-

[Dee]

-

[tcaudilllg]

Si - immediate visual dynamics and it's effect on the necessity to MOVE (dynamic) emotionally (Fe) or as viewed from a detached standpoint (Te).

opinions?

The degree to which dynamics between objects interfere with each other. If X needs B to interact with Y and C needs B to interact with D, then if there is only enough B for one or the other interaction then they have -Si between them. Basically, -Si = war or conflict; +Si equals peace, tranquility, harmony.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

We all knew Expat was a warmongerer. *laughs*

But that is so extreme. The opposite of Si isn't war or even conflict (that's more the by-product of being around those that don't value Si as one of their top priorities) .....it's simply a discomfort or a sense that you got the right idea, you're just rubbing people the wrong way (ie Expat). You think there are Si people that don't find comfort in war?

I suppose, it could be a leading factor to some sort of war but...that leap is pretty big.

There's a bunch of happy homemaker republican ISFp females out there that are VERY pro-war and pro-Bush. So ...er yeah? And a Si person might choose war if it meant the greater happy idealistic carebear place they want to live in. Most of us are victims to having the ends justify the means.

BTW, I sucked Jesus' cock last night and he pissed on my face. It was really hot.

[tcaudilllg]

We all knew Expat was a warmongerer. *laughs*

But that is so extreme. The opposite of Si isn't war or even conflict (that's more the by-product of being around those that don't value Si as one of their top priorities) .....it's simply a discomfort or a sense that you got the right idea, you're just rubbing people the wrong way (ie Expat). You think there are Si people that don't find comfort in war?

I suppose, it could be a leading factor to some sort of war but...that leap is pretty big.

There's a bunch of happy homemaker republican ISFp females out there that are VERY pro-war and pro-Bush. So ...er yeah? And a Si person might choose war if it meant the greater happy idealistic carebear place they want to live in. Most of us are victims to having the ends justify the means.

BTW, I sucked Jesus' cock last night and he pissed on my face. It was really hot.

No, conflict is the state that must be amended. Having done that, one finds a sense of relative (acceptable) comfort. You start with -Si, and end up with "neutral" Si, you might say. (this is why we need a new model) From there you can take the neutral Si up a notch, to +Si, which actually expands on the harmony that already exists. Neutral Si just means they aren't hurting each other; nor are they helping. +Si creates a state of mutual benefit between the two processes.

In the above example, neutral Si creates enough B for everyone; +Si rearranges the activities sufficient that they are creating B for each other.

The ISFps who support Bush are doing so on basis of -Si.... They don't support the war, but they do support the creation of +Se on basis of a universal revulsion of war itself. They hope the +Se will overpower the war in one quick stroke... if only enough people turn against it, the president's will (which they identify with) will prevail. This actually stated in the AEI policy sketches as -THE- strategy for winning the war: boost the president's will to astronomical levels on basis of unity.