# Delta values vs Gamma values



## Jeremy8419

He's INFP. Very concerned with himself and how he is seen. I've heard a lot about him, but your last video you posted made him seem like a stupid jacka**.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Thalassa said:


> They're very nice people generally speaking, but I kind of think of Delta as enablers.


Possibly, but generally only enabling things that show promise. Can't ever see myself defending or advocating Beta values, though to be fair, I more and more question whether I agree with this Quadra business and whether I am in fact a Delta. 



Zamyatin said:


> Marx (ILI)


I agree largely with what you said, but you got a source for that? From what I've seen he's usually labeled ILE.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thalassa said:


> Hmm last time I checked things like communism and greed by the wealthy were fucking up Latino countries, my bf grandparents came here from Argentina, and it wasn't to escape religion, and that's actually not the problem in Mexico either. In fact one of the main problems with Mexico is that with the predecessor to TPP, NAFTA, there was a subsequent civil war and the money was handled badly.
> 
> Blaming everything on religion is a form of conventional stupidity, like calling everything racist, it does no one any favors.


This needs to be requoted, because I love it. These people are still caught up on their personal issues. Fuckin religion. All the things in this world, and I gotta hear about religion. They are such a product of their times. That was Nietzsche's main critique of philosophy. They only see contemporary man. Atheism is the modern thing. I am an atheist who pisses on the atheist movement. Get a real fucking cause, Si users. Incremental perception. Everywhere.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> Get a real fucking cause, Si users.


So, uh, you're an Si user, by the way.

And your attacks on IM elements you don't understand is little more than a sign of profound ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Possibly, but generally only enabling things that show promise. Can't ever see myself defending or advocating Beta values, though to be fair, I more and more question whether I agree with this Quadra business and whether I am in fact a Delta. .


Wtf? How'd you go from ISFP to IEE? Ones an introvert.


----------



## Entropic

Thalassa said:


> Erm...sort of. I like this because most of it seems right, but Betas are revolutionary, and Gamma see them as overly ideological and hypocritical/two faced, I mean Beta pretty much IS our present American left, it staggers me in its accuracy. Gamma can actually be self sacrificing, so I'm not sure selfish is the right word - Gamma is simply more vengeful, less forgiving. .more individual and practical or material.


I described the word "selfish" in this context to suggest an orientation towards caring for oneself and one's own first, rather than first looking at social order and people at large which is true for the aristocratic quadras. By this token, alphas are selfish too, because they too organize based on the individual and not based on social structure.



The_Wanderer said:


> I agree largely with what you said, but you got a source for that? From what I've seen he's usually labeled ILE.


A good source would be Das Kapital. Marx's ideology oozes Te. He's all about production and productivity. Doesn't get more Te than that. And I say that as someone who has not directly read anything by Marx, but only second hand sources about Marxism.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wtf? How'd you go from ISFP to IEE? Ones an introvert.


OMG! How'd you go from INFJ to EII?!?!... They value opposing cognitive functions!

And no, I don't want to read another paragraph of some nonsense about J-P switches or whatever. I really don't care about MBTI. That's why I occasionally change my MBTI type at random, to observe how people tend to perceive an individual's value by looking at the four letters they label themselves with. 



Entropic said:


> I described the word "selfish" in this context to suggest an *orientation towards caring for oneself and one's own first, rather than first looking at social order and people at large* which is true for the aristocratic quadras.


Thanks for that, it gives me something for me to think about. I can identify with what is bolded quite strongly, yet it conflicts with my self-typing. 



Entropic said:


> Marx's ideology oozes Te. He's all about production and productivity. Doesn't get more Te than that. And I say that as someone who has not directly read anything by Marx, but only second hand sources about Marxism.


My favourite Marx quote (which isn't from Das Kapital) seems to me to be more along the lines of allowing people to develop themselves through multiple interests; it is less about productivity and more about doing what one wishes to do at the moment, to do what is fulfilling, rather that what puts food on the table or what produces the most return.



Marx said:


> For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.


It just doesn't seem particularly : to me. Marx also seems to be somewhat different from how you described the "selfish" tendencies of Gammas; he was all about societal order and people at large.


----------



## Entropic

The_Wanderer said:


> OMG! How'd you go from INFJ to EII?!?!... They value opposing cognitive functions!
> 
> And no, I don't want to read another paragraph of some nonsense about J-P switches or whatever. I really don't care about MBTI. That's why I occasionally change my MBTI type at random, to observe how people tend to perceive an individual's value by looking at the four letters they label themselves with.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that, it gives me something for me to think about. I can identify with what is bolded quite strongly, yet it conflicts with my self-typing.
> 
> 
> 
> My favourite Marx quote (which isn't from Das Kapital) seems to me to be more along the lines of allowing people to develop themselves through multiple interests; it is less about productivity and more about doing what one wishes to do at the moment, to do what is fulfilling, rather that what puts food on the table or what produces the most return.
> 
> 
> 
> It just doesn't seem particularly : to me.


It doesn't seem very type specific in general, really.


----------



## Thalassa

Entropic said:


> I described the word "selfish" in this context to suggest an orientation towards caring for oneself and one's own first, rather than first looking at social order and people at large which is true for the aristocratic quadras. By this token, alphas are selfish too, because they too organize based on the individual and not based on social structure.
> 
> 
> 
> A good source would be Das Kapital. Marx's ideology oozes Te. He's all about production and productivity. Doesn't get more Te than that. And I say that as someone who has not directly read anything by Marx, but only second hand sources about Marxism.


Makes sense. I've never understood dying for a "cause" and I definitely want to take care of myself or "my own" before butting in elsewhere, it's why I think cultures I don't necessarily agree with should be allowed to keep their culture as long as people aren't overtly suffering and dying.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@The_Wanderer

Because the models are different and mbti functions and information elements are different lol.

Well, E/I is probably the most basic, least argued about dichotomy. Are you borderline on your E/I scale like Ixim is?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Thalassa said:


> Makes sense. I've never understood dying for a "cause" and I definitely want to take care of myself or "my own" before butting in elsewhere, it's why I think cultures I don't necessarily agree with should be allowed to keep their culture as long as people aren't overtly suffering and dying.


I describe selfish as basically all quadras that aren't mine lol. Not even joking.


----------



## Ixim

The_Wanderer said:


> OMG! How'd you go from INFJ to EII?!?!... They value opposing *"cognitive functions"!*
> 
> And no, I don't want to read another paragraph of some nonsense about J-P switches or whatever. I really don't care about MBTI. That's why I occasionally change my MBTI type at random, to observe how people tend to perceive an individual's value by looking at the four letters they label themselves with.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that, it gives me something for me to think about. I can identify with what is bolded quite strongly, yet it conflicts with my self-typing.
> 
> 
> 
> My favourite Marx quote (which isn't from Das Kapital) seems to me to be more along the lines of allowing people to develop themselves through multiple interests; it is less about productivity and more about doing what one wishes to do at the moment, to do what is fulfilling, rather that what puts food on the table or what produces the most return.
> 
> 
> 
> It just doesn't seem particularly : to me. Marx also seems to be somewhat different from how you described the "selfish" tendencies of Gammas; he was all about societal order and people at large.


...there are no "cognitive functions" in MBTI. From that viewpoint, it makes helluva sense for ISFJ to be ESI. Hell, they even value the same things ffs! If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...it's bound to be a tank(just because someone said so) innit.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

This is what Ni ethics and form look like. Notice the movement. The aphorism. 

“When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.”

-CS Lewis

“Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or your happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who takes his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment ‘as to the Lord.’ It is only our daily bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done or any grace received.” —from _The Weight of Glory_


Compare that to George RR Martin.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because the models are different


Then stop trying to correlate them, especially when it serves no purpose to the topic.



Ixim said:


> ...there are no "cognitive functions" in MBTI.


That was sarcasm. I know it might have been difficult to notice, it _was_ subtle...



FearAndTrembling said:


> George RR Martin.


A Song of Ice and Fire, to me, seems to just be a very long, drawn-out argument for why Gamma values are bad. Not that I agree with him; but it seems to be his message.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Then stop trying to correlate them, especially when it serves no purpose to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> That was sarcasm. I know it might have been difficult to notice, it _was_ subtle...
> 
> 
> 
> A Song of Ice and Fire, to me, seems to just be a very long, drawn-out argument for why Gamma values are bad. Not that I agree with him; but it seems to be his message.


George RR Martin is the antithesis of Ni. The weight of not finishing that work. lol. It would keep a Ni dom up every night. It is keeping many of them up, bitching at this guy. He still doesn't get it. No sense of closure whatsoever.

I also just realized William James is a Ni dom. One of my favorite thinkers. Great Ni quote here:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Then stop trying to correlate them, especially when it serves no purpose to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> That was sarcasm. I know it might have been difficult to notice, it _was_ subtle...
> 
> 
> 
> A Song of Ice and Fire, to me, seems to just be a very long, drawn-out argument for why Gamma values are bad. Not that I agree with him; but it seems to be his message.


I just realized Martin is actually pushing Fe values. lol. He is without a doubt against Gamma. You hit the nail on the head with that. Who are the actual good guys? Tyrion. Varys. Red Viper. Syrio. The faceless men. Everybody but Gamma basically. Everyone loves Tyrion, and thinks he is an ENTP. Why can't Martin be too?

I am curious as to Martin's type now. He may be an ENTP. He is not a Ni dom. I am certain of that. He has tremendous breadth and slow pacing. The only typing with Ni I could accept is ISFP. Slight possibility of ISTP.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> Who are the actual good guys? Tyrion. Varys. Red Viper. Syrio. The faceless men.


Nobody is a good guy, and that's a large part of Martin's message; people have the capability within themselves to be _both _heroes and villains. The story never has and never will be about good and evil. It's about how the "us vs them" mentality and how fighting over power and position is harmful to humanity as a whole, how people are too concerned with their own personal gains to see how close the _real _danger is; that _Winter is Coming_ and with it, the Others. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> Everyone loves Tyrion, and thinks he is an ENTP. Why can't Martin be too?


I won't go into MBTI, but I think Martin is a Delta NF, and probably, like Dostoevsky, an EII. I think he's too imprecise with the specifics to be any Ti-strong type, and one example I can think of is that Renly Baratheon's eyes change colour between books. I also believe that George based Tyrion, an IEE, on himself to some extent.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Nobody is a good guy, and that's a large part of Martin's message; people have the capability within themselves to be _both _heroes and villains. The story never has and never will be about good and evil. It's about how the "us vs them" mentality and how fighting over power and position is harmful to humanity as a whole, how people are too concerned with their own personal gains to see how close the _real _danger is; that _Winter is Coming_ and with it, the Others.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't go into MBTI, but I think Martin is a Delta NF, and probably, like Dostoevsky, an EII. I think he's too imprecise with the specifics to be any Ti-strong type, and one example I can think of is that Renly Baratheon's eyes change colour between books. I also believe that George based Tyrion, an IEE, on himself to some extent.


Gamma types seem to think they are the good guys. That is why they are bad. I said it before. That is what Martin is getting at. 

Varys and Tyrion know they are snakes. They wear it with pride. That is Fe. Tyrion likes being the bad guy. He knows that is what he is supposed to be, so he does it. He let's society define him. He plays it up. I actually think he may be an ENFJ. Arya Stark is also probably similar. 

You said you don't like beta values, can't you see that none of this stuff would be happening without Varys? It is the same critique with Lincoln. Fi wants true north. True north does not exist. That is where Beta comes in. 

A compass, I learned when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?

<font color="#333333"><span style="font-family: Verdana">





What was the use of the Stark's knowing true North? Your honor won't protect you. Jaqen is emptying her of all that nonsense.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> Gamma types seem to think they are the good guys. That is why they are bad.


Actually, most people think what they're doing is right, it's not a Gamma trait. Once again you're showing your bias.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> This is what Ni ethics and form look like. Notice the movement. The aphorism.
> 
> “When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.”
> 
> -CS Lewis
> 
> “Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or your happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who takes his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment ‘as to the Lord.’ It is only our daily bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done or any grace received.” —from _The Weight of Glory_
> 
> 
> Compare that to George RR Martin.


It's just Fe-Ti with intuition, especially the first quote. Seen INTP suggested for Lewis in the past. I don't see any reason to disagree with it given the nature of his books. The last quote only seems Ni-Se devaluing to me; seems very Si-heavy emphasizing on a more carefree and pleasant going through life, rather than being hung up on the future. 



The_Wanderer said:


> Nobody is a good guy, and that's a large part of Martin's message; people have the capability within themselves to be _both _heroes and villains. The story never has and never will be about good and evil. It's about how the "us vs them" mentality and how fighting over power and position is harmful to humanity as a whole, how people are too concerned with their own personal gains to see how close the _real _danger is; that _Winter is Coming_ and with it, the Others.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't go into MBTI, but I think Martin is a Delta NF, and probably, like Dostoevsky, an EII. I think he's too imprecise with the specifics to be any Ti-strong type, and one example I can think of is that Renly Baratheon's eyes change colour between books. I also believe that George based Tyrion, an IEE, on himself to some extent.


EII, really? I've read plenty of fiction by plausible Fi ego types, and what is a striking commonality among them is the emphasis on Fi content i.e. respecting people's own inner feelings etc. Very strong Fi driven stories tend to have a moral to them. The Parasyte manga was all about how parasytes were not all that different from humans in the end and that both served their role and had their own right to exist to be; same logic in Darker Than Black i.e. contractors weren't these inhumane killers without emotions but had their own pains and traumas they went through like everyone else and their right to be needed to be accepted; or Deadman Wonderland where again the deadmen were just regular human people with their own wants and needs that needed to be respected; or again, in Bleach where hollows and shinigami and all other non-humans in the series have their own needs and wants again and should be respected. Kubo Tite is notorious in his inability to be able to portray a truly evil villain without adding some kind of backstory exposition that makes the reader able to empathize with their struggles. 

Fi ego types create stories where the wills and individual needs of people clash against each other and much of the story revolves around trying to balance and mediate so everyone get a little of what they need, and the moral is on respecting those that are different from us even if we do not understand. Take Harry Potter for example, and Snape's backstory. Rowling wanted Voldemort to be truly evil but despite that she couldn't avoid giving him a backstory to explain his own unique disposition in the world. It wasn't necessary by any means in order to progress the story. A lot of fantasy stories have villains for the sake of them, and their motives are never explained because they are just that, evil. Evil in itself is their motivation. 

Martin's emphasis on creating a hyper-realistic story is what really strikes me the most as being Se-valuing. You don't see hyper-realistic stories of that kind when it comes to Ne types. There's a certain lack of imagination in Martin's storytelling. If we would for example assume for a moment that Martin's an EII and he wanted to create a realistic story, his idea of realism would be based around Fi stuff. You know that book and movie Memoirs of a Geisha? That's what I'm talking about. A hyper-realistic focus on how one particular person's needs are ignored in the world, and how she has to struggle in order to fulfill them. A lot of focus on how the harsh reality denies her her needs in the world. 

One could equally argue that Martin's inconsistency concerning eye color points to weak sensation and not paying attention to sensate details. It doesn't disprove ILI as a typing for him. Have you watched any interviews with Martin? I have. He definitely strikes me as a logician. All he does is rambling about the logical parts of the story, how it makes sense, how things logically connect. The only other type I could see him be based on the interviews I've seen of him would be SLI, but I think given the nature of GoT, ILI makes more sense. 

Also, how does Martin's message that people's personal squabbles make them overlook the real danger in any way disprove ILI? Isn't that exactly what Ni especially in the ILI is in socionics? You know, forecasting future dangers and events in particular? To say, hey guys, if you bothered to look at the big picture like I do, you'd see that all this stuff that you are doing by only looking at what's right in front of you is making you miss out on the real danger. 



> Your forte is ability to foresee and anticipate the future course of events—you can predict the evolution of situation over the course of time and give timely advice* to warn others of impending dangers and difficulties.*





> The ability to penetrate right to the essence of a problem and to see the eventual result represents the nature of enlightenment. Indeed the ILI will sometimes, in speaking, cite wise historical figures and philosophers. *His forecasts, as a rule, are painted with skepticism, thus he primarily voices his fears when necessary (i.e. to safeguard those close to him from acting rashly). *He himself repeatedly, and scrupulously, checks on everything before beginning to act. He addresses those, whose activities or thoughts are made too hastily (not thought thoroughly through), of his critical observations.





> And if they say something like: “Nothing good will come from this”, unfortunately, they are almost always right. *Optimistic forecasts he does not want to make,* and similarly does not see. Indeed, after all, everything it will pass, so on what then to hope?





> ILI does not hurry to share his predictions with everyone; he doesn't work as a "fortune teller". The ability to see "through time" for him is all too natural to present this as an "attraction". He prefers the role of a mentor or a counselor, who analyzes past mistakes, failings, and omissions and admonishes about their repetition. ILI possesses the ability to spot the weakest link in any chain of events and occurrences. He concurrently analyzes which hidden dangers are involved, *which future difficulties and troubles may come. *With this characteristic for him negativism, he frequently fulfills the role of that enchanted stone from a folktale, which tells the hero: "If you go to the right – you will lose your horse, if you go to the left – you will lay down your head..." And seemingly there remain no other options except to turn back.


Seems pretty consistent to me, with the story Martin's trying to tell. EII is a positivist and tends to want to focus on the positive relationships and feelings among people, to focus on what's lasting, on what's worth preserving. You know, like the stuff Rowling does, how Harry and friends prevail over evil because of their strong personal bonds with each other. Martin's the very opposite of that. If he were an IEE, I also think his stories would be more like say, Neil Gaiman's or Joss Whedon's.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Shame Spiral said:


> I'm not sure I guess. Although my first thought is that I wouldn't write a story like hers (not that two people of the same type would write the same story anyway, but), I suppose it's also natural for Fi-Ne to look at something and think of how they'd "improve" it, and thus think of how they'd do it differently regardless.


She is a shark. She is very calculating imo. She built an empire somewhat ruthlessly. Nothing about her says INFP. She is like Martha Stewart. Possible TJ even. Even if I knew nothing about her career and drive, just from watching her in an interview. She is clear Fe.


----------



## The_Wanderer

@FearAndTrembling

You're still an "unknown" Sociotype. C'mon man! You've been around these parts quite visibly for a while now, what gives?


----------



## aniso

FreeBeer said:


> Imo Ne lead does make IEEs less prone towards comfort & mindfulness (present focus) as a default operating mode. <.< we kinda need someone else to create the situation as our focus is more on avoiding boredom and in as far as comfort goes, *we like PHYSICAL comfort, but can't stand lack of mental stimulation*. I for example LOVE GOOD FOOD in cool places, being lazy and relaxing physically,  someone else brings the food, I bring the conversation, everyone wins. *drool
> 
> I think we have this in common with Alpha quadra >.> to we may be less expressive due to Fi.
> 
> .... I should be careful about getting fat tho...hmmm. I have this EII friend and we usually end up talking about food...
> 
> ...I'm hungry..


Well, can you imagine living together with 2 food bloggers?    (and good ones at that) - That's my life right now and i have to say it's great. But yeah, why I started to write this comment is because - in this situation, there's not only talking about food, there's always somebody who's walking around the house with recipe books (with yummy photos in them) and looking at recipes online, and retouching photos while I go talk to them, and then I look at the photos for a while and say: well, now I'm hungry, I have to go make something to eat.  (And then there's the photo shoots of food - the "model" always tastes best for some reason! lol)

Anyway. I was starting to wonder if I'm a sensing type  because, well, I know that I can't stand feeling physically uncomfortable and will try to get myself to feel as good as possible in the situation, and worry about taking with me everything I could possibly need while traveling, etc...and I dunno, it seems that other intuitive persons aren't as concerned with stuff like that (or are they?) ..and I like cooking, etc., but yeah, the thing you said - about mental stimulation. I just start feeling bad if I don't have something to do or to occupy my mind with. But you know, I think there needs to be balance in everything. Too much mental stimulation and I feel like my brain is boiling  and then I feel a real need to go and wash dishes or sweep the floors or whatever.


----------



## Entropic

Shame Spiral said:


> Don't see myself writing stories with a focus on that, though (even if I like the idea of a lasting bond). I mean, I would probably prefer some variation but I see myself preferring to focus on more dysfunctional relationships or negative feelings in a story.
> 
> (Although I'm not sure if that's inconsistent with being an EII, as _avoidance _of negative relationships is supposed to be more if a -Fi thing.)


Not saying it can't be dysfunctional. See my example of the geisha book. -Fi is more about moving away from negative relationships also.


----------



## Ixim

The_Wanderer said:


> Yeah. My understanding of the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy is that there isn't any preference for Optimistic outlooks vs Pessimistic ones, as it's more a preference between comparison or contrast.


And you understood this perfectly. Now, all it takes is to apply / notice it within yourself / others! And noticing reinins is like looking for a needle in a haystack if you don't have Ti valued. It's like "I'm this type! o wai...but this clearly crucial reinin isn't there...it's in that other one, but it overrides on of JCF ". It's something for Ti-valuers for sure!

edit: personally, I've a headache of them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> You're still an "unknown" Sociotype. C'mon man! You've been around these parts quite visibly for a while now, what gives?


Honestly IEI fits me best. From what little I have read. Word Dispenser said I was IEI. Though I have gotten Fi doms on Socionics tests. 


IEI describes my entire thought process. lol. I collect information from a wide variety of eclectic and often unreliable sources. But I don't have the Ti, or am not interested in systemizing it. There is value in these concepts though. That is why I am here. I like to siphon stuff off I think is true. I let others do my work for me. I test it. 

"They may be drawn to descriptive logical systems and models, which ground IEIs' oft-scattered thought processes and help them to focus on somewhat more tangible ideas. "

I need the tangible to feel tangible. I become unintelligible with lack of logical structure after a while. That is why I like Jung.

But I know this system misses key elements that are ignored, so I will never waste too much time on it. It helped further my understanding of Si for sure. It really educated me. But people still have no clue what Fe is. There is no Ti here. The best descriptions of Fe have come from NTPS. That is how I know what Fe is. Through them. Because they are better at dissecting Fe. They deconstruct it logically. Arkigos for example, that guy knows what Fe is. And another ENTP even gave a better description of Fe. It isn't in any book or system. 

Word Dispenser has a decent understanding of it, but she isn't the ENTP I am talking about.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@FearAndTrembling

Second paragraph is weak unvalued Ti

"But people still have no clue what Fe is"
I do. It's on wikisocion, translated from Russian.

"And another ENTP even gave a better description of Fe. It isn't in any book or system."
So you take uneducated opinions over facts? There's no socionists on this forum, just enthusiasts. Facts are available via translation from Russian. MBTI Fe isn't socionics Fe. MBTI has no place for all 8 functions. MBTI Fe is meld of Fe and Fi, to account for all types using both Fe and Fi. Same as Xe is a meld of Xe and Xi, and Xi is a meld of Xi and Xe.

Extroverts on here will be more reliable than most introverts, but they still have to skew their vision to account for the introverts.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> Second paragraph is weak unvalued Ti
> 
> "But people still have no clue what Fe is"
> I do. It's on wikisocion, translated from Russian.
> 
> "And another ENTP even gave a better description of Fe. It isn't in any book or system."
> So you take uneducated opinions over facts? There's no socionists on this forum, just enthusiasts. Facts are available via translation from Russian. MBTI Fe isn't socionics Fe. MBTI has no place four all 8 functions. MBTI Fe is meld of Fe and Fi, to account for all types using both Fe and Fi. Same as Xe is a meld of Xe and Xi, and Xi is a meld of Xi and Xe.
> 
> Extroverts on here will be more reliable than most introverts, but they still have to skew their vision to account for the introverts.


Precisely. You get it. I just realized Martin is an INTP. The reason I understand him, is because I am ENFJ. That is why people think I am a Ti dom, because I can put words to Ti very well. 

ENFJ are all about simplicity. This is why Steve Jobs, Bruce Lee, Malcolm X and Einstein are listed as Ti doms. When they are really ENFJ. Because Ti is the most precise function, and the one they want so badly.

Da Vinci is an ENFJ too.

Martin KNOWS ENFJ more than any other type. That is why he uses Tyrion. Perfect sense.

Entropic is a Ti dom. These guys hate me because I am a Ti dom. They use more Ti than me. You can't make this stuff up. 

Arkigos is an ENFJ. lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Still don't know who martin is lol

Think we need to start using the new information element symbols, because switching back and forth between elements and mbti functions without clarification isn't working.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Ti doms start small. Fe doms end small. I am convinced many Ni doms on here are are Ti doms. They know nothing about it, because they are so immersed in it. That is also why Fe are often jackasses. Because they are so immersed in the environment like I said. They don't know their place in it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Start small and end small is a matter of +/-, not the elements themselves. EII starts small ends big with Fi. ESI starts big ends small with Fi. EII is Fi+. ESI is Fi-.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Still don't know who martin is lol


George R. R. Martin



FearAndTrembling said:


> I am convinced many Ni doms on here are are Ti doms.


Have you considered yourself in this category? I know of at least one person who has called you an LSI.



Ixim said:


> And you understood this perfectly. Now, all it takes is to apply / notice it within yourself / others! And noticing reinins is like looking for a needle in a haystack if you don't have Ti valued.


I'm just not convinced of their practical usage; most of them seem too easy to mistake. If Reinin dichotomies are a product of the IM elements as they claim to be, then isn't it easier to simply look for manifestations of those IMEs?



FearAndTrembling said:


> Entropic is a Ti dom. These guys hate me because I am a Ti dom. They use more Ti than me. You can't make this stuff up.


To be fair, I think it's less to do with them being :L:-leading and more to do with the lucidity clearly lacking from a lot of your claims. They seem be unsubstantiated, to be unclear or sometimes irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't mean to offend, as you do seem to be an intelligent individual. But my impression from you is, simply put, "[citation needed]".

As to Entropic, it's clear he's a : ego type. I also believe that he has his head screwed on straight enough (and has enough knowledge of Socionics) to make a relatively accurate typing of himself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> George R. R. Martin
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered yourself in this category? I know of at least one person who has called you an LSI.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not convinced of their practical usage; most of them seem too easy to mistake. If Reinin dichotomies are a product of the IM elements as they claim to be, then isn't it easier to simply look for manifestations of those IMEs?


Yes, I have. I asked many people who don't have an axe to grind. I think nearly and NFJ over 25 has been accused of being a Ti dom at some point. You learn from your blind spots. For example, an ESTP on here said that INFJ is the only type that makes her uncomfortable. She said we are so intrusive. I am.

Arkigos made a good point that the Fe in INFJ is very noticeable in real life. I was friends with everybody. There is not a social circle I don't feel at home at. I am timeless. Word Dispenser said that. And I am. I walk up to a stranger and start talking like I have known them forever. Just like I do here. That is why people get upset. Because I neglect the past and the environment. That is Ni-Fe.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, I have. I asked many people who don't have an axe to grind. I think nearly and NFJ over 25 has been accused of being a Ti dom at some point. You learn from your blind spots. For example, an ESTP on here said that INFJ is the only type that makes her uncomfortable. She said we are so intrusive. I am.
> 
> Arkigos made a good point that the Fe in INFJ is very noticeable in real life. I was friends with everybody. There is not a social circle I don't feel at home at. I am timeless. Word Dispenser said that. And I am. I walk up to a stranger and start talking like I have known them forever. Just like I do here. That is why people get upset. Because I neglect the past and the environment. That is Ni-Fe.


INFJs are seen as T often, because the INFJ is stoic, knowledgeable, loves learning, and appears logical. When you get to know them, you realize their compassion, insight, and walking in others' shoes.
This is because INFJ is EII. He is stoic, because his emotional expressiveness is in the Ignoring Function. He is knowledgeable and loves learning, because this is his dual-seeking function. He appears logically minded, because this is his role function, and he wears this mask to hide his real self until he knows it is safe. When he takes off the mask to someone, he does so with emotional expression briefly, and then allows the person to see his true self, which is focused on the possibilities of relationships between people.


----------



## Ninjaws

To_august said:


> Since in Delta Ni is unvalued, they gravitate towards businesses _unrelated to time_. Ones that are universal and that would work always, notwithstanding any particular period of time. Hence the stereotype that Deltas rely on tried and true, since they choose pursuits which worked before, work now and will work in the future, not those that will work right now only or at any particular period of time. So, this may be interpreted as long-term perspective.


Thank you for this, it explains a lot.
For instance, in games I always gravitate towards builds that can do _everything_. No matter the situation, I must have the tools to deal with it. Preferably one tool that does many things.
For instance, In Terraria I made a build with AOE damage that can be combined for massive single target damage and accesories with a focus on health and mana regen to keep on going endlessly. As a result, I don't need to restock ammo, use health or mana potions, build arenas to fight bosses or be careful when exploring the world.

It's not about the perfect moment to use something, it's about creating something that will do the exact thing you expect it to in every possible situation and emerge victorious.


----------



## Ninjaws

Jeremy8419 said:


> INFJs are seen as T often, because the INFJ is stoic, knowledgeable, loves learning, and appears logical. When you get to know them, you realize their compassion, insight, and walking in others' shoes.
> This is because INFJ is EII. He is stoic, because his emotional expressiveness is in the Ignoring Function. He is knowledgeable and loves learning, because this is his dual-seeking function. He appears logically minded, because this is his role function, and he wears this mask to hide his real self until he knows it is safe. When he takes off the mask to someone, he does so with emotional expression briefly, and then allows the person to see his true self, which is focused on the possibilities of relationships between people.


EII is most closely related to INFP, since EII values Fi and Ne. 

Also, try reading it like this: Ethical Intuitive Introvert. 
Ethical, so dominant feeler. Intuitive, so auxiliary intuitive. Introvert, so dominant function is introverted.
=
Fi Ne -> INFP


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> INFJs are seen as T often, because the INFJ is stoic, knowledgeable, loves learning, and appears logical. When you get to know them, you realize their compassion, insight, and walking in others' shoes.
> This is because INFJ is EII. He is stoic, because his emotional expressiveness is in the Ignoring Function. He is knowledgeable and loves learning, because this is his dual-seeking function. He appears logically minded, because this is his role function, and he wears this mask to hide his real self until he knows it is safe. When he takes off the mask to someone, he does so with emotional expression briefly, and then allows the person to see his true self, which is focused on the possibilities of relationships between people.


I could not believe I was a labelled a feeler at first. That annoyed me. I am the biggest thinker there is, it is all I do. 

When I try to introduce people to the system, the first thing they can't understand is how any system can label me a feeler. My feeling is unseen. It has no atmosphere. I don't want to be noticed. 

I know some Fi doms in in real life. They are more blunt and less feeling than me. lol. They don't take any shit from me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Ninjaws said:


> EII is most closely related to INFP, since EII values Fi and Ne.
> 
> Also, try reading it like this: Ethical Intuitive Introvert.
> Ethical, so dominant feeler. Intuitive, so auxiliary intuitive. Introvert, so dominant function is introverted.
> =
> Fi Ne -> INFP


Fi is used on socionics forum as short-hand, because we didn't have element symbols. We have them now, but I don't know how to use, and mot going to bother since I use my phone for forums. However, Fi isn't introverted ethics. They have different properties ascribed to them. Dominant and Auxiliary also are not Leading and Creating. They are only such for extroverts. Introverts have a second conditional applied to them in MBTI. This is not present in Socionics, so the models are not equivalent for introverts.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I could not believe I was a labelled a feeler at first. That annoyed me. I am the biggest thinker there is, it is all I do.
> 
> When I try to introduce people to the system, the first thing they can't understand is how any system can label me a feeler. My feeling is unseen. It has no atmosphere. I don't want to be noticed.
> 
> I know some Fi doms in in real life. They are more blunt and less feeling than me. lol. They don't take any shit from me.


You need to read the model A page on socionics and the information elements page, both on wikisocion. You often use mbti functions to talk about socionics elements. They aren't the same.
If your feeling has no atmosphere, then it is introverted ethics. Emotional atmosphere, this exact phrase, is directly translated as extroverted ethics.
The pages aren't long. If you read them, verbatim, you'll know that INFJ is EII. My mom is INFP. She b!tches about getting junk, like a nicer house, a Mercedes, etc. My sister and aunts are INFPs. They do the same thing. Me? I'm over here like, I don't care about wealth or expensive objects... That's extroverted sensation in Socionics. Power. Control. Territory. Wealth. INFPs want this. I do not. No INFJs I know irl are focused on money and possessions. All INFPs I know are. They have valued extroverted sensing in socionics. They are IEI.


----------



## Glory




----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> I don't feel _bad_ about it... why would I feel bad about being myself? :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll help you mate.
> 
> 
> Night Huntress isn't the first to suggest you're :t:-mobilizing, and, truthfully, it is a rather accurate description of your metaphors.


What is meant by mobilizing? 

How would my metaphors differ from an IEI for example?


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I was reading through some POLR. And it has to be Te for me. This guy nailed my thinking:
> 
> *Looking at it more abstractly, I'd say Te polr is an unwillingness to be bound by the Te "potential causalities" that result from the Fi state.
> 
> Meaning that Fi has a limiting quality to it; "Based on what I intuited/felt from the state of things there are such and such appropriate actions."
> 
> (Delta NF's give me a very prescriptive vibe)
> 
> Te polr's dont need this shit. The Te is too situationally specific and based on some inherent essence in situations that merry types simply cannot perceive.
> 
> Te polr's look for an abstract and static guide that is universal: "Oh, this kind of situation is playing out. I know how things work based on the factors I can point to, and through this, I can assume that the person has x motivation."
> 
> Te polr's feel limited and constrained by Te. It feels arbitrary and based on axioms (Fi), which cannot be specified or universalized.
> *
> That is what you are doing, "prescribing". I really dislike when people do that. Your quadra always does. And I know Fi is its source. lol. I describe.


Call an INFP stupid or say they're doing something wrong (Te PoLR) and see how they respond. Tell an INFJ the same thing. INFJ will probably think you're the stupid one.

That is that guy's opinion on Te, not fact. If you want to hypothesize and theorize, then by all means, go for it, same as that guy, however, that is not Socionics. We have translated resources. If your theories and hypothesis contradict these, then you have left socionics and gone into your own, personal system.

Of course Fi can be specified. I already quoted it, didn't I? For reference, it is the comparison of fields at a single point in time.

That guy also isn't describing Te PoLR. 

Proof: "Te polr's look for an abstract and static guide that is universal: 'Oh, this kind of situation is playing out. I know how things work based on the factors I can point to, and through this, I can assume that the person has x motivation.'" That's Fi LOL. That is exactly and explicitly Fi. Te PoLR people are all DYNAMIC types. The guy outright said his Leading function is static. Ni is dynamic. So he spends his time looking for a static internal of fields... And is a dynamic internal of fields.

Dude, you're reading people that are doing the saaaaaame thing you are arguing this whole time, that mbti, model a, mbti functions, and information elements are all the same thing. You need to stick to the factual resources. That whole thing you posted goes against the factual resources.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Call an INFP stupid or say they're doing something wrong (Te PoLR) and see how they respond. Tell an INFJ the same thing. INFJ will probably think you're the stupid one.
> 
> That is that guy's opinion on Te, not fact. If you want to hypothesize and theorize, then by all means, go for it, same as that guy, however, that is not Socionics. We have translated resources. If your theories and hypothesis contradict these, then you have left socionics and gone into your own, personal system.
> 
> Of course Fi can be specified. I already quoted it, didn't I? For reference, it is the comparison of fields at a single point in time.
> 
> That guy also isn't describing Te PoLR.
> 
> Proof: "Te polr's look for an abstract and static guide that is universal: 'Oh, this kind of situation is playing out. I know how things work based on the factors I can point to, and through this, I can assume that the person has x motivation.'" That's Fi LOL. That is exactly and explicitly Fi. Te PoLR people are all DYNAMIC types. The guy outright said his Leading function is static. Ni is dynamic. So he spends his time looking for a static internal of fields... And is a dynamic internal of fields.
> 
> Dude, you're reading people that are doing the saaaaaame thing you are arguing this whole time, that mbti, model a, mbti functions, and information elements are all the same thing. You need to stick to the factual resources. That whole thing you posted goes against the factual resources.


I know it's not a fact. There are no facts here though.

I let people say stupid shit all day, that I know is wrong. My Ti dom buddy cares a lot. I am not a stickler. They are. LSI are like actual hardasses. I just pretend to be. 

This is another reason I know I am not LSI. LSI don't like actually philosophize. They throw around words of systems. I have argued with them enough. 

For example. All this talk about Fe and Fi and how its has different dimensions and demonstrations. All these codes. Let me ask a general question: I believe that Fe is the most gullible function. What do you make of that statement and where does it fit into Socionics?


----------



## Zamyatin

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why am I not a Ni dom or IEI? Explain that.


Because you suck at Ni.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know it's not a fact. There are no facts here though.
> 
> I let people say stupid shit all day, that I know is wrong. My Ti dom buddy cares a lot. I am not a stickler. They are. LSI are like actual hardasses. I just pretend to be.
> 
> This is another reason I know I am not LSI. LSI don't like actually philosophize. They throw around words of systems. I have argued with them enough.
> 
> For example. All this talk about Fe and Fi and how its has different dimensions and demonstrations. All these codes. Let me ask a general question: I believe that Fe is the most gullible function. What do you make of that statement and where does it fit into Socionics?


Gullible to me, as INFJ, means that I know what will likely happen (Ni) but choose to see the potential in others (Ne) and that I hope I am mistaken. Valued Ne over unvalued Ni. This is, again, socionics Ne and Ni, and yes, that's what they are in this system


----------



## Jeremy8419

Also, translation... They don't think you value Ni. People on here confuse value with ability

You said there are no facts. There are. If I come up with Jeremionics, and I write a book about it, and people start a forum about it, well, if they say things that are aligned with my book, they are talking about what is factually my theory. If they talk about that which goes against my book, then they are not talking about what is factually my theory.

Here. These are translated from the current leading authorities on socionics. These are factually the socionics theory.

Socionics - the16types.info - INFj The Humanist Profile by Gulenko
Socionics - the16types.info - Dostoyevsky, Male portrait, INFj by Beskova


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Also, translation... They don't think you value Ni. People on here confuse value with ability



Are you fucking serious? Everybody thinks he's Ni HA. That's an Ni valuing type. Just not an Ni good type.

The only people who are habitually confused here are you and FaT, and at least he has the excuse that he knows next to nothing about socionics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Are you fucking serious? Everybody thinks he's Ni HA. That's an Ni valuing type. Just not an Ni good type.
> 
> The only people who are habitually confused here are you and FaT, and at least he has the excuse that he knows next to nothing about socionics.


Ni and Ne are opposing. If he chooses Ni over Ne, every time, you would see his choice as weak Ni. Not to mention the fact that y'all generally use MBTI/Jungian Ni instead of Socionics Ni.

Story time...

When I was in high school, I kept to myself more than any other male. We had a class of 250 people. One day, at the vending machines, some of the nerd crowd wad talking about something nerdy. I overheard them, and corrected them on something. They proceeded to converse with me and criticize my knowledge and understanding, with one of them rolling his eyes and shaking his head in silence. I continued to correct them. They said, "what do you even know about this? You're in the special ed classes." I said, "uh, what? I'm in Eric's classes" and pointed to the one who was shaking his head previously. They turned to Eric with a "whaaaaaaat" look on their faces, and Eric replied, "yeah, he's in my class, and he's right too." They all looked dumbfounded, and I laughed and walked away. In our grade, only two people were of high intelligence, myself and Eric (ISFP). Because I kept to myself, people really didn't know much about me, other than the fact I was in different sets of classes. The people I was conversing with made a mistake, they assumed that because they had nerdy interests, they were intelligent. Being a nerd doesn't mean you're intelligent. It just means you're a nerd.

This forum is full of moderate intelligence nerds.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Zamyatin said:


> Are you fucking serious? Everybody thinks he's Ni HA. That's an Ni valuing type. Just not an Ni good type.
> 
> The only people who are habitually confused here are you and FaT, and at least he has the excuse that he knows next to nothing about socionics.


There is that limiting of Fi again. Or maybe Ti even. You really think you perceive first?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

To be fair, it's true @_FearAndTrembling_'s Ti doesn't seem that good either.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Shame Spiral said:


> To be fair, it's true @_FearAndTrembling_'s Ti doesn't seem that good either.


lol. This is a compliment and insult. But I have been devaluing my Ti this whole thread. I really don't want to be Ti. I know these guys.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. This is a compliment and insult. But I have been devaluing my Ti this whole thread. I really don't want to be Ti. I know these guys.


Yeah well, it's not the nicest thing I could have said, but I did consider if you were LSI and I'm not sure you really strike me as a Ti-dom (where _is_ the logic) so IEI might still be most fair. 

As for devaluing Ti, depends on if you really have the right idea of what Ti is or if you're devaluing something else that you think is Ti. I don't know.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Zamyatin said:


> Are you fucking serious? Everybody thinks he's Ni HA. That's an Ni valuing type. Just not an Ni good type.
> 
> The only people who are habitually confused here are you and FaT, and at least he has the excuse that he knows next to nothing about socionics.


I mean just look at how mad this guy is about Ni. He is a rabid dog. lol. Just like the other one who is so threatened by me. Talk about valuing. I love squishing Fi. It is like a stress ball to me.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ni and Ne are opposing. If he chooses Ni over Ne, every time, you would see his choice as weak Ni. Not to mention the fact that y'all generally use MBTI/Jungian Ni instead of Socionics Ni.
> 
> Story time...
> 
> When I was in high school, I kept to myself more than any other male. We had a class of 250 people. One day, at the vending machines, some of the nerd crowd wad talking about something nerdy. I overheard them, and corrected them on something. They proceeded to converse with me and criticize my knowledge and understanding, with one of them rolling his eyes and shaking his head in silence. I continued to correct them. They said, "what do you even know about this? You're in the special ed classes." I said, "uh, what? I'm in Eric's classes" and pointed to the one who was shaking his head previously. They turned to Eric with a "whaaaaaaat" look on their faces, and Eric replied, "yeah, he's in my class, and he's right too." They all looked dumbfounded, and I laughed and walked away. In our grade, only two people were of high intelligence, myself and Eric (ISFP). Because I kept to myself, people really didn't know much about me, other than the fact I was in different sets of classes. The people I was conversing with made a mistake, they assumed that because they had nerdy interests, they were intelligent. Being a nerd doesn't mean you're intelligent. It just means you're a nerd.
> 
> This forum is full of moderate intelligence nerds.


Lol just stop trying to be witty. 



> If I come up with Jeremionics, and I write a book about it, and people start a forum about it, well, if they say things that are aligned with my book, they are talking about what is factually my theory.


This is so fucking Ti it's hilarious, and the fact that you're inserting the word "factually" to try to make it an example of Te is sad. A fact is something that happens in external reality. All that happens if "they say things that are aligned with my book" is there is an observable fact that "they" said something consistent with that book. 

What both you and FaT have in common is both of you ignore the fact that every (useful) definition is a bounded, though always somewhat imperfect, translation of an observable aspect of reality rather than something that merely exists as a self-contained idea. He says "there are no facts here" because he doesn't try to test his ideas by seeing if they meaningfully reflect anything that can actually be observed. And then rather than trying to dispute that by describing some observation as any Te valuing person would you just appeal to a formal definition and say it's true on its own terms, lol.

What a bunch of clowns.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> They fall flat in your opinion, because we don't think the same way.


And a lot of other people's opinion, actually. This isn't an attempt to put you down. It's a fact that a lot of people on this forum have the impression that your analogies and comparisons have fallen flat. Apart from saying that's cause you're a special snowflake, you should also ask what that means in terms of your type.



> *LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order.
> *
> Ti doms only understand concrete things. Tangible objects. Detailed logical structure. Like this. That stuff is my weakness. or at least stuff I have little interest in. It freezes me in a machine.
> [
> Why am I not a Ni dom or IEI? Explain that.


Arguments for LSI:

Your perception, your analogies and the way you express Ni-Fe in your posts isn't dynamic. An IEI has a very dynamic worldview that shifts to accommodate the context and its needs. But the way you understand things is very static. You apply the same examples and metaphors even in contexts where they are not appropriate. You also often explain these symbols to people only in terms of how they have applied and been relatable to you. (for example: you always talk about how someone isn't Fe because of something like "this guy isn't like Lee and me". You relate to what Lee represents to you, and you expect that relation to hold true in every context where you're talking about Ni-Fe and your understanding of it. It suggests:
a) you have a "normative" way of understanding and explaining symbols, in that you create norms in which symbols you feel are worth applying to contexts again and again, in contrast to an IEI who would be more nuanced 
b) your application of analogies towards understanding people is dependent on your own experiences and you do not synthesize more contextually appropriate understanding

"Norms" and "personal experience" as the dimensions of a function's application indicate that the function in question is 2D (HA and Role). Since you value Ni, there's only HA remaining

c) your expression of content and method of understanding is static > dynamic. That's not an insult, since I know everyone likes to be called dynamic because static implies stagnation, it's a very specific dichotomy in Socionics and I suggest you read up on it. LSIs are static types.

Secondly, you admire Fe. This is no secret to anyone who has followed your posts. Whenever you talk about Fe, you make it sound otherworldly and ethereal. An IEI experiences Fe as just another obvious reality of their life and not something to be gushed about. That sort of admiration suggests it is in the inferior position, because we always place our inferior function on a pedestal.

Your disdain for Fi is also equally apparent. You've numerously described Fi as "narrow" and "constricting" and quite frankly have shown very poor understanding of it. An IEI doesn't value Fi, but they understand it just as well as they understand their Ni. Both Fi and Ni are 4D for them. But your understanding of Fi is very colored by all the negative experiences you have had with people. It suggests your Fi is in the superego block.



> If you would notice, I tend to put a lot of weight in what PEOPLE say. Not logical system. I learn from people. I learn from real people. I rarely cite sources, I cite organic thoughts of people that make sense. That has always been my learning style.


This isn't an example of Fe being stronger than Ti... it's just an example of you valuing Ti over Te. "Organic thoughts that make sense" vs "sources". You don't cite other systems of thought much because you already have your own, that you endorse everywhere. You do have your own model of how the functions work in relation to each other.

Try and understand my points without taking them personally, by the way. I understand you've very used to considering IEI/INFJ for yourself, as a part of your identity. But you gotta dissociate from that for a while if we're going to make progress.


----------



## Vermillion

Zamyatin said:


> The only people who are habitually confused here are you and FaT, and at least he has the excuse that he knows next to nothing about socionics.


Seriously, I love your posts because of how often you just go... slam fucking dunk.


----------



## selena87

This thread has devolved from informative to hilarious. :crazy: :crazy:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Lol just stop trying to be witty.
> 
> 
> 
> This is so fucking Ti it's hilarious, and the fact that you're inserting the word "factually" to try to make it an example of Te is sad. A fact is something that happens in external reality. All that happens if "they say things that are aligned with my book" is there is an observable fact that "they" said something consistent with that book.
> 
> What both you and FaT have in common is both of you ignore the fact that every (useful) definition is a bounded, though always somewhat imperfect, translation of an observable aspect of reality rather than something that merely exists as a self-contained idea. He says "there are no facts here" because he doesn't try to test his ideas by seeing if they meaningfully reflect anything that can actually be observed. And then rather than trying to dispute that by describing some observation as any Te valuing person would you just appeal to a formal definition and say it's true on its own terms, lol.
> 
> What a bunch of clowns.


TL;DR zamyatin is stupid.


----------



## The_Wanderer

I would love to see a thread where consensus is reached on various individuals types, regardless of their self-typing. But that'd be mean I suppose; some people seem very attached to their letter codes.



Jeremy8419 said:


> TL;DR zamyatin is stupid.


no u r


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I would love to see a thread where consensus is reached on various individuals types, regardless of their self-typing. But that'd be mean I suppose; some people seem very attached to their letter codes.
> 
> 
> 
> no u r


The letter codes are the definition of MBTI. The test results are the definition of MBTI. MBTI is a test and it's results.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> And a lot of other people's opinion, actually. This isn't an attempt to put you down. It's a fact that a lot of people on this forum have the impression that your analogies and comparisons have fallen flat. Apart from saying that's cause you're a special snowflake, you should also ask what that means in terms of your type.
> 
> 
> 
> Arguments for LSI:
> 
> Your perception, your analogies and the way you express Ni-Fe in your posts isn't dynamic. An IEI has a very dynamic worldview that shifts to accommodate the context and its needs. But the way you understand things is very static. You apply the same examples and metaphors even in contexts where they are not appropriate. You also often explain these symbols to people only in terms of how they have applied and been relatable to you. (for example: you always talk about how someone isn't Fe because of something like "this guy isn't like Lee and me". You relate to what Lee represents to you, and you expect that relation to hold true in every context where you're talking about Ni-Fe and your understanding of it. It suggests:
> a) you have a "normative" way of understanding and explaining symbols, in that you create norms in which symbols you feel are worth applying to contexts again and again, in contrast to an IEI who would be more nuanced
> b) your application of analogies towards understanding people is dependent on your own experiences and you do not synthesize more contextually appropriate understanding
> 
> "Norms" and "personal experience" as the dimensions of a function's application indicate that the function in question is 2D (HA and Role). Since you value Ni, there's only HA remaining
> 
> c) your expression of content and method of understanding is static > dynamic. That's not an insult, since I know everyone likes to be called dynamic because static implies stagnation, it's a very specific dichotomy in Socionics and I suggest you read up on it. LSIs are static types.
> 
> Secondly, you admire Fe. This is no secret to anyone who has followed your posts. Whenever you talk about Fe, you make it sound otherworldly and ethereal. An IEI experiences Fe as just another obvious reality of their life and not something to be gushed about. That sort of admiration suggests it is in the inferior position, because we always place our inferior function on a pedestal.
> 
> Your disdain for Fi is also equally apparent. You've numerously described Fi as "narrow" and "constricting" and quite frankly have shown very poor understanding of it. An IEI doesn't value Fi, but they understand it just as well as they understand their Ni. Both Fi and Ni are 4D for them. But your understanding of Fi is very colored by all the negative experiences you have had with people. It suggests your Fi is in the superego block.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't an example of Fe being stronger than Ti... it's just an example of you valuing Ti over Te. "Organic thoughts that make sense" vs "sources". You don't cite other systems of thought much because you already have your own, that you endorse everywhere. You do have your own model of how the functions work in relation to each other.
> 
> Try and understand my points without taking them personally, by the way. I understand you've very used to considering IEI/INFJ for yourself, as a part of your identity. But you gotta dissociate from that for a while if we're going to make progress.


You're doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing with just a bunch jargon. We are both doing a "no true iei" fallacy. You can cherry pick anything you want. The LSI type does not fit anything I am about. I am dynamic, I am just prone to obsessive thinking patterns. That come and go. You are overthinking a person you know nothing about. I see a much larger picture than you. I don't care about details. I am about general concepts. I am not even reading half of that stuff. It is irrelevant to anything. I don't have that kind of depth of logical structure in my head, or that churning, and you can't tell me I do. 

I understand Fi. Somebody understanding it does not mean they have to value it. lol. You are wasting my time. Not everyone believes what you do. 

Why do I talk up Fe? Because people like you talk shit about it. I didn't come on this forum and just magically, organically, unconsciously, cozy up to Fe. lol. I did it as a reaction to what you were doing. It was a particular context and chain of events that lead to where we are at. It is an agenda I have. Which is exactly what Ni and Fe would do. You're making it sound like it is some deep thing. You don't see anything under the surface. It isn't all just numbers and dictionaries.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I mean just look at how mad this guy is about Ni. He is a rabid dog. lol. Just like the other one who is so threatened by me. Talk about valuing. I love squishing Fi. It is like a stress ball to me.


You're squashing socionics Fe, dude. Socionics Fe is "I'm whoever I feel I am," and when you say, "no, you're not an elf," they get butt-hurt.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're squashing socionics Fe, dude. Socionics Fe is "I'm whoever I feel I am," and when you say, "no, you're not an elf," they get butt-hurt.


what


----------



## Jeremy8419

Shame Spiral said:


> what


That's you. Notice your avatar. That is MBTI Fi and Socionics Fe. Back a couple of pages, "preemptive attack for anti-butthurt" quote on IEI Creating.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's you. Notice your avatar. That is MBTI Fi and Socionics Fe. Back a couple of pages, "preemptive attack for anti-butthurt" quote on IEI Creating.


I don't really see the functions changing depending on the system, but okay. What you're saying sounds more like type 4 than Fe to me to be honest.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Shame Spiral said:


> I don't really see the functions changing depending on the system, but okay. What you're saying sounds more like type 4 than Fe to me to be honest.


Type 4 INFPs are IEI-Fe's and turbulent.
Fe in socionics is emotions. That's all it is, emotions.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Type 4 INFPs are IEI-Fe's and turbulent.
> Fe in socionics is emotions. That's all it is, emotions.


If you say so. Not like all 4s are INFPs or IEIs, though (neither are all INFPs or IEIs 4s)


----------



## Jeremy8419

Shame Spiral said:


> If you say so. Not like all 4s are INFPs or IEIs, though (neither are all INFPs or IEIs 4s)


No. The INFPs that are 9s are IEI-Ni and Assertive.

Look at your picture. Can you verify a display of emotion in it? Can you verify a display of emotion in mine? Yours values emotions. Mine ignores them. That is you valuing extroverted ethics and me ignoring extroverted ethics. Go to INFP forum. They have visible emotions in their pictures. Look at the INFJs. The few that do not fit this are the mistypes. Look at fear's irl picture. Does he visibly display emotion? If he had a cartoon version of exactly that, would it look out of place in INFP forum? INFJ forum?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> No. The INFPs that are 9s are IEI-Ni and Assertive.
> 
> Look at your picture. Can you verify a display of emotion in it? Can you verify a display of emotion in mine? Yours values emotions. Mine ignores them. That is you valuing extroverted ethics and me ignoring extroverted ethics.


Couldn't that be more you being less of an Ethical type? I mean, my picture is more "emotional", sure, but it's more that it focuses on the relational element, which I think can be ethics in general. I don't really care for the INFP forum, so I don't know what would look out of place there or not.

Also, why would 9s be Assertive, whatever that means


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're squashing socionics Fe, dude. Socionics Fe is "I'm whoever I feel I am," and when you say, "no, you're not an elf," they get butt-hurt.





Jeremy8419 said:


> That's you. Notice your avatar. That is MBTI Fi and Socionics Fe. Back a couple of pages, "preemptive attack for anti-butthurt" quote on IEI Creating.





Jeremy8419 said:


> Type 4 INFPs are IEI-Fe's and turbulent.
> Fe in socionics is emotions. That's all it is, emotions.





Jeremy8419 said:


> No. The INFPs that are 9s are IEI-Ni and Assertive.
> 
> Look at your picture. Can you verify a display of emotion in it? Can you verify a display of emotion in mine? Yours values emotions. Mine ignores them. That is you valuing extroverted ethics and me ignoring extroverted ethics. Go to INFP forum. They have visible emotions in their pictures. Look at the INFJs. The few that do not fit this are the mistypes. Look at fear's irl picture. Does he visibly display emotion? If he had a cartoon version of exactly that, would it look out of place in INFP forum? INFJ forum?


What the fuck dude? Who is dodging Fe and Fi definitions now? 

1. If MBTI is only the letter code, then logically speaking, if I change my type when I take the test again, I am now a new type too. Therefore there is no logical correlation whatsoever between the MBTI and socionics because socionics does not place value what type you are based on letter code and if I can change my type on a whim based on what result I got this particular day, then there is no correlation to be had because my MBTI type isn't even stable or essential. Fwiw, I get INTP on MBTI tests. I guess that have to make me an ILI in socionics according to your logic. What a bummer. I thought you had figured out I was a Ti type and all, y'know? I mean, even @FearAndTrembling agrees with you! 

1a. Furthermore, if MBTI is only the letter code, then the MBTI cannot even be compared or correlated to socionics to begin with, because there is no such thing as Fe or Fi in the MBTI but only F. Because there is no such thing as Fe or Fi, then this F cannot be compared to Fe and Fi in socionics either, or black and white/introverted and extroverted ethics, because F would be its own thing. 

2. The statement that MBTI is only its letter code is still an inaccurate statement because the functions are introdced in Step II, and Myers wrote plenty about the functions in Gifts Differing. The functions are an integral aspect of MBTI theory, which is why MBTI theorists such as Beebe, Thomson, Nardi et. al. _all_ write about the functions. 

3. Thinking that objects are manifestations of emotions and assigning emotions to the environment is what socionics Fe does. Case in point, as Augusta writes:



> Perceives information about [emotional] processes taking place in objects.


Bracketed word is mine, for clarification.

4. Socionics is about information processing, as Augusta's quote exemplifies. It is therefore more about what kind of information we see and seek in the world and how we process data by having a specific focus on what data we prefer e.g. if we are comparing Fi and Fe, Fi looks at elements of attraction/repulsion etc., whereas Fe looks at moods and the overall emotional atmosphere. 

Fi looks at how the subject in person is attracted or repulsed by objects and is thus introverted because it's focused on the reaction of the self, whereas Fe is focused on the reactions of the external environment and how it contributes to an overall feeling tone in terms of moods/atmosphere. This isn't rocket science. It's all there on wikisocion. Not adhering to these principles is ignoring what socionics is and their fundamental definitions of what Fe and Fi are. You are ignoring both and are creating your own system of understanding.

5. Your entire attempt to connect here, and how you even think that an INFP that is a 4 has to be turbulent and IEI-Fe is ridiculous and is a prefect example of how _*valued*_ Ti works, drawing logical connections and positing that reality should conform to such observed logical principles regardless of whether it really does. 

In addition to you making sense of people's avatars based on their visible emotional radiations simply suggests you are a socionics Fe-Ti type, not Fi-Te. 

I mean, seriously. By your own token then, I have to be an Fe ego type, because emotions. LOL. He's angry and all. That's _your_ subjective interpretation of it, how you have problems looking outside of your own cognitive bias and interpreting people's actions through how you yourself would make sense of things. Typology 101 is that people are *not* like you and do not think like you. That's the entire point of trying to categorize people into types to begin with. 

Good riddance. Go and make your own Jeremionics forum, because you are already doing it here.


----------



## Zamyatin

FearAndTrembling said:


> You're doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing with just a bunch jargon. We are both doing a "no true iei" fallacy. You can cherry pick anything you want. The LSI type does not fit anything I am about. I am dynamic, I am just prone to obsessive thinking patterns. That come and go. You are overthinking a person you know nothing about. I see a much larger picture than you. I don't care about details. I am about general concepts. I am not even reading half of that stuff. It is irrelevant to anything. I don't have that kind of depth of logical structure in my head, or that churning, and you can't tell me I do.
> 
> I understand Fi. Somebody understanding it does not mean they have to value it. lol. You are wasting my time. Not everyone believes what you do.
> 
> Why do I talk up Fe? Because people like you talk shit about it. I didn't come on this forum and just magically, organically, unconsciously, cozy up to Fe. lol. I did it as a reaction to what you were doing. It was a particular context and chain of events that lead to where we are at. It is an agenda I have. Which is exactly what Ni and Fe would do. You're making it sound like it is some deep thing. You don't see anything under the surface. It isn't all just numbers and dictionaries.


So in other words;

1) You have no real opinion
2) You believe nothing
3) You're not here to learn anything, but simply to be a contrarian
4) You're not interested in getting anything out of this discussion

What the hell? Might as well be talking to a chatbot. If that's all there is behind Fe, talk about a worthless IE. At least Jeremy thinks he has a point.

But hey, keep on taking pride in lacking substance, lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Zamyatin said:


> So in other words;
> 
> 1) You have no real opinion
> 2) You believe nothing
> 3) You're not here to learn anything, but simply to be a contrarian
> 4) You're not interested in getting anything out of this discussion
> 
> What the hell? Might as well be talking to a chatbot. If that's all there is behind Fe, talk about a worthless IE. At least Jeremy thinks he has a point.
> 
> But hey, keep on taking pride in lacking substance, lol.


It is about as equal to the content as you provide. I love making that stick up your ass move even higher up.


----------



## Ninjaws

emberfly said:


> This reminded me quite of League of Legends--where one champion becomes "flavour of the month", which basically means he/she is particularly strong at any given time of the season, and everyone starts playing that champion because it's the best.
> 
> I imagine the Si ego looking over at these hooligans switching from champion to champion every month always trying to get an easy competitive edge and just shaking his head.
> 
> I would imagine an Si ego would be playing the same champion or few select champions for a long duration, mastering it/them.


This is very true.

I used to play League with a couple of guys in high school and they were obsessed with the top tier champions. I thought "They are top tier for high level players. I am nowhere near that level, so every champion is equally viable. "

So I just started looking at which playstyle I liked the most. In the end, Udyr became my favourite because of his jungle clearing speed, counter jungling capabilities, and pretty sweet ganking (in bronze/normal, mind you).

I had a friend who started playing ranked non-stop when the final exams of high school where about to start. He said he had to get to silver. I told him to stop messing around since he'd lose interest in League in a year anyway and then be stuck in high school because he failed his exams. A game is fun and all, but you have to get your priorities straight.

If I look back at which champions I played, it was pretty much all Udyr (jungle), Skarner (pre-rework, jungle) and Kayle (jungle).
I got quite good at playing all of these, but when I was forced to play something like support, I lacked the experience to effectively assist my teammate. When I was in a clan with those high school friends, one called me a one trick pony, because I was a really good jungler, but if I had to use a champion or play a role I was unfamiliar with, my performance just dropped massively.

EDIT: In fact, I never play top tier champions, since those are the most likely to get nerfed/banned. I don't see the point in playing something for two weeks to then have it get nerfed. I prefer high tier champions that can do everything well enough but don't stick out too far. For instance, Udyr has not been nerfed for a very long time.



> Alternatively, it seems to me that Ne egos would play a new champion every game, always getting bored if they have to play the same champion too often. Perhaps gravitating to the champions that are _fun_ or _versatile_, rather than the ones that are particularly good.
> 
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?


I can see that being the case. One of those friends (the clan leader) I suspect was an ENFP. He played every champion and every role and was good at pretty much all of them (then again, he played non-stop for months ). He never played the same champion twice in a row, while my performance increases the more I play the champion. I have no problem playing a champion for 5 games in a row, since I'll play much better at the end (unless I'm exhausted from constantly having to pay attention to what everyone else is doing).


----------



## Vermillion

@_FearAndTrembling_

So then... why the fuck do you ask people to explain? Just to have the opportunity of a) saying no b) pretending to be some prophet of truth and legitimacy c) being typist? Which one of those three is your favorite thing to do? 

Here's a tip that you probably don't deserve, but you can hear it because I'm nice like that. Learn some fucking manners when you ask for people's help. Especially since you walked into this forum knowing jack about Socionics. If you can't do that, then get out of the Socionics forum until you learn to act like a normal, respectful adult. This sort of "no u!!!" bullshit works in kindergarten, but that's about it.

Hell, not even kids get this frightened when you tell them Santa Claus isn't real.


----------



## beth x

*Thread warning:*

Please stop throwing ad homs at each other, passive aggressively or directly. 

Please stop unsolicited typing of each other, passive aggressively or directly.

Please stop insinuating, inferring or directly saying to each other that they are stupid as a means to argue a point.

*Please do* learn from each other and collaborate instead.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> So then... why the fuck do you ask people to explain? Just to have the opportunity of a) saying no b) pretending to be some prophet of truth and legitimacy c) being typist? Which one of those three is your favorite thing to do?
> 
> Here's a tip that you probably don't deserve, but you can hear it because I'm nice like that. Learn some fucking manners when you ask for people's help. Especially since you walked into this forum knowing jack about Socionics. If you can't do that, then get out of the Socionics forum until you learn to act like a normal, respectful adult. This sort of "no u!!!" bullshit works in kindergarten, but that's about it.
> 
> Hell, not even kids get this frightened when you tell them Santa Claus isn't real.


I am trying to offer alternative views. My critique is that this is system is skin and bones. 

You assumed I reached a type from a certain path. I am explaining that path is wrong. 

I am trying to add some flesh and vitality to it. And throw some ideas off of people. I am trying to explain what Fe is, for starters. You think aggression or force in environment is Se. I am saying it is equally Fe. I read Se types go with the energy of the people in the environment. I am saying Fe types are equally as aggressive, because they are so one with the environment. They don't know their place in it, and don't see it distinct from themselves. And Fe is a "gullible" function. I want to hear why you think that is, or isn't true, in your own words, with not appealing to outside algorithms. 

What do you make of those statements?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I want to expand on this point. And this also shows why I am dynamic, and a feeler. As I am a storyteller. I understand how these things work through people. I am fluid. More on Fe:

I think Fe is really misunderstood in the dominant position. Socionics for example kind of associates Se with energy and will in the environment. But Fe is the most aggressive function in the environment, especially when it is young. 

Like this tomboy who lived across the street from me. My worst enemy. She would not leave us alone. And she was a very good athlete. You can't get rid of her. She just blindly fights you and follows. Why is she doing this? Why would a Fi dom do this? It makes no sense. She is following the object around and resisting other people controlling the environment. That is exactly what Fe does. She is following around the feeling object. Se is more about observing. Especially in an introvert. Fe are so immersed in the environment, they don't see it as distinct from themselves, and don't know their place in it. Which is why many people don't like Fe. It is messing with people often. 

Arya Stark fits perfectly with a Fe dom. Particularly at that age. You know they have many manifestations. That is another thing about Fe. People think it is soft and unassuming. ESFJ guys are some of the toughest and bravest people I know. They don't back down. That is their place. Same reason my mother doesn't back down. Fe is strong and aggressive in the environment. Like Tupac. That is their place. I think this is why many "tough guys" get labelled Se immediately. I am trying to get over Bruce Lee, but he is such a perfect example. His intensity is not Se, it is Fe. He looks like he is going to attack you when saying things important to him. He is like moving towards you and expanding. I am just like that. Fe has emotional expression and force when it talks.

Nobody sees the dynamics I do I guess.

What I am saying is, what Arya Stark is doing, is similar to my ESFJ mother always being on my case and smothering me. It is the same thing in a different package.

She must become Faceless because all she is, is a feeling process. An introjection. She is made of other people. She sucked them in. Her entire ego is environment feeling. She has projected nothing of her own feelings. It is based on protecting feeling objects in the environment. That is what she cares about. Her affection to the object. Totally consumed by it. She recites the feeling object every night. Classic Fe with destructive inferior Ti thinking. When she kills them, she removes the object that hurts her.

Like I said, nobody sees these dynamics, or seems to care about them. Arya Stark is classic Fe dom to the letter. Or at least could be argued to be.


----------



## VoodooDolls

lol lol lol
yeh yu can zee everthing rest of pop can¡t, oh man beyond stars show us ur mercyful side and let us understand the infinite truth within yu


like seriously bro, stop writting that nauseating way ima spontaneously combust


----------



## Jeremy8419

Shame Spiral said:


> Couldn't that be more you being less of an Ethical type? I mean, my picture is more "emotional", sure, but it's more that it focuses on the relational element, which I think can be ethics in general. I don't really care for the INFP forum, so I don't know what would look out of place there or not.
> 
> Also, why would 9s be Assertive, whatever that means


You have objective ethics and subjective ethics. Objective is independently verifiable regardless of who is looking at it. Subjective is not. Anyone can look at your avatar and verify the ethics. My avatar is judging the human condition and you cannot verify the ethics, only I can. Yours is valued extroverted ethics. Mine is introverted ethics.

Assertive/Turbulent is an additional dichotomy on Kiersey. First is more stable, second is more growth. Actually, I don't know that, sorry. I need to get more information for INFP's relationship between systems. I've verified that there is high correlation between assertive/turbulent, enneagram types for MBTI types, and Socionics sub-types, but still need to place the subtypes for each of the scenerios. For instance, EII-Ne has focus on Ti/Te as well, and is focused on growth (dual-seeking is source of strengthening leading), and has lesser focus on Fi/Fe. This makes EII-Ne, Type 5, INFJ-Turbulent people with INFJ personality type come off as more abrasive and less focused on their immediate ethics. When going from growth to stable mode, they become more peace-rendering.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> What the fuck dude? Who is dodging Fe and Fi definitions now?
> 
> 1. If MBTI is only the letter code, then logically speaking, if I change my type when I take the test again, I am now a new type too. Therefore there is no logical correlation whatsoever between the MBTI and socionics because socionics does not place value what type you are based on letter code and if I can change my type on a whim based on what result I got this particular day, then there is no correlation to be had because my MBTI type isn't even stable or essential. Fwiw, I get INTP on MBTI tests. I guess that have to make me an ILI in socionics according to your logic. What a bummer. I thought you had figured out I was a Ti type and all, y'know? I mean, even @FearAndTrembling agrees with you!
> 
> 1a. Furthermore, if MBTI is only the letter code, then the MBTI cannot even be compared or correlated to socionics to begin with, because there is no such thing as Fe or Fi in the MBTI but only F. Because there is no such thing as Fe or Fi, then this F cannot be compared to Fe and Fi in socionics either, or black and white/introverted and extroverted ethics, because F would be its own thing.
> 
> 2. The statement that MBTI is only its letter code is still an inaccurate statement because the functions are introdced in Step II, and Myers wrote plenty about the functions in Gifts Differing. The functions are an integral aspect of MBTI theory, which is why MBTI theorists such as Beebe, Thomson, Nardi et. al. _all_ write about the functions.
> 
> 3. Thinking that objects are manifestations of emotions and assigning emotions to the environment is what socionics Fe does. Case in point, as Augusta writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Bracketed word is mine, for clarification.
> 
> 4. Socionics is about information processing, as Augusta's quote exemplifies. It is therefore more about what kind of information we see and seek in the world and how we process data by having a specific focus on what data we prefer e.g. if we are comparing Fi and Fe, Fi looks at elements of attraction/repulsion etc., whereas Fe looks at moods and the overall emotional atmosphere.
> 
> Fi looks at how the subject in person is attracted or repulsed by objects and is thus introverted because it's focused on the reaction of the self, whereas Fe is focused on the reactions of the external environment and how it contributes to an overall feeling tone in terms of moods/atmosphere. This isn't rocket science. It's all there on wikisocion. Not adhering to these principles is ignoring what socionics is and their fundamental definitions of what Fe and Fi are. You are ignoring both and are creating your own system of understanding.
> 
> 5. Your entire attempt to connect here, and how you even think that an INFP that is a 4 has to be turbulent and IEI-Fe is ridiculous and is a prefect example of how _*valued*_ Ti works, drawing logical connections and positing that reality should conform to such observed logical principles regardless of whether it really does.
> 
> In addition to you making sense of people's avatars based on their visible emotional radiations simply suggests you are a socionics Fe-Ti type, not Fi-Te.
> 
> I mean, seriously. By your own token then, I have to be an Fe ego type, because emotions. LOL. He's angry and all. That's _your_ subjective interpretation of it, how you have problems looking outside of your own cognitive bias and interpreting people's actions through how you yourself would make sense of things. Typology 101 is that people are *not* like you and do not think like you. That's the entire point of trying to categorize people into types to begin with.
> 
> Good riddance. Go and make your own Jeremionics forum, because you are already doing it here.


Dude, seriously, you need to go back and edit your posts to me when they exceed what you are quoting by such a high amount. If I read this wall, and reply to this wall, your next wall will be even bigger.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

We are supposed to be civil. I just explained my dynamic process. 

Another thing I want to add. Se moves slow. Se is not about pushing on people. It takes its time. That is why Ni sees it as power, because it is always in its way taking its time. And there you have Ni doms being will to power. I actually understand Ni perceptually. And this is what I give. 

Descartes made the point that imagination is different than intellect. A person cannot imagine a chiliagon for example. It becomes what Descartes called a "jumbled distortion" or something like that. But they can conceive of it. As it is a rational concept that is defined mathematically and consistently. Anyone can give a conception of Ni. You can conceive of things you cannot perceive. That doesn't mean you have ever experienced it.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> Anyone can look at your avatar and verify the ethics.


Really? How can you be so sure that's why I chose it anyway, you're making some assumptions here

And anyway, if I'm a Fe-type, I'd say SEI would be more likely than IEI.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Shame Spiral said:


> Really? How can you be so sure that's why I chose it anyway, you're making some assumptions here
> 
> And anyway, if I'm a Fe-type, I'd say SEI would be more likely than IEI.


I can't verify that is why you chose it. I can only verify that it is objective ethics in that picture.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I read Se types go with the energy of the people in the environment. I am saying Fe types are equally as aggressive, because they are so one with the environment. They don't know their place in it, and don't see it distinct from themselves. And Fe is a "gullible" function. I want to hear why you think that is, or isn't true, in your own words, with not appealing to outside algorithms.
> 
> What do you make of those statements?


Both Fe and Se are extroverted, and direct energy towards objects (all 3 systems, factually). They do not accept energy from objects. Introverted elements are the ones which accept energy from objects.
This is conscious or unconscious. You either direct ethical energy consciously and accept ethical energy unconsciously, or you accept ethical energy consciously and direct ethical energy unconsciously. This applies for intuition, sensing, and thinking as well.


----------



## Jeremy8419

fearandtrembling said:


> Like this tomboy who lived across the street from me. My worst enemy. She would not leave us alone


Because she liked you, and you thought of her as a tomboy. They make episodes in family sticoms about this.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Man, this topic is so far from it's original purpose; it has been derailed to the point of utter meaninglessness and is now the playground of manic stupidity. 

There's no real point telling people to be civil when there's no coherent topic to be found, the thread should just be closed .


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Dude, seriously, you need to go back and edit your posts to me when they exceed what you are quoting by such a high amount. If I read this wall, and reply to this wall, your next wall will be even bigger.


lol, so why do you post then if that's such a problem? Of you are going to post such fallacious content, then yes, I will correct you regardless of how much space that is going to take up. That's pretty simple, really.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> lol, so why do you post then if that's such a problem? Of you are going to post such fallacious content, then yes, I will correct you regardless of how much space that is going to take up. That's pretty simple, really.


Because I have other things to do than spend all day in Ti-fest with you? Write whatever you wanna write, then go back... and edit it.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because I have other things to do than spend all day in Ti-fest with you?


Oh I see what you did there!


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Oh I see what you did there!


Oicwutudiddar


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because I have other things to do than spend all day in Ti-fest with you? Write whatever you wanna write, then go back... and edit it.


I write exactly what I think needs to be said. Can't help you if it doesn't suit you fancy.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> I write exactly what I think needs to be said. Can't help you if it doesn't suit you fancy.


Well I'm not spending all day reading walls of rhetoric. May as well edit out the "8419" so my notifications aren't spammed.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well I'm not spending all day reading walls of rhetoric. May as well edit out the "8419" so my notifications aren't spammed.


It's not like you have to quote me either lol, especially if you got nothing else to say than that you got nothing to say.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> It's not like you have to quote me either lol, especially if you got nothing else to say than that you got nothing to say.


I don't recall quoting you into that conversation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I admit I am very new to this. But does anyone think that Dawkins and Hitchens fit Ne POLR pretty well? Dawkins is so dogmatic. In everything. Isn't that what Ne polr would look like?

That also puts a nail in the coffin of Bruce Lee being LSI as well.

*'I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

**There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.'

-Lee

*Jung would say the same.


----------



## Jeremy8419

PoLR isn't naturally stronger than dual-seeking. You just don't like it, so usually won't develop it.

For instance...
Te: Knowledge, efficiency, practicality, effectiveness of action
For Te PoLR, the person does not value these things, and will rarely try to learn any new knowledge. When doing so, it is only by requirement or necessity. Books, media, etc chosen are primarily of a fictitious nature, as there is no value in knowledge. When criticizing a Te PoLR person's knowledge, they take offense, not only because you're criticizing their lack of it, but also because you're criticizing a weakness that is determined by their strengths of their core personality. When criticized, they will often counter with criticism of the other person's Fe, which is the element that caused Te PoLR, e.g., "he's just an a-hole."
For Te dual-seeking, the person values these things, and is amused by learning new knowledge. It is by the person's own choice, and will often involve learning far more knowledge than is required. When criticizing the persons Te, he sees it as meaningless criticism, because he values knowledge and takes all opportunities given to have more, and does so with pleasure. The person also treats this as a chosen necessity related to Fi leading, which is the individual's chosen primary mode of conscious thought. To the individual, anti-Te seems silly, as it is bound to what he considers his correct purpose in life.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> PoLR isn't naturally stronger than dual-seeking. You just don't like it, so usually won't develop it.
> 
> For instance...
> Te: Knowledge, efficiency, practicality, effectiveness of action
> For Te PoLR, the person does not value these things, and will rarely try to learn any new knowledge. When doing so, it is only by requirement or necessity. Books, media, etc chosen are primarily of a fictitious nature, as there is no value in knowledge. When criticizing a Te PoLR person's knowledge, they take offense, not only because you're criticizing their lack of it, but also because you're criticizing a weakness that is determined by their strengths of their core personality. When criticized, they will often counter with criticism of the other person's Fe, which is the element that caused Te PoLR, e.g., "he's just an a-hole."
> For Te dual-seeking, the person values these things, and is amused by learning new knowledge. It is by the person's own choice, and will often involve learning far more knowledge than is required. When criticizing the persons Te, he sees it as meaningless criticism, because he values knowledge and takes all opportunities given to have more, and does so with pleasure. The person also treats this as a chosen necessity related to Fi leading, which is the individual's chosen primary mode of conscious thought. To the individual, anti-Te seems silly, as it is bound to what he considers his correct purpose in life.


I don't think that is exactly right. You're saying basically that IEI don't like to learn. lol. That isn't it. My education is very unique. I am mostly self taught. I don't do Te. But you do hit the mark. I am an autodidact. Just like Lee. We reject mainstream thought and go for more eclectic sources. And kind of synthesize them. That is always what I have done. IEI type definitely fits me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

"I don't think that is exactly right. You're saying basically that IEI don't like to learn. lol. That isn't it."
It is right, in socionics. Learning is Te. It's unvalued. If you're IEI, then you don't like it.
Structured learning is what you dislike and annoys you. Annoyed by structure is super-ego Ti. Id Ti treats structured learning with malaise, not annoyance, so is more prone to do it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> "I don't think that is exactly right. You're saying basically that IEI don't like to learn. lol. That isn't it."
> It is right, in socionics. Learning is Te. It's unvalued. If you're IEI, then you don't like it.


You see only one of way of doing things. It isn't that simple or literal. Your way is not the only way. You're basically telling me that everything that is written down somewhere is true. So Fe-Ti types are just doomed to ignorance? People without Te don't have an interest in learning? I'm outta here.

NFJ types are some of the most learned people.

Jung described Goethe as a Fe dom. What do you make of that?


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> You see only one of way of doing things. It isn't that simple or literal. Your way is not the only way. You're basically telling me that everything that is written down somewhere is true. So Fe-Ti types are just doomed to ignorance? People without Te don't have an interest in learning? I'm outta here.
> 
> NFJ types are some of the most learned people.
> 
> Jung described Goethe as a Fe dom. What do you make of that?


Are you hypothesizing a system? I'm just telling you what Socionics says. Knowledge is Te. If you are IEI, you have zero interest in knowledge.

Fe-Ti types? I was speaking of X-Fe types. PoLR Te is X-Fe.

NFJ types? ENFJ is accepted as EIE. They don't care about knowledge. You are the one saying INFJ is IEI. "INFJ" is your test result. Ni-Fe ego is not.

If someone is amused by knowledge, doing things better, etc., they have valued Te.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Are you hypothesizing a system? I'm just telling you what Socionics says. Knowledge is Te. If you are IEI, you have zero interest in knowledge.
> 
> Fe-Ti types? I was speaking of X-Fe types. PoLR Te is X-Fe.
> 
> NFJ types? ENFJ is accepted as EIE. They don't care about knowledge. You are the one saying INFJ is IEI. "INFJ" is your test result. Ni-Fe ego is not.
> 
> If someone is amused by knowledge, doing things better, etc., they have valued Te.


Let me put it better for you. I like these:

*PoLR functions of all types:*
*Si -PolR*LIE (ENTJ), EIE (ENFJ)
Discussing topics of bad state of health, talk on non-esthetic things
*Ti -PolR*
SEE (ESFP), IEE (ENFP)
Discussing matters of logical contradictions, reproaching with misunderstanding, showing one’s erudition
*Fi -PolR*
ILE (ENTP), SLE (ESTP)
Arguments about relationships, manifesting disrespect, dishonourableness
*Ni -PoLR*
ESE (ESFJ), LSE (ESTJ)
Reproaching with inaccuracy and being late, urging, postponing
*Se -PoLR*
LII (INTP), EII (INFP)
Discussing modest means, orders, power pressure
*Te -PoLR*
SEI (ISFJ), IEI (INFJ)
Discussing inexpedient actions, obtrusion of errands, didacticism
*Fe -PoLR*
ILI (INTJ), SLI (ISTJ)
Bursts of emotions, offences, obtrusion of one’s emotional experience
*Ne -PoLR*
LSI (ISTP), ESI (ISFP)
Superfluous information, vague perspectives, “what if?”


I despise when people get in my way. That is so on the money about errands. I am never more miserable than shopping or doing that kind of stuff. Around other things, I am quite calm.

Not liking Te doesn't mean I don't like to learn, it means I dislike being evaluated by those standards. That Si one is close too. I have never liked talking dirty and am squeamish. I have some girly traits. I mean, I swear and stuff, but nothing like the way my friends talk about women. I don't fart. You will never hear me do that. My friend actually said he has never heard me fart before. Why would he? lol. I hate toilet humor.

I just realized my brother is an NJ too. And my father.


----------



## Jeremy8419

What? You don't value role function either... EIE PoLR is Si, and they don't value it. EIE role is Te, and they don't value it.


----------



## Thalassa

FearAndTrembling said:


> Gamma types seem to think they are the good guys. That is why they are bad. I said it before. That is what Martin is getting at.
> 
> Varys and Tyrion know they are snakes. They wear it with pride. That is Fe. Tyrion likes being the bad guy. He knows that is what he is supposed to be, so he does it. He let's society define him. He plays it up. I actually think he may be an ENFJ. Arya Stark is also probably similar.
> 
> You said you don't like beta values, can't you see that none of this stuff would be happening without Varys? It is the same critique with Lincoln. Fi wants true north. True north does not exist. That is where Beta comes in.
> 
> A compass, I learned when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?
> 
> <font color="#333333"><span style="font-family: Verdana">
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the use of the Stark's knowing true North? Your honor won't protect you. Jaqen is emptying her of all that nonsense.



Pfft every type thinks they are the good guys.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thalassa said:


> Pfft every type thinks they are the good guys.


You have to admit that was a massive smack down of Fi. One for the records. The look on Tommy Lee Jones face. I do think that shows a great example between Fe and Fi. Fe is more pragmatic. Fi wants to be pure. Like Kant. Kant is a Fi dom. Or at least has a Fi philosophy. You act as in everything you do would be a universal law. You act like you are God basically. So, say I am walking down the street and I see somebody breaking into a house. That is just one house being broken into, it is none of my business. Kant would say, "If you created the world, if you were God, would you let that happen? Would you make that a natural law?" Like gravity. Like allowing one rape, now makes rape a natural law. That is what people are doing, by ignoring even a single rape. 

I also think Ghandi is a Fi user. His philosophy is Fi too. MLK is not. Malcolm X is not. Any means necessary. That is Fe. lol. MLK realized this eventually:


"It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."


----------



## Jeremy8419

@FearAndTrembling

That long PoLR you posted is wrong and someone's opinion. It goes against socionics.

"Not liking Te doesn't mean I don't like to learn, it means I dislike being evaluated by those standards. "
Actually, yes, yes it does mean that you don't like to learn. If you like to learn, you have valued Te. Standards are Ti. Meaning you are amused by knowledge and annoyed by people standardizing such.


----------



## Kyusaku

FearAndTrembling said:


> You have to admit that was a massive smack down of Fi. One for the records. The look on Tommy Lee Jones face. I do think that shows a great example between Fe and Fi. Fe is more pragmatic. Fi wants to be pure. Like Kant. Kant is a Fi dom. Or at least has a Fi philosophy. You act as in everything you do would be a universal law. You act like you are God basically. So, say I am walking down the street and I see somebody breaking into a house. That is just one house being broken into, it is none of my business. Kant would say, "If you created the world, if you were God, would you let that happen? Would you make that a natural law?" Like gravity. Like allowing one rape, now makes rape a natural law. That is what people are doing, by ignoring even a single rape.
> 
> I also think Ghandi is a Fi user. His philosophy is Fi too. MLK is not. Malcolm X is not. Any means necessary. That is Fe. lol. MLK realized this eventually:
> 
> 
> "It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."


The way I see it, Fe and Fi are about taking decisions, while Te and Ti is about assessing the situation. After you gathered the facts, possible alternatives and determined the amount of energy required to overcome the obstructions on those paths, you are left to decide if they are ultimately worth treading on. Fi users find the answers in themselves while Fe users find them outside. As for the content of those answers, everyone can reach the same conclusions. Only the methods of obtaining them differ.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kyusaku said:


> The way I see it, Fe and Fi are about taking decisions, while Te and Ti is about assessing the situation. After you gathered the facts, possible alternatives and determined the amount of energy required to overcome the obstructions on those paths, you are left to decide if they are ultimately worth treading on. Fi users find the answers in themselves while Fe users find them outside. As for the content of those answers, everyone can reach the same conclusions. Only the methods of obtaining them differ.


Fe is directed from the individual towards the external world. Fi is directed from the external world towards the individual. Fe emits energy based upon itself. Fi drinks in energy from the world. This is extroversion and introversion.


----------



## Schizoid

FearAndTrembling said:


> You have to admit that was a massive smack down of Fi. One for the records. The look on Tommy Lee Jones face. I do think that shows a great example between Fe and Fi. Fe is more pragmatic. Fi wants to be pure. Like Kant. Kant is a Fi dom. Or at least has a Fi philosophy. You act as in everything you do would be a universal law. You act like you are God basically. So, say I am walking down the street and I see somebody breaking into a house. That is just one house being broken into, it is none of my business. Kant would say, "If you created the world, if you were God, would you let that happen? Would you make that a natural law?" Like gravity. Like allowing one rape, now makes rape a natural law. That is what people are doing, by ignoring even a single rape.
> 
> I also think Ghandi is a Fi user. His philosophy is Fi too. MLK is not. Malcolm X is not. Any means necessary. That is Fe. lol. MLK realized this eventually:
> 
> 
> "It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."



Lol. So I'm not the only one here who thinks that Gandhi is an Fi type.
I saw how everybody kept typing him as an Fe type. I have always seen him as an Fi type though. His thinking style is very similar to mine, and I'm an Fi type myself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Schizoid said:


> Lol. So I'm not the only one here who thinks that Gandhi is an Fi type.
> I saw how everybody kept typing him as an Fe type. I have always seen him as an Fi type though. His thinking style is very similar to mine, and I'm an Fi type myself.


I know. A perfect example of Gandhi's Fi is that thinking one way always works. Peace. One means to one end. IxSP. So is Bin Laden probably. Kant is just like that. Tolstoy. You are your ethics. I think Schopenhauer is now Fi too. Your body is your will. Tolstoy is peace. You cannot make him into war. It is like turning a dog into a cat. It is against his nature. 

Somebody famously said to him, or about him, that isn't going to work here. I think it is a famous quote.

_To fit in with an opponent one needs direct perception. There is no direct perception where there is resistance, a “this is the only way” attitude._
_Having totality means being capable of following “what is,” because “what is” is constantly moving and changing. If one is anchored to a particular view, one will not be able to follow the swift movements of “what is.”

-Bruce Lee_


----------



## Jeremy8419

You're implying ignorance in Fi and immorality. Te is what strengthens 4d Fi. Only in knowledge can you gain greater grounds into morality. This is why the morality of children and uneducated adults, regardless of type, is often foolish and blind.

Lee is speaking of Fi, through what means of education he has. His overflowing need to spew himself out is Fe. He is not interested in taking in the world, just in blabbering out his own world.


----------



## Entropic

Schizoid said:


> Lol. So I'm not the only one here who thinks that Gandhi is an Fi type.
> I saw how everybody kept typing him as an Fe type. I have always seen him as an Fi type though. His thinking style is very similar to mine, and I'm an Fi type myself.


I think an EII typing is common for Gandhi, though? I don't have any real opinion because I haven't looked into the man myself, and there's a lot of mythology surrounding him that you need to disperse as well before you can really get a grasp of his type, but one can argue that his non-violent approach is exemplary of Se PoLR or at least Se-devaluing, for example.

Abe Lincon, on the other hand, that is also sometimes typed as an EII, is someone I have a harder time seeing as such.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Kyusaku said:


> The way I see it, Fe and Fi are about taking decisions, while Te and Ti is about assessing the situation. After you gathered the facts, possible alternatives and determined the amount of energy required to overcome the obstructions on those paths, you are left to decide if they are ultimately worth treading on. Fi users find the answers in themselves while Fe users find them outside. As for the content of those answers, everyone can reach the same conclusions. Only the methods of obtaining them differ.


I have the perfect Fi quote. I actually understand Fi. What a guy like Tolstoy is saying, is that violence is a pathogen. A superstition even. He called it a superstition. As it influences people without them knowing it, or action at a distance.

Tolstoy would let you kill his entire family, and not stop it. There is nothing you can do to make him violent under and circumstances. It is categorical. The world is a machine. Tolstoy and Kant are not. It doesn't affect them. Those gears do not move them. No gear in the world moves them. The world is like a system of pulleys and levers. People are puppets. Tolstoy has no strings. 

Because violence is a pathogen. Like I have no will to kill anybody. You bomb my mother in a drone strike, I will fight you until I die. I am now infected. I went from a healthy state, and was peaceful, to becoming infected. I am now violence. Tolstoy will not be a carrier of violence. It dies with him. He will not spread it. It is a very long term strategy. But is actually the best way to cure the disease. Nobody can see how though. Cause nobody thinks as far ahead as guys like that. 

“I understood, not with my intellect but with my whole being, that no theories of the rationality of existence or of progress could justify such an act; I realized that even if all the people in the world from the day of creation found this to be necessary according to whatever theory, I knew that it was not necessary and that it was wrong. Therefore, my judgments must be based-on what is right and necessary and not on what people say and do; I must judge not according to progress but according to my own heart.” 

-Tolstoy


----------



## Jeremy8419

"Tolstoy would let you kill his entire family, and not stop it. There is nothing you can do to make him violent under and circumstances. It is categorical. The world is a machine. Tolstoy and Kant are not. It doesn't affect them. Those gears do not move them. No gear in the world moves them. The world is like a system of pulleys and levers. People are puppets. Tolstoy has no strings."

That would be Fe. Fi is concerned with accepting energy from the objective world. Fe is concerned with directing energy into the objective world. He is not taking in from the external world. He is simply putting into it. This is why Fi is morality, and why low Fi (empathy) is a precursor to the dark triad


----------



## Helios

Distortions said:


> To be fair, it's true @_FearAndTrembling_'s Ti doesn't seem that good either.


I could very much see this guy as acting out Se HA, honestly. Moreso than Ni HA anyway.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Helios said:


> I could very much see this guy as acting out Se HA, honestly. Moreso than Ni HA anyway.


It's difficult to see Se online. People often use their monitors as a bulletproof vest. Some people who seem Se-based online, may be very non-Se irl, where a monitor and keyboard don't protect them.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Some people who seem Se-based online, may be very non-Se irl, where a monitor and keyboard don't protect them.


Yeah, because Se revolves entirely around being a tough guy and pushing people around.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I just realized my mother, my brother and I are all NJ. That is why my sister is so weird. Well, she isn't weird,. She is normal. That is why she is weird in our family. My brother and I look nothing like my father. You can see it if you look close enough. I was actually just thinking there was cheating going on, but my sister is just more like my father. lol. I resented her for it too. This explains a lot.

Entropic said before I had a Napoleon complex. I do somewhat. My father is an ESTP who smacked me, hard. And turned me against Se and Ti. Or Ne-Ti. Who knows. There is obviously a genetic element to it though. I think I may be ENTJ, I have thought about that for a while.


----------



## Helios

FearAndTrembling said:


> I just realized my mother, my brother and I are all NJ. That is why my sister is so weird. Well, she isn't weird,. She is normal. That is why she is weird in our family. My brother and I look nothing like my father. You can see it if you look close enough. I was actually just thinking there was cheating going on, but my sister is just more like my father. lol. I resented her for it too. This explains a lot.
> 
> Entropic said before I had a Napoleon complex. I do somewhat. My father is an ESTP who smacked me, hard. And turned me against Se and Ti. Or Ne-Ti. Who knows. There is obviously a genetic element to it though. I think I may be ENTJ, I have thought about that for a while.



Cheers to having STP fathers smacking the shit out of you, I can relate. But, in all seriousness if you're not sure about your type and you want to delve into that more you can make a thread or just PM me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think I may be ENTJ, I have thought about that for a while.


Te-dom, really?

But yeah, why not make a typing thread


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Helios said:


> Cheers to having STP fathers smacking the shit out of you, I can relate. But, in all seriousness if you're not sure about your type and you want to delve into that more you can make a thread or just PM me.


I honestly think about this shit too much already. lol. I am actually trying to get away. I am going over what type I am nearly every second of the day. In my mind. Everywhere I am. Long before this thread. Everything fits into this now. Thank you though. I may take you up on that, but not now.

One other point I have thought about previously. Is that intuition is somehow related to the hygiene hypothesis. Or perhaps even being around smoking. I have always had bad allergies and asthma. They are much better now, and totally controlled. My brother is the same. My sister doesn't have that problem.

My father also was at Woodstock. He has smoked weed every day of his life. He is actually a cool guy. Doesn't drink really. I am sure there were drugs involved in at least one of their systems when I was conceived.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Yeah, because Se revolves entirely around being a tough guy and pushing people around.


Revolves around ability at power, yes. Invulnerability allows the ignoring of such.


----------



## The_Wanderer

You'd really benefit from some input from other people, @FearAndTrembling. Doing one of the "What's my type?" questionnaires would be well worth the time.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Entropic said before I had a Napoleon complex. I do somewhat. My father is an ESTP who smacked me, hard. And turned me against Se and Ti. Or Ne-Ti. Who knows.


Well, one rules out all but delta, and one rules out all but gamma.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Revolves around ability at power, yes. Invulnerability allows the ignoring of such.


Se users are actually calm in the environment. They are not aggressive. That is a myth. It is the people with lower Se who hate it and want to control it. They despise everything it stands for, and think they are better than any part of it.

I actually think George RR Martin is an NJ now too. So is Arya Stark.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Se users are actually calm in the environment. They are not aggressive. That is a myth. It is the people with lower Se who hate it and want to control it. They despise everything it stands for, and think they are better than any part of it.
> 
> I actually think George RR Martin is an NJ now too. So is Arya Stark.


Which is why those who don't have it, often turn into bulldogs behind the safety of the Internet.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I am actually thinking that being born out of wedlock is the cause of this. That is why there are so many black intuitives. There are a ton of them.

Jews too. Because we are momma's boys. Roger Waters.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am actually thinking that being born out of wedlock is the cause of this. That is why there are so many black intuitives. There are a ton of them.
> 
> Jews too. Because we are momma's boys. Roger Waters.


Cause of what? All types are a necessity.
In my work sphere, I am the only one during disagreements that explains the reason why person X does Y to person Z, and close the psychological distance between them. In work groups where EII is not present, the unseen roots between people are few, and it is very noticeable. Each type has a necessity to society.

I believe there is likely a genetic predisposition towards personality types for individuals, but that environmental factors affect the end personality type, similar to many states in psychology and sociology.

My father, who was my hero as a child and LSI, probably single-handedly created my personality type. Violence was not allowed in any shape or fashion. When issues would arise, he would tell me to "do the right thing," but wouldn't tell me what it was, and instead would simply repeat the quotes. Wanting to please him, and not having any explicit rules or laws, I was left to focus on the implicit rules and laws, on morality, on Fi. With primary acceptable focus on Fi, and primary negative focus on Se, EII was decided.

On the negative side, my ex was a narcissist and an LII. Very psychologically abusive to her two daughters, and removed all outside influences. One is SLI, and the other is IEE, her Supervisee and Beneficiary. These are the two personality types that one-sidedly favor the LII. So by abuse, and their isolation, their types became what most favor her narcissism.


----------



## Kyusaku

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have the perfect Fi quote. I actually understand Fi. What a guy like Tolstoy is saying, is that violence is a pathogen. A superstition even. He called it a superstition. As it influences people without them knowing it, or action at a distance.
> 
> Tolstoy would let you kill his entire family, and not stop it. There is nothing you can do to make him violent under and circumstances. It is categorical. The world is a machine. Tolstoy and Kant are not. It doesn't affect them. Those gears do not move them. No gear in the world moves them. The world is like a system of pulleys and levers. People are puppets. Tolstoy has no strings.
> 
> Because violence is a pathogen. Like I have no will to kill anybody. You bomb my mother in a drone strike, I will fight you until I die. I am now infected. I went from a healthy state, and was peaceful, to becoming infected. I am now violence. Tolstoy will not be a carrier of violence. It dies with him. He will not spread it. It is a very long term strategy. But is actually the best way to cure the disease. Nobody can see how though. Cause nobody thinks as far ahead as guys like that.
> 
> “I understood, not with my intellect but with my whole being, that no theories of the rationality of existence or of progress could justify such an act; I realized that even if all the people in the world from the day of creation found this to be necessary according to whatever theory, I knew that it was not necessary and that it was wrong. Therefore, my judgments must be based-on what is right and necessary and not on what people say and do; I must judge not according to progress but according to my own heart.”
> 
> -Tolstoy


The flaw is that you attribute general human behaviors to certain cognitive functions. Fe users might behave the exact same way. Fe might look the environment for answers on where to stand on an issue, but Ti is there to bend the rules and find your own way out of a situation.

The whole argument that happened on here is a good example of Te users ganging up on you for not following the proper rules. A behavior Fe gets blamed for the most, on this very same thread, by the very same people mocking you now. Didn't they say being Fi they care only about themselves and their dear ones ? What's the point of giving you any attention then ? It's a common mistake people make, to believe certain types or functions have a monopoly over certain human features. Te and Fe look a lot alike to me, at least the consequences of being on the "wrong side" are pretty much the same. It's a mob mentality pushed by extroverted judgment.


----------



## Schizoid

Entropic said:


> I think an EII typing is common for Gandhi, though? I don't have any real opinion because I haven't looked into the man myself, and there's a lot of mythology surrounding him that you need to disperse as well before you can really get a grasp of his type, but one can argue that his non-violent approach is exemplary of Se PoLR or at least Se-devaluing, for example.
> 
> Abe Lincon, on the other hand, that is also sometimes typed as an EII, is someone I have a harder time seeing as such.


 
I saw several places typing Gandhi as IEI.

Famous INFJs - CelebrityTypes.com

This website actually listed him as an INFJ in mbti. I'm not sure if I agree with that typing though. He uses too much Fi to be an IEI.
He is probably an Fi leading, he seemed to see the world through the lens of his own personal ethics. 

Mahatma Gandhi Quotes - BrainyQuote

The above website is a compilation of his quotes, his philosophy and his way of viewing this world does seem more like EII than IEI. 

Some of his Fi quotes are: 


* *







> Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.





> I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others.





> In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.





> The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.





> You must be the change you wish to see in the world.





> Nobody can hurt me without my permission.





> A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.





> Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.





> You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.








And he is definitely an Se PoLR, he has a strong objection toward things like violence, and he believes that violence doesn't help resolve conflicts between people, instead, people should always use the gentle approach, such as kindness, to resolve conflicts in this world. 


* *






> I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.





> Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.





> Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.





> Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.





> An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.








I think an Se valuing type would be drawn toward the darker side of life. They wouldn't be afraid of things like danger, revenge, war, violence. Lady Gaga for example is an ESI (lol I can't believe I used to type her as EII in the past). She has mentioned before that she is obsessed with horror films and also death and sex. I think IEI would also be drawn toward these kind of stuff, perhaps not to the same extent as ESI, but they will still somehow be drawn to it. Se devaluing types tend to cringe whenever they are around those kind of stuff. Gandhi does seem to belong to the latter category more than the former category.


And this quote below also seems pretty Delta to me: 



> I do not want to foresee the future. I am concerned with taking care of the present. God has given me no control over the moment following.



And I'm not too sure about Abe Lincoln, I haven't done much research about him, but I don't think he is an EII either. 
My impression of him is ILI.


----------



## The_Wanderer

For what it's worth I always saw Gandhi as an EII. I think his entire background in pacifism to a certain extent reflects that.


----------



## Entropic

Schizoid said:


> I saw several places typing Gandhi as IEI.
> 
> Famous INFJs - CelebrityTypes.com
> 
> This website actually listed him as an INFJ in mbti.


I wouldn't use CelebrityTypes as the argument though, since they don't deal with socionics. I was explicitly thinking of socionics sources here, not MBTI or related. While I agree with your position that INFJ=IEI, for the sake of clarity I wouldn't use MBTI opinions as evidence to support it. With that said, I agree with them often being off with a lot of their typings of people in general. 


> I'm not sure if I agree with that typing though. He uses too much Fi to be an IEI.
> He is probably an Fi leading, he seemed to see the world through the lens of his own personal ethics.
> 
> Mahatma Gandhi Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> The above website is a compilation of his quotes, his philosophy and his way of viewing this world does seem more like EII than IEI.
> 
> Some of his Fi quotes are:
> 
> And he is definitely an Se PoLR, he has a strong objection toward things like violence, and he believes that violence doesn't help resolve conflicts between people, instead, people should always use the gentle approach, such as kindness, to resolve conflicts in this world.


Of course Fi types with Se too, can favor non-violence or in the very least, dislike conflict. I'm more of a pacifist myself because I do not believe in that force, at least on a large scale, necessarily solves deep political conflicts. Forceful take-overs often cause more problems, and the use of force doesn't really look into the complexity of political situations and tries to work on problems structurally which is what we really need to do in order to see actual changes in the world, but it's more his non-violent approach that I think is more telling, the way he tried to mobilize people based on non-violence. I'd separate his belief in pacifism away from the way he mobilized people based on a non-violent approach. Any person can be a pacifist, but to mobilize and organize people in non-violent protest I think fits better with Se PoLR.



> I think an Se valuing type would be drawn toward the darker side of life. They wouldn't be afraid of things like danger, revenge, war, violence. Lady Gaga for example is an ESI (lol I can't believe I used to type her as EII in the past). She has mentioned before that she is obsessed with horror films and also death and sex. I think IEI would also be drawn toward these kind of stuff, perhaps not to the same extent as ESI, but they will still somehow be drawn to it. Se devaluing types tend to cringe whenever they are around those kind of stuff. Gandhi does seem to belong to the latter category more than the former category.


I think this is a bit too much of a blanket statement to really be true for people and is probably in many ways related to other things than just Ne vs Se. With that said yes, I'm inclined to agree on Gaga being an ESI. Her entire artstyle exemplifies Se-Ni. 



> And this quote below also seems pretty Delta to me:
> 
> And I'm not too sure about Abe Lincoln, I haven't done much research about him, but I don't think he is an EII either.
> My impression of him is ILI.


I'm just going off a hunch based on the man's life. EII doesn't seem right, though he's often typed as such.

With that said, this quote here, could be interpreted as Ni, or in the very least, Pi:



> Non-violence* is not a garment to be put on and off at will*. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Kyusaku said:


> The whole argument that happened on here is a good example of Te users ganging up on you for not following the proper rules. A behavior Fe gets blamed for the most, on this very same thread, by the very same people mocking you now. Didn't they say being Fi they care only about themselves and their dear ones ? What's the point of giving you any attention then ? It's a common mistake people make, to believe certain types or functions have a monopoly over certain human features. Te and Fe look a lot alike to me, at least the consequences of being on the "wrong side" are pretty much the same. It's a mob mentality pushed by extroverted judgment.


Don't mind me lol

"The whole argument that happened on here is a good example of Te users ganging up on you for not following the proper rules."
Ti on socionics is "rules."

"A behavior Fe gets blamed for the most, on this very same thread, by the very same people mocking you now."
I can endlessly stand up for a greater good. Their take on the system doesn't work, which is why the personalities present are so polarized. There is no place for all types here, as people are jacking the goods from multiple types and leaving the remainder with their excrement.

"Didn't they say being Fi they care only about themselves and their dear ones ?"
Yeah, they say this. Kinda ironic, since Ti is responsible for inclination to form tribes. Maybe they don't realize that they all "thank" everyone in their clique when they go against someone not in it? Call it "well he's right and Jeremy is wrong" or whatever, it's still Ti'ing into a clique. Fi is the opposition of such.

Fe/Ti in socionics are responsible for mobs. Fi/Te is the opposition. Fe/Ti is our group exerting emotions from within itself. Fi/Te is individuals taking in the relationships between groups and people.


----------



## aendern

The_Wanderer said:


> Man, this topic is so far from it's original purpose; it has been derailed to the point of utter meaninglessness and is now the playground of manic stupidity.
> 
> There's no real point telling people to be civil when there's no coherent topic to be found, the thread should just be closed .


noooooo don't say that XD I like this thread. I think progress is being made here (at least it is for me--I'm learning a lot). It's not happening in a very polite or friendly way, but it's happening and I like it.

And, anyway, if you somehow tie your posts back to delta/gamma values, then you can still be on-topic


----------



## Jeremy8419

@emberfly
Well it is largely people typed as gammas and a couple typed as deltas, so it's on topic, as you say.

Here, you can use this. My father and I think very similarly, yet on complete opposite matters. The LSI/EII shares same cognition style, and I can recognize such with my father and myself.

https://forum.socionix.com/topic/3855-gulenko-cognitive-styles/


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_emberfly_
> Well it is largely people typed as gammas and a couple typed as deltas, so it's on topic, as you say./


For what it's worth, I suspect there are more Betas in this thread than Deltas.



emberfly said:


> noooooo don't say that XD I like this thread. I think progress is being made here (at least it is for me--I'm learning a lot).


Yeah, there's definitely stuff to be learned here. At the same time, my scroll button has been worked so hard that it's making weird noises...


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> For what it's worth, I suspect there are more Betas in this thread than Deltas.


I only see alphas, occasional betas, a gamma, and a couple deltas.

If we only went by what we each think, for determining on-topic or off-topic, no threads would exist here, since most, even on same side of fence, don't actually match up on thoughts.

You said you had thought about your type. That link I posted is interesting, and explains more of the root process of cognition of the 4 supervision rings. May give you a clearer picture for yourself.


----------



## The_Wanderer

I see you as a Beta, @Jeremy8419.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I see you as a Beta, @Jeremy8419.


Ahhhhhhh! Type bullyyyyyy!!!!

Well, of course you do, if you think J=p for introverts.

Your J/P opposite is the inverse of your own model on the line of conscious and unconscious thought. How one types themselves in MBTI is the determinant of your translation to Socionics. If you type via functions on your conscious thought, then the correct translation would be via functions. If you type via official test, your correct translation would be by lettering. Otherwise you would have your conscious and unconscious modus operandi flipped.

Technically, people will have both and be aware of both, but it would be the knowledge of such that would allow a person to determine which is conscious and which is unconscious.

I would guess ENTP for you, as you seem supervisory to me.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ahhhhhhh! Type bullyyyyyy!!!!














Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, of course you do, if you think J=p for introverts.


It has nothing to do with "translating" MBTI. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> Your J/P opposite is the inverse of your own model on the line of conscious and unconscious thought. How one types themselves in MBTI is the determinant of your translation to Socionics. If you type via functions on your conscious thought, then the correct translation would be via functions. If you type via official test, your correct translation would be by lettering. Otherwise you would have your conscious and unconscious modus operandi flipped.
> 
> Technically, people will have both and be aware of both, but it would be the knowledge of such that would allow a person to determine which is conscious and which is unconscious.


Blahblahblahblahblah. :laughing:



Jeremy8419 said:


> I would guess ENTP for you, as you seem supervisory to me.


Fair enough. Input from others supporting your motion would be good. I've always considered myself a Ti-devaluer.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> It has nothing to do with "translating" MBTI.
> 
> 
> Blahblahblahblahblah. :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Input from others supporting your motion would be good. I've always considered myself a Ti-devaluer.


Regardless of if YOU do or not, your primary influence is the company you keep.

Not sure what you're laughing at. That's what happens with tests vs via functions in MBTI. And the conscious/unconscious blocks of quasi's are factually inversed.

It's mainly because you seem to have no effect on me, and I am typed as an EII. Could also be a relation of benefit.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> Like some of these more detailed explanations of Fe from Socionics or how quadras act. I already figured that out independently of Socionics. These guys have to read it. They have to be lead there, like a wooden staircase. They have to be delivered. They understand it logically. But I can figure these things out just by reading Psychological Types and throwing stuff around in my head.


You seem to be pushing _very hard_ how special, prophetic and "intuitive" you are. When people aren't acting they don't _need_ to push their base function, that's it! It's just there.



FearAndTrembling said:


> And one more, because ideas keep coming. The perfect example is Richard Dawkins vs Neil Degrasse Tyson or Sagan. Dawkins is essentially a conspiracy theorist in that he totally has a disproportionate view of how important it is to science or in the larger picture. Neil Degrasse Tyson was asked this question. And he laughed. He knows creationism is no threat to American superiority in science. He sees the big picture. He put it well, he said that even republicans know that science is the heart of America and the driver of economics. That shit is always covered. He sees a much bigger picture than Dawkins. Just think about it, the US and England are probably the two biggest scientific superpowers in the world, and have the highest belief in creationism in the Western world too. There is little relation to the two. Tyson knows this. He has vision.


Link me that video. I'd like to see it. You seem to be implying Neil deGrasse Tyson a Beta type, whereas everything I've seen of him seems :e:, :i: and :s:. He's Alpha quadra. 

Dawkins, I'd say is an ILE. His reactions to Fi-strong criticisms are hilarious, even if the questions themselves are usually silly.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> You seem to be pushing _very hard_ how special, prophetic and "intuitive" you are. When people aren't acting they don't _need_ to push their base function, that's it! It's just there.
> 
> 
> 
> Link me that video. I'd like to see it. You seem to be implying Neil deGrasse Tyson a Beta type, whereas everything I've seen of him seems :e:, :i: and :s:. He's Alpha quadra.
> 
> Dawkins, I'd say is an ILE. His reactions to Fi-strong criticisms are hilarious, even if the questions themselves are usually silly.


I am not. It is just obvious how people need thinking and not intuition to understand these things. You don't know my motives. I just know it when I see it. Ti is a concrete function. It is not abstract. People think because they think a lot inside their head, it is Ni. The guy is actually a bully and controlling, he is just good at hiding it.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> Another point on Fe vs Fi. Entropic made a good point on this before. He showed a video of a guy observing something, and the guy is like, "This is wrong. This is not how it should be." No explanation really. Fi does not justify itself really. It is its own justification. It is who they are. The feeling is so deep. But it has no breadth. Eminem vs Tupac. And a bunch of other guys. Why is Eminem really mad? He doesn't have to justify his feelings to you. Tupac will. He will expand his feeling judgements, and explain exactly why he is pissed off. Same with Malcolm X. They weigh their feeling judgements in front of you. Jung said that extroversion is "first and foremost, a bridge to your neighbor." So Tupac uses that bridge. So does Bin Laden. With Fi, it is more implicit. People should just naturally understand why it is wrong, without explanation. They don't feel the need to justify themselves. I am broadening out my feeling judgements as we speak.
> 
> A prominent Fi defender on here, probably the biggest one, described Fi, as the "prototype" Pure authentic feeling. Exactly. That nails it. You are prototypes to Fe. You are the clay we work with.


This has to be the only time I am ever in somewhat agreement with how you conceptualize the two; not that Fi cannot explain why it's angry, but it will explain itself in relation to the self. I am angry because such and such it's just wrong. I'm pretty sure you are thinking of Jamie Oliver btw, but I can't find the video now. 

In comparison that, Fe doesn't really do that. Fe anger has to be shared somehow, I am angry like a lion, lion's anger fuels me. Their anger can't exist in a social bubble like Fi anger can. Or Fi feels in general. Feelings have to be assigned to the environment.

I'm also mildly surprised you think Eminem is an ISFP since everyone else seem certain he's an ISTP. I don't see it in him though.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> The guy is actually a bully and controlling, he is just good at hiding it.


Who is "the guy", do you mean Dawkins or deGrasse Tyson? Going to assume you mean't the latter due to the video link.

As somebody who has a tendency to be a bully, let me just say that in this video he's _not doing that_. He's clearly angry about something, probably because he's talking about politics and that's often what irritates academics (which he clearly states). In this video he's just talking about facts, I see some irritation, but where's the bullying?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> This has to be the only time I am ever in somewhat agreement with how you conceptualize the two; not that Fi cannot explain why it's angry, but it will explain itself in relation to the self. I am angry because such and such. Fe doesn't really do that. Fe anger has to be shared somehow. Their anger can't exist in a social bubble like Fi anger can. Or Fi feels in general.
> 
> I'm also mildly surprised you think Eminem is an ISFP since everyone else seem certain he's an ISTP. I don't see it in him though.


I mean Degrasse Tyson. HE IS CLEARLY CONTROLLING PEOPLE WITH TE or FE. Dawkins has no clue how to do that. ENTP are not as interested in that either. Tyson is a field general. Like Sagan.

Them vs each other:


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> I mean Degrasse Tyson. HE IS CLEARLY CONTROLLING PEOPLE WITH TE or FE.


"Controlling" could be used, I guess, but you're being misguiding when you use it in the same sentence as "bully"_. _There's no bullying there, it's basically "this is how you could get your point across better. It's less controlling and more supporting; building him up, not breaking him down.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Who is "the guy", do you mean Dawkins or deGrasse Tyson? Going to assume you mean't the latter due to the video link.
> 
> As somebody who has a tendency to be a bully, let me just say that in this video he's _not doing that_. He's clearly angry about something, probably because he's talking about politics and that's often what irritates academics (which he clearly states). In this video he's just talking about facts, I see some irritation, but where's the bullying?


He called him out. He seems him as a rival and bad in the larger game. The numbers he gave in the video are not even correct. lol. It is a show. He is greasing both palms. Why would Fi be so inauthentic? He is like a housemother defending his territory. He is a director. Keirsey gave ENFJ the title of "teacher". I think that is a good one. I think Richard Feynman is similar.

You alphas are too trusting. Guys like Sagan and Tyson are hustlers.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Keirsey is irrelevant to Socionics; his titles are especially misleading and are part of the reason there are so many "Masterminds" floating around typology forums. I've made that point before, in this thread, so I'm not going to explain it again. Talking about Fi is also irrelevant, I said Tyson was an Alpha, not a Delta or a Gamma. 

I'm trying quite hard to not sound condescending here. But if you _really_ think those were power games and bullying, you _really_ need to go live life a bit, run into a few actually forceful people.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> I mean Degrasse Tyson. HE IS CLEARLY CONTROLLING PEOPLE WITH TE or FE. Dawkins has no clue how to do that. ENTP are not as interested in that either. Tyson is a field general. Like Sagan.
> 
> Them vs each other:


You quoted wrong person. DeGrasse is an ESFJ imo. 



laurie17 said:


> That was the part that confused me. I've been reading over some sources and can't seem to find where Ni deviates from the other Dynamics in particular. If anyone has any idea why this would be, I'd be grateful to hear ideas.


Ni understands the unfoldment of time, how the world is shaped by time. Time is this force that forces us to change and evolve which is why Ni is dynamic. Think of the rock at the sea and how it over time is worn down by the waves. That's Ni. It understands how the waves keep wearing down the rock and will be able to foresee the rock's future shape. 

You should watch the interview I had with Abraxas. We discussed Ni a lot:






I also have a explicit video on Ni which is a more longwinded version of what Zamyatin wrote on the previous page:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

At least we can admit he is Fe. I am good at seeing through those guys. He does exactly what I say Fe does. It does this hand waving show, but then totally hits you with subjective logic. It is misdirection.


----------



## Entropic

Added:

In the interview linked, I for example at some point tell Abraxas that I do not understand how to answer the question, "Describe yourself or think of yourself of how you have usually been like most of your life". That kind of question is nonsensical to me, because in relation to what? What phase of life are we talking about? My life is dynamic and ever-changing and I as a person, keep evolving. I am evolving right here, right now, each heartbeat being different from the previous one. So if every stage, every moment, is unique and different from the other, then how can I talk about how I have been like "most of the time"? There is no "most of the time". That's a static view of the world. If I need to think about something akin to "most of the time", I need to make a literal snapshot over my life timeline where I create a clearly delineated time frame of start and finish, say, 8 years old to 20 years old, and evaluate how I were like during this period of my life. The problem with these kinds of snapshots is that no matter how big a time frame you operate with, even if I say, would take from the moment I was born until now, the larger the time you consider, the more micro-changes will be present and if the snapshot is too small, then it is too easy to dismiss it and say that this is not representative of who you are typically like over the course of a longer time frame. How are you reasonably going to draw some kind of logical static pattern, then? There's no pattern; only unfoldment. 

I like Gulenko's example of dialectical-algorithmic cognition and how he uses Heraclitus as an example of how dynamics see the world:


> Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy, he was of the opinion that "you cannot enter the same river twice" because whenever you enter again, the flow is already of different water. In more recent times it developed into Hegel's comprehensive theory of a rational system. Since Dialectical cognition, compared to other styles, is the most oriented towards creative intention, it invariably leads to ideas of a creator, an absolute, a cosmic intelligence, etc.


This is exactly what I am talking about and how I see things, including myself. I, too, am not a static person. Even though I have a stable sense of self in the sense that I know I am I, I do not see myself as some kind of static figure stuck in time. Who I am is constantly changing and evolving throughout time, and my perception of myself is highly malleable so I have the ability to shape myself into what I want to become or who I want to be or where I want to go or where I want to be. Edward Norton captures it perfectly in an interview he was in where he says that he's a conduit and how he's capable of metamorphizing himself to represent an idea or a symbol through his acting:


> On a non-selfish level, what you are trying to do is recognizing things that might be of value to other people and say ok, we are going to channel that, I’m going to be a conduit, or I’m going to figure out how to share that with other people.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> You quoted wrong person. DeGrasse is an ESFJ imo.
> 
> 
> 
> Ni understands the unfoldment of time, how the world is shaped by time. Time is this force that forces us to change and evolve which is why Ni is dynamic. Think of the rock at the sea and how it over time is worn down by the waves. That's Ni. It understands how the waves keep wearing down the rock and will be able to foresee the rock's future shape.
> 
> You should watch the interview I had with Abraxas. We discussed Ni a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have a explicit video on Ni which is a more longwinded version of what Zamyatin wrote on the previous page:


That actually makes sense now. I told you I am not a thinker. I see through Degrasse Tyson. I see the background stuff. That is why Si is smarter than people think. It fools nearly everybody. I am thinking what I would be doing in that situation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> Added:
> 
> In the interview linked, I for example at some point tell Abraxas that I do not understand how to answer the question, "Describe yourself or think of yourself of how you have usually been like most of your life". That kind of question is nonsensical to me, because in relation to what? What phase of life are we talking about? My life is dynamic and ever-changing and I as a person, keep evolving. I am evolving right here, right now, each heartbeat being different from the previous one. So if every stage, every moment, is unique and different from the other, then how can I talk about how I have been like "most of the time"? There is no "most of the time". That's a static view of the world. If I need to think about something akin to "most of the time", I need to make a literal snapshot over my life timeline where I create a clearly delineated time frame of start and finish, say, 8 years old to 20 years old, and evaluate how I were like during this period of my life. The problem with these kinds of snapshots is that no matter how big a time frame you operate with, even if I say, would take from the moment I was born until now, the larger the time you consider, the more micro-changes will be present. How are you reasonably going to draw some kind of logical static pattern over such a period? There's no pattern; only unfoldment.


Neither do I. I cannot sell myself from a "dead stop". 

That is Bruce Lee's entire philosophy. That is why I am so hyper about the guy. He knows. You say you don't relate to him, but you are him.

*I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

**There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.

*What is more dynamic than water? How does water define itself? By flowing, or crashing. Lee said it in two words: Be water.



_“When one has reached maturity in the art, one will have a formless form. It is like ice dissolving in water. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style.”_


Abraxas is like my twin in body movements and how we express ourselves too.


----------



## The_Wanderer

FearAndTrembling said:


> At least we can admit he is Fe. I am good at seeing through those guys. *He does exactly what I say Fe does. It does this hand waving show, but then totally hits you with subjective logic. It is misdirection.*


Kind of like Hitler, who you said firstly was ESTJ, then ISFP. Really, you're _horrible_ at seeing through "those guys". A broken clock is still right twice a day, it doesn't make you a good typist.

Practice makes perfect, but don't pat yourself on the back prematurely.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The_Wanderer said:


> Kind of like Hitler, who you said firstly was ESTJ, then ISFP. Really, you're _horrible_ at seeing through "those guys". A broken clock is still right twice a day, it doesn't make you a good typist.
> 
> Practice makes perfect, but don't pat yourself on the back prematurely.


I can admit my faults. I don't think anybody has a particularly high batting average, or that one can be proven objectively. No reason to get upset. Experimentation is how one learns. I think Tyson is a Fe user. If that gets totally knocked out. Then I gotta up my game. That is why I am here.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@The_Wanderer @FearAndTrembling

Accuracy vs precision


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Abraxas made a point about cultural differences that is very relevant. Like Richard Feynman for example. I read that betas have a "rough look" and is gritty or something. That is Feynman. But it is also a million other New Yorkers. Is that a beta quality, or is it a cultural quality? Richard Feynman could not come from anywhere but New York. He is saturated it in. So he is beta? Is Leonard Susskind? Beta basically seems like a New York quality to me.

I think a major problem of Socionics is it is from a place with little cultural diversity. Similar to Jung. They are all dealing with Europeans basically. Small sample.

Of course that is the problem. It is the American vs Russian psychology thing all over again. Skinner was influenced by Pavlov but spun it around and made it American. Saying that everything Pavlov focuses on is actually irrelevant and tells us nothing. It isn't an accident that these two think the way they do. This is like combining two incompatible philosophies.


----------



## The Malefic Trout

How about beta versus alpha values? Any takers? What is most obvious?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Alphas aren't psychopathic. :tongue:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Continuing the point about culture. One of my favorite subjects is the philosophy of psychology. Like we were talking about inferior Se being will to power. That isn't inferior Se. Those are German archetypes. Will to power would never happen in America. It is a German archetype. But there are many Germans in America. Of that ancestry. With Anglo values on top, and a billion others. Freud was right when said America was a mistake. Nobody in America would ever come up with that libido shit either. Neil Gaiman actually nailed this concept in American Gods. The confusion of archetypes of a land that believes in nothing but freedom. Which as Janis Joplin said, is a word for nothing left to lose.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Alphas aren't psychopathic. :tongue:


Lies!

Actually, I would consider ILE and SLE most prone to psychopathy, and LII most prone to narcissism.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> LII most prone to narcissism.


This is all nonsense really as I have yet to see solid correlation between Sociotype and personality disorders. But... I take your LII and raise you EIE!


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> This is all nonsense really as I have yet to see solid correlation between Sociotype and personality disorders. But... I take your LII and raise you EIE!


Well, I thought about that one too LOL.

The mindset would be that implicit connections to others is Fi, unvalued and weak Fi causes a lack of ability in the realm of not clearly defined boundaries, and poorly raised people with a lack of Fi only develop it via experience or normative means. The PoLR ones with no Fi in their raising have near non-existent implicit rules and their adherence to explicit rules is only situational dimensionality. The LII has higher dimensionality for both, with that of explicit rules being 4d; however, this also grants them the ability to dance around explicit rules, while simultaneously having a normative Fi (subject again to upbringing) and a PoLR that seems oblivious to the force that can be exerted on them in reprimand by anyone who decides to do so.

LIIs that I know with a Fi upbringing, often coupled by more internalized explicit Ti rules, are usually enjoyable, as they are in my socionics temperament. However, the ones I know with poor Fi upbringing, are also all the narcissists I know (and no, i don't know dozens, simply a handful).


----------



## Typhon

Jeremy8419 said:


> Lies!
> 
> Actually, I would consider ILE and SLE most prone to psychopathy, and LII most prone to narcissism.


Interesting, on Socionics dot com someone posted a comment about how a study has shown that sociopathy is associated with Se. Not sure what study he was referring to, though, it would have been interesting to have the references.




To answer the OP, I would say the difference between gamma and delta are:

* Gammas are more worrying about the future, deltas are more "we'll see when it happens".
* Gammas believe more in facing the consequences of one's actions, deltas are more forgiving. 
* Gammas have more pronounced moods, deltas are always in a good mood.

Thats all I could think of, but those are some fundamental differences in attitudes there.


----------



## Psithurism

Typhon said:


> deltas are always in a good mood.


What thought process brought you to this statement?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Typhon said:


> Interesting, on Socionics dot com someone posted a comment about how a study has shown that sociopathy is associated with Se. Not sure what study he was referring to, though, it would have been interesting to have the references.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the OP, I would say the difference between gamma and delta are:
> 
> * Gammas are more worrying about the future, deltas are more "we'll see when it happens".
> * Gammas believe more in facing the consequences of one's actions, deltas are more forgiving.
> * Gammas have more pronounced moods, deltas are always in a good mood.
> 
> Thats all I could think of, but those are some fundamental differences in attitudes there.


Fi is the adherence to implicit connections between people and issues and such. This without dimensionality or experience in such would be rather inept at such; including the derived morality and empathy. Having the volitional force and exercising territory or control where one does not realize that he is in violation of implicit connects would cause him to exercise force without realization. The 3D Ti would only mildly offset such by explicit rules. With higher priority Se, Ti rules being unseen if suffering isolation, and Fi rules being virtually non-existent, the person would come to conclusion of his rights to exercise force over others without empathy and without societal structure.


----------



## Typhon

Verglas said:


> What thought process brought you to this statement?


What I have written, I have written.


* *


----------



## Typhon

Jeremy8419 said:


> Fi is the adherence to implicit connections between people and issues and such. This without dimensionality or experience in such would be rather inept at such; including the derived morality and empathy. Having the volitional force and exercising territory or control where one does not realize that he is in violation of implicit connects would cause him to exercise force without realization. The 3D Ti would only mildly offset such by explicit rules. With higher priority Se, Ti rules being unseen if suffering isolation, and Fi rules being virtually non-existent, the person would come to conclusion of his rights to exercise force over others without empathy and without societal structure.


Well, maybe not without societal structure, more like societial structure would be seen by the person as serving them, but they, at the top of the latter, need not obey its rules. The classic dictator.

Edit: Note that I don't think what Im' talking about is entirely type related, and you probably shouldn't think that abuse of power is entirely type related, nor that your own type is immune to it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Typhon said:


> Well, maybe not without societal structure, more like societial structure would be seen by the person as serving them, but they, at the top of the latter, need not obey its rules. The classic dictator.
> 
> Edit: Note that I don't think what Im' talking about is entirely type related, and you probably shouldn't think that abuse of power is entirely type related, nor that your own type is immune to it.


My mindset follows with dimensionality. ILE and SLE both only have what Fi (empathy/morality) they directly gain via experience. Their Ti (rules/society structure) are in servitude to their power and control abilities. Though other types can potentially reach sociopathy, such as LII, it may be possible that clinical sociopaths are reserved to these two types. Sociopathic tendencies not meeting full clinical sociopathy are likely present in multiple types.


----------



## Typhon

Jeremy8419 said:


> My mindset follows with dimensionality. ILE and SLE both only have what Fi (empathy/morality) they directly gain via experience. Their Ti (rules/society structure) are in servitude to their power and control abilities. Though other types can potentially reach sociopathy, such as LII, it may be possible that clinical sociopaths are reserved to these two types. Sociopathic tendencies not meeting full clinical sociopathy are likely present in multiple types.


Do you have evidence or seen studies that confirm this? 

Saying that only ILEs and SLEs are prone to be clinical sociopaths is a pretty bold statement! I have to echo what @_The_Wanderer_ said about not having seen evidence that correlates type and personality disorders, which leaves me skeptical.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Typhon said:


> Do you have evidence or seen studies that confirm this?
> 
> Saying that only ILEs and SLEs are prone to be clinical sociopaths is a pretty bold statement! I have to echo what @_The_Wanderer_ said about not having seen evidence that correlates type and personality disorders, which leaves me skeptical.


That confirms what? You're supposed to be skeptical. It's a theory. I'm not stating it as a fact. If there was were evidence and studies supporting it, it would already be known and be relative law within psychology.

Lack of empathy (Fi in soconics) and the lack of desire for such is the root of sociopathy. For such to be present, one would need to be weak in such, and lacking in value of such to develop it to be stronger. Clinical sociopathy/psychopathy is pretty specific, and people are prone to using the terms for anything that involves severe conflict. For instance, on INFJ forums the othe day, someone called Hitler a psychopath, but he doesn't meet the criteria for such. Definitely an a**, but not a psychopath. What is the saying? Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissists? It may be possible that not all ExTPs are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are ExTPs.


----------



## Typhon

Jeremy8419 said:


> That confirms what? You're supposed to be skeptical. It's a theory. I'm not stating it as a fact. If there was were evidence and studies supporting it, it would already be known and be relative law within psychology.


"Law within psychology" - physics has laws, I don't know of psychology having laws and such. Its not hard science. Which brings me to another point. Even if there were studies upporting it, it wouldn't necessarily be accepted as fact, as often studies contradict themselves.



> Lack of empathy (Fi in soconics)and the lack of desire for such is the root of sociopathy. For such to be present, one would need to be weak in such, and lacking in value of such to develop it to be stronger. Clinical sociopathy/psychopathy is pretty specific, and people are prone to using the terms for anything that involves severe conflict. For instance, on INFJ forums the othe day, someone called Hitler a psychopath, but he doesn't meet the criteria for such. Definitely an a**, but not a psychopath. What is the saying? Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissists? It may be possible that not all ExTPs are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are ExTPs.


I'm not sure what causes sociopathy, but if not all ExTps are sociopaths, there must be another factor determining that the alleged small percent become sociopaths. And if there is another factor, why is it unsafe to assume that this factor only applies to ExTps. Yes, you've explained it, I know; its the lack of Fi. But then you say not all Fi POLRS are sociopaths either, which doesn't make sense, because if the only factor causing sociopathy is lack of Fi, then all ExTps are indeed sociopaths. But they aeren't, which leads me to believe there is another factor at work here, a factor which by the way can impact other types, too.


----------



## The_Wanderer

I'm not so sure that empathy is entirely the realm of :r:, either, I've always thought of it as simply a characteristic seen in both extraverted and introverted ethics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Typhon said:


> "Law within psychology" - physics has laws, I don't know of psychology having laws and such. Its not hard science. Which brings me to another point. Even if there were studies upporting it, it wouldn't necessarily be accepted as fact, as often studies contradict themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what causes sociopathy, but if not all ExTps are sociopaths, there must be another factor determining that the alleged small percent become sociopaths. And if there is another factor, why is it unsafe to assume that this factor only applies to ExTps. Yes, you've explained it, I know; its the lack of Fi. But then you say not all Fi POLRS are sociopaths either, which doesn't make sense, because if the only factor causing sociopathy is lack of Fi, then all ExTps are indeed sociopaths. But they aeren't, which leads me to believe there is another factor at work here, a factor which by the way can impact other types, too.


That's why I said "relative law" instead of "law," when a better term escaped me.

All types have Experiential Dimensionality, allowing them to gain information on each information element. Every individual has a different level of processing ability which is divided up by priorities into individual information element processing ability. An ExTO who is not exposed to Fi sufficiently in childhood will not have been given enough opportunities to gain Experiential Dimensionality information on Fi. With whatever Fi information is presented, the individual must still process it to build information, and this is determined by his ability to process information as a whole. This would mean that the percentages that fall to sociopathy within the ExTPs would be those who are 1) possessing poor moral upbringing, and 2) stupid. Or, they could be bright with simply extremely low moral upbringing. In any case, viewing it as such does bring to mind many general references present in society.

INFJs that are sometimes questioned and claimed sociopaths appear to be more on the schizophrenia scale than on the pyschopathy scale.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I'm not so sure that empathy is entirely the realm of :r:, either, I've always thought of it as simply a characteristic seen in both extraverted and introverted ethics.


Strong Fi and Strong Fe are the same thing, with the difference being on value.

Empathy is listed as Fi, and Sympathy is listed as Fe. The underlying subjective connection would be the empathy of Fi. The overt objective display of common emotions (crying when a friend is sad and crying) would be the sympathy of Fe.


----------



## Vermillion

The_Wanderer said:


> I'm not so sure that empathy is entirely the realm of :r:, either, I've always thought of it as simply a characteristic seen in both extraverted and introverted ethics.


I've always thought it's a characteristic seen in decent human beings


----------



## Jeremy8419

Wikipedia.org said:


> Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.


 @Night Huntress all people have it to an extent, as all people have Fi as an element, but some have near no experience with it nor the ability to use it in context of the norms of society.


----------



## Strife

Jeremy8419 said:


> That confirms what? You're supposed to be skeptical. It's a theory. I'm not stating it as a fact. If there was were evidence and studies supporting it, it would already be known and be relative law within psychology.
> 
> Lack of empathy (Fi in soconics) and the lack of desire for such is the root of sociopathy. For such to be present, one would need to be weak in such, and lacking in value of such to develop it to be stronger. Clinical sociopathy/psychopathy is pretty specific, and people are prone to using the terms for anything that involves severe conflict. For instance, on INFJ forums the othe day, someone called Hitler a psychopath, but he doesn't meet the criteria for such. Definitely an a**, but not a psychopath. What is the saying? Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissists? It may be possible that not all ExTPs are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are ExTPs.


This doesn't make sense on a theoretical or practical level, you have to remember that the information elements are perceptions - this means that just because a certain type (in this case, logicals) may not be perceiving a certain aspect of reality (Fi/Fe, the 'emotional realm') as strongly as other types doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing the aspects that those IE's are perceiving. In other words, just because you have trouble deciphering emotions in others and yourself doesn't mean you aren't experiencing them, and says nothing about the degree to which you can experience them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Strife said:


> This doesn't make sense on a theoretical or practical level, you have to remember that the information elements are perceptions - this means that just because a certain type (in this case, logicals) may not be perceiving a certain aspect of reality (Fi/Fe, the 'emotional realm') as strongly as other types doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing the aspects that those IE's are perceiving. In other words, just because you have trouble deciphering emotions in others and yourself doesn't mean you aren't experiencing them, and says nothing about the degree to which you can experience them.


I write more on this after the post you quoted. It follows with dimensionality. The breadth of information you obtain from elements from experiences is dependent upon dimensionality and is a determinant of "experience."


----------



## The_Wanderer

Night Huntress said:


> I've always thought it's a characteristic seen in decent human beings


Mhm. I could have easily separated "capability for" and "strong tendency towards" to be more clear. Some humans are more empathetic than others, but every human has empathy on some level, after all, it's the lack of that empathy which defines the psychopath. 

Up to you on whether you consider them humans.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> And so do you, but whereas I am humble enough to accept I can be wrong, you are not.


Ah, so you finally accept that your understanding of socionics is wrong. Glad to hear it.



> I also don't think typing people in socionics is nearly as much a rocket science as it is diagnosing people psychologically. Also, you admitted that you think Gacy is schizophrenic, not a sociopath, on no more than written accounts about him. Not that one couldn't suffer from both, but that has to be so exceedingly rare it's one in a million.
> 
> Without even observing him in person, how do you even know he actually has or show the traits consistent with schizophrenia? That's fallacious.


You're very bad at separating opinions from fact. As to why I would think he is such... Fi-Ne. You seem caught in some fallacy that disregards the other rational elements.



> I only type people I have direct ability to observe in some way, and luckily socionics offer several useful tools of how to distinguish between types. There's a certain level of interpretation, sure, but *mistyping someone else in socionics isn't going to ruin their lives or have any serious impact on their lived experiences in any way*, but misdiagnosing people in psychology can lead to wrong treatment among other things. Your stance is that of arrogance and you are so arrogant you even refuse to understand the fact.


And that, my friend, is why I didn't say "these people have a hole in their brains" when I first came to forums, and why I will continue to stay. It's called responsibility. You mistype someone here, you negatively affect their ability to make educated decisions. If they, for instance, meet someone, become involved with them, realize it isn't working, but you have typed them as an ESI and they use your information to type their partner as an LIE, and they use this as a reason to give it another week, and in that week they miss out on someone who would have been the best match they would have met in their life, and they end up being alone for their life... Then you have made a serious error. If your reasons for such existing are selfish ones, then you have committed a great crime. If you do this to people on a large scale, then you are damaging others' ability to pursue happiness left and right, day in and day out. "People" are not hobbies.



> Also, I'd argue I'm as knowledgeable that I could be a socionist though I lack the formal title. The title does not disprove my lack of understanding in any way.


Careful, your lack of humility is showing. No, but your lack of knowledge on the knowledge of socionists sure as hell does.



> You can't shove your guilt on me; I am aware of my shortcomings and admit them. That I would commit similar errors does somehow not invalidate your own guilt, especially seeing how you deny its existence.


Guilt isn't shame, for one. Shoving my guilt on you? No. I simply mock your logic in response to your inability to leave me alone.




> She already addressed this several posts earlier lmao.


Yup, and invalidated her argument there, too.



> You have to meet that argument again, which doesn't lead you anywhere so thus you again end up here, because admitting otherwise goes against your own framework. Such tough luck. Maybe you should admit your framework is faulty and needs to be corrected but I know you won't do such a thing because you absolutely refuse to interact with anything outside of it. Everything is justified through this framework of yours. Unfortunately for you, but if you want people to actually take it seriously you need to make it interactive in the real world.


1. Argument? There is no argument. A couple of people on a forum are trying to argue that a definition is wrong. Unfortunately, these are two enthusiasts arguing their opinion versus what the authorities on state.
2. Ah. Again with your humility... Tell me again, how does your opinion on socionics weigh in versus mine?
3. Real world? Where? This is the internet.
4. I use this in the real world daily, and works perfectly fine. Lucky for me, the real world usually involves people that are an active part of society and don't live out their lives online. Wouldn't do much good to try a framework of human interaction on people who are inept at human interaction, now would it?



> That's called dualization or psychological growth. You should try it some time.


I've implemented all the relations irl for study. That's good advice, though. Maybe you can use it, if you ever meet your e-gf irl.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah, so you finally accept that your understanding of socionics is wrong. Glad to hear it.


LOL. You should look at yourself first, really. I've changed and reviewed my understanding of the system over the time I've been studying it, adapting it according to new data. Doesn't look like you do, though. I admit my typings and opinions can be wrong; in contrast, you've never admitted to such a thing. I am also happily challenged when people can prove compelling arguments if they think I'm wrong. Unfortunately you've never succeed with such a thing. It doesn't mean I don't welcome such opinions. On the contrary. Also, again, you make this system to sound something to be far more complicated than it really is. Again, it's not rocket science. 



> You're very bad at separating opinions from fact. As to why I would think he is such... Fi-Ne. You seem caught in some fallacy that disregards the other rational elements.


What? How does that address anything at all? 



> And that, my friend, is why I didn't say "these people have a hole in their brains" when I first came to forums, and why I will continue to stay. It's called responsibility. You mistype someone here, you negatively affect their ability to make educated decisions.


How? A person's ability to make their own decisions will remain the same no matter how you type them. 



> If they, for instance, meet someone, become involved with them, realize it isn't working, but you have typed them as an ESI and they use your information to type their partner as an LIE, and they use this as a reason to give it another week, and in that week they miss out on someone who would have been the best match they would have met in their life, and they end up being alone for their life...


Wow, lol. I would never recommend applying logic in such a way in the first place. I don't think intertype makes or breaks relationships like that, and if they type others and choose to dedicate to relationships like that, that is outside my own scope of control anyway. It is their decision, not mine. I have no responsibility over how they use the information I provide them. That is up to them to choose on their own. 

Similarly, the argument applies equally to you, you know that? You have typed several people in here. Whereas I always recommend people to study the system on their own and arrive at their own conclusions, you do no such a thing. I will offer my opinion and input, but I will also place the decision and what type people think they are in their own hands. That _is_ humility. I am not, compared to you, shoving types down people's throats, and I am not going to twist the stuff they say about themselves to still make it fit my own perception of them and entirely disregard how they themselves think about the subject. It's an extreme level of arrogance from your end. You aren't even receptive to what people tell you and you always brush it aside in favor of your own interpretation, twisting people's words so it fits your own framework of how reality is like. That _is_ being reality-removed, because you aren't communicating with the people, you aren't open and receptive to their words and stories, you aren't being in tune with the world around you. Instead, you treat it like a bubble and you only care to make it fit your own perception of it. 



> Then you have made a serious error. If your reasons for such existing are selfish ones, then you have committed a great crime. If you do this to people on a large scale, then you are damaging others' ability to pursue happiness left and right, day in and day out. "People" are not hobbies.


Look at who you are schooling. Again, your criticism applies more so on yourself than it does, I. 



> Careful, your lack of humility is showing. No, but your lack of knowledge on the knowledge of socionists sure as hell does.


My supposed lack thereof is only applicable because my understanding doesn't correlate to your understanding, even though my understanding now funnily enough, happened to correlate with everyone else's understanding. 



> Guilt isn't shame, for one. Shoving my guilt on you? No. I simply mock your logic in response to your inability to leave me alone.


I'll leave you alone the day you stop make such ridiculous claims about the world, including but not limited to, socionics, misleading people because they think you know your stuff even though you so clearly don't. And yes, you are trying to avoid the guilt of your actions that I am accusing you of, by placing the same responsibility on myself. The difference here is that I am very aware of what I am doing and the consequences of the actions I choose to make, whereas you deny such responsibility and awareness. You trying to point out my errors instead of accepting that you are guilty of all these things just proves the fact. If you were humble you'd accept that you are actually responsible of all these things. 



> Yup, and invalidated her argument there, too.


No, you didn't. 



> 1. Argument? There is no argument. A couple of people on a forum are trying to argue that a definition is wrong. Unfortunately, these are two enthusiasts arguing their opinion versus what the authorities on state.


Your opinion of the matter does not make it so. It's an argument because she is offering a logical refutation of a point that you made, and that refutation is that you are not interpreting the context of the word "empathy" in relationship to Fi properly. You stating that the relationship is equal is simply restating your opinion, but it does not address the main criticism of what she wrote, which is your inability to understand abstract relationships. 



> 2. Ah. Again with your humility... Tell me again, how does your opinion on socionics weigh in versus mine?


I would say it weighs pretty heavily. Isn't that why you keep accusing me of being seen as an authority on the subject around here? 



> 3. Real world? Where? This is the internet.


Last time I checked, the internet and all internet interaction, were a part of the real world. 



> 4. I use this in the real world daily, and works perfectly fine. Lucky for me, the real world usually involves people that are an active part of society and don't live out their lives online. Wouldn't do much good to try a framework of human interaction on people who are inept at human interaction, now would it?


Yet you can't meet people half the way and actually properly disseminate what they write to you, always ignoring their claims, brushing their claims about themselves over, twisting their words and asserting your own opinions about who they are to matter more than who they themselves think they are. Like in this very post now, to me. You aren't engaging with me, you aren't being receptive to what I write. You are living in your own bubble very removed from everyone else. I'm extremely good at human interaction, since I happened to do it for a living, and evidently my life experiences of dealing with people on a daily basis makes it possible for me to be more receptive to people and their needs than you. Just because you think you are receptive does not make you so. 



> I've implemented all the relations irl for study. That's good advice, though. Maybe you can use it, if you ever meet your e-gf irl.


And this statement just proves how truly detached you actually are. Implemented all the relations IRL for study? What? The world consists of more than logical frameworks and the explanations of the logical relationships between objects. You don't need to meet a dual IRL to learn or understand this. All you need to do is to interact with the world and be present in the world. The world is a place of vibrant aliveness; it lives on its own. Engaging the aliveness of the world means letting go of logical frameworks and psychological detachment from it, attempting to observe it from a distance. It means being present, not just in body, but also in the mind. To be there, and to observe things via first hand experience. Not from a secondary position from afar, but to be there and be engaged with everyone else. 

That's really how simple it is.


----------



## Typhon

Jeremy8419 said:


> And that, my friend, is why I didn't say "these people have a hole in their brains" when I first came to forums, and why I will continue to stay. It's called responsibility. You mistype someone here, you negatively affect their ability to make educated decisions. If they, for instance, meet someone, become involved with them, realize it isn't working, but you have typed them as an ESI and they use your information to type their partner as an LIE, and they use this as a reason to give it another week, and in that week they miss out on someone who would have been the best match they would have met in their life, and they end up being alone for their life... Then you have made a serious error. If your reasons for such existing are selfish ones, then you have committed a great crime. If you do this to people on a large scale, then you are damaging others' ability to pursue happiness left and right, day in and day out. "People" are not hobbies.


I certainly hope people have enough commmon sense to let their feelings guide them in relationships and not base themselves on socioncis when making decisions. Typing someone online isn't dangerous, not unless someone uses socionics wrong in the first palce. In that case, typing someone, online or in real life, can be dangerous, not because the person doing the typing is wrong or right, but simply because that is not how you use socionics. If you mistype someone as ESI and their relation with someone who they have typed as LIE isn't working, noone is saying they should pursue that relationships _even if both parties are typed correctly. 

_tldr: I agree with @_Entropic_ that typing people is not dangerous, so long as they armed with common sense, whereas misdiagnosing a psychiatric disorder is extremely dangerous.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Typhon said:


> I certainly hope people have enough commmon sense to let their feelings guide them in relationships and not base themselves on socioncis when making decisions. Typing someone online isn't dangerous, not unless someone uses socionics wrong in the first palce. In that case, typing someone, online or in real life, can be dangerous, not because the person doing the typing is wrong or right, but simply because that is not how you use socionics. If you mistype someone as ESI and their relation with someone who they have typed as LIE isn't working, noone is saying they should pursue that relationships _even if both parties are typed correctly.
> 
> _tldr: I agree with @_Entropic_ that typing people is not dangerous, so long as they armed with common sense, whereas misdiagnosing a psychiatric disorder is extremely dangerous.


What you would use it for is inconsequential to what others would use it for.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> LOL. You should look at yourself first, really. I've changed and reviewed my understanding of the system over the time I've been studying it, adapting it according to new data. Doesn't look like you do, though. I admit my typings and opinions can be wrong; in contrast, you've never admitted to such a thing.


Um, yes, I do.



> I am also happily challenged when people can prove compelling arguments if they think I'm wrong. Unfortunately you've never succeed with such a thing. It doesn't mean I don't welcome such opinions. On the contrary. Also, again, you make this system to sound something to be far more complicated than it really is. Again, it's not rocket science.


Your idea of winning an argument is refusal to concede until the other person gets tired of talking to you, at which point you call yourself winner by default.



> What? How does that address anything at all?


1. You're incapable of telling when someone is openly presenting their opinion and when someone is presenting something as a fact.
2. If I come into forums and type someone via Fi, it, in and of itself, is no more nor no less valid than typing someone via Ti. Whereas you seem incapable of accepting the validity of a method other than your own, I acknowledge and concede to use my super-ego in you and others' favor, which itself is Fi.



> How? A person's ability to make their own decisions will remain the same no matter how you type them.


You do not understand the concept of making an educated decision?



> Wow, lol. I would never recommend applying logic in such a way in the first place. I don't think intertype makes or breaks relationships like that, and if they type others and choose to dedicate to relationships like that, that is outside my own scope of control anyway. It is their decision, not mine. I have no responsibility over how they use the information I provide them. That is up to them to choose on their own.


Wow. You're a terrible person LOL. Complete lack of responsibility or accountability for how your actions affect others.



> Similarly, the argument applies equally to you, you know that? You have typed several people in here.


And, unlike you, I do so with full knowledge of my responsibility in how they use such.



> Whereas I always recommend people to study the system on their own and arrive at their own conclusions, you do no such a thing. I will offer my opinion and input, but I will also place the decision and what type people think they are in their own hands.


Actually, you give them your opinions on socionics that take no baring on the factual resources provided, while declaring your opinions to be fact, then steer them towards other opinions, which match your own. I, on the other hand, repeatedly reference them to resources, and should their statements contradict such, I offer further resources for clarification of terms. Serious dichotomy.



> That _is_ humility. I am not, compared to you, shoving types down people's throats, and I am not going to twist the stuff they say about themselves to still make it fit my own perception of them and entirely disregard how they themselves think about the subject. It's an extreme level of arrogance from your end. You aren't even receptive to what people tell you and you always brush it aside in favor of your own interpretation, twisting people's words so it fits your own framework of how reality is like. That _is_ being reality-removed, because you aren't communicating with the people, you aren't open and receptive to their words and stories, you aren't being in tune with the world around you. Instead, you treat it like a bubble and you only care to make it fit your own perception of it.


Your usage of the word humility is laughable. Not only is "humility" not "guise of humility", which is indicative of pride, but humility also has no weight on correctness. I am sure, that for you, matching people to what makes them feel all happy and special is some remarkable feat, but it is juvenile and selfish on your part. The purpose of typology is to reflect the accurate workings of their cognition and behaviors, that they can make better informed decisions concerning themselves and their ability to connect with others. You've already stated that this has no value to you, and via your interactions have shown your only concern is pleasing people in the moment. Shall we go join a drug addiction forum and have you tell everyone your opinions on how society and the legal system is wrong, have them show emotional exuberance at such, and form a little clique based upon such, so that you may replace your lack of fitting into society for a fitting in with people you are damaging?



> Look at who you are schooling. Again, your criticism applies more so on yourself than it does, I.


Ah, that pride again, whereby you mistake your opinion on socionics for fact and place such above my own.



> My supposed lack thereof is only applicable because my understanding doesn't correlate to your understanding, even though my understanding now funnily enough, happened to correlate with everyone else's understanding.


It's actually pretty funny. Schools, books, lectures, consilience to other educated fields, etc.... F it. My name is entropic, and I have read a handful of internet articles, and that's practically the same thing as all that stuff. Kids on an internet forum agree, so you know I must be right.



> I'll leave you alone the day you stop make such ridiculous claims


Or... You could stop harassing me, because, you know... It's harrasament.



> about the world, including but not limited to, socionics, misleading people because they think you know your stuff even though you so clearly don't.


I'm straightforward with my opinions. Don't know my stuff? What I say actually correlates with socionics. All you do is take what is given via articles, and tell people what it rrrreeaallllyyy means, regardless of it contradictions sources.



> And yes, you are trying to avoid the guilt of your actions that I am accusing you of, by placing the same responsibility on myself.


I actually accept guilt quite well, thank you. You, however, have already freed yourself from any responsibility or accountability on your usage of socionics, and completely removed any option for guilt



> The difference here is that I am very aware of what I am doing


If by "what I am doing" means "I'm taking advantage of people's wants and desires to elicit a common emotional acceptance and create a social group that I lack in real life," then no, you aren't.



> and the consequences of the actions I choose to make, whereas you deny such responsibility and awareness.


Do what? LMAO. Too late dude. You already washed your hands clean of all responsibility. 



> You trying to point out my errors instead of accepting that you are guilty of all these things just proves the fact. If you were humble you'd accept that you are actually responsible of all these things.


You're a very confused person. Responsibility for actions and correctness are not synonyms. You accept your part in things, or you do not. I am fully aware of my part in things, and the consequences for should I be wrong, and the burdens of guilt I may carry, if so. You, however, have no concern. Your primary concern is pleasing people to obtain a place among them.



> No, you didn't.
> 
> Your opinion of the matter does not make it so. It's an argument because she is offering a logical refutation of a point that you made, and that refutation is that you are not interpreting the context of the word "empathy" in relationship to Fi properly. You stating that the relationship is equal is simply restating your opinion, but it does not address the main criticism of what she wrote, which is your inability to understand abstract relationships.


It's not a logical refutation at all. Her only argument is that she doesn't know the definition of empathy, nor does she understand the definition of sympathy, nor does she understand the difference between the two. I understand the relationships perfectly. She, however, keeps referring to sympathy as empathy. The context is correct. Her understanding of empathy is not.



> I would say it weighs pretty heavily. Isn't that why you keep accusing me of being seen as an authority on the subject around here?


I've never claimed you as being an authority. I said you are a false authority, who claims they have knowledge equivalent to a socionist.



> Last time I checked, the internet and all internet interaction, were a part of the real world.


Whatever you have to tell yourself to make you get out of bed in the morning, buddy.



> Yet you can't meet people half the way and actually properly disseminate what they write to you, always ignoring their claims, brushing their claims about themselves over, twisting their words and asserting your own opinions about who they are to matter more than who they themselves think they are. Like in this very post now, to me. You aren't engaging with me, you aren't being receptive to what I write. You are living in your own bubble very removed from everyone else.


Or maybe I use Fi-Ne to see through them.



> I'm extremely good at human interaction, since I happened to do it for a living, and evidently my life experiences of dealing with people on a daily basis makes it possible for me to be more receptive to people and their needs than you. Just because you think you are receptive does not make you so.


You're terrible at human interaction LOL. You actually equate ability to emotionally ability with doing so. You're just telling people what they want to hear, while simultaneously passing off incorrect socionics information to create a social group for yourself.



> And this statement just proves how truly detached you actually are. Implemented all the relations IRL for study? What? The world consists of more than logical frameworks and the explanations of the logical relationships between objects. You don't need to meet a dual IRL to learn or understand this. All you need to do is to interact with the world and be present in the world. The world is a place of vibrant aliveness; it lives on its own. Engaging the aliveness of the world means letting go of logical frameworks and psychological detachment from it, attempting to observe it from a distance. It means being present, not just in body, but also in the mind. To be there, and to observe things via first hand experience. Not from a secondary position from afar, but to be there and be engaged with everyone else.
> 
> That's really how simple it is.


Apparently you don't think either are simple, since you assume that one cannot do both at the same time.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your idea of winning an argument is refusal to concede until the other person gets tired of talking to you, at which point you call yourself winner by default.


Pot. Kettle.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Pot. Kettle.


Teacup.


----------



## To_august

@Jeremy8419

Empathy is as much Fi as it is Fe. Empathy is concerned with sharing/feeling of _emotional _states and... isn't it Fe that is predominantly about emotions? One can argue that these are Fe PoLRs who are more likely to be sociopaths, but I'm not going to take this route, because they are obviously not the same thing. 

Also, sympathy doesn't mean that you have to openly emote or that it is visual manifestation of internal feelings. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding or, feeling of your own feelings in response to (perfectly internal and not necessarily expressed) another person's state because, for example, you've been in a similar position as this other person. It doesn't necessarily involve _literal feeling of someone else's __feelings _as empathy does. Like, feeling grief in response to bad things happening to your friend _is _sympathy, but you are not necessarily feel the very feelings your friend feels. If you did, this would be empathy.

Empathy, as well as sympathy, cover both ethical elements and, I think, it's a mistake to equate them, because terms have different connotative meaning fields, thus making them different things.

Wikisocion shouldn't be taken literally. It's obvious that they were simply trying to distinguish between open expression of ethics and relationship between people, while empathy and sympathy aren't simple as that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> Empathy is as much Fi as it is Fe. Empathy is concerned with sharing/feeling of _emotional _states and... isn't it Fe that is predominantly about emotions? One can argue that these are Fe PoLRs who are more likely to be sociopaths, but I'm not going to take this route, because they are obviously not the same thing.
> 
> Also, sympathy doesn't mean that you have to openly emote or that it is visual manifestation of internal feelings. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding or, feeling of your own feelings in response to (perfectly internal and not necessarily expressed) another person's state because, for example, you've been in a similar position as this other person. It doesn't necessarily involve _literal feeling of someone else's __feelings _as empathy does. Like, feeling grief in response to bad things happening to your friend _is _sympathy, but you are not necessarily feel the very feelings your friend feels. If you did, this would be empathy.
> 
> Empathy, as well as sympathy, cover both ethical elements and, I think, it's a mistake to equate them, because terms have different connotative meaning fields, thus making them different things.
> 
> Wikisocion shouldn't be taken literally. It's obvious that they were simply trying to distinguish between open expression of ethics and relationship between people, while empathy and sympathy aren't simple as that.


*shrug*
Let's go find some junk to translate.


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's kinda one of the main points of Fi.


And now you're going back in circles, because you are simply restating your opinion but restating your opinion is not a valid argument; it is simply restating your opinion. You are not creating any actual logical support of your argument more than saying "I'm right because I'm right", and then state "you're wrong because I'm right". What? Please offer an actual logical refutation that meets my original assertion, which is that you do not showcase the basic understanding of the relationship between Fi and the word empathy. 

Anything else you state or claim is entirely void and circular i.e. you are right because you are right and therefore I am wrong and it does not validate not substantiate your argument. So please follow the instructions below:



> Her only argument is that she doesn't know the definition of empathy, nor does she understand the definition of sympathy, nor does she understand the difference between the two. *I understand the relationships perfectly.* She, however, keeps referring to sympathy as empathy. The context is correct. Her understanding of empathy is not.


a) define empathy and sympathy, and try not to make the definitions up, for once, tyvm
b) you always make unsubstantiated statements like the one I have bolded. Are you capable of demonstrating your understanding of these relationships without:
_1. making a personal attack
2. going in circles and continuing to make statements devoid of explanation
3. copping out_
If you are indeed capable, please demonstrate said understanding
c) explain how your definitions of empathy and sympathy are attributed specifically to Fi and Fe, respectively
d) explain how my understanding of empathy is "wrong", without quoting Wikisocion again
e) wait for me to fetch my popcorn

If you cannot follow these basic criteria, do not ever respond to me again.


----------



## VoodooDolls




----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> And now you're going back in circles, because you are simply restating your opinion but restating your opinion is not a valid argument; it is simply restating your opinion. You are not creating any actual logical support of your argument more than saying "I'm right because I'm right", and then state "you're wrong because I'm right". What? Please offer an actual logical refutation that meets my original assertion, which is that you do not showcase the basic understanding of the relationship between Fi and the word empathy.
> 
> Anything else you state or claim is entirely void and circular i.e. you are right because you are right and therefore I am wrong and it does not validate not substantiate your argument. So please follow the instructions below:
> 
> 
> 
> a) define empathy and sympathy, and try not to make the definitions up, for once, tyvm
> b) you always make unsubstantiated statements like the one I have bolded. Are you capable of demonstrating your understanding of these relationships without:
> _1. making a personal attack
> 2. going in circles and continuing to make statements devoid of explanation
> 3. copping out_
> If you are indeed capable, please demonstrate said understanding
> c) explain how your definitions of empathy and sympathy are attributed specifically to Fi and Fe, respectively
> d) explain how my understanding of empathy is "wrong", without quoting Wikisocion again
> e) wait for me to fetch my popcorn
> 
> If you cannot follow these basic criteria, do not ever respond to me again.


A) Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.
Sympathy: the feeling that you care about and are sorry about someone else's trouble, grief, misfortune, etc. : a feeling of support for something : a state in which different people share the same interests, opinions, goals, etc
Empathy vs Sympathy - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
B) excuse you? You're the one entering my discussions accusing me of not understanding due to not agreeing with your subjective opinion of understanding. Don't want me insulting? Then mind your own business and don't enter my discussions with your initial insults.
C) Information aspects. One is a relationship. One is not. Ti or Fi can cause Fe.
D) You quoted a guy using adjectival versions of empathy to describe empathy and sympathy as both being empathy.
E) "don't insult me" *continues to condescend

"If you cannot follow these basic criteria, do not ever respond to me again."
Again... You're the one entering my conversations. Your clique has an issue with not being able to support their opinions without following people around and criticizing them. I don't go quote/@ you, nor your clique when I disagree. I state what I have to say, and largely ignore y'all's posts. The need to always be a subject is narcissistic, and the pack-mentality does nothing to help your opinions and is very transparent. Mind... Your... Own... Business...


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Fi and empathy are obviously intertwined. It just hurts peoples egos to accept that, because in their mind all types should have equal access to something like empathy.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Night Huntress said:


> I've always thought it's a characteristic seen in decent human beings


This is the core of why you (and probably many others) are unwilling to accept the idea that maybe Fi and empathy are linked. If empathy is linked to Fi that means some types are naturally more empathic than others. In your mind empathy is a prerequisite to being a 'decent human being'. Therefor if some types are naturally more empathic that means some types are naturally more 'decent'. You're unwilling to buy into a system that would imply that some personality types are just overall more 'decent human beings' than other personality types, so instead of disregarding Socionics altogether you just dismiss the notion that Fi and empathy are related.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Sporadic Aura said:


> Fi and empathy are obviously intertwined. It just hurts peoples egos to accept that, because in their mind all types should have equal access to something like empathy.


An inherent flaw with typology is the reasoning for using such. Some want to use it for their own ends, and some want to use it for the ends of others. Some types want to be able to view themselves as infallible, and for other to view them the same. Some types do not care about this, because they are too focused on others to care for their own well-being. MBTI exists and became so popular, because of the rejection of the sins of each type. Socionics does not reject the sins of each type, only people reject their types to deny their sins. Those who recognize their sins are the ones who A) die, or B) keep moving after accepting the burden. Both ways, merry and serious, are ways to survive; however, only one results in a healthy and stable society. The former does not care for the latter, and vice versa, and thus the two's purpose of existence is like water oil, incapable of seeing eye-to-eye, but with education, such as possible with Socionics, the two may, perhaps, at least see a sense of overall necessity for the other.


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> A) Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.
> Sympathy: the feeling that you care about and are sorry about someone else's trouble, grief, misfortune, etc. : a feeling of support for something : a state in which different people share the same interests, opinions, goals, etc


And how is this specifically caused by Fi and Fe? I asked you this question earlier and you responded with:



> C) Information aspects. One is a relationship. One is not. Ti or Fi can cause Fe.


This explanation is embarrassingly devoid of content. What relationship? How does Ti/Fi "cause" Fe? A function cannot "cause" another function to exist, but functions can work in relationships with each other. Explain how all of this answers my original question. Step to it!



> B) excuse you? You're the one entering my discussions accusing me of not understanding due to not agreeing with your subjective opinion of understanding. Don't want me insulting? Then mind your own business and don't enter my discussions with your initial insults.


My understanding doesn't get reduced to a "subjective opinion" because you say it is, seeing as you have been woefully incapable of countering the argument that empathy != Fi. Saying you are "wrong" is also not an insult, unless you are in the habit of taking theoretical discussions personally. *Therefore, stop digressing and provide an actual refutation. *"It's kinda one of the main points of Fi"? Why? Fi constructs and understands relationships, attraction, repulsion etc by means of the distance and strength of the static bond to the self. That does not mean an Fi type will automatically be able to step into someone else's shoes and understand their problems. How is the blue statement indicative of the orange statement? How is it automatically inclusive of the tendency outlined in orange, and how is Fe incapable of displaying this tendency, seeing as Fe also deals with emotions and moods?



> D) You quoted a guy using adjectival versions of empathy to describe empathy and sympathy as both being empathy.


Actually, I have never described or defined sympathy in this discussion. Moreover, empathy is a noun, not an adjective, and the definition I've provided is a dictionary definition that _fortunately_ understands that grammatical nuance. Do not make things up. 



> "If you cannot follow these basic criteria, do not ever respond to me again."
> Again... You're the one entering my conversations. Your clique has an issue with not being able to support their opinions without following people around and criticizing them. I don't go quote/@ you, nor your clique when I disagree. I state what I have to say, and largely ignore y'all's posts. The need to always be a subject is narcissistic, and the pack-mentality does nothing to help your opinions and is very transparent. Mind... Your... Own... Business...


Unfortunately, Jeremy, the informational damage caused to the Socionics forum by means of your posts and the poor explanations you spread is huge. That's why people need to keep entering your conversations -- to present alternative viewpoints that let newcomers notice that there are other, more logical ways of understanding the system, and maintain a degree of useful content in this subforum. Unless you're willing to rethink what you present here, expect disagreement from several corners. 



Sporadic Aura said:


> This is the core of why you (and probably many others) are unwilling to accept the idea that maybe Fi and empathy are linked. If empathy is linked to Fi that means some types are naturally more empathic than others. In your mind empathy is a prerequisite to being a 'decent human being'. Therefor if some types are naturally more empathic that means some types are naturally more 'decent'. You're unwilling to buy into a system that would imply that some personality types are just overall more 'decent human beings' than other personality types, so instead of disregarding Socionics altogether you just dismiss the notion that Fi and empathy are related.


Saying Fi and empathy are obviously related is fallacious. Socionics is a system that describes how you perceive and process information from the environment (A). It is not a system that is intended to make judgments about people's characters and their capability to be "decent human beings" (B). You jumped from (A) to (B) without any substantial reasoning other than your willingness to entertain the possibility of _"a system that would imply that some personality types are just overall more 'decent human beings' than other personality types".

_However, the italicized statement is not Socionics, it is you making a mental association with something wholly unrelated. :exterminate:

For further clarification, look at the blue statement above, or this definition of Fi below:



Aushra Augusta said:


> This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs. [...] This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absence of greed.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Night Huntress said:


> Saying Fi and empathy are obviously related is fallacious. Socionics is a system that describes how you perceive and process information from the environment (A). It is not a system that is intended to make judgments about people's characters and their capability to be "decent human beings" (B). You jumped from (A) to (B) without any substantial reasoning other than your willingness to entertain the possibility of _"a system that would imply that some personality types are just overall more 'decent human beings' than other personality types".
> 
> _However, the italicized statement is not Socionics, it is you making a mental association with something wholly unrelated. :exterminate:
> 
> For further clarification, look at the blue statement above, or this definition of Fi below:


I definitely don't think Socionics should be used to judge someones character. 

I was talking from _your_ perspective, and why you completely reject the notion that Fi and empathy are related. Its because to you someones capacity for empathy determines how decent of a person they are. So if Fi and empathy were related that would mean Socionics can be used to judge someones character, which is at odds to what Socionics is meant to be. So instead of disregarding Socionics as a whole, you just disregard the notion that Fi and empathy are related. 

I believe someone can be a good person in other ways, even if they struggle with empathy, so for me those two ideas are not at odds.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> And how is this specifically caused by Fi and Fe? I asked you this question earlier and you responded with:
> 
> This explanation is embarrassingly devoid of content. What relationship? How does Ti/Fi "cause" Fe? A function cannot "cause" another function to exist, but functions can work in relationships with each other. Explain how all of this answers my original question. Step to it!


Do you understand the difference between introverted elements/aspects and extroverted ones? All relationships, comparisons, and contrasts are done by the introverted ones. Extroverted ones are present within the self and others independent of subject. Since Fe is extroverted, one's Fe, exists independently of anyone else. An introverted element must be used for a connection or relationship to exists between two person's Fe's. Either Fi or Ti are capable of doing this for momentary connections, or Ni or Si for ongoing dynamic connections. Fi is the connection/relationship/comparison/etc. between the internal psychological states of others, and Ti is such for their external states. By using either of these to match the internals or externals of another, they may then use Fe to display similar to the target. When the two are in a relationship, they then experience partial synchronization of emotional displays, either by the psychological connection of internals or the bodily connection of externals. Since Fi is the connection of internals, it allows others to maintain a similar psychological state as others and "walk in their shoes", regardless of if it involves any extroverted effects or not. Since Ti is the connection of externals, it allows others to maintain a similar bodily state as others and "fit in", and necessarily involves extroverted effects. In this sense, both empathy and sympathy involve Fe, if emotional changes occur; however, the difference between empathy and sympathy definitions you just quoted is consistent with what i have stated. No, it doesn't "cause" Fe. The correct wording I should have used, would be "capable of causing Fe displays." Your usage of both empathy and sympathy is focused on emotions, which is not a requirement of empathy.



> My understanding doesn't get reduced to a "subjective opinion" because you say it is, seeing as you have been woefully incapable of countering the argument that empathy != Fi. Saying you are "wrong" is also not an insult, unless you are in the habit of taking theoretical discussions personally. *Therefore, stop digressing and provide an actual refutation. *"It's kinda one of the main points of Fi"? Why? Fi constructs and understands relationships, attraction, repulsion etc by means of the distance and strength of the static bond to the self. That does not mean an Fi type will automatically be able to step into someone else's shoes and understand their problems. How is the blue statement indicative of the orange statement? How is it automatically inclusive of the tendency outlined in orange, and how is Fe incapable of displaying this tendency, seeing as Fe also deals with emotions and moods?


Understanding is always subjective.

Incapable? Again, you insult me.

The only thing shown remotely concerning "incapable" in this discussion is actually "unconcerned," and it is you being unconcerned with reading or researching Socionics to any degree. It is not my job to go around the internet finding information to suit your fancy of not having to put any effort in yourself.

Why do you even quote stuff? If you disagree with a quote, you just find another quote that disagrees with the quote, regardless of system, to try and invalidate the former. Do you think that the quotes hold more weight than the other quotes? You don't attempt to reconcile the quotes at all. You simply try to remove the ones you disagree with from existence. How do you place the blue one's absolute validity over the orange to such a point that the orange one ceases to exist? Do you do the same with people? Invalidate one for the sake of another, without any effort to reconcile the two? The psychic modules for information elements do not have a magic brick wall between the information aspects. The information aspects are the sources of the information elements and functions purpose. You can use the information aspects to better regulate which elements are responsible for processing of which aspects of reality.

Also, you do not decide when someone feels insulted or disrespected.



> <Actually, I have never described or defined sympathy in this discussion. Moreover, empathy is a noun, not an adjective, and the definition I've provided is a dictionary definition that _fortunately_ understands that grammatical nuance. Do not make things up.


Doh. You're right. That was Strife who posted that. Think I placed it as you on multiple occasions. Sorry.

This is what I was speaking of, that he posted, though.
Can a Psychopath Learn to Feel Your Pain? | Greater Good
Author uses sympathy and empathy as both being forms of empathy. Sorry again.



> Unfortunately, Jeremy, the informational damage caused to the Socionics forum by means of your posts and the poor explanations you spread is huge. That's why people need to keep entering your conversations -- to present alternative viewpoints that let newcomers notice that there are other, more logical ways of understanding the system, and maintain a degree of useful content in this subforum. Unless you're willing to rethink what you present here, expect disagreement from several corners.


The only damage I have done is to the Fe and Ti of your clique. There are several on here, including the much picked-on Tellus, who make a sincere effort to further their knowledge on Socionics. This is not present in yourself. I honestly feel nothing from this statement by you, because you don't even read socionics, so why care?

More logical ones? Ones that invalidate large chunks of source material for personal bias? Easy ones that really only involve transplanting MBTI onto Socionics like MBTI just graduated from 5th grade math to 6th grade algebra?

It's simple to me. Extremely simple. Perfectly logical. And more than anything, doesn't require situational rewriting of socionics.

I also disclaimer my opinions or clarify my statements as such if they are misunderstood as not being such. The original discussion concerning sociopaths and PoLR Fi was disclaimered.

"Unless you're willing to rethink what you present here, expect disagreement from several corners."
If I request someone leaves me alone, and they do not, then I will simply report them for harassment. Simple as that.


----------



## Entropic

@Fried Eggz

I remembered an example of Se advice which is when Night Huntress told me that one way to create space to get off on a very packed bus is to simply start pushing yourself first regardless of what others are doing. We were on a very full bus and I got stuck when I tried to get off, because a lot of people tried to get off the same time as I. I also tried to communicate to two tourists that were in the city that they were supposed to get off at this stop because I realized I gave them wrong information and I got caught thinking about that, which made me drag my feet as well. She said that if you just push people will create space for you anyway.


----------

