That's interesting because I feel the same way about :Ni:.
It's fascinating, but I feel like I can't quite wrap my mind around the concept.
Printable View
That's interesting because I feel the same way about :Ni:.
It's fascinating, but I feel like I can't quite wrap my mind around the concept.
For me it's probaby :Ne:, too.
:Ni:
:Fi:
I often find myself thinking what is :Fi: is :Fe: or what is :Fe: is :Fi:.
Actually the same thing happens for :Ne: and :Ni:, but not quite as much.
i actually agreed with something that mikemex posted about Ne a while ago, that it's taking characteristics from objects and moving them around, something that Se won't do.
I think I have a better idea of Ni than before, but considering it's been fuzzy for the entire time i've been at this forum, i don't know if that says much. Te also to some extent but more because i can't find a perfect definition for it, but I think I can recognize Te in real life.
ARRRGGGHHH! I hate to harp on semantics, but "functions" are the places in the the psyche in which elements sit, e.g. base, role, suggestive, etc. Ne, Fe, Se, Te, Ni, Si, Ti, and Fi are "elements" or "aspects". This is an important distinction because information is different from behavior. For example, Se is not "aggression", but a base function of Se is often expressed as aggression. Oh well. I'm probably just being a douche about this.
Anywho, I don't understand :Ni: very well. This is not aided by the supposed difficulty Ni-types have in explaining things.
i think i ask niffweed the most questions about Si and Se, so I'll say those.
^^ you tell them JRiddy :p
and :Ni: for me
...
I'm not really sure which function I least understand, since I'm slowly learning things about each of them all the time...I dunno, I suppose :Fe: is a good candidate.
I like this line of reasoning. I still believe the terms are important, but you are absolutely correct to point out that there is no central authority. I really don't care what we decide to call these different things (information and behavior) as long as we make the distinction.
Fi's tough for me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
I used to have greater difficulties with some of the elements until I began to conceptualize and think about them in analogous relationships with similar other functions. For example, I grasped :Fi: by looking at the relationship between :Ti: and :Fe: and then taking the next step to think of it in terms of :Fi: and :Te:. Oddly enough, the functions with which I sometimes have the greatest difficulty now grasping are those which I am most familiar (Ti, Fe, Si, and Ne) just because I have seen that the rabbit hole is deep, but am now exploring just how deep it is and the dimensions of these warrens.
Mmm, I'd say I have good conceptual understandings of each information element, but the one I have the most trouble explaining is :Ti:.
:Ni: probably. I think I get what :Se: is well enough, but not so much how it plays into how a person sees and acts.
I also agree with Ms. Kensington that I wouldn't know how to properly articulate :Te:, but I do think I can see it when it happens.
:Fi::Ne::Si::Ti::Fe: seem more or less clear to me.
I have absolutely no conception of what :Fi: is. No matter how hard I try I can't understand it. People with this element seem contradictory in nature, as if there is no linking point between them. For people of other types, :Ti: or :Fe: for example, there was some similarity to latch onto and grasp, I can now, for example, easily spot a LII, but with :Fi: there seems to be none for me. Or I'm just seriously mistyping people. Which could be the case, if I really do have such a poor conception of it.
And I agree with JRiddy here, calling informational metabolism elements functions is unjustified in socionics for the reasons he mentioned.
Fi. It's a function I've never been able to get my head around. I just don't understand what it encompasses at all.
Ne, I guess.
:Fi: for sure
I just don't get it
:Fi::Si::Fi:
:Si: is the most difficult function for me to really understand
:Te: and :Fi:
:Fi:
Fi probably... I also have a really hard time recognizing Fi types.
you know actually... Fi might be in the running too. Prior to a conversation i had with the lovely anndelise a few weeks ago, I think I had no idea what Fi was either. but now i have a little picture of what it's like.
I think i probablly understood socionics better in my first year than now lol. That is the way of me, interested at first then things slowly fade.
I have to agree that :Ni: has always seemed mysterious to me.
:Ni: beats me too
By the looks of things, we need the Ni gurus to come in and expound its virtues i think.
Where's Niffweed?
:Fi: types are usually friendly in a calm, non-emotionally-filled sense and frown at you when you step out of line in a joke. Just happened today with my ENFp friend. I was joking about gardasil, and he gave me this supreme moralizing look, it scares the crap out of you. His eyes get all narrow-ish. It is very harrowing. I see: Fi: all the time from my mom too.
:Ni: is like :O, predictions and day-dreamy-ness? Probably :Ni: for me.
probably :Se: and :Te:.
:Ni: is so fantabulous that none of you "get it" ok? It's inexplicable; that's the point.
i'm not sure i understand :Ne:, honestly.
Probably :Si: or :Ni:.
You should've done a poll, Starfall. Then we could see the spread of what functions are understood and what are not (we'd assume that those least voted for were least understood).
Totally! I get this all the time from an ENFp guy I know. He simply won't abide my bitching or complaining about someone and will cast the arched brow and the disapproving frown.
I find it rather odd to be chided when I'm generally considered the more "morally adherent" one in any group.
me too. i don't get it at all. prolly because i don't perceive relational connections very well. don't really get the attraction-repulsion thing since i don't feel it except in the most exteme relations, like repulsion with ESI and attraction with ESE, IEI, SEI, SLI. and even then i'm only well tuned in to how i feel not how the other person feels. and, i can't see it as much between other people either.
Funny how out of the twelve people who have voted so far, every single person feels they understand at least one function less than they do Se.
Why is that funny? (curious)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra