# Fi PoLR - Psychopathy?



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Moral codes are Ti. Fi is the concern with connection between the views and opinions and wants of others, which leads to trying to account for the beliefs of others in a way that peoples individual beliefs violate as little of others beliefs as possible. You're arguing for Fi and blaming Ti, but don't realize it.


I do realize it. Such arrogance to assume that I don't understand something because I "did it wrong." Go back and read my post and try to figure out why I did it the way I did instead of jumping to conclusions about me. I'll wait. 

The discussion was about moral codes thus I talked about it. So apparently in your mind it's impossible to talk about one function using another one. Okay.

Btw, I'm not blaming anything. Cease your needless emotional projecting. The only thing that is meant from my words are the words themselves. Stop forcing your interpretations onto me, or at least understand my perspective clearly before you do so. Thanks.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Smallesque said:


> I do realize it. Such arrogance to assume that I don't understand something because I "did it wrong." Go back and read my post and try to figure out why I did it the way I did instead of jumping to conclusions about me. I'll wait.
> 
> The discussion was about moral codes thus I talked about it. So apparently in your mind it's impossible to talk about one function using another one. Okay.
> 
> Btw, I'm not blaming anything. Cease your needless emotional projecting.


The discussion was on Fi. It transitioned to Ti. The original post is not reconciled by telling the original poster that Fi is Ti. The adherence to one's own viewpoints is the opposition of Fi, which is the reconciliation of such. Sociopathy occurs when one rejects both the viewpoints and rules (Ti) of society.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The discussion was on Fi. It transitioned to Ti. The original post is not reconciled by telling the original poster that Fi is Ti. The adherence to one's own viewpoints is the opposition of Fi, which is the reconciliation of such. Sociopathy occurs when one rejects both the viewpoints and rules (Ti) of society.


I did not do anything of the things you claim I did nor do I see what you are getting at. 

I used Ti to talk about Fi. 

Sociopathy is a blatant disregard for others in the way that they can't understand them. It is far more complex than you seem to think it is. I would trust that I know more about it than you do, anyway, considering that I have forms of it. Sociopathy is a lot more than just "I don't the rules or how people feel about the rules." Defining such things so loosely is dangerous and highly incorrect.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Smallesque said:


> I did not do anything of the things you claim I did nor do I see what you are getting at.
> 
> I used Ti to talk about Fi.
> 
> Sociopathy is a blatant disregard for others in the way that they can't understand them. It is far more complex than you seem to think it is. I would trust that I know more about it than you do, anyway, considering that I have forms of it.


Well, to each his own. My only concern was that the original poster have a clear definition of terms for usage on the socionics forum. I apologize for any lapse of communication on my part.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, to each his own. My only concern was that the original poster have a clear definition of terms for usage on the socionics forum. I apologize for any lapse of communication on my part.


Whether or not they did, no real discussions can be had when you stick to rigid definitions of things or only discuss those things. All discussions would just be "I don't agree" or "I agree." Nothing would come of it. Functions work as a system. No function is alone, so not talking about how each interact with eachother or how other functions see the things that others do, seems stupid.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Negativity Bias said:


> Whether or not they did, no real discussions can be had when you stick to rigid definitions of things or only discuss those things. All discussions would just be "I don't agree" or "I agree." Nothing would come of it. Functions work as a system. No function is alone, so not talking about how each interact with eachother or how other functions see the things that others do, seems stupid.


Perhaps, but it also saves time and effort during discussions to have some commonality on terms used.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Perhaps, but it also saves time and effort during discussions to have some commonality on terms used.


Lmao. It's actually somewhat upsetting that you even think there is a way to reach that with anything. Words are just symbols. Definitions are made up of words. They can't be unified and agreed upon.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Smallesque said:


> Everyone has a moral code of sorts and whether or not they say they follow morals, they do because it's a term that describes animalistic and primal mental processes we can't even begin to understand thus why I called it a construct. It's much like Time in that respect, we call it one thing before we even understand it, we are probably only even judging 5% of it as if it were 100%.
> 
> I don't agree that Morality is this blanket thing that everyone agrees with, nor do I agree that you can opt in or out of it. My whole point was that it is simply illogical and irrelevant to one's life to worry about being "immoral" because you are unable to comprehend, no matter how much you know about people or specific individuals, the depth of other moral codes.



I guess I misunderstood you then. I think people value adhering to morals since it's _efficient_ more than anything else. If I have an established code of right and wrong beforehand I don't need to waste time and energy wondering if I really did the right thing after I've done something. My sense of morality provides a certain comfort for me in that way, and I don't need to wallow in limbo for every feeling-influenced decision I make. 
So I wouldn't say that I worry about being immoral, but if I go against that code because of the spur of the moment I will need to spend time re-evaluating what I think is right and wrong or just try to correct the mistake.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Negativity Bias said:


> Lmao. It's actually somewhat upsetting that you even think there is a way to reach that with anything. Words are just symbols. Definitions are made up of words. They can't be unified and agreed upon.


Well, everything we say are words, and if none of them had any definitions, wouldn't we be unable to effectively communicate with each other?


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Verity said:


> I guess I misunderstood you then. I think people value adhering to morals since it's _efficient_ more than anything else. If I have an established code of right and wrong beforehand I don't need to waste time and energy wondering if I really did the right thing after I've done something. My sense of morality provides a certain comfort for me in that way, and I don't need to wallow in limbo for every feeling-influenced decision I make.
> So I wouldn't say that I worry about being immoral, but if I go against that code because of the spur of the moment I will need to spend time re-evaluating what I think is right and wrong or just try to correct the mistake.


I do what you said you don't do for everything, which makes interactions and decisions taxing to say the least, lmao. I do it because I don't believe in taking the easy route and just having a set right or wrong. I follow a set of principles instead of rules, they are like guidelines. That might just be a core difference in types tho.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, everything we say are words, and if none of them had any definitions, wouldn't we be unable to effectively communicate with each other?


Words are symbols, with symbols implying that every word can be interpreted differently depending on the perspective. Definitions are basically just forced "agreed upon" understandings of symbols.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Negativity Bias said:


> I do what you said you don't do for everything, which makes interactions and decisions taxing to say the least, lmao. I do it because I don't believe in taking the easy route and just having a set right or wrong. I follow a set of principles instead of rules, they are like guidelines. That might just be a core difference in types tho.
> 
> 
> 
> Words are symbols, with symbols implying that every word can be interpreted differently depending on the perspective. Definitions are basically just forced "agreed upon" understandings of symbols.


Well, how does such a usage create the case that you agree with others rather than others being required to agree with you?


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Negativity Bias said:


> I do what you said you don't do for everything, which makes interactions and decisions taxing to say the least, lmao. I do it because I don't believe in taking the easy route and just having a set right or wrong. I follow a set of principles instead of rules, they are like guidelines. That might just be a core difference in types tho.


I'd just like to clarify that my morality is far from all-including, and I often find situations where it's hard to know how I feel about something. I think we might be talking about the same thing using different words. For example, one of my rules would be that if someone asks me about what I think about something, I will tell them what I think. Even if doing so has repercussions. If I had cheated on my girlfriend I would tell her. It's not like I have a long imaginary list of what's right and wrong in any given situation, it's more like a few principles that will influence other decisions, I guess.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Fi is basically the ability to integrate the mind with society. Ti is basically the ability to integrate the body with society. People kinda need an adequate amount of both.


Could you please elaborate on this? I am trying very hard to understand, but it just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

I think that Ti and Fi are actually very much alike --they are both Ji functions... in other words, they are both internal centers of gravity, they are at the core of an individual's view (subjective reconstruction) of the world. Both stubbornly hold on to their positions. Both advocate a version of the "holy truth"... can these truths intersect or are they completely parallel to one another? 

Personally, I think they can intersect.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> Could you please elaborate on this? I am trying very hard to understand, but it just doesn't make sense to me.





FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> I think that Ti and Fi are actually very much alike --they are both Ji functions... in other words, they are both internal centers of gravity, they are at the core of an individual's view (subjective reconstruction) of the world. Both stubbornly hold on to their positions. Both advocate a version of the "holy truth"... can these truths intersect or are they completely parallel to one another?
> 
> Personally, I think they can intersect.


Of course.

Using the basic descriptions of each, Fi is people's wants, likes/dislikes, attraction/repulsion, etc., and is used as the comparison between such for judging psychological distance and differences of viewpoints. Essentially, it is comparison of people's internal worlds. You use it to properly align your internal world to those of others. 

Ti is order, hierarchy, organizations, laws, rules, etc., and you use it to compare how people "fit in" to the external world, and such creates ones principles, rules, etc. within them.

What you are describing in the second half of your second post, is all Ti. One's principles, values, self-laws are all Ti, being the construction of an internal hierarchy and organization of rules and laws. This creates the structure of the internal world. Fi then compares your internal world compared to the internal world of others, potentially altering your own internal world to align.

People use both. The two working over time allows one to align both the mind and the body to the requirements of society.

When one fails at Fi, their internal system stands to become something which has no similarity with others for determining rules of behavior. When one fails at Ti, their internal and external systems lack coherency and depth and adherence to the social construct in body is lacking.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Of course.
> 
> Using the basic descriptions of each, Fi is people's wants, likes/dislikes, attraction/repulsion, etc., and is used as the comparison between such for judging psychological distance and differences of viewpoints. Essentially, it is comparison of people's internal worlds. You use it to properly align your internal world to those of others.
> 
> ...



hmmm.... your Ti sounds an awful lot like Te, and Fi like Fe.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

FluffyTheAnarchist said:


> hmmm.... your Ti sounds an awful lot like Te, and Fi like Fe.


You would be speaking of MBTI then, not socionics.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> One's principles, values, self-laws are all Ti, being the construction of an internal hierarchy and organization of rules and laws. This creates the structure of the internal world. Fi then compares your internal world compared to the internal world of others, *potentially altering your own internal world to align.*


Are you saying Fi has less structure than Ti, so it relies on inner filings when judging and therefore can align with others easier as it is making judgments on the spot, while Ti already has a system build from the past it can rely on?

I can say for Ti that it is just as stubborn as Fi but can be easier to persuade, if taken the correct path to just add an analytical perspective to its own but not necessarily reconstruct it at the spot.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

jkp said:


> Are you saying Fi has less structure than Ti, so it relies on inner filings when judging and therefore can align with others easier as it is making judgments on the spot, while Ti already has a system build from the past it can rely on?
> 
> I can say for Ti that it is just as stubborn as Fi but can be easier to persuade, if taken the correct path to just add an analytical perspective to its own but not necessarily reconstruct it at the spot.


From my observations... And I mean, I'm an ILE too, so I might have this all wrong...

Comparing Fi and Ti is like comparing early impressionistic art with formal logic. They both have structure, but they are obviously differing in technique and application.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> From my observations... And I mean, I'm an ILE too, so I might have this all wrong...
> 
> Comparing Fi and Ti is like comparing early impressionistic art with formal logic. They both have structure, but they are obviously differing in technique and application.


Well put! But when considering difference in structure we have to consider the semantics of what F and T really mean. Feeling and Thinking functions differ in hormonal balance when judging a situation. An F user will have to rely on its inner or outer emotional affect on what its homeostasis state it should be. A T user will be more coherent with the logically correct truth and being inconsiderate to its internal vants, it will try to be less biased and more objective. That being said, the F function will structurally not rely on its constructed systems analytically as T does. Therefore if we talk about structure difference between T and F, T should be much more agile when trying to solve the world analytically and F more agile when harmonizing the world. I imagine the systems as lightnings, F having stronger longer lightnings while T has multiple intertwined lightnings, the difference in lightning structure causes the difference in sounds produced.

But since we all use both there often comes to discrepancies and imbalances within T and F.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Wolfskralle said:


> High dimensional Fi is not so much nonjudgemental, but rather highly contextual - which is why it may appear as highly accepting at times. Right and wrong is highly relative in a sense that certain action could be moral for someone, but immoral for someone else, also it could be moral at one time, immoral at another, moral from one point of view, immoral from another, and so on. Hence why it may even appear "relativistic" at times, but it's something very different from Fi PoLR's POV (as these types theoretically can't even understand commonly accepted moral norms or standards of behaviors - 2D Fi - hence why they are "relativists" - anything goes).
> 
> Dimension three | School of System Socionics
> Dimension four | School of System Socionics


Some sources say Fi types can come across judgmental, some say they are nonjudgmental. I'm sure it varies and neither is really what defines Fi, but in my case nonjudgmentalness seems to be an important part of how my Fi works. 

I actually don't judge whether things are moral or immoral at all (more like I have a background, almost unconscious awareness of things _approaching _one or the other but I don't arrive at a definitive "judgment"), so I don't know what to say about contextual ethical judgment. I don't know, my Fi just seems really confusing to place in terms of dimensionality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Recede said:


> Some sources say Fi types can come across judgmental, some say they are nonjudgmental. I'm sure it varies and neither is really what defines Fi, but in my case nonjudgmentalness seems to be an important part of how my Fi works.
> 
> I actually don't judge whether things are moral or immoral at all (more like I have a background, almost unconscious awareness of things _approaching _one or the other but I don't arrive at a definitive "judgment"), so I don't know what to say about contextual ethical judgment. I don't know, my Fi just seems really confusing to place in terms of dimensionality.


The short version is that 

1d in LxE makes them usually uphold or project their Fi into the system around them, the laws and moral standards they recognize. They standardize morals eg it's wrong to steal so people who steal are sent to jail. May idealize certain values and try to make people adhere to them for the sake of group unity but are shit at living according to them themselves. They absolutely do not understand logic of attraction/repulsion or closeness/distance and try to understand it from the perspective of Te and justify everything via Te eg what they like/dislike isn't necessarily opinion but it's a fact that according to the standards they are comparing to that's how things are. Religion is bullshit because that's what the scientific community thinks.


2d is a certain moral stubbornness. It understands personal value systems but applies stuff indiscriminately across the board. Don't like that person? I'm absolutely utterly going to refuse to speak to them or be in the same room or breathe the same air as them. Compared to 1d it usually understands when something is a subjective value judgement or not but may apply the same values across the board even when it makes no sense to do so. Results in inflexibility. 

3d is the ability to understand context. Because my fi is too derp I don't know in terms of nuance how to describe it, but 3d is the ability to understand how the context changes the standards and criteria we are dealing with. We see how this is a natural development of 2d that understands how to apply information for oneself compared to 1d that often talks about it but is bad at actually doing it. 3d produces nuance. 

4d understands how the nature of this information develops over time. It's not just between context to context but also between each historical situation. What was true then isn't true now so everything is different. 

I'm not entirely sure how to separate the understanding of 4d from how Ni affects perception.
I also think that making very strong value judgements is more typical for gamma because Fi is blocked with Se that sees things as they are. You usually don't see delta NFs making strong value judgements and even when they do it's always softened or dampened. Gamma is much more stating things as they see it. Feelings are much more overtly expressed eg I'm so disgusted I'm repulsed I don't like that.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> The short version is that
> 
> 1d in LxE makes them usually uphold or project their Fi into the system around them, the laws and moral standards they recognize. They standardize morals eg it's wrong to steal so people who steal are sent to jail. May idealize certain values and try to make people adhere to them for the sake of group unity but are shit at living according to them themselves. They absolutely do not understand logic of attraction/repulsion or closeness/distance and try to understand it from the perspective of Te and justify everything via Te eg what they like/dislike isn't necessarily opinion but it's a fact that according to the standards they are comparing to that's how things are. Religion is bullshit because that's what the scientific community thinks.
> 
> ...


Oooh, that was cool.

You should do this for _all_ the functions. :kitteh:


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

Recede said:


> Well actually I associate nonjudgmentalness with strong Fi, so I was wondering what the difference is between nonjudgmentalness in strong Fi vs Fi PoLR, because I've seen that some ExTPs can seem rather nonjudgmental. What you said makes sense, though.


Nonjudgmentalness in strong Fi probably has something to do with, like you said, seeing people as having intrinsic value and being attuned to how every person has a unique experience which could lead to being many different things. Or something along those lines. 

I'm an ILE-Ne. How I experience Fi POLR in terms of nonjudgmentalness:
The main reason I think is that I really value consistency of judgment. Which, is to say, if you're going to chastised X for doing Y then that should be a "universal" "law" in you thought process. I don't actually dismiss subjective ethical value judgments so much as I demand they be logically consistent and don't understand how someone could have contradictory ethical judgments. That's not to say the exact same rule needs to apply to every single situation, but the essence of the law does. (i.e., context can play an important law, e.g., it's more okay for a struggling poor individual to steal than an incredibly rich individual, but the essence of how that context affects the logical law of the ethical judgment must be consistent across your judgments). Does that make sense? 

What ends up happening when you turn this thought process on to yourself is you realize that there are very few judgments you can consistently make without being a hypocrite. Add Ne to that, which allows for holding contradictory or multiple frameworks at once and you get ENTPs particularly being very non judgmental in terms of character, at least from an ethical stand point. 

Also, lack of Fi makes it very difficult for me to develop long lasting feelings about a person. It's not that I don't get feelings that what a person did may have been wrong, it's just that these are gone just as quickly as they came, typically because I analyze them. I guess that is what Fi POLR really is: the unwillingness to hold subjective feelings/value judgments without holding them up to intense Ti scrutiny

Oh, also, I see people and their actions as separate unless it occurs consistently enough that I can assume that action X (or the tendency towards action X) Is a key component of their character. This is why Ti creatives can look like they're being dicks when (from their perspective) they are not.

e.g., you trip over the curb and have an awkward fall. Ti creatives (maybe more so SLE) will laugh at this. To an Fi user I imagine it comes across as though they are laughing at you (maybe not, correct me if I am wrong). To a Ti creative the fall is independent of you (i.e., they are laughing at the fact that your fall was funny, not the fact that YOUR fall was funny.) Ti creatives get confused when people get offended by their jokes directed at them because they don't see it as making fun of a "person" so much as making fun of a "trait." (i.e., "I would make fun of the trait regardless of who it was showing it). Actually, if you get a lot of Ti users in a room together it typically just ends in them trying to be as mean to each other as possible and laughing at the ridiculousness of it all.

Now, my years of experience taught me how to make jokes appropriate, but my tendency to know when and when not to laugh came from studying it and getting in trouble a lot growing up. It's not that I still don't think it's funny, I just hide the fact that I do so no one gets mad at me.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Entropic said:


> The short version is that
> 
> 1d in LxE makes them usually uphold or project their Fi into the system around them, the laws and moral standards they recognize. They standardize morals eg it's wrong to steal so people who steal are sent to jail. May idealize certain values and try to make people adhere to them for the sake of group unity but are shit at living according to them themselves. They absolutely do not understand logic of attraction/repulsion or closeness/distance and try to understand it from the perspective of Te and justify everything via Te eg what they like/dislike isn't necessarily opinion but it's a fact that according to the standards they are comparing to that's how things are. Religion is bullshit because that's what the scientific community thinks.
> 
> ...


I'm having a hard time seeing 3D and 4D in my Fi. I think I'm only aware of how there are certain things that are ideal in general. Maybe I just haven't had enough life experience and relationships to apply Fi situationally? (My life has been pretty seriously uneventful.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Recede said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing 3D and 4D in my Fi. I think I'm only aware of how there are certain things that are ideal in general. Maybe I just haven't had enough life experience and relationships to apply Fi situationally? (My life has been pretty seriously uneventful.)


I'm pretty sure I could point out more concrete examples if I spoke to you more or could make more personal observations in a day-to-day life kind of thing. I honestly can't point a single example where I can go, yeah, that's 4D Ni, for example.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Lost my ability to link-drop via PM's. Dropping Links, so to speak, is probably half of my speaking IRL. I usually don't get involved in conversations, and just link drop occasionally, so people can come to their own conclusions. Anyways, need 15 posts, then I won't be cluttering up your discussions. I hope you don't mind.

4D is often considered the most elusive of the dimensionalities, even more-so with 4D vital. The reason is that whether or not it is visible externally, it is always on. Always being on means that it is often hard for a person to recognize it, because there is no "instance" to reference (without serious self-reflection) for identification. It is kind of a "just me" sort of thing, that is so engrained into a person, that it is hard for the person to dissect it and pick it apart separate from doing so to their entire being. When viewing the sum of the parts, the 4Ds are often then visible, but looked at simply by itself is almost indeterminable on dimensionality. This is combined by the fact that someone has to know it extremely well to be able to describe it to others to use as an example for 4D identification. As Entropic said, if you don't have 3D in an element, trying to describe it or higher gets increasingly fuzzy. Within Socionics, largely dominated by NTs, this is part of the lack of "depth" and "clarity" to the S and F definitions and descriptions (we all know Se isn't going beat people up, but we lack descriptions from high dimension ones).

As an example, when observing my SLE friend, I was able to recognize that Se is never "off." When watching him, reallllly watching him, it's like his boundaries and perceptions of others' are always "on." Constantly, organically, without seeming to even be doing anything at all, you can almost see an invisible line around his "territory" and that of others, all kinda doing this push-pull, expanding contracting, and he very consciously aware of it.

4D has time parameter and globality parameter. This means that it's usage (and not just memory) can transcend time to reference different time periods; e.g. Low dimensionality Fi tends to place things as "it is always right or it was never right," whereas 4D will determine right/wrong, viewpoints, relationships, etc. in concern with the the time period in question. Globality is most akin to "field of application." Having globality parameter means being able to expand/contract or change frame of reference easily and without internal confliction; e.g., 4D Fi speaking of right/wrong in relation to a small group, saying such, but then easily and simply going to the super-group and giving a different right/wrong explanation with relation to the super-group now; e.g., going from right/wrong for people in America to opposite being right/wrong for people in china, without internal confliction.

Do those descriptions of 4D help or allow you to place it within your own understanding better?


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Entropic said:


> The short version is that
> 
> 1d in LxE makes them usually uphold or project their Fi into the system around them, the laws and moral standards they recognize. They standardize morals eg it's wrong to steal so people who steal are sent to jail. May idealize certain values and try to make people adhere to them for the sake of group unity but are shit at living according to them themselves. They absolutely do not understand logic of attraction/repulsion or closeness/distance and try to understand it from the perspective of Te and justify everything via Te eg what they like/dislike isn't necessarily opinion but it's a fact that according to the standards they are comparing to that's how things are. Religion is bullshit because that's what the scientific community thinks.
> 
> ...


Personally I think 1D Fi in LxEs manifests in a total submission to subjective judgements of others, making them easy to manipulate mainly if they trust the person already. I'm actually kind of intimidated by people who have strong subjective jufgements and go about expressing them; those people get my attention but I don't know how to defend myself in those situations where I am expected to make those judgements. I either submit to their judgement, or say nothing. But I'm never sure how much I agree, though I have vague nuances "her way of thinking is annoying" for example but I can't define why. In xLEs it manifests more like a disinterest/indifference to subjective judgements? Like they prefer to answer with subjective logic where the opposite is expected of them. 

I can't say much beyond that because according to my self-typing I cant see much Fi beyond that .


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

AlwaysWithMe said:


> Do those descriptions of 4D help or allow you to place it within your own understanding better?


Not really. I don't think any of my functions are always on, and that's part of why I get the feeling I probably don't have a type. Although, now that I think about it, I guess seeing others' point of view is always on. Though that's kind of a 9 thing. Seems more vital than mental though, in the sense that I don't really think "This person must have X point of view." I don't really think about people, I just accept them I guess. I don't want to reject people, even just in my own thoughts where there would be no external consequences. 

I don't relate to your 4D Fi description because I'm not interested in determining right and wrong, especially as some kind of social construct that could vary across cultures. There are things such as kindness that are universally ideal whether people consciously value them or not. That doesn't mean I would go around trying to make everyone be kind, partly because it wouldn't be possible to turn reality completely into that ideal, it can only be approached. I also don't think there's a one-size-fits-all definition of what it means to be kind. Some people for instance might tend to favor tough love whereas others might prefer softer approaches. Personally I find both valuable depending on the situation and individuals involved, but it would be hard for me to elaborate because I don't really think about this type of thing much.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Recede said:


> Not really. I don't think any of my functions are always on, and that's part of why I get the feeling I probably don't have a type. Although, now that I think about it, I guess seeing others' point of view is always on. Though that's kind of a 9 thing. Seems more vital than mental though, in the sense that I don't really think "This person must have X point of view." I don't really think about people, I just accept them I guess. I don't want to reject people, even just in my own thoughts where there would be no external consequences.
> 
> I don't relate to your 4D Fi description because I'm not interested in determining right and wrong, especially as some kind of social construct that could vary across cultures. *There are things such as kindness that are universally ideal whether people consciously value them or not. That doesn't mean I would go around trying to make everyone be kind, partly because it wouldn't be possible to turn reality completely into that ideal, it can only be approached. I also don't think there's a one-size-fits-all definition of what it means to be kind. Some people for instance might tend to favor tough love whereas others might prefer softer approaches. Personally I find both valuable depending on the situation and individuals involved, but it would be hard for me to elaborate because I don't really think about this type of thing much*.


This kind of reasoning is what at least 3D means, though, seeing contextual differences. There's that song Stan by Eminem which I think is a great example of 4D Fi:






[Chorus]
My tea's gone cold I'm wondering why I
Got out of bed at all
The morning rain clouds up my window
And I can't see at all
And even if I could it'll all be gray,
Put your picture on my wall
It reminds me, that it's not so bad,
It's not so bad

My tea's gone cold I'm wondering why I
Got out of bed at all
The morning rain clouds up my window
And I can't see at all
And even if I could it'll all be gray,
Put your picture on my wall
It reminds me, that it's not so bad,
It's not so bad

Dear Slim, I wrote you but still ain't callin'
I left my cell, my pager, and my home phone at the bottom
I sent two letters back in autumn, you must not-a got 'em
There probably was a problem at the post office or somethin'
Sometimes I scribble addresses too sloppy when I jot 'em
But anyways, fuck it, what's been up? Man how's your daughter?
My girlfriend's pregnant too, I'm bout to be a father
If I have a daughter, guess what I'm a call her?
I'm a name her Bonnie
I read about your Uncle Ronnie too I'm sorry
I had a friend kill himself over some bitch who didn't want him
I know you probably hear this everyday, but I'm your biggest fan
I even got the underground shit that you did with Skam
I got a room full of your posters and your pictures man
I like the shit you did with Rawkus too, that shit was fat
Anyways, I hope you get this man, hit me back,
Just to chat, truly yours, your biggest fan
This is Stan

[Chorus]

Dear Slim, you still ain't called or wrote, I hope you have a chance
I ain't mad, I just think it's fucked up you don't answer fans
If you didn't wanna talk to me outside your concert
You didn't have to, but you coulda signed an autograph for Matthew
That's my little brother man, he's only six years old
We waited in the blistering cold for you,
For four hours and you just said, "No."
That's pretty shitty man, you're like his fuckin' idol
He wants to be just like you man, he likes you more than I do
I ain't that mad though, I just don't like bein' lied to
Remember when we met in Denver, you said if I'd write you you would write back,
See I'm just like you in a way
I never knew my father neither,
He used to always cheat on my mom and beat her
I can relate to what you're saying in your songs
So when I have a shitty day, I drift away and put 'em on
'Cause I don't really got shit else so that shit helps when I'm depressed
I even got a tattoo of your name across the chest
Sometimes I even cut myself to see how much it bleeds
It's like adrenaline, the pain is such a sudden rush for me
See everything you say is real, and I respect you cause you tell it
My girlfriend's jealous 'cause I talk about you 24/7
But she don't know you like I know you Slim, no one does
She don't know what it was like for people like us growin' up, you gotta call me man,
I'll be the biggest fan you'll ever lose
Sincerely yours, Stan, P.S. we should be together too

My tea's gone cold I'm wondering why I
Got out of bed at all
The morning rain clouds up my window
And I can't see at all
And even if I could it'll all be gray,
Put your picture on my wall
It reminds me, that it's not so bad,
It's not so bad

Dear Mister "I'm Too Good To Call Or Write My Fans",
This will be the last package I ever send your ass
It's been six months and still no word, I don't deserve it?
I know you got my last two letters, I wrote the addresses on 'em perfect
So this is my cassette I'm sending you, I hope you hear it
I'm in the car right now, I'm doing 90 on the freeway
Hey Slim, I drank a fifth of vodka,
You dare me to drive?
You know the song by Phil Collins, "In the Air of the Night"
About that guy who could a saved that other guy from drowning
But didn't, then Phil saw it all, then at a a show he found him?
That's kinda how this is, you could a rescued me from drowning
Now it's too late, I'm on a thousand downers now, I'm drowsy
And all I wanted was a lousy letter or a call
I hope you know I ripped all of your pictures off the wall
I love you Slim, we coulda been together, think about it
You ruined it now, I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it
And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you scream about it
I hope your conscience eats at you and you can't breathe without me
See Slim, shut up bitch! I'm tryin' to talk!
Hey Slim, that's my girlfriend screamin' in the trunk
But I didn't slit her throat, I just tied her up, see I ain't like you
'Cause if she suffocates she'll suffer more, and then she'll die too
Well, gotta go, I'm almost at the bridge now
Oh shit, I forgot, how am I supposed to send this shit out?

[Chorus]

Dear Stan, I meant to write you sooner but I just been busy
You said your girlfriend's pregnant now, how far along is she?
Look, I'm really flattered you would call your daughter that
And here's an autograph for your brother,
I wrote it on the Starter cap
I'm sorry I didn't see you at the show, I must of missed you
Don't think I did that shit intentionally just to diss you
But what's this shit you said about you like to cut your wrists too?
I say that shit just clownin' dog, come on, how fucked up is you?
You got some issues Stan, I think you need some counseling
To help your ass from bouncing off the walls when you get down some
And what's this shit about us meant to be together?
That type of shit will make me not want us to meet each other
I really think you and your girlfriend need each other
Or maybe you just need to treat her better
I hope you get to read this letter, I just hope it reaches you in time
Before you hurt yourself, I think that you'll be doin' just fine
If you relax a little, I'm glad I inspire you but Stan
Why are you so mad? Try to understand, that I do want you as a fan
I just don't want you to do some crazy shit
I seen this one shit on the news a couple weeks ago that made me sick
Some dude was drunk and drove his car over a bridge
And had his girlfriend in the trunk, and she was pregnant with his kid
And in the car they found a tape, but they didn't say who it was to
Come to think about, his name was, it was you
Damn!



Read more: Eminem - Stan Lyrics | MetroLyrics


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Recede said:


> Not really. I don't think any of my functions are always on, and that's part of why I get the feeling I probably don't have a type. Although, now that I think about it, I guess seeing others' point of view is always on. Though that's kind of a 9 thing. Seems more vital than mental though, in the sense that I don't really think "This person must have X point of view." I don't really think about people, I just accept them I guess. I don't want to reject people, even just in my own thoughts where there would be no external consequences.
> 
> I don't relate to your 4D Fi description because I'm not interested in determining right and wrong, especially as some kind of social construct that could vary across cultures. There are things such as kindness that are universally ideal whether people consciously value them or not. That doesn't mean I would go around trying to make everyone be kind, partly because it wouldn't be possible to turn reality completely into that ideal, it can only be approached. I also don't think there's a one-size-fits-all definition of what it means to be kind. Some people for instance might tend to favor tough love whereas others might prefer softer approaches. Personally I find both valuable depending on the situation and individuals involved, but it would be hard for me to elaborate because I don't really think about this type of thing much.


Well, right/wrong is something I would personally put in quotations, if I was referring to it myself. I think right/wrong is more of a normative saying. I would consider right/wrong to be something based upon the time period, situation, individual's involved, etc., and really just consider it more of a "right for varying viewpoints to exist simultaneously without violation between people over the ability to do such," or something like that. Other people's varying viewpoints and recognizition of such, across the 4D as I described, is indicative, to me at least, of 4D Fi. However, valuing/devaluing of this compared to Ni/Si would be indicative of mental/vital.

Well, I don't think the matrices for Socionics cater to you as an individual, because they place you on a fairly fine line between S/N. If you were by some chance, IEI or SEI, with your base being borderline and your Demonstrative resting in your preconscious, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to determine between which you are. If you are, however, EII, it may be a little more easily determinable, as at least one of your 4D's wouldn't be nestled in the recesses of your mind.

Edit: Also, a question, if you don't mind me asking... Some seek typing on descriptions and reject parts of structural cognition typing, and others seek point-for-point structural cognition typing and reject parts of type descriptions. Which would you say is more important to you?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

@Entropic: The obsessive, creepy fan character Stan, or the entire way it was written, or.. What exactly is 4d Fi here? But, anyway... It's probably my favourite song by him. Such a creepy, psychological mind trip fun scary story. :kitteh:
@Jeremy8419: Welcome back, man! :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> @Entropic: The obsessive, creepy fan character Stan, or the entire way it was written, or.. What exactly is 4d Fi here? But, anyway... It's probably my favourite song by him. Such a creepy, psychological mind trip fun scary story. :kitteh:
> @Jeremy8419: Welcome back, man! :kitteh:


It's the ability to consider such a wide breadth of varying contexts; Stan, his girlfriend, his potential daughter, his brother, Eminem. All of them have different relationships to each other, all of them with their own needs based on those different relationships. The lyrics are written from a separate point of view for all of them. That's high dimensionality.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ego is described as Social Mission block. Super-Ego is described as Social Role block. Super-Id is described as Individual Control block. Id is described as Individual Tools block. 

Mental track is what one does in regards to consideration of society. Vital track is ones individual way of living, despite differences in society; it is where one generally holds personal preferences that have developed in life. Mental track contains your regular conscious thoughts, and diffidence must be consciously solved. Vital track contains automated processes of the preconscious, and are usually realized after-the-fact, or well up to the surface at times of meditation-like states, inebriated states, or anything else which involves receding into one's self from conscious thought.

Individual Control block initiated this post, so skip to it, if you don't care to read the other 3 blocks.

Social Mission Block: Individual considers this to be his basic purpose in life for society. Consciously acts in regards to these elements as the main player in cognition. Base function always in effect for fulfilling Social Mission. Creative function used on a situational, case-by-case basis, to add to the Base's ability to complete Social Mission.

Social Control Block: Individual does not value, but consciously recognizes the necessity of such when being a part of society. Role function maintains a social facade deemed necessary to allow Social Mission Block to complete mission in the face of possible failure due to Vulnerable Function. Vulnerable Function is deemed to be in opposition to Base Function, information on this element largely ignored, and is controlled only to the point of allowing the individual to maintain Base Function activity without failure of "point of least resistance."

Individual Control Block: Maintains the individuals individuality while allowing individual to complete Social Mission. Information related to this block is accepted, appreciated, and observed on criteria related to the individual's individual life, relationships, beliefs, tastes, etc. Suggestive function actively seeks, accepts, and derpily performs the individual's personal version of the element; acts as a radar to filter-out or accept "individually correct" versions of this element from others. Mobilizing function recognizes the individual's personal norm compared to other norms of society on this element and verifies ability to align, as a whole, with potential romantic interests or friendship interests on this aspect of individuality.

Individual Tools Block: Contains trusted, tried-and-true, tools used by the individual for assistance in completing Social Mission. Ignoring Function is used on a situational case-by-case basis and is viewed by the individual as a set tool with a set purpose, and the individual is critical of other's "incorrect" (individuality of vital track) or overuse of it. Demonstrative Function is used as an automatic regulator of the individuals functions in regards to the "correct" usage per individual's individuality; occasionally manifests itself as a signaler of both the individual's Social Mission as well as the individual's individuality within the Social Mission; i.e., displays personality "type" as well as individuality.

Original account is turned back on. Hollar if you need something, otherwise I will be lurking and PMing links I may think may be of interest.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

nvm


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Hm, I don't think Fi PoLR is about being non-judgemental, but it's more an outright dismissal of evaluating how psychological distance has any real bearing on relationships. For example, I overheard this conversation at work once, where an EII was discussing how the introduction of the dislike button on Facebook could have severe ethical consequences for people, especially if they are already socially discriminated against. A person who is bullied could for example become frozen out even further by their peers, because the bullying could extend even further on sites like Facebook. The ILE didn't understand this at all and tried to dismiss it at as irrelevant and wanted to make it into a joke: "Haha, so people could use the dislike to bully people? Well, maybe they are really ugly so of course people should dislike it!" It wasn't that he said it because he thought it made more sense to implement the dislike button or that people could use it that way, but he literally did not understand nor was able to conceptualize the ethical consequences of how the dislike button could impact people's psychological relationships to each other in this way. The topic made him uncomfortable so he tried to make the entire situation into a joke. Personal concepts of like/dislike just didn't occur to him as existing. They were irrelevant and not a part of how he judged relationships or how to interact and behave with people.


I've had issues with ILEs before because of this kind of attitude. I experience my internal world and the internal worlds of others as being real and visceral, and so some ILEs seem overly flippant or disconnected from others' emotions to me when they do this. Almost like they're living life in an out-of-body experience, and such aspects of relations are just phantom concepts to be rationalized into nonexistence. In contrast, I believe myself and the other SLEs I've met seem very "walled up". Physically closed off.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Of course.
> 
> Using the basic descriptions of each, Fi is people's wants, likes/dislikes, attraction/repulsion, etc., and is used as the comparison between such for judging psychological distance and differences of viewpoints. Essentially, it is comparison of people's internal worlds. You use it to properly align your internal world to those of others.
> 
> ...


Okay, this is interesting. I've never heard of this mind/body split with Ti vs Fi before, but it seems to be congruent with my observations.


I don't know the experience of many other Fi polr people in depth, but from what I know, a lot of us, due to early life experience or whatnot, view relations with others as very transient and unpredictable. It seems like there is an emotionally gun-shy quality to myself and other Fi polrs.

For instance... what I see SEEs do with getting to know someone, I could never do. That's like trying to open up pandora's box to me. I would like to. But there's a cynical side of me that feels like it's all going to be all this relating and emotionality done in vain.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

niffer said:


> Okay, this is interesting. I've never heard of this mind/body split with Ti vs Fi before, but it seems to be congruent with my observations.


Oh, it goes back to the information aspects. My Body/Mind is a metaphorical example of the external/internal dichotomy of the aspects. The internal/external isn't well described in any English sources, nor really in Russian. It's me logically extracting from the known properties of the elements.

Te: External Dynamics of Objects
Fe: Internal Dynamics of Objects
Se: External Statics of Objects
Ne: Internal Statics of Objects
Ti: External Statics of Relations
Fi: Internal Statics of Relations
Si: External Dynamics of Relations
Ni: Internal Dynamics of Relations


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Ti is about predicting and adapting to change, Te values stability. At least if I get Lenore right.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> Ti is about predicting and adapting to change, Te values stability. At least if I get Lenore right.


Wouldn't the prediction part be Ni?


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't the prediction part be Ni?


I meant the ability to foresee change in a system, like accepting the system is in constant flux seems like Ti. This is because Ti tries to be consistent with an internal logic, which they try to adapt the system to. The system must be logically consistent, but since it almost never is, it is constantly subject to ramifications to make it more consistent. For Te, the important thing is not so much logical consistency, but factual accuracy, being true to the accepted body of knowledge, which makes it seem like Te is more conservative about change. Personally, I dislike most changes. We live in a time period of constant change, and types like ILEs love it, where I feel lost.

Ni, you are right Ni is about predicting change too, but in a more general sense, not when it comes to systems, lol. 

I didn't specifically mention I was talking about systems when I made that post, which probably caused some confusion, sorry about that.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> I meant the ability to foresee change in a system, like accepting the system is in constant flux seems like Ti. This is because Ti tries to be consistent with an internal logic, which they try to adapt the system to. The system must be logically consistent, but since it almost never is, it is constantly subject to ramifications to make it more consistent. For Te, the important thing is not so much logical consistency, but factual accuracy, being true to the accepted body of knowledge, which makes it seem like Te is more conservative about change. Personally, I dislike most changes. We live in a time period of constant change, and types like ILEs love it, where I feel lost.
> 
> Ni, you are right Ni is about predicting change too, but in a more general sense, not when it comes to systems, lol.
> 
> I didn't specifically mention I was talking about systems when I made that post, which probably caused some confusion, sorry about that.


I can follow your train of thought; however, predicting a working system is Ni Te.

"Disliking change" usually means "disliking the wrong kind of change." For LIE, they like continuous, steady growth, be it linear or exponential. ILEs like sporadicism.

You see, Ti is static and homeopathic. Te is dynamic and heteropathic. 

Perhaps, you are thinking of Fe vs Fi? Fe is the internal flux we go through. Fi is the internal stability between us and others.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I can follow your train of thought; however, predicting a working system is Ni Te.
> 
> "Disliking change" usually means "disliking the wrong kind of change." For LIE, they like continuous, steady growth, be it linear or exponential. ILEs like sporadicism.
> 
> ...


Yeah, disliking change means disliking the wrong kind of change. Still, too much change, too often, is always the wrong kind of change because it doesn't allow something to grow and devellop. I feel change needs to be qualitative not quantitative.

How do you define the terms "heteropathic" and "homeopathic" here? 

Ti is static, but what is static for Ti is the internal logical consistency. Not the system itself. The system is an external reflection of the "truth" of Ti, but a reflection is always imperfect - Ti is an introverted function after all. Te (especially in rational types), likes procecures that stay the same. Yes, the procedure is "dynamic" because it flows through time (blocked with Ni) or devellops through space (blocked with Si) but it is always the same procedures used over and over in different situations. The processes Te studies are like what you describe for LIE - growth or non-growth (usually the terms apply to economics) it is studying something in flux. Also, for a Te type, each situation requires a different solution, a different process. This is why it seems to Ganin in his article _INTp vs INTj_ that "for an INTp their logic is situational - the rules apply here but may not apply there". Really, though, the rules for taking apart a vacuum cleaner are not the same than the rules for developping film in a darkroom, so yeah. There is no logical consistency behind Te, no inner structure is valued. It just values methods, and each situation requires a differing method. 

tl:dr Ti is constantly ramifying the system to fit it with their internal logic(static), Te likes the system to stay the same as the processes it studies are situational, it likes to apply certain specific solutions to varying situations (dyanmic).


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Typhon said:


> Yeah, disliking change means disliking the wrong kind of change. Still, too much change, too often, is always the wrong kind of change because it doesn't allow something to grow and devellop. I feel change needs to be qualitative not quantitative.
> 
> How do you define the terms "heteropathic" and "homeopathic" here?



* *




source: Static/dynamic dichotomy wikisocion

Physical Level 

At this level, Static–Dynamic manifests as contrasting impulses to biological homeostasis/heterostasis. Homeostasis I understand as constancy and heterostasis as variability of the organism and its surrounding environment. 

Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. They will do so only when it's easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist. 

As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant. 

The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can consciously change these parameters in the desired direction.






> Ti is static, but what is static for Ti is the internal logical consistency. Not the system itself. The system is an external reflection of the "truth" of Ti, but a reflection is always imperfect - Ti is an introverted function after all. Te (especially in rational types), likes procecures that stay the same. Yes, the procedure is "dynamic" because it flows through time (blocked with Ni) or devellops through space (blocked with Si) but it is always the same procedures used over and over in different situations. The processes Te studies are like what you describe for LIE - growth or non-growth (usually the terms apply to economics) it is studying something in flux. Also, for a Te type, each situation requires a different solution, a different process. This is why it seems to Ganin in his article _INTp vs INTj_ that "for an INTp their logic is situational - the rules apply here but may not apply there". Really, though, the rules for taking apart a vacuum cleaner are not the same than the rules for developping film in a darkroom, so yeah. There is no logical consistency behind Te, no inner structure is valued. It just values methods, and each situation requires a differing method.
> 
> tl:dr Ti is constantly ramifying the system to fit it with their internal logic(static), Te likes the system to stay the same as the processes it studies are situational, it likes to apply certain specific solutions to varying situations (dyanmic).


Well, in the case of the procedure/method, the Te treats it as an object to be put to motion alongside other objects (Te-Si), or as an object to be placed with objects whose parts will internally change compared to internal changes in other objects in a way conducive to the goal (Te-Ni). The Ti will view the composition of the procedure and alter the internal composition to fit a certain internal structure (Ti-Ne), or will view the procedure as an object and alter the composition of the structure of the company to fit it into the external structure (Ti-Se).


----------

