Does Fi work this way?

[domr]

I know that in- and de- duction have a meaning somewhat similar to intro/extro- version but it's no coincidence these words are used in a logical context and not to emphasize the orientation of someone, that is better rendered by extro or introversion. An introvert doesn't necessarily draw a conclusion by scanning all the outside possibilities (=deduction), but he's nevertheless always internally oriented.

I told you, you need to think of the functions together, deduction and induction working together in the blocks. It might help if you write down the 8 possible block configurations and think about what each means. e.x.

1. Deductive Ethica -> Inductive Pragmatica
2. Deductive Ethica -> Inductive Theoria
3...

The big mistake Jung made was coming up with new words from scratch. If Jung had just used proper philosophical terms to analyze his work, like I did, then he would have developed a complete model.

[Bertrand]

process/result makes a lot more sense if you go by gulenko, who as far as I can tell reversed them from reinin, or the wiki is wrong. I can see how if you aren't aware of process philosophy or don't work in a sphere of competitive ideas its hard to appreciate the difference, but its a real aspect of personality that manifests clearly in scenarios where people argue over what matters, and its more than just induction or deduction

[Sol]

Often it is said (by all the formal sources) that Si will avoid/stay clear of situation where the inner peace/balance is disturbed

Si relates only to sensations - to physical comfort
Si ego people perceives this state more clear and hence try to keep it better with more efforts

> and will avoid things such as those that are harmful to one's physical health, etc.

because more cares about physical state to feel physically better

> Does Fi work similarly in that it will avoid the negative relations, those that present a potential for conflict?

similarity is that Fi ego care about emotional comfort of people, to keep emotional sympathies higher. they try to inspire lesser of negative emotions in people, to be more pleasant for them, to keep sympathies between people. try to keep own emotions directed on people as more pleasant too - for example they lesser will bark, but more often stop to talk
what Fe ego like you care not much making you redundantly rude. you perceive this as being more honest, - to describe something in emotional way is more important for your than what people will feel because of your actions. Fe types insult and bark with more pleasure, are lesser restrained, quiet and polite

> If this is true, would then a Fi ego person seek out the most compatible relations and generally be attracted to such?

it should be such for friendship relations. but people mostly establish cooperations, this factor is more weighty, but not relations of soul attraction
you may meet Fi ego in relations of kind-of-friendship with anyone. for romances the influence of nontypes factors is high so the difference with other types mb some, but not strong in how often they choose good IR and make good pairs. also Fi ego have higher abbilities to control relations for emotional comfort, and this makes easier for them to communicate with harder people, when they want this. also you'll not meet a lot of barking from base Fi type in bad relations - they will stay depressive but quiet and relations may look better than they are

> Would then a Fi ego person be less likely to be in largely incompatible relations (be it friends or other)

IR theory is about soul friendship relations mostly. also romances have such friendship as a significant reason for feelings, besides other basis

they should do this some better. but nontypes factors are strong in this, what may reduce the difference
for romances: passion, limited choice among people near you (working/living/studing near for long time, as feelings need some time to appear and need a knowledge), money, etc.

[squark]

process/result makes a lot more sense if you go by gulenko, who as far as I can tell reversed them from reinin, or the wiki is wrong. I can see how if you aren't aware of process philosophy or don't work in a sphere of competitive ideas its hard to appreciate the difference, but its a real aspect of personality that manifests clearly in scenarios where people argue over what matters, and its more than just induction or deduction

Obviously process/result is more than just deduction and induction, but that is a key to understanding Gulenko's forms of thinking article imo. Inductive/Deductive, and Static/Dynamic can alone give you each of the 4 thinking styles. DA= deductive dynamic. HA = inductive static. CD = deductive static and VS = inductive dynamic. It's a simplified way of forming a picture of how each one operates. If you prefer to bring in the other aspects of process and result when thinking about them, that's fine and good. . . I personally just like to streamline things a bit when I'm working with the ideas.

[Bertrand]

its funny because I think when it comes to understanding cognitive styles you can reduce it to 2 elements but I think the process/result actually does more work than deductive/inductive (but this requires an understanding of process/result as right/left and all that entails, which is I think the missing link), but to simplify it in either way you essentially lose something that tells you about what its describing. in essence you can arrive at the same result but that doesn't mean the process was as good, you lose fidelity on the signal so to speak

[squark]

My entire point of even bringing this up was to show that there's already a dichotomy that deals with induction and deduction. And it has nothing to do with introversion or extroversion. A detailed discussion of everything else that process/result entails is kind of beside the point.

[domr]

Obviously process/result is more than just deduction and induction, but that is a key to understanding Gulenko's forms of thinking article imo. Inductive/Deductive, and Static/Dynamic can alone give you each of the 4 thinking styles. DA= deductive dynamic. HA = inductive static. CD = deductive static and VS = inductive dynamic. It's a simplified way of forming a picture of how each one operates. If you prefer to bring in the other aspects of process and result when thinking about them, that's fine and good. . . I personally just like to streamline things a bit when I'm working with the ideas.

If you use induction/deduction (standard definitions i.e. equivalent to empiricism/rationalism) and Static/Dynamic then you are NOT USING JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY. Because you are not using the functions that Jung laid out. So you're new system needs to explain everything in the current system in equal or better detail, which it does not; hence why I said this stuff is trash.

[squark]

If you use induction/deduction (standard definitions i.e. equivalent to empiricism/rationalism) and Static/Dynamic then you are NOT USING JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY. Because you are not using the functions that Jung laid out. So you're new system needs to explain everything in the current system in equal or better detail, which it does not; hence why I said this stuff is trash.

That system is called socionics. Both it and Jung are highly speculative, but I do think the integration of Kepinski's information metabolism ideas in order to create the aspects in socionics is a definite improvement on Jung. Induction/deduction is a Gulenko addition talked about in his forms of thinking article, but static/dynamic is one of the 3 core, foundational pieces to the aspects, from which the rest of socionics can be built. Statics/dynamics, objects/fields, and explicit/implicit. Those 3 are the basic cornerstone dichotomies.

[domr]

That system is called socionics. Both it and Jung are highly speculative, but I do think the integration of Kepinski's information metabolism ideas in order to create the aspects in socionics is a definite improvement on Jung. Induction/deduction is a Gulenko addition talked about in his forms of thinking article, but static/dynamic is one of the 3 core, foundational pieces to the aspects, from which the rest of socionics can be built. Statics/dynamics, objects/fields, and explicit/implicit. Those 3 are the basic cornerstone dichotomies.

No it's not. Augusta's original system used the Jungian dichotomies. Your new pseudo-epstimeology, pseudo-theoreticalphysics system completely different.

Please explain to me you derive Jungian Fi from your 3 new dichotomies.

[squark]

No it's not. Augusta's original system used the Jungian dichotomies. Your new pseudo-epstimeology, pseudo-theoreticalphysics system completely different.

Please explain to me you derive Jungian Fi from your 3 new dichotomies.

Um, she brought in Kepinski's ideas from the very beginning. . . She talks about statics/dynamics and objects/fields in Dual Nature of Man, and all the earliest works, it's how the system was formed. . .

Socionics isn't Jung, though it's based on both Jung and Kepinski. And these aren't my dichotomies, they're basic ones that have been around pretty much forever.

Fi = implicit statics of fields. Fields are the relationships or connections between objects, how one thing interacts or impacts or is related to another thing. Implicit means something like undefined, assumed, or implied. It's not something solid you can point to, it's more of something that is felt or intuited, "just known" and harder to explain. And statics are well static, they're snapshots or a picture of how things are currently, not in motion.

So, when you look at implicit statics of fields you are looking at the static undefined connections between people and things. An undefined connection . . . a feeling of how things are related to one another in a static way. You see where this is going, yes? This becomes (in very basic form) I like this, he dislikes that, I feel drawn to this, she feels repelled by that, I want this, they want that. Then you begin running it through actual humans who have more complex thoughts than just "I like" and it becomes sentiment, and value. And that's its socionics meaning, which is not quite identical to Jung.

[domr]

Um, she brought in Kepinski's ideas from the very beginning. . . She talks about statics/dynamics and objects/fields in Dual Nature of Man, and all the earliest works, it's how the system was formed. . .

Socionics isn't Jung, though it's based on both Jung and Kepinski. And these aren't my dichotomies, they're basic ones that have been around pretty much forever.

Fi = implicit statics of fields. Fields are the relationships or connections between objects, how one thing interacts or impacts or is related to another thing. Implicit means something like undefined, assumed, or implied. It's not something solid you can point to, it's more of something that is felt or intuited, "just known" and harder to explain. And statics are well static, they're snapshots or a picture of how things are currently, not in motion.

So, when you look at implicit statics of fields you are looking at the static undefined connections between people and things. An undefined connection . . . a feeling of how things are related to one another in a static way. You see where this is going, yes? This becomes (in very basic form) I like this, he dislikes that, I feel drawn to this, she feels repelled by that, I want this, they want that. Then you begin running it through actual humans who have more complex thoughts than just "I like" and it becomes sentiment, and value. And that's its socionics meaning, which is not quite identical to Jung.

This is misleading. There are 4 short paragraphs, each less than 4 sentences long, that talk about static/dynamic in dual nature of man. It's basically just pigeonholing this pseudo-theoretical physics terms into her work to make it sound more professional, expect it does the opposite and weakens the work because she never uses this dichotomy for any analysis.

Your deduction of Fi is a nightmare. 1) It doesn't explain any of the aspects we notice in Fi. 2) It doesn't explain why dynamic + ethic = relationships. You are simply defining Fi as relationships between people, without any actual deduction from your dichotomies. This is why so many people leave the community and academia isn't taking any of this serious. These are rookie logic mistakes.

[Bertrand]

the US constitution is the shortest national constitution still in existence. its also the oldest and has spawned entire libraries of law. my point here is 4 sentences is more than enough to get the job done, and evaluating the quality in terms of quantity is a mistake. also implicit dynamics of fields (Fe), for example, isn't that crazy. I don't really see the relevance of whether or not "Augusta uses it for analysis", unless your standard for an analytic framework is that it be constantly employed. ironically that seems to be your critique of squark

squark is essentially just taking up the analysis. we also don't actually know how little or much Augusta used it, since she may simply have omitted it here as being outside the scope of what she wanted to accomplish, in the ridiculously tiny sample that we have of her total work, i.e.: a single piece that served as a general introduction. you're drawing a lot of conclusions based on assumed factors rooted in considerations of how the work was employed (as if that even matters) and not what is really contained within it (in terms of substantive theory, which is where the actual meat is). elegance is a thing, in any case. many such contributions of genius take the form of ultra concise formulations, thats actually what makes them genius. basically, you've supplied a whole web of premises that are little more than assumptions in framing what Augusta really meant, and the significance of her work, and how one ought to "ape" whatever Augusta did (apparently Augusta implied a proper method..?) it all presumes itself to evaluate the work, but it actually shows a real lack of ability to evaluate the work, according to pure logical standards anyway

[domr]

the US constitution is the smallest national constitution still in existence. its also the oldest and has spawned entire libraries of law. my point here is 4 sentences is more than enough to get the job done, and evaluating the quality in terms of quantity is a mistake. also implicit dynamics of fields isn't that crazy. I don't really see the relevance of whether or not "Augusta uses it for analysis", unless your standard for an analytic framework is that it be constantly employed. ironically that seems to be your critique of squark

Yes. duh. You can shove the entire universe into socionics if you want, which is what a lot of people including your hero gulenko are doing. The only way to say with any reasonable confidence that these things belong in the system is for them to have use, e.g. be used for analysis.

[Bertrand]

maybe you should start with some self analysis

You can shove the entire universe into socionics if you want

this is a projection on how you operate with respect to thinking... people who actually can think don't work like this. in other words, you can only do this by giving up, or never possessing in the first place, other thinking contents; if someone is doing this its because they operate on that level, but its a attribution to assume the people in question do (or anyone besides yourself really), when formulating the criterion for evaluating them. in other words suggesting this is at all a possibility for someone like squark or augusta short shrifts everything built into their understanding and makes it sound like they just go around accepting or denying things willy nilly and its all nothing more than whimsy. if this is the premise you build into forming your conclusions of course you're going to arrive at a wrong conclusion because it fundamentally misapprehends what mechanism is at work and what guardrails are in place, and subsequently why it is the output is the way it is and why that may not be the weakness you see it as. in other words, it (unfairly) makes error a premise so of course it finds it in the conclusion

in the end your reasoning seems to be "I don't see augusta using this in her analysis therefore x" which is really just the method of a person who copies what has been demonstrated to work by others first, its not the formula for actually developing new knowledge. the problem, domr, is that you are attempting to rejigger the system in such a way that requires some appreciation for what goes into the latter

[squark]

This is misleading. There are 4 short paragraphs, each less than 4 sentences long, that talk about static/dynamic in dual nature of man. It's basically just pigeonholing this pseudo-theoretical physics terms into her work to make it sound more professional, expect it does the opposite and weakens the work because she never uses this dichotomy for any analysis.

Your deduction of Fi is a nightmare. 1) It doesn't explain any of the aspects we notice in Fi. 2) It doesn't explain why dynamic + ethic = relationships. You are simply defining Fi as relationships between people, without any actual deduction from your dichotomies. This is why so many people leave the community and academia isn't taking any of this serious. These are rookie logic mistakes.

Fields are relationships. Fi is implicit static relationships (ie fields) while Ti is explicit static relationships. Ni is implicit dynamic relationships, and Si is explicit dynamic relationships. Every introverted IE deals with relationships between objects. Different kinds of relationships, but all of them relationships.

The object/field dichotomy itself defines whether you're dealing with things/objects/bodies or with fields, which is the relationships and interactions between objects.

[domr]

Fields are relationships. Fi is implicit static relationships (ie fields) while Ti is explicit static relationships. Ni is implicit dynamic relationships, and Si is explicit dynamic relationships. Every introverted IE deals with relationships between objects. Different kinds of relationships, but all of them relationships.

The object/field dichotomy itself defines whether you're dealing with things/objects/bodies or with fields, which is the relationships and interactions between objects.

You just crammed a bunch of physics terms into the system and didn't explain anything.

* Fi is implicit static relationships
* Ti is explicit static relationships
* Ni is implicit dynamic relationships

These are definitions, not explanations. You have redefined the functions into these new dichotomies BUT you haven't explained how they derive from those dichotomies. So you haven't added any value and have in fact made everything more confusing.

[Delilah]

Si relates only to sensations - to physical comfort
Si ego people perceives this state more clear and hence try to keep it better with more efforts

> and will avoid things such as those that are harmful to one's physical health, etc.

because more cares about physical state to feel physically better

> Does Fi work similarly in that it will avoid the negative relations, those that present a potential for conflict?

similarity is that Fi ego care about emotional comfort of people, to keep emotional sympathies higher. they try to inspire lesser of negative emotions in people, to be more pleasant for them, to keep sympathies between people. try to keep own emotions directed on people as more pleasant too - for example they lesser will bark, but more often stop to talk
what Fe ego like you care not much making you redundantly rude. you perceive this as being more honest, - to describe something in emotional way is more important for your than what people will feel because of your actions. Fe types insult and bark with more pleasure, are lesser restrained, quiet and polite

> If this is true, would then a Fi ego person seek out the most compatible relations and generally be attracted to such?

it should be such for friendship relations. but people mostly establish cooperations, this factor is more weighty, but not relations of soul attraction
you may meet Fi ego in relations of kind-of-friendship with anyone. for romances the influence of nontypes factors is high so the difference with other types mb some, but not strong in how often they choose good IR and make good pairs. also Fi ego have higher abbilities to control relations for emotional comfort, and this makes easier for them to communicate with harder people, when they want this. also you'll not meet a lot of barking from base Fi type in bad relations - they will stay depressive but quiet and relations may look better than they are

> Would then a Fi ego person be less likely to be in largely incompatible relations (be it friends or other)

IR theory is about soul friendship relations mostly. also romances have such friendship as a significant reason for feelings, besides other basis

they should do this some better. but nontypes factors are strong in this, what may reduce the difference
for romances: passion, limited choice among people near you (working/living/studing near for long time, as feelings need some time to appear and need a knowledge), money, etc.

The part in bold is the part that is of interest in our communication, that is, I don't want to have any communication with you. I have in fact developed a dislike of you, which was initially mere neutrality. The likes and dislikes are strong for Fi ego types, so I hope you will read back what you wrote and use that to analyze our interaction and accept it for what it is.

[squark]

These are definitions, not explanations. You have redefined the functions into these new dichotomies BUT you haven't explained how they derive from those dichotomies. So you haven't added any value and have in fact made everything more confusing.

Yes, they're definitions. But, I'm not redefining them, these are the original definitions of the information aspects. How much have you read re. socionics theory, and what precisely are you asking for?

[mightylizard]

Excellent question.

Let's start off with what Fi ABSOLUTELY is not. It is not a value judgment....it does not fall into some moral domain. It is a socionics function. Plain and simple. Socionic functions are information processors. Thus, Fi is an information processor. That means value neutral. The butchering of Fi into a conflation with morality is amongst the pervasive stereotype that needs to be tossed out.

Si similarly got railroaded by those working inside the one dimensional, one typology closed universe....there it got conflated into type nine. Avoidance of allowing situations to disturb one's mental tranquility is pure enneagram nine. R & H calls it the nine's inner sanctum. That's not to say the nine does not avoid such situations....the SLE-Se 9w1 so/sp can be quite brutal, but that its more nines negate the impact of their actions through the defense mechanism known as isolation. They disassociate...it allows them to be aggressive without really having to experience the impact of that aggression. The inner sanctum never gets touched. In attributing type nine to Si/SEI, socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality. They couldn't just stick to socionics as cognition even though that was the crux of the theory. Think about it. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People will vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.

In contrast to typologers with one typology blinders on, I've not only laid a conceptually/structurally/logically flawless foundation for typing enneagram types (nobody else on the internet has done this), but I also laid the foundation for a conceptually/structurally/logically flawless foundation for typing socionic types. Thus, my point of view is expansive enough to lord over everybody but especially those just coming from inside a closed socionics universe...It's important to get the right information out there....my unification of socionics and enneagram does that. [on a sidenote, any and all typers here elsewhere or in wanting to go off on their own, need to be using the foundations I have laid as their basis for typing. anybody whose using my foundations will qualify to receive protection and reinforcement.]

So in turning to Fi, we are looking specifically at the cognition. I will repost my post on Fi cognition, which is like the best concise summary of Fi cognition ever and I am not saying that because I wrote it, but because it gets out of the moralistic shell game of conflating Fi to morals...It was also the post that set off the great socionics bloodbath against the quadra values mythology.....what I got was...."Oh but don't you know all murderers and psychos are in Beta!"

"Fi cognition is an internal mirror of other people's inner worlds. It would be like having another person inside your skin, that you're constantly introspecting to. Fi has heightened capacity to experience that other person's thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/impressions and grasp the other persons' psychology as if it were organic to their own. See the car-ride clip from basic instinct. in the meantime, the EII's own thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/drives are pushed out of cognition and wind up in the PoLR.

Fi/Ne cognition excels at envisioning/anticipating/forecasting immediate and distant futures for the person....so the possibile ways in which the surrounding context will effect that person's psychology. in the clip you see lecter fishing for information that he can use to deepen his internal mirror of clarice.

EII vs IEE: The difference between Fi/Ne and Ne/Fi is Fi/Ne is drained by any environment/situation where they aren't directly involved with the person/people they have internally mirrored. Ne/Fi mirroring cognition reflects more the other person's external world and outer responses/inflections but doesn't go as inward. Ne/Fi mirroring changes rapidly from one environment to the next and just mirrors enough to adapt/blend in socially. It's very easy to tell who the EII has in their internal mirror because that's who they will constantly talk and/or wonder about. "

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...83#post1254083

Can you elaborate on this? It seems more Ne than Fi. I am an ILE and I can do almost all of the bolded stuff effortlessly.

Re: the original question. I cannot speak to Fi; however, I can speak to Ti: I suppose I am prone to seeking what makes the most sense, given my own understanding of a situation. In a sense I am a "slave" to Ti - if an argument has holes in its logic, I cannot bring myself to think that it is a good argument, regardless of how much I want to believe it. That said, I wouldn't say I "move away" from arguments, people, etc. whose "Ti" (i.e., internal system) does not match my own (that seems for Ti-POLR); rather, I simply just sit silently or, if I feel as though it is important enough, I engage in debate, which does not bother me even if me and the other person leave completely disagreeing with each other (this seems to particularly effect Ti-POLRs, and they seem genuinely uncomfortable when their arguments are constantly poked and prodded with questions, challenges, etc., which is why it seems to me that moving away from people with opposing views is more Ti-POLR than Fi-POLR). It genuinely does not bother me when someone has a different opinion to me. Internally I may reject someone else's opinion, and I have my distinct reasons for doing so; however, I rarely verbalize this fact in person. I suppose that Fi egos are similar but with Fi data. What that specifically is I do not fully understand.

That said, when I feel uncomfortable in a relationship with someone I avoid them, and I think that this has to do with Fi-POLR. Fi-egos seem "fine" to deal with anyone, even if they don't particularly like them. Perhaps they just are very comfortable with knowing exactly why they do and do not like different people, and know how to deal with different personalities in the same way Ti-Ego knows how to deal with various views on a topic.

[End]

Often it is said (by all the formal sources) that Si will avoid/stay clear of situation where the inner peace/balance is disturbed and will avoid things such as those that are harmful to one's physical health, etc. Not in these exact words, but this is a very brief summary of it.

Does Fi work similarly in that it will avoid the negative relations, those that present a potential for conflict? If this is true, would then a Fi ego person seek out the most compatible relations and generally be attracted to such? Would then a Fi ego person be less likely to be in largely incompatible relations (be it friends or other)

Thanks for your feedback.

No, in fact, it'll actively seek out those relations, but with the caveat that it is responsive. That is, doesn't seek conflict with others, but if conflict comes, we're down to fight to the bitter end and may God have mercy upon our foe if we valuing types win.

is basically the "fuck around and find out" function (pairs perfectly with because that provides the "how" you find out and why you'll regret it as it were). For instance, I'm a theist. Point a gun at my head and demand I blaspheme against my God and I'll take you for a ride that, hopefully, concludes in me at the very least taking you down with me. I know I'm right on that front and nothing you can say will dissuade me from my conclusions.

This is, also, the major drawback/dark side of . Once that function has made its conclusion, that's pretty much it. Like I've said before, once a person's mind is concluded, it'll take a major, borderline instance of divine intervention, to get them to be "open to reason" as it were. I really wish more people were, but the data and my own life experience tells me otherwise. Conversions can only happen at ordained times. Any attempt to force them is ultimately counterproductive. It was no mistake that Saul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus and not before then...