What do you think are the most obvious signs of valuing Se/Ni vs Ne/Si?
When observing or talking with someone, what sticks out to you as the most obvious indicator[s] of one or the other?
Printable View
What do you think are the most obvious signs of valuing Se/Ni vs Ne/Si?
When observing or talking with someone, what sticks out to you as the most obvious indicator[s] of one or the other?
Judicious: silly, charming
Decisive: serious business, edgy
But Ni/Se can also be charming. ;) And Ni/Se isn't always serious and edgy. I think one obvious indicator (to me) is democratic vs. aristocratic. Ne/Si always seem to be very inclusive, even with their body language. They draw people in, welcoming anyone who happens to be standing nearby. Whereas there are some moments when Ni/Se can kind of pull away from the group or differentiate themselves in a particular way, depending on the circumstances. They can be more exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolanzon
But Gamma is democratic and Ni/Se. Or were you only referring to Beta?Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
Aristocratic means ethics are paired with intuition, and democratic means logic is paired with intuition
And Silly and Charming is for the Fe/Ti spectrum, and "serious" business and edgy relates more to Fi/Te, hence merry and serious.
I put a few lines up on wikisocion that states that Decisive people tend to make decisions quickly on a small piece of evidence, how it says Ni types survive in situations where information is scarce, so they're more influenced to decide. Judicious people are more inclined to build a profile about a decision, gather everything they need, before they come close to making an official decision. They're also more inclined to not see how obvious the situation has turned into, because they regard the evidence as not substantial enough.
I thought gamma was aristocratic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Allie
Alpha and gamma are democratic; beta and delta are aristocratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolanzon
sorta.
Ni/Se people like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5bYDhZBFLA
Ne/Si people dont.
No I am not gay, but that video is repulsive so sue me.
I look at the judicious/decisive dichotomy. I'm not that sold on the Reinin dichotomies but I think this one works.
From Wikisocion:
Judicious (Si/Ne valuers)
Decisive (Se/Ni valuers)
- Accumulate a vast amount of information into consideration before making an official decision
- Less convinced to finalize a decision based upon (even a strong piece of) external evidence
- Natural state is relaxed
- On work, usually prefers satisfying working conditions to salary and other rewards
- Make decisions based on a little bit of information
- More easily influenced to decide upon (even a small piece of) external evidence
- Natural state is mobilised
- On work, usually prefers salary and other rewards to satisfying working conditions
well I'll be... you're right. all this time (honestly!) I thought it was beta and gamma that were aristocratic. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
decisives strive to impress, judiciouses seek enjoyment.
I traveled through europe with an ILI friend and he wanted to see all the best sites and go to all the best restaurants, while I just wanted to see what was easy to find and eat whatever was nearby.
The song isn't so soooo bad, but I meant the video.
Oh, I see. Well I don't hate the video. I think it's ridiculous, but in such a... dry? odd? [something]... way that it's just kind of amusing. Scanily-clad women with power tools, the stats for which are shown onscreen, while a techno version of "Satisfaction" plays? It's kind of amusing, yeah.
Why do you think it's distinctively Se/Ni?
Its like... All these visceral close ups and focus on Se CRAZY SHIT IN YOUR FACE.
Uhg, its just like so cold hearted. And this is coming from a Ti ENTp lol! Like it makes attraction into some sort of sick game. Like "yeah i just need sex now and you're going to be my plaything". Nastyness.
I felt exactly the same about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by songofsappho
Maybe I am just an angsty bitter teen.
It's like FDG said yesterday on Stickam, it's only for fun. You just take it too seriously. God, I find that boxxy shit way harder to stomach than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
lol, and Maria's Socionix avatar is just hypnotizing:
http://www.well.com/~mgarriga/chick.gif
idk w/e
Boxxy > Se-tisfaction
so true jake :lol:
Nice asses, horrid movie. Guh.
I hate Boxxy. I would much rather watch Boxxy.
This is an explosion of Si/Ne:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY
We love this shit. See how comfortable it makes you? Controlled, wonderful environment. Just looking at Ian Anderson makes me happy.
P.S.-This is only the first like 10 minutes of a 45-odd minute song I wish lasted all day. There's like a 6:08 version (complete) as well, but I just put up the first video of this guy I could find with this song.
Se/Ni.
Things.
Surfaces.
Unexplained actual occurance.
Ne/Si talks in riddles.
That song might just be too gamma for you, dolphin. :8*
Actually, I like the song a lot. lol Fi/Te?
I'm being mean to you lol
But idk.. The song seems.. very... idk... I really like the tune and the sound of the song, but I don't like the focus of the lyrics or the video.
Probably aristocratic. Probably Beta.
*Also, that first movie is a gamma explosion.
the satisfaction video is NOT Si/Ne.
No.
and your vid is interesting to me. idk Ive done enough socionics for the day.
Likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
I think a lot of the video is carried on Ne, though.
Maybe that's why Yake doesn't like it :lol:
lol That's definitely the best way to get to an alpha NT. Brutally hammer out all forms of Fe, then uncomfortably destabalize Si. Ouch.. Sorry Jake, you brought it up.
No.
That is not Ne, go away.
Go the fuck away with that.
How is any of that infantile/caregiver?
C'mon tell me.
No. Its not.
Icky, disgusting Se-valuing ew, thats what that is.
Well, because it's combining two totally opposite things to make something new and interesting.
Business and dry statistics with sex and desire, combined together for MAXIMUM LULZ.
Also, AvB is ESE. All his songs are about Fe, especially relationships. Also check out Above and Beyond, their lyrics have an internal monologue bent, and I think one of the guys is a SEI.
Speaking of SEI, ATB :love:
Check out his vid "What About Us"
Si = men wearing lipstick?
So CUTE!!! (notice how Se/Ni isn't cute at all?)
now ur catching on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolanzon
damnit gul i was thinking of kawaii for Ni. You bast.
That's so static I think I'll have to call it whatever the fuck you imagine the damn thing doing.
Granted, I don't like it. I think it's actually Alpha, you Fe-seeking piece of Ne ENTp.
Are you a car man, Gul?
The bottom line is that Si/Ne is abuot creating a comfortable environment.
Se/Ni is about creating an explosive environment.
the bottom line is that dolphin hates me.
And that, yes.
ILE + LSE = talk - action
LSE = talkQuote:
Originally Posted by fear of sleep
ILE = - action?
Gimme some of your crazy IJ scheming, bro! Let's do something cool.
Talk is action. Get on the :Si::Ne: wave already lol
Ethicals talk, logicals act.
Learn your dyads, man.
lol no it's just that when these 2 types get together, nothing ever gets done. ILE is too busy looking at possibilities and the LSE is too busy trying to get to know everyone. Nothing happens. Also, any attempt at seriousness is met with endless ridicule. But that's just my experience, you can disagree if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolanzon
:Si: is boring anyway. Here, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Psfn6iOfS8
No, you're gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Thue me, thue me! (lol sorry)
Seriously horrible vid, though, dogs.
Even by you guys' crappy, vague, preferential definitions, I am Se/Ni. Get this ILE shit out of your heads.
lol Gilly, that was definitely just something we know isn't Si/Ne and joked about it. It's also totally devoid of Fe, and I think that makes Jake even more uncomfortable around it. You can like the asses without liking how they're presented, and I believe that's the case he's trying to make.
The whole point of this thread is to find easy ways to spot the differences between Se/Ni and Ne/Si. Immersion is a great way to do this, though it may be a bit (or even very) vague and may take some time to grasp.
And you're definitely ILE.
yeah the girls are hot but the way they are presented is pretty disgusting.
(i like drill girl @ 0:30 most)
I liked the presentation.
And I'm definitely not ILE.
You understand the difference between a joke and serious business? Apparently, not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Removed at User Request
Lol, Caregiver ephemeros!Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemeros
Glad to see your dual is doing her job ;)
Removed at User Request
.
Removed at User Request
Se: superficial
Ne: deeper
the ni and si aren't visible
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
this is somewhat true. The contextual elements (field dynamics) are more like story lines. They aren't directly visible. Its more of an orientation. A feeling about the flow or progress of the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Actually Si is an "external" function, meaning the things it focuses on are observable and measurable.
lol, I love that Satisfaction video, btw. I think it's both hilarious and fun. Makes me want to go play with power tools in my bikini and flirt with LSI.
On the OP, I agree with W-L that the wikisocion judicious-decisive Reinin dichotomy does a good job of defining the differences I see between Se/Ni and Ne/Si.
Sure, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yet only objects actually "exist". Thats why they are objective. Relations between objects are something non real which is assumed by the subject (observer).
So all the subjective elements (those which consider the relationships between the observer and objects and between the objects themselves) Ti, Fi, Ni, Si must make assumptions about what does actually not exist in "objective" reality ie what is explained by Ne, Se, Te, Fe.
Now Dynamic is even worse because it measures or keeps the pace of something which is even more indirectly perceivable by us mortals. Time. The linear continuum of one state to another. With static we can press pause and organize because we are perceiving something horizontal and still. With dynamic we don't stop, because we are understanding the pace and motion.
So Field dynamics is largely indirect.
Now an example of Si would be if I were to imagine a "world" in my head. A world is an environment. If I decide the world is going to be covered in deserts, and I begin imagining the climate and wild life of that world I may be imagining something "internally", but what I'm perceiving is not some symbolic process or metaphorical meaning. This sort of world building and context creation is an activity that Si/Ne partakes in because it is building and imagining a context that is sensible, tangible, external, explicit, inhabitable, etc.
But all in all, Si and Ni are not really "direct" although Si would focus on direct things such as I explained about world building.
That was a JOKE!!! Damn you, ephemeros :p
Perhaps it's because I'm on the other side of the dichotomy, but Si/Ni are pretty visible to me most of the time. Even more so than Ne/Se. Like, a lot more.
In that horrible vid, for example, I see bad ripples of Ni everywhere. Its like sensing an undertoe when standing in the ocean. BAD. But like in the Jethro Tull videos I posted, you can see/feel the good direction (well good to me anyway). A bit vague, but totally obvious to me.
Interesting. I think there's merit to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
At least, my ILE schoolfriend sometimes makes me wonder if he's SLE. Or that might be me not being able to see too clearly beyond temperament. [Later thought: I had this problem with typing my LII friend, too. But that might be because he's Ti-sub.]
However, SXIs feel wafty, but IXIs feel drifty. Like, a river versus a breeze.
And OH SNAP, DID I JUST TWIST YOUR COMMENT INTO A CASE AGAINST BEING Ne-ENTp?
:popcorn:
Totally :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Get them out of your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
This makes some sense. I definitely don't view things along a continuum, where I'm absorbed in the experience; they take the form of localized ends/goals/obstacles, that I 'go at' to varying degrees. Exercise was never a consistent regime that I enjoyed and mixed up; it was a daily drive, a tangible end to be met, with an overriding sense of the 'purpose' behind it. I hate people who do it any other way (see duck-watching argument with me/jem/dolphin).Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Se: REALQuote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Ne: IMAGINARY
:lol:
Absolutely! That's what's so cool about Ne/Si :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
yes. I do know some SEIs and ESEs who are more uptight than SLEs I know. Maybe it's about different things though. For example, leaving crumbs on the countertop might drive the Si-types NUTS. Also, you don't wanna see my ESE in bad traffic. There is no chill. Actually, I would never use the word "chill" to describe him in any sense whatsoever. :p He's fanatical about crumbs... and loading the dishwasher the right way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Yes.Quote:
Si: fussier about creature comforts, dirt/germs, specific arrangements
Se: don't care
yes, I think.Quote:
Si: tendency to complain about working conditions (too crowded, uncomfortable, dirty, long hours, difficult work)
Se: tendency if complaining, to complain about lack of acknowledgment or pay
Steering through it... hmmm, yes. Maybe what you're saying is that for Se-valuers, their identity isn't caught up in their experience as much as for Si-valuers? Maybe that's it. The fact that who they are at the core isn't dependent upon the experiences. These are really good, Diana. :)Quote:
Si: immersion in the experience of life; living IN your life
Se: overcoming obstacles, meeting challenges, living THROUGH your life
What I'm trying to convey is that Si can be settled and calm, putting down roots, or traveling and exploring, going on adventures and seeking "intensity" but whatever they do, they're in the experience. They're PART OF the experience of their life. With Se, the experience itself is not the goal. You go through the experience to reach your goals, they're something separate from you, whether or not you're doing exactly the same things the Si people are doing. Immersion in the current, versus steering through it, is the best I can get at, and I still think it can too easily be misinterpreted.
And that's what I love about Ni/Se. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Coolanzon
WE WANT TO SEE THAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by mn0good
I enjoy manly reality checks about the true nature of what something is like. Do not like ideas of fluffy things that aren't there yet. Airy pieces of shit that don't have any resemblance to reality annoy me. Enjoy the humor of contrast of playing with the two forces brings.
I do not like buffing something up just to make it look better. I like knowing exactly what something is....at the core.
I do not like, also, factual relationships between organizations and categorial systems -- which I view is Te. I simply enjoy the pure singular reality of whatever environment I'm facing. People who do this for me, like my new boyfriend- are people who I cherish greatly. I soooo dual-seek Se.
omg B&D u gots a new bf? PICSQuote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I think that (Se) has a static awareness of the current; and from there, a dynamic awareness of how many situations may relate to eachother and unfold, with the goal of balancing this dynamic; where (Si) sees the many situations as fixed, determined by their ideals; and from there, focus on manipulating and reconfiguring the moment to suite this image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
ahaha great moments in music video history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allie
This is okay in a very general sense, but there's still some things I have a problem with:Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Kind of vague, so I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Completely unrelated imo. I've seen some Se valuers being fussy about shit like that, and I've also known Si valuers to not give a shit. And as far as dirt/germs go, my Ti-ILE brother is fucking disgusting, where I'm slightly compulsive about being clean. But still, it'd be totally unlike to me ever complain to someone about being uncomfortable or whatever, so maybe that's what you're getting at? Hah, when someone bitches to me about being cold or tired or whatever it really bothers me actually. “Man up,” is usually my response to it. I just don't have the patience to deal with prissy, whiny behavior at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Um, I don't care about acknowledgement at all when I'm working. Typically, I work harder than those around me pretty much naturally. If something needs to be done, I do it. I feel guilty just ignoring something that needed to be done by assuming that someone else will get around to it eventually. I see that attitude every day, and I just can't be like that. I pretty much assume responsibility for everything going on in my environment, especially in work settings. I don't need to be credited with what I do. To me, certain duties just need to be completed by someone, so why does it matter if that someone is me? I don't need acknowledgement for doing what I'm being paid to do, and therefore most of the time my contributions go unnoticed. It doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
And I really don't think working conditions are that relevant to Si either. If I'm going to spend a good percentage of my life somewhere, then I'm going want it to be somewhere tolerable and well-suited for me. For instance, I really don't mind working for less in a place that makes me happy and surrounds me with good people. My Ti-SLE dad is a good example of this too. He quit his job once for one with a significantly lower pay. Why? The new opportunity meant working at large, oceanfront resort. He loved the five minute drive to work, parking his car in front of the beach, and working with other people who were genuinely happy to be doing what they do. Se>Si doesn't mean you stop caring about things like this, it's just human.
I know what you mean, and can agree with this on a general level. A bit abstract to mean much, but regardless, it's sort of true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Rather considerate of you. However they are not in my head, merely on my forum; only you have that honor when it comes to my type, Nick :p (at least as far as considering ILE goes), but at this point my mind is made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Actually fields are pretty real. They are more transient than objects, by nature, but they are very much observable. When someone tosses a ball from one hand to another, the ball doesn't just disappear from one and reappear in the other; the movement takes place in real time and real space; that's an example of Si+Te. When you look at your hand, there is a measurable, concrete distance between them that is measurable and objectively existant; that is an example of Ti+Se.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
In Model A, they don't make assumptions, because they are paired and used with an Object function. That's why it works :wink:Quote:
So all the subjective elements (those which consider the relationships between the observer and objects and between the objects themselves) Ti, Fi, Ni, Si must make assumptions about what does actually not exist in "objective" reality ie what is explained by Ne, Se, Te, Fe.
So? As I demonstrated, transient relationships exist just as much as ones that are measured from a "snapshot" perspective. It's just two different kinds of measurement.Quote:
Now Dynamic is even worse because it measures or keeps the pace of something which is even more indirectly perceivable by us mortals. Time. The linear continuum of one state to another. With static we can press pause and organize because we are perceiving something horizontal and still. With dynamic we don't stop, because we are understanding the pace and motion.
You're using an improper definition of "internal." In Socionics, Internal refers to something that is intangible, not physically measurable or directly perceivable with the senses. Your picture is not "measurable" while it's in your head in the sense that you can't take a ruler to it, but if you took that same "picture" from your head and put it on a piece of paper, reproducing all of it's "external" physical characteristics (colors, objects, etc), then we could "measure" them. Or, if you had an accurate ruler in your head, you could "measure" the spaces. Either way, you can still observe the colors and shapes, which are all "external" details by the Socionics definitions. This is how model A defines these terms; I can understand if you are confused on a matter of interpretation, but you have to see that, within the parameters of the system you are attempting to reconcile your viewpoint with, your definitions are inaccurate, and therefore your correlations are flawed.Quote:
Now an example of Si would be if I were to imagine a "world" in my head. A world is an environment. If I decide the world is going to be covered in deserts, and I begin imagining the climate and wild life of that world I may be imagining something "internally", but what I'm perceiving is not some symbolic process or metaphorical meaning. This sort of world building and context creation is an activity that Si/Ne partakes in because it is building and imagining a context that is sensible, tangible, external, explicit, inhabitable, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
The space between two objects (as in air) is made up of objects, Gilly.
That's not what is meant be subjective or field.
The physical distance between objects is objective itself. However judgments made by an observer on what is or is not important to him is subjective.
A "set" (such as a collection of books or a forest) is non-real and purely an abstraction. The books themselves are sets too, but thats another story.
Field or subjective perception (as pertains to socionics) is about how objects are imbued with qualities they would not have if an observer was absent (or if the relating object was absent). So when an observer sorts objects, values some over others, calls some good and some bad, makes a mental framework organizing the objects they are playing with a field element.
strawman. I have always said that the valued elements are used together so wtf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
No, as I've said, thats not what is meant by subjective. That sort of measurement is objective because physical distance is something that exists independent of an observer's orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
That is why "extrotims" are supposedly more interactive with their environment. They are changing, moving, and directing objects, whilst the introtim must change his viewpoint or orientation. Thats why introtims are quieter or less interactive. They are changing non-real (non-real is kinda bullshit, but it hints at what I mean enough that I'm sure you can process it) factors and their feelings which don't actually make objective changes to the world.
Bullshit. Everyone creates mental images and "imagines". That is a fundamental aspect of consciouness. If I'm desigining a world in my head or imagining the physical features w/e I am not using Ni. I am not processing something intangible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Stop foolishly trying to sort people like that. Basically what you'll end up with is all imaginative people as Ni and all dumbasses who didn't pass 8th grade as Si.
Besides the fact that I've always loved to draw maps for fantasy worlds and catalogue what beings I come up with by sketching them etc, by imagining these worlds I am in fact observing physical colors and shapes. I am recreating things in a non-abstract context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Bringing to life such a world with lots of details and information such that the place seems "real", it "makes sense", it "fits together" that is Si stuff.
If you actually listened to Ni valuers like Implied, ashton, FDG, Strrrng, hoodrat, cpig they'd tell you harry potter and lotr was gay lol. Okay I'm half joking here, but seriously, its the Alphas and Deltas who like exploring fantasy worlds and writing fiction about "multi-verses" and playing dungeons and dragons lol.
Why don't you ask some people about this?
Ask look.to.the.sky, brilliand, Gulanzon, Logos, Vero, mune, tereg, Tom, myself, fear of sleep, eldanen what they like in fantasy or fiction
then ask Strrrng, implied, bnd, starfall, ashton, cpig, krae, herzy, JWC3, jimbean, glam, numbers, FDG, hoodrat if they like "making fantasy worlds in their heads (like I described)"
I predict bnd and starfall will say yes and everyone else in Ni/Se will say no.
correlations...?
I think you are confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Gilly, I swear to Jehovah that if you get (overly) insulting with this I'm not going to participate. I want to have a civil conversation with you for once.
In reality, yes, but not as far as human perception on a natural scale is concerned, and not necessarily in reference to the way IM elements work. You're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Actually, yes, it is: relationships between two objects. LEARN THE THEORY.Quote:
That's not what is meant be subjective or field.
Your point?Quote:
The physical distance between objects is objective itself. However judgments made by an observer on what is or is not important to him is subjective.
How is it non-real? They all exist there, together, as a physical entity. Is a tree not an entity because it is comprised of bark and leaves and carbon and oxygen and hydrogen? The point is not the physical reality; the point is the perception. LEARN THE THEORY.Quote:
A "set" (such as a collection of books or a forest) is non-real and purely an abstraction. The books themselves are sets too, but thats another story.
No, you're mistaking Fields for Internal. Fields denote relationships between two objects that the observer is observing, not between the observer and the object. LEANR THE THEORY.Quote:
Field or subjective perception (as pertains to socionics) is about how objects are imbued with qualities they would not have if an observer was absent (or if the relating object was absent).
The thing is, you can't "play with" a field element without using an object element in conjunction; nothing can be done with one element in isolation. LEARN THE THEORY.Quote:
So when an observer sorts objects, values some over others, calls some good and some bad, makes a mental framework organizing the objects they are playing with a field element.
Quote:
strawman
Ok, but do you submit that elements can ONLY be used in pairs (ie Ni + Te) in terms of actual cognitive processing?Quote:
. I have always said that the valued elements are used together so wtf.
Not sure what you're getting at. And once again, you are referring to External/Internal and not Object/Field. LEARN THE THEORY.Quote:
No, as I've said, thats not what is meant by subjective. That sort of measurement is objective because physical distance is something that exists independent of an observer's orientation.
You are working with a faulty interpretation of Field/Object. Refer to earlier section of this post.Quote:
That is why "extrotims" are supposedly more interactive with their environment. They are changing, moving, and directing objects, whilst the introtim must change his viewpoint or orientation. Thats why introtims are quieter or less interactive. They are changing non-real (non-real is kinda bullshit, but it hints at what I mean enough that I'm sure you can process it) factors and their feelings which don't actually make objective changes to the world.
...and LEARN THE FUCKING THEORY.
I never said anything to the contrary. Your "internal landscape" has "external" traits, like shape, color, distance, etc. If the landscape was meant to be a nonspecific manifestation of a larger, intangible theme or emotional "current," however, that would involve Ni.Quote:
Bullshit. Everyone creates mental images and "imagines". That is a fundamental aspect of consciouness. If I'm desigining a world in my head or imagining the physical features w/e I am not using Ni. I am not processing something intangible.
Nope. Learn the theory.Quote:
Stop foolishly trying to sort people like that. Basically what you'll end up with is all imaginative people as Ni and all dumbasses who didn't pass 8th grade as Si.
Right, I agree, that is not necessarily all internal. You are creating maps and tangible manifestations. Not sure where we're crossing swords here.Quote:
Besides the fact that I've always loved to draw maps for fantasy worlds and catalogue what beings I come up with by sketching them etc, by imagining these worlds I am in fact observing physical colors and shapes. I am recreating things in a non-abstract context.
See above.Quote:
Bringing to life such a world with lots of details and information such that the place seems "real", it "makes sense", it "fits together" that is Si stuff.
How is this any less base or simplistic than the kind of categorizing you were FALSELY accusing me of before?Quote:
If you actually listened to Ni valuers like Implied, ashton, FDG, Strrrng, hoodrat, cpig they'd tell you harry potter and lotr was gay lol. Okay I'm half joking here, but seriously, its the Alphas and Deltas who like exploring fantasy worlds and writing fiction about "multi-verses" and playing dungeons and dragons lol.
First of all, we can't be 100% sure of these people's types. Second of all, that's a pathetic sample size. Third of all, this is a fallacious categorization that is even more simplistic and obviously not true than the one you were accusing me of making.Quote:
Why don't you ask some people about this?
Ask look.to.the.sky, brilliand, Gulanzon, Logos, Vero, mune, tereg, Tom, myself, fear of sleep, eldanen what they like in fantasy or fiction
then ask Strrrng, implied, bnd, starfall, ashton, cpig, krae, herzy, JWC3, jimbean, glam, numbers, FDG, hoodrat if they like "making fantasy worlds in their heads (like I described)"
I predict bnd and starfall will say yes and everyone else in Ni/Se will say no.
I don't create "fantasy worlds" in my head. Are you seriously trying to make these correlations? SERIOUSLY? It's laughable. "Ni/Se-ers don't like fantasy! :O" Honestly, have you read any HP Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Hesse, James Joyce, George Orwell, C.S. Lewis, ad infinitum? You think Ni/Se types are disinterested in creating alternate universes? Go take a fucking hike in the Literature section, buddy.
I mean, maybe you could argue that someone like Tolkein was more Si/Te because he liked to describe worlds in great physical detail. But wait! Go back to your typing of DaVinci, and who pays great attention to physical details? Oh, that's right, Se valuers! Fuck off with your simplistic interpretations and LEARN THE THEORY.
Not at all.Quote:
I think you are confused.
If you can' take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I honestly don't care what you have to say, because I know how to interpret Socionics as a theory, and this is really no more than sport for me. So by all means, quit whining and get the fuck out of my face :) until you learn the theory, at least.Quote:
Gilly, I swear to Jehovah that if you get (overly) insulting with this I'm not going to participate. I want to have a civil conversation with you for once.
Subjective is between the observer and the object. Thats what it means lol.
Perception of the space between two objects is an objective analysis. The space would exist regardless of human perception.
I already gave my reasoning for what subjective means in the context of socionics (and in everything else for that matter), so if you disagree fine.
eh its not really. Just more correct :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
True, however I really think its obvious. I mean sure, I didn't exactly do an srs and choose a p value lol, but I would think you could start reviewing other people besides the ones I listed yourself and begin to see the pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
I wouln't expect you too. You're a 3w4. Generally more socially oriented, more interested in the quick benefits of social interaction. I think its generally us 5's who partake in world building. It makes sense to that starfall (4w5) and bnd (6w5) would be prone to such day dreaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Not sure about CS Lewis (probably Alpha), but yes there are of course Ni/Se fantasy writers! (add Neil Gaiman to that list). Different type of fantasy though. which I see you've noticed below:
Yes Tolkein is ISTp or INTj I can't decide which.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Hah yes Se is detailed interested too!
But its in a totally different way. For Si, the details must make the observer feel as if the story fits together cohesively. Like how Tolkein goes to great effort to detail the lineages and landscapes of Arda, JK Rowling all the nooks and crannies of hogwarts (fuck this is making me want to read). But even if shit is crazy like dragons and unicorns or w/e the fuck what matters is that the tide of events and storyline is based in a concrete... gestalt I guess.
Whereas people like Neil Gaiman just make shit happen outta no where and it makes no sense unless you relate it to the Ni context of the story. Then all the seemingly unrelated events are tied together.
DaVinci's concern with anatomical correctness and precise illustrations, are more like the photo-realistic style of external object statics. Si valuers don't really care about that because the context and "playing field" ("story line") is what must be detailed and sensible whilst the objects can be module and even haphazard.
Uhg, I know the theory and please stop with the pseudo-badass facade. Its kinda baby-ish and silly. I feel you project alot onto me that i really don't deserve. I just wanna discuss shit with you, but you have to make it into a battle. It feels forced and unecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yeah, I'm the same. Any sort of complaint over a feeling of physical discomfort/pain/irritation really annoys me, because it's usually transient, superficial and unwarranted. This is because I usually move past these kinds of things, and would never have the nerve to burden someone else with such petty grievances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allie
As for it being function-related, I don't know. To me, a lot of Si-valuers are attuned to what I deem redundant crap in the environment, which can sometimes induce the previously mentioned behavior.
:lol: Fair enough. Although, just because peasants are in a village, doesn't mean they need to be spit at by the king (that seems to be how you view things, in this context).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
This is halfway legit, lol. All those shows/books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings -- not to mention the unbearably bland DnD crap people here (who all seem to be Ne/Si lol) do on stickam -- all seem Ne/Si to me in their layout, plot development, and general things like scenery, sensory descriptions, etc. I don't know; I like my stories to the point, with the themes intangibly embedded into the experience itself, not drawn out like melted cotton candy or some shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Lol yeah, but seriously its been a thing I've heard all my life from Beta-Gamma dissin teh geeky literature lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
I'm a potter-fag and proud!
I don't get how anyone could find that bland. That is so utterly foreign to me its like a punch in the gut. Like I love that shit up. eh stupid INFps :p
whadda they know? nothing, te polr, thats why!
okay Im being stupid now
everyone continue on.
Let me get back to you on this. I am mildly embarrassed at some theoretical oversights I've made and I can't think perfectly because I'm in the middle of a caffeine crash -_-;
I stand corrected on the matter of Objects and Fields. You were right, Archon :p I actually have a lot of rethinking to do with this shit now, because some things are starting to come into perspective.
Okay, tell me what you come up with.
Actually, I think that's one of the bigger offenders in terms of the Reinin descriptions. I would find it hard saying that an IEI is more like the second and an LSE more like the first here.Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
The first two bullet points in each category are basically the same, but they're influenced also by rationality/irrationality. I realize this gets to the core of some of the differing models within Socionics.
The mobilized part is the only one that seems possibly legitimate, but even then I think LSEs and ESEs may appear more mobilized than IEI and ILI.
Basically, there is a big difference between Ni/Se and Ne/Si, but Socionists, or at least those involved with the Reinin descriptions, probably don't have a good idea of what it is or how to articulate it.
As to the last bullet point, that's just part of the alpha-centric roots of Socionics. Basically, the idea there is that since people who started Socionics identify with having a satisfying career beyond just being interested in money, they then identified people unlike them (e.g., not Alpha) as being "those other kind of people" who are more materialistic, etc.
Archon, my conclusions: at first I used this minor blip as an excuse to reflect upon my own shortcomings and the potential that I had everything, including my own type, wrong. Then I realized that it was just a silly theoretical gaffe, that my type is still the same, and that, indeed, I was having a typical TiSe Super Id reaction of feeling like shit because I failed to be at the top of the theorizing food chain and using it as an excuse to float into Ni land, onveranalyze the consequences of my perceived shortcomings, and become an existential puddle for a brief period in time.
In actuality, it's made me realize that I just need to worry less about what other people think :lol: and stop trying to hard to delude myself into thinking that my understanding is flawless. Socionics theory is essentially boring to me, and I've attempted to make it into something more than it is by placing apparently too much self-worth on my understanding of an obscure psychology theory.
So, in short, thanks for fucking my paradigm :) You may continue on your Merry way :wink:
As to what it really is about, the way I look it is that with the Ni/Se state, you're going from one static situation to another with ideas about how one might change from one to another, so it's kind of like a story...going from here to here to here and thinking or dreaming about how one might get from here to there or what it might be like to be there...etc....and so the sense of getting from here to there and building towards something and arriving is important.
...whereas with the Ne/Si state of mind, there may still be a "story" of life, but it's less important than the possibilities of each moment and the physical experience of going from one moment to the next.
Now what Reinin/Socionists did is they assumed that the story of life is about getting money whereas everything else that constitutes satisfaction or enjoyment of anything must be within Ne/Si.
But really concern for money, or enjoyment, or whether one seems to be a go-getter or not, is less related to this dichotomy than people think.
.
It's fair to say I have no interest in these direct sources of entertainment like Harry Potter, but this is some stereotype that happens to fit for me. However sources all feed my inspiration is some way, and what ends up building is one of these worlds internally and nonexpressively. This is just one way, the analogous way of going about intuition, of just this one function out of the others, as to how my dominant function Ni is provided for. With any function's introverted or extroverted counterpart, one is perceived along the same field of knowledge, and that one is just done so in a sort of retrograde compared to the other. However I'm aware you have a tentative typing of me as an Ne ego, and this perception of fantasy worlds seem to only come in one form to you, and that would be of the Ne ego. However I think you miss the fact that attractions to these sources come in different reasons. What I think you're doing is associating a field with an information element, and not looking at how any function can perceive the field in a different way, none any more positive or negative, as they each are founded on a unique scale. I can see how mistakes can be made with such a limited stereotype that I do not know the origin of. The definition of Ni/Ne seem to continuously change with some people, so I can only assume you're usually wrong if you're usually changing your impressions on the IMs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
The thing with DnD is, to me, it has nothing to do with "developing the world" in any concrete sense. The most interesting thing to me is my character growing, acquiring new abilities and getting stronger. I don't really "get into" the world, or even imagine its physical existence, at all. I'm more interested in seeing how I can manipulate the environment using my character and my own natural ingenuity.
I think the mistake you are making, Archon, is attributing a "concrete" correlation to an abstract theory; there are no actual manifestations of Socionics functions, but only the differences in how people interpret situations differently.
So? His point is that the plot and development of that type of thing unfolds in an Si manner -- gradual, sequential, filled with detail even if 'subjective', intricate yet all intertwined within the explicit context (as opposed to Ni, which seems to evolve 'out of nowhere' or have no direction).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Of course, I was absorbed in pokemon too. This is just about, as you said, peoples' interpretations -- specifically the subjectively-perceived developing context.
:lol: You can't seriously be criticizing him on this, Mr. That Guy Has A Gun And Will Shoot Me = SeTi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Right, that's one aspect of it. Doesn't mean it's the only reason DnD might appeal to someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Right. See, the things I enjoyed about Pokemon were Se/Ni related: getting stronger, trouncing your rival when he tries to halt your progress at key moments, acquiring new moves, evolving into something better, faster, stronger, etc.Quote:
Of course, I was absorbed in pokemon too. This is just about, as you said, peoples' interpretations -- specifically the subjectively-perceived developing context.
There's a difference. I was talking about a cognitive process; he is trying to make a broad-spectrum correlation. If he said "People who like DnD for reason x are type y" then I wouldn't have a problem, but he's basically saying "People who like fantasy worlds are Si/Ne and Ni/Se types all think this is rubbish, with only minor exceptions."Quote:
:lol: You can't seriously be criticizing him on this, Mr. That Guy Has A Gun And Will Shoot Me = SeTi.
Personally, I like fantasy for the idea of something grandiose going on, a sense of largeresque, a grand picture, the idea that these people lived in turbulent and significant times. It has nothing to do with enjoying the "atmosphere" of the story or the little physical details; sometimes those help to create a picture and add interesting nuance, but that's not what I'm in it for; to me, it's about the overall impression I get from the long-term evolution of the story.
I know how frustrating that can be...anyhow, I think you explained pretty well. Was this related to my post or something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
I think what you're pointing out is that Socionics stuff can be manifested in many different ways, and so there may be some examples that are good representations of certain types as a whole, but that doesn't mean that those Socionics elements/types are manifested that way for everyone in those types....and also that some things in Socionics may be generally right but not apply 100% to everyone. (Is that kind of what you're saying? I know I've been accused of reading too fast before pulling the trigger when posting...)
My point though isn't that the Reinin descriptions quoted above don't apply to everyone; it's that they're not even an accurate description of the general overall trend.
I think the typical Reinin descriptions overall are biased by the fact that the people who came up with them were trying to explain traits of people unlike themselves in terms of the dichotomies (e.g., they see traits other people have that they don't share and then they think "so what types are those")...and that lead them in wrong, misleading, or inconsistent directions. And yes, probably a lot of what they came up with are possible manifestations of Socionics concepts, but what I'm contesting is that they're good descriptions of the trend.
Here's another example: Elsewhere, I read something that said that the Ni/Se types need to drink alcohol to relax or else have a scheduled vacation or party or movie or something. Now, yeah I can see how there may be people like that where those behaviors also related to their being Ni/Se. But I don't think the statement is even true of most Ni/Ses. I think it's at best only a minority.
Also, I think that extraverts may seem more "mobilized" than introverts, and may possibly be more inclined to have to go out to parties and stuff like that to relax...but that's a whole other issue.
PS...By the way, for those people who self-type as Gamma or Beta:
Would you rather have a job where you love what you did and it was close by and the people there are nice, and pays enough so you're not going to end up in deep financial trouble just trying to live simply, or a job that you hate where it's not really what you enjoy doing, and there are a lot of office "politics" and it's a long drive, and the place has a foul odor and is noisy, but it pays a little more so that you can buy fancier stuff?
(I know I'm kind of exaggerating in the description...just trying to make things a little more concrete....because I think stuff gets said in Socionics and it just sort of passes by unquestioned, but as soon as you flesh out what's saying, people may have a different impression.)
I would pick the bolded. I don't need fancier stuff, tbh. Maybe I would do a shittier job so that I could travel more. I would love to see more places, etc. But that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I guess you could say that these were stereotypically Se/Ni related, but I don't think it's a legitimate claim one way or the other. I'm sure my Fi-ENFp brother relished in these things (as he has in other video games like Halo 3, Call of Duty, even this fucking star wars shit), yet the manner in which he absorbed himself in the subjective development, the integration with whatever he was doing, still reflected an Si/Ne preference. That's why functions are cool, cause someone may "do" something supposedly according to one function, yet still go about it via the manner of another. Ah, the beauty of not conflating behavior with cognition :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
True, he was categorizing things; but I'm sure if you asked him about how it related to the function pairs, he could have easily given just as substantial a justification as you did for your example (which was pretty facile, for the most part). So... just because his rests on a categorization and yours doesn't, doesn't mean that you weren't categorizing on some level, and wouldn't create such a thing based on similar, hypostatized examples ;)Quote:
There's a difference. I was talking about a cognitive process; he is trying to make a broad-spectrum correlation. If he said "People who like DnD for reason x are type y" then I wouldn't have a problem, but he's basically saying "People who like fantasy worlds are Si/Ne and Ni/Se types all think this is rubbish, with only minor exceptions."
Yeah, I generally relate to this. Personally, I don't find fantasy in its common forms desirable at all. I may possess 'fantastical' visions and such, but to me they are always related to a relevant, abstract theme that pervades timelines and contexts, not just some washed up delusion I concocted in boredom. And that's sort of the difference Jake was alluding to: that Si/Ne valuers seem to enjoy simply creating fantasy worlds in their heads more, because it allows them to explore an explicitly-manifest, subjective context (Si) in full detail, with a focus on all the different variations and abstract potentials that exist within its development (Ne). But... see, Ni/Se people, while possessing a more abstract lens with the subjective context, only focus on what they deem as relevant, centralized themes... so, a story-line or whatever could have a bunch of latent, embedded themes into it which would find no tangible manifestation, except in the observable qualities injected throughout the story (Se), i.e. the "real, direct" experience at that moment. So, the formerly-described style makes for a more integrative, stereotypically imaginative one than the latter, often times.Quote:
Personally, I like fantasy for the idea of something grandiose going on, a sense of largeresque, a grand picture, the idea that these people lived in turbulent and significant times. It has nothing to do with enjoying the "atmosphere" of the story or the little physical details; sometimes those help to create a picture and add interesting nuance, but that's not what I'm in it for; to me, it's about the overall impression I get from the long-term evolution of the story.