I was typed by Auburn a few months ago, and he gave my emotional attitude as unseelie. I can see why he made that judgment as I was displaying Fi-1, -2, -3 and -7 with no other Fi signals. Yet when I checked this page something seemed really off with the behavioural descriptions of agreeable and disagreeable compared with my own observations and experience. According to my type I should firmly show the disagreeable traits over the agreeable ones, but that's far from the case. I couldn't place myself reliably into one category.
My first thought were that these traits could be influenced by a huge variety of other factors - culture, religion, upbringing, personal maturity. A disagreeable person who is mature should display many agreeable traits even if they do not come so naturally to them, and likewise with the agreeable person. A person's beliefs may lead them to pursue what they see is right, even if that goes against their natural emotional disposition. Context may also be important. I am flexible and compromising when it comes to interpersonal stuff. I'm willing to take the worse deal for myself for the sake of the relationship. But I won't compromise my beliefs, what I see as true and right, for the sake of any relationship.
I understand that the emotional attitudes are going to undergo extensive revision in CT 2.0 so I don't want to put a lot of effort into discussing this if the conversation has already been had. Is this something that's already been addressed? If so what conclusions have you guys come to?
I think the heartitudes will be explored more.
I am flexible and compromising when it comes to interpersonal stuff. I’m willing to take the worse deal for myself for the sake of the relationship. But I won’t compromise my beliefs, what I see as true and right, for the sake of any relationship
What I can say, as a seelie Fi user, is that the ability to be disagreeable in order to not compromise your beliefs is fairly new to me. I developed it recently, in the last year. As baseline I was not able to defend my beliefs reliably in face of adversity, while appearing disagreeable. It made me feel terrified that the other person would feel angry, sad, disappointed or offended. I could only feel extreme fear of offending and hurting others and shame of being judged for my opinions. I was simply not capable of doing this. We can put it like - I was cowardly. Or - I was diplomatic and polite. There is a light side and a dark side to both being seelie and unseelie.
Now, on the other hand, you are a pure conductor and I am a pure reviser. There might be other aspects into play here.
But I just wanted to say this about being seelie, which tends to be wrongly seen as the Fi ideal. The shadow is someone yelling at you and you not being able to say anything back whatsoever. Someone accusing you of something which you are not guilty of and you crying for hours because you are not capable of telling this person what you actually believe, because you feel your point of view would only make you look even more ridiculous in that conversation.
You just can't say no or any negative opinion, without maybe putting it as a joke or only vaguely suggesting it. You don't have the choice, the freedom to actually say what you think, it's like someone put a spell on you and you can only say what your interlocutor would like to hear.
I do think many people fall somewhere in between seelieness and unseelieness, it's a spectrum. And also maybe some of what I said is connected to other things (Enneagram type, education, culture, etc.). But...I only recently realized at a serious level that opposing others' views has merits and slowly started to become less agreeable. It took A LOT of effort to build this skill and I need some effort to get into this mode, an energy gathering and directing towards my interlocutor...it still doesn't come naturally to me, I just know it's necessary in some cases. I still fail many times and I think most people don't even see the difference but I was at the most seelie point of seelies and I can see it. 🙂
But we both match the general patterns of high Fi rather seelie and high Te rather unseelie. Also I act unseelie when modulating Te, for me they tend to pair up and maybe they do for you too?
It would be interesting to see other people's views, especially seelie high Te and unseelie high Fi.
Thanks for your insight in seelie Fi - it gave me a good picture of what it feels like to be a seelie Fi user. My experience is 100% different so I can see the contrast. I definitely think agreeable to disagreeable exists on a spectrum, at least behaviourally. Perhaps the underlying attitude is more absolute. But the spectrum would not be a simple spectrum, where we say a person is stronger or weaker in general - rather contextually defined. Like I said I am very disagreeable when it comes to my core beliefs, but I find it easy to trust and forgive people (agreeable). And in some qualities I don't swing very hard one way or the other, for example I try to be agreeable in regards to being sensitive to others emotions, but despite trying I don't usually present that way. I'm just not that great at it. But I wouldn't describe myself as insensitive despite that. So it's like there are many spectrums for many behaviours.
Yes ! Definitely !
I think unseelie shouldn't be seen as insensitive. There are many unseelie and directive people here who I think are pretty sensitive.
It seems to be more about what each one of us is comfortable with and where we might have some shortcomings.
People tend to prefer seelie to unseelie and I think it might be because of the way the qualities of unseelie are described.
What about courage? What about honesty? What about not getting knocked down by other people's opinions and criticism and actually fighting for your ideas and goals?
@Auburn - let's make unseelie great (again).
the unseelie person feels there is no excuse for something unseemly, amoral or cruel that doesn’t deserve to be excused.
Isn't this justice though? Isn't this fairness?
Opposed to mercy (seelie Fi)?
Calloused at first, the unseelie attitude will be a very gentle and sweet presence to all those that can get past their initial barriers, revealing themselves to be a loyal and ever-honest friend.
You actually mention these points but why start with displeasure and disgust...and not with the positive side of it - honesty, saying it as it is, as you see it? I am not great at expressing these ideas and I only realized now, after more than a year, this is why unseelie Fi users are unhappy with the unseelie Fi description.
Of course since you contrast :
High Empathy - Displeasure and Disgust
Not that these are not real traits...just it sounds like you compare our best qualities to their worst qualities, you know? I'm sure you didn't mean to, it just comes off like this.
These elaborations are all unnecessarily complex, in my opinion. The difference between positive F attitudes and negative F attitudes is rather easy to grasp conceptually, in my view. I prefer to articulate it as emotional "pragmatism" versus emotional "embodiment".
Unseelies and directives generally repress the controlled embodiment and alignment with internal emotional states - they may feel them strongly, but the super-egoic orientation is towards creating a separation from the unity of the emotions and the intellect, hence leading to a state where they may "toggle" between detached evaluation and emotional outbursts. The unseelie or directive individual may be rather calm or composed in public, for instance, but may lash out extensively privately because of the pleasure of having to retain this split. They may champion for their values and empathise as the seelies and adaptives do, but such a process will be necessarily mediated by the intellect, and thus may come across as stifled in expression. Another way to express may be that there is a fear towards the embodiment of the emotional states; and so the emotions of the individual may disrupt them at the most unwarranted moments, in contrast to their divergent rational attitude.
On the other hand, seelies and adaptives have what I like to call a conscious acceptance or embodiment of their internal emotions - it is not as much about creating a split between the emotions and the intellect as it is acknowledging the emotions a vital aspect to the life of the intellect, including permeability to the states of others. Due to greater consciousness and integration; while the seelie or adaptive individual may appear more sensitive to an observer; inside they actually have greater precision about the pinpointing of their various emotional states, and may be more consistent in the way they express themselves (there will hardly be any proneness to outbursts), though at times there may be over-permeability from a lack of proactivity, for which there will be a consistent internal perception.
In other words, it is the difference between yang and yin.
Saf, this might be right. I have to chew on it a little.
I guess my main question is if emotional pragmatism would apply to directive Fe too. If this is the right word to describe it. Oh, also emotional embodiment for adaptive Fe. Could you expand on that a little?
I agree with the part about yin and yang.