# Constructivism vs. Emotivism



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Could someone help clarify this dichotomy? I think I get it on an elementary sense, but I don't really thing I _get_ it.

Emotivist: Extraverted Te, Introverted Fe
Constructivist: Extraverted Fe, Introverted Te

Emotivist: T dom, F aux
Constructivist: F dom, T aux

Let's see: I'm an emotivist, so does this mean I notice emotional background prior to noticing the constructive background? Like, I'll be much more highly attuned to subtleties in emotional expression than constructivists? Or that I'm actively paying attention to that?

Hm. I tend to have a pretty impersonal way of talking to people online; however, in person I trust to be kind, warm and sympathetic in my interactions. Bah. That's not it.

What _IS_ this dichotomy?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Raawx

I based it in that I somehow read other people's/animal's emotional states & they bother me constantly or are inevitable pleasant (like a lot of cats & dogs). Ppl say its because I'm an emotional/animal empath, however I don't believe that without valid scientific evidence.

For example I can't stay near ppl who are angry / depressed / anxious / stressed and the list goes on as I'll end up absorbing their emotional states & its impossible for me not to be strongly aware of wtf goes on with them. You won't believe how much of a nuisance this can be at parties, dinner tables, places where there are few or a lot of ppl.

 ppl may think I want to help cus I experience this, but NOOO I don't >.> I just want to gtfo & stop the feelings invading.

I tend to avoid certain ppl precisely because of this. I experience them as "those bastards who emanate poison through their sheer presence".  most old ppl fall into this category, my grandfather doesn't however, that tough old fool never fails to have a simplistic but positive outlook on life.

Despite this I am rather non emotionally expressive myself.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> @_Raawx_
> 
> I based it in that I somehow read other people's/animal's emotional states & they bother me constantly or are inevitable pleasant (like a lot of cats & dogs). Ppl say its because I'm an emotional/animal empath, however I don't believe that without valid scientific evidence.
> 
> ...


Wait. I think I'm confused. What if the person needs help? You don't try to calm them down or make them feel better? I get wanting to remove toxicity, but leaving a person who could use help alone doesn't sound like me at all. :\


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Raawx said:


> Wait. I think I'm confused. What if the person needs help? You don't try to calm them down or make them feel better? I get wanting to remove toxicity, but leaving a person who could use help alone doesn't sound like me at all. :\


If said person needs immediate help & I am actually capable of helping I will provide a practical solution that solves the issue, otherwise if the person for example is a self defeatist, whiny leach who needs attention or shoulder to cry on...I'm not gonna bother, I'll just abandon their sorry ass where they stand. I don't like negative weaklings who use others as their crutch & I sure don't need them around me.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Socionics Dichotomies: R2t5

Note: The "Emotivism" is missing towards the bottom before it lists the Emotivism 5 traits.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> If said person needs immediate help & I am actually capable of helping I will provide a practical solution that solves the issue, otherwise if the person for example is a self defeatist, whiny leach who needs attention or shoulder to cry on...I'm not gonna bother, I'll just abandon their sorry ass where they stand. I don't like negative weaklings who use others as their crutch & I sure don't need them around me.


Oooh. I can get that.

And do you have really distinct moods--where everything is good and everything is bad? Just a few hours ago, I was really upset (questioning my existence, purpose, etc. standard Si inf.) and now I've moved on I'm perky. The weird thing is, I got the bad news when I was working and so I stopped working. Now that I've moved past that mood, I'm working once more.

So, it's almost like I avoid even interacting when I have negative feelings. Are you like that?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Raawx said:


> So, it's almost like I avoid even interacting when I have negative feelings. Are you like that?


o.o yeah, exactly the same!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Could someone help clarify this dichotomy? I think I get it on an elementary sense, but I don't really thing I _get_ it.
> 
> Emotivist: Extraverted Te, Introverted Fe
> Constructivist: Extraverted Fe, Introverted Te
> ...


This is easy, but misnamed imo. T dom should be named constructivist while F dom emotivist. Idk how it's written in Russian, but this doesn't make any sense. It's basically like this:

"Can you seperate and/or control your emotional background?"

The perfect example would be why you watch a movie. Do you watch it because it is a good specimen of its genre, good movie etc OR because you have an emotional attachment to it? The other way around is this: can you watch a good movie about something you don't care about(or makes you feel bad because of scenes etc) or can you watch a movie just because of a single scene that makes you feel WONDERFUL(no matter the overall quality of said movie)?

Funnily enough the latter examples lead to construct while the former to emote. Plus, introverted Te/Fe...I'm sorry, but what? Where have you read this? It's like saying sin x = 1,5 . It just doesn't work like that.

As I said, this one is pretty easy, but horribly misnamed.

edit: god dam Jeremy, you beat me to it!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I think that as a constructivist, I focus on the emotional impact of _things _rather than the impact of actual _people_.

If I'm reading, or watching a film/show, or enjoying a video game, I can be emotionally impacted by this material, and be 'unable to put it down', because of that.

I may be uncomfortable with addressing emotional concerns, except in a light-hearted way, and prefer 'getting to the point' of conversations-- Which normally means hobby, interests, philosophy-- Rather than who said what, and who's having problems with who. I do, obviously, indulge others in the latter, but I much prefer the former, even if it's not as commonplace. The latter often leaves me with dissatisfaction in conversation.

I'm not really sure what the description means when it says 'disassociating from other's emotions/experiences vs. requests for action/consideration'. 

But, I do know that I prefer to be given advice and solutions when distraught, and dislike when people try to comfort me emotionally. Because of this, I tend towards giving other people advice/solutions, when they might (and quite often do prefer), a shoulder, or comfort.

I may be mistaken with my understanding of this, of course.

My husfiend is an emotivist, and I've noticed that quality is _very _important to him on the whole, whereas I'm much less concerned with the overall quality. If aspects are awesome, I may love the whole thing simply for those aspects. My husfiend is much the opposite-- If there are aspects that suck, he may disregard the entire thing.

I also have difficult conversing with him at times, because he is focusing on the emotional aspects of the conversation, and I'm focusing on the points we're making. If he perceives that we're going in a negative direction, he may shut down the conversation entirely, whereas I want to 'complete' the conversation, in a sense.

Just my observations.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Lol @Ixim

I think others in this thread are reading too much into this dichotomy and blurring it with other ones.
It's basically what I posted for the link.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Raawx said:


> Could someone help clarify this dichotomy? I think I get it on an elementary sense, but I don't really thing I _get_ it.
> 
> Emotivist: Extraverted Te, Introverted Fe
> Constructivist: Extraverted Fe, Introverted Te
> ...


If I'm understanding this, emotivists are those with inert logic and constructivists are those with inert ethics.

The inert functions are 1, 4, 6, and 7, and are the functions where a person isn't inclined to seek outside guidance in. 1 because it can produce all the information adequately itself, 4 because it's PoLR, 7 because it's ignoring, and 6 I don't know why... It's probably easier to look at it in terms of concious functions.

@Ixim an F-dom would be a constructivist.

From Constructivist and emotivist - Wikisocion


> Constructivist
> 1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
> 2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
> 3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
> ...


This seems to me to be more focused on how you receive emotions from _other people_ in relationships rather than the strength of your own emotions or how emotionally expressive you are. That seems to make sense with the relationship with inert functions.

I particularly relate to point 5 of Constructivist and that makes sense to me given my suggestive function is Te. Wouldn't work like that for irrationals though, but irrational constructivists would have a T second function.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> If I'm understanding this, emotivists are those with inert logic and constructivists are those with inert ethics.
> 
> The inert functions are 1, 4, 6, and 7, and are the functions where a person isn't inclined to seek outside guidance in. 1 because it can produce all the information adequately itself, 4 because it's PoLR, 7 because it's ignoring, and 6 I don't know why... It's probably easier to look at it in terms of concious functions.
> 
> ...


Well yeah. But should it be? I don't necessarily correlate F-dom with stuff from Constr description(well Fi is ok, but Fe?). Anyhow, I was rambling about the nomenclature in socionics which can be...kinda random. Maybe even not translated as it should be. But that was just a ramble.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> My husfiend is an emotivist, and I've noticed that quality is _very _important to him on the whole, whereas I'm much less concerned with the overall quality. If aspects are awesome, I may love the whole thing simply for those aspects. My husfiend is much the opposite-- If there are aspects that suck, he may disregard the entire thing.
> 
> I also have difficult conversing with him at times, because he is focusing on the emotional aspects of the conversation, and I'm focusing on the points we're making. If he perceives that we're going in a negative direction, he may shut down the conversation entirely, whereas I want to 'complete' the conversation, in a sense.
> 
> Just my observations.


Dual types though, are on opposite ends of this dichotomy, so in theory at least there can't be too much conflict between emotivists and constructivists if they're the ideal relationships. For rationals this makes sense to me, because ethicals are constructivists and have logical duals and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to make so much sense for irrationals, any thoughts?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ALongTime said:


> Dual types though, are on opposite ends of this dichotomy, so in theory at least there can't be too much conflict between emotivists and constructivists if they're the ideal relationships. For rationals this makes sense to me, because ethicals are constructivists and have logical duals and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to make so much sense for irrationals, any thoughts?


My thoughts are... I don't think that one dichotomy would be something to wave a banner at, if you take my meaning.

In terms of dual relations (Which would _still _require a great deal of work on both sides), it's more to do with how all of the dichotomies form into the exquisite whole.

But, the matter of finding a dual who also shares your goals and interests is quite a heady task. Lucky to find _anyone _with those motivations in mind.

Ultimately, I think of the person first, rather than the type. And I take my understanding of the person into account, before I try to apply anything to theory. Theory can aid, or at least be quite entertaining, but it shouldn't take precedence in relationships.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> For example I can't stay near ppl who are angry / depressed / anxious / stressed and the list goes on as I'll end up absorbing their emotional states & its impossible for me not to be strongly aware of wtf goes on with them.


Same here regarding emotionally negative states of others. I feel like I'm pressured into fixing it and I'm ill equipped to do that.

Emotivist/constructivist dichotomy confuses me a great deal. I

I could make a good argument for both sides. On the constructivist side- I avoid being pulled into potentially unpleasant emotional situations and once in that state it can be hard to get out of it. Also have a hard time letting go of past hurts. I revisit the past in my head and it's like I'm feeling the feelings all over again. I also enjoy rewatching old favorite movies of time for sentimental reasons, revisiting the same places, etc. On the emotivist side, I also just as much enjoy watching new movies and most movies I only care to see once. It's just a select few that watch multiple times. Also love to travel to new places. One thing that really stood out for me in the emotivist description was "*if a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted."*

I guess if I absolutely had to pick, I'd be more emotivist overall but it's close. I'm an LII, which should be emotivist according to the theory.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I think constructivist fits me pretty good, but can see how emotivist is also a possibility.
Sometimes I like to rewatch movies or TV series to evoke experiences that I had, but it doesn't happen frequently and about 95% of everything I watch is new stuff. I don't prefer old over novel neither novel over old. It all depends on the content. Also I practically never reread fiction books, unless it's a translated work and I obtained a copy of a new translation, and this way I can go through the same experience but with a fresh perspective. But again it happens very-very rarely, I recall doing it only a couple times.
It's more difficult with places. New ones may seem cold and barren as I can't associate anything with them, but it also can be seen as a positive thing in contrast to old places that can have unpleasant vibes due to having negative feelings attached to them.

This one is spot on though:


> When [constructivists] are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them.


But think I easily relate to the above simply because I'm Fe PoLR (or at least 1D Fe) and I can't see how for example ESE could relate to it, being a constructivist in theory.


----------



## Jimmers (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm not sure which I would fall under either, but that is understandable since emotional atmosphere is something I cannot focus on for very long. I have a difficult time creating and sustaining my own. I get bored having the same music to listen to over and over again, yet I don't actively seek new music out either. I'm sort of indifferent in that regards. Same with movies, I may watch the same movie over and over for a while and then never want to see it ever again, as if I exhausted my tolerance. 

I have found that rather than focus on finding music to match my emotional state or using music to change my state, or listening to music for its own sake is something I would rather not focus on my emotional state. I would rather find a good book or ideas to ponder over. This is why I'm a fan of podcasts, but I often have a hard time deciding what to download and listen too.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Jimmers said:


> I have found that rather than focus on finding music to match my emotional state or using music to change my state, or listening to music for its own sake is something I would rather not focus on my emotional state. I would rather find a good book or ideas to ponder over. This is why I'm a fan of podcasts, but I often have a hard time deciding what to download and listen too.


With music, I just put my playlist on shuffle most of the time. If I'm not in the mood for what comes up, I skip ahead to the next track. Sometimes I can take on the mood of whatever music is playing at the time but not always. If I'm an a bad mood, upbeat music is unlikely to cheer me up. 

Occasionally, I'll go over to Pandora and if I'm in the mood for something more specific but usually, I just go to my playlist.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I noticed that music frequently acts as an emotion-evoker and a trigger that makes me feel.

For the most part I have difficulties with tracking my moods, and the best word I can think of to describe my permanent state is "neutral". But at some point shuffle selects a song and suddenly I get a feeling of elation and a sort of positive energy injection and think: "Oh. Wow. Seems like I'm in a good mood actually!" or get strong melancholic sad vibes and out of nowhere want to cry. It seems that my emotions sink somewhere deep under and remain unrecognized, while music serves as a channel to let them out.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

To_august said:


> I noticed that music frequently acts as an emotion-evoker and a trigger that makes me feel.
> 
> For the most part I have difficulties with tracking my moods, and the best word I can think of to describe my permanent state is "neutral". But at some point shuffle selects a song and suddenly I get a feeling of elation and a sort of positive energy injection and think: "Oh. Wow. Seems like I'm in a good mood actually!" or get strong melancholic sad vibes and out of nowhere want to cry. It seems that my emotions sink somewhere deep under and remain unrecognized, while music serves as a channel to let them out.



I relate to that.


----------

