# Valuing Objective Cognition is Fe-valuing



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Flatlander said:


> Your focus appears to be on the verbiage surrounding things rather than how they actually work. Forget about Socionics' convoluted way of trying to explain this for a second and let me break it down for you.
> 
> 
> Extraversion and Introversion are _attitudes_. They determine the vector of your thought in a given realm.
> ...


And what is that point? That you prefer Jungian cognitive theory to Socionics?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> And what is that point? That you prefer Jungian cognitive theory to Socionics?


You're reading off the superficial aspect of what you've seen in the situation rather than the actual point I am making about Fe/Ti thought being more geared toward reasoning about human behavior. While this point may have been founded on Jungian cognitive theory, it is no less valid because Socionics and Jung do not actually disagree. Socionics has a lot of stuff to say that was irrelevant to what Jung himself was about, but it is extrapolating from and intended to further Jung. Jung is Socionics' mother and the scientists who founded it were its father.

Essentially, if I reference Jung, or have an opinion founded on him, it shouldn't be incompatible with the existing points of view.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Flatlander said:


> You're reading off the superficial aspect of what you've seen in the situation rather than the actual point I am making about Fe/Ti thought being more geared toward reasoning about human behavior. While this point may have been founded on Jungian cognitive theory, it is no less valid because Socionics and Jung do not actually disagree. Socionics has a lot of stuff to say that was irrelevant to what Jung himself was about, but it is extrapolating from and intended to further Jung. Jung is Socionics' mother and the scientists who founded it were its father.
> 
> Essentially, if I reference Jung, or have an opinion founded on him, it shouldn't be incompatible with the existing points of view.


I'm using socionics terminology and using it correctly.

If you want to switch to how it relates to Jungian Cognitive Theory, and how it relates to Socionics, we may; however, a child is not identical to the mother, and it shares traits with both parents, while leaving behind some others. In Socionics case, the mother died at birth, whereas the father, or rather some of them, are sill prevalent in it's upbringing. They have decided to raise it such that my terminology is accurate.

If you want to go back to Jung, and how such relates to socionics:

Extrovert exerts libido on an object to receive information. Introvert accepts libido to give information. Libido (energy) is Feeling. Information (matter) is Thinking. The extroverted thinker is concerned with receiving information. The extroverted feeler is concerned with exerting libido. The introverted thinker is concerned with giving information. The introverted feeler is concerned with receiving libido. Sensing is space. Intuition is time.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Well, what Flatlander is saying about Fe is still inline with how Socionics defines Fe. Emotional atmospheres, etc.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Distortions said:


> Well, what Flatlander is saying about Fe is still inline with how Socionics defines Fe. Emotional atmospheres, etc.


The second sentence is correct, but the first is not. The one post, he mixed Ti and Fe, as well as mixing Ti and Ni. He also chose poor words in one, as "evaluatory" is a function.

One thing I think people fail to realize, is that extroverted elements are all questions, information requests. For instance, people say "you're projecting." Well, that is true, it is a projection of something, but not necessarily the self. There is no way to know the internal aspects of someone directly. Ne is always an assumption, one that is a "ping" for a location. As one pings, they are met with a reply on the accuracy. If you get it right, you know the essence. If you get it wrong, you guess again. Se is similar. It is a pressure that you exert. You are met with a counter force or you are not. In doing so, you receive information.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Internal dynamics of objects. And no, there is no difference between emotions and thought; they both exist in your head.
> 
> There. I said it.


It seems to me, that this is not objective cognition, but implicit. 

"There I said it" This is not something new. Pal


----------

