I am wondering if what I say here is actually Si. Could it be Ni? What do you Ni ego people think, is it Ni? I'm especially interested in gamma NT-s. Could this be gamma Ni? Or perhaps this is Se? Or something else? If it is Si, is it Si dominant? Or creative? Role? Mobilizing? Ignoring? How much of it would be Si, what parts would be Si and what wouldn't? I want to figure these things out.
"They provide an environment and do not expect things to change, ever. If circumstances change they are primarily bent on keeping up the status quo. They have set things up cozy for them, they do not wish for it to change."
"... they are frightened and scared that they will lose their comfortable position they have set up for themselves, genuinely uncertain of what tomorrow will bring and desperately trying to cling to the familiar, to what they have experience in dealing with."
"Like I said, they set things up for themselves and don't expect change. Circumstances are almost solely viewed through this prism of "how this affects me in my comfortable sofa". Although this is not really to be taken literally, for example, they can see their families as the "comfortable sofa" and will work long and hard to maintain it. That is, what I say primarily refers to taking things for granted, not expecting things and circumstances to change. But when they do they try with all their might to keep the stability they have built up for themselves.
First line of defense is past experience. As creatures of habit turned mostly towards maintaining the existence of a current situation, they rely on past experiences to predict things and how to fix problems. That is, their method of dealing with new things is to know in advance how to solve, fix, address them.
Second line of defense is innovation. When something new comes around and it cannot be rejected, like say a new piece of technology or work method, or a problem cannot be fixed by old methods, or generally when novelty cannot be dealt with and cannot be avoided then they rely heavily on improvisation. The main focus is again to keep whatever they have in a status quo, to have a safe haven, a little piece of security that never changes and on which they can depend on. This means developing new methods, new way of tackling the issue, problem.
On it's own terms this is actually a source of great pleasure, acquiring experience. For example taking a project home and practicing on it. This way they gain expertise which can then be applied when the need for it arises. In essence, they gravitate towards expertise through experience."
"Roughly, yes. On their own they don't want things to change and don't go from one goal to another.
When I said they do not want things to change, I meant that as on their part. Well, not really not change, but change drastically. That is, they do not want to lose control over their environment. When, for example, they have a family, a secure job and so on, they do not want that to change. Generally if they have their situation set up they do not want to lose control over it. And they focus on setting up a situation.
If they were to be left to their own devices, they would stick to one field and become experts there, that is, staying in one place with their secure environment."
"Regarding them, they don't have decisiveness but rather an awareness of their environment. They know when things have deteriorated, they know when action needs to be taken, on what and how. But they don't see the opportunities as they arise around them, they don't seize the day. They focus on maintaining their environment. They get stuck in their comfortable position and sit there thinking, "gosh I'm comfortable... but I'm bored". If left to their own devices they develop their situation to an optimum and halt there, tying to keep and ensure the optimum. They miss out on things around them. They need somebody to provide them with opportunities and options, so they would have lot's and lot's of options of things where they can do the same thing of trying to get the environment functioning at an optimum."
"Hmm, that is not the case for myself. As I have described for myself when I find my equilibrium I seek to maintain it and preserve it, in the manner I have described. I don't like to sacrifice my comfort for the fun of it. If I do intend to have fun, I first try to ensure that it will be pleasurable, that is, I think of ensuring my environment first. I primarily like to have "safe fun"."
"I generally only do things when the need for it arises. Like I didn't really consider all of those things I said in that other place until I got involved in the discussion. This is something I noticed about myself, I need other people to act as catalysts for my revelation process. Like I described there, otherwise I tend to sit there idly missing out on a lot of things."
"I am not experience-oriented and the like. Like I told you in our interaction, I'm extremely risk averse. My safety comes first. I'm quite comfortable sitting home on my computer not experiencing anything and being comfortable."
"I don't learn about the world primarily through direct personal experience rather than through contemplation, analysis, or talking about things with people. Like I expressed I am very much into theory, contemplation, analysis and especially into talking about these things with people."
"I did say that I am extremely against forceful behavior and naturally inhibit it, but I'm not what is described there. I don't have a need to care for others, far from it. I don't care about animals, close friends or family, strangers in need. I might help them if the situation calls for it, however my reaction would most likely be resentment for making me do stuff."
"I am not attentive to those around me. As long as I can stay in my comfort zone, I don't care what others are doing."
"I don't feel most comfortable interacting with people in situations with some physical or hands-on component, such as watching something together, building something, walking around, touching things, or otherwise involving my senses and body. In fact the exact opposite, the more purely verbal interaction is, the more involved I am, communicate easier, am more sure of myself in general."
"I have a strong tendency to passively impose myself upon my environment. The things I described elsewhere, the need for a comfort zone and how I am controlling regarding that. In essence I don't adapt to my environment, but adapt it to me. And this is something quite strong in me. It is passive, slowly extending engulfing, much like how erosion is. I tend to erode my environment so that it becomes an extension of myself. Oh, a better example, it's like a new pair of shoes, or an item of clothing, over time it stretches, adapts to you so that it eventually fit's you perfectly. This is my impact on my immediate surroundings, I make them fit me like as if they were an item of clothing, an extension of myself.
When I am somewhere I simply CANNOT not have my peace, comfort. It is a natural extension of me. And as I spend more time in the environment this natural extension expands and engulfs it completely altering it, adapting it to myself."
"Yes, I'm incredibly lazy. I tend to spend almost all my time in my private indulgences. Again the need for comfort. I can't really not be comfortable in doing somethign, if I'm not I don't even try to do it. Or try to alter it somehow to make it enjoyable. As I realized, my stance towards work is that work should not be hard. If it is hard then something is wrong. I aim to make work a pleasurable activity and work, for me, always is. Because I make it such."