This had to happen, formally, at one point or another

[Tom]

I'm an Si-LSE (8w9 if that helps).

Misconceptions/Arguments/Disagreements?

Be warned, if you do not present a good argument I will think less of you.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I have nothing. Is there a link where you've spoke about yourself? Could be a good starting place. Although there is no doubt other forum members who know more about you than I.

[Khola aka Bee]

I'm an Si-LSE (8w9 if that helps).

Misconceptions/Arguments/Disagreements?

Be warned, if you do not present a good argument I will think less of you.

You should meet my friend Errant. And grow a vagina.

[duality is cringe]

In the thread titled "meeting in NYC," those who met you seemed to agree that you came off as a thick headed oaf, incapable of comprehending anything outside of his own narrow minded understanding of the world around him and they even attributed this to devalued Ne and Ti dominance.

Any opinions on why others might perceive you that way?

Be warned, if you do not present a good argument I will think less of you.

Trust me, nodody cares.

[Ezra]

Talk to UDP. He thinks he's the same type as you. You can revel in one another's 8w9ness and LSEness.

[xyz]

And grow a vagina.

Why grow when it's cheaper to buy?

[ArchonAlarion]

In the thread titled "meeting in NYC," those who met you seemed to agree that you came off as a thick headed oaf, incapable of comprehending anything outside of his own narrow minded understanding of the world around him and they even attributed this do devalued Ne and Ti dominance.

Any opinions on why others might perceive you that way?



Trust me, nodody cares.

Well someone who actually is those things might attribute these qualities to those who disagree with them, no matter how reasonably they do argue.

[Tom]

You should meet my friend Errant. And grow a vagina.

In the thread titled "meeting in NYC," those who met you seemed to agree that you came off as a thick headed oaf, incapable of comprehending anything outside of his own narrow minded understanding of the world around him and they even attributed this to devalued Ne and Ti dominance.

Any opinions on why others might perceive you that way?

Niff thought this because he is incorrect in many areas (no offense there; i did enjoy debating with you, at any rate), and was 'unnerved' at how I stand behind my opinions. He also (along with a few others, it seems) didn't quite catch that although I do enjoy debate, and although I do defend my points quite zealously, I both entertain opposing ideas that actually make sense, and have absolutely no anger/am never upset whilst arguing. I might get frustrated sometimes if someone is being insipid and just plainly isn't listening/is rude, but I don't recall anyone being that way at the meet; I certainly never got upset.

Trust me, nodody cares.

Its a joke, genius.

so you changed your subtype?

Yes I did, glam.
ArchonAlarion (with some extra "self-watching", if you will) convinced me.

Well someone who actually is those things might attribute these qualities to those who disagree with them, no matter how reasonably they do argue.

Zinger!

[UDP]

Talk to UDP. He thinks he's the same type as you. You can revel in one another's 8w9ness and LSEness.

I'm not sure what type Tom is.
I'm not sure we are the same type.
There have been a few things that indicate differences, in some way or form.

I don't know him well enough to say much of substance.
We've not interacted enough to say much.

He seems like a logical type, and possibly rational.


I have heard a lot of people think he's now ISTj, which is perhaps why Ezra said what he said. I don't know. The ISTj comments mostly have to do with the NYC meeting. But this may also be related to people's perception of Ritella and Tom. There are some other people, however, who have said the way he talks about things seems more Ti based, and commented on his somewhat inability or hesitency to talk about things in concrete, 'reality' terms. It would be better for people to state their own thoughts about that, because my understanding of what other people think on this matter is little.

[Brilliand]

I have heard a lot of people think he's now ISTj, which is perhaps why Ezra said what he said. I don't know. The ISTj comments mostly have to do with the NYC meeting. But this may also be related to people's perception of Ritella and Tom. There are some other people, however, who have said the way he talks about things seems more Ti based, and commented on his somewhat inability or hesitency to talk about things in concrete, 'reality' terms. It would be better for people to state their own thoughts about that, because my understanding of what other people think on this matter is little.

The only time I've really noticed Tom was when he was demanding rules for the forum, which struck me as a very -oriented thing to do. I favored over because he seemed so forceful about it - he didn't seem prepared to back down because others didn't like the idea.

I can see how the LSE typing might explain that sufficiently (it is, after all, only one occurrence, and the id is quite strong), but I think an LSI typing would explain it better.

[UDP]

The only time I've really noticed Tom was when he was demanding rules for the forum, which struck me as a very -oriented thing to do. I favored over because he seemed so forceful about it - he didn't seem prepared to back down because others didn't like the idea.

I'm not sure why people associate that with . To me, it's about being "sure" of yourself and your logic. Look at Tcau, or, *****.

I can see how the LSE typing might explain that sufficiently (it is, after all, only one occurrence, and the id is quite strong), but I think an LSI typing would explain it better.

It is one factor, yes.

We just have to figure out more. I'm not yet sure I know Tom's real nature - how does he really react to Fe - does he approach it and use it as dual seeking, or does he look to Fi for that? What does he really expect from other people, subconsciously? Etc, etc, etc.

[Tom]

He seems like a logical type, and possibly rational.

While being a "logical type" is a piece of incorrect, Jungian-related bunk, I'll give you rational, even though I doubt, for some reason, you mean that in the correct way..

The only time I've really noticed Tom was when he was demanding rules for the forum, which struck me as a very -oriented thing to do. I favored over because he seemed so forceful about it - he didn't seem prepared to back down because others didn't like the idea.

I can see how the LSE typing might explain that sufficiently (it is, after all, only one occurrence, and the id is quite strong), but I think an LSI typing would explain it better.

For the last time: I wasn't demanding a set of rules. I was making a suggestion as to a more efficient way to run the forum, from the perspectives of both moderators and members; just because you give reasons and defend points does not mean that you are being forceful in any way.

By the way, being an overbearing asshole doesn't necessarily make you Se-valuing (which is neither to say that that I was being forceful, nor that there is no such correlation; simply keep in mind that one does not necessarily mean the other).

I don't have any anger in debate, or in my posts. I defend my points because I've usually done a great deal of thinking on the subject, and actually come to my conclusions by some basis. I don't back down because I'm not ashamed of the decisions I make about things (because I've made them for reasons), and I'm quite ready to support my conclusions at will. And I actually do change my opinion on something when someone makes valid points and convinces me otherwise; my goal in debate (and I think there's a thread on this somewhere in Delta) is only to acquire and share exact knowledge. If I make a response to someone who I think is incorrect, it is to correct their knowledge, to stop them from spreading incorrect information, and, possibly, correct my knowledge, if its incorrect.

This thread, for example, has three main goals:
1.To dissolve qualms people may have with my self-typing.
2.To stop said people from spreading further incorrect theories about my type.
3.To be proven wrong, if applicable, so that I might have correct, exact information.

[Ezra]

He seems like a logical type, and possibly rational.

He is probably LSI. I basically think you are LSE > 8w9, and that he is 8w9 > LSE. That's why I said you two should talk; maybe you can sort a few things out between you.

I'm not sure why people associate that with . To me, it's about being "sure" of yourself and your logic.

Se brings surety, confidence in one's logic is basically a characteristic of a logical type, most prominent in Ti base types. So, as you can see, an LSI would have a unique combination of self-confidence and confidence in their own logic (an LII may not be particularly self-confident, but they're basically confident in their logic).

[Tom]

Every type is confident in their abilities in the use of their own base functions (whether they call it that or otherwise..). Se-egos are confident in the statics of the world because they percieve information that way, Ti-egos are confident in the physical rules/hierarchies they create, etc.

In other words: confidence has nothing to do with type.

By the way, the External Dynamics of Objects and the External Statics of Fields are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT elements. Just because Jung wrote something makes that thing neither correct nor socionics. The truth of the matter is that both of those elements are called "thinking" for ease of use in Model A, and because they share certain coincidental similarities (which is to say that they are not "thinking types, and therefore similar", but, instead, they share certain aspects that appear similar, and therefore they are confused with each other).

If you're going to tell me I seem "logical", then say, instead, I seem "rational", and to deal with the external elements (which means be clear and actually have reasoning behind your statements).

Edit: "Rational" means dealing primarily with external means, not "j", because I know someone would have made that mistake somewhere down the road.

[ArchonAlarion]

how is perceiving the external statics of objects bring you self-confidence?

Isn't self-confidence a little too general?

[Brilliand]

how is perceiving the external statics of objects bring you self-confidence?

Isn't self-confidence a little too general?

Smilexian: blocked with is abstract, that is seeking the truth. blocked with is concrete, that is knowing it already.

Archonian: External functions bring greater confidence because they're always right, except when they mess up. Internal functions can be wrong for no good reason.

Interestingly, these descriptions conflict between ISFj and INFj. Does bring greater confidence when blocked with ?

[unefille]

I don't have any anger in debate, or in my posts. I defend my points because I've usually done a great deal of thinking on the subject, and actually come to my conclusions by some basis. I don't back down because I'm not ashamed of the decisions I make about things (because I've made them for reasons), and I'm quite ready to support my conclusions at will.

You keep saying this (at least, I've seen it quite a few times) and I'm curious -- what is the fact that you argue without any anger supposed to indicate? Is that meant to rule out a type that gets angry every time they argue, don't think their positions through and make decisions without reasons? Are these traits meant to be in anyway exclusive to a LSE or Te-valuing type?

[ArchonAlarion]

No, but thats why people are saying he's ISTj

which means not only are they attributing to Tom angry stubborness, which was uncalled for, but they are saying that being angry and stubborn is a trait of ISTj's

So you are attackin the wrong person there Unefille =)

[Tom]

Smilexian: blocked with is abstract, that is seeking the truth. blocked with is concrete, that is knowing it already.

Well, smilexian socionics is wrong, to begin with, but we can leave it as "not socionics", if you prefer.

Archonian: External functions bring greater confidence because they're always right, except when they mess up. Internal functions can be wrong for no good reason.

^Not what Jake believes, nor what I believe.

Functions can be neither right nor wrong; they exist only as methods of perception. If by "right", you mean "exist" then sure, external functions exist "more" than internal functions, even though Se and Te are the only ones that actually "exist in reality", and Te only exists in the fourth dimension and up.

[Tom]

No, but thats why people are saying he's ISTj

which means not only are they attributing to Tom angry stubborness, which was uncalled for, but they are saying that being angry and stubborn is a trait of ISTj's

So you are attackin the wrong person there Unefille =)

I didn't think unefille was attacking me; which isn't to say you aren't correct, because you certainly are.

You keep saying this (at least, I've seen it quite a few times) and I'm curious -- what is the fact that you argue without any anger supposed to indicate? Is that meant to rule out a type that gets angry every time they argue, don't think their positions through and make decisions without reasons? Are these traits meant to be in anyway exclusive to a LSE or Te-valuing type?

It is a good indicator of an Fe-role (in the intensity [or severe lack thereof] of my context), at the very least.

I don't mean my actions don't appear (or aren't taken as) aggressive, etc.; I mean that I actually have no.. well.. 'feeling', for lack of a better word, when I debate. Although my actions may seem as pointed or charged by others, they are really anything but that.

[unefille]

No, but thats why people are saying he's ISTj

which means not only are they attributing to Tom angry stubborness, which was uncalled for, but they are saying that being angry and stubborn is a trait of ISTj's

So you are attackin the wrong person there Unefille =)

Firstly, I'm not attacking.

Secondly, if someone was to accuse an LSI of being 'stubborn' and 'angry' (did they actually accuse him of anger? I probably missed this), an LSI is more than likely going to respond in the exact same way (in fact, I think idolatrie did do so, back in an old type thread of ours when she was still self-typed as Si-LSE 8w9.) They're hardly likely to say: that's because I'm a stubborn mule, yo.

I just had this moment of deja vu when reading Tom's reasoning for being Te>Ti (which is what I presume it was), because I've read/heard it all before with idolatrie.

[Brilliand]

^Not what Jake believes, nor what I believe.

Functions can be neither right nor wrong; they exist only as methods of perception. If by "right", you mean "exist" then sure, external functions exist "more" than internal functions, even though Se and Te are the only ones that actually "exist in reality", and Te only exists in the fourth dimension and up.

I'd say and exist in reality, and leads into - but what observes is more difficult to influence than what observes. By that measure, would provide the most confidence, because it results in the most control over your surroundings.

By " leads into " I mean that observes in an manner - drawing the objects together into a flow.

[munenori2]

In the thread titled "meeting in NYC," those who met you seemed to agree that you came off as a thick headed oaf, incapable of comprehending anything outside of his own narrow minded understanding of the world around him and they even attributed this to devalued Ne and Ti dominance.

I'll post more later on when I get time, but I think the above overstates things. The issues were mostly about how situations tended to work out in some of the discussions on theory/typage, not that he was dumb, unpleasant, or anything like that.

[Tom]

Firstly, I'm not attacking.

Secondly, if someone was to accuse an LSI of being 'stubborn' and 'angry' (did they actually accuse him of anger? I probably missed this), an LSI is more than likely going to respond in the exact same way (in fact, I think idolatrie did do so, back in an old type thread of ours when she was still self-typed as Si-LSE 8w9.) They're hardly likely to say: that's because I'm a stubborn mule, yo.

I just had this moment of deja vu when reading Tom's reasoning for being Te>Ti (which is what I presume it was), because I've read/heard it all before with idolatrie.

The main reason I keep reminding/informing people that I have no anger in debate is because I was apparently seen as aggressive and mulish during the trip for actually having a debate (well, I called it "debate", but he seemed to see it more as "argument") with Niff.

I don't know about idolatrie, but I doubt you've heard it all, or even most of it, honestly.

But, in reality, I'm very certain of my type (which doesn't mean that I can't be convinced otherwise; just because nobody has even come close on this forum doesn't mean I'm blindly stoic.). I'm hoping to be "wowed" with something I've looked over, or just to stamp out the uncertainty on this forum.

Questioning type constantly is all very well, but unless you have some serious insight with a good deal of backing, your argument is going to be severely lacking in the face of my knowledge of myself. But, please, I invite and encourage anyone who can to make a good case in any direction, I'd love to hear them all.

[Tom]

I'd say and exist in reality, and leads into - but what observes is more difficult to influence than what observes. By that measure, would provide the most confidence, because it results in the most control over your surroundings.

By " leads into " I mean that observes in an manner - drawing the objects together into a flow.

All field functions do NOT "exist in reality"; fields are the perceived relations between objects, not things that actually exist. So throw all the "Introverted" functions out of "existence".

All internal functions do NOT "exist in reality", because they are unmeasurable/conceptual elements. That rules out Ne and Fe as well.

The only things that actually "exist" are objects/non-conceptual things. That's Se. And Se over the 4th dimension (time) is Te.

I see two existing functions. And Te doesn't even exist for us poor 3D folk.

I'll post more later on when I get time, but I think the above overstates things. The issues were mostly about how situations tended to work out in some of the discussions on theory/typage, not that he was dumb, unpleasant, or anything like that.

Thank you Mune

[unefille]

I don't know about idolatrie, but I doubt you've heard it all, or even most of it, honestly.

By 'it all' I meant what you wrote in the OP. By your reply, I presume you mean I haven't heard all your reasons for Te>Ti, and obviously that's true. I have no gauge on your type and wasn't trying to suggest that you were LSI simply because of a past experience with someone else's self-typing.

The deja vu element remains however with respect to the entire set up on this thread -- the lack of actual personal information you provide, the demand that other people satisfy you with their arguments against your type which you will then evaluate. The overall style of engagement is combative rather than discursive, which is interesting -- to me, at least.

[Lotus]

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think he's ISTj.

[Tom]

By 'it all' I meant what you wrote in the OP. By your reply, I presume you mean I haven't heard all your reasons for Te>Ti, and obviously that's true. I have no gauge on your type and wasn't trying to suggest that you were LSI simply because of a past experience with someone else's self-typing.

The deja vu element remains however with respect to the entire set up on this thread -- the lack of actual personal information you provide, the demand that other people satisfy you with their arguments against your type which you will then evaluate. The overall style of engagement is combative rather than discursive, which is interesting -- to me, at least.

Okay; well, I've had a "what type am I?" thread before, and found that it didn't do much good.

I'm not asking for people to tell me my type here, really. I'm not looking for every little bit of nonsensical opinion based on who knows what criteria either (which isn't to say that I don't value everyone/anyone's opinion; I really do).

This thread is to serve, primarily, as a port for detractors from my opinion to tell me why they disagree with LSE-Si. If I disagree with their opinions, I'll say why (though I have the suspicion that I'll disagree more with the general lack of socionics knowledge as well as, if not more than, misconceptions of my nature); if they bring up a good, valid point (or several, of course), I'll be glad to discuss it and to change my self-typing, if applicable.

But I'll still welcome opinions from anyone who wants to offer them, regardless of form or fashion.

[1981slater]

Hey, Tom. There are many good ways of finding out your own type:

1) Watch a video of yourself at age 10-12.
2) Type your friends: the most abundant type are your duals.
3) What about your lifestyle? Do you read a lot? Are you into tough sports? Are you a workaholic? Do you like "relaxing"?
4) Look pics of yourself and compare them with pics of people you are sure you know their type

[Lotus]

Abundant type in friends ≠ your dual.

[1981slater]

Abundant type in friends ≠ your dual.

ok, which relationship, then?

[Tom]

Abundant type in friends ≠ your dual.

From what little I know of 1981slater, that may have quite been a joke.

If not, I lol'd anyway.

Edit:
That actually is good advice, though I'd probably use most of that as weight for certain types, rather than exact information.
(I only "lol'd" at #2, btw)

[Lotus]

ok, which relationship, then?

Uh, they just happen to be the most abundant type in your life? That doesn't mean they're your duals. I mean, I know more SLEs than any other type, I think. They're definitely not my duals.

From what little I know of 1981slater, that may have quite been a joke

I can never tell with ILEs.

[1981slater]

On my typing advices: I was serious (seriously)

Allie: I'm thinking of you as an ESFp

By being ILE, people either love you or hate you. The most abundant type in my life is ISFp (makes sense!)

[Tom]

Ok; I might say the people I most easily get along with/understand, instead, but definitely good advice, at any rate.

[UDP]

While being a "logical type" is a piece of incorrect, Jungian-related bunk, I'll give you rational, even though I doubt, for some reason, you mean that in the correct way..

Hm, there's nothing incorrect about what I said. But if you are comparing it to your own way of seeing things, you can say it's different.

Now, someone could say "Man, how Tom worded that was so . But these perhaps are somewhat simplistic ways of looking at the functions. One thing that seems to be associated with "Te" is trying to find out what other people mean first before telling them they are right or wrong. However I don't agree with that association, and see it more as a sort of experience of talking to people about things. Expat was/is great at this, and it took me a while to get used to it myself. Still, I do get somewhat of a vibe from that post Tom wrote.

For the last time: I wasn't demanding a set of rules. I was making a suggestion as to a more efficient way to run the forum, from the perspectives of both moderators and members; just because you give reasons and defend points does not mean that you are being forceful in any way.

By the way, being an overbearing asshole doesn't necessarily make you Se-valuing (which is neither to say that that I was being forceful, nor that there is no such correlation; simply keep in mind that one does not necessarily mean the other).

I don't have any anger in debate, or in my posts. I defend my points because I've usually done a great deal of thinking on the subject, and actually come to my conclusions by some basis. I don't back down because I'm not ashamed of the decisions I make about things (because I've made them for reasons), and I'm quite ready to support my conclusions at will. And I actually do change my opinion on something when someone makes valid points and convinces me otherwise; my goal in debate (and I think there's a thread on this somewhere in Delta) is only to acquire and share exact knowledge. If I make a response to someone who I think is incorrect, it is to correct their knowledge, to stop them from spreading incorrect information, and, possibly, correct my knowledge, if its incorrect.

I was like that too a lot. Although I sure as hell got angry. I cause a lot of bullshit arguments and feelings, some of which still linger, because I was very contentious about things, for a time at least.

This thread, for example, has three main goals:
1.To dissolve qualms people may have with my self-typing.
2.To stop said people from spreading further incorrect theories about my type.
3.To be proven wrong, if applicable, so that I might have correct, exact information.

Hmm, we'll see what happens.

For a bit of advice, don't expect people to come to a consensus about you via presenting arguments or defending arguments. People will always think what they think, and most people are thinking reasonably (especially nowadays), and will just go off of what they see in you. Sometimes people will 'type you' as something out of dislike, but, I don't think that's going on so much any more. (I don't know though because I only follow so much of the forum). Still, I wouldn't worry about things too much. And I definitely wouldn't waste too much time trying to "dissolve qualms" or "stop people from spreading further incorrect theories" about you.

That said, I don't really expect what I say to change your want correct those false informations - that was a large motivation for me doing what I did. Things will become more clear over time though, no matter what.

[Tom]

Out of curiosity, and with regards to your typing yourself LSE, why do you believe how you're defining the functions is not conceptual ?

Isn't defining Te as "Se over a 4th dimension" both an abstract/personal and conceptual leap in logic ?

I don't? All of the functions are obviously conceptual, but Se is the only one which views the world as it "really is" in the 3 dimensions we can perceive readily, and Te does the same in a 4th dimensional context (over time).

This man always speaks the truth.

Def.

[UDP]

He is probably LSI. I basically think you are LSE > 8w9, and that he is 8w9 > LSE. That's why I said you two should talk; maybe you can sort a few things out between you.

Yeah, perhaps we should talk more.

Tom reminds me a little bit of an LSI 1w9 I know, in terms of his phrasing of things. But he seems more Ti and less Se than that person. (but that's just my impression). (It doesn't mean I think Tom is LSI or E1, at this time)

Se brings surety, confidence in one's logic is basically a characteristic of a logical type, most prominent in Ti base types. So, as you can see, an LSI would have a unique combination of self-confidence and confidence in their own logic (an LII may not be particularly self-confident, but they're basically confident in their logic).

yeah

[UDP]

some questions for Tom:


In your own words, and ideally using real life examples that you've experienced - why are INFps your opposite, and INFjs your dual? What is it about your experiences with both types that makes you really "feel" like those are the right intertype relationships for you?

[Brilliand]

All field functions do NOT "exist in reality"; fields are the perceived relations between objects, not things that actually exist. So throw all the "Introverted" functions out of "existence".

All internal functions do NOT "exist in reality", because they are unmeasurable/conceptual elements. That rules out Ne and Fe as well.

The only things that actually "exist" are objects/non-conceptual things. That's Se. And Se over the 4th dimension (time) is Te.

I see two existing functions. And Te doesn't even exist for us poor 3D folk.

You paid much attention to theoretical physics? Fields exist just as much as objects. Objects are just easier to grab.

I see objects and fields existing; Te is part object ("of objects" but Se is closer to objects), and so is not one of those two core elements.

Tzizenorec (5:30:38 PM): The concept of the "space-time continuum" come from relativity
Tzizenorec (5:30:54 PM): that space is distorted - it isn't Euclidean
Tzizenorec (5:31:03 PM): and the distortions, caused by masss
Tzizenorec (5:31:09 PM): or maybe that cause mass
Tzizenorec (5:31:17 PM): create - or perhaps are - gravity
Tzizenorec (5:32:04 PM): I thign that opens the door for viewing the universe as a continuum from the top down
Tzizenorec (5:32:17 PM): althoguh usually the field people observe are amalgamations of objects
Tzizenorec (5:32:35 PM): just as the objects people observe are amalgamations of objects...
Tzizenorec (5:32:48 PM): and fields are always part of larger fields
Tzizenorec (5:33:00 PM): just as objects are parts of larger fields
Tzizenorec (5:33:13 PM): I don't think one direction is more correct
Tzizenorec (5:33:21 PM): that's why both are present in duality
ArchonAlarion (5:33:26 PM): hmm
ArchonAlarion (5:34:04 PM): but wouldn't fields be entirely conceptual?
ArchonAlarion (5:34:12 PM): aren't they based on collectives
ArchonAlarion (5:34:19 PM): collectives are concepts
Tzizenorec (5:34:25 PM): How are objects different?
Tzizenorec (5:34:52 PM): My computer is definitely a concept
ArchonAlarion (5:35:17 PM): because its is made out of infinitely divisible parts
Tzizenorec (5:35:19 PM): What's in my head are thoguhts
Tzizenorec (5:35:38 PM): Hey, objects can be assembled ad infinitum...
Tzizenorec (5:35:59 PM): and how deep does physics go before it's no longer real?
Tzizenorec (5:36:12 PM): Y'know we're working with quarks now
Tzizenorec (5:36:27 PM): and quarks sort of seem like fields
Tzizenorec (5:36:40 PM): so maybe we've reached the bottom of the object chain
Tzizenorec (5:36:44 PM): but maybe not...

...

Tzizenorec (9:32:40 PM): reality is objects and fields
Tzizenorec (9:32:51 PM): Se and Si are the most direct readings of those
Tzizenorec (9:33:29 PM): I actually wouldn't quite consider the Se and Si the reality
Tzizenorec (9:33:52 PM): because they do interpret objects as objects and fields as fields
Tzizenorec (9:33:58 PM): that is there's a layer of interpretation
Tzizenorec (9:34:03 PM): but they're closest
Tzizenorec (9:34:15 PM): because the interpretation is objective