I'm I SEI?

[xerx]

.

[Brilliand]

Do you think it's possible at all that I'm SEI, except that I use and differently from most other SEIs. Possibly because of a genetic abnormality or a hidden defect of some kind? But I turned out externally alright so it didn't register and now believe I'm some kind of NT.

I'm more theoretical than the average SEI, but I'm not anywhere nearly as creative as they are when it comes to artistic stuff and/or analyzing the environment. My is basically all or nothing, not fine and discerning like a healthy SEI's would be.

What makes you think your and are weak/valued? Because that would be the only excuse for calling yourself a defective SEI...

[Brilliand]

What I'm really asking is whether it's possible to use / in a way that resembles the theoreticalness of /.

I don't think that's directly possible. I do think that it's possible to use one function to "emulate" another (it's quite common to emulate your role function with your base function), but the attempt will be sloppy and indirect. Probably an effective theoretical will have to physically build the images that thinks about naturally, whereas might be able to fake through an incredibly complex system of rules (but would never get it perfect). I can't even imagine Intuition emulating Sensing or Feeling emulating Thinking... but that could have to do with what type I am.

[Mediator Kam]

nope, SEI would never fill their posts with functions.

[Brilliand]

nope, SEI would never fill their posts with functions.

Are you sure? I saw an ESFp do it once.

[Mediator Kam]

omg gammmma.

[Brilliand]

omg gammmma.

?

I figured that that comment would apply to SF in general...

[Mediator Kam]

I am not so sure however. Also, I don't see any proof of him being an SEI in any way. All I see is Ti base.

[ScanDave]

You could be INFp. Based on how you write and the whole use Si and Fe differently thing. This could also be why you think you are using strong Ne, because you are. And it sounds like you are applying Ti hidden agenda a bit there too.

[Brilliand]

I don't think supercharged could function as without a proportionate amount of real on hand. without connections would not form a theory of any sort - it would end up with an incredible amount of detail on nothing in particular, or perhaps on the last concept that came by. without will not branch out, whereas without would not focus, no matter how powerful the individual element was.

might appear as when coming down from a monumental extreme, of a sort that goes well beyond most thoughts of dominants. In that case, the detail might cover a wider territory than many thoughts - but eventually (without further input), the would work its way down to the most basic details and cease to appear as .

[force my hand]

Oh god I really don't understand this thread at all. Wish I did though.

Al you gotta do, Dolphin is just fake it with and the best you can think of. Phrase it a -like manner, perhaps with a little and to ease the pain, but not so much that a type or a type goes insane. Because the you get some barzoic going on and that's just not .

[Mediator Kam]

I was reading this thread to my mom, she asked me if I was sane.

[ScanDave]

Although I have considered INFp as a possible typing (and still do from time to time to some small extent), I didn't actually mean for this thread to be taken seriously at all w/ regards to that. The "defective" remark was faciscious. It was just an attempt to start a discussion about what the elements constitute, and if the possibility exists of understanding how the elements operate from a new perspective, what the elements mean, and the actual strength and applicability of model A.

I don't want to start with the assumption that I can understand my thoughts (and hence be able to correlate them with functions) since it is an unscientific assumption. I believe, rather, that it's important to understand the external manifestations of the IM elements as parts of a coherent logical system and to play with their structure until I understand every nuance and shape they can possibly take. This is in order to find a better unifying principle than model A.

The Ti hidden agenda could just be the field-independent focus that's not backed up by sufficient evidence since this was meant as a sort of brainstorming session.

Although what you said about my writing does interest me to no small extent. I don't really know anything concrete about identification through writing. My subjective impression of Ni types is that their writing flows more - is more dynamic and it feels like they're streching out the idea. I've observed something further removed from that in extroverted subtypes

In any case, whatever further insight you have about my type would actually be appreciated.

My exact issue is you want us to discuss the possibilities that you could be SEI, but you have not provided us with any evidence that you are. You want to also discuss functions. Yet you are analyzing functions but not showing it's relevance to your inquiry. Your meaning and reasoning are not clear to some here, and it seems you are only speaking to someone who might be able to fit your thoughts into something understandable.

But it seems to me you have a goal in mind and trying to obtain completion of that goal, and you don't want it to veer from that. This is why I said INFp. Ti hidden agenda with Se trying to achieve something. Alpha SFs brainstorming, as you put it, would include the topic and disscussion of cute puppies.

What I'm really asking is whether it's possible to use / in a way that resembles the theoreticalness of /.

No they do not resemble each other. If it seems that way, you are just observing the other side of the coin, that function's dual.

Ti is used to understand the connection between objects and/or stimuli, and classify them. Fe is noting the action of an object and coming to a conclusion of some emotional state of the object or emotional state of his or her self. When you get into "theories" as to why said emotional state exsist, or if that state is the correct one you are branching into Ti.

But for Si, it needs that small Ne push to experience something. If the internal physical state the Si person feels is desirable from such an experience, then repeating that experience to feel the sensation again would be more related to Ni, and without regard to consquences. The distinction made here is Ne is the initial push to experience something new, as in new possibilities, while Si monitors the physical states of the experiences taking place and remembers them.

Fe is quite useless without Ti. While Si cannot exsist without experience some event taking place because there is always a possibility of some even taking place.

SEI are present focused people because of how their ego functions work. Theories are too abstract to come under their radar unless they are using their hidden agenda or dual seeking functions. More importantly "theoreticalness" has nothing to do with Si, realizing physical states of objects, or Fe's being able to reconginze emotional states in others. Si and Fe are simply not theoretical by nature.

[ScanDave]

Is it possible, for instance, for a person to understand physical sensations as non-concrete, intuitive constructs? Is it possible that Si can take as its object something traditionally non-concrete but perceive it as concrete in its own way? This is what I was asking. These are questions which I'll have to think about.

A favorable answer to your questions would be a paradox. Since the fuctions operating in a manner outside of their normal fuction would mean they cease to be that initial function. Thinking it can is taking the logical implicit meaning of each term in the definitions of each function too far. Thus branching out to something entirely different than what the definition is explicitly conveying. And you seem intelligent enough to know your questions are black holes with no end. I don't see the point in asking a question when any possible answer is going to be unsatisfactory. But if the idea is to brainstorm how one may look at such a thing, then I'll have it.


For your question. How can one understand a physical sensation intuitively, or take something non-concrete and experience it as if it were concrete? It is impossible. Unless we are to assume that all things concrete exsist only because they are part of an universal idea of predetermined truth which is intuitively felt. For example, we feel pain of burning ourselves on a hot stove only because we intuitively know such a senstation will take place as a result of that process. The results of the process is set in stone as part of a universal truth and cannot be changed. Each intuition is taking place in "real time" without prior experience of the process initially. Which would mean there is no such thing as concrete objects or systems, since they all would, in absolute truth, be abstract. But how can you have an idea of predeterminded truth if predeterminded truth is a part of that idea of that predetermined truth? However our perceptions only exsist in our minds. We don't actually see or feel reality. Our brain interrupts reality for us. Sooo you might have something there if you want to venture down that road.

And then by definition you cannot take a non-concrete object and make it concrete, since non-concrete objects do not have a location in time and space and cannot interact with other objects. I cannot brainstorm on this because the premise is absurd to me. Though I have heard about people on acid being able to visualize non-concrete objects and taste them too.


But I think you are mostly discussing this with yourself. So I can basically say anything and it would just feed your internal dialogue which will allow you to further reiterate your view point on what you already know to be right based on your knowledge base. The manner you are communicating your thoughts is devoid of personableness. Not that you should care, and not to knock your communication style. But its not fun answering a question when it is clear to me you already have thought out the answers and how you going to respond to said answers. That is my personal stance on this discussion.

[Brilliand]

How do you characterize the basic quantum of an IM element's information?

Is required for even the minutest amount of information? Or is information somehow inherently generatable on its own (without the help of another element)?

If the elements are capable of being self-contained, then model A's prescription (that is paired with ) models environmental interaction. And was designed to model a non-predictable environment, making it break down in a predictable environment.

If the elements are not self-contained, then model A is a model of the most basic thought elements, meaning that it works in a predictable environment, but breaks down in a non-predictable environment.

In a predictable environment, all information about the environment is already known. There is no potential for reformulations of information based on , , etc. So I would agree that Model A breaks down in a perfectly predictable environment. All functions would then operate on the level of Experience, with equal usefulness.

I would consider the intratim elements self-contained in that they can act without their complementary elements, but not self-contained in that they cannot do anything meaningful without their complementary elements (i.e. they cannot change their environment, only understand it). I suspect that extratim elements cannot act at all without something of their complement to work from... or, perhaps they can change their environment, but cannot know what they are doing.

In a perfectly predictable environment, all functions are useless; in an even slightly unpredictable environment, functions need their complements.

[ScanDave]

ScanDave, thank you for posts. The debate was energizing.



At the initial starting time, Si has all the trappings of what could traditionally be considered Si - sensations and the like etc. This part can't really be questioned without redefining the functions altogether, so I'll leave it alone for now. Even though it was the content of the OP. It's solution probably has broader implications than human psychology, like in the manufacture of non-humanlike robots or something. Nonetheless, perturbations of the traditional human form could be studied through an analysis of this question.

As time progresses, Si requires Ne to establish connections with other Si systems which couldn't be connected in any other way. This part we pretty much agree on.

If we stop this last process from occuring, then the organism becomes stable only in an extremely predictable environment. Hence what I was getting at was that model A is only applicable in a non-predictable environment. The non-predictable environment is the usual humdrum of everyday life. Dual relationships then become an attempt to stabilize the environment into its complex, unpredictable state.

But this is only relevent if the attempt is made to apply model A to things like trying to solve mathematical problems or other esoteric thinking that has no central place in a dialectic with the environment. So we still have a long way to understanding human cognition, etc...

It's similar to the relativity vs. quantum mechanics spat in physics. Relativity applies to large sclae phenomena but breaks down at the micro level. Quantum mechanics is the opposite and so on.

I agree and see your point here. I don't have anything to really add at the moment though.

[Brilliand]

Playing the devil's advocate, I would argue that memory recall is at the very core of a function. Calling up a single function and calling up a memory are two closely correlated processes. So the functions wouldn't necessarily be useless in a predictable environment.

True - but looking at the "dimensiality for functions," all functions can act at the level of experience - functions strength does not play a part in the ability to repeat what is already understood, just in the ability to understand new things. The only hint that this experience is related to functions at all is that some people will be more willing to repeat certain experiences than others.

I think there are two different kinds of predictability that we need to distinguish between. The first, nothing is changing, is what happens when the superego takes over - everythign grinds to a halt. The second, perfection, is where there is truly nothing more to be done - the closed system has absolutely no potential for further improvement. This raises the question of whether improvement is a necessary component of perfection, and under such closed perfection the next goal would be to break either the closedness or the perfection and create room for improvement, even if some knowledge must be given up.