# Any thoughts on the hidden agenda?



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

The hidden agenda = the mobilizing (6th) function 



socionics.us said:


> ENTp, ESTp => to be loved INTj, INFj => to be healthy
> ESFj, ESTj => to be perfect
> ISFp, INFp => to understand
> ENFj, ENTj => to be wealthy
> ...





the16types.info said:


> The focus on one's hidden agenda is also manifested in a "patting yourself on the back" way, when you are reassuring others that you are actually good in doing something, but it's painfully obvious to others that you are above all reassuring yourself and not doing a good job at it - and by doing that, you end up behaving in a pathetic way.
> ExTp: behavior aimed at showing how popular and liked by the crowd you are, but that is actually making you look like an ass.
> IxFp: unshakeable and stubborn defense of ideas and beliefs against all opposition, with unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of their not being correct
> IxTp: unshakeable and stubborn unwillingness to compromise on personal behavior and principles against all opposition in a social situation
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

> INxj: showing off how wiser you are than others in taking care of your health by good food and avoiding personal risks, but making you look like a paranoid pussy-wimp. Also, an essentially unphysical person trying to show off how they master daily details in administration, maintainance, housekeeping, etc


I always wondered how I look like a paranoid pussy-wimp, but I guess in the eyes of some I might like how I might fuss about ticks. I do think I am kind of gulty of the latter... I think.


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

does anyone have this info, but for the other functions? thanks.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

wikisocion

When you click on each information element, it will show you how it works as a certain function in the Model A. You can dig deeper, though.
For example (taken from The Socionist blog) - PoLR fixations (PoLR = Point of Least Resistance, the vulnerable function, our weakest point):



> ILE (ENTp): "I will prove to them that I am nice to everyone" or "I will prove that I am a blundering ass"SEI (ISFp): "I will prove to them that I can be highly productive" or "I will prove that I am useless"
> ESE (ESFj): "I will prove to them that I can foresee events" (??) or "I will prove that I have no foresight"
> LII (INTj): "I will prove to them that I can be nasty and aggressive" or "I will prove that I am defenseless"
> EIE (ENFj): "I will prove to them that I am healthy" or "I will prove that I am sick"
> ...


These are just examples, though, and not every person would relate to them. Everything is explained here.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

> _ENTp, ESTp => to be loved INTj, INFj => to be healthy _
> _ESFj, ESTj => to be perfect _
> _ISFp, INFp => to understand _
> _ENFj, ENTj => to be wealthy _
> ...


so Fe is love, Si is health, Ne is perfection, Se is money, Ni is belief, Te is knowledge, Ti is understanding? xD


----------



## StellarTwirl (Jul 1, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Ne is perfection,


 I thought this was strange, and the best sense I could make of it is that they're suggesting perfection means maximizing potential. Then I wondered if disproportionate numbers of ESxj types can be found in the audience of those seminars.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> so Fe is love, Si is health, Ne is perfection, Se is money, Ni is belief, Te is knowledge, Ti is understanding? xD


Apparently so. The author didn't explain it much, sadly.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

That was missing here



> *HA and suggestive function by consentingadult*
> 
> IEE: If I know (be certain, be perfect), I will be at ease (relaxed, physically and mentally). Your dual will tell you what you need to know, so you stop worrying about it and feel balanced and relaxed.
> SEE: If I know (be certain, be perfect), I will know when to act (be less impulsive, capable of planning). Your dual will tell you what you need to know, so you stop worrying about it and will know when to act.
> ...


Source: Socionics - the16types.info - The hidden agenda


----------



## huahuafood (Aug 25, 2012)

I also have the same problem, thank you guys.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

StellarTwirl said:


> I thought this was strange, and the best sense I could make of it is that they're suggesting perfection means maximizing potential. Then I wondered if disproportionate numbers of ESxj types can be found in the audience of those seminars.


I've made connection between Ne and novelty, so I think people with Ne hidden agenda enjoy thee seminars and lectures to keep themselves informed of the latest methods. Perfection feels off for an extroverted perceiving function. In Ne dominants it pulls them in many different directions which is a far cry from making them perfectionists.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

It really makes sense when Fi is the motivation and Se the goal :blushed:


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

Regarding the Vulnerable 4th function:_

LII (INTj): "I will prove to them that I can be nasty and aggressive" or "I will prove that I am defenseless"_

This is true for me. I absolutely despise when people see me as weak and timid. I may appear soft and quiet, but inwardly I'm in constant defence mode. I know how to stand up for myself and others if the moment calls for it - whoever it may be against. That's actually something I value about myself, which many wouldn't know. Heck, they probably doubt that I have it in me.
At the same time, I also try to prove that I'm harmless. That's probably more accurate than 'defenseless'. 
I want people to interact with me without fear or intimidation, which also explains my relaxed and quite bubbly demeanor.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

the Fe-HA and Fi-PoLR fit; Ti-HA to some degree too but that would be because creative Ti also has the qualities of wanting to understand and being stubborn...


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

> IxFp: unshakeable and stubborn defense of ideas and beliefs against all opposition, with unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of their not being correct
> IxTp: unshakeable and stubborn unwillingness to compromise on personal behavior and principles against all opposition in a social situation


Pretty much both of these. Switching for whichever front is being attacked at the moment. If I think I can win one I'll focus on the other and vice versa.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I am reviving this thread because I am curious how people see their hidden agenda and now that there's some new blood in the socionics forum maybe people are more interested to discuss this, as I find the idea of the hidden agenda one of the most interesting in socionics.

I have for example noted that in Fi HA types HA often seems to manifest itself as an unending love for an object or another person or an unending desire for love, often with a sense of it not being reciprocated. Similarly, I've noted a pattern about Se HA types desiring some kind of rise to power in that they seek a way to control the environment around them.

The rest I am not so sure about though Fe HA seems to be some need to be a part of a community or community-like experience.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Eh, I don't identify with Ni-HA nor Si-HA there.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I am reviving this thread because I am curious how people see their hidden agenda and now that there's some new blood in the socionics forum maybe people are more interested to discuss this, as I find the idea of the hidden agenda one of the most interesting in socionics.


Yes it's interesting. I already posted about myself vs HA though

A question I always had about HA though, how strongly is it supposed to manifest? Surely not a constant thing but how often does it come up?




Kanerou said:


> Eh, I don't identify with Ni-HA nor Si-HA there.


Any others, then?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Any others, then?


Not in the context used, no.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> Not in the context used, no.


 The context is very simplistic, actually I don't identify with my HA there very much either, at least not how they phrased it. They made it sound like SLE is sitting in corner thinking "why don't people love me ): I want hugs" etc etc. Not at all.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

As for my HA, first to talk about how I fail with it: well, in environment purely about power, or fact, I am fine. For example big group which I must stir to action, or large audience who must be persuaded: excellent. I feel in my element. This is my preferred 'fun' activity. When in group where we have to produce fun (by which I mean ordinary view of fun, so lets say, de-mobilised/relaxed, 'chill' environment) I fail completely. I try to work people up, and they don't like it, or I am too impatient, demanding change of venue or some kind of new action - people get annoyed, and begin to ignore me. I HATE being ignored !!!

And yet there are some people who are capable of making people view them always in a positive light, by presenting constantly games, or activities, or general atmosphere conducive for the kind of thing I dislike like "chilling" or playing purposeless games (such as kings cup, FUCK I hate that.) They are low intensity people but everyone likes them. I wish I could switch into this mode. Often I find that if only I could team up with these people we could agree on a joint agenda and push it together, but rarely will they ally with me. Sometimes I can be brash, or even I can try to push at their social power by criticising their ideas, and finding that they are completely invulnerable to this, and people get more annoyed at me.

I find that I react to FE either negatively, when it is impacting on my space, or positively, when it is producing atmosphere I like.

In a negative way: I must fight a battle against these types of people who are producing social environment which I perform poorly in and which I do not like. To do so I must notice people who prefer other activity, and in a vocal way, drag them to my side, and force factionalism... so long as the others submit, then all is good. "If the opposition opts to disarm, all is well and good. If they refuse, we shall disarm them." If not I have to fight FE on its own terms, which is draining, but exciting, and possibly after a battle I realise I have had my fun anyway, and agree to what they want.

Real life example: Some FE dom or creative, not sure which, is trying to accommodate needs of too many people and plans activity that I find boring but which other dullards enjoy: group film watching and minor alcohol drinking. So I persuade people who I know are lively to come with me instead and have pool tournament plus heavy alcohol drinking. Eventually film-watching group just decides to join us instead. Victory.

In a positive way: when FE is actively promoting that which I like, I will throw in my full power behind it, and try to help, only to find that still my opinion isn't held as helpful. Or when FE is absent, I try to take that role myself, but fail, and wish I had someone to ease the process. 

Real life example: All my attempts to make repeated weekends less boring are a fail because a lot of people are less interested in the activities I am and I can't persuade them. Suddenly FE comes up with an idea and I am enamoured with it, but my help is rejected, and I sit at sidelines, but do not mind, and am forced to compliment FE-dom on his great idea. But I don't mind, because it was fun and does have enduring memory.

Further edit_ Also in really big social situation, I see individuals only as "troops," to whom I give [polite, or overt, depending...] suggestions and orders, and care little or less about their feelings: not because I know best but just because I don't care. But I notice Fe individuals seem always to care about everyones feelings, and can accommodate them, to which people respond positively. When I try to do this I look stupid and trite, and I prefer not to try.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> The context is very simplistic, actually I don't identify with my HA there very much either, at least not how they phrased it. They made it sound like SLE is sitting in corner thinking "why don't people love me ): I want hugs" etc etc. Not at all.


Afaik HA is supposed to be more unconscious than that?




Diphenhydramine said:


> As for my HA, first to talk about how I fail with it: well, in environment purely about power, or fact, I am fine. For example big group which I must stir to action, or large audience who must be persuaded: excellent. I feel in my element. This is my preferred 'fun' activity. When in group where we have to produce fun (by which I mean ordinary view of fun, so lets say, de-mobilised/relaxed, 'chill' environment) I fail completely. I try to work people up, and they don't like it, or I am too impatient, demanding change of venue or some kind of new action - people get annoyed, and begin to ignore me. I HATE being ignored !!!


Oh funny I also hate being ignored 

Such chill environments I just try to leave.. or if I can't, I'm just utterly bored.




> And yet there are some people who are capable of making people view them always in a positive light, by presenting constantly games, or activities, or general atmosphere conducive for the kind of thing I dislike like "chilling" or playing purposeless games (such as kings cup, FUCK I hate that.) They are low intensity people but everyone likes them. I wish I could switch into this mode. Often I find that if only I could team up with these people we could agree on a joint agenda and push it together, but rarely will they ally with me.


I looked up kings cup, it looks pretty funny.  Just I think I would have to drink a lot because I would def. hesitate before coming up with silly random questions.  Not a bad way to get drunk fast heh. Otherwise, if there's a game, I just try to win it :s And that desire of winning does prove too high intensity for certain other people.

OK, I guess you don't like alpha Fe then or at least dislike Si very much.




> Sometimes I can be brash, or even I can try to push at their social power by criticising their ideas, and finding that they are completely invulnerable to this, and people get more annoyed at me.


I'm not sure why simply criticising ideas would help with the aim of pushing at social power... I don't think so :s It just results in annoyance and conflict. You could be even seen as a "troll" instead of gaining social powers. I don't criticise to achieve such aims because as I said I don't think that would work; I will do it to simply correct something, trying to be helpful, and I do find that's annoying for some people. I sometimes find it really amusing, the reactions, certain people can get so riled up at that, wow. Like, they'll start unloading all their hidden resentments about you - which they would otherwise only talk about behind your back - and start to get really personal, all that in public, hahah. 

Ask the right Fe ego type about social powers I guess ;p


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Oh you posted more since then... 




Diphenhydramine said:


> well, in environment purely about power, or fact, I am fine. For example big group which I must stir to action, or large audience who must be persuaded: excellent. I feel in my element. This is my preferred 'fun' activity.


VS



> Real life example: All my attempts to make repeated weekends less boring are a fail because a lot of people are less interested in the activities I am and I can't persuade them. Suddenly FE comes up with an idea and I am enamoured with it, but my help is rejected, and I sit at sidelines, but do not mind, and am forced to compliment FE-dom on his great idea. But I don't mind, because it was fun and does have enduring memory.
> 
> Further edit_ Also in really big social situation, I see individuals only as "troops," to whom I give [polite, or overt, depending...] suggestions and orders, and care little or less about their feelings: not because I know best but just because I don't care. But I notice Fe individuals seem always to care about everyones feelings, and can accommodate them, to which people respond positively. When I try to do this I look stupid and trite, and I prefer not to try.


So are you trying to say you're only good at being the center of pushing action and/or persuading a group when the goal doesn't involve deciding what kind of fun activity to have but some other kind of goal?




> If not I have to fight FE on its own terms, which is draining, but exciting, and possibly after a battle I realise I have had my fun anyway, and agree to what they want.


How does that look like?




> In a positive way: when FE is actively promoting that which I like, I will throw in my full power behind it, and try to help, only to find that still my opinion isn't held as helpful. Or when FE is absent, I try to take that role myself, but fail, and wish I had someone to ease the process.


And this?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> So are you trying to say you're only good at being the center of pushing action and/or persuading a group when the goal doesn't involve deciding what kind of fun activity to have but some other kind of goal?


 That wasn't necessarily what I was intending to say (actually I wasn't intending to say a lot) but that may be true, yes.



itsme45 said:


> How does that look like?


 This is a very vague question to answer.

My style of arguing in a public forum is different. I don't care to argue with the person who Im directly opposed with as changing their mind is irrelevant. If possible I will offer them some kind of 'deal' either explicitly when its just me and them, or implicitly in public. The point is to persuade all people that you are right, which is hard, but not widely understood. It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong so long as everyone agrees with me, then I get what I want. I find that Fe people often argue for minorities ("oh but X and Y can't/won't/don't like") which I don't care about at all. This often makes their arguments weaker. 



itsme45 said:


> And this?


 I can't think right now how to explain this. 

As for SI, I dislike 'aggressive' SI. I don't mind SI backed with TE and FE so much. It's unhealthy SI, especially selfish SI, it looks a lot like an MBTI INFP (I know I keep saying not to talk about MBTI but it's an enduring stereotype) because its when someone prioritises their comfort at the expense of other people, I can't stand that. Alpha FE can be good or bad, thats all interpersonal. I tend to hate alpha FE people I don't get along with and love alpha FE that I do get along with.

King's cup is ok, I don't like drinking games that are solely just test of luck. If I play drinking games I prefer arrogance (with spirits, not beer) which is a brinksmanship game, or other games which involve some kind of strategy.

Well here's the thing, this is why Socionics is good because now I recognise my behaviour and see why it doesn't work with others. If I criticise someone elses idea, subconsciously I believe that people will come round to my criticism and accept my point of view - but consciously I know that people aren't like that, that's not how it works, one has to use social power not factual power. I have known very few people who are persuaded only by logical argument. So you're right, but hey - I never said I was an EFFECTIVE SLE. I still have a lot to learn. 

Tho btw, these are actually just things I have seen IRL socionified. I like socionics because it appeals directly to how I have experienced real life in a very real way. 

Maybe it's time you yourself talked to us about your HA, since you're always asking questions


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

One way I've seen SLE Fe hidden agenda show up is in them believing some variation of the following: that "all people are equal" and on surface they might say something different but then this sentiment sips out, and that everyone should be treated equally. This is what drives ESIs, their supervisors, crazy because ESI will pick out somebody within a group, then attack to repel them. This kind of ruins the sort of social equality and unity that the SLE seems to be looking for.

A popular description of Fe HA is that it is "seeking for attention", but considering how many attention whorish ExFps there are this definition falls short.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

It's hard to see how one results from another, are we to imagine it? -_-

"INTp, ISTp => to love" *[outward]*

"_IxTp: unshakeable and stubborn unwillingness to compromise on personal behavior and principles against all opposition in a social situation" _*[inward]
*
I can see the two happening for separate reasons. Though, I'm not sure what "to love" means exactly. Literally? Or, in what context? A person would be better off reading descriptions on the mobilizing function under the given IE, making sense of any experience that may correlate to said predetermined behavior.

These quick generalizations won't do anyone any good. Maybe as something to just play around and experiment with, that seems to be what I do every time I see these (socionics.com haha)
---------------------
The descriptions from this person make a lot more sense:
*
HA and suggestive function by consentingadult*
_ILI: If i can love (admire, trust, respect) someone, I will have willpower. Your dual will accept your love, so you will have energy to get motivated.
_
My dual does tend to notice my repressed desire for this. It's the most relieving convenience that I don't have to completely emerge from out my shell in order to get the message across. When the request is subtly fulfilled, I do feel empowered to do what's natural for me without worrying too much about other problems (as long as I'm being fed that hidden line of Fi that can only be personally understood between the both of us)
----------------------------
_*This*_ interpretation:
"_The focus on one's hidden agenda is also manifested in a "patting yourself on the back" way, when you are reassuring others that you are actually good in doing something, but it's painfully obvious to others that you are above all reassuring yourself and not doing a good job at it - and by doing that, you end up behaving in a pathetic way."
_
is worth considering (in fact, I see it as the main worth of the opening post). They seem to claim that this is how HA manifests when directed at the self. From this, we can entertain the idea that HA may have inward and outward _(as before: to love)_ functions or expression. However, it's also important to notice that they've attached/equated the act of *"patting oneself on the back" *to the mobilizing(6th) function. *Whether this is valid or not should also be considered against official theory*. (I believe this interpretation was made by the user EXPAT on the16types.com)
-------------------------
_​For convenience
_
Mobilizing Function: 
_"_The mobilizing function is also called the activating function and the hidden agenda function. Help in this element is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically. If he isn't careful and directs it at an individual who does not value it, he will likely meet a harsh response, since they are almost sure to see it as a puerile gesture (more so than when he uses the suggestive function, usage of which comes off as more mature and well-considered, since he takes it more seriously in the first place). *The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him (1) to indulge in it recklessly or (2) to sorely neglect it [This seems to be relevant to the point I'm trying to make on inward and outward manifestations, subtypes may play a key role here]*. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.
If too much of this element is ambient, the person will get bored or even become repelled. He sees it as a necessary part of good living, but not a primary life goal. "
-------------------------
This is a nice mine of info, if it's not already in your collection :mellow:: 
http://socionist.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-socionics-blog_14.html


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> This is a very vague question to answer.


Well I just meant you could describe it in a concrete way as the original Fe stuff was a bit vague yes.




> My style of arguing in a public forum is different. I don't care to argue with the person who Im directly opposed with as changing their mind is irrelevant. If possible I will offer them some kind of 'deal' either explicitly when its just me and them, or implicitly in public. The point is to persuade all people that you are right, which is hard, but not widely understood. It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong so long as everyone agrees with me, then I get what I want. I find that Fe people often argue for minorities ("oh but X and Y can't/won't/don't like") which I don't care about at all. This often makes their arguments weaker.


Yeah, I see. How do you respond when Fe people say this about X or Y possibly having a problem?

Yeah I don't think I can logically argue in a way that convinces everyone, deals are easier. Logical arguments as you said don't always work and I'm not that great at emotional manipulation of a whole group... I myself am not easily manipulated by groupthink so that doesn't help either lol. 




> As for SI, I dislike 'aggressive' SI. I don't mind SI backed with TE and FE so much. It's unhealthy SI, especially selfish SI, it looks a lot like an MBTI INFP (I know I keep saying not to talk about MBTI but it's an enduring stereotype) because its when someone prioritises their comfort at the expense of other people, I can't stand that. Alpha FE can be good or bad, thats all interpersonal. I tend to hate alpha FE people I don't get along with and love alpha FE that I do get along with.


I don't know much about MBTI stereotypes so what's it specifically about this INFP stereotype that you referred to here?

Are you also saying you never put your needs before other people's?




> King's cup is ok, I don't like drinking games that are solely just test of luck. If I play drinking games I prefer arrogance (with spirits, not beer) which is a brinksmanship game, or other games which involve some kind of strategy.


I thought the whole idea was about drinking and having fun  But yes strategy is preferred over luck for me too in games as I always go for the win... I'm just saying in this drinking game the goal is not necessarily winning  Unless you want to stay sober as long as possible I guess 




> Well here's the thing, this is why Socionics is good because now I recognise my behaviour and see why it doesn't work with others.


Yeah all these people theories can give such insights...




> If I criticise someone elses idea, subconsciously I believe that people will come round to my criticism and accept my point of view - but consciously I know that people aren't like that, that's not how it works, one has to use social power not factual power. I have known very few people who are persuaded only by logical argument. So you're right, but hey - I never said I was an EFFECTIVE SLE. I still have a lot to learn.


Lol is there such a thing as an effective SLE? What's that supposed to mean?

As I said above, I agree very few people are persuaded by just logic. I sometimes can be. Then sometimes I'm not even receptive lol. Usually when it's unsolicited advice. But other than that, I'm a lot more often open to logical arguments than many other people. 

Hmm and I do notice that style of presentation of the argument matters also but I have a long way to learn more tact for that purpose. Are you having a problem with that too then?

I won't even say anything about social power. (Hint: I did say I'm not into blindly following groupthink and I do not expect others to blindly follow either.)




> Maybe it's time you yourself talked to us about your HA, since you're always asking questions


Well hey HA by definition sucks and that fits. 

But, I don't really see myself in the idea of trying to show how popular and liked by the crowd I am. I don't tend to see myself as popular on a conscious level - even when I actually am, it's hard to believe or process it consciously - so why would I try to prove it either? I don't think I have good enough Fe "to be liked by the crowd". I also do not want to look like an ass or pathetic so I can be careful with this though I'm sure I'm not as great at determining what's good Fe use and what isn't as someone with Fe in ego would be. Yes so I can take this issue seriously but probably not as seriously as someone with Fe suggestive would?

Add to this that in general if I make attempts at making popular jokes or other such gestures, that's often very short-lived because I prefer others' initiative instead really. I prefer to be unambiguously welcomed first before I try that much, I don't take well to failure in this area. So I often can't even be bothered to try too hard. What works much better is just make contact by creative function instead. HA goals can be channeled through that too. Like, if you are helpful to people through your creative function, then you'll be more popular too. I don't do this on any conscious level so I cannot tell you if I actually have such a motive unconsciously. HA motivation is supposed to be unconscious anyway. Consciously I just feel like doing it. It also gives a sense of power but that's definitely not related to HA so I won't elaborate on that now.

I actually don't like these HA descriptions here because I can relate more to the Ti one hahah. I mean in the way it's phrased. I'm certainly capable of defending my ideas against all opposition and in those cases I don't really show doubt about maybe not being correct. Though maybe it counts that I do tend to mention that I can be convinced by good strong arguments? And I do process every single argument thrown at me. Though my answer to them on a superficial level looks like I just rejected them but that's not true lol because I'm still open to more arguments. I don't want to talk about this more again because I don't think Ti is my HA but sure if someone thinks I'm wrong here let me know hahah.

Do ask if that's too vague, or anything.  Also, how much do you relate to this?

That reminds me we were talking about PoLR in another thread, I'm curious, did you ever see my reply and if so how much do you relate to what I wrote about PoLR?




cyamitide said:


> One way I've seen SLE Fe hidden agenda show up is in them believing some variation of the following: that "all people are equal" and on surface they might say something different but then this sentiment sips out, and that everyone should be treated equally. This is what drives ESIs, their supervisors, crazy because ESI will pick out somebody within a group, then attack to repel them. This kind of ruins the sort of social equality and unity that the SLE seems to be looking for.


Yeah I have that... though I don't really know how that can be reconciled with Aristocratic dichotomy?! Explain that one to me pretty please?




> A popular description of Fe HA is that it is "seeking for attention", but considering how many attention whorish ExFps there are this definition falls short.


Yeah... would you say ExFps seek attention more actively? I don't always seek it that actively. Depends on mood, on atmosphere, on everything really lol




liminalthought said:


> It's hard to see how one results from another, are we to imagine it? -_-


I totally agree.




> However, it's also important to notice that they've attached/equated the act of *"patting oneself on the back" *to the mobilizing(6th) function. *Whether this is valid or not should also be considered against official theory*. (I believe this interpretation was made by the user EXPAT on the16types.com)


I don't really relate to that if Fe is my HA. I can't really reassure myself that I'm that good at it and instead I'd rather avoid being seen as pathetic.





> *The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him (1) to indulge in it recklessly or (2) to sorely neglect it [This seems to be relevant to the point I'm trying to make on inward and outward manifestations, subtypes may play a key role here]*.


So inert subtype would be better at indulging in HA?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think the problem with the descriptions in the OP about Fi being say, about love, is that it's very archetype. It's phrased in an extremely distilled form and when looking at it at face value it makes little to no sense. Clearly everyone desires love? So with regards to say Fe HA in the above, a few things stood out to me here, like this:



> Add to this that in general if I make attempts at making popular jokes or other such gestures, that's often very short-lived because I prefer others' initiative instead really. I prefer to be unambiguously welcomed first before I try that much, I don't take well to failure in this area. So I often can't even be bothered to try too hard.


This is a better example of Fe HA, what you express here. Similarly, I saw a similar point about Fi HA by a person who made a type me thread:



> Hmm.. I like people who understand me. People who try and accommodate to who I am. Someone who's somewhat like me (although that isn't always needed.) I think I can't describe it, I would have to meet that person first and take a natural liking to them.. which is rare, usually it's the other way around.


What makes these ethics HA is the focus on being desired or to desire in terms of the interpersonal. Fe HA isn't necessarily attention-whoring as much I see them seeking some kind of community-belonging, feeling like they are a part of a greater social context. Kind of like what itsme45 wrote in the above. It's about a desire to be loved so to speak, an unconscious drive that moves or compels them in a certain direction. Similarly, regarding the Fi example, it's about a desire to love someone else so to speak, which I think is emphasized here by the added sentence that it has to be someone this person takes a liking towards. 

I am not sure what I think about the rest except Se HA in that I've observed a little in others as well, but it seems to be that wealth isn't just wealth as in material possessions, but power over the physical environment in some sense. There is a desire to gain power, and with power of course there is wealth usually.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah, I see. How do you respond when Fe people say this about X or Y possibly having a problem?


 (I hope I interpreted this right ...) look, my view is that once a group has oriented towards an action then people who actually undermine that action are a threat to the group security and well-being. So I don't like that at all. I don't like people who undermine or subvert groups. That really pisses me off. And I want to make clear there is some kind of difference there, between contrasting with a group, saying "ah I think this is a better course of action" - and merely protesting and dissenting because whatever outcome has been chosen discomforts you. And I find that Fe people usually try to accommodate this kind of dissent, or lessen it in a usually effective way - but they take a different approach to the way I would prefer to do it.




itsme45 said:


> I don't know much about MBTI stereotypes so what's it specifically about this INFP stereotype that you referred to here?
> 
> Are you also saying you never put your needs before other people's?


 Lol I don't say that. Of course I have to look out for me too! But physical discomfort is for me a game, a challenge or competition that I like to prove I can beat, so when someone is "too hot" or "too hungry" etc, I mean when I view their needs as petty, I view that with real, visceral disdain and I am often patronising to them, lol. I guess something you would hear me say are phrases like "Stop whining," "Just shut up about it," etc etc. But if you inject humour into these kind of things, I've found that others who may otherwise think you are being a bully for some reason will instead think you are just being funny, but your goal is accomplished anyway. And I don't see this as a negative trait, though I know that someone on this forum probably will at least, because people who let pettiness get in the way of progress need to be kept in line. The conquest of paradise wasn't effected because people got a bit discomforted.

And I don't just mean physical discomfort either.



itsme45 said:


> I thought the whole idea was about drinking and having fun  But yes strategy is preferred over luck for me too in games as I always go for the win... I'm just saying in this drinking game the goal is not necessarily winning  Unless you want to stay sober as long as possible I guess


 if I want to go from 0-100 drunk I would just down large glasses of vodka repeatedly, I wouldn't try to dress it up as a game that is in reality just luck of the draw. 



itsme45 said:


> Lol is there such a thing as an effective SLE? What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> As I said above, I agree very few people are persuaded by just logic. I sometimes can be. Then sometimes I'm not even receptive lol. Usually when it's unsolicited advice. But other than that, I'm a lot more often open to logical arguments than many other people.


 I just mean the descriptions of the types we read are about types operating at 100% intelligence, skill and competency. I'm human, not a description on a page, so the result will vary, but that's ok so long as that's understood by all. And true for you too, and all socionics 'experts' and theorists.



itsme45 said:


> Hmm and I do notice that style of presentation of the argument matters also but I have a long way to learn more tact for that purpose. Are you having a problem with that too then?


 Yes, I am good at that but I've had long history of public speaking, rhetoric eatc. Tho sometimes I am tactless if I'm not careful. As I was saying in previous paragraph I don't always get the application of spatial power right, ESPECIALLY if that's mixed with some emotional power. I remember I made a girl cry once when really I just intended to gently chide her and goad her into changing her behaviour. Though later she told me that she did change her behaviour and was ultimately glad of my intervention. So what to do !!! Jesus did I get a hammering for that socially though. Actually that whole situation is just hilarious, in retrospect.



itsme45 said:


> I won't even say anything about social power. (Hint: I did say I'm not into blindly following groupthink and I do not expect others to blindly follow either.)


 Yea, you are very much individualist I think, and I am collectivist, totally, but frankly I do NOT think that is part of sociotype, which is just how people deal with information that reaches them and how they interact with others who deal with information differently 




itsme45 said:


> But, I don't really see myself in the idea of trying to show how popular and liked by the crowd I am. I don't tend to see myself as popular on a conscious level - even when I actually am, it's hard to believe or process it consciously - so why would I try to prove it either? I don't think I have good enough Fe "to be liked by the crowd". I also do not want to look like an ass or pathetic so I can be careful with this though I'm sure I'm not as great at determining what's good Fe use and what isn't as someone with Fe in ego would be. Yes so I can take this issue seriously but probably not as seriously as someone with Fe suggestive would?
> 
> Add to this that in general if I make attempts at making popular jokes or other such gestures, that's often very short-lived because I prefer others' initiative instead really. I prefer to be unambiguously welcomed first before I try that much, I don't take well to failure in this area. So I often can't even be bothered to try too hard. What works much better is just make contact by creative function instead. HA goals can be channeled through that too. Like, if you are helpful to people through your creative function, then you'll be more popular too. I don't do this on any conscious level so I cannot tell you if I actually have such a motive unconsciously. HA motivation is supposed to be unconscious anyway. Consciously I just feel like doing it. It also gives a sense of power but that's definitely not related to HA so I won't elaborate on that now.
> 
> ...


 I think honestly that was a very safe answer, I related a lot to it - and it was good, but I feel I could have read that in any SLE description, honestly. The real thing that we share is preferring not to intervene in atmosphere, and not taking well to failure in that area. I know for me if I crack a joke and nobody laughs I feel awful haha.



itsme45 said:


> Yeah I have that... though I don't really know how that can be reconciled with Aristocratic dichotomy?! Explain that one to me pretty please?


 idk totally what he meant, but I look at it this way because I agree broadly twith what he said. Aristocracy is a mode of thinking that perceives categories as opposed to democracy, a mode of thinking that perceives qualities. Which is interesting because in aristocracy, everything in a category is equal; but categories can be ordered. Whereas in democracy nobody is equal, everyone is ordered according to preference of trait. For instance aristocratic thinker might look at categories of people - trustworthy and untrustworthy - and everyone in those categories is broadly as trustworthy as the others. So he treats everyone he thinks is trustworthy with trust, and everyone who is untrustworthy with distrust. But democratic thinker won't do that, he'll order people by gradients of trust. 

What you get in reality is for example, me with a group of people, they all get categorical treatment. So if the category is wide enough they all get treated equally. But democratic thinker won't because everyone is ranked on individual merit, which is the opposite of equality. Actually I have rambled, and only needed to say that: order by individual merit is inherently unequal, order by category is only incidentally unequal.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

edit - double post


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> But democratic thinker won't because everyone is ranked on individual merit, which is the opposite of equality.


How is this opposite of equality? If anything, one could argue that instead of generalizing and painting people in a very broad picture everyone should fit into regardless of individual skill, preferences or interest, they do exactly what they want and prefer based on their own capabilities. That's fair and equal, no? Then everyone gets what they want instead of fitting some holistic but ultimately imposed idea of how to be or understand who you are. 

I see equality of seeing everyone's individual worth regardless of skill, interests or preferences as it is this difference that makes them unique and thus provides them value as human beings, than being all of the same. That to me really reduces all human beings' intrinsic worth.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> How is this opposite of equality? If anything, one could argue that instead of generalizing and painting people in a very broad picture everyone should fit into regardless of individual skill, preferences or interest, they do exactly what they want and prefer based on their own capabilities. That's fair and equal, no? Then everyone gets what they want instead of fitting some holistic but ultimately imposed idea of how to be or understand who you are.
> 
> I see equality of seeing everyone's individual worth regardless of skill, interests or preferences as it is this difference that makes them unique and thus provides them value as human beings, than being all of the same. That to me really reduces all human beings' intrinsic worth.


 I think you have to run an intellectual hoop to come to this conclusion. If you start ranking people by their capacities then that is the opposite of intrinsic worth. There's no intellectual basis to assume other people have an intrinsic value, that is a human creation - so you can't go out and say "Ah if you look at everyone exactly on their merits, then you see their intrinsic worth" - it doesn't follow. If you treat people via category membership then you actually get a sense of equality between peoples, we're all under the same banner, rather than "I value your intrinsic worth" which is _not_ intrinsic to the _system_ and doesn't have a lot of ideological basis.

Everyone getting to do what they want is not equal and neither is it fair. It may be just, but it is neither of those things. If I'm born without any legs, our relations are neither equal nor fair. People are born completely unequal: it's only the bond of our social relationships and organisations that equalises us.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I think you have to run an intellectual hoop to come to this conclusion.


No? Because...



> If you start ranking people by their capacities then that is the opposite of intrinsic worth.


That depends on how you define and understand intrinsic worth. I think life itself has intrinsic worth and value. 



> There's no intellectual basis to assume other people have an intrinsic value, that is a human creation - so you can't go out and say "Ah if you look at everyone exactly on their merits, then you see their intrinsic worth" - it doesn't follow.


Sure, it is a social construct but it doesn't make it illogical one if finds it to be a true statement because if we do not reason this way we run into the opposite problem - when is a human valuable at all if ever? That conclusion just leads to a bunch of ethical problems and abortion is the first one that just happened to come to mind here, but eugenics isn't far off either. 



> If you treat people via category membership then you actually get a sense of equality between peoples, we're all under the same banner, rather than "I value your intrinsic worth" which is _not_ intrinsic to the _system_ and doesn't have a lot of ideological basis.


Why must it be intrinsic to the system? It is only equality through generalization but it does not create equal worth or appreciates individual value and how people can contribute differently and how each contribution is as meaningful on an individual level. 



> Everyone getting to do what they want is not equal and neither is it fair. It may be just, but it is neither of those things. If I'm born without any legs, our relations are neither equal nor fair. People are born completely unequal: it's only the bond of our social relationships and organisations that equalises us.


I cannot inherently agree with this. Just because you are born without legs doesn't mean you completely lack skills in all other areas of life. You can still contribute in your own individual way, no matter what that contribution is. The problem with your way of evaluation value and worth is that some people who do not fit the systemic definition of value are seen as inherently value-less. That is not equality. As a recent example there was a debate where I live about the current higher education system because a specific organization thought that it is a waste of resources and human potential to spend it on allowing people to study the humanities and social sciences that do not seem to have any direct contributive power in society according to how they understand contribution.

So if we take your example about being born without legs, if society only values people who are born with legs, then this person is thus inherently without value and is thus cast outside the system. That's not equality. It creates social hierarchies of value and worth based on groups of people. So sure, members in each group can be equal to one another, but groups are clearly not made equal. If everyone is unique then everyone is equal in their uniqueness.

The tl;dr version is that you're correct in being an aristocrat. I cannot agree with your reasoning at all. I fail to see the equality in it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> That depends on how you define and understand intrinsic worth. I think life itself has intrinsic worth and value.


 Perhaps you do, but that is not a function of either democratic or aristocratic thinking. If we stick to concepts like intrinsic worth, you can get that from both, since these are just competing forms of processed information, (category membership vs personal quality), but both tend towards a form of social organisation because of a preference for a type of useful information. 



ephemereality said:


> Sure, it is a social construct but it doesn't make it illogical one if finds it to be a true statement because if we do not reason this way we run into the opposite problem - when is a human valuable at all if ever? That conclusion just leads to a bunch of ethical problems and abortion is the first one that just happened to come to mind here, but eugenics isn't far off either.


 Again, argument is circular - If we don't follow this kind of reasoning we get a type of reasoning we don't like. That is both lazy and unethical. To bring it more into context, the democratic type is perception of peoples individual qualities, so what, you can't derive any conclusion from that and maintain intellectual honesty. You can't say this system gives people intrinsic worth because otherwise it wouldn't give them intrinsic worth, isn't that circular? It's easier, and I agree the questions are tough, but it's not intellectually rigid.



ephemereality said:


> Why must it be intrinsic to the system? It is only equality through generalization but it does not create equal worth or appreciates individual value and how people can contribute differently and how each contribution is as meaningful on an individual level.


 Well it is categorisation, not generalisation: categories can be as general or specific as they need to be, but my feeling is that different sociotypes would prefer different types of categories. The point is not to create individual value or meaning - let people do that themselves, really - the point is to organise people in a way that treats them equally. Considering them as one group is the most liberating way of doing this. Why? Only because the boundaries of who is what get quickly broken down and people become quickly indivisible, which is only another for equal.

I feel Rousseau was such a beta.



ephemereality said:


> I cannot inherently agree with this. Just because you are born without legs doesn't mean you completely lack skills in all other areas of life. You can still contribute in your own individual way, no matter what that contribution is. The problem with your way of evaluation value and worth is that some people who do not fit the systemic definition of value are seen as inherently value-less. That is not equality. As a recent example there was a debate where I live about the current higher education system because a specific organization thought that it is a waste of resources and human potential to spend it on allowing people to study the humanities and social sciences that do not seem to have any direct contributive power in society according to how they understand contribution.
> 
> So if we take your example about being born without legs, if society only values people who are born with legs, then this person is thus inherently without value and is thus cast outside the system. That's not equality. It creates social hierarchies of value and worth based on groups of people. So sure, members in each group can be equal to one another, but groups are clearly not made equal. If everyone is unique then everyone is equal in their uniqueness.


 Well I think that here your use of the word equality is basically meaningless, because you have pushed it to a standard of proof that can't be met. Yes, I agree that people who fall far outside the boundaries of what society expects from them could expect a lower quality of treatment, although I would say that it would be only indirect and based around expectations/preferences etc. I don't view that as a bad thing. Which leads me to my next point - 



ephemereality said:


> The tl;dr version is that you're correct in being an aristocrat. I cannot agree with your reasoning at all. I fail to see the equality in it.


 Well, not all equalities were made equal. Equality is an ideal that almost all people claim to uphold but what they mean is they have a different understanding of what it is. Of course equality isn't related to type, I think the problem is here that I have quite strong political views. I actually have a lot to say about this but decided against it. It would require a different thread probably, as I find democratic/aristocratic one of the more interesting dichotomies and one that I myself feel quite strongly about.

What you discuss is theoretical equality, equality of principle or ideal, whereas I don't care about that, I prefer equality of fact and action. Equality is not about whether or not I see that certain people have intrinsic value or not but how all peoples share interaction with the body politic. If someone wants to demean another persons intrinsic value that doesn't bother me at all, why should it - my intrinsic value has been obvious to me always - but if someone wants to attack someone's right to _participate_, that is what will set me off. And let's take the person without legs, what you're saying is very nice, that they have intrinsic value, and perhaps it would make them feel good, but that attitude is not one that creates wheelchairs and ramps.

edit: i changed this post to make it a little less antagonistic, 0733 GMT+7.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Perhaps you do, but that is not a function of either democratic or aristocratic thinking. If we stick to concepts like intrinsic worth, you can get that from both, since these are just competing forms of processed information, (category membership vs personal quality), but both tend towards a form of social organisation because of a preference for a type of useful information.


No, but that wasn't the main point I was arguing for either in this case, since it was linking to an overarching point I was trying to convey. 



> Again, argument is circular - If we don't follow this kind of reasoning we get a type of reasoning we don't like. That is both lazy and unethical. To bring it more into context, the democratic type is perception of peoples individual qualities, so what, you can't derive any conclusion from that and maintain intellectual honesty. You can't say this system gives people intrinsic worth because otherwise it wouldn't give them intrinsic worth, isn't that circular? It's easier, and I agree the questions are tough, but it's not intellectually rigid.


Or is it more because you don't like it and you think ethics should be logical? I don't think ethics has to be logical. That's my experience and I don't care if it's circular or if it's intellectually rigid. I fail to see the fairness of your ethical position and I am arguing based on disagreeing on ethics, not logic though I can do that logically. 



> Well it is categorisation, not generalisation: categories can be as general or specific as they need to be, but my feeling is that different sociotypes would prefer different types of categories. The point is not to create individual value or meaning - let people do that themselves, really - the point is to organise people in a way that treats them equally. Considering them as one group is the most liberating way of doing this. Why? Only because the boundaries of who is what get quickly broken down and people become quickly indivisible, which is only another for equal.


Yes, but seeing people as unique is also a form of categorization, ergo it is fairer to define it as generalization since that is what is occurring. People are generalized under a specific title, group, system what have you and their individuality is removed and reduced. I fail to see how your system treats people equally since you are already at a macro-level organizing people and thus shoehorning them into specific tasks based on the categories you perceive them to possess. 



> I feel Rousseau was such a beta.


Like Nietzsche is such a gamma? 



> Well I think that here your use of the word equality is basically meaningless, because you have pushed it to a standard of proof that can't be met. Yes, I agree that people who fall far outside the boundaries of what society expects from them could expect a lower quality of treatment, although I would say that it would be only indirect and based around expectations/preferences etc. I don't view that as a bad thing. Which leads me to my next point -


Then we simply disagree because you don't agree with my definition of equality to begin with so any further discussion is rather pointless. 



> Well, not all equalities were made equal. Equality is an ideal that almost all people claim to uphold but what they mean is they have a different understanding of what it is. Of course equality isn't related to type, I think the problem is here that I have quite strong political views. I actually have a lot to say about this but decided against it. It would require a different thread probably, as I find democratic/aristocratic one of the more interesting dichotomies and one that I myself feel quite strongly about.


I avoid discussing politics with a reason. 



> What you discuss is theoretical equality, equality of principle or ideal, whereas I don't care about that, I prefer equality of fact and action. Equality is not about whether or not I see that certain people have intrinsic value or not but how all peoples share interaction with the body politic. If someone wants to demean another persons intrinsic value that doesn't bother me at all, why should it - my intrinsic value has been obvious to me always - but if someone wants to attack someone's right to _participate_, that is what will set me off. And let's take the person without legs, what you're saying is very nice, that they have intrinsic value, and perhaps it would make them feel good, but that attitude is not one that creates wheelchairs and ramps.


And I don't understand this reasoning nor can I inherently agree with it. Take the legless person again. What I am claiming isn't what you are suggesting and I don't I understand the purpose of the tone of your last comment there either. It's not about making them feel good, but it's about seeing value and worth beyond them having legs. It's not even a matter of what creates wheelchairs and ramps. That occurs because of a need and I fail to see how your idea of value would create wheelchair and ramps based on your reasoning here either. Rather, it's about seeing their productive value that extends well beyond any physical incapabilities they may possess. As an example, Hawking is wheelchair-bound but is one of the leading physicists in the world.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Or is it more because you don't like it and you think ethics should be logical? I don't think ethics has to be logical. That's my experience and I don't care if it's circular or if it's intellectually rigid. I fail to see the fairness of your ethical position and I am arguing based on disagreeing on ethics, not logic though I can do that logically.


 I'm sorry, ethics IS logical, especially meta-ethics, and that's the thing, especially in socionics, Fi might tell you what you might like and dislike, to which you're entitled, but it's insufficient to set common rules or to determine social organisation, because those things by their nature involve more people than you. If what you're saying is "my experience is that we should have this form of social organisation" that's helpful but it isn't binding towards how you think others should behave, it can only bind your behaviour - unless you think your personal ethics alone have authority over other people. 



ephemereality said:


> Yes, but seeing people as unique is also a form of categorization, ergo it is fairer to define it as generalization since that is what is occurring. People are generalized under a specific title, group, system what have you and their individuality is removed and reduced. I fail to see how your system treats people equally since you are already at a macro-level organizing people and thus shoehorning them into specific tasks based on the categories you perceive them to possess.


 It doesn't follow that categorising people shoehorns them into tasks, not at all. If you want to see people as unique, that's only the same thing as seeing them as equals if you think that all traits are equal, which they plainly are not. I understand that some people do think that, but a great many do not, and neither is that, by any means, a default position to take.



ephemereality said:


> Like Nietzsche is such a gamma?


 Oh, I couldn't comment on this. I don't like Nietzsche but I haven't made a serious attempt to interpret him so that could be natural.



ephemereality said:


> Then we simply disagree because you don't agree with my definition of equality to begin with so any further discussion is rather pointless.


 Yep. This whole thing started because I was explaining how aristocrat types can be equalitarian. Because a lot of western cultures have strongly individualist, not equalitarian, cultural discourses, it isn't intuitive to see. 



ephemereality said:


> And I don't understand this reasoning nor can I inherently agree with it. Take the legless person again. What I am claiming isn't what you are suggesting and I don't I understand the purpose of the tone of your last comment there either. It's not about making them feel good, but it's about seeing value and worth beyond them having legs. It's not even a matter of what creates wheelchairs and ramps. That occurs because of a need and I fail to see how your idea of value would create wheelchair and ramps based on your reasoning here either. Rather, it's about seeing their productive value that extends well beyond any physical incapabilities they may possess. As an example, Hawking is wheelchair-bound but is one of the leading physicists in the world.


 Well, I'm not asking you to agree with it. I don't agree with yours, but I understand the essential position.

What is 'value and worth' beyond feeling good? How does value and worth help you? Do you not see how a ramp and a wheelchair is more useful to somebody without legs than value or worth - or how, to anyone, participation in society is more important than people they may never meet or know believing they have any worth? I'm not asking you to agree, since this was not the purpose, I'm only asking that you try to conceptualise alternate arrangement.

People may or may not have productive value. Actually there are people who have less productive value ceteris paribus because of their incapacities, and not always obvious or physical handicaps, either. I don't care about their intrinsic worth really, and what has it to do with equality - believing someone to be equal is not the same as treating them as equal. I believe that people grow by participation in and contribution towards something greater than them, by using whatever value they have to add to an aggregate value: the total greater than the sum of its parts, and no man an island. That is the equalitarian-aristocratic view (and incidentally the view that provoked all of history's really important social-political revolutions) but I accept that there were aristocratic thinkers who had a somewhat more nefarious feeling, just as you must necessarily accept there were democratic thinkers who had maliciously individualist tendencies (I referred to Rand, but there are more, and today I would cite the Tea Party as an example.)


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Incidentally, Stephen Hawking may be a great clarion call to individualists about how everyone has value, but it was Britain's national health system, a collectivist invention, that he ascribes his continued life to.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> (I hope I interpreted this right ...) look, my view is that once a group has oriented towards an action then people who actually undermine that action are a threat to the group security and well-being. So I don't like that at all. I don't like people who undermine or subvert groups. That really pisses me off.


Ah wow, undermine, subvert, what big words are being used here. We could have a nice fight IRL I'm pretty sure.




> And I want to make clear there is some kind of difference there, between contrasting with a group, saying "ah I think this is a better course of action" - and merely protesting and dissenting because whatever outcome has been chosen discomforts you. And I find that Fe people usually try to accommodate this kind of dissent, or lessen it in a usually effective way - but they take a different approach to the way I would prefer to do it.


So Fe types take the approach of what you talk about later, avoiding looking like a bully?




> Lol I don't say that. Of course I have to look out for me too! But physical discomfort is for me a game, a challenge or competition that I like to prove I can beat, so when someone is "too hot" or "too hungry" etc, I mean when I view their needs as petty, I view that with real, visceral disdain and I am often patronising to them, lol. I guess something you would hear me say are phrases like "Stop whining," "Just shut up about it," etc etc. But if you inject humour into these kind of things, I've found that others who may otherwise think you are being a bully for some reason will instead think you are just being funny, but your goal is accomplished anyway. And I don't see this as a negative trait, though I know that someone on this forum probably will at least, because *people who let pettiness get in the way of progress need to be kept in line*. The conquest of paradise wasn't effected because people got a bit discomforted.
> 
> And I don't just mean physical discomfort either.


Is the bolded your opinion or what? Sounds so LSI > SLE to me. Just saying and maybe I'm wrong anyway 




> if I want to go from 0-100 drunk I would just down large glasses of vodka repeatedly, I wouldn't try to dress it up as a game that is in reality just luck of the draw.


But there's fun in that game is how I see it heh. Anyway okay.




> I just mean the descriptions of the types we read are about types operating at 100% intelligence, skill and competency. I'm human, not a description on a page, so the result will vary, but that's ok so long as that's understood by all. And true for you too, and all socionics 'experts' and theorists.


Humm interesting... I don't see the descriptions of types as idealised like that. I don't see them as ideals, at all. Just some stereotypes. And they do expose a lot of weaknesses too so I would definitely not say they're operating at 100% competency. Though this is exactly what I like in these personality theories, when they talk about the bad parts, weaknesses etc.




> Yes, I am good at that but I've had long history of public speaking, rhetoric eatc. Tho sometimes I am tactless if I'm not careful. As I was saying in previous paragraph I don't always get the application of spatial power right, ESPECIALLY if that's mixed with some emotional power. I remember I made a girl cry once when really I just intended to gently chide her and goad her into changing her behaviour. Though later she told me that she did change her behaviour and was ultimately glad of my intervention. So what to do !!! Jesus did I get a hammering for that socially though. Actually that whole situation is just hilarious, in retrospect.


What's "spatial power"? You mean Se or what? I wouldn't socionify normal sentences that much 

I don't really ever goad anyone in this principled way, again, are you sure you're not LSI > SLE?

Just really wondering hehe




> Yea, you are very much individualist I think, and I am collectivist, totally, but frankly I do NOT think that is part of sociotype, which is just how people deal with information that reaches them and how they interact with others who deal with information differently


Quite a few people associate individualism and collectivism with types. :/ Aestrivex for example, I think ephemereality too. I think they both associate it with Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe valuing though then I saw someone else attribute it to just strong Se.

I prefer not to make such strong associations here yeah. I also believe that values like these are affected by a lot more than just socionics IE's. 

Also it's more complex than just being individualist OR collectivist. When I'm in a group I will inevitably view it as a group, not individuals. And if I'm in a certain position then I will also direct group behaviour in a stereotypical Fe way. But I first have to be "inside" said group or I will just be an outsider. Pretty black and white there.




> I think honestly that was a very safe answer, I related a lot to it - and it was good, but I feel I could have read that in any SLE description, honestly. The real thing that we share is preferring not to intervene in atmosphere, and not taking well to failure in that area. I know for me if I crack a joke and nobody laughs I feel awful haha.


How do you mean safe answer? I was giving my best to describe my attitudes :/

Though I'm sure I forgot about some things, like, what cyamitide mentioned later.

I didn't think it was stereotypical either, e.g. I was talking about how I don't prove popularity...

If you want more specific examples I can provide some.

Was there anything you didn't relate to?




> idk totally what he meant, but I look at it this way because I agree broadly twith what he said. Aristocracy is a mode of thinking that perceives categories as opposed to democracy, a mode of thinking that perceives qualities. Which is interesting because in aristocracy, everything in a category is equal; but categories can be ordered. Whereas in democracy nobody is equal, everyone is ordered according to preference of trait. For instance aristocratic thinker might look at categories of people - trustworthy and untrustworthy - and everyone in those categories is broadly as trustworthy as the others. So he treats everyone he thinks is trustworthy with trust, and everyone who is untrustworthy with distrust. But democratic thinker won't do that, he'll order people by gradients of trust.
> 
> What you get in reality is for example, me with a group of people, they all get categorical treatment. So if the category is wide enough they all get treated equally. But democratic thinker won't because everyone is ranked on individual merit, which is the opposite of equality. Actually I have rambled, and only needed to say that: order by individual merit is inherently unequal, order by category is only incidentally unequal.


Thanks that's a nice explanation; I guess if that's really the official socionics interpretation then I'm an aristocrat yes. And I can see how that fits with Fe HA, then.

I do like pretty wide - and usually impersonal - categories btw... I guess because I like equality. I don't really like narrow cliques that much. Well I have a complex opinion on all this anyway.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Ah wow, undermine, subvert, what big words are being used here. We could have a nice fight IRL I'm pretty sure.


 I'm sure  



itsme45 said:


> So Fe types take the approach of what you talk about later, avoiding looking like a bully?


 Yes, I think so.



itsme45 said:


> Is the bolded your opinion or what? Sounds so LSI > SLE to me. Just saying and maybe I'm wrong anyway


 Yes, it's my opinion. Well, you might think that (not the first...) but I couldn't possibly comment. I would make a thread about my type, but I don't really want to yet. The problem for me is justifying my type always sounds in my head narcissistic.

One thing I will mention is I think there are a few types, SLE definitely one of them, who are completely misrepresented by a lot of people who view them as 'trivial' types whereas if you read what the Russian socionists are saying, they say the opposite - I have found honestly that a lot of people on this forum, on 16types.info etc have a default view which is to view people are lowest common denominator, childish almost: whereas Russian socionists are very serious, very mature and almost austere in their typings. Something for a different thread, maybe.



itsme45 said:


> Humm interesting... I don't see the descriptions of types as idealised like that. I don't see them as ideals, at all. Just some stereotypes. And they do expose a lot of weaknesses too so I would definitely not say they're operating at 100% competency. Though this is exactly what I like in these personality theories, when they talk about the bad parts, weaknesses etc.


 Well I mean they aren't idealised, I guess, so much as generalised, whereas all people are ultimately specific (ironic, considering previous conversation, though I think specific != unique.)



itsme45 said:


> What's "spatial power"? You mean Se or what? I wouldn't socionify normal sentences that much


 I would define it as "Knowing how much you can get away with(or without.)"



itsme45 said:


> I don't really ever goad anyone in this principled way, again, are you sure you're not LSI > SLE? Just really wondering hehe


 Almost sure.



itsme45 said:


> Quite a few people associate individualism and collectivism with types. :/ Aestrivex for example, I think ephemereality too. I think they both associate it with Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe valuing though then I saw someone else attribute it to just strong Se.
> 
> I prefer not to make such strong associations here yeah. I also believe that values like these are affected by a lot more than just socionics IE's.
> 
> Also it's more complex than just being individualist OR collectivist. When I'm in a group I will inevitably view it as a group, not individuals. And if I'm in a certain position then I will also direct group behaviour in a stereotypical Fe way. But I first have to be "inside" said group or I will just be an outsider. Pretty black and white there.


 I'm sure, but I have never liked the idea that political ideas are preferences of type. Broadly they're preferences of experience and other types of preference.



itsme45 said:


> How do you mean safe answer? I was giving my best to describe my attitudes :/
> 
> Though I'm sure I forgot about some things, like, what cyamitide mentioned later.
> 
> ...


 I related to all of it, but what I mean by 'safe' is it has read almost like every SLE type I have come across before. And safe in that you gave away just enough 



itsme45 said:


> Thanks that's a nice explanation; I guess if that's really the official socionics interpretation then I'm an aristocrat yes. And I can see how that fits with Fe HA, then.
> 
> I do like pretty wide - and usually impersonal - categories btw... I guess because I like equality. I don't really like narrow cliques that much. Well I have a complex opinion on all this anyway.


 The definition is that democratic types block ethical and sensing and aristocrats block logical and sensing, so our perceptions of world are divided either by emotional-ethical response or logical response. To observe quality is emotional, to categorise is logic... very broadly speaking. I wasn't directly quoting but that is my understanding of the theory rather than assertion of my opinion, yes.

Also I prefer wide and impersonal categories too.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> How is this opposite of equality? If anything, one could argue that instead of generalizing and painting people in a very broad picture everyone should fit into regardless of individual skill, preferences or interest, they do exactly what they want and prefer based on their own capabilities. That's fair and equal, no? Then everyone gets what they want instead of fitting some holistic but ultimately imposed idea of how to be or understand who you are.


Interesting how you can interpret the same words so differently  I guess it's fair, yes, not sure if "equal" is the right word here though. It's not really logical to me, the idea how different and individual traits should be categorized as equal, which he already explained. So this is why I think a better word is just "fair", fair treatment accepting differences whatnot. Not my default stance as I don't even really deal with the differences. 

Uh, I'll add this "equality" word to the extremely subjective word list too 




> I see equality of seeing everyone's individual worth regardless of skill, interests or preferences as it is this difference that makes them unique and thus provides them value as human beings, than being all of the same. That to me really reduces all human beings' intrinsic worth.


What do you define "individual worth" as? Why does "general equality" (let's call the aristocrat stance as such) reduce said "worth"?




ephemereality said:


> Yes, but seeing people as unique is also a form of categorization


How's that categorizing? Everyone being their own little category?




> The problem with your way of evaluation value and worth is that some people who do not fit the systemic definition of value are seen as inherently value-less. That is not equality. (...)


That's not at all debated, that's what's been called "incidentally unequal" by him.




Diphenhydramine said:


> There's no intellectual basis to assume other people have an intrinsic value, that is a human creation - so you can't go out and say "Ah if you look at everyone exactly on their merits, then you see their intrinsic worth" - it doesn't follow.


Depends on how you define "merit" and "worth".




> Everyone getting to do what they want is not equal and neither is it fair. It may be just, but it is neither of those things. If I'm born without any legs, our relations are neither equal nor fair. People are born completely unequal: it's only the bond of our social relationships and organisations that equalises us.


Please define "fair" and "just" as opposing each other? How is something that's just, not fair at the same time?

As for having a physical handicap, I fully and completely disagree with you. Though possibly it's up to different usage of these subjective words. So I'm asking, why couldn't relations be equal or fair in that case? Do you mean that the person with the handicap is at risk of being taken advantage of?

Tbh I don't see real social equality in this world, either so I don't really see how said bonds of social organisations are supposed to work  *dripping cynicism here*




Diphenhydramine said:


> Well I think that here your use of the word equality is basically meaningless, because you have pushed it to a standard of proof that can't be met. Yes, I agree that people who fall far outside the boundaries of what society expects from them could expect a lower quality of treatment, although I would say that it would be only indirect and based around expectations/preferences etc. I don't view that as a bad thing.


Well it's not a bad thing as long as you're not the target of it. Yep I'm being ironic and being serious at the same time... But yes I do find that view of yours pretty inconsistent here at least until you give me your reasoning on it.

Other question, what standard of proof can't be met in that reasoning? Isn't it a simple enough concept to view whole humanity as one group? What does that have to do with "standard of proof"? Please elaborate.




> If someone wants to demean another persons intrinsic value that doesn't bother me at all, why should it - my intrinsic value has been obvious to me always - but if someone wants to attack someone's right to _participate_, that is what will set me off.


Why doesn't it bother you? 




> And let's take the person without legs, what you're saying is very nice, that they have intrinsic value, and perhaps it would make them feel good, but that attitude is not one that creates wheelchairs and ramps.


I think you're reading stuff into lines that has never been stated. I cannot see how from ephemereality's reasoning it would follow that the practical issue of creating wheelchairs etc will be neglected. I'm sorry I just cannot see that. You read stuff in here that was never said. Though sure, he also read stuff into your stuff, about shoehorning people into tasks.




Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm sorry, ethics IS logical, especially meta-ethics


Nope it isn't logical. Or show me an ethical system that's perfectly built in a logical fashion with everything being justified without special initial assumptions of certain values. I've yet to see one 




> and that's the thing, especially in socionics, Fi might tell you what you might like and dislike, to which you're entitled, but it's insufficient to set common rules or to determine social organisation, because those things by their nature involve more people than you. If what you're saying is "my experience is that we should have this form of social organisation" that's helpful but it isn't binding towards how you think others should behave, it can only bind your behaviour - unless you think your personal ethics alone have authority over other people.


Eh and if we turn this around, would social rules bind my behaviour just because they are coming from collective values? No... I will go with them if I can see use of them, otherwise nope. That's the individualist streak in me ;p




> What is 'value and worth' beyond feeling good?


You didn't ask me but I wondered before... I suppose some people like to feel good about stuff in that way  I suppose that's good enough.




> How does value and worth help you? Do you not see how a ramp and a wheelchair is more useful to somebody without legs than value or worth


How's the two mutually exclusive?




> People may or may not have productive value. Actually there are people who have less productive value ceteris paribus because of their incapacities, and not always obvious or physical handicaps, either. I don't care about their intrinsic worth really, and what has it to do with equality - believing someone to be equal is not the same as treating them as equal. I believe that people grow by participation in and contribution towards something greater than them, by using whatever value they have to add to an aggregate value: the total greater than the sum of its parts, and no man an island. That is the equalitarian-aristocratic view


Ah, yeah, hey as long as I can be leader ;p

(...do note the smiley at the end)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I won't meta-quote you both, too much text. I'll just copy paste:



> I'm sorry, ethics IS logical, especially meta-ethics, and that's the thing, especially in socionics, Fi might tell you what you might like and dislike, to which you're entitled, but it's insufficient to set common rules or to determine social organisation, because those things by their nature involve more people than you. If what you're saying is "my experience is that we should have this form of social organisation" that's helpful but it isn't binding towards how you think others should behave, it can only bind your behaviour - unless you think your personal ethics alone have authority over other people.


Logical as in impersonally categorical, how? At some point you will have to deal with ethics based on value or how can you even derive a system that actually considers the good of people? We can create logical systems but that's the difference between logic and ethics in that if we operate on logic, it does not consider the ethical in the situation and you at best get something that makes logically sense but at worst a dictator or whatever regime.

You cannot superimpose ethics based on logic in that the rule has to be logical first and ethical later, but I think we can create rules that are ethical and then figure out how to best apply those ethics on people as a whole. This just feels meaningless. So obviously Fe-Ti / Fi-Te. 


> It doesn't follow that categorising people shoehorns them into tasks, not at all. If you want to see people as unique, that's only the same thing as seeing them as equals if you think that all traits are equal, which they plainly are not. I understand that some people do think that, but a great many do not, and neither is that, by any means, a default position to take.


No? Because that's the practical application I see of this system. And it's not about traits being equal. They obviously cannot be. This is the flaw in how you assume the reasoning. That's in fact the entire point of equality - it cannot be equal. It is through this inequality that equality is created because then nothing is truly comparable unless we look at exactly the same set of static traits, but if nothing is comparable, then it is equal in its lack of comparability.



> Oh, I couldn't comment on this. I don't like Nietzsche but I haven't made a serious attempt to interpret him so that could be natural.


I was partly being snide in naming-dropping too like you did though it had no real bearing on the discussion lol. It was apparently lost in translation. 



> Yep. This whole thing started because I was explaining how aristocrat types can be equalitarian. Because a lot of western cultures have strongly individualist, not equalitarian, cultural discourses, it isn't intuitive to see.


The thing is, individual uniqueness=/=individuality. I don't support individuality as an ideology too much either, because it seems to do more harm than it does good. One of the problems being how there is no overarching standard of how to deal with certain situations so people just do what the hell they want. I don't mind people doing what they want per se, but when it doesn't concern the larger context, then there has to be some kind of governing system in place to ensure it doesn't hurt others.



> Well, I'm not asking you to agree with it. I don't agree with yours, but I understand the essential position.


Same.



> What is 'value and worth' beyond feeling good? How does value and worth help you? Do you not see how a ramp and a wheelchair is more useful to somebody without legs than value or worth - or how, to anyone, participation in society is more important than people they may never meet or know believing they have any worth? I'm not asking you to agree, since this was not the purpose, I'm only asking that you try to conceptualise alternate arrangement.


It has nothing to do with feels. How can we operate or create any set of logical standards without first deriving or defining value? Value to me is about desire, what is important, what one wants. In my world of value, a person who is wheelchair bound can be that inventive kind of person who realizes the need for ramps and goes on to seek to implement it. Why? Value. It's important to this person to be able to live this way. 

When talking about the intrinsic worth and value of human individuals, value is simply derived from a base of like/dislike. So definitely nothing to do with feeling good or similar. That's perhaps how you see value and I can see why an Fe-valuing type would see value this way, but it's definitely not how I see value.



> People may or may not have productive value. Actually there are people who have less productive value ceteris paribus because of their incapacities, and not always obvious or physical handicaps, either. I don't care about their intrinsic worth really, and what has it to do with equality - believing someone to be equal is not the same as treating them as equal. I believe that people grow by participation in and contribution towards something greater than them, by using whatever value they have to add to an aggregate value: the total greater than the sum of its parts, and no man an island. That is the equalitarian-aristocratic view (and incidentally the view that provoked all of history's really important social-political revolutions) but I accept that there were aristocratic thinkers who had a somewhat more nefarious feeling, just as you must necessarily accept there were democratic thinkers who had maliciously individualist tendencies (I referred to Rand, but there are more, and today I would cite the Tea Party as an example.)


Production is not always that which is tangible and produces results that we can see. Production can also be to just be, to live, to make others happy. This production is valuable to these people so shrug? If production is merely defined as what people is capable to provide to society in terms of the physical realm, then this person is valueless. But that's very narrow-minded and a narrow way of seeing it. 

And yes, I can somewhat agree with your later portion of what you write in that society is a collective and should operate as such because it is more efficient and overall contributes to better results if everyone is willing to give a little to society rather than keeping all to their own, which is why I cannot agree with you that the Tea Party is democratic because their way of thinking is actually very fundamentally opposed to how I think an effective society runs by and one could very well make an argument for their aristocracy in that they are concerned about the value of a certain group of people and don't care about others because these groups are of no importance or value in their world. 

As for Rand, what if she's an aristocrat too you know? I was discussing her the other day with a friend of mine who's read her and he thinks she's likely an SLI or LSE. I don't agree with her reasoning either necessarily, based on what I've read.

Individualism is not the same as democracy. 



> Incidentally, Stephen Hawking may be a great clarion call to individualists about how everyone has value, but it was Britain's national health system, a collectivist invention, that he ascribes his continued life to.


But that's not an argument against what I'm arguing as you see in the above. Someone came up with that system too because they found it valuable to do so.



> Quite a few people associate individualism and collectivism with types. :/ Aestrivex for example, I think ephemereality too. I think they both associate it with Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe valuing though then I saw someone else attribute it to just strong Se.


To clarify, I don't entirely subscribe to Fe being collective and Fi being individualist. I don't think that's what Fe and Fi is about. Then we're somewhat taking about social and to a degree, political leanings, and as you see I am more of a political collectivist than I am an individualist because science has clearly shown to me that individuality as a political ideology does not work, simply put. 

When I say that Fe is attuned to the collective, I mean how Fe sees the collective emotional atmosphere and how Fe seeks to experience to be a part of this in some way because if you are no part of it, then how can you affect it? This collective doesn't just involve people but involves the entire world itself and people just happened to be the focus most theorists describe Fe as. That's why Fe is relational in a sense, in that Fe sees any external object as something one can emotionally relates to and have an emotional connection with that can be manipulated. Fe manipulates the relations between objects, animate or inanimate, ergo you see Fe socionists often bringing up the idea "of how do you relate to such and such person, such and such group, such and such description?" as a way to identify people's types. By that they don't just mean relate as in how one logically understands, but how one feels towards said object. 

But Fe does certainly not have to socially collective, not at all. Just like Fi doesn't always have to be individualist. Those are just results from a certain way of thinking, but an Fi type can very well value the collective simply because it is what they decided to value from an individual point of view. An Fe type can similarly take a stance against and away from the collective in a social sense, as a way to emotionally manipulate the relationship/atmosphere. Fe doesn't just move towards as much as it can also move against. 


> Interesting how you can interpret the same words so differently  I guess it's fair, yes, not sure if "equal" is the right word here though. It's not really logical to me, the idea how different and individual traits should be categorized as equal, which he already explained. So this is why I think a better word is just "fair", fair treatment accepting differences whatnot. Not my default stance as I don't even really deal with the differences.
> 
> Uh, I'll add this "equality" word to the extremely subjective word list too


lol, I don't understand this need for it to be logical. It is logical, but just not impersonally so. It doesn't necessarily hold up to standard criteria of logical but I just feel that's way beyond the point.



> What do you define "individual worth" as? Why does "general equality" (let's call the aristocrat stance as such) reduce said "worth"?


I already defined it but a like/dislike, preference, desire, want/do not want in a sense. But on a broader ethical level, value is probably more simply defined as desire at some level. So when I see individual worth, it's simply because it's desirable? I realize that's not wholly logical, but meh, that's my experience here. I would need to more actively think about that if I were to create a more logical system to describe it beyond any immediate gut reactions.

General equality as is described by Diph reduces worth because it does not consider the individual value since it does not consider the individual uniqueness. It's akin to painting everyone with the same color and expect them to be that color and perform based on that color even though they may not be that color at all. When we create systems based on this, then I can only logically see how people are put into categories they may themselves not have chosen but was chosen externally for them, and they simply end up doing what is not the best or effective for them and this also in my opinion reduces the overall effectivity and in the long-term also happiness for the society as a whole. A good society to me doesn't niche people in a certain direction based on some general qualities they may possess. 



> How's that categorizing? Everyone being their own little category?


Categorization based on individual rather than general qualities. "She's good at maths" is a categorization too because it's defining a quality she is possessing.


----------

