# Thread: Please Sticky Me: An in-depth explanation of functions for newbies

1. ## Please Sticky Me: An in-depth explanation of functions for newbies

((WARNING: For some posters this thread be a big long fat 'Duh' but for others, I really hope I help clear up some of the fog.))

There appears to still be a lot of confusion with what functions are. What they mean, exactly.

Therefore, I will clear up all confusion about the functions for people. I understand the temptation to argue with me, but please do not do that, as that's not the point of the thread. Arguing here would be like trying to argue that the sky isn't blue. And I won't even mention that I'm gay all that much, or inappropriately reference buttsex and throat fucking!

Let's start with the function Se. Se means, in a nutshell, 'External Statics of Objects.' It means just that. An external object that's not in motion. A pen, a stapler, a human being. Anything physical, objective, concrete....that's not moving.

Protip: Se can mean anything you want it to mean, as long as it doesn't contradict with the raw definition. There's a lot of wiggle room with meaning, as it comes from within ourselves.

Can Se mean bullying? Possibly, but that's a far stretch cause to bully somebody else you usually have to be moving. =D So it isn't really a fair comparison.

However, Se isn't about our feelings or insights, so that's why, like all the external and objective functions it's associated with strength and power.

Se in a vacuum means *exactly* as it says it means. An external, static object. You could put all sorts of psychological impressions and dents into it, and make it mean whatever you want, but ultimately you are just feeding an illusion.

"So if I'm Se polr I don't like static objects?"

Technically, yes! That might sound weird (but people are weird and turned off by all sorts of things so what do you expect), but that's what the theory states. INFjs are stimulated by external objects IN MOTION, not static. Static objects make them uncomfortable.

We INFps are stimulated much more by frozen external objects (why I love playing Ice mages in rpgs and earth crowd controllers, and freezing things into place)

"But I'm INFj, and static objects don't make me uncomfortable."

Then either you're not INFj, or you're lying about your true weaknesses because you don't want other people to sociopathically make fun of you for them.

"But some objects can move and be static at once?"

Well yes, but if you like it when it's more moving, that's a Te-orientation. If you like it when it's more static, that's a Se-orientation. If you equally like it being static or moving, and just don't give a shit either way - that's more of a gamma orientation. Depending on your quadra and type, you might not even have an inner confliction about that.

And it of course depends on where Se/Te is in your psyche. Hidden agenda means just that: Something you really want, but you keep it on the downlow.

For example if your hidden agenda is Te, you will want other people to be all businessy and moving and hustle and bustle American Society-ish, but you won't be all egoic with it or outwardly demanding about it. If you have Te ego, like an ENTj or ESTj you will more outwardly criticize other people for not using business logic enough.

Te doesn't necessarily relate to business logic, but the analogy is really close because all Te means, is external dynamics of objects. Objects in motion. In the business world, everything is about external goods being exchanged rapidly. Right?

See? A perfect example of using a correct analogy, because that one doesn't contradict with the core essence of what Te is: External Dynamics of Objects or "Objects in Motion." It agrees, enhances, and 'goes along with it.'

Now if you try to say "Well, I'm Te-ego and that means I'm a better thinker than you, and that means I am more factual than you INFps" you are just full of shit. No, your orientation is to be stimulated by moving external objects... That's why you probably like business and capitalism (Like Ashton does, and he's ENTj) but it's not necessarily so.

An INFp can be WAY more factual and truthful than an ENTj. (In fact a common supervision technique of the ENTj is that the INFp is simply being too honest in a way that hurts only them) So cut that out! It's a negative stereotype. I can see how you would think that, but it's just not very smart. An INFp can also be filthy disgusting rich, but more often than not they will become rich by becoming an artistic celebrity and writer of a great novel, not by becoming a capitalist CEO of a company.

(End of Post 1)

2. Now the internal functions are trickier. But that's to be expected. Anything that isn't just a raw objective object is a lot harder to decipher than something dealing with internal "rawly psychological" processes. But we can do it!

internal statics of fields. () VS. internal dynamics of objects ()

Ooh this is interesting isn't it? No wonder so many people are confused on Fi and Fe! One is a Field and the other is still an Object!!! Yet they are both feeling functions, and both primarily about our emotions. See, this is where socionics is interesting and where we can easily steer off track. But if we just use our common sense, we will start to understand it.

A lot of Fi people feel that Fe-valuers 'objectify' them. Which has some truth to it, because Fe is actually still about objects. (and people are still objects no matter what we say) And a lot of Fe people feel that Fi-valuers are being way too asshole-ish about their opinions about other people, because their feelings about others are really fixed. Which has some truth to it, and sometimes they do just need to lighten up about other people more.

Yes, we all stay fixated on one person if we really like them, but for them it's hard if not impossible for Fi-valuers to change how somebody makes them feel, because their relationships (Field and relationship can be used interexchangably here) are static.

Since both Fi and Fe are about feelings however, and because Fi is about an internal field process and not an actual 'Thing', Fe/fi conflicts are best to be shown instead of told. So real-life examples:

Fi-valuer Galen: People who go to gay pride parades suck.

Fe-valuer Sammy: Well I agree Galen, but some people might be cool. Right?

Fi-valuer Galen: Ugh stop trying to change how I feel about it just agree with me.... and stop getting so personally offended just because I expressed my honest emotional opinion about something!!!

Fe-valuer Sammy: I actually do agree with you, but idk...my feelings about other people changes sometimes and I just can't be all static with that as you are.

Fe-valuer Sammy: *Kisses Dolphin's ass in a story*

Fi-valuer Dolphin: that's nice dear, but I already know and stop trying to manipulate my emotions.

Fe-valuer Sammy: I wasn't I was just... kinda being honest.

Se-ego, Fe-valuing , Ni dual seeking, hot male beta estp that's my future romantic lover:

haha omg that story was awesome I love u. (So enthralled by who I naturally am that he can't think str8)

Of course, real reality is more truthful than this. And people can still get along despite Fe/Fi clashes. For example:

Fi-valuer Dolphin ...BUT she's Se-ego and dual-seeks Ni: Well I wish the story had better tempo and was more serious (Te/Fi preference), and I wish it was much more Fi and a lot less Fe, but I still am crazy about all the Ni you give me, because that is my dual-seeking function.... and all the Se fight scenes and shit are just awesome.

Fe-valuer Sammy: Well Galen, I can still see why you will ALWAYS hate annoying faggots at gay pride parades, because they are being annoying!

Fi-valuer Galen: Thank you. Now, if you were Fi-valuing and about 50,000 times more straight acting, you might be my boyfriend. <3

Fi-valuer Ashton: Wow Sam, I really hate how you're not a Capitalist like me, but I felt sorry for you that you got sent to Starr...

The beta estp: I really loved that so much but I'm still so pissed off that you won't get a real job and I just can't be with u until you get one. *slams door on my face after hot sex*

(End of Part 2!)

3. Chapter 3: Those Weak INFps and INFjs!

Now, the only reason why people 'look down' on both INFPs and INFJs/INTjs so much, and every type with a Polr that's Objective is because those polrs are just more obvious than the other ones. Being you know, objective and all.

A Te polr will always be more obvious and 'what a weakling' than a Ni polr.

Because you're being weak against an actual object. (Especially being weak to Se or Te!) Something that other types can just overcome and bulldoze through without a second fucking thought most of the time!!!!!

So no, you're not pathetic for being an INFp, but you at least have to now understand why people view you that way...

Fe polr is pretty obvious too, and that's why a lot of Fe polrs whine about that on threads.

Having a Ne polr is the least obvious out of the four Extraverted Functions, but it still causes obvious issues.

It will always be easier to say 'Oh look at that sissy afraid of the actual tiger' then 'Oh look at that man afraid to get in a real, genuine emotional relationship with somebody.'

And INFps and INFjs generate empathy in other people a little better, because external objects can actually harm you. Being weak against a more ideal/field function, at least you know that 'it's just an idea.' Everybody can admit that an actual physical object can hurt and kill you.

Ya know? =)

That's all I want to say for Chapter 3.
(I will write other chapters on future dates.)

4. I don't know if you're being serious here or not, but since you had mentioned elsewhere your belief that static means "not moving", then For now I'm going to assume you are serious.

Static does not mean "not moving" nor "at rest", nor "stagnant".
Dynamic does not quite mean what your thinking of regarding "in motion". Close, but not quite.

Static refers to properties, attributes of things, people, etc that are relatively stable...consistent...across time, space, context. If an item is constantly changing, that would be one of it's attributes.

Dynamic is more closely linked with Systems Thinking than it is with "objects in motion". Systems thinking requires actions to take place. These actions influence something else within the system, which may also influence yet something else. An increase in one thing can decrease another, yet at the same time increase something else.

A much closer definition than what you're stating would be:

Static Objects...the attributes of objects
Static Fields...the relations between attributes of objects
Dynamic Objects...the actions of objects
Dynamic Fields...the inter-actions between objects

5. dun be mean annie he te polar

Lol, but although it's a very fun read, delise is right in that the functions are a bit more complex than how you describe them. Nonetheless, once again, your basic concept is there (Ti), but perhaps you could try elaborating a bit more on how it works out (Te).

E.g.

Se is about external static objects, but they don't well... like fall in love with the chair that's sitting there and isn't moving. No, they think about the properties of the chair, its weight, its height, its colour, its length, its girth, its thickness, its hardness, its material, its malleability, its expandability, its destructibility, its ability to be used as a platform for vigorous activities (like smashing it against someone, standing upon it, kicking it around) as well as standard activities like sitting and making notes on it in the lecture hall.

Because of that, it's quite common that IEIs stand out to SLEs -> they hardly move at all, they hardly talk at all, they hardly seem to be dynamic at all. At least on the outside. And a good SLE will able to walk into a crowded place, notice instinctively the static objects (IEIs and maybe ILIs) with desirable attributes for the purpose he is interested in, assess and weigh the strength of these attributes based on a Ti scale, and acquire him or her for that purpose.

Nah just kidding I've no idea how it works at all

6. Originally Posted by Reuben
dun be mean annie he te polar
sowwie

7. Don't ask people not to argue about it. That's just stupid... You can't make it as objective as the color of the sky, so why even compare it?

#### Posting Permissions

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