Cheers Elina. I agree with the Si video (they can't really do something exceptional either). But I think (and I was thinking about the Ne video aswell) that since they have to put "scenario" to the videos they will necessarily put a "flavor" to each functions depending on the scenario. So basically all these videos are biaised but still come off near the truth?
Also, 2nd question please :3:
Can a dude who is more knowledgeable than me in socionics functions (i.e that has read more than me but I won't coz I'm a lazy ass) explain to me the Te video. From what I have asked before, it seems to me like Te+Si which is like more obvious you die. So I would like to know if this is true (Te+Si) or if this video correlate the "essence" of Te (which I doubt honestly).
My point is (even as helpful as it might be - and it is, i'm not throwing anything here) aren't these videos too global to be called accurate or even realising what the function might be? => A short notice before getting fired at: I understand that it is supposed to help us understand the function
better and that it is supposed to help us have an "image", a "reality" to which we can go back to or to which we can relate as being true/or fulfilling.
Now the thing is that the explanation of those functions, even by videos and/or scenario, should be dry as fuck and only hold informations to be accurate. Ok, yes, I can go to the website and read "ability to correlate with moving object in the fucking sector A of fucking Moon my ass dubble D", the thing is that I don't understand that. So yes, then those videos will be helpful to me (they have been, i'm writing this thing) but are they accurate?
Te comes in 2 ways I heard, with Si and with Ni. How can one video represent that?
Basically I'm a bit lost and I'd like to know if these videos are accurate or not, if they hold one vision or the globality of the function, how we can interpret them, how should we interpret them, in short how to use this information.
Cheers for the reading and even more cheer if you answer that (<3). Thick fat and boring, sorry
.