Si versus Fi

[Olga]

I was thinking what Ishysquishy said about types with strong and his last sentence was about ...bouncing back from another ..., which I interpreted as: why we don't prefer the person with the same base function if we enjoy it that much.. (Hope I understood it right).
I came to understand better the perfect match and how it may work and then I found this:

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jadae wrote:
FDG wrote:
I don't understand what you people are talking about.


I'll tranlate for you: Si, to him, is like an old hag/criminal media creepyladythingy from USA that puts her/its hands down his pants to prepare something warm.


That was actually pretty funny.

Because to me, Fi is like some creepy motherfucking beggar woman from the south of France coming up to me and trying to tell me that she understands everything about how I feel and how I think and that she can see right through me and I'm totally transparent. It honestly makes me physically shudder. Fucking people.
_________________
ENTp, Intuitive subtype

The interesting thing is that this is a very good example for my conclusion and I would like to invite you to check it out further.

According to socionics rationality/irrationality dimension is very important (and I agree) in the ideal match but then socionics suggest that

The partners should differ on introversion/extraversion dimension -
this is something I can not agree to be a rule or perfect match. I suggest instead that the key to perfect match (again not as a rule) may be in the first and the last functions which which are the same as regards to introversion/extraversion dimension. I mean that for those types who has got as a base function needs a partner with as a base function
because these two functions are simply perfect for each other. In the same way it will work for other types:

....
....
.....
.....

All what is needed now - the exapmnles from our RL (real life) to support or rejects this conclusion. It may be that suggestion is too narrow? However, socionics does make lots of "narrow/exact" predictions not supported by research.

I can imagine that in RL we chose partners which atract our strong functions while what we need (according to socionincs and I partly agree) the support to our weak functions. What I suggest however is not a full support but a selective support. For example, For ISFJ socionincs recommend ENTJ . I argue that INTJ would fit better .

I was fortunate to be married to ENTJ so I have got experiences to compare:
1. He was bored much more from my ideas than INTJ ( versus ).
2. He was not happy with me being most of the time content and quiet:
he said to me: Cheer up, girl! ( versus )
3. We had very different attitude to life in general (morality was different).

I probably could continue analysing...
What is your opinion of perfect match from the point of socionincs? Of course, there is more to it than types and functions but ... it's ok to try!

[science as magic]

I actually have been thinking the same thing. I get alond with types really well (even PeFis if they're patient). However after interacting with them for awhile one of us does something that increases the level of concentration upon a matter to such a degree that it begins to give me headaches. With esfps it happens fastest and with the most degree of strain, then enfps/isfjs (it varies), and finally with infjs. I notice that with FiPe types I am more aware of it and it hurts more and for a longer period but with PeFi types it happens fast and goes away but the variability in it irks me more.

In contrast to that with types I get along pretty well but sooner or later I get "full" of like gas in a tank and after that anymore interaction feels like too much. With IxFps I get into this situation where we both know we could make the relationship better but each of us wants the other person to act first.

Me with types:

me: hi
: hey
me: so how are you?
: good
*silence*
me (in my head): Say something I don't want to do all the talking.
(in their head): He wants me to say something
: So...
*15 seconds go by*
me (in my head): I better say something
me: So how was your day?
: good and you?
me: oh it was good I *details*
: well that is good
me (in my head): ok now it's your turn
*silence*
me: well I guess I'll see you later.

The roles can very easily be reversed depending on the circumstances.

The above applies when I am in super introvert mode and need to be pulled out of it mostly. I fluctuate to that mode semi-frequently though and I imagine if the Pe type was in the same mode a lot of misunderstanding would occur gradually until we began to frustrate one another simply by being in the same room as one another.

[Creepy-]

What I actually meant when I wrote that was I find it hard to talk about to people without dominant , I kin dof run out of steam because I don't know whether they understand me...

Anyway, I don't know if dominants are really ideal for me. I always have rather significant communication issues with them, even if I like them it's kind of a constant struggle to get my ideas across to them (or them to me). Constant misunderstanding, but with good intentions. I prefer people who have some degree of empathy ( or somewhere in the ego block seems to do the trick...). But I have language disorder so I could be an anomaly due to this point.

[Olga]

I don't know how much socionics is worth for matching. If we talk about people we get on easilywith from the beginning - this is one thing, when we talk for the long term - it may be different.

As an introvert I always felt easier to get on with extraverts because they are more or less chatty. When I meat my husband I did all chatting to start with - my creative function has to switch on because somebody had to do the talking. Yes, I felt pressure for a while but there was nothing in him that would be not nice for me - he didn't irritate me at all!

To Pedro - The- Lion:

I am not sure if I understood you right: you are INTP? What types you mean by Pe: Fi and Fi: Pe ?
I always need to have more background information and so I think many others who has not learned yet all abreviations. On the site people use different letters for the types which doesn't make it easy to understand.

[science as magic]

When I meat my husband I did all chatting to start with - my creative function has to switch on because somebody had to do the talking. Yes, I felt pressure for a while but there was nothing in him that would be not nice for me - he didn't irritate me at all!

I was speaking with an isfj woman I met but we ran out of things to say rather quick but she told me to talk about something so I started talking about international politics. She gave a lot of opinions which I disagreed with and thought were uninformed but I didn't know how to disagree without potentially pissinger her/me off so I didn't say anything. I just don't know what to talk about with isfjs but we generally have similar values/ways of life. Maybe you can pm me?

I am not sure if I understood you right: you are INTP? What types you mean by Pe: Fi and Fi: Pe ?

P = S/N so Pe = Se or Ne and Ji = Fi or Ti. A JePi for example would be an entj, esfj, enfj, or estj for example. I use it so speak of similarities I note between certain types. In the above passage PeFi referred to exfps and FiPe referred to ixfjs. I am intj supposedly.

[Olga]

To make my thought more clear I would make these accosiations:

- summer breeze, comfortatble chair, cozy bed, cuddling, gentle touch.
- strong wind pushing you in the back, wind on the storming sea, tornado.
- moonlight, burning candle or fireplace.
- active vulcano, burning house.
- quiet waters
- waterfall, fast river in the mountains.
- quiet thinking -building of castles in mind.
- the noisy and dynamic building site.

How you feel the functions and where your imagination takes you?

[strangeling]

Me with types:

me: hi
: hey
me: so how are you?
: good
*silence*
me (in my head): Say something I don't want to do all the talking.
(in their head): He wants me to say something
: So...
*15 seconds go by*
me (in my head): I better say something
me: So how was your day?
: good and you?
me: oh it was good I *details*
: well that is good
me (in my head): ok now it's your turn
*silence*
me: well I guess I'll see you later.