hitta, it is amusing to see you go on and on about how you know so much more about Socionics than everyone else and how everyone but you is wrong. Especially considering that you do not understand the basics of the theory and will not seriously answer my posts pointing out anything contrary to your theory, such as fucking gulenko's own +/- quadra descriptions. btw, did you see
this? After all, I posted it specifically for (or perhaps because of) you.
Originally Posted by
Ezra
The problem with a lot of these is that they make it out as if Rationals are like Irrationals but better and more advanced. It's like that while Ne and Se leadings recognise potential and kinetic energy respectively, Fe and Te can recognise and manipulate them.
Yes, but that's another subject. Like I said before, the explanations of each of the IM Elements is not intended to describe something that people
do.
Originally Posted by
FDG
Originally Posted by
Joy
In a way, maybe. The "step" "between" Ne and Se would be Ti or Fi (I laughed because you said it was Ti specifically without any mention of Fi)
You still haven't understood the theory then. Fi changes Se into Ne, not the opposite. Remember that Ti is a well-defined function, and Fi isn't. How can a not-well-defined function change a not-well defined function into a well-defined one? You have ENTp->ESTp and ISFj->INFj, but not INFj->ISTj. That's why I did not mention Fi. Study more!
Originally Posted by
tcaudilllg
I so do not understand what this is supposed to mean. It actually seems contrary to model A. What she's saying seems generally incomprehensible. Fe mediating Ne and Se? I don't think there is a connection.
...Or is she talking about the links between the rings? Fe follwing Se in the INTj, for example? Then yes, you can see the manifestation of the following extroverted function in the preceding one, but only in its energy. So to say, this is incognizant without dual-type theory, unless the theorist considers the energy forms by intuition and not the (at the time non-existant) logical model.
Actually this is how insight functions, I believe.
No. I don't know how else to say this. Read through my previous posts.
Originally Posted by
reyn_til_runa
Ti seems the odd one out. why is this the only introverted function that is about "readily observable/apparent" relations?
Contrast it to Fi, which is the same as Ti except that it's about underlying or internal relationships. Ti by contrast is about relationships/connections that are measurable or readily apparent.
Ti: She is my mother.
Fi: I have a good relationship with her.
Ti: The chemical composition, temperature, ingredients, etc. of ice cream.
Fi: I love ice cream.
(Si: Eating ice cream makes me feel good. Leaving ice cream out makes it melt.)
Ti: It is bad to mug a person because it is illegal.
Fi: It is bad to mug a person morally wrong.
Disclaimer that should be unnecessary: These are just examples of
possible manifestations of each, certainly not definitions. The examples are meant only to
contrast Ti from Fi (in the context of answering reyn's question),
not give
all encompassing explanations of them.