I might be ISFj

[Rubicon]

I'm thinking I'm ESI..

[Mediator Kam]

pssh why

[Rubicon]

eh it just works better.. um too many things :-p

[Capitalist Pig]

We've got time.

[Rubicon]

haha maybe later.. gotta go!

[Park]

gotta go!

Where? To meet with your LIE boyfriend?

[The Exception]

You've got just as good a chance of convincing the gamma forum you're ESI than I did when I tried to convince them I was ILI.

[Absurd]

pssh why

That's why. I was shocked myself when I first read it. Oh, the horror

When I first joined this site I was convinced of being ESI. Fit every description there is. So, here I am - offer me a safe haven away from those, hmm, terrible Aphas. Thank you.

[crazedrat]

Rubicon is very boring.. Usually alphas are a bit more spontaneous and spastic. I'm no expert on SEIs or ESIs, but I'd say gamma is possible just based on that.

[The Exception]

Rubicon is very boring.. Usually alphas are a bit more spontaneous and spastic. I'm no expert on SEIs or ESIs, but I'd say gamma is possible just based on that.

I disagree. Rubicon is one of the more interesting posters on the forum. Therefore she's alpha.

[Mediator Kam]

Rubicon is happy being boring, which makes her Ne PoLR.

[717495]

She seems ESI for whatever reason, and decisive in an Se/Ni sense. I like her taste in classical music.

[Rubicon]

dammit Gul.. don't just randomly post private chats like that.. please delete it

[Rubicon]

Rubicon is very boring.. Usually alphas are a bit more spontaneous and spastic. I'm no expert on SEIs or ESIs, but I'd say gamma is possible just based on that.

lol cheers

[Creepy-male]

ack, sorry. Didn't think the subject matter was especially private, my bad.

[MatthewZ]

I like Rubicon too much to NOT claim her in the name of the almighty Alpha Quadra.

Any objections?

[Mediator Kam]

What a prude.

[Rubicon]

I like Rubicon too much to NOT claim her in the name of the almighty Alpha Quadra.

Any objections?

I object to your implication that affection for a certain thing makes it something that should belong to you.

I object to your implication that silence implies agreeance.

I object to whoever made it happen that 'agreeance' is not recognised as a correct word on this forum. Or that 'recognised' is not recognised as English though I'm pretty certain it is in some circles.

I object to Maritsa's banning.

I object to the association of bubbles and cuteness and incessant lightheartedness and intellectual pointlessness and conflict-free interactions with the Alpha quadra. Unless of course it's true, in which case I don't object. And continue by all means. Fare well!

I object to the fact that my objections concerning the Alpha quadra can be objected to in a myopic way, though it's probably clear that Reality objects louder and with a sweeping arm! Um, hear ye.

I object to my compulsion to continue objecting, though I don't have any formulated idea of what I would like to continuing objecting about.

I object to my desire to definitely know my type, when such a thing isn't possible. And WHAT IF SOCIONICS IS A LIE.

I object to cats. Who likes cats. They're wolves in sheep's clothing.

I object to you taking this personally when it's actually all about me. And the way I don't relate to you. Nah, just kidding. But you should know that not even I relate to my posts sometimes! Don't buy into the myth!

[sarinana]

rofl.... good joke, rubicon!!!

[Rubicon]

Well I'm not at all sure.. I'm more just thinking along the lines of Se/Ni-valuing making more sense for me. Ni may make more sense..

In term of relationships.. I think I do tend to judge people's qualities without really thinking about it. Like observing someone's actions or inactions in a high-pressure situation and forever after disrespecting them, regardless of my will. I mean like I'd never bring it up with the person, because people are who they are.. but it's something that makes me feel estranged from the person whether I like it or not. But Idk.. I don't really judge people's actions.. like actions seem irrelevant in terms of who a person is except when they're um intensely spontaneous. And even then.. well you just know when certain actions reflect the part of the person that matters. :-p

Honestly, though this sounds bad.. I think I've been coming across as more SEIish because of um low self-esteem. lol Like SEIs seem to live a life of harmony and comfort and conflict-free whatever .. and they get it right.. it suits them.. but when I do it it kind of disgusts me. Like I'm waiting to start living my life properly. And consequently I feel I have no right to judge anyone.. that I have to 'accept' everyone, superficially.. because I'm accepting myself in a bad state. Um like I'd be a hyprocrite otherwise. I feel I'm condemned to silence.

I don't think I relate to Si egos. Like hey I can get into their 'flow' and talk about whatever, but it's a conscious attempt to be relevant within the conversation. But often it's like hey we're socialising now .. why the hell are you focusing on the food. Or like we're sitting around in a bare room, and others are lamenting over their loss of furniture (um prior to moving), and I just think it's nice that we're sitting against the wall talking with each other without the distractions of comfort. :-p Like it baffles me that people are complaining.. when hey! this is nice. Somehow you feel closer to people that way.. Well pretty much all the experiences that I treasure are ones that were just about people and stripped bare of distractions. And it's like when someone starts to disappoint you .. that's when distractions become necessary. But then you're very aware that they're just distractions, and they seem rather pathetic in the scheme of things.. but whatever.. they work. They're a necessary evil. But then some people get it right.. and it's ok then. Blah blah rambling..

Gah I'm honestly confused by Si and Ni.. Like I think I essentially relate a lot more to Si PoLR then Si-leading .. lol... but then people seem to see me as a Si-leading type? People irl I mean.. So that confuses me. Like they think I'm strong at things that mentally exhaust me.. and I'm too proud to show that they do exhaust me. I don't know why the hell I give off the impression I do. I'm guess I glad I do.. But I don't know what's Type-related and what isn't.. :-/ Like I think I have obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Um.. like from when I was a kid, I'd get internally stressed about something like mopping the floor.. not knowing how perfect a job I should be doing. lol I mean I control that tendency.. but it seems Si people have some internal sense of what's 'good enough'. And it's not like I go around noticing whether things are perfect or not! But it's a whole different thing when it's up to me.. Umm, but that kind of thing pervades the entirety of my physical life.. various routines that you do every day.. like everyone else seems to be coping fine with them, so I have to too. lol Idk.. I mean I deal fine.. but it's hard for me to get past the fact that I have to do something every day for the rest of my life.. that you're like at square one every day with these mundane chores. So they don't count as work and don't further you at all.. yet they're necessary.. and somehow that bothers me. :-/

And my understanding of Si is that it's about internalising sensations, creating an internal catalogue of sorts regarding sensations.. But I work at externalising them. And you can experience them differently in different contexts.. I find it interesting in feeling something to try and make it an object that's apart from myself.. so I feel more in control I guess. But to fully feel it without seeing it as a negative.. I think ? But then sometimes your body just shuts down for you and shows you its limits, and it's like more 'real' that way.. um a relief.. so it's out of my hands and I don't have to think about how much I am expected to deal with. It annoys me when something affects me that isn't relevant. Especially when it doesn't have far-reaching effects. Um I used to practice grabbing hold of burning hot things, to see if I could um absorb the pain and yet not label it as a bad sensation.

hmm long post..

[07490]

Rubicon, so the post is about how you think you're NI or SI...

[Rubicon]

mm.. in the unlikely location of Gamma quadra.. yeah

[Mediator Kam]

In term of relationships.. I think I do tend to judge people's qualities without really thinking about it. Like observing someone's actions or inactions in a high-pressure situation and forever after disrespecting them, regardless of my will. I mean like I'd never bring it up with the person, because people are who they are.. but it's something that makes me feel estranged from the person whether I like it or not. But Idk.. I don't really judge people's actions.. like actions seem irrelevant in terms of who a person is except when they're um intensely spontaneous. And even then.. well you just know when certain actions reflect the part of the person that matters. :-p

Actions are the best measure of a person's qualities.

Honestly, though this sounds bad.. I think I've been coming across as more SEIish because of um low self-esteem. lol Like SEIs seem to live a life of harmony and comfort and conflict-free whatever .. and they get it right.. it suits them.. but when I do it it kind of disgusts me. Like I'm waiting to start living my life properly. And consequently I feel I have no right to judge anyone.. that I have to 'accept' everyone, superficially.. because I'm accepting myself in a bad state. Um like I'd be a hyprocrite otherwise. I feel I'm condemned to silence.

Yes, accept everyone superficially, because there is no reason to start shit over every little thing that you don't like. But value who you want, on your terms. This is what I do.

I don't think I relate to Si egos. Like hey I can get into their 'flow' and talk about whatever, but it's a conscious attempt to be relevant within the conversation. But often it's like hey we're socialising now .. why the hell are you focusing on the food. Or like we're sitting around in a bare room, and others are lamenting over their loss of furniture (um prior to moving), and I just think it's nice that we're sitting against the wall talking with each other without the distractions of comfort. :-p Like it baffles me that people are complaining.. when hey! this is nice. Somehow you feel closer to people that way.. Well pretty much all the experiences that I treasure are ones that were just about people and stripped bare of distractions. And it's like when someone starts to disappoint you .. that's when distractions become necessary. But then you're very aware that they're just distractions, and they seem rather pathetic in the scheme of things.. but whatever.. they work. They're a necessary evil. But then some people get it right.. and it's ok then. Blah blah rambling..

Hell, I like to sleep on the ground. I would prefer to sit on the ground some days, I think it is more natural. I tend to agree with you that Si is not some sort of "MUST CAPTURE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PILLOWS" function.

Gah I'm honestly confused by Si and Ni.. Like I think I essentially relate a lot more to Si PoLR then Si-leading .. lol... but then people seem to see me as a Si-leading type? People irl I mean.. So that confuses me. Like they think I'm strong at things that mentally exhaust me.. and I'm too proud to show that they do exhaust me. I don't know why the hell I give off the impression I do. I'm guess I glad I do.. But I don't know what's Type-related and what isn't.. :-/ Like I think I have obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Um.. like from when I was a kid, I'd get internally stressed about something like mopping the floor.. not knowing how perfect a job I should be doing. lol I mean I control that tendency.. but it seems Si people have some internal sense of what's 'good enough'. And it's not like I go around noticing whether things are perfect or not! But it's a whole different thing when it's up to me.. Umm, but that kind of thing pervades the entirety of my physical life.. various routines that you do every day.. like everyone else seems to be coping fine with them, so I have to too. lol Idk.. I mean I deal fine.. but it's hard for me to get past the fact that I have to do something every day for the rest of my life.. that you're like at square one every day with these mundane chores. So they don't count as work and don't further you at all.. yet they're necessary.. and somehow that bothers me. :-/

I would never say I know when enough is enough. And chores you must repeat again and again are the most boring thing in the world. No Ne in it

And my understanding of Si is that it's about internalising sensations, creating an internal catalogue of sorts regarding sensations.. But I work at externalising them. And you can experience them differently in different contexts.. I find it interesting in feeling something to try and make it an object that's apart from myself.. so I feel more in control I guess. But to fully feel it without seeing it as a negative.. I think ? But then sometimes your body just shuts down for you and shows you its limits, and it's like more 'real' that way.. um a relief.. so it's out of my hands and I don't have to think about how much I am expected to deal with. It annoys me when something affects me that isn't relevant. Especially when it doesn't have far-reaching effects. Um I used to practice grabbing hold of burning hot things, to see if I could um absorb the pain and yet not label it as a bad sensation.

I don't know what you are saying that really means anything more than your ideas of what an ISFp is "supposed to feel" is too exact. Since Si is such a subjective function, there is a wide range of "true" Si, because if you really are Si base, it will be different to you.

[xerx]

Actually, I think I'm way more capable than the SEIs I know to submerge my self completely and do mindless repetitive chores for hours. Like at work I've been described as a "machine".

[Creepy-female]

I still think that the sort of idea of an ISFp around here is off. I mean what changes it so much from INFp to ISFp? INFps in general are thought of as a lot higher on the intellect scale, but there's not a screamingly feasible standard you can apply, imo. It's just that one is completely involved (Fe + Si) and one is half involved and half abstract (Fe + Ni). I remember Silverchris relating to you, Rubicon, and I've tended to think that before you have quite similar manners of expression, take your reaction to something, and you both seem to process and desire to express the dissonance within concluding upon some matter of thought or subject, all the while seemingly keeping an open mind towards said subject.

Take the difference between ESFps and ENFps (half involved and half abstract vs completely involved) in the "Fi and Resonance" thread. Maybe you might not jive with that because you're more accepting of the view of ESFps or Se as not being quite capable of intellectuality, or that I'm not ESFp, etc, ad infinitum, but regardless, I'm putting it out there. Intuition in Socionics doesn't have a monopoly on intellectuality or capability of thought, it's just approached in a different manner.

(And I believe I'm forgetting the name of the actual other side of the involved dichotomy, so I'm terming it "abstract" but I can't be certain that was the exact word, but for this discussion, it applies to how one is placed in the information, or what kind of distance one is in relation to the information involved.)

I think the output of Ne/Ni egos will contain information, worldviews, or observations that are more distanced from the viewer, hence the abstract dichotomy. And because of the distance, hence the ability to juggle (seemingly) more concepts. (But as you'll see, it depends on what you value in order to judge the value of that.)

I definitely think the output of N people on traditionally "abstract" matters might be a tad easier for the N person to approach or format or something, because they have a higher ability to handle/change/manipulate/format that information, whereas for an S person, the process might be more laborious in some instances, (especially in the case of a doubled involved SF, for example)..like if an S person were to try to format their S experiences in a more N fashion, it might be a bit grasping or laborious (and I'm not making a judgment on the actual value of the output, because S people have been able to come up with some pithy abstract shit)..but anyway..

Take a city:

City:

Now take an aspect of the city. Zoom in.

Beach:



Now take an aspect of the beach. Zoom in.

Sand:


Please don't hyperfocus on the details or incorrect application of my less than exemplary photo examples. Just try to grasp the general concept. Which is better? Which view is better? Not view as in artistic appreciation. Do you know more when you have a view of the entire city? You know some aspects better, certainly. You're able to perhaps see more clearly how multiple aspects interact. But how useful is it to you, perhaps, when you're so far away? When commenting on specifics of properties of the city, what can you actually state with clarity? Which is "smarter"? Neither. They're complimentary. You need distance and abstraction to format experience, and you need involvement in experience to define meaning and relevancy. (Those are loose definitions/approximations. I realize they can be extrapolated in a lot of ways I cannot fathom the words for. Do not treat them as textbook definitions.)

I walked the stone sidewalk with the gradually ascending stairs to the doctor's office many times, and I learned to anticipate how heavy the door was, and how they employed a doorman to open it for clients, and how his smile/look would wash over one a certain way. I learned how to be out of breath on the stairwell after not having breakfast, while coming off a somewhat harmful drug. I learned to avoid the expensive barista stand outside the office. I came to anticipate the faces of the receptionists with their different facial idiosyncracies. I sometimes forgot there was a fountain outside the office that looked overly man made with those kind of perfectly chosen real boulders that look tacky. But they were all so confined to my individual experience. In some ways, I'm kind of selfish, and I want to make up for it but can't quite grasp how. The best way to widen my perception is to be involved in it. I notice things I'm involved in.

When for an appointment it was necessary to go to the 3rd floor, my view of the office, of the route, of my experience, was changed. I could see the stone sidewalk connecting to the different sides of the building, to the parking lot, where a receptionist walked out to get her lunch, how did she feel walking out there? Did she walk out there every day? I could see the extensive artistry of the construction of the building. Through the window I could see the city and buildings surrounding the office. I wondered if the doctor looked through that window, if this was his floor, if he considered the tiny cars, and how the sidewalk, the path that seemed so important when one was walking it, became such a tiny aspect in the monstrous thing that surrounded it. How could you possibly feel the entire city surrounding you when you're set on such a little path? How could you comprehend it? If I saw a person tracing that path to the office door, would I wonder if they cared about how heavy the door was? At what aspect do such things matter? I looked up through the slats of the complicated construction of the roof of the building and saw the sky. What if I could sit here in the room in the corner and look through the window and watch everything go by? Who would care, in my little zoomed in section of a life, with the magazine rack and worries and particular circumstances that surrounding my life?

That formats somewhat into my understanding of N vs S, involved vs abstract, and neither is better than the other, they're complimentary. I find it hard to relate to experiences without being directly placed in them, and it's hard for me to connect them without some tangible context in which to assign meaning. I see details everywhere, but have to be placed in a larger view, or shown or told it, in order to have some distance from the information at hand.

Si is external, dynamic, and field based, which means it's perceived through the subject and connects external involved events on a more holistic, dynamic level as opposed to discrete objects..I've heard it described as spiritual, and effective, and others things..but it cannot be confined to banal shit such as mundane comfort..I think that that sort of thing, if examined, would have to be looked at more holistically in order to assign whether it or not it's applicable to Si. If you're a creature of comfort..perhaps those sort of observations pertain to your experience of Si. If you're more intellectually based in a purely personal sense as opposed to functional..perhaps your observations won't correlate to fluffy pillows and food. I don't have as clear concept of Si as opposed to say, Ti/Fe, so perhaps someone who has interest could expand or specify or correct me.

A great post from ananke regarding the S functions (it's specifically referring to Se however I think it can be applied to both S functions):

So you say only Se-egos can see a ball is red? Damn. I feel sorry for intuitives.

The senses aren't something only sensors have. The functions are about how we perceive/understand things. Mental translators. Not our ability to feel or see. Dammit. If you really think Se is about seeing that a ball is red, no wonder you have a bias against it.

Se perceives the world through pattern recognition, much like intuitives do. They sense reality based on a lot of clues. It can't be "explained" easily. They just understand it "intuitively". Ne-egos don't do this. They understand what things can "lead to". Intuitively. That's how the perceiving functions work - as pattern recognition. It's why they aren't rational. If Se was about recognizing reality as you see it, then everybody is a Se-ego. We all see and hear and feel. Se is as "intuitive" in form as intuition. It's just that the words are so fucking misleading. Se uses a lot of small clues to understand what is HERE AND NOW. It's why Se-egos can win any discussion, or fool anyone. They pick up on EVERYTHING you say and do, and have total "control" of the here and now. It's a complex function, not some simple "this is a red ball"-thing.

Also, recognizing that a ball is soft would be more Se than Si, but really, it's just something you sense with your senses. Si is, like B&D said, about creating fluidity in experiences. Se is about the experience itself. Se isolates, Si binds together. Realize that they are ways of experiencing the world, as complex as Ne or Ni. Just different. If you understand this, you'll get so much further.

[Brilliand]

You've got just as good a chance of convincing the gamma forum you're ESI than I did when I tried to convince them I was ILI.

I tried that once. Niffweed was mean to me.

[Mattie]

If it is an vs problem you're having, it might be beneficial to start with them purely as IAs and then try out where they fit as IMEs in functions. It seems like you're looking between SiFe, NiFe, and FiSe, so I'll try and describe and placements there, and hopefully you'll get a better idea.

As an IA, can be described as something like "Homeostasis", with ideas of "balance" and "equilibrium" attached along with it. This "balance" is concerned with externally found information that affects the relationship of a person (usually the subject at hand) with an Object. This other Object is commonly painted on this forum as the environment, but can be other people, ideas, etc. A lot of what is usually thought of comes from the method of intuitively understanding the "contentedness" between Objects, when both are at ease with one another and when they are disturbed. You could kinda compare to Feng Shui, how there is an understanding of how external factors influences your "energy" and what has to be done to restore a positive state. What matters the most is that the feeling of "balance" is constantly moving and being adjusted, and to , Objects are floating in it. Hopefully this wasn't too ambiguous, I haven't fully developed my analogy yet, but I wanted to give this thread a try.

SiFe see this continual balancing act in everything, but it's more like it's a property of reality rather than a perspective; SiFe see everything in need of adjusting and balance, and use to achieve equilibrium. A common behavior I notice from SiFe (in relation to me) is to question right away when they think something is up with me, they somehow are sensing that I am bothered. But it's not necessarily in the obvious manner that anyone can tell, and I don't know really how to fully explain it at the moment ( as my suggestive makes it seem like mysticism almost to me), however they will realize something is off with my behavior and proceed to correct it with (not with , which is a common mistake made here). With in the role function for NiFe, this process is completely off the radar and the NiFe is rarely, if ever, aware of the these sort of connections exist. The "balance" will be rationalized under 's perspective, and the observance of the external data that connects a person's equilibrium to something else is inadvertently ignored. If what I explained sounded like a completely alien process to you (hoping it's not that I did a bad job lol), it might be possible that is in your role function. In the demonstrative position for FiSe, it is less "existential" and more an uncommon method of dealing with information, usually with those who are considered psychologically close to the FiSe and only in some off-handed manner, not really a conscious decision like with -creative. When it comes to being in a producing function, it is an active method of balancing based on external information rather than feeling the imbalance, as accepting would.

Now, for ... I haven't thought it out enough to be 100% confident, but seeing that this is in Gamma's sub-forum, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to nudge me in the correct direction as the IA focuses on the how two Objects "evolutionarily" connect, where they are in a "grand design" (think "Emergence") and what arises from their connection, which is what is particularly concerned with. sees how Objects got to where they are (in context), what their present alignment creates in their momentary placement, and where they will be considering the path projected by what has been already observed.

How that's applies... With SiFe, is in the role, and I've noticed this manifest in the skepticism of peoples' intentions or other abstract processes that don't hint enough externally. SiFe are completely oblivious to this "Emergent" structure of connections between abstracts, and will instead try to find external information to justify any perspective an -user might bring up. NiFe see these connections readily, which is why they tend to have a reputation of "getting something out of nothing" ( gets this too, but in a different manner), but these "somethings" are assumed to be obvious to everyone, that everyone can see the changing implications of these connections, and uses in reaction to these observations. FiSe, on the other hand, have this in their mobilizing function, usually wanting to improve on seeing connections and (as Ashton made a comment in my "Resonance" thread about mobilizing IMEs) tend to have it run wild unchecked, since it's a producing IME.

I wish I could be more concise and clear with , but I just haven't sat down and really thought about it yet. But maybe this will still put things on the table making it easier to view all at once and detached.

[Mediator Kam]

I think this "mysticism" of Si is very obvious to me. When I see a person enough, I get a mental picture of how they "should" be, and seeing them in relatively the same state cements my idea of how they are and how they should be. If someone doesn't "look" the same way, it is very easy for me to know that they are under some sort of stress.

I will give an anecdote. I knew a girl, her face was normal-sized. After Christmas Break, she came back and I noticed that her face was much wider. She looked unhealthy. I made mention of it, because it just didn't look right. People said "wtf dude, why are you calling attention to it, how rude!" Well, apparently, I had noticed something very serious, because a couple weeks later she was diagnosed with something involving her kidneys, which made her retain fluid and burst her blood vessels. I knew something was wrong. @_@

[Creepy-male]

I tried that once. Niffweed was mean to me.

Have a Gulhugs

[Aiss]

Re N vs S discussion:

I prefer to think of external/internal elements as explicit/implicit. The important part here is that N content is implied by S content. The difference between Nx and Sx egos is that the former focus on the implied content, while what implies it is largely subconsciously perceived and they may even be unaware of it. Whereas Sensors are perfectly aware of it, but less attuned to what it implies. I'll refer to Pi aspects as "context" and Pe as "elements" here.

Ne/Si - explicit context and implicit elements, that is, context reveals hidden qualities of objects which are put into it. A typical example is "randomness" or out-of-context humor, often associated with Ne - by placing an object in different surroundings, a surprising aspect of it is exposed. Si-egos appreciate Ne information, because it helps them fit objects into context, achieving "harmony" or "balance" associated with Si. Ne-egos appreciate Si information, because it stimulates their Ne - being more aware of context, they notice more of its implications, resulting in "creativity".

Ni/Se - explicit elements and implicit context, that is, elements imply context, create it. Emerging context "connects the dots", revealing hidden interactions - for example indirect consequences. Se-egos appreciate Ni information, because it shows them where to look for other related elements. Ni-egos appreciate Se information, because it stimulates the emergence of context, feeds the "imagination".

An important difference is that when an element stands out in context, Ne/Si focuses on what it implies about the object itself, whereas Ni/Se on what it implies about the whole.

[Mattie]

I think you're doing well so far. I'll try to think how to flesh some of this out further. Emergence is still on the right track IMO. Also look into Homeorhesis even though I know thats an uglyass word; it contrasts well to Homeostasis () and I think describes a kind of emergent process primarily picks up on.

Thanks I was realizing as I posted that those two are the ones predicted by Socionics to be the hardest for me to verbalize, and it really was! I think I look more confident talking about because I'm comfortable with the word and can readily apply it, but the idea of "Emergence" is new to me and I have to look into it. I looked at the Homeorhesis, and yes it is an ugly word, and there doesn't seem to be a large resource to draw from about it. I'm also rather anal of not having consistent patterns... If and 'match,' then and and the other pairings have to, and then maybe every sort of pairing will have to match somehow, like with and with ... well, that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen with me "Emergence" takes away some of the focus on the "evolution" aspect of , but it seems to be the only one that carries that essence of something unique coming from a particular alignment at a certain time, and the idea of "the whole is not the sum of its parts." Unfortunately is low on my list, down there with , overall all of the Dynamic IAs will be the last four because they are harder for me to explain.

[Rubicon]

Actions are the best measure of a person's qualities.

A person's character maybe .. but I don't think they say much about who the person actually is.

Yes, accept everyone superficially, because there is no reason to start shit over every little thing that you don't like. But value who you want, on your terms. This is what I do.

mm

Hell, I like to sleep on the ground. I would prefer to sit on the ground some days, I think it is more natural. I tend to agree with you that Si is not some sort of "MUST CAPTURE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PILLOWS" function.

haha you sleep on the ground?

I would never say I know when enough is enough. And chores you must repeat again and again are the most boring thing in the world. No Ne in it

yeah.. but they don't really bore me... it's just that the concept bothers me

I don't know what you are saying that really means anything more than your ideas of what an ISFp is "supposed to feel" is too exact. Since Si is such a subjective function, there is a wide range of "true" Si, because if you really are Si base, it will be different to you.

no doubt what I wrote can be squeezed into the SEI box along with chickens or whatever else takes your fancy :-p .. but objectively-speaking, well I don't think SEI is the best fit

I still think that the sort of idea of an ISFp around here is off. I mean what changes it so much from INFp to ISFp? INFps in general are thought of as a lot higher on the intellect scale, but there's not a screamingly feasible standard you can apply, imo. It's just that one is completely involved (Fe + Si) and one is half involved and half abstract (Fe + Ni). I remember Silverchris relating to you, Rubicon, and I've tended to think that before you have quite similar manners of expression, take your reaction to something, and you both seem to process and desire to express the dissonance within concluding upon some matter of thought or subject, all the while seemingly keeping an open mind towards said subject.

what on earth does that mean?

you're more accepting of the view of ESFps or Se as not being quite capable of intellectuality

no..

Intuition in Socionics doesn't have a monopoly on intellectuality or capability of thought, it's just approached in a different manner.

yeah I'm aware of that.. you're assigning me false motives :-p

Please don't hyperfocus on the details or incorrect application of my less than exemplary photo examples. Just try to grasp the general concept. Which is better? Which view is better? Not view as in artistic appreciation. Do you know more when you have a view of the entire city? You know some aspects better, certainly. You're able to perhaps see more clearly how multiple aspects interact. But how useful is it to you, perhaps, when you're so far away? When commenting on specifics of properties of the city, what can you actually state with clarity? Which is "smarter"? Neither. They're complimentary. You need distance and abstraction to format experience, and you need involvement in experience to define meaning and relevancy. (Those are loose definitions/approximations. I realize they can be extrapolated in a lot of ways I cannot fathom the words for. Do not treat them as textbook definitions.)

I like your analogy. If I had to choose one, I'd probably go with the city view.. Knowing too many details without context or perspective would make me feel vulnerable to attack.

I walked the stone sidewalk with the gradually ascending stairs to the doctor's office many times, and I learned to anticipate how heavy the door was, and how they employed a doorman to open it for clients, and how his smile/look would wash over one a certain way. I learned how to be out of breath on the stairwell after not having breakfast, while coming off a somewhat harmful drug. I learned to avoid the expensive barista stand outside the office. I came to anticipate the faces of the receptionists with their different facial idiosyncracies. I sometimes forgot there was a fountain outside the office that looked overly man made with those kind of perfectly chosen real boulders that look tacky. But they were all so confined to my individual experience. In some ways, I'm kind of selfish, and I want to make up for it but can't quite grasp how. The best way to widen my perception is to be involved in it. I notice things I'm involved in.

When for an appointment it was necessary to go to the 3rd floor, my view of the office, of the route, of my experience, was changed. I could see the stone sidewalk connecting to the different sides of the building, to the parking lot, where a receptionist walked out to get her lunch, how did she feel walking out there? Did she walk out there every day? I could see the extensive artistry of the construction of the building. Through the window I could see the city and buildings surrounding the office. I wondered if the doctor looked through that window, if this was his floor, if he considered the tiny cars, and how the sidewalk, the path that seemed so important when one was walking it, became such a tiny aspect in the monstrous thing that surrounded it. How could you possibly feel the entire city surrounding you when you're set on such a little path? How could you comprehend it? If I saw a person tracing that path to the office door, would I wonder if they cared about how heavy the door was? At what aspect do such things matter? I looked up through the slats of the complicated construction of the roof of the building and saw the sky. What if I could sit here in the room in the corner and look through the window and watch everything go by? Who would care, in my little zoomed in section of a life, with the magazine rack and worries and particular circumstances that surrounding my life?

Things I tend to notice or remember are mostly to do with 'feel'. I often don't notice significant changes to places until I feel something is different, then work out what it is. Um Idk.. I really don't have a good memory for details in my environment. Like I was describing a place to someone that I'd frequented for over a year.. and said that there were a bunch of peach couches in the place.. discovered later they were actually dark blue. :-/ And I don't tend to notice things like whether people have lost or gained weight .. so I often get people saying things to me like "well do you notice a difference?" and I'm like "um new haircut?" :-/

Re involvement.. I definitely have more perspective when I'm not involved. Though I can get 'involved' and still feel like I'm floating above the situation.. like I'm playing at involvement while everyone else is doing it for real. Like reality is held at a distance from me by default, and I have to remind myself sometimes that I am not invisible :-p.. that I actually have the power to affect change around me. :-/ It's rare for things to hit me in the face without warning, but I find it interesting when they do. Like my actions are finally simply the result of impulse.

That formats somewhat into my understanding of N vs S, involved vs abstract, and neither is better than the other, they're complimentary. I find it hard to relate to experiences without being directly placed in them, and it's hard for me to connect them without some tangible context in which to assign meaning. I see details everywhere, but have to be placed in a larger view, or shown or told it, in order to have some distance from the information at hand.

Hmm I'm the opposite. It's easy for me to place myself in other people's experiences, if I choose to.

[Rubicon]

A common behavior I notice from SiFe (in relation to me) is to question right away when they think something is up with me, they somehow are sensing that I am bothered. But it's not necessarily in the obvious manner that anyone can tell, and I don't know really how to fully explain it at the moment ( as my suggestive makes it seem like mysticism almost to me), however they will realize something is off with my behavior and proceed to correct it with (not with , which is a common mistake made here).

Do you mean like emotionally bothered?

How that's applies... With SiFe, is in the role, and I've noticed this manifest in the skepticism of peoples' intentions or other abstract processes that don't hint enough externally. SiFe are completely oblivious to this "Emergent" structure of connections between abstracts, and will instead try to find external information to justify any perspective an -user might bring up. NiFe see these connections readily, which is why they tend to have a reputation of "getting something out of nothing" ( gets this too, but in a different manner), but these "somethings" are assumed to be obvious to everyone, that everyone can see the changing implications of these connections, and uses in reaction to these observations. FiSe, on the other hand, have this in their mobilizing function, usually wanting to improve on seeing connections and (as Ashton made a comment in my "Resonance" thread about mobilizing IMEs) tend to have it run wild unchecked, since it's a producing IME.

Hmm.. I'm definitely not good at that sort of thing. Getting things out of nothing. It impresses me when someone can do that. I was kinda practicing on this guy.. this guy who everyone reckons makes up fantastic adventures that he's allegedly participated in lol.. So I was getting him to talk about his experiences.. trying to get a feel for whether he was lying or not.. and the only piece of 'evidence' I got was a feeling when he lapsed into unrelated talk that he was being more genuine. :-/ I asked a Beta NF guy afterwards what he thought, and he instantly said he was lying.. because of the way the guy was holding himself or something. lol But I tend to trust assessments like that, based on the person's confidence level. Bah Idk..

[Creepy-female]

what on earth does that mean?

It means you sound like you're juggling a lot of views in your head without really committing to any particular one and that you seem to communicate that dissonance. I think Silverchris comes across that way too.

no..

Wasn't sure!

yeah I'm aware of that.. you're assigning me false motives :-p

I'm covering my bases.

I like your analogy. If I had to choose one, I'd probably go with the city view.. Knowing too many details without context or perspective would make me feel vulnerable to attack.

It's not like S egos don't have the ability to zoom out or however you would describe that too. It's just sort of riddled with more trial and error as opposed to being able to pin everything together real coherantly without some involvement. Or Ns possess the ability to sort of play with the concepts more fluidly.

Things I tend to notice or remember are mostly to do with 'feel'. I often don't notice significant changes to places until I feel something is different, then work out what it is. Um Idk.. I really don't have a good memory for details in my environment. Like I was describing a place to someone that I'd frequented for over a year.. and said that there were a bunch of peach couches in the place.. discovered later they were actually dark blue. :-/ And I don't tend to notice things like whether people have lost or gained weight .. so I often get people saying things to me like "well do you notice a difference?" and I'm like "um new haircut?" :-/

Well I don't either. The point of that wasn't that remembering every physical detail of the environment. Certain things jump out, but the point was more the proximity of the information.

Re involvement.. I definitely have more perspective when I'm not involved. Though I can get 'involved' and still feel like I'm floating above the situation.. like I'm playing at involvement while everyone else is doing it for real. Like reality is held at a distance from me by default, and I have to remind myself sometimes that I am not invisible :-p.. that I actually have the power to affect change around me. :-/ It's rare for things to hit me in the face without warning, but I find it interesting when they do. Like my actions are finally simply the result of impulse.

That sounds like S leading though..IMO. S people benefit the most when they gain some insight through detachment. So it's like, they're Sensors, but the sort of guidance/formatting they seek might color their worldview to a great extent. Perhaps what one is searching for is more apparent than one takes for granted. (Aside, it's not so much about the power to effect change, but more like the way you perceive yourself not being able to effect change.)

I apologize if you don't feel that applies to you, I wish I felt of more help.

Hmm I'm the opposite. It's easy for me to place myself in other people's experiences, if I choose to.

I've been envious of this ability befor. It's uncomfortable to be at a loss or go the long route of laboriously through the steps of imagining a similar situation in order to gain insight. Some people sort of expect it, and some don't. It's weird.

[Rubicon]

That sounds like S leading though..IMO. S people benefit the most when they gain some insight through detachment. So it's like, they're Sensors, but the sort of guidance/formatting they seek might color their worldview to a great extent. Perhaps what one is searching for is more apparent than one takes for granted. (Aside, it's not so much about the power to effect change, but more like the way you perceive yourself not being able to effect change.)

So do you tend to feel detached?

[Creepy-female]

So do you tend to feel detached?

What I mean by detached is an ability to perceive things in a more holistic manner as where they will lead over a span of time, rather than how they feel in the moment. And I do not feel genuinely (spontaneously, able to call at will) detached very much. The way I form detachment is basically through trial and error. If you've got enough, texture, repetition, sharp edges on your side, you can...almost counteract the weight of the actual moment.

It's not the same as being invisible? I sort of related to what you described there to an extent I think.

[xerx]

Things I tend to notice or remember are mostly to do with 'feel'. I often don't notice significant changes to places until I feel something is different, then work out what it is. Um Idk.. I really don't have a good memory for details in my environment. Like I was describing a place to someone that I'd frequented for over a year.. and said that there were a bunch of peach couches in the place.. discovered later they were actually dark blue. :-/ And I don't tend to notice things like whether people have lost or gained weight .. so I often get people saying things to me like "well do you notice a difference?" and I'm like "um new haircut?" :-/

I suspect this may be weak , but I'm not overly certain. At least I've noticed it a lot in the ethical types on this forum and in real life. It seems like external dynamic processes; in other words, physically occurring processes that change. So the stronger your , the more likely you would notice it. I guess that doesn't really help deciding between ESI and SEI. :/

[Rubicon]

What I mean by detached is an ability to perceive things in a more holistic manner as where they will lead over a span of time, rather than how they feel in the moment. And I do not feel genuinely (spontaneously, able to call at will) detached very much. The way I form detachment is basically through trial and error. If you've got enough, texture, repetition, sharp edges on your side, you can...almost counteract the weight of the actual moment.

You seem to use a lot of buzz words :-p .. it's hard to get a feel for what you mean. I guess the type of detachment I'm referring to is um objectivity? Like I'm not really invested.. I can't be invested, because it'd be absurd to be... given that there are other perspectives. :-/

[Rubicon]

I suspect this may be weak , but I'm not overly certain. At least I've noticed it a lot in the ethical types on this forum and in real life. It seems like external dynamic processes; in other words, physically occurring processes that change. So the stronger your , the more likely you would notice it. I guess that doesn't really help deciding between ESI and SEI. :/

Mm. :/ I was thinking that might be Te too..

[xerx]

Um I used to practice grabbing hold of burning hot things, to see if I could um absorb the pain and yet not label it as a bad sensation.

FYI, fascinating.