Seriously. Well, I really need Te!
Guess I'll learn to appreciate my dual with age. :-/
Jem's type thread
Seriously. Well, I really need Te!
Guess I'll learn to appreciate my dual with age. :-/
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Judging from the photo in your avatar, if you can't appreciate them yet I'd go for Mr. Right-Now.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Originally Posted by jxrtes
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Do you want me to copy/paste from wikisocion?oh i get it, because you don't value Ti.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I was reading some of the descriptions of Te-seeking .. how it says that Te-seekers appreciate reliable information rather than a finished analysis .. that's how I am I think. When someone gives me their opinion, I try to determine how they arrived at it, to extract the facts from what they're saying, and throw out the rest - then I feel I can make up my own mind. Also, Dad's LSE and Mum's LSI ... and I've always appreciated the way Dad thinks and explains things ... whereas Mum's style has always annoyed me.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Extraverted Thinking: The External Dynamics of Objects.
Te covers algorithmic logic, specifics of events, activity, behavior, etc.
In other words, Te is the information element which deals with the physical characteristics of objects in motion/events; the way things are done.
If you love seeing this in people, and it just "completes you", you should find yourself to be an IxFj; you can easily figure out your creative function through means other than expression. If you value Se or Ni specifically, you are a gamma and, thus, ESI; if you value either Ne or Si specifically, you should be an INFj.
To find the answer here, tell me which you find more attractive:
1.Someone with a good work-ethic who thinks on a grand scale and is good at both predicting future events as well as seeing patterns in things which don't necessarily exist in reality. They like reading, architecture, and even the occasional tussle. This person is also emotionally close, yet finds himself at-ease playing sports.
OR
2.Someone with a good work-ethic who's thinking is more close to reality; they have an extremely good sense of how things work. This person is energetic but rarely gets over-excited. They like sex, good food, and fine wine. This person is emotionally close, and has no problem with analogies; they also have little trouble seeing the potential in things.
Choose one and I'll tell you your type.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
I don't know ... they're too vague! :-p What does "seeing patterns in things that don't exist in reality mean"? I guess the 2nd one. Mainly because I think of people who think on too grand a scale as being a bit bulldozerish and callous when it comes to the details and individual's feelings.Extraverted Thinking
Te covers algorithmic logic, specifics of events, activity, behavior, etc.
In other words, Te is the information element which deals with the physical characteristics of objects in motion/events; the way things are done.
If you love seeing this in people, and it just "completes you", you should find yourself to be an IxFj; you can easily figure out your creative function through means other than expression. If you value Se or Ni specifically, you are a gamma and, thus, ESI; if you value either Ne or Si specifically, you should be an INFj.
To find the answer here, tell me which you find more attractive:
1.Someone with a good work-ethic who thinks on a grand scale and is good at both predicting future events as well as seeing patterns in things which don't necessarily exist in reality. They like reading, architecture, and even the occasional tussle. This person is also emotionally close, yet finds himself at-ease playing sports.
OR
2.Someone with a good work-ethic who's thinking is more close to reality; they have an extremely good sense of how things work. This person is energetic but rarely gets over-excited. They like sex, good food, and fine wine. This person is emotionally close, and has no problem with analogies; they also have little trouble seeing the potential in things.
Choose one and I'll tell you your type.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
It was vague because they are general descriptions of a LIE (1) and a LSE (2); "seeing patterns in things that don't exist in reality" could possibly be better written as "has abstract patterns of reasoning", but I felt that might give too much away, depending on how familiar you are with what Ni is.
Since you picked the second (LSE), and you say you're fairly certain about your base function (being Fi, that is), I would say you come out as INFj; you appear to value Si over Ni, which would be your dual-seeking function.
If you're sure and I'm correct, welcome to Delta, dual?
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
I relate to all of that incredibly.lol But seems to me that those are all basic abilities to do with Sensing in general. Wouldn't Se be built on the same principles?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Who cares! I like you, let's hug. ^_^
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
But I'm not sure and you might be wrong, so not so fast!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
That is a more MBTI-related thought.I relate to all of that incredibly.
Si is the external dynamics of fields; Se is the external statics of objects.
They are both external, but so are Te and Ti.
In opposition to Ni and Ne, Si and Se are easily picked out as "similar"; they are in the fact that they are external, thus dealing with physical states.
However, Si deals with fields, and Se deals with objects; this is a very large difference.
Se deals with an object's form, size, shape, and location (all of these things without activity); Si deals with the tangible interactions perceived through these objects, as well as how these events affect you physically.
They are similar, but very different. "Si v. Se"="Physical Experiences v. Physical State"
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
So what's the difference between "field" and "object"?
-
It's Binky bitch.
See not the unsmiling lips and icy eyes,
And hear not the silence after.
Look instead as the mime hypnotizes
And listen to the laughter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "without activity" ... how can you come to a non-theoretical knowledge of objects without interacting with them?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Well, it was worth a shot, right? Once you know enough about the socion, there's only so many questions one can ask you to get an unbiased response. However, I thought that maybe if you saw them laid out in that way, it might be made a little more clear, regardless.But I'm not sure and you might be wrong, so not so fast!
As for your base function, if you're not sure, find out! The base is the easiest to see, and is visible in most of what you do. Which IME do you feel the most comfortable using, or feel that you use the most? Algl that takes is a little time to think about yourself and how you go about thins.
Here are some better questions:
1.Is it easier for you to see what things are, or what they might/should be?
2.Is it easier for you to pick out what something is doing, or the thing's intent?
3.Is it easier for you to see how something is physically reacting, or how it is mentally reacting?
4.Is it easier for you to see how things are reacting regardless to, or based on, your personal state of mind?
Answer and I can tell you what quadra you are in, at the very least.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
An "object" is something that can be studied without the context of the observer.
A "field" is something that needs to be studied through the context of the observer.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Tom, your brand of arrogance is kinda cute. I think I might keep you.
Jem, I don't mind if you move over to Delta. From what I know, you seem fine as SEI. So... I know, I'm no help.
Forgetting the T's for a second, what do you think about Fe vs. Fi? What are they to you and how do you react to them?
By the way, I don't think wanting to and being able to form your own opinions on things is the same thing as not-Ti-seeking.
Last edited by Minde; 01-12-2009 at 03:15 AM. Reason: name change -> irrelevant question removal
Its not arrogance, its
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Oh, ok!Well, I know that's Se vs Ne ... meh, Idk. Surely you'd have to see what things are first before you got into what they could be?1.Is it easier for you to see what things are, or what they might/should be?Again, I can't see how you could pick out the thing's intent before you picked out what it was doing. I'd determine what it was doing first, then the intent.2.Is it easier for you to pick out what something is doing, or the thing's intent?
physically3.Is it easier for you to see how something is physically reacting, or how it is mentally reacting?regardless to, I think - depends whether these are emotional reactions or not - I find it harder to be objective when it comes to emotional reactions4.Is it easier for you to see how things are reacting regardless to, or based on, your personal state of mind?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Not always. Sometimes - maybe even often? - the picture of reality is incomplete, and the might-bes are based more on the should-bes and the prior vague impressions of what-ares.
By the way, there is a difference between "might be" and "should be" - one I think is more perceiving and the other is judging.
Let's talk on aim.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
who, me?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Mm yeah - I relate to your Si examples over the Se ones.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Yes
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Oh gah .. what have I gotten myself into? :-p
Um ... I would say that I definitely appreciate Fe over Fi in general.:-p No .... actually I'm pretty verbose when I'm with ESE friends one-on-one - I just can't compete with a whole heap of them at once. :-p
Fi, Fi ... it's hard to say. I guess my feeling towards Fi is mostly respect. It seems honourable and all that - just a little boring. :-p
I'm running out of steam ... I might write more later. (c:
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Hmm, you are correct about the two IMEs, but I think this is my own fault for poor phrasing; "what" should be replaced with "the physical characteristics of what". Sorry.
Again, I can't see how you could pick out the thing's intent before you picked out what it was doing. I'd determine what it was doing first, then the intent.
^physicallyvaluing. Alpha or Delta.
^regardless to, I think - depends whether these are emotional reactions or not - I find it harder to be objective when it comes to emotional reactionsvaluing. Delta for sure.
Now we just need to figure out your base, and we'll know the rest.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Glad to see you changed your username. (:
But hey, Jem is Alpha for sure. You're simplifying all this.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
I'm quite happy with the change as well.
Now that seems to me like you are over-simplifying "all this".But hey, Jem is Alpha for sure. You're simplifying all this.
I asked her specific questions based on her preferences in the 4 groups.
How do you know that she is an alpha?
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Based on our aim talk, I see Jem as
SEI >> ESI, at present.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I'd probably go with "what could be" then
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
That would say Ne-valuing to me. Again it adds to the argument of both Alpha and Delta.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Your comments sound Ne valuing > Te valuing. Maybe you're reacting against Ti+Se or maybe you're delta.
ILE - Ti.
I sort of feel like I’ve been misleading people in regards to my true personality. It’s those damn emoticons! :-p The thing is that whatever type I “am” I can find reasons for being that type. And I’ve always thought that I had to be an ethical type because I’m a pretty emotionally-sensitive person. That I had to be a sensor, because I am good at sensor-related things. Well, I challenge that belief! :-p Why should that be the case? If the majority of a person’s life has revolved around perfecting sensory activities, then naturally they’re going to be decent at those sorts of things. And learning one skill doesn’t just mean perfecting that particular skill, it means improving at every other activity in life that demands the same sort of coordination and technique. The problem is that we can’t ever know how it would feel to process things differently, so of course we have to look at the externals. The way I approach sensory activities is with the belief that if I have enough control over my mind / concentration, my body can do pretty much anything I tell it to. I don’t know whether that’s the way sensors approach those sorts of things. I can feel physical things intensely, but I can also tell myself not to feel things too much if it doesn’t make sense to. If I know something’s going to taste really bad, then I don’t allow myself to taste it fully. Well, that means I have control of my senses, right? So I’m a sensor? So why is it that Si-dominants apparently feel things more intensely and find physical pain less bearable than other types? Wouldn’t they theoretically be more able to control what they do or don’t feel?
The emotions I choose to show are pretty logical I think. I generally don’t get worked up about things that I don’t think it makes sense to get worked up about. Yeah .. I have spontaneous emotional reactions to things, but they usually come out of nowhere (from my perspective) … I just find myself reacting, and then it’s over in a few seconds, and I ask myself whether my reaction made sense. lol If it did, I feel relieved – I can trust myself to act appropriately without having to think first! If it didn’t, I backtrack, apologise, whatever .. because I don’t think it’s fair that people should have to deal with emotional reactions of mine that arose from some issues that aren’t really related to the issue at hand. I always work it out in my head later though … so I know exactly why I reacted the way I did. I always have to know why I react to things the way I do. That way if I think I have some sort of faulty wiring that’s arisen from past experiences, I can correct it. :-p
I’m pretty sure I’m Fe>Fi though. People that are judgmental and have strong principles and convictions about things make me uneasy. I can admire them from afar, but they scare me a bit. :-p I can appear pretty principled … and can argue against certain behaviour from a logical point of view … but I find it hard to get attached to any principles that aren’t extremely vague. Like “be kind to people” … lol – that sort of sums up my moral philosophy :-/. Otherwise, I just look at things on a case by case basis to determine what the “right” thing would be to do. Sometimes, I’ll adopt a principle that I think makes sense .. but I’ll invariably come up against a situation where it doesn’t seem to apply … so I think meh, and go back to just using my judgement in the moment.
I like helping people out with Si-related things … but it makes me uneasy if they start to depend on me for such things, or if it starts to become my role. I feel like saying “Well, you know I’m not that good at these type of things, don’t you? You know that it’s pretty touch-and-go whether this is going to turn out alright?” I feel like that even if I am reasonably good at the thing I’m doing. If someone says I’m a good cook, I feel like correcting them .. “Eh, no – I just made a nice dish – doesn’t mean I’m a good cook in general. Even if I make more nice meals than bad ones .. doesn’t really mean I’m a good cook – just that I can make nice meals given enough time. :-p” A good cook in my mind would be someone who it came relatively effortlessly to. Same with my piano-playing. If people say I’m talented, I think “Well, how do you know that? I started when I was 3! lol I would have to be pretty daft not to have grasped an activity that I have repeated over and over for so long.” I like doing little random things for people mostly. I’m a perfectionist though … and I often hide how much effort I put into something or how long it took me to do the thing so as not to embarrass people, or myself. :-p I wouldn't want them to feel obligated just because of my own compulsion to get something perfect.
That's all for now! :-p
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I've felt the same way many a time.
I'm not sure to what extent this means this or that in socionics, but I tend to react in the same way. It can be really frustrating for me if someone wants or expects me to have that kind of understanding instantly at hand. Saying, "I don't know. That's how I feel about this right now. Maybe we can talk about it later?" I think sounds like a cop out to some people, but it's just me being honest. Even in a general sense though, I'm pretty cautious in talking about my emotions. It stings when people have accused me of hiding something from them or that I don't trust them. It's usually more that I don't trust myself. I have to think it over. I'm not sure other people will be able to make sense of what I say I'm feeling anyway, why would it be easier when what I'm feeling doesn't quite make sense to me? I'm not saying that that's an innately good or desirable way to be. If anything I think it's from a deep seated fear of being judged.The emotions I choose to show are pretty logical I think. I generally don’t get worked up about things that I don’t think it makes sense to get worked up about. Yeah .. I have spontaneous emotional reactions to things, but they usually come out of nowhere (from my perspective) … I just find myself reacting, and then it’s over in a few seconds, and I ask myself whether my reaction made sense. lol If it did, I feel relieved – I can trust myself to act appropriately without having to think first! If it didn’t, I backtrack, apologise, whatever .. because I don’t think it’s fair that people should have to deal with emotional reactions of mine that arose from some issues that aren’t really related to the issue at hand. I always work it out in my head later though … so I know exactly why I reacted the way I did. I always have to know why I react to things the way I do. That way if I think I have some sort of faulty wiring that’s arisen from past experiences, I can correct it. :-p
That's not what Fi is about at all imo. If I had to write about how I go about reacting to or resolving something, it would be what you've written here, to the letter. Seriously. Sadly, that kind of approach apparently doesn't fly too well in philosophical ethics which was always disappointing to me.I’m pretty sure I’m Fe>Fi though. People that are judgmental and have strong principles and convictions about things make me uneasy. I can admire them from afar, but they scare me a bit. :-p I can appear pretty principled … and can argue against certain behaviour from a logical point of view … but I find it hard to get attached to any principles that aren’t extremely vague. Like “be kind to people” … lol – that sort of sums up my moral philosophy :-/. Otherwise, I just look at things on a case by case basis to determine what the “right” thing would be to do. Sometimes, I’ll adopt a principle that I think makes sense .. but I’ll invariably come up against a situation where it doesn’t seem to apply … so I think meh, and go back to just using my judgement in the moment.
I relate to this less, mostly because I lack your talent! Usually when people ask me questions asking opinions on what music is good, clothing, or art I always get a little antsy. It's pretty much automatic for me to assume these things are extremely personal tastes. I mean, I know what I like, but to me that question has this undertone that you're supposed to share something that fits you and that the other person can appreciate. This makes me want to ask all sorts of questions to the other person so I can try to find a good match, otherwise I feel slightly paranoid about just spouting off on the things I enjoy. This isn't really an issue with people I'm not still in the process of 'meeting' or that don't seem like the kind to have that specific kind of look cross their face where you can tell they're mentally evaluating your every word and assigning it this or that value.I like helping people out with Si-related things … but it makes me uneasy if they start to depend on me for such things, or if it starts to become my role. I feel like saying “Well, you know I’m not that good at these type of things, don’t you? You know that it’s pretty touch-and-go whether this is going to turn out alright?” I feel like that even if I am reasonably good at the thing I’m doing. If someone says I’m a good cook, I feel like correcting them .. “Eh, no – I just made a nice dish – doesn’t mean I’m a good cook in general. Even if I make more nice meals than bad ones .. doesn’t really mean I’m a good cook – just that I can make nice meals given enough time. :-p” A good cook in my mind would be someone who it came relatively effortlessly to. Same with my piano-playing. If people say I’m talented, I think “Well, how do you know that? I started when I was 3! lol I would have to be pretty daft not to have grasped an activity that I have repeated over and over for so long.” I like doing little random things for people mostly. I’m a perfectionist though … and I often hide how much effort I put into something or how long it took me to do the thing so as not to embarrass people, or myself. :-p I wouldn't want them to feel obligated just because of my own compulsion to get something perfect.
That's all for now! :-p
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Extroverted thinking. Productivity, efficiency, gathering information. The most orderly function, and the most robotic. But more like the hardware of the android than the software. The dictionary is a black square.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
You don't like Te, mune?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I have a bad history with robots.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I generally know why I feel a certain way ... but don't often like talking about it because the reasons are kinda private to me. Or they may be weird :-p ... so I'd rather not say. "Maybe we can talk about it later?" I should say that more. :-p If I do explain my emotions to someone though, I've thought them out pretty well .. so it hurts if someone doesn't believe my reasons or presumes to know me better than I know myself. :0
That's interesting ... I guess I don't understand Fi that well. :-/That's not what Fi is about at all imo. If I had to write about how I go about reacting to or resolving something, it would be what you've written here, to the letter. Seriously. Sadly, that kind of approach apparently doesn't fly too well in philosophical ethics which was always disappointing to me.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I hold nearly the opposite reaction to senses Jem. I don't have too good of a control.
Brussel Sprouts: I offer them to someone else, then refuse to eat them. They taste so bad.
I was at a buffet one day, and I was forced to pass by these old ladies multiple times that had a really musty smell. I held my breath for about 8-10 seconds walking past them as fast as I could. Sometimes I get a bone in my mouth from my food and I throw up all the food in my mouth to look for the hard piece. I cannot handle things like fat or bones in my mouth, it is disgusting.
Pain is pain Jem, but sometimes pain is enjoyable, like pain in your gums or something.
I do the same thing, pretty much to the T. But to correct my actions if I have faulty wiring, no. I don't have faulty reasoning, except maybe if my ideas need a slight tuning.The emotions I choose to show are pretty logical I think. I generally don’t get worked up about things that I don’t think it makes sense to get worked up about. Yeah .. I have spontaneous emotional reactions to things, but they usually come out of nowhere (from my perspective) … I just find myself reacting, and then it’s over in a few seconds, and I ask myself whether my reaction made sense. lol If it did, I feel relieved – I can trust myself to act appropriately without having to think first! If it didn’t, I backtrack, apologise, whatever .. because I don’t think it’s fair that people should have to deal with emotional reactions of mine that arose from some issues that aren’t really related to the issue at hand. I always work it out in my head later though … so I know exactly why I reacted the way I did. I always have to know why I react to things the way I do. That way if I think I have some sort of faulty wiring that’s arisen from past experiences, I can correct it. :-p
Hmm, very interesting. I find that these vague principles are the absolute basis of every other principle that I have, so "be kind to people" is very true, but "be grateful for favors that have been bestowed on you" is related to someone being kind to you, who is following that basic idea that you yourself hold dear. Otherwise, I agree totally.I’m pretty sure I’m Fe>Fi though. People that are judgmental and have strong principles and convictions about things make me uneasy. I can admire them from afar, but they scare me a bit. :-p I can appear pretty principled … and can argue against certain behaviour from a logical point of view … but I find it hard to get attached to any principles that aren’t extremely vague. Like “be kind to people” … lol – that sort of sums up my moral philosophy :-/. Otherwise, I just look at things on a case by case basis to determine what the “right” thing would be to do. Sometimes, I’ll adopt a principle that I think makes sense .. but I’ll invariably come up against a situation where it doesn’t seem to apply … so I think meh, and go back to just using my judgement in the moment.
I have the same reaction to compliments as you, but I have a slightly different rationale for it. If I made a dish or something and someone said it was nice, I would just look down and say thanks, thinking it wasn't a big deal/wasn't that hard to do. Same thing with academics, once you study and stick your hand in the fire, it shouldn't be hard to do well at it.I like helping people out with Si-related things … but it makes me uneasy if they start to depend on me for such things, or if it starts to become my role. I feel like saying “Well, you know I’m not that good at these type of things, don’t you? You know that it’s pretty touch-and-go whether this is going to turn out alright?” I feel like that even if I am reasonably good at the thing I’m doing. If someone says I’m a good cook, I feel like correcting them .. “Eh, no – I just made a nice dish – doesn’t mean I’m a good cook in general. Even if I make more nice meals than bad ones .. doesn’t really mean I’m a good cook – just that I can make nice meals given enough time. :-p” A good cook in my mind would be someone who it came relatively effortlessly to. Same with my piano-playing. If people say I’m talented, I think “Well, how do you know that? I started when I was 3! lol I would have to be pretty daft not to have grasped an activity that I have repeated over and over for so long.” I like doing little random things for people mostly. I’m a perfectionist though … and I often hide how much effort I put into something or how long it took me to do the thing so as not to embarrass people, or myself. :-p I wouldn't want them to feel obligated just because of my own compulsion to get something perfect.
That's all for now! :-p
lol perfectionism, especially with visual things, like getting all your words shaped the right way or making a picture look real good. But not on essays.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
