1. ## Ne/Si analogy

Okay, here is an analogy and description of the macro-element Ne/Si:

*note: When I use the word "see" or "perceive" I mean the way we filter information which is carried into our minds be our senses. We sense the external world and these senses are filtered based on the 8 information elements. The filtered information causes our thought processes to function in certain ways and that generates conceptions and hence actions/behaviors. This is a crux of socionics.

Take a sheet and lay it across a flat surface like a table or the floor. Observe how its flatness creates a feeling of emptyness and singularity. there are no boundaries between one section of the sheet and another.

Now gather some random objects such as a ball, a cup, a toy, a phonebook, or your cat (sedate him). Place one of them underneath the sheet, smooth out the ruffles, and press down around the object's edges.

As you can see, the object's form has individuated part of the sheet. The sheet is no longer flat and without boundaries because it has a form to shape and separate it.

Now trade that object for another. as you observe the contrats in the new form, notice how you see the sheet directly, not the objects themselves. Also, see how even when you press down around the objects and tuck the sheet under them, you still cannot cut off a part of the sheet over the object from the surrounding sheet. Although we know there are forms under the sheet, we can only perceive them indirectly.

This is what Ne/Si is like (or at least a close analogy). The perception is of a directly tangible context (the sheet), where objects are separated from eachother by indirect abstractions. We cannot "see" the forms directly. the objects are not seen as tangibly discrete and separable. That would involve taking out scissors and cutting the sheet. Instead, although we can divide out the objects by perceiving their internal forms, physically or demonstrably, they are blurred around the edges.

Without its Ne counterpart, Si could not exist in any interpretable form. It would be similar to the sheet without stuff under it. Empty, void, formless, and flat. However right before all Ne was extracted, we might see a chaotic, rippling maelstrom composed of matter and energy.

Without its Si counterpart, Ne also cannot exist. Imagine, if you had suddenly snatched the sheet off the objects and they then disappeared. The "home" or tangible manifestation of these abstract forms has been removed so they cannot exist. Now the Ne collapses back in on itself into a singularity and then into void. Without the Si to reach out, grab, expand, and hence diversify into, the Ne must self-apply, reducing Ne to zero.

When working in unison, these elements are able to exploit and fuel eachother. Si gives Ne a context to not only manifest tangibly, but also to explore, diversify, and generate more Ne forms. Ne gives Si diversity and objectivity. Ne, being an object element, coalesces lumps of the Si flow into a luminescent node of Ne. these nodes are recognizable objects, separable from on another by virtue of the Ne installation of conceptual associations.

Ne/Si can play off eachother from both sides of the coin. We can manipulate the Si flow, melding and transforming it into such a way that bulbs of Ne begin to glow and brighten inside of it. We can also select, insert, and cluster Ne forms into fields of Si, thus causing the subjective nature of Si to mutate into a perceptably new and alternate enviroment. One could imagine the projects of an ISTp craftsperson for the former and the poking/probing acts of an Ne ENTp infantile for the latter.

Representations of Ne>Si:

Representations of Si>Ne:

2. Ne/Si-Fall

Se/Ni-Fall

3. ya douche

4. Ne/Si Douche:

Se/Ni Douche:

5. Love these pictures. And your sig, Archon.

6. this is what i get.

@DeAnte: lol, thanks.

7. In what sense do you think Si is subjective in nature?

8. model X chicks with dicks alchemy Mcnew Mcnew Mcnew Expat wants to tell you what think you have a new PM from Hugo 07490 the light will come marmalade Albert Einstein Albert Einstein psychorelativity dual type creepy elephant I like pineapples Dolphin isn't acting like herself!

(you know there's about a 30% chance that Jesus was black?) YUP IT'S TRUE!
illuminati

9. No offense but that whole analogy wasted my time and mostly contradicts Ne. Go rewrite it or something.

This part is similar to Plato's analogy of the cave, but comes to the exact opposite conclusion:

Now trade that object for another. as you observe the contrats in the new form, notice how you see the sheet directly, not the objects themselves. Also, see how even when you press down around the objects and tuck the sheet under them, you still cannot cut off a part of the sheet over the object from the surrounding sheet. Although we know there are forms under the sheet, we can only perceive them indirectly.
Ne is about perceiving those forms as directly as possible. It's about probing "inside" the sheet to understand the full essence of the naked object covered by the sheet. That's what makes it an internal function.

What makes it an objective/extroverted function is that it targets individual objects (or abstract concepts) on the fly, without the need for any sheet-like support apparatus. It's the exact opposite of perceiving things indirectly. You fail sir.

What Si does, is provide the raw content for Ne to assimilate and conceptualize. I'm in awe of Si types because of their careful attention to the details I miss -- they literally perceive everything, whereas I directly perceive < 30% of details and make up the rest. They are invaluable anywhere, from blacksmithing, to a physics lab, to an engineering team, to sex.

Also Si is not "gloopy," imprecise or subjective. Si types have the most control and precision of any type over their sensory experiences, as well as the most direct connection to the sensory world. They exist very much palpably in both projects and environment -- their projects and environment can certainly be subjective however.

This is what Ne/Si is like (or at least a close analogy). The perception is of a directly tangible context (the sheet), where objects are separated from eachother by indirect abstractions. We cannot "see" the forms directly. the objects are not seen as tangibly discrete and separable. That would involve taking out scissors and cutting the sheet. Instead, although we can divide out the objects by perceiving their internal forms, physically or demonstrably, they are blurred around the edges.
Ne would be the scissors.

10. Originally Posted by Subterranean
In what sense do you think Si is subjective in nature?
Fields are subjective.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Ne is about perceiving those forms as directly as possible. It's about probing "inside" the sheet to understand the full essence of the naked object covered by the sheet. That's what makes it an internal function.

What makes it an objective/extroverted function is that it targets individual objects (or abstract concepts) on the fly, without the need for any sheet-like support apparatus. It's the exact opposite of perceiving things indirectly. You fail sir.
I don't see how your first paragraph is contrary to what I've written, in fact its what I meant and thought I had articulated.

I disagree with you for the second. That's why Ne is complementary to Si. Ne needs Si to give it a setting to expand and take place in, and like you say later in your post, to give it raw content to assimilate and conceptualize.

Also that's exactly what "internal" implies. Indirectly demonstrable. Existing "below the surface", hence "indirect."

So unless you can give a more detailed explanation I don't see a problem there.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
What Si does, is provide the raw content for Ne to assimilate and conceptualize. I'm in awe of Si types because of their careful attention to the details I miss -- they literally perceive everything, whereas I directly perceive < 30% of details and make up the rest. They are invaluable anywhere, from blacksmithing, to a physics lab, to an engineering team, to sex.
Dude, thats exactly what I'm saying lol.

"Si gives Ne a context to not only manifest tangibly, but also to explore, diversify, and generate more Ne forms."

So yeah I totally agree.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Also Si is not "gloopy," imprecise or subjective. Si types have the most control and precision of any type over their sensory experiences, as well as the most direct connection to the sensory world. They exist very much palpably in both projects and environment -- their projects and environment can certainly be subjective however.
Yeah, Si is subjective. The experience of it is personalized to the observer, same with all field elements. Objects dwell in the world apart from the observer's implications. Fields do not. I never said it was imprecise or "gloopy". I said that without Ne to bring objects into focus there would not be a separation dividing objects from eachother. You might be inferring that I'm saying its imprecise or gloopy, but I'm not.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Ne would be the scissors.
Nope that's Se's job. Se sees the directly demonstrable in the objects themselves. The object's are connected by the indirectly demonstrable Ni flow. Its the inverse of Ne/Si.

Thank you for your criticism Jrxtes. It might have been my fault not explaining myself enough.

11. k so that analogy made no sense to me.

jxrtes stuff made a little more sense.

I think Ne would be determining what the object beneath the sheet was without necessarily having to see it. Si - not sure, maybe explaining clearly the dimensions of the object. I'm not even sure why there's a sheet actually, it's just not a highly useful analogy.

12. yeah okay, Im gathering I have made a poor analogy or at least have described it poorly.

13. Nah, bro; that analogy was bangin'.

Seriously though, the analogy was alright. It's a bit flawed, though. Basically you described what Ne would be like without Si and then went on to say, correctly, mind you, that this leaves an indistinguishable air to the process. The best, I think, way to describe Ne/Si is as a dissection/summation process.

Ne views objects as concepts, splitting these concepts into infinitely smaller concepts. Si sees the interweaving physical processes linking together to form these concepts.

So a possibly better analogy might be like taking a bunch of different-looking, interlocking magnets, calling it a "ball of metal", splitting it into smaller and smaller pieces (stopping each time to view them separately), and dropping them near each other all at once to watch them reconnect into said "ball of metal".

Whatcha think?

14. Sure. But then again it could just be that my analogy is based on things we've discussed irl and therefore it is easier for you to interpret.

And yeah I like the ball of metal deal.

15. Yea; I mean the analogy works. I just get the feeling you posted like you were talking to me directly, and a lot of what needs to be added is understood. I still think throwing a cat in a trash bag and watching him struggle works perfectly fine as well.

16. yeah cats are assholes.

17. def.

18. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Fields are subjective.

I don't see how your first paragraph is contrary to what I've written, in fact its what I meant and thought I had articulated.
It's definitely contradictory to what you wrote here:

We cannot "see" the forms directly. the objects are not seen as tangibly discrete and separable. That would involve taking out scissors and cutting the sheet.

Like I said before, Ne is the scissors.

I disagree with you for the second. That's why Ne is complementary to Si. Ne needs Si to give it a setting to expand and take place in, and like you say later in your post, to give it raw content to assimilate and conceptualize.
No, any element provides its own "context." Your base is fully capable of operating without a dual. Getting DS is like fueling your car with nitrous oxide. It's not absolutely necessary, but it makes the car go fast, is a pleasant luxury and fires up your base function. My Ne does a number on the Si side of my perception of things. It breaks Si apart, it doesn't get bounded by it. Si is just fuel that Ne burns to get to a better picture. Put too much fuel and I get burned in all the details.

One thing though, there's a baseline Si that I'm not willing to operate without. For example, I try to avoid disgusting things and surroundings. One time, this girl I had a crush on sprayed water through a pierced hole under her mouth, and that was enough to permanently shatter my crush. Interaction is very unpleasant now... but that has nothing to do with Ne or Si at the informational level.

Also that's exactly what "internal" implies. Indirectly demonstrable. Existing "below the surface", hence "indirect."
Just because something exists below the surface doesn't make it indirect. An objective function will flesh the object out directly.

Dude, thats exactly what I'm saying lol.

"Si gives Ne a context to not only manifest tangibly, but also to explore, diversify, and generate more Ne forms."

So yeah I totally agree.
That's true of every element. Each assimilates information from its dual to generate more actions. So you haven't exactly stated what's so unique about Ne.

Yeah, Si is subjective. The experience of it is personalized to the observer, same with all field elements.
And do you know why it's subjective? Si subjectivity means that two people's attitudes will differ w/ regard the same incoming stimuli. That's because Si takes into account [e.g.] the unique bodily characteristics of each person. Randall is aware that he has good eyesight and a good grip, so he "knows" he can make the shot. Lambert knows he has a healthy body, so he "knows" he's not sick despite being diagnosed with cancer. Simnel "knows" he has a weak body, so he'll accept the diagnosis. Lambert and Simnel we're given the same information by the doctor but came to totally different conclusions.

Objects dwell in the world apart from the observer's implications. Fields do not. I never said it was imprecise or "gloopy".
No!!!!!! The objects filtering in through the five senses (sight/hearing/touch/taste/smell) will not be different, although even here Si types usually have greater confidence.

I said that without Ne to bring objects into focus there would not be a separation dividing objects from eachother. You might be inferring that I'm saying its imprecise or gloopy, but I'm not.
This makes no sense. Every function is a fully rational analysis of reality on its own. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Si types can't distinguish between separate objects. Humans acquire that ability sometime around birth.

btw, if any type can't distinguish between separate objects, then it's probably ILEs, because when Ne detects similarities between objects, it automatically groups them together.

Nope that's Se's job. Se sees the directly demonstrable in the objects themselves. The object's are connected by the indirectly demonstrable Ni flow. Its the inverse of Ne/Si
Both extroverted functions see the directly demonstrable in the object itself. That's why they're objective functions.

19. For what it's worth, Ne is "scissors". However, Jake is still right in most, if not all, of what he said. You two are basically saying the same thing in different ways; I think there's a disconnect here that may run only as deep as the language.

However, you are incorrect in some areas that even a language barrier can't justify.

A single element cannot operate alone; it needs its complimentary counterpart in order to make any sense. THIS is the major reason Model X is preferable to Model A. Model A takes for granted that in order to use/make any sense out of one element, the opposing (dualizing) element must be present in the process.

Garsh.

20. Originally Posted by Tom
For what it's worth, Ne is "scissors". However, Jake is still right in most, if not all, of what he said. You two are basically saying the same thing in different ways; I think there's a disconnect here that may run only as deep as the language.

However, you are incorrect in some areas that even a language barrier can't justify.
I doubt I misunderstood the analogy. It's possible he wanted to give a different analogy.

A single element cannot operate alone; it needs its complimentary counterpart in order to make any sense. THIS is the major reason Model X is preferable to Model A. Model A takes for granted that in order to use/make any sense out of one element, the opposing (dualizing) element must be present in the process.
Not only did you misread me, but the rest is mostly bullshit.

I said I expect a minimum of DS to be present at all times. According to Augusta, all 8 elements are constantly perceiving information most of the time anyway, so the distinction you're making -that both dual types of info have to be present- is irrelevant.

21. Augusta is not some god.

She defined the 3 dichotomies. That is all. After that, what those 8 functions entail is not her sole dominion, and she is vague, even incorrect, in some areas.

Stop treating her like the god of socionics. She isn't.

22. Originally Posted by Tom
Augusta is not some god.

She defined the 3 dichotomies. That is all. After that, what those 8 functions entail is not her sole dominion, and she is vague, even incorrect, in some areas.

Stop treating her like the god of socionics. She isn't.
Then please put up proof for why your version is better instead of just talking shit about Augusta, then I'll consider it. The Russians developed the typology, have hands on experience with patients and have written and revised many flawed ideas through interviews and workshops with people. You have ~five months of experience and no proof.

23. Originally Posted by jxrtes
No, any element provides its own "context." Your base is fully capable of operating without a dual. Getting DS is like fueling your car with nitrous oxide. It's not absolutely necessary, but it makes the car go fast, is a pleasant luxury and fires up your base function. My Ne does a number on the Si side of my perception of things. It breaks Si apart, it doesn't get bounded by it. Si is just fuel that Ne burns to get to a better picture. Put too much fuel and I get burned in all the details.
I would say that all the macro elements are spectrums (in a way) and as an Alpha I may see a less refined, detailed version of Si, but I still perceive, like you said a "baseline" of Si.

However, I'm not sure that Si is as "detailed" as you make it out to be. Maybe it is and I'm just seeing them as a summary. However, dynamic field elements seem to be the least concerned about "details".

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Just because something exists below the surface doesn't make it indirect. An objective function will flesh the object out directly.
How would you describe the difference between the fleshing out of Se and of Ne?

Originally Posted by jxrtes
That's true of every element. Each assimilates information from its dual to generate more actions. So you haven't exactly stated what's so unique about Ne.
Sorta. At least for Ne/Si and Se/Ni in the way I was describing it.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
And do you know why it's subjective? Si subjectivity means that two people's attitudes will differ w/ regard the same incoming stimuli. That's because Si takes into account [e.g.] the unique bodily characteristics of each person. Randall is aware that he has good eyesight and a good grip, so he "knows" he can make the shot. Lambert knows he has a healthy body, so he "knows" he's not sick despite being diagnosed with cancer. Simnel "knows" he has a weak body, so he'll accept the diagnosis. Lambert and Simnel we're given the same information by the doctor but came to totally different conclusions.
I don't understand how this applies to Si.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
No!!!!!! The objects filtering in through the five senses (sight/hearing/touch/taste/smell) will not be different, although even here Si types usually have greater confidence.
What? Greater confidence in what?

Originally Posted by jxrtes
This makes no sense. Every function is a fully rational analysis of reality on its own. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Si types can't distinguish between separate objects. Humans acquire that ability sometime around birth.

btw, if any type can't distinguish between separate objects, then it's probably ILEs, because when Ne detects similarities between objects, it automatically groups them together.
Lol. No of course I'm not. But as Si egos they most certainly are focusing on their subjective experience > the individual objects within that experience. This means that an Si ISFp is going to perceive the world mostly as a shifting day by day flow. They will focus more on the context and the summation of the physical processes within their enviroment. If they perceive objects it will mostly be in the form of Fe. Either way, its only detailed focused when something in their enviroment requires such a change of details. Otherwise, they are predominantly concerned with an overall summary, vibe, and harmonization with their environment. This is why Si ISFp's have a glazed look in their eyes. They are not focused on objects. They are in the realm of subjective, spread-out experience.

Do you know what "objects" means? I'm not saying that an Si type can't see how the dog is next to the cat and that they are not one animal. An object always works within a field. Any time you make an object your entire frame of reference it becomes a field.

Answer me this Jrxtes: If an Si ISFp was unable to perceive both Ne and Fe (It just totally blanks from them) would they be able to perceive objects? Oh and I guess since your a Model A person, take out Se and Te too.

Can this person perceive objects without having object elements?

No?

Well then what is the variable that caused them to not be able to perceive objects?

Was it Si, Ti, Ni, Fi?

No couldn't be those because we left them in, right?

So I'm assuming you understand that if an Si ISFp is Si mode they are going to be less object focused.

What you don't understand is how objects and fields work. You seem to be assuming that an Si ISFp will see the dog and the cat as objects. Nope. If Si is perceiving the dog and cat they are going to perceive the animals as separate fields not objects.

*edit: Unless of course Si was looking at the singular field of Dog + Cat.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Both extroverted functions see the directly demonstrable in the object itself. That's why they're objective functions.
Explain how Ne is directly demonstrable.

24. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Then please put up proof for why your version is better instead of just talking shit about Augusta, then I'll consider it. The Russians developed the typology, have hands on experience with patients and have written and revised many flawed ideas through interviews and workshops with people.
What you're describing as a different version is simply different constructions based on what the three dichotomies entail. Augusta is not always right; think for yourself. It should be "What does this actually mean?", not "What does Augusta say it means?"

Originally Posted by jxrtes
You have ~five months of experience and no proof.
The "time involved" argument is almost as stale as it is futile, insignificant, and full of shit; give me a fucking break.

25. I stopped being able to read this thread about two seconds after I clicked on it.

26. Gul, you are basically trolling please contribute or don't post.

27. Yea, you get him, Stalin!

29. Same loveable charmer, different name.

30. I'm not trolling.

The whole point of this thread is to help along everyone's understanding of Socionics, yes?

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm seriously turned off by all the arguing that, honestly, only serves to more deeply entrench everyone's "misconceptions" (lol). Thus, the thread has had a fail.

31. Arguing?

I don't feel I'm arguing with Jrxtes. Its more of a critiquing by him of the admittedly imperfect analogy I've thought of for Ne/Si.

So, I don't really understand how you are justifying that this thread is fail.

32. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
I would say that all the macro elements are spectrums (in a way) and as an Alpha I may see a less refined, detailed version of Si, but I still perceive, like you said a "baseline" of Si.

However, I'm not sure that Si is as "detailed" as you make it out to be. Maybe it is and I'm just seeing them as a summary. However, dynamic field elements seem to be the least concerned about "details".
Why would being Alpha mean to have less refined Si?

SEIs and ILIs as process types are very concerned about individual details. IEIs and SLIs less so. I don't think dynamic field is a good category to use here, as I've seen many counterexamples.

How would you describe the difference between the fleshing out of Se and of Ne?
Se is direct, visual and extremely palpable. Ne requires a theoretical leap about the qualities of the object. In addition, an Ne type will use whatever methods are at his disposal including what he might have seen last night to impart additional meaning to an object. By contrast, an Se type will stick to what he already knows as being more reliable information.

I don't understand how this applies to Si.
An Si base is hit with information that must fit his internal body plan. He's almost a synestheszic, and has a good understanding of how the senses operate together. Touch with taste, smell with sight, taste with sight etc. The senses operating together form a complexly-interwoven system commonly referred to as the body. Intruding sensations have to fit this framework.

In the example, the people evaluated information according to what their bodies needed. Since any two bodies are different, sensory judgments are completely personal. Since the needs of the body change all the time, sensory judgments are known to follow the [dynamic] needs of the moment. In the example, people were given the same information but came to different conclusions based on the differing subjective experiences of their bodies.

For Se each object or sensory stimulus would come prepackaged with a set of inalienable [static] rules. Judgements are derived from the senses directly, with no strings attached, and the subject must conform to them.

This is the only sense in which Si is a "field" and Se is "objective." Other forms of subjectivity, which you might have mentioned are probably not socionically relevant.

What? Greater confidence in what?
Greater confidence in percieving information from the senses.

Lol. No of course I'm not. But as Si egos they most certainly are focusing on their subjective experience > the individual objects within that experience. This means that an Si ISFp is going to perceive the world mostly as a shifting day by day flow. They will focus more on the context and the summation of the physical processes within their enviroment. If they perceive objects it will mostly be in the form of Fe. Either way, its only detailed focused when something in their enviroment requires such a change of details. Otherwise, they are predominantly concerned with an overall summary, vibe, and harmonization with their environment. This is why Si ISFp's have a glazed look in their eyes. They are not focused on objects. They are in the realm of subjective, spread-out experience.
I agree with this.

Do you know what "objects" means? I'm not saying that an Si type can't see how the dog is next to the cat and that they are not one animal. An object always works within a field. Any time you make an object your entire frame of reference it becomes a field.
Regarding the bolded bit I misiniterpreted you. But I disagree with the idea that when an object becomes an entire frame of reference it becomes a field. I think that's a bit contrived. Nonetheless, I write about something similar further down the post.

Answer me this Jrxtes: If an Si ISFp was unable to perceive both Ne and Fe (It just totally blanks from them) would they be able to perceive objects? Oh and I guess since your a Model A person, take out Se and Te too.
First, what the hell makes you think I'm a model A person?

Second, according to model A an SEI of any subtype would perceive all 8 functions, just in different strengths, so of course he'll have access to objets. So I fail to see what exactly you want me to answer.

I'll entertain it anyway...

Can this person perceive objects without having object elements?

No?

Well then what is the variable that caused them to not be able to perceive objects?

Was it Si, Ti, Ni, Fi?

No couldn't be those because we left them in, right?

So I'm assuming you understand that if an Si ISFp is Si mode they are going to be less object focused.

What you don't understand is how objects and fields work. You seem to be assuming that an Si ISFp will see the dog and the cat as objects. Nope. If Si is perceiving the dog and cat they are going to perceive the animals as separate fields not objects.
Here's my own current understanding, and I don't vouch it as the truth or anything because it's so heavily based in a hypothesis about cognitive structure, obviously none of which I have the expertise to prove. I'm also more interested in the social aspects of socionics.

I think It's slightly more subtle than what you're claiming. The SEI will perceive the dog and cat as objects because that's what they are. Individual, independent and static. He hasn't really taken interest in them and is using Se to initially observe and catalogue them.

When the dog comes closer to be petted, or when the SEI takes interest, he enters the SEI's sensory field. Then aspects of the dog - like the dog's back - begin to be understood and manipulated as a field, similar to the SEIs own body.

Another example. When someone is drinking juice, the juice is perceived as an Si field in interaction with the person's taste buds but the hard glass is perceived as Se. If you splash the juice on your face, it's perceived as direct contact and through Se. The sticky residue is perceived as an Si field.

Those are simple examples (just for demonstration) that integrate into more complex systems depending on intelligence and other qualities.

Explain how Ne is directly demonstrable.
Ne acquires glimpses into the nature of objects directly, upon sight of an object. For example, I see a mathematical problem, and without reference to an established system or any guide, the equation's form itself suggests how to manipulate the symbols to arrive at an answer.

33. Originally Posted by Tom
What you're describing as a different version is simply different constructions based on what the three dichotomies entail. Augusta is not always right; think for yourself. It should be "What does this actually mean?", not "What does Augusta say it means?"

The "time involved" argument is almost as stale as it is futile, insignificant, and full of shit; give me a fucking break.
Go fuck yourself for suggesting that I don't think for myself. No shit Augusta is not always right, but her logic is more solid than anything I've seen from you. Time is a valid excuse in this case because they've had years to revise her observations with new ones. I think your system is wrong, and I think your observations are wrong for many reasons I've made clear here and elsewhere.

No offense to you personally or anything.

34. Fantastic post, jxrtes! I really enjoyed reading that.

35. Originally Posted by Subterranean
Fantastic post, jxrtes! I really enjoyed reading that.
Which one? The long post or the one where I told someone to fuck off?

36. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Why would being Alpha mean to have less refined Si?
Sorry, poor word choice on my part. I meant that as an Alpha NT we have a less refined more "primitive" version of Si to use to fuel our Ne.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Se is direct, visual and extremely palpable. Ne requires a theoretical leap about the qualities of the object. In addition, an Ne type will use whatever methods are at his disposal including what he might have seen last night to impart additional meaning to an object. By contrast, an Se type will stick to what he already knows as being more reliable information.
This is basically what I'm getting at by "indirect", although you may not like that word.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
An Si base is hit with information that must fit his internal body plan. He's almost a synestheszic, and has a good understanding of how the senses operate together. Touch with taste, smell with sight, taste with sight etc. The senses operating together form a complexly-interwoven system commonly referred to as the body. Intruding sensations have to fit this framework.
I would like to note that I do not believe Si is about or based on the five senses (more than any other element). The nature of external field dynamics is most directly profitable in the form of "aesthetics, comfort and physical sensations/harmony". I would not limit the application of Si to just this area however, as I've loudly proclaimed elsewhere.

I'm not sure if you meant it as such, but the bolded part is an example of the "external dynamics of fields".

I'm sure you can imagine such a view of the body applied to other arenas such as machinery, civilization, architecture, and astonomy. This is a big gripe of mine about the application of Si. I do not think Si is limited to bodily pleasure. Why should it be?

Originally Posted by jxrtes
In the example, the people evaluated information according to what their bodies needed. Since any two bodies are different, sensory judgments are completely personal. Since the needs of the body change all the time, sensory judgments are known to follow the [dynamic] needs of the moment. In the example, people were given the same information but came to different conclusions based on the differing subjective experiences of their bodies.
Okay, that could be a common application of Si, although I'm sure Se valuers could do the same with the same reasoning.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
For Se each object or sensory stimulus would come prepackaged with a set of inalienable [static] rules. Judgements are derived from the senses directly, with no strings attached, and the subject must conform to them.

This is the only sense in which Si is a "field" and Se is "objective." Other forms of subjectivity, which you might have mentioned are probably not socionically relevant.
Lol, well we could debate long and hard here. To put it briefly I see dynamic fields as sets of fluxating (dynamic) data where priority is given to the movements of the set as a whole. An analogy would be water, wind, any sort of "flow." So the Si-er is harmonizing themselves within this tangible environmental continuum. That's why I say Si is "blurry" and why the aesthetics of Si are smooth, flowing, soft, gentle, etc. The Si is perceiving how the surroundings are evolving. So hence the human body example where Si takes the complexity of the human body and summarizes it into a singular environment, which is quite refreshing and interesting to me

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Greater confidence in percieving information from the senses.
Why? All of perception is drawn from our five senses. There is no information we can aquire otherwise, at the basic input level.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Regarding the bolded bit I misiniterpreted you. But I disagree with the idea that when an object becomes an entire frame of reference it becomes a field. I think that's a bit contrived. Nonetheless, I write about something similar further down the post.

First, what the hell makes you think I'm a model A person?

Second, according to model A an SEI of any subtype would perceive all 8 functions, just in different strengths, so of course he'll have access to objets. So I fail to see what exactly you want me to answer.
I assumed you were, sorry for the mis-labeling.

Thats why I asked if an SEI was suddenly blind to all the object elements, would they be able to see objects? And if not, what would they see?

Originally Posted by jxrtes
I think It's slightly more subtle than what you're claiming. The SEI will perceive the dog and cat as objects because that's what they are. Individual, independent and static. He hasn't really taken interest in them and is using Se to initially observe and catalogue them.

When the dog comes closer to be petted, or when the SEI takes interest, he enters the SEI's sensory field. Then aspects of the dog - like the dog's back - begin to be understood and manipulated as a field, similar to the SEIs own body.
You are adding your own interpretations of how the SEI goes about perceiving the two animals. I was just explaining that when the SEI perceives the dog through Si the animals will be transformed in some way into external dynamic fields. They might try another element, but the probabilty is Si, no?

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Ne acquires glimpses into the nature of objects directly, upon sight of an object. For example, I see a mathematical problem, and without reference to an established system or any guide, the equation's form itself suggests how to manipulate the symbols to arrive at an answer.
Sure okay, but I'm pretty sure that's an example of non-demonstrable.

Can you directly demonstrate this process/these forms or is it something you could only indirectly explain by means of associations? I'm just curious because its not always easy to come up with words for this stuff, so maybe you can better define it.

37. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
I would like to note that I do not believe Si is about or based on the five senses (more than any other element). The nature of external field dynamics is most directly profitable in the form of "aesthetics, comfort and physical sensations/harmony". I would not limit the application of Si to just this area however, as I've loudly proclaimed elsewhere.

I'm sure you can imagine such a view of the body applied to other arenas such as machinery, civilization, architecture, and astonomy. This is a big gripe of mine about the application of Si. I do not think Si is limited to bodily pleasure. Why should it be?
I've always held the same view myself. I don't believe any type is ever limited in that respect. Glad we agree.

My opinion however, is that taking care of the body is something all Si egos should be able to do regardless of intelligence. It's as basic as, well, breathing.

The knowledge to fully satisfy sexual pleasure as well as other bodily pleasures is something I actively look for in a partner.

I'm not sure if you meant it as such, but the bolded part is an example of the "external dynamics of fields".
I did.

Okay, that could be a common application of Si, although I'm sure Se valuers could do the same with the same reasoning.
I believe Se valuers are also strong in Si.

Lol, well we could debate long and hard here. To put it briefly I see dynamic fields as sets of fluxating (dynamic) data where priority is given to the movements of the set as a whole. An analogy would be water, wind, any sort of "flow." So the Si-er is harmonizing themselves within this tangible environmental continuum. That's why I say Si is "blurry" and why the aesthetics of Si are smooth, flowing, soft, gentle, etc. The Si is perceiving how the surroundings are evolving. So hence the human body example where Si takes the complexity of the human body and summarizes it into a singular environment, which is quite refreshing and interesting to me
If "blurry" is just an analogy, then I don't mind this way of putting it. It doesn't seem very explanatory to me, but I like everything else you've said.

Why? All of perception is drawn from our five senses. There is no information we can aquire otherwise, at the basic input level.
How do you know some information isn't purely mental? An LIIs Ti is usually a priori.

I assumed you were, sorry for the mis-labeling.

Thats why I asked if an SEI was suddenly blind to all the object elements, would they be able to see objects? And if not, what would they see?
If someone was blind to extroversion, he would probably end up in an insane asylum. He'd be very selective about what he saw and would lose out on half of reality.

You are adding your own interpretations of how the SEI goes about perceiving the two animals. I was just explaining that when the SEI perceives the dog through Si the animals will be transformed in some way into external dynamic fields. They might try another element, but the probabilty is Si, no?
That's consistent with it being a base function, of course. But there are some things that just can't be transformed into one function versus another.

Sure okay, but I'm pretty sure that's an example of non-demonstrable.

Can you directly demonstrate this process/these forms or is it something you could only indirectly explain by means of associations? I'm just curious because its not always easy to come up with words for this stuff, so maybe you can better define it.
It's hard to describe any intuition, but I'll try to contrast it with Ni. Ni is similar to Si, except, instead of a physical body, Ni collects information into an intellectual body, and incoming information is made to fit or is assimilated into the system. This body could be a set of memories, experiences or even part of the individual's life-narrative. As such it is dynamic, constantly morphing and even slightly changed by the information it absorbs. An Ni dominant gravitates towards intellectual harmony in the same way an Si dominant gravitates towards sensory harmony. Unassimilated information represents danger and must be either investigated or avoided altogether.

Ne is the opposite of Ni. I see a piece of information, and rather than making it fit into a framework, I give it the complete benefit of the doubt. I think, which system best categorizes it? rather than how do I categorize it within my system? Since it's not always possible to categorize something, whether because it's too complex or because too many possibilities are present, Ne winds up with a chaotic intellectual life and no intellectual harmony. As a rule, whatever value the object has doesn't come from my own impression of it, but seems to derive from outside - from properties the object itself has.

More or less. I think that's right.

postscriptum. Archon, I like you and Tom. Honestly. I do think you are different types but that's a non-issue really. I'm only being abrasive because it's my nature and because I've been hearing these intractable arguments for under a year now.

38. Just for curiosity's sake, what type do you believe me to be? I promise I will not argue against it here.

39. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Just for curiosity's sake, what type do you believe me to be? I promise I will not argue against it here.
You can argue here if you want. I could be wrong.

I think you're IEI or ILI. For now IEI seems a little more likely.

40. Nah, tbh arguing over your own type is worthless.

I'm strongly comfortable with my self typing as of now. Going from INTp to ENTp made so much sense in hindsight. Se modes are okay, but those intense Se bursts they create are too much for me. And I'm such an infantile lol.

But w/e, you'll make your decisions based on my actions, not on my defense.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•