RadicalDoubt
Alongside Questionable Clarity
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,847
- MBTI Type
- TiSi
- Enneagram
- 9w1
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/so
As a Fe aux who mistyped as both a 2(w1), 2 fixed, and a soc dom at one point or another, the definitions definitely can start to overlap to a disgusting degree (and, realistically, what made me type as a 2 or 2 fixed was really just being a 9 core, which really glunks things up further).
Essentially, the biggest thing about Fe is that, functionally and even behaviorally, it is not required to be nice or friendly in the slightest. Frankly, most of my friends would consider me somewhat disagreeable and prickly (and stereotypically, I really come across more like an IxTx than anything else), but Fe is how I tend to work at a mechanical level. I think one of the better Fe descriptions I've found lately is this:
2, by comparison, is attentive or tends to focus on the needs and desires of others rather than that emotional environment. 2s main desire is avoid being unloved and rejected, hence it is attentive to what is desirable and attractive to others, be it by personality trait or figure. Many 2s have Fe because being able to read those cues is a common strategy for figuring out what appeals to others and many Fe users have 2 because being attentive to emotional cues and expectations in others makes it easy to fall into insecurity when they're received negatively (and also can easily lead to paranoia surrounding these things because they are naturally attuned to them). Nonetheless, a 2 doesn't always come with this attentiveness and can come with a lot of internal sensitivity (where as Fe is more aroused by external emotions). Fi is attentive to internal congruency and there can be a fixation on whether or not one can be loved and congruent with how they perceive themselves at the same time and the creation/idealization of a self who is desirable.
The social instinct is purely an unspecified desire for acceptance and connectedness to something over security and boundaries as well as a hyper-specified form of interaction and merging with interests/desire. Soc as it overlaps with Fe is often aware of expectations for behavior but it is not always related to an unconscious attention to the emotions, but an attention to culture and group response to behavior and such. I've come across plenty of soc dom xxFPs and xxTJs in particular who cannot pick up emotional cues for their life and become convinced they either don't have soc or that it is secondary purely because this distinction is not pushed enough. Soc looks at how people and interests work together and categorizes what fits where, often in reference to the self. There does not have to be any desire to fit into what is attended to (ie. soc might find community in others who are also "counterculture" and detest those who do fit excessively, as a simple example) unlike a soc 2 who might look to be generally desirable (or might not). A focus doesn't require skill as well, so even being focused on expectations does not mean you are talented at understanding what those are (and are perhaps fixated on how you deviate from those or are awful at picking up on them) as well, which also separates Fe and soc to a degree, since enneagram relates to motivation and Fe relates more to skill/behavior.
It's worth noting as well because these are two distinct theories, there is a lot of overlap between these definitions because they're seeking to describe very similar phenomena, the categories they use to do so are built by different standards.
This is long and kind of clunky, but at least that's my understanding of it?
Essentially, the biggest thing about Fe is that, functionally and even behaviorally, it is not required to be nice or friendly in the slightest. Frankly, most of my friends would consider me somewhat disagreeable and prickly (and stereotypically, I really come across more like an IxTx than anything else), but Fe is how I tend to work at a mechanical level. I think one of the better Fe descriptions I've found lately is this:
I don't typically like quoting things (because it's a pain in the ass), but realistically Fe is something that is mechanically attuned to the emotional atmosphere which surrounds them in all positions but the inferior (and even more in the inferior than say one lacking it). It is attentive to standards and expectations of interactions and, generally speaking, what arouses and doesn't arouse another person at an emotional level has a focus on manipulating that or using that attentiveness to get what it needs. Fe looks for external standards and perspectives related to these emotional cues or just generally how a thought would be viewed by other people in order to come to judgements that are "fair" and "non-subjective" without using tangible facts or impersonal data by necessity (though they'll likely call it such). Fe can be rude, Fe can be manipulative, Fe can actively work against these standards for joy, Fe can and often can appear cold and unkind especially without things like Fe, soc, or 9. No, this does not mean being able to read body language, it does not mean correctly reading emotions or expectations rather than pushing what would "make most sense to you ethically," and it certainly doesn't equivalate to empathy as many people would like to think it does.Cognitive Type said:
2, by comparison, is attentive or tends to focus on the needs and desires of others rather than that emotional environment. 2s main desire is avoid being unloved and rejected, hence it is attentive to what is desirable and attractive to others, be it by personality trait or figure. Many 2s have Fe because being able to read those cues is a common strategy for figuring out what appeals to others and many Fe users have 2 because being attentive to emotional cues and expectations in others makes it easy to fall into insecurity when they're received negatively (and also can easily lead to paranoia surrounding these things because they are naturally attuned to them). Nonetheless, a 2 doesn't always come with this attentiveness and can come with a lot of internal sensitivity (where as Fe is more aroused by external emotions). Fi is attentive to internal congruency and there can be a fixation on whether or not one can be loved and congruent with how they perceive themselves at the same time and the creation/idealization of a self who is desirable.
The social instinct is purely an unspecified desire for acceptance and connectedness to something over security and boundaries as well as a hyper-specified form of interaction and merging with interests/desire. Soc as it overlaps with Fe is often aware of expectations for behavior but it is not always related to an unconscious attention to the emotions, but an attention to culture and group response to behavior and such. I've come across plenty of soc dom xxFPs and xxTJs in particular who cannot pick up emotional cues for their life and become convinced they either don't have soc or that it is secondary purely because this distinction is not pushed enough. Soc looks at how people and interests work together and categorizes what fits where, often in reference to the self. There does not have to be any desire to fit into what is attended to (ie. soc might find community in others who are also "counterculture" and detest those who do fit excessively, as a simple example) unlike a soc 2 who might look to be generally desirable (or might not). A focus doesn't require skill as well, so even being focused on expectations does not mean you are talented at understanding what those are (and are perhaps fixated on how you deviate from those or are awful at picking up on them) as well, which also separates Fe and soc to a degree, since enneagram relates to motivation and Fe relates more to skill/behavior.
It's worth noting as well because these are two distinct theories, there is a lot of overlap between these definitions because they're seeking to describe very similar phenomena, the categories they use to do so are built by different standards.
This is long and kind of clunky, but at least that's my understanding of it?
