| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1204178964 | Thursday, 28-Feb-2008 |
|
|
| Can you give me an in depth definition of Fe please? Thanks. -- nachos |
|
| A27 I think that what I said about Fe *is* indeed an accurate description of Fe in all types. Simply put, it is important to understand that each type perceives Fe with varying levels of depth and awareness and that, consequently, each type uses Fe with differing degrees of intensiveness and frequency. When it *is* used, however, it's the exact same psychic module. A careful examination of Model A should facilitate an understanding of this. A rather comprehensive presentation of the model can be found at wikisocion.org. -- lollerblades... |
| A28 A27 Fe fed from Ni is different from Ni feeding Fe, or an Fe PoLR in ISTp and INTp is different. FeSi is different from dual seeking Fe. What you seem to not realise is that the functions are in us all, and how they manifest in the psyche, and RL is different, I say again, give up the text books and stop reciting off a website thats wrong -- Anonymous |
| A29 How precisely do I not understand that the manifestations of functions are different? Why, in my very last post I explained how they *are* different based on a little concept known as "psychic differentiation." But, as I've said, those manifestations still proceed from the same psychic module. In other words, the *manifestation* of ENTj Fe is different from ESFj Fe, etc. not because there are many little varieties of Fe but because all types have different psychic structures. To not accept the veracity of this is to invalidate the importance of Model A. Anyway, it's completely baffling you'd suggest that I don't understand that idea of different functional manifestations; that was, after all, my justification for stating that if my description of Fe is correct in a general sense (and I believe it is), then it should be equally applicable to all types. I'd *highly* recommend that wikisocion article. No, that's not due to my ardent devotion to the "textbooks"; as I've mentioned, I've been invested in this for some time and have reached the point where I'm focused more so on articulating my own understanding of socionics concepts. It's so that if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or if you understand it but are disinclined to give credence to it, then, guess what? Feel free not to listen to me and feel free to instead take your cues from one of the most reliable, popular socionics resources on the web. -- el oh el |
| A30 A29 I don't think a function should be described on the basis of a 'stand-alone' because I think (Fe) can only be described in general terms this way. However if one is looking to describe it, it should be described as to how it relates to it's dual; this is the basis and the real fundamental of socionics. If it's not done this way it pretty much stands as more or less an interpretation of it. -- Anonymous |
| A31 A29, I suppose I tend to disagree because Fe as a function still only has one corresponding "aspect of reality." It's much more productive and useful, I think, to conceive of one variety of Fe (or any function) and then to understand how that function will operate based on the mechanisms of Model A rather than to conceive of distinct sub-varieties. And this the generally accepted practice, I believe. When one uses the term "Alpha Fe" for instance, it's not to describe an intra-Fe category, but to describe one of those "manifestations" I wrote about. Anyway, as to your second point, I *completely* agree with the notion of describing a function in terms of its dual. This is something that I don't think has received enough emphasis in our attempts to capture and articulate the essence of a function. There are other quality control criteria that one can apply too if one wishes to be especially rigorous in their analysis! Fe can also be described in how it relates to Fi or to Te. The best functional descriptions are the ones that take these "quality controls" into account. -- loler |
| A32 OK, first off, the one-upping "I'm smarter than you" comments or variations thereof are annoying. I'm a possible Fe-creative, so I'll just list my experience with emotion. I can hide some emotions, but others plainly show on my face. I am not an effervescent person by any means; however, my Fe-leading ESE mother often picks on me just to get a reaction because she knows she'll get it. It's automatic; I don't even think about it. I had a friend who would also play on that for fun. I have a lot of poetry from high school that I injected emotion into, though this may be Fi. I'm not sure. I am quite good at sarcasm, though it is admittedly a learned trait (got tired of having nothing to shoot back at my sarcastic mother). When angry, I do try to induce guilt by my words. If angry enough, I've also been known to go off on people, name-calling and all. I have actually gotten to where I make myself sound more interested in what people are saying; I do so by pitching my voice. I do this because I don't want them to disapprove of my disinterest in what they're saying. Maybe some of that fits. If you disagree, that is fine. Say so, but do not insult me. -- Kanerou |
|
|
| A33 I have to very close relationships, one with an ENFJ and one with an ESFJ so I think I am very qualified to comment. I do think there is a slight bias as A17 pointed out, but I do think there is some truth in that bias. Fe when unhealthy will manipulate, I have seen it in more than just the ENFJ and ESFJ that I know. They don't see it as such at the time, and it isn't seen as a big deal since the other person, being fooled, "feels" ok about it. Also I find, that Fe is very extreme, these can be some of the nicest people at times, and at other times some of the meanest, because it takes their rational minds so long to snap their emotions out of a negative tangent because of their dominant F focus. In the end, I see Fe as wanting to be liked, and in trying to create a positive atmosphere around them at their best. At moderate, they strive for attention and to "prove" their egos, and at worst they manipulate people to feel a "false" sense of power (I say false because as soon as the manipulated realizes the shows over). I think you will also find Fes experimenting in many relationships and many times jumping into romantic relationships before thinking it fully through as more Fi types might. -- Anonymous |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
