Recognizing Se/Ni vs Ne/Si

[Creepy-male]

ILE + LSE = talk - action

LSE = talk
ILE = - action?

Gimme some of your crazy IJ scheming, bro! Let's do something cool.

[Tom]

Talk is action. Get on the wave already lol

[Creepy-male]

Ethicals talk, logicals act.

Learn your dyads, man.

[electric sheep]

LSE = talk
ILE = - action?

Gimme some of your crazy IJ scheming, bro! Let's do something cool.

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.

is boring anyway. Here, watch this:

[Tom]

Si/Ne:



Se/Ni:

[Gilly]

No I am not gay, but that video is repulsive so sue me.

No, you're gay.

[Tom]

Thue me, thue me! (lol sorry)

Seriously horrible vid, though, dogs.

[Gilly]

Even by you guys' crappy, vague, preferential definitions, I am Se/Ni. Get this ILE shit out of your heads.

[electric sheep]

Si/Ne

Se/Ni

[Tom]

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.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah the girls are hot but the way they are presented is pretty disgusting.

(i like drill girl @ 0:30 most)

[Gilly]

I liked the presentation.

And I'm definitely not ILE.

[FDG]

No I am not gay, but that video is repulsive so sue me.

You understand the difference between a joke and serious business? Apparently, not.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-male]

Take a break, dude...

Lol, Caregiver ephemeros!

Glad to see your dual is doing her job

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

Se: superficial
Ne: deeper

the ni and si aren't visible

[ArchonAlarion]

Se: superficial
Ne: deeper

lol

the ni and si aren't visible

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.

[Gilly]

Actually Si is an "external" function, meaning the things it focuses on are observable and measurable.

[Wynch]

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.

[ArchonAlarion]

Actually Si is an "external" function, meaning the things it focuses on are observable and measurable.

Sure, sure.

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.

[Tom]

That was a JOKE!!! Damn you, ephemeros

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.

[Creepy-male]

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.

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?

[strrrng]

The bottom line is that Si/Ne is abuot creating a comfortable environment.
Se/Ni is about creating an explosive environment.

Totally

Even by you guys' crappy, vague, preferential definitions, I am Se/Ni. Get this ILE shit out of your heads.

Get them out of your head.

Si: immersion in the experience of life; living IN your life
Se: overcoming obstacles, meeting challenges, living THROUGH your life

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).

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.

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.

Yeah.

[redbaron]

Se: superficial
Ne: deeper

the ni and si aren't visible

Se: REAL
Ne: IMAGINARY

[Creepy-male]

Se: REAL
Ne: IMAGINARY

Absolutely! That's what's so cool about Ne/Si

[redbaron]

General observations, that won't hold true in all cases:

Si: more chill, water off a duck's back
Se: can be more uptight, or have tendencies to be fanatical

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. He's fanatical about crumbs... and loading the dishwasher the right way.

Si: fussier about creature comforts, dirt/germs, specific arrangements
Se: don't care

Yes.

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

yes, I think.

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.

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.

[redbaron]

Absolutely! That's what's so cool about Ne/Si

And that's what I love about Ni/Se.

[normal]

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.

WE WANT TO SEE THAT!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

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.

[ScarlettLux]

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? PICS

[crazedrat]

General observations, that won't hold true in all cases:

Si: more chill, water off a duck's back
Se: can be more uptight, or have tendencies to be fanatical

Si: fussier about creature comforts, dirt/germs, specific arrangements
Se: don't care

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

Si: immersion in the experience of life; living IN your life
Se: overcoming obstacles, meeting challenges, living THROUGH your life

Those last two I rephrased about 5 times, trying to succintly get my meaning across. I'm still not satisfied. 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.

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.

[implied]

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.

lol, and Maria's Socionix avatar is just hypnotizing:

ahaha great moments in music video history.

[Lotus]

General observations, that won't hold true in all cases:

This is okay in a very general sense, but there's still some things I have a problem with:

Si: more chill, water off a duck's back
Se: can be more uptight, or have tendencies to be fanatical

Kind of vague, so I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly.

Si: fussier about creature comforts, dirt/germs, specific arrangements
Se: don't care

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.

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

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.

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.

Si: immersion in the experience of life; living IN your life
Se: overcoming obstacles, meeting challenges, living THROUGH your life

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.

[Gilly]

Get them out of your head.

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 (at least as far as considering ILE goes), but at this point my mind is made up.

[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).

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.

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.

In Model A, they don't make assumptions, because they are paired and used with an Object function. That's why it works :wink:

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? 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.

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.

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.

[ArchonAlarion]

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.

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.

In Model A, they don't make assumptions, because they are paired and used with an Object function. That's why it works :wink:

strawman. I have always said that the valued elements are used together so wtf.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...?

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.

I think you are confused.

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.

[Gilly]

The space between two objects (as in air) is made up of objects, Gilly.

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.

That's not what is meant be subjective or field.

Actually, yes, it is: relationships between two objects. LEARN THE THEORY.

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.

Your point?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

strawman

. I have always said that the valued elements are used together so wtf.

Ok, but do you submit that elements can ONLY be used in pairs (ie Ni + Te) in terms of actual cognitive processing?

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.

Not sure what you're getting at. And once again, you are referring to External/Internal and not Object/Field. LEARN THE THEORY.

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.

You are working with a faulty interpretation of Field/Object. Refer to earlier section of this post.

...and LEARN THE FUCKING THEORY.

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.

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.

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.

Nope. Learn the theory.

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.

Right, I agree, that is not necessarily all internal. You are creating maps and tangible manifestations. Not sure where we're crossing swords here.

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.

See above.

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.

How is this any less base or simplistic than the kind of categorizing you were FALSELY accusing me of before?

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.

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.

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! " 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.

I think you are confused.

Not at all.

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.

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.