Si

[Joy]

Win?

[Gilly]

[Minde]

This topic could very easily turn into a debate just about "systems", so I posted my response here instead:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=290346#290346

Don't worry, I don't feel much like debating at the moment. I was more just sharing my initial reaction to what you said, the connection that first came to mind.

[Joy]

That's because you're IJ. Or because you were recalling past conversations. One of the two.

[Creepy-bg]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

Perhaps you'd like to contribute by explaining how Si manifests itself in you, Bionic.

not particularly, no

[Joy]

That's because you're IJ. Or because you were recalling past conversations. One of the two.

To clarify, this isn't meant negatively in any way. I just think it's difficult (if not impossible) for statics to truly understand dynamics (and vice versa).

[force my hand]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

Perhaps you'd like to contribute by explaining how Si manifests itself in you, Bionic.

not particularly, no

Zing! Swish!

...let down hard...

[ataronchronon]

This may be of some value, but back when I used to smoke, quitting was actually quite easy because when I needed to smoke, I wasn't really aware that that's what I needed to do, so I would just get really edgy and all the other things that people are when they quit smoking, but the whole time not really knowing why. Of course there were times when I "knew" I should be smoking, but this knowledge was rarely gained by internal knowledge--only by external cues.

I have an SEI friend that quit smoking recently because his wife made him. He really did not want to quit, but he did for her. He said he really didn't mind being addicted, but he doesn't want to smell anymore so he quit. It was really tough for him because for almost a month, every time I saw him he told me he was quitting... after this last cigarette.

[Minde]

That's because you're IJ. Or because you were recalling past conversations. One of the two.

To clarify, this isn't meant negatively in any way. I just think it's difficult (if not impossible) for statics to truly understand dynamics (and vice versa).

I say one thing; you say another. They contradict. You're saying I'm wrong because that's just the way I see things. I'm wrong because of how I am. Either that or I'm just repeating something I've heard before. My reasoning and observational skills are irrelevant. And I'm not supposed to take that negatively? Or have I interpreted you wrongly?

[Joy]

That's because you're IJ. Or because you were recalling past conversations. One of the two.

To clarify, this isn't meant negatively in any way. I just think it's difficult (if not impossible) for statics to truly understand dynamics (and vice versa).

I say one thing; you say another. They contradict. You're saying I'm wrong because that's just the way I see things. I'm wrong because of how I am. Either that or I'm just repeating something I've heard before. My reasoning and observational skills are irrelevant. And I'm not supposed to take that negatively? Or have I interpreted you wrongly?

Uh... This situation would be like my telling a man that he can't fully see things from a woman's perspective and that I can't fully see things from a man's perspective.

[Minde]

Uh... This situation would be like my telling a man that he can't fully see things from a woman's perspective and that I can't fully see things from a man's perspective.

Ok... And, I'm sorry, your point is...?

[Joy]

What are you upset about?

[Minde]

What are you upset about?

If I were to be upset it would be because someone I have a relatively decent respect for tells me I can't be right for no better reason than that I'm different. Just because I can't intimately know every aspect of something does not mean I can't come to an adequate and working understanding of it. I don't like having my input on a topic off-handedly dismissed because I "can't possibly know what I'm talking about."

But I don't want to get upset unless and until I understand you and what you're trying to say. It would be pointless to be offended if you aren't insulting me.

[Joy]

What are you upset about?

If I were to be upset it would be because someone I have a relatively decent respect for tells me I can't be right for no better reason than that I'm different. Just because I can't intimately know every aspect of something does not mean I can't come to an adequate and working understanding of it. I don't like having my input on a topic off-handedly dismissed because I "can't possibly know what I'm talking about."

But I don't want to get upset unless and until I understand you and what you're trying to say. It would be pointless to be offended if you aren't insulting me.

I didn't mean to insult you at all.

Your perspective of dynamics isn't wrong, it's just different from that of a dynamic type's perspective of it. (The reverse also applies.)

The whole point of Socionics is that different people perceive and process different information differently. I could never hope to truly understand the world through the eyes of any type other than my own. This doesn't just apply to types, either... it applies to quadras, dichotomies, etc.

I think this concept applies ever more so to static vs. dynamic because all of one's conscious functions are either static or dynamic. (For example, Fi, Ne, Ti, and Se are all static.) I only said what I said because I realized that I was making an error by trying to get another type to think the same way my type does instead of the way that type thinks.

[FDG]

It doesn't seem particularly credible that a person is pushing hir definition of a function that she himself considers her PoLR.

[Creepy-bg]

It doesn't seem particularly credible that a person is pushing hir definition of a function that she himself considers her PoLR.

oh God yes!

+579

[Joy]

It is undoubtedly not a Si perspective of Si. It was never intended to be.

[Hitta]

If you can taste food you value Si, if you can feel pain you value Si, if you have that tingling sensation when you take a piss you value Si. Everyone values Si, its just that persons +/- interpretation of Si.

[Slacker]

No. Everyone USES every function, but everyone does not VALUE every function.

[Joy]

In Socionics terms, "valuing" an information element axis means that you see it as more important or give it more attention than the corresponding "unvalued" information element axis.

[Hitta]

PoLR is a function that is not used hardly at all. So go ask an INTp and ENTj if they pay attention to their bodily sensations.

[Hitta]

In Socionics terms, "valuing" an information element axis means that you see it as more important or give it more attention than the corresponding "unvalued" information element axis.

Value means use or try to use. Devalue means disuse or try to disuse. If you say otherwise your arguing that a person doesn't have an antithesis.

[Gilly]

It doesn't seem particularly credible that a person is pushing hir definition of a function that she himself considers her PoLR.

oh God yes!

+579

-580

Fi is one of the functions I understand best, I think.

[Slacker]

PoLR is a function that is not used hardly at all. So go ask an INTp and ENTj if they pay attention to their bodily sensations.

I grew up with ENFj and ENTj parents - the two types with Si PoLR. They have bodily sensations, and they have to pay attention to that at least to some extent, but they hate having to deal with it. Just like I have to expressly explain myself using systematic logic in order for people to understand me, but I'm not particularly good at laying things out in that way and I don't like to have to deal with it. But there's no getting around using Ti.

[Hitta]

have you ever read a socionics description of an INTp or ENTj.... they according to socionist tend to be very big on hygiene. They tend to take careful care of their health according to most socionics descriptions. Now tell me, how does that make sense with an Si POLR.

[Hitta]

Even Ganin states that INTjs are the ones that don't pay attention to taking care of their hygiene.

[Joy]

In Socionics terms, "valuing" an information element axis means that you see it as more important or give it more attention than the corresponding "unvalued" information element axis.

Value means use or try to use. Devalue means disuse or try to disuse. If you say otherwise your arguing that a person doesn't have an antithesis.

wtf are you talking about?

[Joy]

Even Ganin states that INTjs are the ones that don't pay attention to taking care of their hygiene.

This is probably more likely to be true of intuitive types than sensory types much of the time.

have you ever read a socionics description of an INTp or ENTj.... they according to socionist tend to be very big on hygiene. They tend to take careful care of their health according to most socionics descriptions. Now tell me, how does that make sense with an Si POLR.

Show me a description that says that about LIE's.

[Joy]

I'm not convinced that Ganin is a reputable source.

same

[Slacker]

Value does not mean "use or try to use". It means "places importance upon". Perhaps your bad definition explains your lack of understanding.

[Ezra]

Even Ganin states that INTjs are the ones that don't pay attention to taking care of their hygiene.

My LII friend would disagree.

[Joy]

The PoLR is an area in which it's very difficult to maintain balance. It tends to be ignored or over-emphasized (leading to people going overboard in areas related to their PoLR).

[Hitta]

Even Ganin states that INTjs are the ones that don't pay attention to taking care of their hygiene.

My LII friend would disagree.

I'd like to meet your LII friend. For some reason I have the feeling that he's INTp.

I've don't know if I have said this before on here, but I believe the problems with the MBTI descriptions has came over to socionics, I believe they have combined descriptions together(INTj and INTp for example). I think DarkAngelFireWolf69 is starting to realize the mistakes over the last couple of years and has started implementing +/- aspects into usage, now if only I could find the damn model that was on the site before, because I know it exists. I mean it has to exists, its a much better model function common sense wise than the original model A would ever hope to be. When comparing an ENTj and INTj together, they must do the OPPOSITE, because they are the antithesis to each other. If one likes to take good care of his hygiene, the other one shouldn't. Think about this, Ne has always been marked as the intuition of possibilities. In my model I have +Ne as the intuition of possibilities. Possibilities and fear go hand in hand because if one sees all the possibilities, they have plenty to fear. ENTps and INTjs have always been noted as having a need to be original. Also, -Se has been noted by DarkAngelFireWolf69 to be the sensing of rebellion or attack. Originality is rebellion. People that are original will have a compulsive need to rebel. That is the connection between -Ni and -Se. Seeing all the possibilities is originality, because its exploring the territory not explored. From seeing all the possibilities ones gains fear also, which is a direct connection to -Ni. If you were to ask INFps and ENTps if they had existential anxiety, they would both say yes. INFps ENTps INTjs, and ENFjs have a compulsive need to rebel. They are all very fearful people, especially of death. They tend to see the possibilities of everything, and it scares them. Because they see multiple viewpoints, they don't pay much attention to the hygiene one. They don't do things just because they are accepted. They don't even notice. Now INFps ENTps INTjs and ENFjs have a fear of death I have said that. Because of this they prefer habitual places of living. They don't like to do anything that may be dangerous. They don't like to do things that are considered wild, due in part because it would scare them to do it.

Also take note that the supervision relationship in my system makes perfect since. One types agenda is the others base function. The one with the base function supervises the one with the agenda function. Relations of benefit means that the person uses the other persons liberal function, so they will find that person interesting and unique. Hell even ENTps and INFps look similar in VI.


All in all, I'm not certain how anyone can't see even a small connection with this stuff. I don't understand why the people here are so resilient to change.

[Joy]

Ni types are going to be less inclined to care about "Si stuff" than Ne types. While I don't think hygiene is purely Si (or vice versa), there's definitely a strong connection.

If an ILE's mate says "you need a shower", the ILE will probably be like "lol you're right, I do" and probably take one soon. If an LIE's mate says "you need a shower", the LIE is much less likely to respond positively.

[Hitta]

why?

[Joy]

Because we're much more receptive to criticism of our 5th function than our 4th.

[Minde]

I didn't mean to insult you at all.

Your perspective of dynamics isn't wrong, it's just different from that of a dynamic type's perspective of it. (The reverse also applies.)

The whole point of Socionics is that different people perceive and process different information differently. I could never hope to truly understand the world through the eyes of any type other than my own. This doesn't just apply to types, either... it applies to quadras, dichotomies, etc.

I think this concept applies ever more so to static vs. dynamic because all of one's conscious functions are either static or dynamic. (For example, Fi, Ne, Ti, and Se are all static.) I only said what I said because I realized that I was making an error by trying to get another type to think the same way my type does instead of the way that type thinks.

If it is impossible, why try?


And I was pretty sure you weren't intending an insult, which is why I tried not to get too upset.


@ dee - Please remove my quote from your sig. That's not where it belongs, and out of context it can say unintended things.

[tcaudilllg]

(singular) = perception of processes.

(plural) = perception of harmony between processes.

So would that mean that is the power available to the process?