttons to push; I felt like they were playing some game of chess in which I was just a pawn they could recruit into their own plans. Would try to maneuver me into a position where I'd behave in a way that benefitted them, while I'd have to pay for it. I would never do nor know how to do such things to someone. I'm very principled with my intuition.
This helped clear up things a lot, thanks.
I especially agree with the bolded part.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Honestly creative fi is v manipulative but it's so on the nose I doubt most people fall for it. (I think ethical rationals manipulate people the most effectively b/c they make it feel like a joint effort so it doesn't come across as selfish. That's just my perspective though.) Anyways creative Fi is almost purely manipulative but that doesn't mean it's necessarily self serving.
If making a joke to make someone laugh is being manipulative, then yes. If it's doing some errands for people the Fi creative likes as a mark of appreciation and to "maintain" a relationship, then yes. Otherwise I'd like to ask that you provide evidence to substantiate your claim that "Fi creatives are almost purely manipulative".
I know a lot of Te creatives I'd call manipulative. Example: I had this friend who would "pay" for me at the bar, because "I know I can count on you to repay me when I need something". Only later I learned that he'd get beers for free because he knew the barman. He was pretending to do me a huge favor when in fact it cost him nothing. A real crook! I never let him "give" me things anymore.
lmao
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
I didn't say Fi creatives are purely manipulative. I said creative Fi is. I'm referring to a functional model, not the people who resemble it.
I have no way of knowing if he's a real Te creative or not. Regardless:I know a lot of Te creatives I'd call manipulative. Example: I had this friend who would "pay" for me at the bar, because "I know I can count on you to repay me when I need something". Only later I learned that he'd get beers for free because he knew the barman. He was pretending to do me a huge favor when in fact it cost him nothing. A real crook! I never let him "give" me things anymore.
Your friend was taking advantage of a conventional moral obligation. I don't see any emotions involved there.
I think if somebody has a deep understanding of others' emotions (Fi) but lacks a sense of responsibility for them (Ji) then it's fair to say they have a strong capacity for emotional manipulation.
Well you said:
which implies that it's an observable trait, so I'm sure you understand why I got confused. I see you changed your mind. In my previous post I was arguing that Fi creative as a function isn't manipulative though, so I disagreeHonestly creative fi is v manipulative but it's so on the nose I doubt most people fall for it.
Well, I felt indebted. I was feeling something. What is your point though? That only feelers can be manipulative?
What makes you think that Fi creatives have a deep understanding of others emotions(strong Fi) but weak responsability for them(weak Fi)? I'd think both beliefs are contradicting according to cognitive theory. I don't think responsability has anything to do with Ip temperament, look at LII/LSI. They aren't to be responsible for others emotions. That's literally what they expect from their duals.
Idek what to make of this
Assuming he really is Te creative, the nature of your exchange was so transactional I seriously doubt he was paying attention to how you'd feel about it.Well, I felt indebted. I was feeling something.
Yes, in an ethical sense. It's basically Socionics dogma.What is your point though? That only feelers can be manipulative?
I think base Fi is analogous to affective empathy, as creative Fi is to cognitive empathy. It's not as contradictory as it seems. Anyway, responsibility for other people's emotions isn't as present in Fi creatives because they're irrationals. It has nothing to do with functional weakness. Fwiw LxI's feel responsible for other people's logic, that's what makes them so rigid and pedantic.What makes you think that Fi creatives have a deep understanding of others emotions(strong Fi) but weak responsability for them(weak Fi)? I'd think both beliefs are contradicting according to cognitive theory. I don't think responsability has anything to do with Ip temperament, look at LII/LSI. They aren't to be responsible for others emotions. That's literally what they expect from their duals.
@fairygodfather can you please tell more about what you mean by LxI's feeling "responsible for other people's logic",
or provide an example of how that responsibility applies only to rational Ti types?
Would that feeling of responsibility lead to an action such as LxI redefining or correcting something that has been said, in order to make what is shared as knowledge "outside" match the logic that is on their inside? Would they not be aware that this is their personal understanding of a subject and as such they cannot take responsibility of another person's understanding...surely that other person has to join the dots on their own?
I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted what you said. The "feeling responsible" part and its connection to rationality made me curious.
So you're actually talking about the following cases and you've been actually agreeing with me... this is going around in circles.
No you got that wrong. That's assuming that Fi can be two different things. Base and creative slots just affect how a function is used, not how it works.
They feel the need to correct others, especially in Ti areas. It's a prominent aspect of their character. You know, behaviors directed unconsciously towards the dual... I don't think I'm covering any new ground here.
Exactly.Would that feeling of responsibility lead to an action such as LxI redefining or correcting something that has been said, in order to make what is shared as knowledge "outside" match the logic that is on their inside?
I'm not LxI so I can't tell you, sorry. Also a lot of people are too lazy to join the dots and would prefer if somebody stepped in and did it for them.Would they not be aware that this is their personal understanding of a subject and as such they cannot take responsibility of another person's understanding... surely that other person has to join the dots on their own?
No I should've provided more explanation lol. It's just an observation I've made, nothing more.I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted what you said. The "feeling responsible" part and its connection to rationality made me curious.
A lot of what you said was pretty much incomprehensible tbh. But I don't think you get the difference between creative Fi ethical manipulation and run of the mill NTR manipulation.
I literally can't tell if you're trolling or notNo you got that wrong. That's assuming that Fi can be two different things. Base and creative slots just affect how a function is used, not how it works.
I was thinking about this thread today. How does an SEE use Fi? I'm wondering if someone I'm related to is an SEE.
They like to make people feel compelled to do things for them in the future by insisting on doing things like paying for stuff and buying things for that person.
They also like to use their position in the family as leverage to get people to do even petty things like getting them things around the house when they don't feel like getting up.
They will act very indignant if you refuse them in any way like you are a horrible person that hates them.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
I can speak from my experience that this happens to me with these types. They will correct or help define what I'm trying to say.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Yes, I've noticed you don't get half of what I say and dismiss the other halfI'm not trolling and I think I've heard enough from you, but thanks for your opinion
What about my question?
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
This thread contains a realistic example of arguing with an Ti polr.
Thanks @D E M O N. In trying to honestly understand which IEs I value, one thing I need to figure out is whether I appreciate that correction, redefining of my own terms - or whether it is a source of unwanted pressure. Sometimes it can feel like my own emphasis/elaboration gets squished because it is considered excess to a neat definition.
Do you ever feel like that as an expressive EIE, and if you do would you ignore your feeling in favour of being on the same page as LxI? Hopefully this is more on topic for the thread.
Kind of, I will usually say things to get a reaction and I may not be all that serious about it. An LxI would probably correct me in some way and I'll have to backtrack a some of what I said.
Usually this isn't really a correction that feels like my expression is being squished, its more a refinement of my idea. It helps me think to talk things through a LxI.
But in a situation where I feel strongly about something but I can't clearly argue my point and a LxI (or any logical type) is arguing against me I can feel a little powerless. I don't do very well in a debate. Other EIEs might be better.
So if I think about it I kind of am ignoring my feeling but it doesn't really bother me I guess because I'm using my dual seeking function which I like doing.
Its not like I can stay in Ti mode I will switch back to Fe pretty quickly so I don't feel that much pressure from it.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Quite often we encounter people in a discussion who can't agree with our point of view, that doesn't make them Ti Polr. In most cases it is noticeable that the interlocutors simply cannot understand the point that the other person is trying to make to them. I was trying to identify the source of controversy more precisely, with mixed results. He was not really caring about convincing or arguing with me but just sharing what he thought is information and in general not very responsive to my points, or confused and thinking I'm trolling him. It's just different argumentation styles, which lead to an unability to understand each other.
Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 08-20-2021 at 08:10 AM.
Yeah, don't take it as an attack, I just recognized your argumentation style with the expression of frustration about the other party not understanding what you mean.
Healthy Fi is just an inner moral compass that the person consults. But Fi can easily be manipulative if the person gets sucked up into it. Then the archetypal character of Fi becomes a weapon. It can be hard to defend against it, because it feels that the Fi-person has a strong inner conviction about you that is being forced upon you. But Fi in itself is not manipulative.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I've experienced creative Fi with SEE as an expectation for dedication to each other's concerns - if something goes wrong with us as a unit, other things are put on the backburner. Even if that means time is taken off work and public presentation (e.g. perceived reliability?) suffers.
In my relationship with an SEE there were rules such as: if my mother who you have never met comes to visit, you will welcome her into our apartment and if you express worries and doubts the doubt in itself is disrespect. If my bike breaks down you will answer your phone first and be the one who arrives with a car to collect me, and if I am left with having to rely on someone else before you, you have devalued our bond.
The emphasis seemed to be on deeds and whether they are consistent with expressed emotional sentiment.
If there is a lack of consistency there, it could lead to the xEE becoming concerned that you are not interested in them and deepening your bond with them in particular, and that they may as well be on the same level as an acquaintance.
Fi in any position could be perceived as "manipulative" by someone who does not value or has Fi in a bad position (eg. superego), so probably any IM could be defined as "manipulative". Not to mention too that manipulation is usually a trait of undesirable people and narcissists, and it is mainly done with Te and Fe (especially Fe).
its being aware of your hearts desires and seeing the full range of the complexity of human emotion.
the stronger it is the better you are at identifying how you really feel, and, paired with Se, being able to notice how others feel aswel and even apply pressure and have impact to peoples emotional strings. Paired with Ne, being able to imagine how others WOULD feel if, and discovering new ways human beings can relate to eachother.
higher definitions of Fi knows what makes human beings tick, and as such may be able to manipulate how others feel about things (or them).
Fi egos are guided by their heart, and as such correspond to the heart types of the enneagram, mainly type 4 (for fi lead) and type 3 (fi creative) in enneagram.
Because they are aware of others people state of heart, they can be able to construct images of themselves that they present to people (think social media presence etc)
they are excellent at guarding their reputation (and those whom they love), or even for companies.
Fi tends also to be related to morality in a sense that they tend to intuitively be able to 'feel' what is right or wrong. because their heart (fi) tells them so.
Last edited by Number 9 large; 08-23-2021 at 10:39 AM.
From here: http://socionics4you.com/post-1854?lang=en
Fi – Introverted ethics is a function of loyalty.
You are well versed in the feelings of people towards you and each other. It is important for you to maintain good relations with people in order to feel peace and stability. Valuing communication and compromise, peace over the war you are ready to give in to your offender and even plead guilty pursuing the desire to clarify the situation and establish peace as quickly as possible. However, you do not always manage to avoid conflicts and minimize emotional discomfort for yourself and others. At such moments, you feel dissatisfaction with yourself and powerlessness.
In patience and mercy, you regain hope, strength of mind, and peace of the soul. You are committed to create reliable relationships based on mutual understanding, trust and loyalty. Stability of feelings brings you more satisfaction than the expression of transient emotions. You are not inclined to put feelings on display, which can be mistakenly perceived by others as a lack of emotional response and empathy.
In the desire to protect people you love from problems and worries, you are not used to burden them with your requests, rarely complain about life. Suffering yourself in silence is easier than seeing loved ones suffer. As long as your loved one is safe and happy, you feel strong enough to cope with difficulties on your own.
By hiding your true feelings from others, you can also neglect them for yourself, taking the side of someone who needs protection and justice.
In resolving conflicts between people, you try to be impartial and honest with yourself, not to make a deal with conscience and not to pretend. Appreciate self-criticism and sincerity in people. Trust your heart and do not hesitate to offer advice on how to improve relationships between people. The welcoming atmosphere of trust and warmth is your ideal world.
What I was wondering is what does this look like in real life?
Does anyone have any examples from their life?
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
i can give u some interviews of people i think are Fi ego? so u can see how they vibe i guess
lady gaga: 4w3 ESI
Jk Rowling 4w5 EII
Leonardo Dicaprio SEE 3w2
Kanye West IEE 3w4
All rationalization implies creativeness in that one is producing unique output based on what one has received as input. People rationalize in a single primary configuration except for those times when stress may temporarily force them into a rather tenuous secondary mode. Those same people will likely not be totally comfortable with the rationalization output of alternate processing styles including when they produce it themselves so in a broad sense the descriptor “ignoring” could apply but it's rather misleading. The differences between Fi and Fe are related more to process configurations than the rationalization algorithms themselves – metaphorically, the comparison isn't what is cooked on a BBQ, it's how one cooks using a BBQ. Fi-rationalization is done in mental isolation detached from input processes (unlike Fe) so likely won't involve the participation of others although others may be present.
a.k.a. I/O
Fi is attraction/repulsion. Quite simply it's 'ooh I really like that, it aligns well with me' or 'eww I am so offended and disgusted about that' etc. Fi snarl and Te sassiness? lol. I have seen ILE/SLE Fi polr manifest into things like they are ambivalent about what they really like and don't like because they are focusing on things more logically. ESTp can be your typical frat boy asshole- but can also prefer this sort of diplomatic tact due to Fi polr and unvalued. My ILE friend will give this guy nobody else likes a ride in his car even though he's universally considered a 'bad person' because due to his Fi PoLR he's incapable of being offended by him in ways most other people are even though logically he knows he's pretty bad.
Fi-egos I've noticed are a lot more stern and harsh towards people they view as 'bad' and will Enneagram One-ishly want to punish offenders. Only Good People are allowed in Delta Disneyland- evil doers beware. Delta calls Betas 'Evil' and Betas call Deltas 'Pussies' going back and forth since the beginning of time itself.
I mean there is nuances here- it's hard to describe in words the nuances but obviously there are some things that are going to be 'repulsive' & disgusting to pretty much to everybody who is sane. SLEs aren't exactly moral or care about moral fag stuff but even they will be disgusted if somebody tortures an innocent baby in front of them or something. ((Unless they are unhealthy themselves)) I think Fi is attached to morality in a way (even though Fe is actually the more moral one tee hee) because morality is about personal boundaries a lot, what is right/wrong for *you* not necessarily anybody else.
In valued Fi it's all in the fine tuning, the finesse, the detail- the business and the corporation since Fi is linked with Te. If you are having trouble thinking of understanding Fi- just remember how it's intrinstically linked with Te and it's like things like promoting somebody in a company based on raw favoritism etc. The poor IEI or SEI is really so skilled and good with people actually but she's just not favored. Most actors on tv are bad and not very skillful- most normal people could actually do a much better job. They got there though cuz they were able to do some Fi favor for somebody who would give them what they wanted etc. Who you know and who you blank.
Creative Fi in SEE I think is like kissing a person's ass and being nice to them for your own self-gain. So they will do creative things to be close to a person as it benefits them as being that way they can also reap the tangible Te rewards when they behave that way. And yeah it is of course manipulative as hell but SEE is my semi dual and I still like them regardless of it lol.
I honestly relate to both of these. I made this thread as a way to relate more to ignoring Fi. I learned nothing LOL.
I still feel like I could be creative Fi.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
It's just a perspective here but then again, maybe you should consider each of Fi and Fe by the values alone:
Fi-value: Deep concern towards the ethical boundary of relationship, more focused towards bonding with others, conformed by what's deemed as good or bad in their ethical judgment, while more drawn towards relatability or connection with others. High valuing Fi or Fi-ego usually would be more strict towards their definition regarding policy of ethics and what's good or bad according to the societal consensus of ethics, while low valuing one or Fi-Super-ID would be less concerned but remains to be attached by those. In general, these types would be more polite and indirect in the conversation while less concerned about being expressive and merry.
Fe-value: Deep concern towards the outburst expression of emotion, more focused towards the self-expression to engage with others, conformed by what's meant to express or to not express in their ethical judgement, while more drawn towards expressionism or feelings about others. High valuing Fe or Fe-ego would be more expressive but strict towards the definition regarding the concept of freedom, while low valuing one or Fi-Super-ID would be less concerned but remains to be attached by those. In general, these types would be more merry and direct in the conversation while less concerned about being polite and serious.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote