| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1204178964 | Thursday, 28-Feb-2008 |
|
|
| Can you give me an in depth definition of Fe please? Thanks. -- nachos |
|
| A1 One could start off by saying it's manipulative. I'm not looking to attack it. It is. -- Anonymous |
| A2 (in P:) cognitive function tending toward F characterization, orientated in a manner where external networking sense is a need to the individual in achieving as this tendency 'flouts the personality' -- @sirac |
| A3 A2, deciphering your text haha.. that sounds more like F in a 'p' where F is a part of an overall extroverted ego. -- Anonymous |
| A4 A1: Explain. -- Anonymous |
| A5 @sirac: and in laymens terms that means?? -- Anonymous |
| A6 one cannot say that 'fairy-****' is equated to F. any definitions of love...or anything on that scale of even manipulation..[calling it that, i.e.manipulation or anything with emotional characterization/scale]. to me that is dumb, we all manipulate. it is simply cognitive function as we characterize in T's or N's... but just tending toward an area that we call 'inter-human'. and that is the broader background behind that definition....nothing laymens..but just something to make u understand the tone. besides, an Fe would really have to struggle to manipulate... even maintaining control in that area to suppress T or N's that is ridicules. I noticed i can't watch typical american movies any more...they all have these F S language script... no wonder everyone is dying and they seem hopeless in it's face as men which tend to want create a 'biblical/moral' perogative to man. stick with the European trance and japaness anime scene.. at least that is the only language scripts were full non-rotten T and N scripts are made... where much is equated to the plan and action of man to overcome evil. Just thought i'd enjoy writing something epic -- @sirac |
| A7 A6: You'll excuse me for questioning whether or not you've succeeded... -- Anonymous |
| A8 Re A1 and A4, one of the aspects of Fe is that it looks to create moods and emotional responses in others. For instance an Fe dominant could say things to people, not because they mean it or they are personally upset, but to create moods of shock, alarm and upset in others, or to make them happy, sad, guilty etc, just because they can, and will achieve their goal through emotional means -- Anonymous |
| A9 @A8: Movies are manipulative. They make me feel. Scary movies make me scared. Joyful movies make me smile. Movies are manipulative. Directors are manipulative. Writers are manipulative. -- Anonymous |
| A10 @sirac have you seen The Illusionist? The 2006 version? -- Anonymous |
| A11 A9 thats good. But that doesn't impact on real life feelings, decisions and actions. You entirely miss the point, or so it would seem. -- Anonymous |
| A12 A11, If you would care to expand on your thoughts perhaps we could dive into this topic and gain some usefull knowlege about Fe. -- A9 |
| A13 @A11: I was being sarcastic. I don't think those things are manipulative at all. Just like Fe isn't manipulative. -- Anonymous |
| A14 i based that phrase: 'dislike toward S F scripts in movies' to the movie '30days of darkness/night'(pretty recent)..: it has these vampires and gratutious violence toward woman and children...basically toward innocents. Constantly in the movie, this american hotshot actor, with a name i care not to know.. controled his 'survivor group'..keeping them on the warpath (logical) but controling the emotional output of the other characters with a bravado of...'i am the most violent and most able, so lets believe everything will turn out okay'. Where-as, in contrast...despite the cheese present..the Rambo 4 movie despite what one can say about the characters as being SFNTs, was a more honest to the bone assessment of what violence is, what it's cost is, and even 'why' it should be interdicted by such violent tactics. That i liked for sentimental appeal. i have nothing against Fs, but i dislike the slight tinges of propoganda which is directed out toward the public... which says.. 'in this is this power'...Fs are manipulative, N's are clever...i plainly dislike it...which is why i tend to indulge in the epic and put a bit of propoganda out there myself. Sorry that i did not see the Illusionist. Noticed an S post, where a guy said... 'i have this S, so whats the use of it'..and despite how i can answer that and say 'never-mind there is no value to N anyway',,,well it just made me sad to know that N-propoganda can have such negative repocussions too. Propagandas only use is to create space to live. which should not be a struggle if everyone just naturally balances out and gets there own space and substances with which to operate -- @sirac |
| A15 Fe concerns itsself with emotionial atmosphere. It knows well how to create good happy expressive moods in others. The dark side is that it also knows well how to create guilt upset and the like. It is skilled at this. Are people looking to know about Fe or are they just looking to be sarcastic. Tell me then what Fe is. All I'm seeing so far is what your saying it's not. Well what do you think it is then. -- The person who knows what Fe is |
| A16 I have no clue what Fe is. However, I do know that creating a mood and manipulation are two different things. Creating an emotional atmosphere is different than emotionally manipulating. Reading other people's emotions and creating moods = Fe? Isn't there more to it? -- Anonymous |
| A17 There's a subtle bias that seems to be pervading Western socionics at the moment with regards to Fe. Fe is often described as "manipulating" emotions. A more neutral, and indeed, more correct word would be "influencing." Likewise it is very often referred to as "effusive" which has connotations of excessiveness or gushiness; "demonstrative," I feel, would be an adequate substitute. Anyway, I guess I'll take take this opportunity to address what seems to be the most popular misconception about Fe today. One often encounters the erroneous notion that Fe is about *intensity* of emotional cues, that Fe dominants are all loud, wild, rancorous, and obstreperous. In reality, Fe concerns itself not with emotional intensity, but with the *frequency* of emotional cues. For instance, when a person has a grin of jollity upon their face and a far-off, distant melancholy stare the next, perhaps followed by a pointed glare, that's Fe. An excellent description of Fe can be found here: http://www.socionics.us/theory/be.shtml. One particularly interesting point in that article is that Fe doesn't necessarily involve the generation of new emotional states, but is also often used to reveal existing emotional states. In other words, it doesn't *necessarily* entail any sort of "manipulation" or "influence" whatsoever. -- Anonymous |
| A18 Reading through this more thoroughly, there's one more point I'd like to make (I'm A17): Fe does not concern itself with an "emotional atmosphere." The very phrase scarcely has any meaning to anyone outside the realm of socionics, which, to me at least, makes its relationship to something as basic as a cognitive function, to a fundamental unit of our psyche seem extremely dubious. Do a google search and you'll see what I'm talking about. (On the other hand, search for other "Fe words" such as "expression" or "passion" and so much more relevant, salient data will jump out at you.) -- Anonymous |
|
|
| A19 A17 you need to see people in action and move away from your text books. -- Anonymous |
| A20 A17, thanks! -- Nachos |
| A21 Hey, A19, I don't bury my head in textbooks all day long. I've had an active interest in socionics for 6 years and feel qualified to share my insights and observations, that's all. -- lol |
| A22 @sirac, your stereotyping and generalizations disgust me. You irritate me not because you are n or t but because you are you! -- Anonymous |
| A23 A21 to sum up what you write, its pointless. How can there be a subtle bias towards Fe in the west. Fe is the same west east up down in out shake it all about. You do not understand, at all. -- Anonymous |
| A24 thank-u A22. knowledge is yours, and thus power. A17...cool post___what A19 might want to address is perhaps 'when' and in which F combined types Intensity is 'Fluent'. although both sides seem right to me as they have to do with Intelligence on as i would say F-observable ways. (it feels crap sounding knowledgable when i have been undone as by A22, but i guess a 'disgusting person' rather than a 'disgusting type' had to start a counter flow to common formalities) -- @sirac |
| A25 A23, Fe is Fe, but it shouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to see how through misunderstandings, legitimate grievances blown out of proportion, and just basic ignorance, a depiction of Fe could be rather divergent from what Fe actually is. There is a vast difference between canonical, theoretically correct definitions in socionics, and the manner in which concepts are described in less formal formats, such as a forum, or this Q&A section, for instance. Perhaps one might suggest that I abandon "textbooks" and "observe people in action," though that does seem a rather odd criticism to levy when one considers that functional descriptions do indeed stem from the real-life observations of numerous individuals who have devoted their careers to socionics and have made it their life's work. But suppose we forget about the experience and expertise of professional socionists. How then can we distinguish that, in this time and place, there tends to be a bias against Fe? We can do that by understanding what functions are, by understanding that they're units of cognition ("elements of information metabolism" of "IM elements" being the technical terms for this) and that socionics types, at their most fundamental level, aren't meant to describe personality traits but *patterns of thinking.* Personality is influenced by functions. The opposite is not true. Because functions are unblemished and untainted by personality traits, we can assume that any description in socionics, be it of functions, quadras, types, etc. that is not presented in a relatively neutral manner contains a bias. (And I write all of this in the hope that the recognition and awareness of possible biases, whether they be positive or negative in nature, will further our collective understanding of socionics.) -- lolcopter |
| A26 A25, I do believe I have a better understanding of socionics than you. I typed up a reply but changed my mind, instead, I think it would be useful to encourage you to think. So here it is..do you think your description describes Fe in all types? No? Then how can it be a description of Fe? -- The person who knows what Fe is (&A19) |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(
