I think in the U.S. we use "pleasant" in a farm more limited way, and usually, as you say, to describe how we personally find things to be. "It was a pleasant evening." Meaning it pleased me, I feel satisfied by it.Originally Posted by Maritsa
I think in the UK the word "pleasant" as Total used it means that you were smiling in a way as if to look pleasant to other people.
okay understandable how about what I just quoted from his personal 80 question marathon?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Mm, I had a hard time finding it because it wasn't treated as a quotation, but it must be this:
What is comfort?
I don't really know what to make of it, it doesn't mean much to me in itself. What does it mean to you?Feeling nice. But I have to say this is more mental than physical. I can be physically uncomfortable for a long time and that's fine but awkward situations kind of annoy me and make me feel uncomfortable. Some social situations are more uncomfortable than being on a twelve hour plane flight with a broken seat and no entertainment, for instance. That I can pass by, I can will myself through. Uncomfortable situations mentally or socially are more difficult to do that.
I have noticed in chat that when people are behaving very poorly, total does get uncomfortable, at least in the sense that he would evidently rather people be rational toward one another. I have drawn no conclusions from this impulse, however.
As I said, I don't really have a type for him. I wanted some clarity regarding the specific use of "pleasant" and the context that led to this thread.
imo i thought mari wasnt too far off on pure jung dichotomy (ISFP V ESFP) but in the ego detail its quite a big difference obviously. in retrospect i think part of the reason i found this thread confusing was that she and I seem to have very different understandings of language and how its used.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
This sounds like
. Probably not
I would ignore the whole "static" vs. "dynamic" thing, it's often misleading.
Now this is mostly Se, with some Fe at the end. Se is about the objective appearance of something. "pleasant" is Si because it's about your personal reaction to how something is, rather than how it is objectively. In any case what you wrote is mostly Se, not Si.dark hair dark eyes, thin mouth full nose, mildly slavic in appearance, pronounced shoulderbones -- stare focused on camera, pleasant but not jolly... usually appears suprirsed
possibly
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Sure. Be that as it may, I'd be hard-pressed beyond belief to type that person anything other thanThis sounds like. If I've obliquely forwarded an argument in this thread, it's that people don't always speak in terms of their preferred IEs. Being asked to assess people is tricky, and I think many people will be careful about what they say and how they say it if, for example, they aren't sure whether someone might get offended.
i get so confused on the forum when people want to associate any way of being *affected* by something as
i'm not typing @goldenbane's person in this btw. SEI has strong
though i would like to get to the bottom of if how something is impacting you psychologically and awareness of that is- noting how it is getting worse and where it is leading.
ftr, I don't know how relevant this is, but when I saw golden's post I thought it was the sort of thing I would say/notice.
That's not really what EIE does. I've seen the Si HA of EII manifest in this way in several EIIs however. For example they would randomly send me photos of personal stuff in full sensory detail that I didn't ask for. (No, not dick pics)
I'm attributing it to Si HA because it was always definitely some Si stuff that I didn't care for.
Not saying all EIIs do this btw, even though it's a strong trend - I don't know what else contributes to this.
But one thing is for sure... this isn't how you type someone EIE.
NpThanks a lot MystIt's not weird in itself, just the frequency he does it (otherwise I wouldn't even notice it) - like you said, it's like an excited little kid pointing at things
About the faces - no, he just recognizes faces, not the details (at least I think - "oh, I recognize you from before, you're dating that girl I went to class with"... ). It's fascinating to me, because I'm very bad at it, unless someone is either super interesting, if I consciously stare at someone and decide I'm going to remember them or more likely, if I stare because I want to creepily VI them
Just curious - why are you sure he's not Fe ego?
Does he have a strong soc instinct by any chance?
Please rephrase it in Si, I'd like to see what that looks like.This sounds like
Agreed, this is Se mostly.Now this is mostly Se, with some Fe at the end. Se is about the objective appearance of something. "pleasant" is Si because it's about your personal reaction to how something is, rather than how it is objectively. In any case what you wrote is mostly Se, not Si.
Si would be sensory impression (the internal form of it). No more, no less.
i get so confused on the forum when people want to associate any way of being *affected* by something as
i'm not typing @goldenbane's person in this btw. SEI has strong
though i would like to get to the bottom of if how something is impacting you psychologically and awareness of that is
Ni would be the more conceptual variant. You would not see much of the sensory impression, you would see the conceptual mainly. Much more removed.
Fi would be the judgment, not simply something you sense but you actually decide on how you personally feel about it, is it right, is it wrong, etc.
Aversion can be a so-called CE (control emotion) from any weak or devalued IE too.
As for revulsion as the example. You can observe the sensory "feeling" internally, you could sense the "feeling" itself and you would sense for example that it's not enjoyable physically, almost stressful, making you tired or something. This would be the Si. If you consider the person more, you can create a personal conviction where you feel that you need to avoid them. That would be the Fi version of the revulsion.
to me "stressful" is a psychological feeling. like for instance having to copy and paste off a long list of stuff is "stressful" because i might start making numerous errors and getting distracted by my other thoughts losing track of where i was (the feeling of not getting anywhere can be stressful). it feels stressful in my mind. sometimes expectations could affect this. for instance if one is trying to finish something and their objectives are thwarted, it is stressful. emotions of irritation, frustration, or annoyance may be produced probably in response to strain. this was kind of my point in my other thread... these are not physical sensations - they are experienced in one's mind only.
anyway the above isn't
i think one possible issue with how i cover these things is that i have a perceiving IE as the primary way in which i process everything - so i will in a sense experience everything in terms of psychological feelings of some sort: use of rational elements comes after and is simply further defining and filtering perception from a perceiving IE. because the perceiving IE is leading, all input from rational elements may sometimes simply "feel" as though it is just raw perception/impression (again - i experience that in my mind/thoughts/emotions). (though i kind of thought this was how all people work, fundamentally maybe...)
disclaimer: i don't fully agree with myself - there is something "off" in what i have said and i remain dissatisfied with this post.
Last edited by marooned; 10-21-2016 at 11:20 PM. Reason: to make it more convoluted ofc
For me it's not in my mind. It's not as detached as that but more visceral. If I ever choose to consciously focus on such Si things for a second. (Usually it goes on autopilot)
So I find it interesting you chose to phrase that like that.
Yeah, I don't have much against what you are saying here. Though if I ever have this, it's again more visceral for me. The judging part is what makes it Fi specifically, if it's more than just a sensed impression being experienced.anyway the above isn't
That makes sense.i think one possible issue with how i cover these things is that i have a perceiving IE as the primary way in which i process everything - so i will in a sense experience everything in terms of psychological feelings of some sort: use of rational elements comes after and is simply further defining and filtering perception from a perceiving IE. because the perceiving IE is leading, all input from rational elements may sometimes simply "feel" as though it is just raw perception/impression (again - i experience that in my mind/thoughts/emotions). (though i kind of thought this was how all people work, fundamentally maybe...)
It's ok, nearly all Socionics is like thatdisclaimer: i don't fully agree with myself - there is something "off" in what i have said and i remain dissatisfied with this post.Complex shit.
the fake eye smile thing I'm thinking about it so deeply... I've seen so many women do that, like when they were really offended, but felt like they had to keep the peace and not fight back or say anything. I feel so bad for that, and I am really not trying to be some white knight social justice type either. It just sucks, that so many males are assholes at times to them, yet because they are a woman, they have to keep the peace, and sit there and smile. It's like on the verge of cracking and becoming violent. And I think... a lot of women eventually break and do that. Because they just can't be some perfect housewife martyr mommy. Then you get women the opposite of that. That never know how to be kind, at all. Not forced kindness when it's not appropriate, but at all. Ever. And their relationships suffer just the same. There is like these two extreme types women go through. Women... women... women... women... women.
okay I don't know why I'm thinking about this so seriously.
I don't think "a lot" of women crack and become violent, and I know only a handful of women who exist at just one end of an extreme in terms of nice/not nice. You're trying to understand, but you're not seeing what women are actually like. You're limited by stereotypical ideas here.
Last edited by golden; 10-23-2016 at 05:50 PM.
Sure, I agree with that.Sure. Be that as it may, I'd be hard-pressed beyond belief to type that person anything other than
Hmm. it seems difficult to describe appearance purely using Si. But you might experience it as a mental state when viewing a gross image of someone puking, for example, or something more mildly gross like a woman wearing a ton of makeup. The main difference is that you're not attributing qualities to the person themself, it's just your visceral reaction to them (not on an emotional level but a physical level). A more positive example might be something like "that's a nice shirt," but even that might have some Se in it.
Si is beauty, so saying that someone is beautiful is Si
It's not that simple...Se is also about beauty.
I'll give another example of the same SEI friend I described earlier. I mentioned this in chat once, sorry for any repeats.
She liked to go into shops with me and she'd initiate a kind of activity, "Which of these things do you like the best?" She'd say, "What thing do you like best on this shelf?" "Which of these 12 scarves do you prefer?" "What's your favorite toaster? (if there were several together on display)." She was avidly interested in my preference but didn't really seem care why I liked a thing.
She seemed to get a lot of information from my unvarnished preferences. Se doms I've been close to also like to look at things with me, but that seems to go differently . . .
And no, she isn't
@Ghost @thehotelambush I thought beauty had more to do with
Si is the beauty function. Hence why you see more Se ego that dont care what they look like and are fat, than si egos. If you ser overweight si egos they look good anyways because they take care of themselves in other ways and care to make themselves look good.@Ghost @thehotelambush I thought beauty had more to do with
Physical beauty (music is counted into this) has nothing to do with the ethical functions. If you have an ethical si valuing type they will be more sensitive to and moved by beautiful art than lets say EIE. As a SEI 4 I am extremely sensitive to beautiful music especially. When I was in choir and we sang a new song(doesnt happen when we sang any song, but the beautiful ones), when we put all the parts together it sounded so beautiful i almost teared up a little, and when other people around me also are thinking like "wow this sounds amazing" that makes me even more moved. Those times in music are like a religious experience for me.
EIEs are usually into poetry rather than visual or performing arts.
Last edited by maniac; 10-23-2016 at 07:06 AM.
That sounds excrutiatingly boring. I get excited when ive found some amazing song that takes me to another world, and I might tell my friend that you have to listen to this.I'll give another example of the same SEI friend I described earlier. I mentioned this in chat once, sorry for any repeats.
She liked to go into shops with me and she'd initiate a kind of activity, "Which of these things do you like the best?" She'd say, "What thing do you like best on this shelf?" "Which of these 12 scarves do you prefer?" "What's your favorite toaster? (if there were several together on display)." She was avidly interested in my preference but didn't really seem care why I liked a thing.
She seemed to get a lot of information from my unvarnished preferences. Se doms I've been close to also like to look at things with me, but that seems to go differently . . .
And no, she isn't
I would say it mostly has to do with@Ghost @thehotelambush I thought beauty had more to do with
I also don't necessarily agree that "you see more Se ego that dont care what they look like and are fat, than si egos." At least, this is not totally clear. Maybe more of them are fat but my understanding is that this is more out of neglect of their health and wellbeing than appearance per se. In any case there are far more Se leading types that consciously think "I want to / have to look good" than Si leading types.
I wrote a bit about the Si and Se approaches to beauty here. Basically,
Se = information about the external, objective appearance of things. Involves animalistic and/or sexual attraction and desire to "conquer" or acquire the beautiful object or person
Si = information about aesthetics or how things affect one's equilibrium. Involves a feeling of pleasantness or relaxation vs grossness.
Fe = information about style, flair, uniqueness, etc. Not strictly about how things look but it can be closely related.
Understandable.
It was actually lovely for me because she was so quietly enthusiastic and paid such close attention to me. Normally people don't care as much or really take the time to consider the objects around us, and how they affect us. She taught me a lot about the personal aspects of taste, and I'm grateful for that.
Because his Fe use isn't nuanced enough to be in his ego. Also the way he interacts with group of friends and the particular criteria he assesses people's character on shows Fi valuing imo. I'm more or less sure he's Te/Fi altogether.Np
Just curious - why are you sure he's not Fe ego?
Does he have a strong soc instinct by any chance?
I've no idea about the soc instict - could be.
That's funny that you say that...there is some Ne involved there too.
Another thing I've noticed is that when people use the word "beautiful" in a more abstract sense it's really meant to conveyI would say it mostly has to do with
I also don't necessarily agree that "you see more Se ego that dont care what they look like and are fat, than si egos." At least, this is not totally clear. Maybe more of them are fat but my understanding is that this is more out of neglect of their health and wellbeing than appearance per se. In any case there are far more Se leading types that consciously think "I want to / have to look good" than Si leading types.
I wrote a bit about the Si and Se approaches to beauty here. Basically,
Se = information about the external, objective appearance of things. Involves animalistic and/or sexual attraction and desire to "conquer" or acquire the beautiful object or person
Si = information about aesthetics or how things affect one's equilibrium. Involves a feeling of pleasantness or relaxation vs grossness.
Fe = information about style, flair, uniqueness, etc. Not strictly about how things look but it can be closely related.
You're right I can't recall ever hearing the word beautiful coming from a SLI...!Another thing I've noticed is that when people use the word "beautiful" in a more abstract sense it's really meant to convey
Right. In that 80q too, a lot of the Si is Si+Fe.Another thing I've noticed is that when people use the word "beautiful" in a more abstract sense it's really meant to convey
This always makes everything especially awkward for SLIs in German-speaking regions who want to say things like "thank you" and "you're welcome".
(To be fair, I don't think he literally means never, but then, this is the guy who classifies all sloppy writers as EIE, because we all know how sloppy notoriously horrible writers like Shakespeare, Goethe, and Thomas Mann are...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote