Ni, Si, Ejs, and similar behaviors

[Minde]

So, I'm pretty sure I know an ENFj, an ENTj (Ni sub?), an ESFj (most sure of this one), and an ESTj (not entirely sure, but it's looking more and more like it, so I'll just assume for now). I know them in real life, which means I can observe them and gain knowledge about their types from those observations.

The ENxjs can be both avoidant of and quite picky about the details of how something happens or feels. The ESxjs can also be both avoidant of and quite picky about the details of how something happens or feels.

The ENxjs can be very disorganized. The ESxjs can be very disorganized.

The ENxjs can be (very) late or early or on time. The ESxjs can also be late or early or on time.

The ENxjs can have a great sense of style. The ESxjs can have a terrible sense of style. And sometimes, it seems, vice versa.

The ENxjs can be blind to future eventualities. The ESxjs can have uncanny foresight. And, again, vice versa.


Oh, those darn behaviors...

[FDG]

For how long? An ENxj that uses Si is simply an ESxj for the moment in time in which he uses Si. Nothing wrong with that. If he uses Si for 1 year, and we happen to observe him for that time...he might be typed as ESxj, whereas for somebody that has known him for long, he would be an ENxj...

Anyway to extend

The ENxjs can be very disorganized. The ESxjs can be very disorganized.

Surely many EJ-Si and EJ-Ni will be very disorganized. This is much less likely for an EJ-Te; a disorganized EJ-Te is simply an EJ-Ni. But you're very familiar with this theory, I think.

What I am getting at is that some finer distinctions have to be made between empowering EJ and limiting EJ functions before attributing the differences to Si, Fe, Ni, Te.

[UDP]

To me it just says that socionics is really about internal motivation, not empirical, external, observable observations - "actions".


Like whoever said about michael jackson being INFp, when I made the comment about him being unusually agile for an INFp, they said "well that's because he's been training it his whole life", etc.

[cracka]

So, what you're saying is... some types can behave the same way? OMG, this can't be true... you must be a different type just for saying that...lol

[FDG]

To me it just says that socionics is really about internal motivation, not empirical, external, observable observations - "actions".

Thank god you're an extraverted thinking dominant man!!!!!

[Exodus]

UDP is right: don't take any one behavior pattern too seriously as evidence for a type. Eventually you just get a sense for what each type "feels like". Posture, facial expressions, and even voice are telling.

[UDP]

So all Te dominant types must prefer MBTI to socionics?


And.... "information elements", not "descriptions of behavior".

[FDG]

So all Te dominant types must prefer MBTI to socionics?

Non sequitur! Extraverted thinking=external, observable facts and behaviors. You're saying that the main approach towards a discipline you have put a lot of thought into should be the opposite of your dominant function. Derive your own conclusions from this.

[UDP]

Your comment about my type is a non sequiter, FDG. You want to talk about my type do it somewhere else.

Although I suspect you're just being more sensitive about this than normal because of the marriage thread.


Derive your own conclusions from this?
you're a fine example of a "Te dominant" yourself, Mr Inductive Reasoning.
Or should I say "Halo Effect"

You're the same individual who said "UDP struggles with maintaining work out regiment, and this means he now has Se polr" - and you even admitted that you had no way to verify this.

[UDP]

Like whoever said about michael jackson being INFp, when I made the comment about him being unusually agile for an INFp, they said "well that's because he's been training it his whole life", etc.

Wasn't that you?

[FDG]

You're right we're off topic. I'm not sensitive because of other things, you just make too little sense many times and I have to tell you.