ArchonAlarion, ILI?

[ArchonAlarion]

Okay, my type has been questioned so I'll write a bit about me. Ill probably never meet you guys irl, so whatever I'm comfortable spillin.

Thing I do most is reflect. Enough so that it is almost like a hobby. I imagine probable discussions I might have with people in the future and I basically monolouge my points. I literally pace around my house for hours imagining a debate I might have with someone.

I have about four things I ponder about currently
1. Socionics
2. Politics and philosophy
3. My life, currently with a large emphasis on this SEE Im crazy about. (stfu Whitey)
4. dungeons and dragons/warhammer/larp/computer games

I often make up worlds in my head. For instance I've had this one world for awhile in which I imagine what life would be like for a society of kids in a world where all adults disappear. There's been many others. I do it alot so I thought it was relevent.

I like drawing maps of fantasy worlds and creating histories for them. I like world building. Just drawing continents and mountain ranges has like a therapeutic affect on me. Then I like populating the worlds with civilizations, races, and prominent locations.

I am also a gamer. Mostly I like strategy games and role playing games. Since I can remember I've wanted to be a god, so naturally Im drawn to games like Black and White, Fable, Total War series, Oblivion.

I must admit I do enjoy designing rules for games and assigning attributes, which I consider TiNe. I am good at it and I love it. However that is also just an attempt to bring my imaginations to life with some system that has a concrete product, so doesn't necessarily mean Im an Alpha NT.

Since a young age I've been interested in politics and such. I have a novelistic view of the world, so I've always wanted to be a main character in the plot. Naturally, the fate of the world and human race is the major storyline. The direction of civilizations and societies has always fascinated me.


I love reading. I love science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, etc. Contemporary stuff bores me. Man I can get really deep feelings from books. Like the other day I sat down next to my library and as I looked at my books all the memories and feelings I got flooded back to me and it was oddly powerful.

I also love learning. Most of my knowledge I've gleaned on my own. Subjects of interest to me: history, philosophy, economics, astronomy, and linguistics. School bores me for the most part.

Classes I like right now: AP statistics, Ocean engineering, Medieval History (when we actually do shit. Right now me an my LIE friend just go on 16types, cuz its indp. study)

Classes I dont like: Honors precalc (LII teacher, bored to tears can only pay attention for like two seconds until I scribble socionics stuff)

I gather knowledge fairly rapidly if its in my sphere of interest and when its not, I'll often soak it up and spew it out at a later time to contribute something to a discussion.

Pure math and theoretical math mostly bore the shit out of me, and I do poorly in classes on the subjects, not because of my capability, but more of my unwillingness to concentrate on them.



Eh, yeah Im like crazy for my SEE friend. I was crazy for her long before I encountered socionics and yes she is SEE. She punched me in the balls four times today and whispered to me that she knows I like it. Thats a fun example. If its relevent I can go into more detail on our relationship.

Umm yeah if "hidden agenda" has any merit to it than it definitely applies to me. It takes me a long time to like someone, but when I do I'm borderline obsessive. There was a paragraph on wikisocion:

The individual longs for establishing stable personal relationships with other individuals based on mutual trust and understanding where deeper and private feelings and experiences can be easily shared. However, the individual lacks the initiative to establish such relationships and usually expects others to make gestures in that area, admiring those who do so. In the context of as a vulnerable function, it should be emphasized that these types especially value emotional bonds where feelings go unsaid between partners, and are simply "understood."

That is me to the T.


I can go into more detail on the above. Also I didn't even go into the super-ego elements.

Awaiting feedback.

[Steve]

The way you write seems extroverted and EP>IP. Additionally, you seem Fe-seeking over Fi-seeking, as you seem to look for a kind of emotional guidance. Also the overall vibe when you talk about your world building seems like you enjoy setting up the different physical contexts in the worlds (Si) and manipulating different variables that effect the context (Ne). I imagine there's an elegant symmetrical structural consistency to the worlds you create that ossifies the aspects of the settings together (Ti). Do you also find yourself doing this with the real world too? Also check out the enneagram 6 description, have you considered that?

Edit: if you want you can post a few pics for VI (visual identification). For some of us that is one of the most reliable methods of typing.

[munenori2]

To be perfectly honest, that's pretty much word for word a description of me in high school (not so much wanting to be a god bit, but our interests seem incredibly similar, ditto on the reflection/world building). Sadly, even the wikisocion quoted piece sounds a lot like me. However, I'm not sure how or where I'd place these things in the context of socionics.

[strrrng]

Not much to gain from that description, especially since motivations can't be pinpointed. Post some pics.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Okay, my type has been questioned so I'll write a bit about me. Ill probably never meet you guys irl, so whatever I'm comfortable spillin.

Thing I do most is reflect. Enough so that it is almost like a hobby. I imagine probable discussions I might have with people in the future and I basically monolouge my points. I literally pace around my house for hours imagining a debate I might have with someone.

I have about four things I ponder about currently
1. Socionics
2. Politics and philosophy
3. My life, currently with a large emphasis on this SEE Im crazy about. (stfu Whitey)
4. dungeons and dragons/warhammer/larp/computer games

I often make up worlds in my head. For instance I've had this one world for awhile in which I imagine what life would be like for a society of kids in a world where all adults disappear. There's been many others. I do it alot so I thought it was relevent.

I like drawing maps of fantasy worlds and creating histories for them. I like world building. Just drawing continents and mountain ranges has like a therapeutic affect on me. Then I like populating the worlds with civilizations, races, and prominent locations.

I am also a gamer. Mostly I like strategy games and role playing games. Since I can remember I've wanted to be a god, so naturally Im drawn to games like Black and White, Fable, Total War series, Oblivion.

I must admit I do enjoy designing rules for games and assigning attributes, which I consider TiNe. I am good at it and I love it. However that is also just an attempt to bring my imaginations to life with some system that has a concrete product, so doesn't necessarily mean Im an Alpha NT.

Since a young age I've been interested in politics and such. I have a novelistic view of the world, so I've always wanted to be a main character in the plot. Naturally, the fate of the world and human race is the major storyline. The direction of civilizations and societies has always fascinated me.


I love reading. I love science fiction, fantasy, historical fiction, etc. Contemporary stuff bores me. Man I can get really deep feelings from books. Like the other day I sat down next to my library and as I looked at my books all the memories and feelings I got flooded back to me and it was oddly powerful.

I also love learning. Most of my knowledge I've gleaned on my own. Subjects of interest to me: history, philosophy, economics, astronomy, and linguistics. School bores me for the most part.

Classes I like right now: AP statistics, Ocean engineering, Medieval History (when we actually do shit. Right now me an my LIE friend just go on 16types, cuz its indp. study)

Classes I dont like: Honors precalc (LII teacher, bored to tears can only pay attention for like two seconds until I scribble socionics stuff)

I gather knowledge fairly rapidly if its in my sphere of interest and when its not, I'll often soak it up and spew it out at a later time to contribute something to a discussion.

Pure math and theoretical math mostly bore the shit out of me, and I do poorly in classes on the subjects, not because of my capability, but more of my unwillingness to concentrate on them.



Eh, yeah Im like crazy for my SEE friend. I was crazy for her long before I encountered socionics and yes she is SEE. She punched me in the balls four times today and whispered to me that she knows I like it. Thats a fun example. If its relevent I can go into more detail on our relationship.

Umm yeah if "hidden agenda" has any merit to it than it definitely applies to me. It takes me a long time to like someone, but when I do I'm borderline obsessive. There was a paragraph on wikisocion:

The individual longs for establishing stable personal relationships with other individuals based on mutual trust and understanding where deeper and private feelings and experiences can be easily shared. However, the individual lacks the initiative to establish such relationships and usually expects others to make gestures in that area, admiring those who do so. In the context of as a vulnerable function, it should be emphasized that these types especially value emotional bonds where feelings go unsaid between partners, and are simply "understood."

That is me to the T.


I can go into more detail on the above. Also I didn't even go into the super-ego elements.

Awaiting feedback.

You could be an ISTp as well as an INTp from that description. Have you thought about ISTp?

Pictures should help.

[Jarno]

Okay, my type has been questioned

By who, and which type did they think you were?

I think you're clearly ILI-ni

[jason_m]

I have a question (perhaps not relevant to your type): how did you start getting interested in socionics?

Jason

[iAnnAu]

To be perfectly honest, that's pretty much word for word a description of me in high school (not so much wanting to be a god bit, but our interests seem incredibly similar, ditto on the reflection/world building). Sadly, even the wikisocion quoted piece sounds a lot like me. However, I'm not sure how or where I'd place these things in the context of socionics.

Seconded. Dude, your life is going to turn upside down soon. Get some experience of making a living out in the real world and after a few years of that, come back and read your post; I couldn't even explain how generalized most of this could be for many, many US teens. Be patient, and soak up some more experience along with continuing to study the theory.

... I started to go into how so many of the things you mentioned harken me back to when I was in high school, but I'll skip it. I've got notebooks full of angsty inward-reaching journal entries and even poems to refer back to if I ever really want to relive it.

[ArchonAlarion]

Steve: I have a low energy level. I am mostly inactive puncuated with a few short periods of hyperness. I often will let things go undone or unsaid simply because I dont feel like talking or breaking my introspection. I would fit under the popular definition of "introverted" although I understand that it is different in socionics.

I feel uncomfortable around loud expressional displays. I rarely put myself in situations where I most express myself emotionally, because I fear public embarrassment and ridicule. I feel uneasy around people dancing, singing, and acting. I can't imagine myself doing those things nor would I want to.

I tend to exalt and glorify the girls I like, who have been few in number (maybe like 2). My thoughts become consumed with thinking about the person and I take rejections from them very harshly. I do not initiate these kinds of relationships and I'd only want to go out with someone who I truly loved. I dont like PDA, I'm very private and intimate. I terms of Romantic interactions I am formost a "victim." My "fantasies" involve aggressor-victim exchanges and role switching.

I enjoy world building for the escape it creates for me. I often feel like a very useless person because I spend most of my time introspecting, reflecting, and analyzing. If I am INTp, than I'll still have use of NeTi and from what I've read Ill often use them in private. For instance, I love understanding Socionics, but I feel uncomfortable discussing it in public especially in front of my SEE friend. NeTi in my ID fits my life well.

Ill attempt to describe what really gets me going
Sort of like "the inner importance of events, fates, and symbols". I get very excited when events from the long past are "reawakened", fates are set into motions, and all things culminate into a final moment where everything comes crashing down and a new dawn begins. Eh, maybe Im losing you. Its hard to describe in words. Think like in the LOTR movies when Frodo throws the ring into the fire and Sauron is obliterated. Thats a very powerful image to me ( more so than most people) and there are many climactic events such as this in fantasy and sci-fi literature, most of the reason why Im drawn to it. In a serious story I need the plot to be powerful, earthshaking, epic, and meaningful. I figured this had to do with Ni.


Cyclops: I make very little effort to be comfortable, and I am definitely an intuitive. I have always thought abstractly and the hidden underlying connections and processes interest me significantly more than physical ones. I know a few ISTp's we get along pretty well and will mostly see eye to eye in discussions. The difference is that I wanna talk about philosophy, ideologies, meanings, and earthshattering events looming in the future and they want to talk about skateboarding, funny people, cars, making shit, and working out (Yes im being totally stereotypical, I dont give a shit.).


Jarno: Strrrng and Steve. Both say I'm Alpha, Steve believes Im ILE.

jason_m: I once took an MBTI test in eighth grade and got INTJ. I've always enjoyed making quizzes, and doing quizzes on the net. So in sophomore year I found the MBTI test again, retook it, and got INTX. I jumped around from INTJ and INTP because neither type was fitting me perfectly even if they fit more than the others. I began to be disillusioned with INTJFORUMS, but through a thread I found a discussion on socionics.

My interest was piqued and I began gathering information on it.

Starfall: I'm a fan of James Rolfe.

iAnnAu: True. However, I think I might be explaining poorly.

Basically, if you think it has any merit the enneagram 4 description describes my inner self extremely accurately and 5 (coming in equal to or close second on tests) is how I appear to people around me when I'm in a more analytical, and less reflective, mood.


Please do not focus on or pick apart the subject matter! All my videos so far are tests just to get me started on youtube. I had nothing written done and I was rambling. Also the sound is really low. Hope it helps.

[strrrng]

You VI as static, EP and very Ti focused. There's a precise quality to your delivery and behavior, coupled with a focus on a more connected, continuous Si context (as opposed to the discretely shifting Se focus). You do not seem to organize ideas in any sequential Te manner, rather focusing on the Ti structure behind them, it seems. Also...Fi? Doubt it. If anything, I saw some unfocused Fe antics thrown in there, in the undertones of your delivery. I don't see an Ni focus; you do not seem dynamic in any way, nor do you appear focused on a continuous, self-contained context (Ni being internal dynamics of fields). The way you abstract things better reflects the localized, divergent nature of Ne, where variables are divided and reconstructed. But static and EP were the first things that stuck out to me.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Couldn't hear what you were saying partially due to my speakers and the poor sound quality. You VI as an INTp. Can't see much in your extra description to contradict INTp.

I think INTp for you.

[Steve]

I definitely think Alpha NT. There's a explicit Ti categorization and static labeling going on, and what's being labeled seems to exist in the form of divergent variables as strrrng said.

lol before I started the video, just looking at the snapshot pic, I thought of niffweed who is Ne INTj fwiw.

I wouldn't rule out Ne INTj either, as there seems to be a quality to you ArchonAlarion that you're kind of in your own world, and this video seems like you're coming out and "declaring your conclusions - your manifesto" so to speak, and it could fit in with what I've seen some Ne INTjs do - and some Ne INTjs such as Niffweed mistake themselves for INTps. But I could also see a EP energy, so I'm not sure which of the two it is at this point.

Ti ENTp or Ne INTj

[strrrng]

lol before I started the video, just looking at the snapshot pic, I thought of niffweed fwiw... "declaring your conclusions - your manifesto"

lol subject analysis

[Steve]

lol subject analysis

lol yeah trying to see which personal stereotype he matches.

Edit: his style and cognitive demeanor does seem refined and J-function focused as opposed to the more reactive style of Ne INTjs, so I lean Ti ENTp.

[ArchonAlarion]

Idk what to tell you guys. I still do not agree with typing myself as an ENTp. I'm adverse to the amount of distinction you're going into over the IM elements.

I like the fact that you're giving me feedback, but I don't feel it has any validity to me.

I will conceed that you may have a vastly different interpretation of socionics, and maybe by your definitions I am an ILE. By all the descriptions of ILE's I've seen, however, ILI beats it.

[Steve]

I will conceed that you may have a vastly different interpretation of socionics, and maybe by your definitions I am an ILE. By all the descriptions of ILE's I've seen, however, ILI beats it.

Yeah you're right. Strrrng and I along with a few others do operate on a vastly different interpretation of socionics than the original version created by the russians. In our experience, the understanding we operate with more accurately depicts the information elements in types. All of the descriptions written operate are more based on the original russian material which IMO tends to be overly behaviorally oriented.

I'd be happy to show you some examples of people of the different NTs so you can get a sense of the vibes we're picking up with you and how they relate to type. It's just something you see from experience, and I think it'll make more sense when you get acquainted with some examples.

[ArchonAlarion]

Sounds good.

Show me the stuff, maybe Ill convert, I'm openminded. Generally.

edit*

I read the enneagram description for 6. 4 and 5 fit me better.

[Steve]

Here's some INTps

Ni INTp: Gabriel Byrne


There's a raw Ni/Se focus but also a heavy Fi presence you can sense around him.

Te INTp: Sergei Brin


With him, being a Te sub, he's got a more refined quality, but you can still sense the Fi presence as a theme present. You can also notice his awareness of Se, processed through the honed filter of Te.

Ron Paul:


He is very vocal, but still introverted. The Te focus is clear.

Here's some Ti ENTps:

Nicolas Cage:


Ben Stiller:


Howard Stern:


Michael Bolton:


Try to put personality aside when you look at them, try to observe the underlying way they process information, how they form their sentences, the way they comment about things, etc.

Here's an Ne INTj:

Peter Singer:


Also look up some pictures of them and I think you'll see some of the differences between them.

[Steve]

The types of those people seem pretty clear, and my impressions thus far are that you seem closer to the second bunch, but I haven't really known you for that long so I'm open too, that maybe there are things I didn't pick up about you.

But see what you think in terms of which group of people you feel you have more in common with.

[ArchonAlarion]

Can you clarify what your take on the IM elements are?

Like a definition and an example?

And yes Im analyzing the vids.

[Steve]

Can you clarify what your take on the IM elements are?

Like a definition and an example?

And yes Im analyzing the vids.

Here's a description of Ti I wrote a few months ago, it also includes how I see information elements in general:

http://the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20732

I invite Strrrng to briefly describe Ni/Se

Oh yeah, Einstein was Ti ENTp. Notice how his theory of general relativity had a very top down unified structure to it - he conceived of the notion of the fabric of spacetime and gravity distorting that spacial fabric. Also if you see how he writes and talks and thinks, it's NeTi. It's hard for me to get too concrete in showing functions at work because it's so easy to lose the underlying principle for the concretization.

[Park]

Excellent NT comparisons/examples, Steve.

[ArchonAlarion]

I think the first two videos are boring and dull. The Ron Paul one is interesting and stimulating.

I think this has more to do with the videos and topic and less to do with the socionics type.

Actually all the videos except the Ron Paul one bored me. I felt an appreciation for Ron Paul because he gives factual evidence for my own philosophy. I can follow him easily and I like the way he speaks.

The one that I identify the most with is the RP one, but this could be due to the subject matter of the other videos.

Reading your description of Ti, I like Ti, but I find it difficult to apply practically because existence is too complex. Thats why I oriented with Ni and Te because I feel most comfortable with tentative, broad statements based on trends. I also find it hard to integrate Ti. I can stare at a calculus book for hours and not learn a single thing. Its annoying and boring for me to do this. I bought a book on pure logic and although it was interesting, I found I had to push myself to read it.

Im currently reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman. I totally "click" with the book. It is definitely written via Te. Its about the directions of globalization filled with real stories of business ventures and operations. I enjoy reading it and I can pull information out of it very easily. Another book I enjoyed was "The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson. Right up my alley.

I use Ti hesitantly. Its nice, but eh after considering things for a bit Im leaning back towards Te.

edit*
actually f that, I'm sure im an INTp now. Wow yeah no Im INTp.

for a second there.... nope I use and enjoy Te soooooooooooooooo much more. I'd still like a description of Ni though.

[strrrng]

I invite Strrrng to briefly describe Ni/Se

Yeah.

Reading your description of Ti, I like Ti, but I find it difficult to apply practically because existence is too complex. Thats why I oriented with Ni and Te because I feel most comfortable with tentative, broad statements based on trends. I also find it hard to integrate Ti. I can stare at a calculus book for hours and not learn a single thing. Its annoying and boring for me to do this. I bought a book on pure logic and although it was interesting, I found I had to push myself to read it.

I don't see how "tentative, broad statements based on trends" is exclusive to INTp's. All this shit about Ni being some forecasting, future-seeing mind frame is bunk. And calculus isn't inherently one function; how you process it is what demonstrates functional preference. And logic ≠ Ti.

Im currently reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman. I totally "click" with the book. It is definitely written via Te. Its about the directions of globalization filled with real stories of business ventures and operations. I enjoy reading it and I can pull information out of it very easily. Another book I enjoyed was "The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson. Right up my alley.

Again, being practical, economical, efficient, etc. is not intrinsic to Te. Te is a psychic lens that filters information into discrete, objective processes. Two people can talk about the stock market and interpret it differently.

I use Ti hesitantly. Its nice, but eh after considering things for a bit Im leaning back towards Te.

edit*
actually f that, I'm sure im an INTp now. Wow yeah no Im INTp.

for a second there.... nope I use and enjoy Te soooooooooooooooo much more. I'd still like a description of Ni though.

Right, ok.

Anyway, what Ni/Se does/is, is much different from Ne/Si. Where the latter establishes an externally-defined continuum (mainly through environmental integration), whereby discrete variables can be abstracted, divided and permutated, the former establishes a more self-contained, integral context, where processes do not take place in any specific context, but rather, on a more latent, abstract level. From this starting point (or ending point, considering that Ni establishes a holistic sense of something from the inside out, rendering the final result more immediately apparent than in Ne/Si), variables can be treated as discrete, explicit points distributed [seemingly] randomly throughout an [intangible] vector field.

How this manifests in facial/bodily demeanor. Si valuers typically have a more balanced look to them, as if every action, reaction, etc. is affecting their sense of connection with the environment on a holistic level. It's like a sea of interconnected physical interactions. Se valuers appear a bit more divergent, as if they are jumping from point to point, sucking the stimulus out of each one and moving on. They may feel impact and affect things, but there will never be any continuity; it will always be a very localized style of gauging and leveraging things.

In your video, the thing I noticed was that when it came to explicit, experiential data (which can loosely be termed "sensory"), you seemed to demonstrate a preference for the formerly-described.

[Steve]

More to say later, but I will say that Thomas Friedman is Ti ENTp, with an ever so distant possibility of Fe ESFj.

Nice description Strrrng.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't see how "tentative, broad statements based on trends" is exclusive to INTp's. All this shit about Ni being some forecasting, future-seeing mind frame is bunk. And calculus isn't inherently one function; how you process it is what demonstrates functional preference. And logic ≠ Ti.

Again, being practical, economical, efficient, etc. is not intrinsic to Te. Te is a psychic lens that filters information into discrete, objective processes. Two people can talk about the stock market and interpret it differently.

I never said it was exclusive to ILI's nor did I say Ni is necessarily about forecasting. IN FACT, Im opposed to that view because it severly limits the scope of Ni. I think calculus (and most math) falls under Ti. This is why some people do not care for it. Math is mostly about measurements, categories, and rules. I thought that kind of information was Ti.

Question 1. I was under the impression that physical operations and processes, such as Walmart's supplier system, is Te information. Is it? If so then I do value information presented in such a way.

Question 2. Are different things harder to understand for some people? As in, would it be difficult for a Te ego type to decipher an emotional fluxuation?

Right, ok.

Anyway, what Ni/Se does/is, is much different from Ne/Si. Where the latter establishes an externally-defined continuum (mainly through environmental integration), whereby discrete variables can be abstracted, divided and permutated, the former establishes a more self-contained, integral context, where processes do not take place in any specific context, but rather, on a more latent, abstract level. From this starting point (or ending point, considering that Ni establishes a holistic sense of something from the inside out, rendering the final result more immediately apparent than in Ne/Si), variables can be treated as discrete, explicit points distributed [seemingly] randomly throughout an [intangible] vector field.

How this manifests in facial/bodily demeanor. Si valuers typically have a more balanced look to them, as if every action, reaction, etc. is affecting their sense of connection with the environment on a holistic level. It's like a sea of interconnected physical interactions. Se valuers appear a bit more divergent, as if they are jumping from point to point, sucking the stimulus out of each one and moving on. They may feel impact and affect things, but there will never be any continuity; it will always be a very localized style of gauging and leveraging things.

In your video, the thing I noticed was that when it came to explicit, experiential data (which can loosely be termed "sensory"), you seemed to demonstrate a preference for the formerly-described.

Thats exactly what Im getting at. I feel your reasoning is way to specific and abstract to make that point. I could of been having an off day. Maybe recording youtube videos for the first time, I used different expressions than ones I use in my day to day interactions.

I dont feel you've described Ni sufficiently. I want to have examples of Ne/Ni behavior.

[ArchonAlarion]

More to say later, but I will say that Thomas Friedman is Ti ENTp, with an ever so distant possibility of Fe ESFj.

Nice description Strrrng.

wth. The book is a loose conglomeration of a shitload of interviews, with histories on the companies, events, their business techniques, how they're profiting from them, and their effect on globalization.

You just said in your Ti, description that this is what Te is like.

[strrrng]

I never said it was exclusive to ILI's nor did I say Ni is necessarily about forecasting. IN FACT, Im opposed to that view because it severly limits the scope of Ni. I think calculus (and most math) falls under Ti. This is why some people do not care for it. Math is mostly about measurements, categories, and rules. I thought that kind of information was Ti.

I agree that some subjects are presented in a Ti manner, but that is due to the teacher/writer.

Question 1. I was under the impression that physical operations and processes, such as Walmart's supplier system, is Te information. Is it? If so then I do value information presented in such a way.

What do you mean by "physical processes"? Te process are not integrated; they are differentiated. It's like pool balls colliding, Te being the ostensible effects (not the fields connecting the balls). "Physical" processes tend to fall under the realm of Si, but I'll wait for you to clarify what you mean.

Question 2. Are different things harder to understand for some people? As in, would it be difficult for a Te ego type to decipher an emotional fluxuation?

Yes and No. Information presented in a manner that is diametrical to your valued functions will always cause some friction, to varying degrees. Like for me, Te information is the hardest, whilst for someone like steve, Fi information is the hardest. The important point to be made is that this "Ti information", etc. is not something objectively "out there"; it is an interpretation of information by others with those functions that is imposed on us. So, if you don't process things in a Ti manner, you won't experience "Ti information" unless you're dealing with a Ti person. Saying otherwise is essentially saying that your brain processes information in a detrimental manner; like your body's enzymes turning in on each other.

Thats exactly what Im getting at. I feel your reasoning is way to specific and abstract to make that point. I could of been having an off day. Maybe recording youtube videos for the first time, I used different expressions than ones I use in my day to day interactions.

Yeah. It's whatever.

I dont feel you've described Ni sufficiently. I want to have examples of Ne/Ni behavior.

Yeah, I'll describe Ni a bit later. And Steve can describe Ne.

[ArchonAlarion]

I agree that some subjects are presented in a Ti manner, but that is due to the teacher/writer.

Yes thats what I mean. My teacher is an LII and although I can see he's a good guy, and smart, the only time I enjoyed his class so far was when he explained the history behind of one of the formula's. I'm very quiet in the class. One girl thought I was a mute. However, on this occasion I became interested and I dominated the discussion.

What do you mean by "physical processes"? Te process are not integrated; they are differentiated. It's like pool balls colliding, Te being the ostensible effects (not the fields connecting the balls). "Physical" processes tend to fall under the realm of Si, but I'll wait for you to clarify what you mean.

Sensing elements and logic elements are external, and I was under the impression this sorta meant physical. I thought dynamics had to do with processes.

Yes and No. Information presented in a manner that is diametrical to your valued functions will always cause some friction, to varying degrees. Like for me, Te information is the hardest, whilst for someone like steve, Fi information is the hardest. The important point to be made is that this "Ti information", etc. is not something objectively "out there"; it is an interpretation of information by others with those functions that is imposed on us. So, if you don't process things in a Ti manner, you won't experience "Ti information" unless you're dealing with a Ti person. Saying otherwise is essentially saying that your brain processes information in a detrimental manner; like your body's enzymes turning in on each other.

Yup, I got that. I was trying to get at that a certain type will be better at something than another type because of their ability to interpret the relevent information.

[strrrng]

Sensing elements and logic elements are external, and I was under the impression this sorta meant physical. I thought dynamics had to do with processes.

External doesn't necessarily refer to physical things. It's just about explicit, ostensible, measurable, etc. information. Dynamics does deal with processes, but with Si, they are interconnected ostensible processes, whereas with Te they are localized objective sequences. Si is more physical than Te because it is an irrational function, so the external dynamics it takes in are of a more experiential nature, and connected to the subject (field). Te collates information into discrete sequences, and never connects them with the subject (object).

Yup, I got that. I was trying to get at that a certain type will be better at something than another type because of their ability to interpret the relevent information.

I don't think functions can really be attributed to skills. Two people could be equally adept at math, but one may perform better in the class because the teacher presented the information in a manner which was conducive to his valued functions.

[ArchonAlarion]

So Internal is the implicit, immaterial, and essential?

Okay, Ni deals with the processes of object-subject essences?

So would it be correct to imagine it like being in a pool of fluid/aura in which different aura's are shifting, pulling, shrinking, transforming, and expanding?

[strrrng]

Se Te Ti Si Ne Fe Fi Ni

?

[strrrng]

So Internal is the implicit, immaterial, and essential?

Those are decent words for it.

Okay, Ni deals with the processes of object-subject essences?

It deals with essences in that it winnows latent patterns in processes perceived through the subject.

So would it be correct to imagine it like being in a pool of fluid/aura in which different aura's are shifting, pulling, shrinking, transforming, and expanding?

That would probably be a better visual for Si.

edit: the fact that you used that visual for Ni is telling.

[strrrng]

Jesus, enzymes?? Quit pandering to the analogy crowd. Se Te Ti Si Ne Fe Fi Ni is all you need.

Pay attention to the context and you'll understand why I used that analogy.

And your feigned "understanding" doesn't fool me in the slightest.

[ArchonAlarion]

The problem strrrng is that I interpret things in such a way, but I dont connect the physical to the subject.

I see the physical as separate from myself and I have little inclination to change my physical surroundings for a better physical experience. My physical experience is meaningless to me.

Its hard to describe how I see things. Its like looming, battling, symbols. Evaluating how things fit into the "story" of the universe. Its like tapping a leyline/aura of meaning and power.

Eh, I feel silly divulging this stuff.

edit*

How else am I going to explain something thats immaterial in brief text? Also i was trying to relate it to your example of Si.

[strrrng]

The problem strrrng is that I interpret things in such a way, but I dont connect the physical to the subject.

Could you elaborate?

I see the physical as separate from myself and I have little inclination to change my physical surroundings for a better physical experience. My physical experience is meaningless to me.

I see physical things as separate from myself, too—variables, essentially. But I'm not sure what you're trying to evince here. Changing physical surroundings is not intrinsic to Si, I can assure you of that. Believing that your physical experience is meaningless just seems like a personal preference.

Its hard to describe how I see things. Its like looming, battling, symbols. Evaluating how things fit into the "story" of the universe. Its like tapping a leyline/aura of meaning and power.

I'd have to see more of the way you go about tying these things together to get a read on function preference. But, as Steve and I stated before, you seem to organize things within a Ti framework, as opposed to externally-manifest processes. Alpha NT's are usually the ones interested in those sorts of "games," story-lines, etc., because there is an underlying structure to them—both within a Ti framework and a continuous external Si field.

Eh, I feel silly divulging this stuff.

It's cool.

[strrrng]

Fuck context, the analogy was unecessary. And I'm not feigning to understand anything except Se Te Ti Si Ne Fe Fi Ni.

Okay. You felt the need to come into a thread to point out the superfluity of an analogy, and imbue us with your little sequence.

So, why don't you explain why it is the only significant thing. Maybe it will aid archon in his understanding.

[ArchonAlarion]

Could you elaborate?

I see physical things as separate from myself, too—variables, essentially. But I'm not sure what you're trying to evince here. Changing physical surroundings is not intrinsic to Si, I can assure you of that. Believing that your physical experience is meaningless just seems like a personal preference.

I'd have to see more of the way you go about tying these things together to get a read on function preference. But, as Steve and I stated before, you seem to organize things within a Ti framework, as opposed to externally-manifest processes. Alpha NT's are usually the ones interested in those sorts of "games," story-lines, etc., because there is an underlying structure to them—both within a Ti framework and a continuous external Si field.

Oh okay. No my thoughts are not organized within a framework. I can create frameworks though and I do, but I can't visualize them. My mental images are often plain chaotic. I do actually visualize things in motion. Any organization is an afterthought and Id rather just spend time continuing a mental theme than pausing to analyze it. I keep most information in my head because writing things down is too permanent for me.

So would creating a physical change in your environment be Si even if you aren't evaluating the changes effects on your subject?

Also I'd like more info on Se, Fe, and Fi.

[ArchonAlarion]

im pretty damn abstract.

[strrrng]

Oh okay. No my thoughts are not organized within a framework. I can create frameworks though and I do, but I can't visualize them. My mental images are often plain chaotic. I do actually visualize things in motion. Any organization is an afterthought and Id rather just spend time continuing a mental theme than pausing to analyze it. I keep most information in my head because writing things down is too permanent for me.

Ok. Cool.

So would creating a physical change in your environment be Si even if you aren't evaluating the changes effects on your subject?

Well, anyone can effectuate a change in their environment, right? What it comes down to, is that Si valuers will process and assess any given action/change within their environment as an integrated component of a holistic continuum. So, an Si valuer will typically shift their environment as it pertains to the stability and palatability of said thing. Se valuers tend to shift/affect their environments in an attempt to derive a new stimulus—but never generate any subjective connection. (here we go, dolphin) Like a mosquito sucking blood, an Se valuer will attach onto a given stimulus, gauge/affect/etc. it for what it's worth, and move on.

Also I'd like more info on Se, Fe, and Fi.

Yeah. I'll post some later. Maybe dolphin could tell you about her awesome Fi.