Recognizing Se/Ni vs Ne/Si

[strrrng]

But my framework allows for plenty of variation. Sure, each little tidbit has a solid interpretation, but as a whole picture of perception, a greater picture can be painted. It's like your computer screen: one little dot may be wholly and completely white, but that doesn't mean that the whole picture has to be white, or even shaded white; it could appear nearly black from a larger perspective. That's how perception works: we vary in what we see or are considering or placing emphasis on moment from moment, but in the greater picture, a pattern emerges.

"Actual perception" = the functions people are actually using and the more complex ways they are interpreting things. It's about noticing the subtleties in how people go about these things that, despite varying manners in what they do, don't vary at all.

This is the exact same thing; you are accusing me of what I criticized you for.

Granted, that's a horrible way to go about typing people (hence why I rely on my impressions for such things), but as far as the theoretical framework goes, at least it's something to go on, rather than having vague, impressionistic ideas about what people are like that are susceptible to being "fooled" by outward behavior, and the vagueries of which lend themselves to misinterpretation, rationalization, and charlatanism.

For fuck's sake, I have a systematic backing to go on, you deluded twat. Function order and dynamics, quadras, intertype relations, relative information processing and interaction -- patterns that must exist in order for any coherent set of associations to be generated in the first place -- this all exists in my mind. Just because I don't go around touting it like a fucking badge of ideological officialism, doesn't mean it isn't there; I've just honed it to the point where I can instinctively relate perceptions and impressions back to it without outlining every motherfucking detail to reassure myself that the framework still exists. Holy fuck.

You are, at least insofar as you believe you have a transmissable, valid system of typology. I'm not saying you get it all wrong, because I use my impressions too, but I think you are missing out.

The thing you don't get, is that something need not be completely explicit in order to be translatable. The theoretical backing and natural structure that emerges from consistently perceived patterns will be there, sure; but ultimately, it's about seeing the same things, knowing that you and another are observing the same phenomena and interpreting its patterns accordingly; NOT that you both are using some "objectively-defined" framework, because all that means is that you have a lens to categorize things through, not necessarily an accurate perception of reality or the patterns so effortlessly embedded into it. So... you can pretty much suck my cock now, because going in circles induces a violent sexual rage in me, more often than not

[Gilly]

This is the exact same thing; you are accusing me of what I criticized you for.

What does that say about us?

For fuck's sake, I have a systematic backing to go on, you deluded twat.

lmfao

Function order and dynamics, quadras, intertype relations, relative information processing and interaction -- patterns that must exist in order for any coherent set of associations to be generated in the first place -- this all exists in my mind. Just because I don't go around touting it like a fucking badge of ideological officialism, doesn't mean it isn't there; I've just honed it to the point where I can instinctively relate perceptions and impressions back to it without outlining every motherfucking detail to reassure myself that the framework still exists. Holy fuck.

It's not to reassure myself that it exists. More just something to intellectually masturbate over

The thing you don't get, is that something need not be completely explicit in order to be translatable. The theoretical backing and natural structure that emerges from consistently perceived patterns will be there, sure; but ultimately, it's about seeing the same things, knowing that you and another are observing the same phenomena and interpreting its patterns accordingly; NOT that you both are using some "objectively-defined" framework, because all that means is that you have a lens to categorize things through, not necessarily an accurate perception of reality or the patterns so effortlessly embedded into it. So... you can pretty much suck my cock now, because going in circles induces a violent sexual rage in me, more often than not

lmao

Honestly, the only reason I push the IM stuff on you is because I think you are still mildly deluded by Ashton in terms of what the functions mean. You seem to be coming around, though. It really has nothing to do with the way I type people. It's an interesting lens to see things through, and it can help clarify little things sometimes, but overall my approach to typing is essentially the same as yours and I've really just been trying to push you to consider new shit.

[strrrng]

What does that say about us?

lmfao

It's not to reassure myself that it exists. More just something to intellectually masturbate over

Ah huh. Well, I think there's more existence to it than you do, and care more about experiential conclusions.

lmao

Honestly, the only reason I push the IM stuff on you is because I think you are still mildly deluded by Ashton in terms of what the functions mean. You seem to be coming around, though. It really has nothing to do with the way I type people. It's an interesting lens to see things through, and it can help clarify little things sometimes, but overall my approach to typing is essentially the same as yours and I've really just been trying to push you to consider new shit.

Ok, cut the "deluded by Ashton" shit. It's so trite and foolish. Will you say now that I am deluded by Sarah? I suppose she must be a master manipulator, since we agree on function definitions. Sigh. It's not like I don't see validity to "your way"; it's more that I think you over-simplify interpretations, and don't give enough credence to the more abstract aspects of psychological processes underpinning functions that I espouse, instead relegating such things under the "pseudo-Jungian" category for efficiency's sake.

[strrrng]

What I relish right now, is that I am soon headed off to box and smoke Jamaican blazes, which you have none of. Thus, any e-stress I possess will be eroded by physical impacts, dissipated with the delectable smoke fumes that emanate from the cigar that you have yet to taste, and which I will so viscerally enjoy

[Gilly]

Well you are both former Ashton pupils, so its no surprise you agree on everything

I give plenty of attention to the underlying psychological processes; I'm just not delusionally over-confident that I can see "the truth" every single time, because it's never that easy in ANY branch of psychology. Hell, there are diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, and even so, some people fit the bill 100% but just OBVIOUSLY aren't schizophrenic. The definitions are just there as a general guideline, to give some clarity; the phenomena themselves are apparent enough to ensure their own existence as behavioral and cognitive patterns. That's not to say I SEE INTO PEOPLE'S BRAINS, but I accept the patterns as a valid way of interpreting human personality. The point is, the definitions are just a good way to ensure that we're all talking about the same things.

[Gilly]

What I relish right now, is that I am soon headed off to box and smoke Jamaican blazes, which you have none of. Thus, any e-stress I possess will be eroded by physical impacts, dissipated with the delectable smoke fumes that emanate from the cigar that you have yet to taste, and which I will so viscerally enjoy

YEAH KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT

...prick

[strrrng]

Well you are both former Ashton pupils, so its no surprise you agree on everything

lol @ the notion of her being Ashton's pupil. Way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of that dynamic.

I give plenty of attention to the underlying psychological processes; I'm just not delusionally over-confident that I can see "the truth" every single time, because it's never that easy in ANY branch of psychology. Hell, there are diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, and even so, some people fit the bill 100% but just OBVIOUSLY aren't schizophrenic.

Exactly. Just like some people could accord with your explicit definitions and still not be a certain type... just like someone could engage in a behavior commonly associated with Se+Ti, yet not actually be processing information via those lenses.

The definitions are just there as a general guideline, to give some clarity; the phenomena themselves are apparent enough to ensure their own existence as behavioral and cognitive patterns. That's not to say I SEE INTO PEOPLE'S BRAINS, but I accept the patterns as a valid way of interpreting human personality. The point is, the definitions are just a good way to ensure that we're all talking about the same things.

No shit. Definitions are fine; I have solid ideas of functions and such. It's just that some people assume simplified definitions have a concrete existence outside of the generalized, abstract realm they refer to.

YEAH KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT

...prick

Sigh

[ArchonAlarion]

the fantasy world correlation is not something Im using to question your type gilly. I was just bringing up that my interest in these worlds is basically dual seeking. Each world is a context of Si interlaced with threads of Fe. This is a realization I've come to in the past few days, that these worlds are actually metaphors for ISFp's and my longing to... ehem.. "enter them"

[ArchonAlarion]

i was being freudian.

okay i exaggerated slightly. Its more of an echo of my interest in Si Fe which would be provided by an ISFp.

DID THAT CLARIFY THINGS?

[Gilly]

the fantasy world correlation is not something Im using to question your type gilly. I was just bringing up that my interest in these worlds is basically dual seeking. Each world is a context of Si interlaced with threads of Fe. This is a realization I've come to in the past few days, that these worlds are actually metaphors for ISFp's and my longing to... ehem.. "enter them"

I know. But I felt like simultaneously forcing you to question either your opinion of my type or your fatuous correlations.

[Gilly]

lol @ the notion of her being Ashton's pupil. Way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of that dynamic.

You're right, I have no clue what went on between them, but I do know that their understandings of Socionics were almost definitely highly influenced by each other, seeing as they were essentially the ones to start Socionix together.

Exactly. Just like some people could accord with your explicit definitions and still not be a certain type... just like someone could engage in a behavior commonly associated with Se+Ti, yet not actually be processing information via those lenses.

True, unless the cognitive process and pronounced reasons for their interest were clearly related to Se+Ti :wink:

No shit. Definitions are fine; I have solid ideas of functions and such. It's just that some people assume simplified definitions have a concrete existence outside of the generalized, abstract realm they refer to.

I think that would be pretty preposterous.

Sigh

I actually found some Blazes today. They're pretty good; I still prefer the headiness of Cognac, but the Blazes will make a good second option. Definitely better than the plain Rums.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

I actually found some Blazes today. They're pretty good; I still prefer the headiness of Cognac, but the Blazes will make a good second option. Definitely better than the plain Rums.

Yeah, they didn't seem to have as much flavor as the cognacs (plus there's some weird authenticity to an Al Capone Cognac Cigar lol), but are still pretty damn good.

[Banana Pancakes]

...IF you like this youtube video you're Se/Ni
...this one, you're Ne/Si

...Ni/Se likes race cars and breaking things and cutting people
...Ne/Si likes cuddling with puppies covered in chocolate

This thread rocks. It's all so simple!

[Lotus]

The post I lost was in response to Allie's, but yes, that's correct. It's frustrating to me when I'm trying to give general examples, and I spell that out clearly, even bolding the point that they do not apply acrossboard, and STILL people insist on completely missing the point. Getting a feel for the types through general, simple examples is beneficial. Big picture, rather than drowning in details.

Um, I believe I said that they were good on a general level, yes? Okay, then. The issue lies here:

I try to condense and simplify things as much as possible without distorting their meaning.

The only reason I replied to it was because I thought you distorted the meanings a bit in the process of simplifying. I didn't “completely miss the point” and I realize you were only being general, but I think some overgeneralization can be too misleading to really help anyone.

[Expat]

Same here, even though LIIs are said to prefer the reasonable side of the dichotomy. Most of the LIIs I know would also prefer the latter in this case.

But the thing is, I don't think that my question was well-balanced, either.

Jonathan's question was ridiculousy biased towards the supposed "reasonable" option, especially with his phrasing, "a little more money -- to buy fancier stuff". If he had said instead, "a lot more money - - that gives you greater freedom to buy things, invest, travel, etc", now, that would be a fairer question - or perhaps now too biased towards the "resolute" option.

My own question was probably biased towards "resolute" with the phrasing "long-term" as opposed to "short-term". If you put it in those terms, I think most people tend to prefer "long-term"

I do think that there is a distinction between the resolute and reasonable types when deciding such things - for instance, for reasonable types, a "better outcome in the longer term" is probably more related to job security, while for resolute types, more to advancement. But even in those terms, I don't think it's possible to draw simple lines.

[Gilly]

Yeah, they didn't seem to have as much flavor as the cognacs (plus there's some weird authenticity to an Al Capone Cognac Cigar lol),

I know, it's just so appropriate...

but are still pretty damn good.

Yeah, a good second choice. The guy at the cigar shop told me the 10 packs are coming out in August; I'll probably buy one, just to see if they grow on me, but I doubt they will replace the glorious cognacs

[strrrng]

My own question was probably biased towards "resolute" with the phrasing "long-term" as opposed to "short-term". If you put it in those terms, I think most people tend to prefer "long-term"

I'm not even completely sure of it, on these grounds. If a more strenuous job has greater long-term financial benefits, is it about the gradual accumulation of money that pays off exponentially; or is it more of a diligent effort towards a defined end, where upon completion, one finally 'reaps what they sow'? Likewise with the more reasonable option: is it simply a consistent, average workload and pay that never advances one professionally, materially, etc.; or could it be a decent, stable job that allowed for a fair amount of privileges, that one wouldn't necessarily care to change for more money?

[The Exception]

But the thing is, I don't think that my question was well-balanced, either.

Jonathan's question was ridiculousy biased towards the supposed "reasonable" option, especially with his phrasing, "a little more money -- to buy fancier stuff". If he had said instead, "a lot more money - - that gives you greater freedom to buy things, invest, travel, etc", now, that would be a fairer question - or perhaps now too biased towards the "resolute" option.

My own question was probably biased towards "resolute" with the phrasing "long-term" as opposed to "short-term". If you put it in those terms, I think most people tend to prefer "long-term"

I do think that there is a distinction between the resolute and reasonable types when deciding such things - for instance, for reasonable types, a "better outcome in the longer term" is probably more related to job security, while for resolute types, more to advancement. But even in those terms, I don't think it's possible to draw simple lines.

I would be more inclined to choose the more secure job over the one with more advancement opportunities provided that all other variables are equal (working conditions, pay, level of personal fullfillment from the job, etc.)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

I'm not even completely sure of it, on these grounds. If a more strenuous job has greater long-term financial benefits, is it about the gradual accumulation of money that pays off exponentially; or is it more of a diligent effort towards a defined end, where upon completion, one finally 'reaps what they sow'? Likewise with the more reasonable option: is it simply a consistent, average workload and pay that never advances one professionally, materially, etc.; or could it be a decent, stable job that allowed for a fair amount of privileges, that one wouldn't necessarily care to change for more money?

I see what you're saying here; the first option in each case seems more Si, whereas the seconds seem more Ni (the last one being particularly Se). However I think you might have just geared the second options to sound more appealing

[msl]

Do you think that Judicious (+) types are more scary of horror movies?I am thinking especially of the scenes in which there is a long silence and in a moment shows something unpredictable frightening.