Originally Posted by
ifmd95
The mixed subtype will dress distractingly, but tastefully (this is an expression of Alpha's +Si as a Personal Knowledge function, actually.)
Si is not dressing distractingly or tastefully, dumbass. Si is external dynamics of fields. It is a cognitive process for which behaviors manifest differently according to each individual. It is NOT how an individual dresses, but the way they think.
Originally Posted by
ifmd95
They attract attention to expand their social network, in part with practical gains in mind (although as SF Socials, they probably enjoy the process itself, too.)
How the HELL do you assume to figure out the motives of SFs? You are extraordinarily stupid. SFs are not "socials", dumbass. The category "SF" is useless in itself. "S" is not "sensing" and "F" is not "feeling". This is Socionics, not "GUESS THE MBTI BEHAVIORAL TRAIT". ESFp and ISFp are both SFs, letter wise. So the fuck what? One uses the functions Se, Fi, Ni, and Te. The other uses the functions Si, Fe, Ne, and Ti. Si and Se are not "sensing" functions. One is external field dynamics and one is external object statics. So the FUCK what. ANYONE can be sensing. Did you read the recent thread, "How sensual are you" or whatever it was? It varied extremely between types and people. To call someone a "sensing feeler" is to go back to the rudimentary idiocy of MBTI superficialistics.
Originally Posted by
ifmd95
The mixed subtype value legitimate and skilled individuals to this end. (So I'm not saying they will "sleep their way to the top" -- that's not really Fi.) Gamma +Se inherently attracts attention in this way.
"legitimate" and "skilled" are not objective traits. Can you really make such a general statement about people? "legitimate" in what? "skilled" in what? Everything under the sun. Even the so called "jacks of all trades" may not be honed in a specific arena. But the people who ARE, read SPECIFIC. Plus, interests and observable behaviors do not simply fall under the category of functions. For Gods sake Gamma SFs are not "social climbers" inherantly, and neither is any other type.
Originally Posted by
ifmd95
With both of the other subtypes, it varies -- for different reasons. The Fi subtype may dress more creatively (stronger intuition+ethics.) But they are also more unsure of their appearance, so they may dress more modestly at times, too. Delta values, which the Fi subtype begins to incorporate, are increasingly sensitive to displays of power (practical or otherwise.)
Fi is NOT ethics, and Fi subtypes do not have stronger "intuition". "ethics" and "intuition" are NOT functions. Functions are a way of thinking that don't necesarily encompass the very general terms of "ethics" and "intuition". Those words are by their very nature judgements on the weight or quality of the information, whether something is "ethical" or "intuitive" with one person may not be so for the other, so your categorization is useless. "Displays of power"..bullshit.
Originally Posted by
ifmd95
Beta values create social chameleons, so the Se subtype might occasionally dress modestly, too. Being around the Se/Ni axis, the Se subtype is impulsive and has difficulty staying on just one Beta team and within Gamma bounds of trust and credibility, so they are constantly using Se (both forms -- with and without Fi) to "conquer" somewhere new.
Se isn't "conquering". Betas are not inherantly "social chameleons". Social chameleons are social chameleons, regardless of type. Se subtype has nothing to do with where or not one would be inclined to dress modestly. Dressing modestly is independent of functions. Gammas don't necessarily stand for "trust" and "credibility", PEOPLE who value trust and credibility do. People are not more sensual or slutty or "whorish" or "creative dressers" or "ethical" or "intuitive" or "legitimate" according to functions, because none of those are objective universal standards. Or personal choices driven by functions.