information elements and stereotypes

[strrrng]

Fi is not...:

Empathy, morality, humanitarianism, charity, pacifism, being peaceful, never lying, being Gandhi, being Jesus, being wholesome, being good, being virtuous, being immaculate, innocence, love, romance, stupid sappyass love songs, puppies, being loyal, fidelity to your spouse, cupcakes, cute things, being judgmental, traditional attitudes, chastity.

Se is not...:

Hitting things, yelling, aggression, talking shit, pushing people around, being tough, fighting, cussing, guns, big muscles, big cars, having balls, genitalia, bathroom humor, sex jokes, racist jokes, having sex, being violent, being ruthless, killing people, blowing shit up, hiearchical rule, being obsessed with power, being dominating, being confident, having desire, having motivation, having discipline, having will power.

Ne is not...:

Creativity, novelty, being original, being a genius, having imagination, synthesis, analogy or metaphor, invention, new ideas, free-thinking, open-mindedness, advancement, insight, possibilities, boundless potential, visuo-spatial thinking, divergent thinking, conceptual thinking, randomness, spontaneity, being scatter-brained, being ADD, an excuse for why you're a worthless failure at life even though you think you're so brilliant.

Te is not...:

Business, bureaucracy, finance, accounting, calculations, measurements, empirical thinking, objective evidence, the scientific method, carrying out procedural operations, step-by-step problem solving, organization, planning, efficiency, being pragmatic, being practical, applied thinking, putting ideas into practice, concrete results.

Fe is not...:

Manipulation, fake emotion, pop culture, being superficial, being clique-ish, being a herd animal, lack of individuality, being prone to groupthink, social networking, social roles, adhering to social norms, having manners, being ditzy, being overtly expressive, popularity contests, demagoguery, being dramatic, being emotionally gaudy.

Si is not...:

Beauty, art, fashion, having good taste, practicing good hygiene, eating well, taking care of your body, being healthy, having a sense of aesthetics, knowing how to design your living arrangements, knowing how to dress and groom yourself, knowing how to use makeup, smelling good, being physically attractive.

Ti is not...:

Being logical, being philosophical, being abstract, theoretical thinking, holistic thinking, mathematics, discoverer of all universal truths, deriver of all reality's laws, designer of all systems, originator of all theories, progenitor of all ideologies, any form of non-empirical thought, making inferences without evidence, a subjective sense for the conncinity or consilence of an idea or system and it's validity in the world, all forms of self-righteous intellectual masturbating.

Ni is not...:

Having foresight, thinking ahead, being premeditated, understanding the consequence of one's actions, long-term planning, watching clocks, being timely, knowing how to manage your time, having sense for how long something will take, making predictions, being Nostradamus, making extrapolations, perceiver of all trends, linear progressions.

OMG WHAT A SURPRISE!!! Fe IS LIKE TOTALLY JUMPING AND SCREAMING AT THE GAY STRIP CLUB.

[liveandletlive]

[xyz]

Well, I appreciate the post, but now that I know what it aint, how about telling me what it am?

[force my hand]

...who's down for going shopping for some fashionable threads, eating out at a new and exciting restaurant, and then jogging home afterwards?

[strrrng]

...who's down for going shopping for some fashionable threads, eating out at a new and exciting restaurant, and then jogging home afterwards?

LMFAO

[xyz]

...who's down for going shopping for some fashionable threads, eating out at a new and exciting restaurant, and then jogging home afterwards?

Only if it's shopping at A&F and eating out at a place that sells vegan dishes and non fat non hydroginated all natural fruit smoothies.

[force my hand]

Only if it's shopping at A&F and eating out at a place that sells vegan dishes and non fat non hydroginated all natural fruit smoothies.

I was thinking more along the lines of walmart, burger king, and then smoking cigarettes on a overpass until we get bored and call someone to come give us a ride home.

[xyz]

I was thinking more along the lines of walmart, burger king, and then smoking cigarettes on a overpass until we get bored and call someone to come give us a ride home.

SCORE. Deal.

[JRiddy]

Cool. What are the functions then? I'm very interested to learn. Please note that I intend to convey no sarcasm. The amount of English language material available is limited, and what is available is usually either poorly translated or lacking in precision. So please offer your insight.

[marooned]

Everything is trying to drive me insane. This thread has increased my insanity factor. I'm losing my mind. It's Strnnnnnnnng's fault.

[strrrng]

don't worry, I'll expound soon, and I hope to get personal insight from people who actually use the functions (i.e., not Joy talking about Si polr being "wearing wrinkly clothes for two days in a row").

[strrrng]

disclaimer: this thread is now about describing the functions in their actuality. If you come on here bullshitting, I will find you and kill you.

the only functions you can ever know are your quadra functions. the rest are just a theoretical concept.

Here's my take on Ni: internal dynamics of fields. It is the most abstract function. It is not about time, foresight or any of that bullshit. It is primarily concerned with seeing the essence of things - when I say essence, I mean the internal abstract stuff that is highly unapparent. For me, I just go through the day noticing these intangible things within the prisms of experiences. I have described it previously as peeling away layers of an onion, since essentially you are receiving these packets of information and developing this internal vision (not of the future, just in terms of perception). Thinking in images and abstractions is highly often...metaphors come instinctively, but sometimes are ineffable or don't make sense to others because of their subjectivity (as opposed to Ne's metaphors). You perceive something, it gets tossed down into the well, tossed and turned, and most of the time there will be some image, some insight connecting it on an abstract level. Even describing this function is fuzzy for me because one of it's themes is uncertainty (not lack of confidence or decisiveness, but vague and constantly improving). while Ti builds a theoretical structure in a fairly structured way, Ni has a rough framework that is constantly being shifted, rotated, etc. with every new piece of information. Information is not exactly processed linearly; many times I get some weird internal feeling of culmination, where it seems things are colliding or coalescing, then I receive a packet of information, a surge, in a sense. It typically stays on an abstract level, but remains embedded into my memory and tied into the framework. Rick's quote on Ni - "Everything is connected in some way" - is accurate because unlike Ne, which ties everything around some central point (object-focused), Ni doesn't really have a central point; I guess you could say the ultimate essence is the central point, but even that is fairly vague.

More functions coming later, but feel free to ask questions about Ni - I would enjoy discussing it further

[Steve]

Awesome description - that's how it comes across to me in Ni people I've seen, and yeah Ne metaphors seem more universally visible because of how they are centered around objects (things outside the observer). I've noticed it with myself vs with you and the other Ni people I've gotten to know.

[Sabo]

disclaimer: this thread is now about describing the functions in their actuality. If you come on here bullshitting, I will find you and kill you.

the only functions you can ever know are your quadra functions. the rest are just a theoretical concept.

Here's my take on Ni: internal dynamics of fields. It is the most abstract function. It is not about time, foresight or any of that bullshit. It is primarily concerned with seeing the essence of things - when I say essence, I mean the internal abstract stuff that is highly unapparent. For me, I just go through the day noticing these intangible things within the prisms of experiences. I have described it previously as peeling away layers of an onion, since essentially you are receiving these packets of information and developing this internal vision (not of the future, just in terms of perception). Thinking in images and abstractions is highly often...metaphors come instinctively, but sometimes are ineffable or don't make sense to others because of their subjectivity (as opposed to Ne's metaphors). You perceive something, it gets tossed down into the well, tossed and turned, and most of the time there will be some image, some insight connecting it on an abstract level. Even describing this function is fuzzy for me because one of it's themes is uncertainty (not lack of confidence or decisiveness, but vague and constantly improving). while Ti builds a theoretical structure in a fairly structured way, Ni has a rough framework that is constantly being shifted, rotated, etc. with every new piece of information. Information is not exactly processed linearly; many times I get some weird internal feeling of culmination, where it seems things are colliding or coalescing, then I receive a packet of information, a surge, in a sense. It typically stays on an abstract level, but remains embedded into my memory and tied into the framework. Rick's quote on Ni - "Everything is connected in some way" - is accurate because unlike Ne, which ties everything around some central point (object-focused), Ni doesn't really have a central point; I guess you could say the ultimate essence is the central point, but even that is fairly vague.

More functions coming later, but feel free to ask questions about Ni - I would enjoy discussing it further

Hmm... what makes Ni a dynamic function then?

[Brilliand]

I'm so dizzy and I feel like the functions are attacking me.
So many sharps...;iuhad;fbha;dj

Hiya! ♯

[Steve]

Hmm... what makes Ni a dynamic function then?

With the dynamic field functions (Si and Ni), the experience isn't isolated to one aspect or to one point, but instead to an underlying essence. However this essence is something that builds and evolves over time, warping, folding in and out of itself, kinda like watching a bunch of clouds mix and blend.

Dynamic fields are kind of like this:


You can't isolate the activity to one point within the field, but instead there is a unifying holistic essence that emerges from within the field, kind of like living and breathing the field. This dynamic essence affects a person's inner mental states and they feel this one-ness with the field by experiencing this emerging essence. With Si, a person's inner mental states are affected by an underlying essence of things as they are perceived explicitly (the external environment as it appears), whereas with Ni a person's inner mental states are affected by an essence underlying in things that are not explicitly visible in observable reality (things are connected internally instead of externally) - as strrrng described with his experience with Ni.

[Steve]

Dude, you shattered the only thing that was keeping me going. I don't have an excuse anymore. How many more are going to suffer because you needed to increase your post count? Are you really happy now?

lol

[JRiddy]

Let me to try to break this down a little bit to see if I'm getting it right...

Both directions of intuition appear to be highly interested in abstract images and metaphor. However, with , the metaphor or image is almost the point, whereas with , it always serves to indicate something. The goal for is the parts of the picture; the goal for is the picture itself.

I also think that this idea of "time" or "foresight" is a very / way of describing , and may be more accurate in describing its blocking with than with . Logical types like structure and results in their abstractions, which makes "time" a convenient word to explain . In agreement with what you said, much of the research I have read mentions "time" about , but then proceeds to focus mainly on imagery and symbolism.

The concept of "flow" seems to still be valid, though, in that you describe these images as ever changing and dynamic. Even in your onion metaphor, you describe peeling it back in layers, which is a processional description. Though simplifying to "time" is likely inaccurate, it may still be helpful in describing it.

[Sabo]

Well, obviously Ni isn't as simple as "time"... I think maybe, though, that it is related to progressions and changes, whereas Ne is about describing and exploring what something is at a given moment. This was my impression of what made Ni dynamic and Ne static.

With the dynamic field functions (Si and Ni), the experience isn't isolated to one aspect or to one point, but instead to an underlying essence. However this essence is something that builds and evolves over time, warping, folding in and out of itself, kinda like watching a bunch of clouds mix and blend.

But I feel like Ti develops in the same way... I still don't see what is specifically dynamic about this, or how, for that matter, it differs from Ti at all....? :-S

[Steve]

Well, obviously Ni isn't as simple as "time"... I think maybe, though, that it is related to progressions and changes, whereas Ne is about describing and exploring what something is at a given moment. This was my impression of what made Ni dynamic and Ne static.

right - and also the idea that Ni cannot be isolated to one place or to one point is important as well.

But I feel like Ti develops in the same way... I still don't see what is specifically dynamic about this, or how, for that matter, it differs from Ti at all....? :-S

Yeah I know, heh, it was hard trying to find words to exactly describe the difference. Here's how I see Ti:

Ti is like building blocks - building/connecting layer upon layer of something. It's a static structural thing that grows and expands over time like this:



Whereas with a dynamic field like Si, if you freeze frame the field at one point in time, it'll look quite different than at another point in time, like this:



However with Ti, if you look at it one point in time, and then at an earlier point in time, the earlier point in time will resemble the field that exists later, but just look incomplete.

Kind of like this (especially starting at 1:26):



Also try and notice the feeling you get when watching the cloud video vs watching the building video. The cloud one should just feel more smooth, flowing and easy while the building one should feel more jagged, rigid, and blocky - that's the kind of feeling you get with a dynamic field versus a static field.

Btw - with these kind of "feelings" it's actually very helpful in getting a sense of what's going on with the functions and even abstractly with people and things - so trust them when you get them, they're legit

[FDG]

Mh? That doesn't say anything new. Another pointless topic from you, strrrrng.

[strrrng]

I don't disagree with a lot of this, but Ni is still about time. aushra says, "time is the correlation between events that follow each other", and this is what Ni sees. these insights and abstractions you mention are tied into the framework of time: past, present, and future.

anyway, if you don't agree that Ni is related to time then you probably aren't following classical socionics anymore.

Ni is related to time in the sense that it is about internal abstract processes separated in space and time. My point was that it is not time in itself.

FDG, your socionics understanding is not even near the level of mine. Let's not forget you had yourself mistyped until Ashton showed you what type you actually were. You're like a mosquito that won't go away - utterly innocuous but still annoying.

[strrrng]

Let me to try to break this down a little bit to see if I'm getting it right...

Both directions of intuition appear to be highly interested in abstract images and metaphor. However, with , the metaphor or image is almost the point, whereas with , it always serves to indicate something. The goal for is the parts of the picture; the goal for is the picture itself.

I also think that this idea of "time" or "foresight" is a very / way of describing , and may be more accurate in describing its blocking with than with . Logical types like structure and results in their abstractions, which makes "time" a convenient word to explain . In agreement with what you said, much of the research I have read mentions "time" about , but then proceeds to focus mainly on imagery and symbolism.

The concept of "flow" seems to still be valid, though, in that you describe these images as ever changing and dynamic. Even in your onion metaphor, you describe peeling it back in layers, which is a processional description. Though simplifying to "time" is likely inaccurate, it may still be helpful in describing it.

perfect.

[strrrng]

Now I will describe my support function, Fe: internal dynamics of objects. Fe is like an external radar, constantly keeping track of things. It is similar to Te in this respect but it diverges in that it is not so much keeping a check on the actual activity of objects as it is on the interplay between those objects, the energy field. It is like I am instinctively aware of the vibe that is occurring around me, whether I want to be or not. It notices subtle emotional cues and has an almost intuitive quality to it. Because while Fi naturally feels the polarity, so to speak, of emotions, with regard to the subject, Fe throws the subject into the whirlpool of external emotion, and they must deal with it. Sensitivity is obviously a key aspect here, but not always in the good sense. It is more about knowing and recognizing the emotional effects of words, actions, etc. on others. If I am in a debate with someone, I can pick up where they're coming from (partly due to Ni) and reflect that emotion back on them in a sarcastic way. While both Fi and Fe can understand emotional interplay, Fe will have a more energetic feel to it, i.e., when I am insulted by an Fi person, it feels more like being stabbed, while being insulted by an Fe person is more like being punched in the face ("omg!! I thought fighting was Se!!"..."no, shut the fuck up and listen"). This function is largely in part what allows me to converse smoothly with people. My radar instinctively picks up on the mood and atmosphere and I can naturally find something to say. It's all about external energy waves with this function (Fi is more like a contained wave building up before it crashes). That's all for now. I can answer more questions on it or clarify, etc...

[Steve]

Nice.

I experience the same thing - being insulted with Fe is much more direct and yeah, punch in the face lol (and I'd want to punch right back). Whereas being insulted with Fi I'm like "WTF!!!?!???!!! WHAT ARE YOU ATTACKING??!!!!! SHOW YOURSELF MOTHAFUCKA!!!! " With Fi I can't punch back because I don't know what to punch, and it gets me even more pissed that I can't punch back at anything, so basically um yeah.

[Sabo]

right - and also the idea that Ni cannot be isolated to one place or to one point is important as well.



Yeah I know, heh, it was hard trying to find words to exactly describe the difference. Here's how I see Ti:

Ti is like building blocks - building/connecting layer upon layer of something. It's a static structural thing that grows and expands over time like this:



Whereas with a dynamic field like Si, if you freeze frame the field at one point in time, it'll look quite different than at another point in time, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e08uVTrRvPE

However with Ti, if you look at it one point in time, and then at an earlier point in time, the earlier point in time will resemble the field that exists later, but just look incomplete.

Kind of like this (especially starting at 1:26):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJZJbLij-c

Also try and notice the feeling you get when watching the cloud video vs watching the building video. The cloud one should just feel more smooth, flowing and easy while the building one should feel more jagged, rigid, and blocky - that's the kind of feeling you get with a dynamic field versus a static field.

Btw - with these kind of "feelings" it's actually very helpful in getting a sense of what's going on with the functions and even abstractly with people and things - so trust them when you get them, they're legit

Alright, I think I've gotcha.

BTW, this is a really good topic. We should definitely spend more time discussing what the functions are.

[strrrng]

BTW, this is a really good topic. We should definitely spend more time discussing what the functions are.

INDEED. I got the Se and Ni basis covered, Steve will hook up the Ne and Si, then expat can hit us with that Te and Fi...maybe even some Si and Ne also

[xyz]

right - and also the idea that Ni cannot be isolated to one place or to one point is important as well.



Yeah I know, heh, it was hard trying to find words to exactly describe the difference. Here's how I see Ti:

Ti is like building blocks - building/connecting layer upon layer of something. It's a static structural thing that grows and expands over time like this:



Whereas with a dynamic field like Si, if you freeze frame the field at one point in time, it'll look quite different than at another point in time, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e08uVTrRvPE

However with Ti, if you look at it one point in time, and then at an earlier point in time, the earlier point in time will resemble the field that exists later, but just look incomplete.

Kind of like this (especially starting at 1:26):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJZJbLij-c

Also try and notice the feeling you get when watching the cloud video vs watching the building video. The cloud one should just feel more smooth, flowing and easy while the building one should feel more jagged, rigid, and blocky - that's the kind of feeling you get with a dynamic field versus a static field.

Btw - with these kind of "feelings" it's actually very helpful in getting a sense of what's going on with the functions and even abstractly with people and things - so trust them when you get them, they're legit

Thanks for the info.

[Steve]

My pleasure

[Aylen]

Originally Posted by the oracle
Fi is not...:

Empathy, morality, humanitarianism, charity, pacifism, being peaceful, never lying, being Gandhi, being Jesus, being wholesome, being good, being virtuous, being immaculate, innocence, love, romance, stupid sappyass love songs, puppies, being loyal, fidelity to your spouse, cupcakes, cute things, being judgmental, traditional attitudes, chastity.

Se is not...:

Hitting things, yelling, aggression, talking shit, pushing people around, being tough, fighting, cussing, guns, big muscles, big cars, having balls, genitalia, bathroom humor, sex jokes, racist jokes, having sex, being violent, being ruthless, killing people, blowing shit up, hiearchical rule, being obsessed with power, being dominating, being confident, having desire, having motivation, having discipline, having will power.

Ne is not...:

Creativity, novelty, being original, being a genius, having imagination, synthesis, analogy or metaphor, invention, new ideas, free-thinking, open-mindedness, advancement, insight, possibilities, boundless potential, visuo-spatial thinking, divergent thinking, conceptual thinking, randomness, spontaneity, being scatter-brained, being ADD, an excuse for why you're a worthless failure at life even though you think you're so brilliant.

Te is not...:

Business, bureaucracy, finance, accounting, calculations, measurements, empirical thinking, objective evidence, the scientific method, carrying out procedural operations, step-by-step problem solving, organization, planning, efficiency, being pragmatic, being practical, applied thinking, putting ideas into practice, concrete results.

Fe is not...:

Manipulation, fake emotion, pop culture, being superficial, being clique-ish, being a herd animal, lack of individuality, being prone to groupthink, social networking, social roles, adhering to social norms, having manners, being ditzy, being overtly expressive, popularity contests, demagoguery, being dramatic, being emotionally gaudy.

Si is not...:

Beauty, art, fashion, having good taste, practicing good hygiene, eating well, taking care of your body, being healthy, having a sense of aesthetics, knowing how to design your living arrangements, knowing how to dress and groom yourself, knowing how to use makeup, smelling good, being physically attractive.

Ti is not...:

Being logical, being philosophical, being abstract, theoretical thinking, holistic thinking, mathematics, discoverer of all universal truths, deriver of all reality's laws, designer of all systems, originator of all theories, progenitor of all ideologies, any form of non-empirical thought, making inferences without evidence, a subjective sense for the conncinity or consilence of an idea or system and it's validity in the world, all forms of self-righteous intellectual masturbating.

Ni is not...:

Having foresight, thinking ahead, being premeditated, understanding the consequence of one's actions, long-term planning, watching clocks, being timely, knowing how to manage your time, having sense for how long something will take, making predictions, being Nostradamus, making extrapolations, perceiver of all trends, linear progressions.

OMG WHAT A SURPRISE!!! Fe IS LIKE TOTALLY JUMPING AND SCREAMING AT THE GAY STRIP CLUB.

Brilliant!

You never know what you will find following random links here.

[hate to bump you like this but...]

[strrrng]

lol I had forgotten about this thread

[Pookie]

Its kind of like reading old philosphers.

Like, I read "I think therefore I am", and it's so simple and practically stupid at this time in society that it's funny. It's surprising that was a breakthrough moment in the world at the time.

But sometimes you find old threads, and you read what people say in them and it's just kind of the same thing. Like, is this what the issue was back then?

But nonetheless, Oracle is wrong . The elements are every single one of those things, it's just those things aren't exclusive to those elements.

[chemical]

Being logical, being philosophical, being abstract, theoretical thinking, holistic thinking, mathematics, discoverer of all universal truths, deriver of all reality's laws, designer of all systems, originator of all theories, progenitor of all ideologies, any form of non-empirical thought, making inferences without evidence, a subjective sense for the conncinity or consilence of an idea or system and it's validity in the world, all forms of self-righteous intellectual masturbating.

Heh, but I can say many aspects of this describe me quite well, even if it isn't the definition of Ti.