.
Choose your functions experiment
.
Last edited by tereg; 05-07-2010 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Edited by user request
its hard for me to separate myself from what I already know, so instead I asked my cousin, who I think is either an ENFp or an Alpha SF.
She said she related to 5 and 6 the most, 6 more than 5. She also said she didn't relate to 2 at all, so then she chose 1. She then said if she had to pick between 1 and 4, she'd pick 1, but it was close.
1) I see what could be, my thoughts run in scattered directions, web-like or branching. Rather than just see what is, I think of what might be. I see the potential in people or objects.
3) I see the direction things are headed, my thoughts run path-like or as vectors, and where something is leading is easy for me to determine, not as tangible physical connections, but in an intangible and intuitive way.
4) I'm most aware of how physical things connect to each other, gears, aesthetics, machines, the human body etc. Cause and effect of tangible processes is easy and natural for me.
7) I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
In order:
Me: 6, 3
Someone else: 8, 2
Also: 4 and 7 are the most alien to me.
Some thoughts on the descriptions:
1: I can do this, but it has limited use. It's useful for 'brainstorming' when you force your thoughts to diverge as much as possible. I know it generates good outcomes, though it's not my natural inclination. After a certain point though, it becomes frivolous. The options produced should be evaluated, graded and the most likely/best chosen. My thoughts can be chaotic, but they're focused rather than scattered.
2. Sometimes I'm very aware of the physical world, but that awareness blinks in and out for me. I can try to hold the world 'in view' but it's difficult. Slippery. It's useful though and I appreciate people who can do this: they 'supplement' my ability to 'lock down' the physical reality. It's like since they're so connected to reality, I become more 'grounded/anchored' by default.
3. Connections, directions, and 'where things are going' is straightforward. It's my natural way of 'getting around' my tendency of tuning out of things. For example, it connects disaggregated physical experiences. It lets me connect the dots, it makes sense of things, sorts through information.
4. I don't know why aesthetics are the same as gears, machines and the human body...I have no natural knowledge of the how my body works. It constantly surprises me: bursts of energy, exhaustion - all these states don't naturally connect to things I'm doing to my body so they always bewilder me. I'll do something stupid like eat nothing all day bar a few lollies and then my vision will blur and I'll start shaking and it won't even occur to me why that's happening, except at a very abstracted and 'technical' level, like information from a textbook. Same thing with machines. I do 'something' to the machine and then hold my breath that the machine does what I want it to. When it does, it's like 'magic'. I see no connections or process between my input and the machine's output.
5. This bothers me mostly. I see it but I don't get why it's so important.
6. I use to think that everyone was tuned into this. Usually the first thing I do when leaving a social setting is talk about the 'vibes' - what going on underneath the surface between people, with a group - the group atmosphere, how someone expressed themselves, what that indicates. I like being around people who appreciate this information. I find it the most 'obvious' source of information. It tells you about things/peoples and also guides your actions. I provide this 'reading' service to my friends all the time.
7. I'm not good at this. I feel like its too much useless/excessive information, especially since not all of it can be systemised or sorted into coherent wholes. I prefer it if other people tell me if things are working or not. I rely on them for that, rather than observing it myself most of the time.
8. I really like this. It helps me structure my thoughts. It gives something 'concrete' to work with. It keeps all my thoughts in order so that I can 'think things through' clearly and achieve the outcome I want. I look for people who do this naturally in the way they discuss things. If they don't, I will have to stop and 'clean out' the information they are giving me so that my thoughts on the matter can be productive. Having to 'clean out' discussions irritates me. I expect people to stay on point, to delineate points and arguments and to always define the operational terms.
Last edited by unefille; 09-27-2008 at 11:04 AM.
(
)
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
Ok I will look at them at face value and "switch off" socionics.
In someone else: 5, and someone who would take over 6 for me. I don't need 8, 4 people would bore me, and 1 would get on my nerves with time. That leaves 2, but -- it's still a bit too "closed".Originally Posted by Diana
In me: If I couldn't do 7, I might as well marry a doughnut. I like 3, but I'm not sure of how accurately I do it the way it's phrased.
.
I tried not to think about what each description was on about for the sake of making it a genuine experiment - which is why I thought just 'picking them' didn't say much and I should describe how I felt about each description so as give some 'reasoning' for why I picked them.
I also tried to focus on the exact wording you used rather than going to any understanding of the IMEs.
I just thought aesthetics was odd, I guess because my sense of aesthetics is very Se and Fe - the overall impression (visual impact) and also how it affects people (emotional impact) - especially in relation to art or interior decoration. The idea of a machine or a body was much easier for me to go: ah - yeah, no idea how that works, is it important?
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
.
@Diana: I don't think it's a particularly bad Se description, as far as descriptions go. The problem with such descriptions generally is that when information elements are described in isolation, they end up being described as if they were about a person with that information element as base function - a problem already visible in Jung's descriptions. My own relationship to Se - or, more to the point, to the people who would be described by your (2) - is ambiguous, precisely because while I prefer to be around such people rather than around people described by (1), I am still slightly put off by them, in the sense of "seeing things as they are", well, maybe they are not exactly how you see them.
.
1,4,5,6
What would that point to?
.
Me:
7. and i can't decide between 1&3
other person:
2 & 5
INTp
sx/sp
.
I totally relate to this.
And I totally not relate to this.
Sure, but again, I was reacting to that description, as far as it went.
The way such descriptions are phrased - not just yours - I would expect most people to react according to model A. I mean, it is no trick for me to see strongin myself as per such descriptions. I think that for people to go more specifically for quadra values, the descriptions would have to be phrased in terms of priorities. Do I use
, or vice-versa? Etc etc.
4,6,7,8. 6 is particularly Ni-ish seeming. for example it would be easy for me to go into a room and understand the general character of why people were there or infer a general room-wide political lean from the kinds of comments that were being made.
i think all of 4,6,7 have particularly apparent Ni flavors. and in my case are less abstract and therefore easier to relate to than 3. its certainly very hard for me to see my thoughts as "vectors." it's hard for me to relate to intuition on a basis of "seeing possibilities everywhere," but it's about as hard for me to see it as "i see where things are going" and "i think in vectors." it's hard for me to see myself in those terms at all, really; that seems like a vastly incomplete cognitive process. perhaps somebody from the outside would see me in those terms, but i doubt that too.
4 is easy to relate to because it looks like "i understand biology and how machines work." that's easy.
7 also sounds Ni-ish to me. probably i'd describe 7 as more of the basis of my overall thought process than any of the others.
picking 2 that are most like me, 7+8. without interpreting things in socionics terms, i wouldn't know what i'd want in a partner, so i'll say 7+8.
brifly going through some other ones:
1. is hard to relate to. scatteredness could work, but i don't think seeing "possibilities" or "what-could-be" is a normal modus operandum at all.
2. this sounds sort of like "i can see someone who is wearing the color red." i won't naturally take note of immediate surroundings unless there's some reason to do so. when i first read this i sort of thought "this is clearly something i'm bad at," but rereading the description i could potentially see myself identifying with this. including an aspect of this to deal with initiative (which is more applicable for irrationals, acknowledged) would make this very easy to differentiate.
5. before i knew of socionics, i would probably have said that i'd be very bad at that. i think i can sort of be fairly decent at sort of "understanding what makes people tick" as far as character designations, but socionics goes a fairly long way towards that. i think that my answer to this is fairly inextricable from socionics; with socionics the answer is that i'm ok at it, without it i'm terrible. again the biggest problem is initiative.
8. that just sounds easy to do. it sounds fairly natural actually. "mentally organizing data" is something that's very easy for me.
Last edited by niffweed17; 09-27-2008 at 05:40 PM.
Me! Me! Me!!!
1) I see what could be, my thoughts run in scattered directions, web-like or branching. Rather than just see what is, I think of what might be. I see the potential in people or objects. Or, I'm more theoretical and intuitive and 'in my head, exploring the alternative trains of ideas and the what-could-bes' as opposed to being grounded in something more physical and tangible and forceful.
5) I have a very good feel for the connections between people/things, easily make value judgments or character determinations, and notice the closeness/distance between people.
7) I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening. I ask a lot of questions regarding this. Ask anyone who's talked with me in a casual/friendly manner. All my questions seem to center on their #5 and any #7's involved. I can get downright nosey and personal in #5,7. Oh yeah!!!
not me as much as I'd like it to be…totally admire in others!!
4) I'm most aware of how physical things connect to each other, gears, aesthetics, machines, the human body etc. Cause and effect of tangible processes is easy and natural for me. I'm more aware of where tangible things are spatially in relation to each other or to me. As for gears and machines and such, I've been known to play around with them once in a while. I've only got a handful of success stories in this though, heh. But amongst that is including a job as 'machine supervisor' for newspaper company. Meaning that my job was to keep the sorting machine functional and catch potential problems preferably before they jam it up. (so it's not like the handful of stories are all small ones). I completely and utterly admire anyone who's good with machines and gears, also people such as carpenters and construction builders. Not just admire. I mean, it's a turn on, big time. Kinda weird, I know, but it is. Seeing someone working on something with their hands, moving parts around, fitting parts together, etc. Yum. I also admire people who have a sense of aesthetics. I feel as if I have a lacking in this, can't draw, can't paint, not sure where to even start. This also includes aesthetics in food, tastes, music, etc. I admire people who even at least try to do this stuff, but of course especially those who are great with it.
sorta me ..eh..but not really
6) I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up. sorta, I guess, I mean there are many dance club places I'll avoid because I don't like the meatmarket atmosphere, going for one that has a more easy going, diverse customers, kind of thing. So I guess I do pick up on this stuff, but I don't like having to think about it. Often I feel agitated and anxious without knowing why before I figure out that it's something to do with the atmosphere or attitudes of where I'm at and/or the people involved.
3) I see the direction things are headed, my thoughts run path-like or as vectors, and where something is leading is easy for me to determine, not as tangible physical connections, but in an intangible and intuitive way. usually by the time I've reached this point, I've exhausted most if not all emotion and/or possibilities
not me
2) I am most aware of the physical world, what is, and observable qualities of a person/object. I don't get lost in what-ifs or could-bes, but see things as they are now. I easily size people up. I dunno, I'm just not so great at this. But it doesn't bother me like 8 does. Also, if someone gives me a bunch of 8, then it had better be connected with 2!!
8) I form definitive, categorical connections between people/things, and easily deal with laws, or structure, or mentally organize data . No. In fact, this stuff bugs the sh** out of me. People will talk about these set categories or connections and supposed correlations, and all I can think is …uh…not necessarily, there are other possibilities. However, I've come to learn that because of my natural impulsiveness and not so great decision making skills, that sometimes it helps if I have a system set up to help guide the options I can choose from. For example, I recently spent close to two months of trial and error trying to figure out a system that would guide me in making good meal/food choices for myself and my family to improve our health and nutrition. Whatever system I use though would have to allow for plenty of options while making sure that each option is a healthy one, an option that we could all at least tolerate though preferably like, and that wouldn't take much time to act on. I thankfully found a really good book that covered natural foods and very short and easy food preparation activities. And I figured out a pretty good meal 'plan' (ie Breakfast = 1 serving fruit + 1 serving protein; Dinner = 2 servings vegetables + 1 serving leaves + 1 serving protein; etc). But this wasn't enough to ensure that decision making each day was easy enough for good decisions. If given the choice of cooking or ordering out, I'd have rather order out. And if my decisions are following the usual of being based on what I want right that moment, then I'm not likely to make good decisions. So I had to set each day as a specific protein day. The routine goes like this: fish, beans/grains, poultry, fish, beans/grains, beef (red meat), eggs/dairy. So then when fish day comes along, I've only got about 2 options to choose from, etc. This leaves me the ability to still make the natural decisions of what am I in the mood for, but my options are limited and no matter which option I choose, I'm safe in how healthy of an option it is. But all this wasn't enough. Thankfully I found a system that's called "No S" which is basically "No Snacks, No Sweets, and No Seconds except (sometimes) on S days." S days being Sat, Sun, Special days. It was kinda funny when I found this online, because it was like so…"duh!!" Thankfully the family has accepted it for the most part. It's nice to have because when, during the day, I feel an urge to munch on some food, the decision has already been made. "No" unless it's an S day, or actual meal time. Not having to make the decision at all helps greatly. Though recently I've been having to decide whether or not to follow that decision.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
obligatory characters.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
.
.
.
These reactions of mine are general trends and such. At any given moment in time, in specific situations, my answers might vary somewhat. I think, though, that's probably already understood.
Yeah, especially to the first part. For me, there's usually all sorts of options - not all of them feasible or viable, but there nonetheless. "Potential" is subjective, though, because I often seem to see things... differently than other people. Some people see potential that I don't. Sometimes I see things that other people don't - and when that happens often it's a bit hard to completely show or explain it to them.
I think this is something I can get stuck in. For example, there are so many possibilities and directions to go in that I freeze from the overload of it all. In those cases, I need help choosing the best one.
No. This one is a struggle for me. I often feel I should be much better at this, because I think I can put myself in danger if I don't. It's hard for me to... focus on that, I guess. I often wish I had somebody who could filter all of those important concrete details and observable traits and sort of just give me what I need to know. But, obviously, that's not realistic. Sometimes I try to put myself through exercises to improve myself in this area. Not sure how well that works, though.
Not necessarily easy for me to determine, but it's definitely not foreign to me. I understand it and find it interesting and even useful. I can't say that I, personally, always give it the greatest importance, though. But I appreciate people who do, especially when they use their understanding for good. I can enjoy hearing others talk about what they see in that way.
I wouldn't say it's a natural talent, though it can be interesting. I think it works best if somebody else is good at that, can show me things about it, and then I can be suitably impressed and perhaps use scraps of that knowledge in my own life and explorations. Or, better yet, if they don't mind, have them take care of all that for me and just show me the interesting parts as it happens.
Except for aesthetics, though, I think. Because I do have my own preferences. And I can do my own creating in that area. Not that I mind input.
This is a bit hard for me to judge. I think I must be better at this than some people, though a lot of times these things seem very obvious to me. Then again, sometimes I doubt myself in this area, especially if someone else strongly disagrees with me. When that happens, I usually try to find out more information about the situation or people. Often the result of that is I find I was fairly correct in the first place.
Yes, in that it's relatively easy for me to pick up on and sometimes interesting to me. Sometimes I care more than other times, though. And I'm not the type of person who makes a habit of actively trying to change it. I'm more likely to be a, hm, sort of informant to individuals who either are the type to try to change the mood or an individual who (I care about) who is about to really mess it up for him/herself. I guess I'm a bit selfish in that I don't particularly care about the mood unless it's about to affect myself or those I care about somehow. (Then again, perhaps most people are like that.)
Also, this is one of those things where I have to concentrate a little to really be able to see what's going on. So, if I don't particularly care, I will sometimes just be oblivious to the mood.
I'm unsure with this one. I think I fail at that sometimes. I guess it sort of depends on what you mean by "something." Because, somethings I notice and others I don't. This seems related to 2 somehow. I think sometimes I notice the "wrong" things, the unimportant (though perhaps interesting) ones. So it helps to have someone around who does notice the important things and is kind enough to bring it to my attention when necessary.
I can, but I don't always. It seems like doing that sort of thing is more of an effort for me than for some other people. On the other hand, there are some people who I can do better on that than them. I think it's easier for me to understand those things than create it. I guess that I prefer for someone else to categorize and create structure, but not necessarily with too great an emphasis on it.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
.
well, 4,6,7 might be dynamic if you wrote them to be dynamic. such modifiers as "cause and effect of tangible processes" or "concrete processes of events" sound like constructs that were intentionally described as dynamic-ish sort of concepts which honestly seem very far removed from the nature of Si and Te respectively (ie, the "essence" of Si and Te is not that both are dynamic elements). for both Si and Fe i find it very hard to really find the respective element in the description so much as simply a picture of "this is the way things are," where Si focuses on mechanical objects and Fe focuses on people. I'm particularly surprised that people see any semblance of Fe in #6; to me it reads a lot more like "i'm able to see the way that people act and understand the mental processes that motivate them." to me that reads remarkably like Ni rather than anything to do with Fe.
a better Ni description, from my perspective anyway, might be something like "you are deeply aware of and actively pursue your own internal mental processes and seek to understand the implications of your ideas." this possibly may have some elements of Te in it, and is probably not a perfect description at all.
(oh, also, you're assuming that FDG and jessica are as they self-type, which is not necessarily an appropriate assumption for evaluating the legitimacy of this exercise.)
1) I see what could be, my thoughts run in scattered directions, web-like or branching. Rather than just see what is, I think of what might be. I see the potential in people or objects. Or, I'm more theoretical and intuitive and 'in my head, exploring the alternative trains of ideas and the what-could-bes' as opposed to being grounded in something more physical and tangible and forceful.
This seems really amazing to me, and is certainly what I'd liked to be considered good at.
2) I am most aware of the physical world, what is, and observable qualities of a person/object. I don't get lost in what-ifs or could-bes, but see things as they are now. I easily size people up.
This is boring and disappointing.
3) I see the direction things are headed, my thoughts run path-like or as vectors, and where something is leading is easy for me to determine, not as tangible physical connections, but in an intangible and intuitive way.
Not something I'd say I was obviously good at - but I can make speculations and rough estimates when seemingly nobody else has a clue. It would be nice to have a dual who was confident in the direction they are going, but not in an 'intangible and intuitive way'.
4) I'm most aware of how physical things connect to each other, gears, aesthetics, machines, the human body etc. Cause and effect of tangible processes is easy and natural for me.
The first part: not really me. The second part: I certainly hope I am good at this.
5) I have a very good feel for the connections between people/things, easily make value judgments or character determinations, and notice the closeness/distance between people.
This sounds wonderful on paper. I wish I was good at this in the field and in the moment, but I tend to think I am only good at it many months too late. I think I'd appreciate a dual who used this 'ability' with careful discretion...but that would really depend on how they use these instincts.
6) I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up.
I may be good at this, but I don't know how I would test if this is the case. I think I know how to guess how a person or group may be, or at least I am able to make compensations in order to prevent upset or massive fail. I'd certainly like to be good at this. I tend to speculate with those I know well about such things.
7) I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening.
Not me. These things pass me by and are not immediately obvious. I will probably be able to give an answer when asked, but I may not be able to feel sure of my answer. I think I'd find these qualities boring in a dual, though they might be somewhat motivating.
8) I form definitive, categorical connections between people/things, and easily deal with laws, or structure, or mentally organize data
This seems natural to me, though such phrasing feels a bit too harsh to me - e.g. the word 'categorical'. My head isn't as set in stone as that - when 'categorical' is used in the external world, it is too sure of itself. If everybody agreed with me then everything would be categorically agreeable. I don't believe I would appreciate a dual with this function as I wouldn't like such a mentally tied down person.
1 and 3.
I prefer other people to be...
6 and 1.
I think so. This was kind of hard.
I'm already aware of the harsh reality, 'spade a spade' so I get conflicted/annoyed if people point that out. I'd much rather they show then tell me. Basically, I like when others find me meaningful work to test my ideas. Not just accept them blindly or tell me not to be so idealistic.
If something is happening physically and I can't sense why or how it makes me extremely uncomfortable. This probably just points to how I'm not personally that good in.
Me: 1), 4), 7), 8); even though I don't feel any special connection to either one. 7 & 8 are both only partially true.
2) - whatever... boring and even slightly pretentious.
3) - I think I dislike people who focus on this too much. I myself can do it, but only when I see the need to, which is very rarely.
Would like to be better in 5).
6) - I'm not sure. I guess I am proficient in it and/or don't pay much attention to it.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I didn't read this thread before doing this, just so you know....
*tries to not think about socionics while commenting to each*
Okay...so for me...
2 and 6...i think...with 4 and 5 close behind. 5 and 6 are tricky...
I'm too stupidly oblivious to my....impact on others when it comes to what I say for 5. I'm just good at noticing how others are feeling towards each other when I'm not involved. I have a hard time knowing/feeling what others feel or think about me...in the moment or otherwise. I can't always tell how I'm being perceived. Especially if the person I'm talking with isn't honest and/or blunt. If you sit quietly while I talk or encourage me in anyway...you'll often hear me question you as to whether or not I'm boring your or making you uncomfortable. Because if you don't tell me, I don't know how to figure out if you do or not. I can pick up on body language though...if I'm not too excited that is. This is another blunt way to tell me to get the fuck away...with your body.
For the dual:
3 and 7.....alternatives.....4, 6.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
after reading what 5 and 6 are supposed to be, i realized why i had such a hard time with it.
i dont really get how each one is which....which is probably why i wrote a freaking novel with all the exceptions and details of how i relate to the tiny description.
hopefully.....if someone were interested enough to decipher everything i wrote on both subjects, they could figure out exactly my preference.
for instance, how much i DO notice "beneath the surface" things....yet not when im involved.
i felt as thought 5 was more like Fe...and that the vibes issue should have been grouped with it. i feel like 5 is more hands-on, and 6 was more detached...minus the vibes part. which is why i think i identified with 6 more, because i thought it sounded more hands-off...because thats how i roll. :]
i have too much F to figure out which one i have more of. holy balls.
and to think....people close to me complain that im not emotional ENOUGH. weirddddd
jesus christ Fe and Fi are confusing.....
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
damn...this makes me sound like a Beta dun it?
oh noes
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
I only identify with 1), really. In theory, I should identify with 8), but it is too concrete (e.g., focusing on "data") and categorical to be applied to more theoretical thinking.
Jason
EDIT: I will say that 8) isn't far off from a lot of the descriptions of it, but I usually don't identify with those descriptions.
Last edited by jason_m; 09-28-2008 at 10:07 AM.
3 was the only one I could relate to.
1 happens when I interact with my Fi creative friend. He tends to bring it out in me. It also sometimes happens in internet interaction.
2 I don't relate to. Regarding 2, other people tell me that thing is my weakness, as I often don't notice people or things, or even entire events, but I disagree. I'd say the reason I miss the most obvious of the obvious is because I am not looking, not because I am incapable. As I say to them, I am simply not expecting something to happen so when it does I don't notice. When I cross their path in the street or something.
3 I relate to. And to be honest, that one is mandatory to me, the one I cannot do without. It ensures that I have at least some control over my life. I need to have a secure, stable, comfortable, pleasurable, essentially carefree, existence. And ensuring that tomorrow my world doesn't turn upside down, but everything remains roughly the same as today is vital to doing that.
4 is completely bizarre. I don't really have an idea of what you were trying to say with it. I'd say definitely not 4 for me.
5 I understand, but ultimately it is not me. I know this because I am surrounded by people who are good at doing that. They say that I am naive regarding that. That I interpret people as ultimately good, with good intentions, that I give everybody a chance, always give them the benefit of doubt when I shouldn't, or with some other obvious bad thing about the other person. But to be honest I find their judgments too judgmental. I think they're just making stuff up out of thin air, are taking some insignificant aspect of the other people and are presenting it for more then it's relevance. That is, I don't think I am naive, I think I am actually the one who is right. But the validity of thing they said initially and I found out only later to be true, and the consistency of this validity of their observations, makes me think that they are in fact right and I am wrong, that they are more able at this.
6 is something I completely ignore. If the environment turns into what the other person really meant with their words I interpret that as my cue to distance myself from the environment. Because if I cannot simply express myself but what I say will be searched for ulterior motives then I see no point in communication. If there is no trust present amongst people. And such an environment, where people are expecting the other to be deceitful, to lie, is entirely unnatural to me. It's like, if one were to torture my spirit that would be the way, to remove me from honesty and integrity of character and put me in an environment where that skill is emphasized.
7 I don't understand. Much like 4 I find it weird. And I'd say not 7 as well.
8 I understand, and I do it often, but I don't care about it. That is, this is like a toy to me. I love playing with it. Seeing if things are connected, how and so on. Not to mention it is mandatory if I wish to accomplish the things I am currently doing.
So I guess that would be:
Me – 3
Do – 5, 8
Neutral – 1
Dismiss – 2, 7, 4
My opposite -6
As for my dual, perhaps 1 and 5. Because I need others to engage me in 1, I can't do it myself, and I appreciate input in 5, I really lack it and need somebody else to provide me in it. Although up until recently I wouldn't have said that for 5, I would've said I was able in that, but being around people who are able in that makes me see just how much I really need somebody like that.
Regarding the rest, 3 and 8 I can do myself so I don't need somebody else doing that for me. I might appreciate their input, but as an equal.
4 and 7 I don't understand so I don't think I need it.
Regarding 2 and 6, I actually resent people who try to help me there. I only tolerate what they have to say in those areas. Where people acting in the manner described in 6 is a source of great deal of conflict in my personal life.
.
Last edited by Diana; 09-28-2008 at 03:26 PM.
.
.
.
I acutally think, that usually NTs should pick as most identifying all the NT functions. I do think I can easily understand the workings of typical mechanical parts - I always repair by myself my bike, or my computer, or some minor electrical problem in the house. I also referred this understanding to a thinking function more than a sensing one. But I don't think I'm very good with aestetichs - so you can say I relate to 50 percent of that part.
What I am pretty sure of is that I am not very good with both of the feeling functions, but that somehow I think I can manage it with the sensing ones, even if I still prefer the intuitive. But if I have to refer to this:
No I don't think I have this problem anymore, especially after I cycled at mid-high level for some years, which forced me to understand how my body works (lest always be without forces at half of the race). And if I've got to choose one that probably gave me problems most consistently, it'd be:I don't know why aesthetics are the same as gears, machines and the human body...I have no natural knowledge of the how my body works. It constantly surprises me: bursts of energy, exhaustion - all these states don't naturally connect to things I'm doing to my body so they always bewilder me. I'll do something stupid like eat nothing all day bar a few lollies and then my vision will blur and I'll start shaking and it won't even occur to me why that's happening, except at a very abstracted and 'technical' level, like information from a textbook.
I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I can't answer these. It's too obvious which IM is which.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
