Fi is inertial; many emotions are inside such a person, but they do not go outwards, and rather stay “conserved”. Such people are very passionate in evaluating other people, but from outside they seem to be “emotionless”, smiling just as much as etiquette requires. They are good spectators of relations: in a small collective, they very quickly feel who has which relations with whom. They can work with people – as lawyers, pedagogues, etc. However, being so attentive to people's relations, they do not like, even more, they are afraid of “intellectual initiative”, do not like arguing, because it can “break” or just significantly change relations with other people.
This is not really correct. I'd say it focuses too much on the delta flavor of Fi. I could easily see a gamma being very intense and severe with Fi, breaking, significantly changing relationships. One common themes of gamma, often expressed by people who are gamma, is vigilanteism, revenge. And I would not really call Fi emotional. I like the socionics conception of it better, ethics. Because I would say a person who has many emotions inside, but they do not go outwards, and rather stay “conserved”, is more a description of creative Fe.
Ah, I kind of thought they were for different things. Most people insist that it's the same thing, though.
Well be wary as they are not. Augusta significantly changed the concepts devised by jung while MBTI more or less left them intact. For example, jungian concept of Ni is Ni + Fe in socionics. It does not describe Ni + Te in socionics.
Okay, that's easy enough.
Socionics Fe just seems goofy and shallow, and mostly about expressing your own feelings and being in the moment. Like the kids I used to dislike in High School. It reminds me of what I disliked about MBTI Se. Fi is more the "political correctness" and concern with propriety thing in Socionics, while in MBTI Fe had that role.
Here's a conception of the ethical elements (Among others). Could you comment on that?
Now, with MBTI Te, it's just all about achieving goals efficiently and making people work together, which is nice but not a priority. Socionics Te includes that, but throws in more things like citing sources and judging ability/intelligence. Ti is still pretty much Ti. The added weight to Te makes it look more appealing, but I'm still drawn to the precision of Ti as well.
Could you comment zhe same thing based on the infromation presented in the link above?
Well, that's really hard to tell. There are some emotions I would only share with people I knew well. But there are other emotions I "fake" around people I don't trust, but if I knew them I would criticize them.
For instance, I once felt rather annoyed with someone because they referred to a PM as an e-mail, and that was technically inaccurate. Also, I often like to correct people's grammar if it's off. Finally, I got really annoyed when someone told someone else about the J/P switch for Introverts in Socionics/MBTI conversion being an explaination for why their J/P didn't match up, and I insisted on pointing out that the switch doesn't always work, and that you can't actually convert the types. I was confused when they justified by saying their explanation was reasonable "at the level of the conversation." I couldn't understand how that justified dissiminating incorrect information.
In MBTI, I'm pretty sure that would be Ti. What about Socionics?
Disseminating incorrect information is, in a roundabout manner, an expression of valued Ti/Fe. That is, preferring Fe over Te. Fe seeks to influence peoples emotions. Information is a way to do this. You say what will please somebody, have the desired impact. With Fe are often associated structuring words and sentences in a certain manner to produce a certain effect like say literature, poetry, little lies not to hurt people and so on. Or condensed, ignoring/manipulating the informational content of the information to ones own end. Fe couples are often characterized by games consisting of this, the are distrustful of what the other says, they think the other is trying to trick them, they are themselves, and so on. Fe people tell tales for the effect, not informational content. A good tale is more important then the information being presented.
Te people are a contrast to this with a strong implicit focus on the informational content of information. Te people stop people in the middle of jokes to correct them on a piece of information. Generally people tend to percieve them as storehouses and reliable sources of pieces of information. They would never propagate a piece of information if they had suspicions over it. Or would at least make their worries clear. They also do not suffer from the set in stone nor reliable authority mentality with their information. That is, their focus is on the information itself, who presents it is irrelevant as are people's convictions about it.