No, they merely point to
Si-valuing. To understand which functions he is strong in you must listen to him speak and analyze his words. Is he logical? If he is logical then his speech sounds "ordered", "deliberate", or "economical"; it is as if it is "more robotic" or "more automatic" than the speech of an ethical type. Does he speak of rules/conditions/fields or does he speak of objects/things/units? Does he speak in terms of "we" and "us" or does he speak in terms of "you" and "me"? Rules/conditions/fields and "we" and "us" would be Ti+Fe; objects/things/units and "you" and "me" would be Te+Fi. Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions. (Logical types can similarly "slip up" with their ethical functions, but it's more subtle and less frequent.)
I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.
And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:
With enough knowledge and willpower, "you can do anything you set your mind to, man", especially when you're as strong as SLI in Te and value Ne/Si. Assuming that whatever the hell you said (cigars, landscaping, idk) had anything to do with Si, which I don't think it did.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x4f0_lyKNu...ndfulness1.jpg
Yeah, that was me combining terms from Model A in my mind. My mistake.
What you need to do is explain how by listening to him talk one might infer that he is not an Fe-ego. What physical clues give it away?
"Is an introvert" (so basically, "is quieter than most") and "emanates Si" isn't specific enough. I want to know the exact behaviors that collectively led you to those conclusions. What does "is an introvert" and "emanates Si" look like to you?
The hidden agenda function is also known as the mobilizing function:
True, but we ignore and/or disparage the information processed by our weak and unvalued functions. Next time you catch yourself "mocking" or "making fun of" something, take a second and think about "what sort of information" that "thing" relates to, and then think about "what sort of information" your "actual mockery" relates to. By "actual mockery" I mean "the words in themselves". The idea is that by "mocking", "disparaging", or "making fun of" something, you're emphasizing the importance of "one sort of information" and downplaying the importance of "another sort of information".
Indeed. I operate under the auspices of Model A, although I'm not so thrilled about its emphasis on the "spatial position" of functions; I talk in terms of "strong/weak" and "valued/unvalued" because I think it's less systematic and thus easier to understand (or at least, less to remember). I also abide by the rules of intertype relations. Here is how I would visually represent type ILE:
For the sake of contrast, here is IEE:
For the sake of variety, here is LSI:
I think you get the picture.
P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"