Talk is action. Get on the wave already lol
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
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.
is boring anyway. Here, watch this:
The saddest ESFj
...
Si/Ne:
Se/Ni:
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Thue me, thue me! (lol sorry)
Seriously horrible vid, though, dogs.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Even by you guys' crappy, vague, preferential definitions, I am Se/Ni. Get this ILE shit out of your heads.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Si/Ne
Se/Ni
The saddest ESFj
...
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.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
yeah the girls are hot but the way they are presented is pretty disgusting.
(i like drill girl @ 0:30 most)
The end is nigh
I liked the presentation.
And I'm definitely not ILE.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 07-13-2009 at 04:17 PM.
Se: superficial
Ne: deeper
the ni and si aren't visible
Actually Si is an "external" function, meaning the things it focuses on are observable and measurable.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
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.
The end is nigh
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.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
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?
Totally
Get them out of your head.
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).
Yeah.
4w3-5w6-8w7
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.
Yes.Si: fussier about creature comforts, dirt/germs, specific arrangements
Se: don't care
yes, I think.
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.
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.
IEI-Fe 4w3
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.
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.
This is okay in a very general sense, but there's still some things I have a problem with:
Kind of vague, so I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly.
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.
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.
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.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
In Model A, they don't make assumptions, because they are paired and used with an Object function. That's why it works :wink: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.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.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, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
The end is nigh
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.
Actually, yes, it is: relationships between two objects. LEARN THE THEORY.That's not what is meant be subjective or field.
Your point?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.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.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.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.
strawmanOk, but do you submit that elements can ONLY be used in pairs (ie Ni + Te) in terms of actual cognitive processing?. 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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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.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! " 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.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.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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...