# Another Argument In Socionics



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> I already explained in the context of the video. I explained my side. You explained your side. I explained why I disagree with your side. If you want descriptions of Fi & Fe, there are plenty on the internet to educate yourself. Ain't my job to explain what the concept is. I'm merely identifying it (or the lack of it) in the behavior of these people.


No. I asked you to _define_ them, using your own words, and how you apply that when identifying these people as Fe vs Fi.



Dalton said:


> The topic of "comedy" was never intended by the OP anyway. Look at the thread title. @Entropic just used comedy because he wanted to find a cheap excuse to label Affleck as Fe-valuing.


You really think that? You need to think again. I used that example not because it's comedy, but because it's an interview between two Fe-valuing types and how they are clearly expressing the merry trait in this interview. I did not at all know that Jimmy Fallon's show was a comedy show or something like that.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Dalton said:


> You're basically saying what I already said but with more words and more abstract examples. I don't get your point.


If you meant subjective vs objective from a Jung standpoint, that's fine.
My main point is the first paragraph you quoted: I'm not sure theoretical terminology is a great way to go. I'm elaborating and giving examples so others can possibly point out the loopholes of how I am applying objective vs subjective in real life.

Regarding the latter half of the post, I quoted your post, but in reality was replying to 3 people: You, Rex Magnus and Entropic.



Dalton said:


> Well everything you've said supports what I already said.


Then we are most likely in agreement over Fe vs Fi. Although to be honest, I did not see the same sentiment in your posts. 



Dalton said:


> The topic of "comedy" was never intended by the OP anyway. Look at the thread title. @_Entropic_ just used comedy because he wanted to find a cheap excuse to label Affleck as Fe-valuing.


It's a derail. I'm interested in the comedy topic, more than videos, and want to delve into it more. Since the thread was already heading in that particular direction, I felt like pushing it along.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> No. I asked you to _define_ them, using your own words, and how you apply that when identifying these people as Fe vs Fi.


I don't have a clear conscious definition to share. I simply know by intuition that somebody fits the model.



Schweeeeks said:


> Then we are most likely in agreement over Fe vs Fi. Although to be honest, I did not see the same sentiment in your posts.


How do my sentiments seem to differ?



> It's a derail. I'm interested in the comedy topic, more than videos, and want to delve into it more. Since the thread was already heading in that particular direction, I felt like pushing it along.


Ok!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> I don't have a clear conscious definition to share. I simply know by intuition that somebody fits the model.


How does that make a strong and solid counter-argument when I argued that Affleck is an Fe type? You kept asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you, show me the evidence of how Fi fits Affleck better and how this relates to the model. If you cannot prove this, your opinion is simply logically invalid. I've showed you plenty of evidence and supplied you with an equal plenty of reasoning where I also defined Fi as self-referential so Fe by comparison, would be not referential to self. The burden of proof is on you, not me.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Rex Magnus said:


> The topic is about whether Islam being a religion of peace or not, or Islamophobia as perceived by Ben Affleck.
> 
> Bill Maher is probably an LSE. What do you think of Ben Affleck and Sam Harris judging from their participation in the debate?
> 
> What is Bill O'Reilly's type, incidentally? ESE? I can't see him and Maher valuing the same functions.


Bill Mahr - SEE
Sam Harris - ILI
Ben Affleck - SLE. I'm not seeing the EIE and the EII typing is just "WTF?".
Bill O'Reilly - LSE

Also, I actually agree with Ben Afleck, Sam Harris' arguments are completely unconvincing without him showing all of his sources for his arguments. Otherwise it sounds like veiled Zionism to me.

My $0.02.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> How does that make a strong and solid counter-argument when I argued that Affleck is an Fe type? You kept asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you, show me the evidence of how Fi fits Affleck better and how this relates to the model. If you cannot prove this, your opinion is simply logically invalid.


It wasn't meant to be a "strong and solid counter-argument."

I already explained how the typing of Ben as EII is "logical". Read my posts and you'll see that.

If you valued Ni, you'd understand where I'm coming from.

Also, that last sentence is trying much too hard to emulate Se. :kitteh:


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Dalton said:


> How do my sentiments seem to differ?


Only a few parts

>Notice how Fallon laughs. That's merry preference, and notice how this seems to be the purpose behind Affleck's stories. There's no deeper morality here; the point is to make Fallon laugh. 
>It's a COMEDY SHOW. His job is to make everybody laugh. Otherwise, they'll never let him back on the show. This is not Fe -- this is BUSINESS. 
I wanted to explain the effects of Fe and Fi in comedy in general. I never addressed how Fi makes people laugh vs Fe, but wanted to say something related.

>I think what he means to say is that Affleck narrates his stories with the prime purpose of making Fallon laugh. An Fi valuer would instead narrate his stories and emphasize their emotional significance or what they personally meant to him etc.
>You're saying that Fi doms are incapable of sharing humorous stories? That's ridiculous.Although I understand where it originates, that is definitely an exaggerated analogy about social gatherings vs therapy.
In here, I agree with Rex's statement and wanted to explain some examples/reasoning about it more. It's possible I missed his point, but nevertheless I illustrated what I took from it and my observations.
Since it's harder for me to think of meaningful Fi dom story sharing examples vs Fe, I went with story-_reacting_ which can be just as indicative. 

My tidbit there is the same pattern really. Fi is unlikely to joke about something they find morally offensive. If Fe is around a bunch of people who find it funny, they are more likely push personal reservations aside and tell the joke anyway (no victim, no crime). 

If Fi has to tell a funny story that involves something they are against, they seem more likely to "isolate" that part of the story. Like "well this part is bad..I know it's bad.." and then continue on. Maybe even re-state that opinion at the end, regardless of who they are around (only applies if Fi is strongly against it probably)

Once Fe realizes they can let down the "PC filter", nothing is sacred unless something bad happens.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I like how taking a shot at someone's type is basically the "Well, your mom sucks" of this forum.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Rex Magnus said:


> I like how taking a shot at someone's type is basically the "Well, your mom sucks" of this forum.


But she does suck. It's not a shot, if it's the truth.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> It wasn't meant to be a "strong and solid counter-argument."


Then I think I'm pretty obliged to have you offer one, seeing how I've offered you far more than you've bothered to offer me. 



> I already explained how the typing of Ben as EII is "logical". Read my posts and you'll see that.


So hence we get into an issue of semantics, since I want to understand how you classify Fi, since this helps for me to see the validity of the arguments you offered. 



> If you valued Ni, you'd understand where I'm coming from.


This is a logical debate, as such, the defendant and opponent need to offer their own definitions and explanations as to why their positions. Otherwise it wouldn't be a debate. 



> Also, that last sentence is trying much too hard to emulate Se. :kitteh:


And how is it an attempt to emulate Se?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

It's been hard to follow conversation in the video as all these people were talking at once. But I understood that main debate was that Maher and Harris were trying to discuss troubling trends in Islamic society and how they could be changed, while Affleck insisted that people should be treated individually. No one really opposed Affleck's view on the latter, but stood against his unwillingness to accept the fact that information on trends they provided was the actual thing that is currently happening. It seems like they were not even arguing the same thing. 

Affleck's POV may be confused with Fi, but that's not exclusive to introverted feelers to feel strongly about something. It's more important were his ethical focus lies. It may not be seen from this particular video clearly, but he's not an Fi valuer. He always has his ethical/people focus _out there_ - how others would respond to his work, how it would look from other's point of view, what can be done for his work to be believable in the eyes of the audience, incorrectness of personal impressions about people and what the people really are like. There's a lot of this stuff if one looks through his interviews, and barely any occurrence of resorting to his personal agenda.
There's been cited concrete data with specific numbers, but Affleck dismissed it all, thinking that they were stereotyping. Lol, I don't know what else can be said, such a Te devaluing. If he really were Te suggestive, he would be interested in this stuff actually. 

I think Beta is right for Affleck, but I'm not entirely convinced of Fe-dom. He's always been more of a "wooden" type of an actor, with an emotional range not too far from a toothpick (no offence in regard to actor meant).


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Schweeeeks said:


> But she does suck. It's not a shot, if it's the truth.


Aye. 

Honestly, this whole thread hurts my head. There is a whole lot of theory going on and not enough FACTS for my liking. 

Anyway, I had the same initial impression as Dalton; Affleck EII and Harris ILI. 

There is not much else to say about this really because there isn't enough information to play with. We could just keep going around and around in circles forever and still not get any closer to the "truth".


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Some more I found interesting. Both featuring Quentin Tarantino, who is probably an SLE.

I personally thought the woman was stupid for associating with fiction with reality and misunderstood his point about the movie empowering women but at the same time, I didn't quite agree with Quentin when his justification for the excess violence in the movie was that it's fun. He also brushed aside how often relatively innocent people die in his movies (especially for stupid reasons, Marvin in Pulp Fiction, the girlfriend in the movie featuring De Niro), which is probably the only major gripe I've had with them since I enjoy them for the most part. It almost seems like they are being mocked. Something about the lack of significance given to the matter of life and death perturbs me, I guess. It's not the killing of innocent people per se, but the way they seem like mere mannequins being thrown away that bothers me. I kind of agreed when his movies were called "soulless".


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Ben isn't acting very Delta here, y'know...


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Big fan of the Four Horsemen and the new atheism movement as a whole. Sam Harris, always had ILE vibes from him.

As to Tarantino. The guy makes good movies, wouldn't particularly call them mindful or anything, but they're definitely entertaining. Couldn't see myself having Super-Ego relations with him really, I lean more towards maybe SEE for him.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

The_Wanderer said:


> As to Tarantino. The guy makes good movies, wouldn't particularly call them mindful or anything, but they're definitely entertaining. Couldn't see myself having Super-Ego relations with him really, I lean more towards maybe SEE for him.


INCOMING RANDOM OPINION...

I always saw Tarantino as SLE. Very Beta, imo.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

bill maher is a temperamental idiot

i don't really have an opinion on ben affleck

neither know how to argue

but put sam harris in a room with this man and you'll get a debate worth listening to

ff to 1:08






what do you think his type is?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Sam Harris and that dude did have an debate. It was half worth listening too.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Modal Soul said:


> what do you think his type is?


I see Ti and Te for the most part. I lean more towards Te supported by Ni with occasional uses of Ti. So, LIE.



> LIEs are confident in spotting internal logical contradictions in ideas and arguments proposed by others, and in pointing them out; however, they are more likely to point out how such ideas and arguments do not hold if checked against external evidence. They see the internal consistency of a case as of lesser importance than the accuracy of the facts presented with that case.





> LIEs make an effort to be aware of the need not to disrupt the prevailing emotional atmosphere, but they do not succeed for any length of time if that would clash with their inner emotional state and private feelings about the other persons present. A typical example is the person who, in a group of people exchanging pleasantries and casual conversation, will occasionally correct erroneous statements made by others, in a way that can be perceived as annoying, despite otherwise making an effort to abide by the prevailing emotional atmosphere.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

I understand both sides of this argument, but lean toward Maher and Harris for two reasons:

a) Affleck's got his mind in a good place, but is going about it the wrong way
b) The argument was a lot of them trying to put Affleck into a place that wasn't him exploding in emotional outburst. He was taking too much of what they said at face value and making hasty assumptions—just because Maher and Harris were proposing this information and bringing to light what already exists, does not mean they were generalizing the entire religion or its people. It's also illogical for Affleck to assume that the whole not being that way means it doesn't exist at all. He got too caught up in what he thought of the situation in that it prevented him from seeing all aspects of it.

I'm not well-versed in socionics; I just wanted to put this out there.
Affleck has a very good point, but he was short-sighted and highly emotional in the debate, which was not (and is not) productive or conducive to the debate as a whole. What he managed to do was show his perspective, make himself look horrendously stubborn, and successfully grip parts of the audience with appeals to emotion.


----------

