Ni/Ne in Beta and Delta NFs

[Sirena]

First of all I'd rather not be told neither WHAT to do nor HOW to do it. Still I'm NF, that much seems certain.

I don't think this is meant to be interpreted so literally. Anyway, what I gather from it is a difference between Te and Ti valuing. I don't see it as having to do with power or exerting authority towards someone (which is how I think you're interpreting it). Delta NFs look for their dual to help with the application aspect of doing things, which is the "how"...while Beta NFs appreciate that their dual can help them recognize "what" logical action to take in a specific situation (not sure if my interpretation of Ti in this case is accurate, maybe someone can find a better way to describe it). So, in the context of what we value in our duals, Delta NFs value the "how" (Te) and Beta NFs value the "what" (Ti).

[Ezra]

Actually, I can see where you're coming from here. I relate to the way you described Delta NF's, particularly IEEs. I've always felt this to be the case with me. I wonder if other Delta NFs relate?

Even though of course, which you find more appealing is a matter of perspective (Quadra values). I would assume Delta STs would find the less edgy, softer, more gentle NFs more appealing.

The same probably applies to anyone in Ne/Si. The other night, I watched Amelie again, and people on the forum seem to be agreeing with SEI, although I did consider EII. She seemed to have a major aptitude for spotting relations between individuals, or how she could manipulate said relations ("are you kidding? Look at her! She adores you!"). Also, an infantile attitude fits perfectly. Whatever the case, she is definitely Ne/Si. Now, I was thinking how lovely she was, but how that kind of life would just not possibly be for me. She's basically too... I can't describe it - gentle? Seriously, that's the only word I can come up for it. There's simply not enough force; not enough passion. That is what I need.

I think you might be missing the point. I don't think Ezra was suggesting that you can type people entirely based on this, at least that's not how I interpreted it. I also think he was using the bed thing as an example and not basing it on that. He was simply trying to describe the differences in attitudes/personality between Delta NFs and Beta NFs, which speaks to what function they value (Si or Se), I think...and extend further than in the bedroom.

Yeah, pretty much.

You say you like Se, but as an ENFp-Ne, wouldn't you be less inclined to like Se than even an ENFp-Fi? I just think it's kind of odd that you think you're the subtype that would be less likely to be good at Se. Eh, I'm not saying you're not ENFp because I really don't know. Just some observations.

An IEE who likes Se is a walking contradiction, regardless of the subtype. Also, I think it's Mimosa who thinks she's a 1w9. A 1w9 IEE? Doesn't make sense to me. Then you've got Blaze thinks she's an XLE, which is ridiculous. It's simply misunderstanding or bad understanding of socionics.

[Sirena]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought you had opened this thread to help point out differences between Beta NFs and Delta NFs because you were unclear as to which one of the two you are, or rather because you weren't sure you were IEE? Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread. But basically you've just been saying that you *are* IEE and seem to be explaining your use/like of Se based on that premise.

Also, from my understanding, a "valued" function is one that you appreciate/find worth in/like. It doesn't necessarily mean you are strong in it. But you will place value on your quadra functions, whether you are strong or weak in that specific function. For instance, an IEE is strong in both Fi and Fe, but will value Fi rather than Fe. Fe is mostly used only to achieve an Fi purpose. Si/Te are functions that weak, but valued. Se, on the other hand is weak and unvalued. As such a function, I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense to say that you actually enjoy and are good at using it or value someone else using it.

I totally understand what you mean about Se being valued in a lot of work environments, it is the case in mine also, as I've discussed in another thread. However, I don't think I could actually say I like it. I see it as a "necessary evil" for lack of a better term and I know it's not something I'll ever feel comfortable with. I see it as something I wished society didn't value because it's not my idea of how the world should work.

Even an SLI (strong in Se) will use it if necessary, but will not necessarily feel good doing it, or feel like it's "them". I understand that each of us has all the functions, but I do think "valued" functions are an important/essential part of socionics. At least that's my understanding of it and how I've seen it reflected in people. Honestly, it sounds kind of odd to hear you say you don't like Fi more than Fe, etc.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I am, and have always been, quite sure about my IEE-ness. However, a lot of people in here seem to object, and try to place me in Beta, and I am not an IEE if I am not open for the suggestions of other people. Nobody has convinced me so far. However, the more I look into this, the more I find the focus people in here put on the differences between the introverted and extroverted versions of the elements to be ridiculous. I think you use both more or less all the time. It's not as if I use 99% Ne and 1% Ni. I use them almost 50-50, depending on the situation. As for Fi/Fe, I actually prefer creative Fe to Fi-base, as irrationals seem to fit me better than rationals. If I ever get irritated with people using Fe/Fi, its the way it is used by rationals, like ESIs and ESEs. SEIs and IEIs seem much closer to me in their use of Fe than ESIs in their use of Fi, even though I identify with IEE and Fi-creative. I think a lot of people in here are way too invested in the elements and the quadras, when in fact dichotomies and temperaments are much more important.

I did open the thread to gain understanding of Ni and Ne, you are right, and I still want more information! It's interesting!

And of course I find the discussions interesting, I answer, don't I?

I just don't agree with it all.

You're right, but one of problems is that function definitions become skewed and quadras, so they become less accurate. Probably been a few different definitions skewing around this thread, and you've probably been given different interpretations for other functions too, at least it seems to go that way, I reckon.

[Sirena]

I am, and have always been, quite sure about my IEE-ness. However, a lot of people in here seem to object, and try to place me in Beta, and I am not an IEE if I am not open for the suggestions of other people. Nobody has convinced me so far. However, the more I look into this, the more I find the focus people in here put on the differences between the introverted and extroverted versions of the elements to be ridiculous. I think you use both more or less all the time. It's not as if I use 99% Ne and 1% Ni. I use them almost 50-50, depending on the situation. As for Fi/Fe, I actually prefer creative Fe to Fi-base, as irrationals seem to fit me better than rationals. If I ever get irritated with people using Fe/Fi, its the way it is used by rationals, like ESIs and ESEs. SEIs and IEIs seem much closer to me in their use of Fe than ESIs in their use of Fi, even though I identify with IEE and Fi-creative. I think a lot of people in here are way too invested in the elements and the quadras, when in fact dichotomies and temperaments are much more important.

I did open the thread to gain understanding of Ni and Ne, you are right, and I still want more information! It's interesting!

And of course I find the discussions interesting, I answer, don't I?

I just don't agree with it all.

I must have misunderstood you intentions then. I was under the impression that you wanted help clarifying this for the sake of your type, rather than only because it's an interesting topic. Nevermind then, I'm not trying to question your type if you're sure of it!

In regards to what you said about putting emphasis on the functions, this is socionics and not MBTI and that is one of the major differences! Socionics doesn't just look at dichotomies and the functions are not simply introverted/extraverted versions of the specific dichotomy. They are completely different functions. Intertype relations is also an important concept in socionics, which is directly related to quadra values and functions. The reason there is an emphasis on quadra values is because they are a result of the functions valued within that quadra.

I agree that we all use the functions to different degrees and depending on circumstances, but failing to see a pattern on which functions we prefer to use and observe in ourselves and others is to dismiss the major aspects of socionics...and more importantly, how these are reflected in actual behavior in people.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you're saying nor am I questioning your personal experience of the functions. But I do think you may be dismissing/misunderstanding some necessary correlations. This is all based on *my* understanding though, as I've said before, so take it as you will. I could be wrong! And like you said, feel free to disagree. I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, just stating my POV. Just in case that isn't clear.