A review

[tereg]

I don't really recall doing something like this - its more I just try to connect the current topic to what I remember the original topic to be. Though who knows, maybe I actually *DO* do this, but just so 'automatically' that I can't recall doing it right now

and hmm word-for-word definitions... I hate doing things like this, so its hard for me to say - I would probably take the first approach for a while, but then I would tire of it and then start to look for words with easy to recall definitions and then learn them.

I'm assuming that for the words you do choose to memorize (though you don't like to do it), your preferred method is to "layer" it, as I described above.

Edit: Or at least go with it for as long as you can.

[hellothere]

I'm assuming that for the words you do choose to memorize (though you don't like to do it), your preferred method is to "layer" it, as I described above.

Edit: Or at least go with it for as long as you can.

I guess so, it would be a kind of cognitive "I know this is probably the best way to do it". Though I wouldn't have the discipline to continue with it for too long.

[tereg]

I guess so, it would be a kind of cognitive "I know this is probably the best way to do it". Though I wouldn't have the discipline to continue with it for too long.

Is this in your eyes the primary reason why you dislike tasks like this?

[hellothere]

Is this in your eyes the primary reason why you dislike tasks like this?

Partly - but mainly I just don't see the point of having to memorise something word for word. Understanding is more important in my opinion

[tereg]

I'm still wanting to say EII.

One quality that you have consistently shown is being able to see and recognize exceptions to the rule, which you have pointed out in almost every question you've answered that I've asked.

"Yes, but when ____ is the case, then ..."
"Partially, but there are times when ____ "
"I don't know because on one hand ____, and on the other hand ____."

I don't think an strong type would have divergent thought like that.

In my opinion focuses on bringing things more into focus and converging to a point. You would take these kind of unknowns or exceptions and sort of recognize that they are probably weighted less, but the drive towards a point isn't really hindered. I think that is more about divergent paths and being able to see things like exceptions to the rule and considering other related points before coming to a conclusion.

That's not to say that isn't about not coming to an eventual conclusion. (I mean, after all, you are wanting to know what your type is.) It just means that coming to a conclusion requires a certain level of comfort about the information.

This whole typing process of yours kind of illustrates this. When one thing seems to look like it might fit, something over there looks like it might fit as well. Or the thing you are trying fits, but maybe doesn't feel like it completely fits you, so it looks like you look at other things to compare how other things fit.

See what I mean? In my eyes, that's what seems to be going on just through this process. And that's why I don't think you have a base, because you really do consider exceptions and other factors to a given situation before you can draw your own conclusion.

[hellothere]

yeah I see what you mean, you've described me pretty well there.

I was just wondering though, whether it could just mean that I am "strong" in but don't necessarily value it? I mean sometimes I wish I could be less like that. Could all those things you've mentioned also be consistent with in the Id block?

[tereg]

yeah I see what you mean, you've described me pretty well there.

I was just wondering though, whether it could just mean that I am "strong" in but don't necessarily value it? I mean sometimes I wish I could be less like that. Could all those things you've mentioned also be consistent with in the Id block?

In my opinion, Ne feels quite prominent within you. I don't get the impression that it's strong, but subdued.

This is the Ne-creative description from Filatova EII

Ne – the function of the implementation of the program. The EII seeks true values in life and finds meaning in existence through harmony in her relations with other people. She particularly values high spirituality and high morals. As far back as youth the EII uses her imagination to form a certain moral ideal, which she then attempts to reach. At the foundation of this function frequently is found the development of a feeling of duty. Thus the smallest divergence in behaviour away from the ideal is dealt with severely, internally. This tendency towards self-perfection can itself become a tyrant. This tyranny of duty, in its extreme manifestations, can lead the EII to develop contempt for herself. It can also lead her to blame others when their behaviour fails to correspond with said representation of decency. This sort of maximization, which frequently characterizes itself in the EII’s youth can lead to confrontation with her contemporaries. Such confrontations are difficult tests, which weigh heavily upon her.

I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but you seem to be cognitively aware of a certain... hmm... standard? that you'd like to achieve for yourself. And when you become aware of a divergence from it, it does (at least outwardly) seem like it affects you in an internal way and a call to try to adjust yourself to move towards your ideal.

This to me sounds like Fi blocked with Ne. You are aware of your divergent tendencies, and that bothers you, and because it does diverge away from what you want, it becomes a matter of ethics for you to try to make an internal change.


Just my opinion though.

[aestrivex]

I'm still wanting to say EII.

One quality that you have consistently shown is being able to see and recognize exceptions to the rule, which you have pointed out in almost every question you've answered that I've asked.

"Yes, but when ____ is the case, then ..."
"Partially, but there are times when ____ "
"I don't know because on one hand ____, and on the other hand ____."

I don't think an strong type would have divergent thought like that.

In my opinion focuses on bringing things more into focus and converging to a point. You would take these kind of unknowns or exceptions and sort of recognize that they are probably weighted less, but the drive towards a point isn't really hindered. I think that is more about divergent paths and being able to see things like exceptions to the rule and considering other related points before coming to a conclusion.

That's not to say that isn't about not coming to an eventual conclusion. (I mean, after all, you are wanting to know what your type is.) It just means that coming to a conclusion requires a certain level of comfort about the information.

This whole typing process of yours kind of illustrates this. When one thing seems to look like it might fit, something over there looks like it might fit as well. Or the thing you are trying fits, but maybe doesn't feel like it completely fits you, so it looks like you look at other things to compare how other things fit.

See what I mean? In my eyes, that's what seems to be going on just through this process. And that's why I don't think you have a base, because you really do consider exceptions and other factors to a given situation before you can draw your own conclusion.

i strongly disagree with this, at least with the particular semantic structures provided here as being Ne > Ni. Ni is definitely manifest generally towards one unified focus, but that certainly does not prevent it from being able to analyze the specifics of some idea or from determining "the exception to the rule."

[aestrivex]

hellothere:

what do you consider the most interesting/important concepts of socionics and why? why is it even important to you that you understand it/be able to use it?

[hellothere]

Just on a completely different note, I went through the wikisocion entries on the Reinin dichotomies. I deliberately ignored the 4 Jungian dichotomies, the Static/Dynamic dichotomy and the the dichotomies which separate the quadras.

This is what I chose for myself:

Carefree / Farsighted [fairly sure]
Yielding / Obstinate [fairly sure]
Tactical / Strategic [not sure]
Constructivist / Emotivist [somewhat sure]
Positivist / Negativist [fairly sure]
Lefist / Rightist [fairly sure]
Asking / Declaring [quite sure - which is why I had trouble making that video]

when I entered these with moderate preference into the Reinin calculator, it gave INFp clearly above everything else. When I maxed out each of these preferences, it gave 100% INFp.

Though others have criticised the dichotomies, and a description of some of them are missing from wikisocion, so its likely that I've misunderstood a few.