[Fe] How is Fe a feeling function for the Fe user?

[Evo]

Thanks for the great response!

I find that I am often unaware of my own Fi values ... until they're violated, and then I experience this kind of "gut" feeling that something's just wrong here. It's an uncomfortable (emotionally disturbing) feeling. Only once I experience that "gut" feeling (and that's Fi screaming for Fe to emote something back because it has been "offended," so to speak) does Fe become aware that some Fi value has been violated. Fe, then, may, or may not, recognize the specific Fi value that has been violated, but, when it does identify the actual Fi value that has been violated, we call that "learning" or, at the very least, learning something about oneself. The question for the ego, then, is whether or not to emote in response. Only because Fe is in my mental loop (one's first four Model A function positions) can I control it consciously. So, the question becomes, "Do I emote in response or not?" Fe then has to "check in" with Ni (to determine whether or not it should emote). One's ego functions, as I understand this dynamic in Socionics theory, always work together. So, Ne, down in my id is always, continuously, and explosively imagining (irrationally) various possible futures. Implosive Ni, on the other hand, seeks to limit/control/select/judge all the possible futures imagined by Ne. Ne wonders, if I emote, if I follow Fi's strong desire and demand to emote in response to the violation of a given Fi value, what might happen? It immediately generates possible futures based upon all the data stored in the subconscious of the unique individual. Ni must then limit/judge Ne's explosive list of possible futures. Ni goes "no, that's not likely," "no, that's not likely," "well, that might happen," or "no, that is extremely unlikely to happen," until, finally, Ni goes, "Eureka! That's the most likely outcome if you emote in the way that Fi wants." Sometimes, when Ni can't find an Ne-generated future that would be beneficial to the person in question, Fi says, "No, you idiot! Don't emote in response. Nothing good can come from that." When my ego works properly in this way, we might call the interplay I have described "self-control," i.e. refusing to respond to a strong urge coming out of the id. Often, when I emote, it represents a failure of Ni to do its job properly. Instead of controlling myself, I emote recklessly, reactively, and in a way that hurts others. I hate that, but ENFj is noted for "thinking out loud," and I do that a lot (too much). I often emote without adequately considering the consequences. Ni needs time to do its work, and if it's not given enough time, it may fail. Sometimes Ni fails no matter how long I ponder a given choice to either act or not act. Other times, Ni says, "Bingo! You should emote, and you should do so in this way, for that would be the best way to achieve the future you want." Then, I emote (use Fe as an OUTPUT function), but it's always a choice for Fe to extravert as an OUTPUT function. My ego must choose whether or not to respond to that powerful Fi pressure to emote in response to some stimulus that has violated a cherished Fi value.

When we say, "Wisdom is the better part of valor," we are basically saying, "Sometimes it's better not to act." In my case, that's my Ni, informed by Ne, keeping a lid on Fe and "controlling" it, despite the immense pressure of my subconscious and powerful Fi. Perhaps the human brain's greatest faculty is its ability not to respond to stimulus. Most other life forms can't control their subconscious urges or desires. They naturally and always respond to stimuli. Humans don't have to. They can control themselves (sometimes).

As an F dom, it's much easier for me to describe this dynamic, as I see it, in specifically F terms, but I'll give it a shot from the point of view of T. Assuming we're talking about someone who's an ENTj, that person's ego would be TeNi. I basically assume that Ti values, buried in the powerful id of ENTj, sound something like this: "That's a problem that needs solving." T is about problem/solution thinking, so Ti has deeply held values about what is and what is not a problem, and it has deeply held values about how to solve problems and how not to solve problems. So, when neutral, unbiased, and explosive Te acts as the sponge it is and absorbs some data (in its INPUT mode), and when that stimulus violates a deeply-held and subconscious Ti value of the individual in question, Ti may have a "gut" reaction that the ENTj can "feel" as a violation of logic (and this is an uncomfortable feeling). Ti then starts screaming at Te to evoke (project itself into the world as an OUTPUT function so as to change the world). Before acting, however, Te "checks in" with Ni (ego functions always work together simultaneously) to see whether or not Te should or should not concede to Ti's demand to evoke, and then the the same Ne/Ni interplay will take place between Ne and Ni that I described above until the person makes a "choice" to either evoke or not evoke (act or not act) in response to the stimulus that violated the ENTj's deeply-held Ti value. What's "logical" to each of us is unique because introverted functions are always subjective--looking inward at all the data stored in the subconscious of a unique individual with a unique history. As an F dom, I can't really give you a good list of Ti values, but I presume that Ti values are judgments about what is logical and what is not combined with judgments about the best way to do something or the best way to solve a given problem. I suppose I can give an example or two from my own expereince. When my Te evokes, it sometimes expresses a Ti judgment like this: "No, you're doing that the wrong way. Let me do it." Sometimes it works like this: "No, that doesn't make any sense at all (i.e. that's not logical)." Sometimes my Ti values manifest like this: "That's not a problem that needs fixing." Sometimes Te evokes a deeply-held Ti value of mine like this: "Excellent. Good idea! Let's do that because doing so will solve the problem at hand." On other occasions, Te says, "There's nothing for it." That means that Ni has done its job, seen no possible future that would be superior to the status quo if Te were to evoke (change the world) in response to the violation of one of my Ti values, and in that case Te may think (cognition) but neither say nor evoke something like this: "There's no good solution, here. It would be better not to act or not to evoke." Of course, Te always has the option to either react (evoke/act) or not to react at all.

I admit that the words "emote" and "evoke" as I have used them above are less-than-ideal, but the point is that all mental-loop functions, in their OUTPUT mode, have a choice about whether or not (and how) to react to a given stimulus. Again, we often call not reacting "self-control," and this is a relatively unique (we think), but immensely powerful, feature of human cognition.

No clue whether or not my words above answered your question, but I was, in effect, Te-ing "out loud" in response to the stimulus that you gave me. T is not my strong suit, admittedly, so I fear that my response may be less-than-satisfying. Still, I gave it a shot.

I think you relayed your point very well, no worries.

A couple things...

1)I've noticed what you've said about Fe, getting hit with an Fi gut reaction and going with it. And I suppose what I'm wondering is...how do you know that it's Fi that's is that gut reaction you're referring to? And not Ti?

2) I'm not opposed to the theory you've presented, it's just the first time hearing it, and I'm still searching for closure on it. You don't happen to know where I could find more literature on it, do you?

3) I think you did very well, putting it into "T" terms. I suppose what constitutes something as a problem, and how to go about solving that problem is subjective. However it seems like common sense from my perspective. So I've never thought about it like that before. I guess I just thought perhaps that side of things was Fi....

4)Yes, I agree, we can apply self control over our responses. I'm not sure that it always seems like we have choice. But we always do.

I am going to assume that the word you were looking for was "attributed" (as opposed to contributed), but, either way, at least four functions work together to arrive at every decision a human makes. For me, when I am working out of my ego, it's Fe (absorbing neutrally), Fi (evaluating subjectively), Ne (imagining futures both subjectively and irrationally), and Ni (judging, limiting, and narrowing possible futures so as to determine the most likely outcome of a given course of action). All four work together simultaneously, as I understand it. Ultimately, though, to answer what I perceive to be the "actual" question you are asking, Model A theory posits that all four mental loop functions can be articulated through language and/or acted upon. All of them can be OUTPUT functions. ESI, for example, is famous for "speaking with actions not words," and ESI's powerful Fi will often act (change the world) without words, but Fi may also be articulated, as in, "Stupid driver! You're gonna kill somebody!," or "Hillary Clinton would make a bad President." Those are articulated Fi values. The same should apply to all the mental loop functions (positions 1, 2, 3, and 4--both the rational and irrational ones) according to what I understand of Model A theory (though it should be noted that Model A has been challenged by a number of Socionics theorists who have advanced what they believe to be superior models).

Geeks of the world unite! I think a good number of us are here, in fact.

Yes, my apologies, I meant attributed. I guess that's the product of staying up until 3:30am and posting, haha!

I find this subject very interesting because I've been curious as to what the actual sequential "firing order" of the functions are (if any.) Socionics especially has held my interest because of that.

So I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

 

[Kheledon]

I think you relayed your point very well, no worries.

Thanks.

1)I've noticed what you've said about Fe, getting hit with an Fi gut reaction and going with it. And I suppose what I'm wondering is...how do you know that it's Fi that's is that gut reaction you're referring to? And not Ti?

I am not sure I am grasping your question, here, but the only way I can tell what kind of introverted value of mine has been violated (always subjective because all introverted functions are "looking inward" at the unique values of unique individuals with unique genetics, unique educational experiences, and unique histories) is when two things happen. First, I "feel it" because it's coming out of my subconscious, and this is opposed to "thinking it" which implies language and consciousness (only available to mental loop functions according to Model A theory).

A good introductory link to this concept follows: Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche

Second, once my mental loop functions have registered and have actually actually "figured out" what introverted function's subjective values have been violated can I then "cognate" or "process" or "articulate" the actual value that's been violated. Sometimes it's just an uncomfortable feeling (and that means the mental loop hasn't "figured out" what's wrong yet or what, exactly, is causing the uncomfortable feeling). Either way, my mental loop may choose to respond or not, without regard to whether or not I actually "know" from whence the uncomfortable feeling is coming.

In Model A Theory, all four Jungian functions have some manifestation in our mental loops. It's just a question of relative strength and preference. My mental loop is Fe, Ni, Te, Si. Note that F, N, T, and S are all represented, and they are always in constant, unconscious contact and communication with their subconscious counterparts--in my case, Fi, Ne, Ti, and Se. So, to address your specific question, sometimes I can't tell whether it's an Fi value or a Ti value that has been violated, but my basic understanding is that F is evaluative (good/bad, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, smart/dumb, green/red, strong/weak, etc.), and, because my F is quite sophisticated, in my mind there are a ton of shades of gray between each and every one of those extreme, juvenile, black/white descriptions of values as I have them listed above. My Te/Ti combo is much weaker (because those functions are neither in my strong ego FeNi, nor in my strong id (Fi/Ne). Instead Te is my role function (where I go when my ego fails me). It's in what Model A calls my Super-Ego (still part of my mental loop, and, thus, cognizable and articulable), but it works in tandem with my relatively weak Ti (subconscious and in what Model A theory calls my Super-Id). Again, as it appears to me, T is better named "Logic" in Socionics, and it has values about what is logical or illogical, what is a problem and what is not a problem, and what are the possible ways of solving a problem (explosive Te) combined with a limiting, implosive Ti (no, that's not logical; yes, that's logical; no, that's not a problem; yes, that's a problem; no, that's not a good solution; yes, that is a good solution, etc.) So, I determine what kind of value has been violated based upon whether I am bothered by a violation of an Ethical (evaluative F value) or a Logical (problem-solution oriented T value).

Hope that makes sense.

2) I'm not opposed to the theory you've presented, it's just the first time hearing it, and I'm still searching for closure on it. You don't happen to know where I could find more literature on it, do you?

It's interesting that you express a desire for closure. As an aside, ENFj wants "closure" on interpersonal issues very badly. What causes me the most distress is instability in my interpersonal relationships. Thus, I have a strong desire for "closure" on these issues. You, on the other hand, want "closure" on this Te/Ti issue we're discussing. I don't feel that need, personally. Those are weak functions for me, and, while I enjoy playing with them ("thinking out loud"), I like to keep a very open mind, i.e. I avoid closure on Te/Ti issues. I prefer to keep my options open and retain the option of "changing my mind" if new Te data comes along that contradicts a previously-held Ti belief. I "change my mind" about Ti things (Ti values) dynamically.

As for more literature, I can give you a host of links, but, ultimately, I don't speak either Russian or Lithuanian, so my knowledge of Socionics comes from translations (and I've read much of what has been translated into English), but, frankly, for all I know the cognitive "interplay" that I have described in this thread and elsewhere is my own and merely an amalgamation and intuitive extrapolation of all the research I have been doing on this subject over the past 10 months or so. On the other hand, there may be a paper out there (written in Russian) that has already made and explained this interplay, and I just haven't read it yet, so I don't want to take credit for anything more than my own, unique understanding and my description of that understanding.

This link will take you to nine pages worth of translated articles on the subject. I've read nearly all of them. Socionics - the16types.info - Theory

3) I think you did very well, putting it into "T" terms. I suppose what constitutes something as a problem, and how to go about solving that problem is subjective. However it seems like common sense from my perspective. So I've never thought about it like that before. I guess I just thought perhaps that side of things was Fi....

I have never embraced or really understood the term "common sense." What I "hear" and what I "feel" when people use that term is a deeply-held Ti value that is assumed to be shared by everyone, but is not, really, nor could it be, for all introverted functions "look inward." They are inherently subjective, and, by extension, are not shared by everyone. There would be no need for the term "common sense" unless there were some people out there who, in your opinion, lacked "common sense." When I hear that, I translate it into Jungian terms as a difference between unique, individual, and always subjective Ti values. Those with "common sense" share your Ti values. Those who lack "common sense" do not.

4)Yes, I agree, we can apply self control over our responses. I'm not sure that it always seems like we have choice. But we always do.

Precisely, but this is also the basis for my argument that our id functions are, actually, stronger than our ego functions. Sometimes, I can't prevent myself from emoting. That's because my ego, on occasion, can not resist the strong impulses coming from my id that are screaming for me to react to a given stimulus. When I am healthier, i.e. when my ego is at its best and strongest, I function better in the world because I have better control over my id functions.

So I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

Same here. Thank you.

 

[Evo]

A good introductory link to this concept follows: Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche

Socionics - the16types.info - Theory

Great, thank you for these.

In Model A Theory, all four Jungian functions have some manifestation in our mental loops. It's just a question of relative strength and preference. My mental loop is Fe, Ni, Te, Si. Note that F, N, T, and S are all represented, and they are always in constant, unconscious contact and communication with their subconscious counterparts--in my case, Fi, Ne, Ti, and Se. So, to address your specific question, sometimes I can't tell whether it's an Fi value or a Ti value that has been violated, but my basic understanding is that F is evaluative (good/bad, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, smart/dumb, green/red, strong/weak, etc.), and, because my F is quite sophisticated, in my mind there are a ton of shades of gray between each and every one of those extreme, juvenile, black/white descriptions of values as I have them listed above. My Te/Ti combo is much weaker (because those functions are neither in my strong ego FeNi, nor in my strong id (Fi/Ne). Instead Te is my role function (where I go when my ego fails me). It's in what Model A calls my Super-Ego (still part of my mental loop, and, thus, cognizable and articulable), but it works in tandem with my relatively weak Ti (subconscious and in what Model A theory calls my Super-Id). Again, as it appears to me, T is better named "Logic" in Socionics, and it has values about what is logical or illogical, what is a problem and what is not a problem, and what are the possible ways of solving a problem (explosive Te) combined with a limiting, implosive Ti (no, that's not logical; yes, that's logical; no, that's not a problem; yes, that's a problem; no, that's not a good solution; yes, that is a good solution, etc.) So, I determine what kind of value has been violated based upon whether I am bothered by a violation of an Ethical (evaluative F value) or a Logical (problem-solution oriented T value).

Hope that makes sense.

It does make sense, yes. I think you've made your point very well. I like it. Also, I do have a very basic understanding of Socionics, so I am familiar with the terms you're using. ie when a function is valued and strong vs not valued and weak, etc. So no worries about that.

It's interesting that you express a desire for closure. As an aside, ENFj wants "closure" on interpersonal issues very badly. What causes me the most distress is instability in my interpersonal relationships. Thus, I have a strong desire for "closure" on these issues. You, on the other hand, want "closure" on this Te/Ti issue we're discussing. I don't feel that need, personally. Those are weak functions for me, and, while I enjoy playing with them ("thinking out loud"), I like to keep a very open mind, i.e. I avoid closure on Te/Ti issues. I prefer to keep my options open and retain the option of "changing my mind" if new Te data comes along that contradicts a previously-held Ti belief. I "change my mind" about Ti things (Ti values) dynamically.

That is interesting. And I find that most of the time, I am trying to make things "fit" into my view to expand it. But not necessarily accepting things as they are if they don't sound like they'll readily work.

I have never embraced or really understood the term "common sense." What I "hear" and what I "feel" when people use that term is a deeply-held Ti value that is assumed to be shared by everyone, but is not, really, nor could it be, for all introverted functions "look inward." They are inherently subjective, and, by extension, are not shared by everyone. There would be no need for the term "common sense" unless there were some people out there who, in your opinion, lacked "common sense." When I hear that, I translate it into Jungian terms as a difference between unique, individual, and always subjective Ti values. Those with "common sense" share your Ti values. Those who lack "common sense" do not.

I find this amusing, because I was dissatisfied with using the term common sense. I have actually made posts about my opposition to it before haha! Mostly because I believe that common sense is something that is extremely relative. In this context I really meant to present those terms as a way of saying "I take these standards that I use to define what's logical, as a default, and therefore, for granted."

Precisely, but this is also the basis for my argument that our id functions are, actually, stronger than our ego functions. Sometimes, I can't prevent myself from emoting. That's because my ego, on occasion, can not resist the strong impulses coming from my id that are screaming for me to react to a given stimulus. When I am healthier, i.e. when my ego is at its best and strongest, I function better in the world because I have better control over my id functions.

Interesting.