Seelie & Adaptive vs. Unseelie & Directive: Is it Related to Conflict Avoidance?

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Seelie & Adaptive vs. Unseelie & Directive: Is it Related to Conflict Avoidance?

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10073
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @shelley-lorraine

    are you saying here that oversharing is unrelated to seelie/unseelienss is an attribute of Fi alone? Or that unseelie is more likely to overshare than seelie? Is “highly individual Fi” characteristic of unseelie only (since it is described under the unseelie header in the Fi Profile)?

    That's a good question. I don't know what the ratio is, but my sense is that unseelies are a bit more forthcoming. For example, I find seelie Fi's are more explicit in their requests for privacy of information when I do readings. Unseelie Fi's tend to be more filter-less, yes, as if there's no shame/worry about the world knowing just who they are.
    But I really don't know the percentages, so this is just my personal experience with them.

    #10093
    Elisa Day
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Seelie/Adaptive
    “Do you struggle to speak up?”
    Yes
    “Are you prone to be brushed under-foot?”
    Absolutely
    Do you martyr yourself?
    For sure
    Unseelie/Directive
    “Do you come off too strong sometimes?”
    Yep.
    “Do people think you’re abrasive when you’re just being honest/frank?”
    Sometimes
    “Is your first reaction to injustice to call it out?”
    Yup.
    “Do you hold people accountable?”
    Not always. I’m extremely forgiving most of the time, but sometimes I’m ruthless.

    #10219
    Kebab
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    "Do you struggle to speak up?"
    Are you prone to be brushed under-foot?
    Do you martyr yourself?
    Is your first reaction to injustice to be patient and forgiving?
    Do you come off too strong sometimes?
    Do people think you’re abrasive when you’re just being honest/frank?
    Is your first reaction to injustice to call it out?
    Do you hold people accountable?"
    Yes.

    #14222
    Pine
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I conceptualize the experience of unseelieness as being within a fish bowl instead of being in the ocean (that'd be seelieness). It brings a sense of safety and possibly integrity, since one doesn’t get pulled into the currents of outer desires, or overturned by waves of outer fears. In some circumstances, it’s much easier to remain embodied – to maintain the expression of one’s true self – when one stays within walls.
    I don't think it's correct to draw parallells between pathology and exorbitance, because individuals might as well be eccentric in their most authentic/healthy state. (I often sense an implicit ideal of neutrality, while true equilibrium is in fact dependent on multiple relational objects and therefore could present itself as many different, strong characteristics. Basically: We're not identical so therefore we shouldn't expect "balance" to express itself identically.)
    With that said, I can see how we develop varying empathetic ranges and fences as coping mechanisms during childhood. For example, I grew up in an unsafe environment where I had to flow with the emotional rollercoasters of other people, and where none was capable of mirroring my internal dynamics. I had to be hyperattuned so as to not lose my last scraps of belonging (which is imperative for survival). So my seelieness most likely carries a shadow, no matter how true or untrue it (being seelie) may be according to my most functional potential state. The shadow aspect shows itself through destructive patterns. In my case, I might get pushed over, gaslighted, etc., because I'm automatically accomodating other people's perspectives, not realising they won't do the same back. A possible destructive pattern behind a shadowy unseelieness, is judgements (as one judges people not by stepping out of one's bubble, but by projecting one's own experience onto the outer picture) and the lack of vulnerability and authentic emotions in general. (I believe this also applies to Fe's corresponding attitudes.) Both kinds of shadowy forms lead to separation. Same shit in the end: You can't genuinely have yourself and the other simultaneously.

    #14224
    LadyNerdsky
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Jumping in as an unseelie Fi-lead. I don’t think it’s conflict avoidance at all, and I think the descriptions and depictions of unseelie Fi as dismissive, haughty, vengeful, somewhat evil or grinch-like are exaggerated.
    I was very surprised to be typed Fi-lead, having seen myself as NT temperament. In my online lurking here, I don’t feel like I belong in the same group as Seelie Fi users, or that we’re two sides of the same coin but one is light and good and the other is just a darker more bitter and sarcastic version of Seelie. It’s almost like Unseelie Fi is an entirely different “function” that is not just the darker dichotomy of Seelie Fi.
    I conceive of Unseelie as doing a heart bypass and attempting to understand self, and by extension others, with the head instead. I’ll still be pursuing an Fi-agenda, but not by focusing on emotions, empathy, emotional absorption of others’ emotional states via permeable heart boundaries etc. My heart channel is somewhat shut to these methods. Instead, I take a clinical detached approach and try to intellectualise and empirically evaluate myself and others.
    I thought I was strong in Te. Instead, I’m using Te approaches like if-then reasoning and causality-focus to pseudo-scientifically dissect myself and others, treating myself and others as self-contained “systems”, to understand and solve the problems of who am I —> who are You (External other) —> who are You (External collective).
    Unseelie Fi to me just means I’m not as clinical, scientific, or objective as I first thought. No matter what, my decisions and perspectives are coloured by Fi attraction/repulsion, like/dislike, vibe/don’t vibe, resonate/reject.

    #14231
    Cosmo
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Directive

    It's funny, I tend to piss off or offend Fi users, usually seelie. We don't usually vibe well. I would love to see unseelie Fi descriptions to be reworked and updated.
    It's interesting that it seems unseelie Fi is discussed and debated more often than directive Fe.

    #14232
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @animal, Heroic Heat!

    #14233
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @ladynerdsky

    Jumping in as an unseelie Fi-lead. I don’t think it’s conflict avoidance at all, and I think the descriptions and depictions of unseelie Fi as dismissive, haughty, vengeful, somewhat evil or grinch-like are exaggerated.

    Seelie Fi is rather considered as being conflict avoidant than unseelie Fi.
    Also unseelie Fi is not described as evil or vengeful in the Heartitudes article, so, if some people see it this way, they didn't really read that article or interpret in in their own (wrong :)) ) way.
    There is nothing that makes seelie Fi ethically superior to unseelie Fi, as you can act in very nice and accommodating ways and use passive aggressive strategies to hurt the same people you are constantly giddy giggling with. You can use deep empathy to determine how to hurt people deeper. Or protect the life principle in one particular group by violently fighting an opposing group. (seelie terrorist leaders are a thing !! 🙂 )
    So, both seelie and unseelie Fi users can be vengeful and act in unethical ways.
    Another thing I disagree with is the idea that unseelie Fi is like a completely different function. I will have to describe a bit why I think CT is actually right about seelie and unseelie Fi as being sides of the same coin.
    After my Fi development, which was recent, I started having seelie - unseelie oscillations. I began noticing them when my mind became flooded with macabre images. I think Ni and Se have a contribution here, as a tendency to visualize stuff will of course aggravate a fascination with the macabre. This is all directly connected to Fi disgust mechanisms and indirectly to vegetarianism / higher pickiness with food.
    Anyway, I also sometimes find myself talking with that sassy tone and I don't accept a lot of stuff anymore. It's not because I am mean, it's because my princess on a pea energy is over the roof. I really feel that pea under the 500 mattresses and I have to say it because I can't sleep on that horrible thing. :)))
    Now, with lower Fi development this was not the case at all, because almost nothing really bothered me. So, being nice worked as a general survival mechanism  :), because my needs were simply way lower. Now, since they are more complex, I can't really empathize and listen to everyone all the time and I just need to bluntly reject things that are below my standards and that disappoint me.
    So, based on this experience, my conclusion is that Fi indeed has these two sides and that unseelie manifestations have their own reasons that go back to Fi essence !
    What you say about reasoning and dissection seems to be connected to Fi - Attunement and Purification and Finding Inner Essence...with Te support. Fi can be used as a filter to purify contents and energy in order for us to be able to see the Truth (that which remains after this process ends). In this regard, Fi works in a somewhat similar way to Ti. But not only unseelie Fi does this - both seelie and unseelie do.

    #14239
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Hi, @ladynerdsky!

    Jumping in as an unseelie Fi-lead. I don’t think it’s conflict avoidance at all, and I think the descriptions and depictions of unseelie Fi as dismissive, haughty, vengeful, somewhat evil or grinch-like are exaggerated.

    When I said that, I was deliberately describing a misconception I had had, not an official definition. Notice what I said before then,

    Yeah, we’ve always known seelie/unseelie is not about good/bad, but this goes out the window soon as we say it because of the “light/dark” associations I think. Of course Auburn has always clarified that even the light/dark is NOT good/bad, but certain images have strong associations that go beyond CT and Typology so that they are very difficult to transcend once they become biases.
    So far, I’d been defining Unseelie as “Sassy, haughty, dismissive, vengeful, filled with bile.” Since you weren’t these, @animal, I thought you had to be “balanced” rather than Unseelie.
    Directive was, “Unmerciful”, with unhealthy Directive being “Prone to vengeance and controlling behaviour/power struggles, based on flimsy reasons.”
    I’m happy with Aub’s current definitions. So much more neutral!

    Essentially, when these were being defined we had big debates about associating these attitudes with Light and Dark on Dischord, due to the risk of pple associating negative qualities with the Dark, and that's what I was talking about here.

    #14240
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Well said @Bera. You have brought a proper sense of balance to the discussion, thanks. To complete the thought on the Fe side of the street: Yes, directive Fe people, we can be jerks, but so can adaptives. The method of execution is different, but everyone is capable of great moral (and physical) harm.

    #14241
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Faeruss, something you and Bera discussed about snakes in another thread (https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/question-about-fe-and-fights/page/2/) got me to thinking. While the singular snake is heavily associated with Ni, when one is looking at two snakes as the symbol, I think we can see a deep relation to the F-attitudes for both Fi and Fe users; I believe the Caduceus is a symbol that represents perfectly integrated F-Attitudes.

    The two snakes form a double helix, implying to me that the trauma/healing process is built into the very structure of DNA itself, while the wings represent the culmination and possibilities that open up once when integrates the F-attitudes. We see that the snakes are perfectly aligned (perfect balance between the F-attitudes), traveling up the spine and crowned by the Self. (And yes, I am perfectly aware that this is not the symbol's traditional meaning as the Staff of Hermes, nonetheless I also do not believe it was merely a mistake or coincidence that this symbol became so widely used in the American medical field rather than the traditional healing symbol of the Rod of Asclepius, characterized by a simple wooden staff with one entwining snake.)
    Edit: Since the claim that "the trauma/healing process is built into the very structure of DNA" can be seen as hyperbolic, I thought I'd post a short video demonstrating what I mean by that. I would recommend one focus on the lion's body language during the attack: dilation of the pupils, the slavering jaw; an overwhelming sense that death is near and there is no escape. And after the savagery is concluded, as the lions comfort each other, one could be easily forgiven for thinking the two lions had just come together after a lazy day in the sun.

    Edit 2: In my opinion, there is no purer form of trauma than death-trauma (which the lion in the video above likely passed through). All other forms of trauma are subsets and offshoots from this main branch.

    #14245
    LadyNerdsky
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    First, a mea culpa, I missed the entire first page of the thread adding context to the discussion and some of your replies. I’ve read from the beginning and have some points to clarify, especially since I seem to write in Ne and my intentions are lost by expecting others to easily jump on my vague wavelength.

    • I’m not asking for CT to be written to include the heartitudes as their own functions. I know Fi/Te (Ti/Fe) are logically paired axes. I’m aware it’s possible to oscillate Seelie/Unseelie (not sure how rapidly, though), where Fi is basically a single continuum with “light” and “dark” at opposite ends, rather than Unseelie and Seelie being their own separate but parallel concepts. I flip into Seelie Fi occasionally, and it changes my voice and demeanour.
    • I get that absolutely all Fi users are pulling Te whether it’s conscious or unconscious. And that all Fi users have the big picture agenda of Ji-leads along with Ti. So I know that I’m co-opting Te in the service of Ji and that using Te in this way doesn’t mean Fi+Te is some new cognitive function hybrid.
    • What I was trying to highlight (out of context of the purpose of the thread, I see now) was how the overall subjective lived experience of Unseelie Fi, especially as a lead, isn’t easily summarised or understood as just like Seelie Fi but “darker” and “sassier”. I’m glad there’s already been a discussion around this and ideas of good/bad or ethical/unethical are the older way of seeing things. But I think there’s much more.
    • I was trying to capture how I think people who stay mostly in Unseelie Fi mode have developed a unique relationship with Te that colours our subjective lived experience that Seelie Fi does not have, especially in the lead. Cosmo was saying the same thing as another Unseelie Fi-lead. Our experience and perception doesn’t seem to be resonating with people who are Seelie in general, or Seelie Fi-lead. We both fit INT temperament above INF temperament, even though neither of us is Te conscious.
    • Now that I read the OP was asking about the Enneagram Body Triad (8,9,1) versus Seelie/Unseelie (Adaptive/Directive) and how they intersect/interact, I can chime in as an Unseelie Fi-lead who’s also Enneagram 9w1. I’m very conflict avoidant FWIW.
    • I’m also extremely private and HATE disclosing personal information, even to long-term friends. No chance I’m an over-sharer. I’m okay with my video being public because I said nothing private and personal on the final edit.
    #14249
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @ladynerdsky - Well said. I do think there's more investigation needed here.
    One of the troubles I've had with describing Ji's is that the very nature of Ji lends to a very individualist trajectory-- so that, it often seems to me, the only thing that can be said about a certain niche of Ji-leads is that they're similar in their dissimilarity.
    This has always felt unsatisfactory to me though, because I certainly wish for there to be more explanation and a stronger pattern. But I see all sorts of variations. The youtube mathematician FiNe Tibees is both seelie and a delta scientist. The FiNe singer Nostalghia is both an indie artist and unseelie. So there's lots of cross-wiring going on. Some are fairy-like, some are not.
    We don't see this level of variation with the TiNe or TiSe, and not even the FiSe's. Sure the FiSe's are varied in their expressive styles, but they all tend to be artistically inclined rather than STEM-inclined, which is itself another mystery.
     

    #14251
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Thought I'd contribute some personal experience to this discussion, especially since I considered myself to be an Seelie Fi lead at some point.
    I've been typed with Directive Fe and it makes sense that I would, since I have had moments where I get worked up and angry if I see an "injustice:" my heart stirs and I just want to yell at the person that what they are doing or saying is wrong. Yelling mothers unnecessarily castigating their  very young children really bother me a lot (I've noticed), the more I try to ignore them the more I come to feel like they are yelling at me.
    However, I never actually did it because my reasoning would (Ti) takes hold and I would start dissecting the moral value itself and purpose behind it: deeming it (the value and the purpose) untrue, unnecessary, meaningless (what's the point of me confronting) and local (how do I know that it is wrong in this situation). This was before I knew of cognitive functions and before I had to develop a theoretical framework around "values," so that I could understand them and give them legitimacy.
    My reasoning was that like the color blue, for example, is different in material reality (merely certain wavelength being reflected) than our subjective experience of it (seeing blue is a mental experience, colors are not "out there"), similarly values/morality exist as a mental/physical experience that are not "out there" in material reality. Also, it seems my "values" are also something that exist a priori and a posteriori: there are values that come from my "heart" instead of from reason and not matter how much I want to question them they exist "there" (these are the one I would question most and find the most untrue before). And there are also values that are more dispassionate, that come from reason and education, but that can reside in my heart, and have an effect on it after believing more in their "truth".
    However, the values that have been reasoned and marked as "truth" are not many, but those are the one more likely to get a "directive Fe" calling out, no matter the conflict, because of my "certainty" of belief in their truth. The ones that come from my heart are still too immature, they have not run through proper scrutiny or rationalization, and therefore less willing to enforce them and create conflict. And it seems to me that these values from the heart are the one that I shouldn't question (or can question); and the only thing I can do is find rationalizations for them and be confident in conflict about them.
    Nevertheless, perhaps because I am a Ji (Ti) lead, I still see a difference between a value/moral, emotional, enforcement in the moment of an injustice I see and a discussion over a value/morality in dispassionate dialogue, where I would ignore my heart and be open to reasoning from the other side of an argument, avoiding any conflict whatsoever.

    #19370
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Seelie vs Unseelie:
    I happened upon this thread recently, and I'm really glad I did because I've been wondering a lot about seelie vs unseelie and what the fundamental difference is between them. I have an idea myself for what the difference might be, but I’ll save that for the end. First, I want to say right off the bat that if being conflict-avoidant or not is the fundamental difference, then there is no way I'm unseelie because I am extremely conflict-avoidant.
    Perhaps related to this is how much you care about what other people think of you. In this regard, I care too much. I am very sensitive to criticism. This is one reason why conflict is so unpleasant for me - I don’t want anyone to think badly of me.
    I am also not an oversharer - again, I actually swing quite far in the opposite direction here. I am very private. I am not uncomfortable with private topics - like if other people want to talk to me about their periods, sex lives, or what have you, I have no problem with that. But I do not share that stuff about myself. (I could see myself being very candid in an anonymous scenario online, but not irl).
    To specifically answer the questions Auburn posted:
    Seelie/Adaptive
    Do you struggle to speak up? Yes, very much so
    Are you prone to be brushed under-foot? Yes, very much so
    Do you martyr yourself? No
    Is your first reaction to injustice to be patient and forgiving? Yes, I think so
    Unseelie/Directive
    Do you come off too strong sometimes? With most people, no. With the few people I’m closest to in my life, yes.
    Do people think you’re abrasive when you’re just being honest/frank? Again, I would say: With most people, no. With the few people I’m closest to in my life, yes.
    Is your first reaction to injustice to call it out? No
    Do you hold people accountable? No, I let people off the hook
    As noted above, my behavior can be very different with the people closest to me in my life (Not many people fit in this category. Even some friends I have had for years are not in this category. Right now it includes my mom and my husband. In the past, it has included other people I’ve been in romantic relationships with). I can be much more blunt, hard, and abrasive with those people. I’m not afraid to let them know if I’m angry. I’m not sure what element of CT type (if any) this might be related to, but I think it is something that might be interesting to explore further because I know some people who are the opposite. My husband is one such person. He is very adaptive and conflict-avoidant with me and other family members, but is unafraid of conflict with people he doesn’t know as well. It has taken me a long time to understand this aspect of him because it seems so totally foreign and strange to me.
    Other things that might be related to seelie vs unseelie:
    I saw on another thread someone suggesting the difference between seelie and unseelie was that unseelie was about separating/boundary construction (independence) and seelie was about merging/boundary dissolution (dependence). I do relate to the unseelie description there. I have a very strong need for independence, and I have ever since I was a little kid. I'm not good at asking for help, and I want to do everything myself.
    There was also the recent survey Janie did about heartitudes and attachment style that suggested a possible correlation between unseelie/directive and an anxious-avoidant attachment style. This also resonated with me to some extent. I don't think I have huge problems with this (I was on the border between anxious-avoidant and secure in the survey, and I think I do have a pretty healthy marriage), but sometimes when I am upset, the last thing I want is for someone to come and comfort me. There are times when I actually feel really physically uncomfortable with being touched when I am upset. There are also times when I'm just feeling really sad, and I do like to have a hug, but if I am at all conflicted in my feelings, then I don't want to be touched. I also have a tendency to go more cold and detached when a partner asks me for more warmth.

    I conceive of Unseelie as doing a heart bypass and attempting to understand self, and by extension others, with the head instead. I’ll still be pursuing an Fi-agenda, but not by focusing on emotions, empathy, emotional absorption of others’ emotional states via permeable heart boundaries etc. My heart channel is somewhat shut to these methods. Instead, I take a clinical detached approach and try to intellectualise and empirically evaluate myself and others.
    Unseelie Fi to me just means I’m not as clinical, scientific, or objective as I first thought. No matter what, my decisions and perspectives are coloured by Fi attraction/repulsion, like/dislike, vibe/don’t vibe, resonate/reject.

    I relate to quite a bit of what @ladynerdsky says. I definitely relate to having an INT temperament and thinking about things abiotically. I wouldn’t say that I’m unemotional. I actually can be quite emotional, but I don’t respect feelings as being a good reason for something (at least not by default - I am in the process of trying to work on this for my husband’s sake). I don’t see feelings as worthless, by any means, but I just see them as like a flag signaling you to explore something further. I would not trust a feeling without figuring out why I felt that way. A feeling by itself is not a good reason to do something. I also saw the FiNe typing as telling me that perhaps I'm not being as objective as I thought, and that my feelings are coloring my logic in ways I didn't realize. (Although I am also somewhat skeptical about the idea that this wouldn't be true of Ti-leads. Everyone has biases, after all. But maybe their biases don't come from "feelings"?) I’m not sure if this is related to being unseelie or not, but perhaps it is.
    Now I want to mention an idea I had for a possible explanation of the seelie vs unseelie difference. I read in Dario Nardi’s book that there is a particular region of the brain (what he calls f8) that lights up when people are thinking about what they like or dislike. But different people use it differently. For some people (including most but not all high-Fi folks), it lights up specifically when they are thinking about things that they do value, and for some other people (including most but not all high-Te users), it lights up specifically when they are thinking about things that they have a value against. This seems to match up so well to the actual vultological definition of seelie vs unseelie and also to the correlation between seelie vs unseelie and Te vs Fi. What do you all think?

    #19414
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I saw on another thread someone suggesting the difference between seelie and unseelie was that unseelie was about separating/boundary construction (independence) and seelie was about merging/boundary dissolution (dependence). I do relate to the unseelie description there. I have a very strong need for independence, and I have ever since I was a little kid. I’m not good at asking for help, and I want to do everything myself.


    @fayest42

    Thanks for your post! This is a really interesting angle. If this would be the difference, then I am unseelie. But I'm extremely high empathy also, and I have a hard time relating to the way a lot of unseelies conduct themselves. I'm definitely emotionally permeable, but I keep myself physically separate from people because I don't want to drown in their issues. I start getting angry and overloaded if I'm around people too much, even online.
    I'm argumentative in the sense of wanting to lay out my thoughts bluntly and get to the bottom of it, and can 'say it like it is' and thus come on strong (Se-Te, perhaps?) but I am also receptive internally to other people's opinions, and really think about them, and drop my arguments when they're wrong.  In those cases I'm quick to let the other person know I see their point and I was wrong. Additionally, I ask my husband or others I trust, if I'm right about things, if I went too far, etc. I'm just all around sensitive and sometimes I think I'm being seen as 'unseelie' here simply because Se-Te has a strong language style. Idk. I'm waiting for more developments. But if it's really about independence, as in 'those with separate opinions, hopes and dreams of their own are unseelie,' I suppose that's right for me. I follow my own muse at any cost.
    But I am not sassy, mean, etc. Even direct competition takes a toll on me, and I prefer doing my own thing my own way rather than compete directly with others. But I also see right through 'delicate, fragile' ploys, where people are batting their eyes and acting weak in order to get attention, guilt trip others, and force them to walk on eggshells around their own hurt feelings. That is just something I will never want to do. So I go out of my way to make sure people know I can hold my own, and they are free to say what they want around me. I am easy to please, hard to offend, and take responsibility for my own emotions.

    #19422
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I think whenever we talk about any kind of behaviorism being related to certain functions or attitudes of the heart, we have to be careful. Since the functions represent information metabolism, it's my best guess that the attitudes of the heart affect that metabolism process somehow.
    I don't believe we can go as far as to say that seelies and unseelies exhibit behavior as clear-cut and universal as conflict avoidance vs non-avoidance. That would be too broad and presumptuous a statement.
    What we can possibly conjecture about though, is the phenomenon many unseelies have mentioned about becoming "closed off," or feeling their emotional register "shut off." I have the feeling that this might have to do with metabolism. This may be the same for directive Fe users.
    If Fi is a Ji process, and it processes only one piece of information at a time, maybe unseelie Fi is more choosy about the information it processes than seelie Fi. If Ji is prone to get stuck in an infinite fractal tree of analysis regarding an information vector, it's qualities, it's quality's qualities, etc - then maybe unseelie Fi is more content to write something off as not worth the effort if it's taking too long to process. I have no clue how this would work metabolically, but that's my best guess!

    #19426
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I'm glad you found my survey results useful @fayest42. I actually got the idea for it from a discussion in which @auburn posted a link to a long post by @umbilical-sphere . I'm not sure where the post is anymore, but it was about the different attachment styles and ideas about how they could correspond to attitudes of the heart.
    I also scored anxious-avoidant, although not quite into the overall highly vulnerable attachment range. I definitely had psychological traumas in childhood where I felt like I had to shut people out emotionally, and rely only on myself, and have feelings only by myself, in order to make it through with my sanity intact. But the whole unseelie thing is kind of ironic for me contrasted with how I was always perceived as a child and teenager. Like they shouldn't go together. Somewhat similar to you, my answers to those questions would be conditional and somewhat uncertain or conflicting. Very, very conflict-avoiding, but with an asterisk. And the heartitudes things can be an inner conflict in and of itself, but it's a polarity, which I do agree should be integrated. That post with the pack animals seems to be on to something, especially in light of the fact that even for early humans, to be abandoned or rejected by the tribe meant certain death. So it's no wonder we get traumatized when this registers even just emotionally if not physically. Another interesting study could potentially involve the four F's of trauma, but those would probably have to be professionally diagnosed.
     
    Another thing:
     

    FiSe’s are varied in their expressive styles, but they all tend to be artistically inclined rather than STEM-inclined, which is itself another mystery.

    I think some counterexamples have shown up since this was posted or?

    #19504
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @alice

    I think whenever we talk about any kind of behaviorism being related to certain functions or attitudes of the heart, we have to be careful. Since the functions represent information metabolism, it’s my best guess that the attitudes of the heart affect that metabolism process somehow.
    I don’t believe we can go as far as to say that seelies and unseelies exhibit behavior as clear-cut and universal as conflict avoidance vs non-avoidance. That would be too broad and presumptuous a statement.

    I totally agree. Defining seelie vs unseelie in terms of conflict-avoidance wouldn't make sense. At most there might be a correlation between the two, but then there would be exceptions, like some of the people in this thread.
    One thing that recently occurred to me about my own conflict-avoidance vs non-avoidance is that I see a distinction between conflict and debate that some people don't seem to see. It's still the case that I avoid both conflict and debate with the vast majority of people, but there are more people I'm comfortable debating with than getting into conflict with by rejecting a request or something like that. And when I'm really comfortable with someone, I can really enjoy debating with them and not see it as a form of conflict at all (which sometimes makes my husband uncomfortable because he does see it as a form of conflict). It's like I get immersed in the goal of figuring out the truth and any thoughts about interpersonal dynamics go out the window.

    @janie
    Ah yes, that post by umbilical-sphere is the one I was talking about. It's here: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/expandion-of-the-model-of-the-f-attitudes-to-account-for-individuation/
    That theory does have some appeal to me - it would fit with there being a correlation between conflict-avoidance and seelieness, but it doesn't make a conflict-avoidant unseelie person a total anomaly. I say this because I don't think my own conflict-avoidance comes from a seelie place like this: "Fundamental belief about Other; I can trust you/you are/could be on my side/you will protect me." It's closer to coming from an unseelie place like this: "Fundamental belief about Other; I cannot trust you/you are against me/you will attack me." In other words, I avoid conflict not because I trust others to do what's best for me, but because I'm scared of what people might do or think if I get into conflict with them. Conflict is dangerous to me. In a seeming contradiction though, I am sometimes overly trusting. I can sometimes get taken for a ride by salespeople because I trust them too much - or maybe it's that I get so preoccupied with trying to make sure they have a positive image of me that I forget to be considering whether or not I should have a positive image of them. *Sigh* Psychology is complex.
    Also, in terms of the "Fundamental belief about Self," I relate more to "If I try to assert my independence in the world, I will be rejected or fail. I am unloved." than the "I am already rejected so I will assert myself to take back power/feeling of existing," but I hesitate to put myself in the "maximally unintegrated/volatile" category because I haven't experienced any major traumas, and I think I'm relatively psychologically healthy (not completely, I definitely have some struggles, but I wouldn't describe myself as volatile). Perhaps it doesn't seem like it in this description, but that's because I am focusing on and emphasizing the unhealthiest parts of me. Maybe it makes more sense if viewed as two spectrums instead of as distinct categories, and that the further you are from the middle on either spectrum, the less healthy you are. Then perhaps I could be seen as being slightly on the "bad" side of the self spectrum and also slightly on the "bad" side of the other spectrum.
    I'm still very curious to hear what people think of the suggestion I made in my earlier post about the possibility that seelie/adaptive vs unseelie/directive might be related to what Dario Nardi saw - that some people use their F8 region when thinking about positive things they value and other people use it when thinking about negative things they don't value. It might suggest that the basic difference between seelie/adaptive and unseelie/directive is that the seelie/adaptive people are driven to move towards the good while unseelie/directive people are driven to move away from the bad.

    #19509
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @fayest42
    - Yes, that was it, good that you found the post.
    - Regarding this
     

    I avoid conflict not because I trust others to do what’s best for me, but because I’m scared of what people might do or think if I get into conflict with them. Conflict is dangerous to me.

    I had a thought about myself, perhaps I could bounce it off you as a fellow unseelie Fi lead who also considers herself conflict-avoidant. Maybe while I consciously avoid conflict due to fear of something dangerous happening, as well as social conditioning not to defend myself, and an Enneagram 9 fix, it occurred to me that, especially when I was much unhealthier (depressed, worsely socialized) that I sometimes things I say or how I say them / body languages causes some people to catch a vibe that angers or threatens them or makes them suspicious--something that, I suspect, doesn't happen with seelies. I *unconsciously* provoke conflict. And, actually, a mild instance happened just this year. Reading about how fundamental beliefs can be at odds with conscious beliefs may have tipped me off to this.

    In a seeming contradiction though, I am sometimes overly trusting. I can sometimes get taken for a ride by salespeople because I trust them too much – or maybe it’s that I get so preoccupied with trying to make sure they have a positive image of me that I forget to be considering whether or not I should have a positive image of them.

    I relate to this, too. I was emotionally neglected as a child, and chalk up most of my overtrusting issues to that. *Some* of it is due to my personality type, but that part is less pathological. Sometimes, if it's just a salesperson, or someone like that, I can just give them an unseelie Gamma "see you in hell" glare, and it frightens them. I do not like doing that in non-emergencies, though. And when you have no in-between it can be painfully awkward. In that type of situation, the *conscious* belief is definitely not any fear that they will hurt me, but again that doesn't necessarily say what the unconscious underlying beliefs may be. Those tend to get triggered by romantic love relationships, and other emotionally intense situations, if I am not mistaken, hence my interest in a link between attachment styles and heartitudes.

    I can really enjoy debating with them and not see it as a form of conflict at all (which sometimes makes my husband uncomfortable because he does see it as a form of conflict)

    Sounds like Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti to me.
     
    -  I am interested in the brain scan research too, but don't have anything to say on it, because it seems to me they would have to scan people who have been assigned heartitudes. Otherwise, it's anyone's guess. I haven't read the book, though.

    #19537
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Here is Megan Fox, an FiSe who doesn't know about CT, describing her unseelieness. The rest of the interview details her life experiences and probably how she came to be unseelie.
    It seems to have to do with a "closing off" to protect the Fi user from incoming emotional information due to their high sensitivity. That is probably the only difference between seelie and unseelie Fi, though it is a big difference that affects nearly every interaction, thought, and outlook they have.
     
    Starting at 14:00 exactly:

    #19547
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Interesting. I wonder if seelie and unseelie signals can be modulated, like the cognitive functions can? Or maybe there's a kind of meditation that could help achieve it. The breath is central to many forms of meditation, and deep breathing is recommended by psychologists for decreasing anxiety. It seems like a tendency to hold the breath (may coincide with nasal monotone voice too) or breathe shallowly is involved in an unseelie vultology. In contrast to the "breathiness" associated with seelieness, especially heard in the spritelike voice.
    Megan and other unseelies I've watched do seem closed off or guarded to me. (I only watched the first 10 minutes of this one though.) Restricting the flow of the breath kind of feels to me like a way to control emotions, hence making one less apparently affected or vulnerable, or permeable to the outside world.

    #19606
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I’m trying to take stock of all the different characteristics of unseelieness and seelieness that have been mentioned here and elsewhere and to figure out how they are connected and what might be at the root of all of them.
    It seems to me like everything that has been said about the differences between seelieness and unseelieness could be grouped into one of two categories:
    1. Seelie people focus on the positive aspects of things and unseelie people focus on the negative aspects of things.
    2. Seelie people have an open and positive relationship to their own feelings while unseelie people have a closed and negative relationship to their own feelings.
    I’m not entirely sure if these are actually two entirely separate things and if perhaps one individual might be able to fall on the seelie side in one category and the unseelie side in the other category or if one of the two categories is the true fundamental difference between seelieness and unseelieness and the other is a consequence of the first.
    One possible explanation I could imagine for category #1 leading to category #2 is that if your feelings are focused on the negative (unseelie), then your feelings are probably an unpleasant mental place to be - so you could end up trying to avoid them, whereas if your feelings are focused on the positive (seelie), then your feelings are probably a pleasant place to be, and you would end up embracing them (note that this isn’t to say that seelie people don’t experience unpleasant feelings, but moreso that because they see the positive in things, they feel safe in the world of their feelings, even when something is temporarily unpleasant).
    It’s a little harder for me to see how category #2 would lead to category #1, but not impossible.
    I also see @umbilical-sphere's theory that unseelieness is about separating/boundary construction (independence) and seelieness is about merging/boundary dissolution (dependence) as having a lot of potential because it has ties to both categories #1 and #2. Category #1 would lead unseelie people to want to put up a boundary between themselves and others because they are focusing on the negative in others and they want to protect themselves from that. Category #2 obviously entails unseelie people putting up a boundary between themselves and their own feelings and could also lead them to put up a boundary between themselves and others so as to avoid the affect others have on their feelings (as described by Megan Fox in the video @alice posted).
    So my thinking at the moment is that either
    - umbi’s description is the fundamental difference and that encapsulates #1 and #2
    or
    - #1 is the fundamental difference between seelie and unseelie people and #1 leads to #2
    or
    - #1 and #2 are actually distinct categories where people could be seelie in one category and unseelie in the other.
    I had previously written a bunch of stuff explaining how I see each thing that people have attributed to being seelie or unseelie as being in either category 1 or 2, but I decided it probably wasn't necessary because people could probably see that for themselves. If that would actually be helpful though, I can post it.
    Thoughts?
    Side note: I've focused on seelie vs unseelie here, but this all might apply to adaptive vs directive too. I'm not sure.

    #19610
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @fayest42
    Given those distinctions, I am 1000% Seelie. I'm always in touch with my feelings. People tell me they can see every feeling and sub-feeling on my face. I'm expressive, open hearted, and mirroring. I do have strong opinions and I take decisive action on my own behalf but I'm over-sensitive to others' small fluctuations in mood, and can even reflect them, especially in person.  As for hiding my feelings - this simply doesn't happen. I don't need to announce them all but moment to moment it's spilling out and no part of me is "hiding them" from myself or the world either. I also have generally positive feelings toward everyone.  I have negative feelings toward a few choice people and when I do it's a really extreme experience and I can hiss a lot, but I also go around hugging, loving, and complimenting people all the time. There are very few people that I *strongly cannot stand* - I am either neutral or loving toward most. And I'm vocal about a wide variety of feelings because I see no distinction between 'positive vs negative' - what matters to me is authenticity.

    #19618
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @animal It does sound like you would be seelie in category #2. I don't think I explained category #1 very well. It's not about whether you have positive or negative feelings towards people. I think an unseelie person could have mostly positive feelings toward people (I would describe myself that way too, actually). It's just about the way your brain keeps track of what it values - I'm suggesting that perhaps a seelie brain keeps track of what positive things to look out for and tries to move toward them and away from where they don't find those positive things while an unseelie brain keeps track of what negative things to look out for and tries to move away from those while moving towards where they don't find those negative things. This is reflected in the vultology of seelie and unseelie. Unseelie people shows signs like excessive contempt because their brains are alerting them when something "bad" has come up. But I think this is something that is probably hard to distinguish in oneself. For example, how do you tell the difference between valuing kindness and valuing not being mean? I think vultology or an EEG would be the only ways to know for sure, although it would only be a useful distinction if it also resulted in behavior differences.
    Is being comfortable with conflict the only characteristic of unseelieness that you relate to or is there anything else? If that's the only one, since some other unseelie people don't relate to that characteristic, then it sounds like there might not be any behaviors that are consistently associated with unseelieness, which would make it a less useful category.
    Have you read this post? https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/expandion-of-the-model-of-the-f-attitudes-to-account-for-individuation/ I would be curious to hear what you do and don't relate to in that theory.
    Edit: I guess it's a bit of an overstatement to say that if there is no behavior that 100% of unseelie people share, then it's not a useful category. As long as strong enough correlations exist between unseelie vultology and certain behaviors, it's still notable.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 63 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope