Recognizing Se/Ni vs Ne/Si

[ArchonAlarion]

Subjective is between the observer and the object. Thats what it means lol.

Perception of the space between two objects is an objective analysis. The space would exist regardless of human perception.

I already gave my reasoning for what subjective means in the context of socionics (and in everything else for that matter), so if you disagree fine.

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

eh its not really. Just more correct

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.

True, however I really think its obvious. I mean sure, I didn't exactly do an srs and choose a p value lol, but I would think you could start reviewing other people besides the ones I listed yourself and begin to see the pattern.

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 wouln't expect you too. You're a 3w4. Generally more socially oriented, more interested in the quick benefits of social interaction. I think its generally us 5's who partake in world building. It makes sense to that starfall (4w5) and bnd (6w5) would be prone to such day dreaming.

Not sure about CS Lewis (probably Alpha), but yes there are of course Ni/Se fantasy writers! (add Neil Gaiman to that list). Different type of fantasy though. which I see you've noticed below:

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.

Yes Tolkein is ISTp or INTj I can't decide which.

Hah yes Se is detailed interested too!

But its in a totally different way. For Si, the details must make the observer feel as if the story fits together cohesively. Like how Tolkein goes to great effort to detail the lineages and landscapes of Arda, JK Rowling all the nooks and crannies of hogwarts (fuck this is making me want to read). But even if shit is crazy like dragons and unicorns or w/e the fuck what matters is that the tide of events and storyline is based in a concrete... gestalt I guess.

Whereas people like Neil Gaiman just make shit happen outta no where and it makes no sense unless you relate it to the Ni context of the story. Then all the seemingly unrelated events are tied together.

DaVinci's concern with anatomical correctness and precise illustrations, are more like the photo-realistic style of external object statics. Si valuers don't really care about that because the context and "playing field" ("story line") is what must be detailed and sensible whilst the objects can be module and even haphazard.

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.

Uhg, I know the theory and please stop with the pseudo-badass facade. Its kinda baby-ish and silly. I feel you project alot onto me that i really don't deserve. I just wanna discuss shit with you, but you have to make it into a battle. It feels forced and unecessary.

[strrrng]

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.

Yeah, I'm the same. Any sort of complaint over a feeling of physical discomfort/pain/irritation really annoys me, because it's usually transient, superficial and unwarranted. This is because I usually move past these kinds of things, and would never have the nerve to burden someone else with such petty grievances.

As for it being function-related, I don't know. To me, a lot of Si-valuers are attuned to what I deem redundant crap in the environment, which can sometimes induce the previously mentioned behavior.

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.

Fair enough. Although, just because peasants are in a village, doesn't mean they need to be spit at by the king (that seems to be how you view things, in this context).

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.

This is halfway legit, lol. All those shows/books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings -- not to mention the unbearably bland DnD crap people here (who all seem to be Ne/Si lol) do on stickam -- all seem Ne/Si to me in their layout, plot development, and general things like scenery, sensory descriptions, etc. I don't know; I like my stories to the point, with the themes intangibly embedded into the experience itself, not drawn out like melted cotton candy or some shit.

[ArchonAlarion]

This is halfway legit, lol. All those shows/books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings -- not to mention the unbearably bland DnD crap people here (who all seem to be Ne/Si lol) do on stickam -- all seem Ne/Si to me in their layout, plot development, and general things like scenery, sensory descriptions, etc. I don't know; I like my stories to the point, with the themes intangibly embedded into the experience itself, not drawn out like melted cotton candy or some shit.

Lol yeah, but seriously its been a thing I've heard all my life from Beta-Gamma dissin teh geeky literature lol.

I'm a potter-fag and proud!

I don't get how anyone could find that bland. That is so utterly foreign to me its like a punch in the gut. Like I love that shit up. eh stupid INFps

whadda they know? nothing, te polr, thats why!

okay Im being stupid now

everyone continue on.

[Gilly]

Let me get back to you on this. I am mildly embarrassed at some theoretical oversights I've made and I can't think perfectly because I'm in the middle of a caffeine crash -_-;

[Gilly]

I stand corrected on the matter of Objects and Fields. You were right, Archon I actually have a lot of rethinking to do with this shit now, because some things are starting to come into perspective.

[ArchonAlarion]

Okay, tell me what you come up with.

[Jonathan]

I look at the judicious/decisive dichotomy. I'm not that sold on the Reinin dichotomies but I think this one works.

From Wikisocion:

Judicious (Si/Ne valuers)

• Accumulate a vast amount of information into consideration before making an official decision
• Less convinced to finalize a decision based upon (even a strong piece of) external evidence
• Natural state is relaxed
• On work, usually prefers satisfying working conditions to salary and other rewards

Decisive (Se/Ni valuers)

• Make decisions based on a little bit of information
• More easily influenced to decide upon (even a small piece of) external evidence
• Natural state is mobilised
• On work, usually prefers salary and other rewards to satisfying working conditions

Actually, I think that's one of the bigger offenders in terms of the Reinin descriptions. I would find it hard saying that an IEI is more like the second and an LSE more like the first here.

The first two bullet points in each category are basically the same, but they're influenced also by rationality/irrationality. I realize this gets to the core of some of the differing models within Socionics.

The mobilized part is the only one that seems possibly legitimate, but even then I think LSEs and ESEs may appear more mobilized than IEI and ILI.

Basically, there is a big difference between Ni/Se and Ne/Si, but Socionists, or at least those involved with the Reinin descriptions, probably don't have a good idea of what it is or how to articulate it.

As to the last bullet point, that's just part of the alpha-centric roots of Socionics. Basically, the idea there is that since people who started Socionics identify with having a satisfying career beyond just being interested in money, they then identified people unlike them (e.g., not Alpha) as being "those other kind of people" who are more materialistic, etc.

[Gilly]

Archon, my conclusions: at first I used this minor blip as an excuse to reflect upon my own shortcomings and the potential that I had everything, including my own type, wrong. Then I realized that it was just a silly theoretical gaffe, that my type is still the same, and that, indeed, I was having a typical TiSe Super Id reaction of feeling like shit because I failed to be at the top of the theorizing food chain and using it as an excuse to float into Ni land, onveranalyze the consequences of my perceived shortcomings, and become an existential puddle for a brief period in time.

In actuality, it's made me realize that I just need to worry less about what other people think and stop trying to hard to delude myself into thinking that my understanding is flawless. Socionics theory is essentially boring to me, and I've attempted to make it into something more than it is by placing apparently too much self-worth on my understanding of an obscure psychology theory.

So, in short, thanks for fucking my paradigm You may continue on your Merry way :wink:

[Jonathan]

As to what it really is about, the way I look it is that with the Ni/Se state, you're going from one static situation to another with ideas about how one might change from one to another, so it's kind of like a story...going from here to here to here and thinking or dreaming about how one might get from here to there or what it might be like to be there...etc....and so the sense of getting from here to there and building towards something and arriving is important.

...whereas with the Ne/Si state of mind, there may still be a "story" of life, but it's less important than the possibilities of each moment and the physical experience of going from one moment to the next.

Now what Reinin/Socionists did is they assumed that the story of life is about getting money whereas everything else that constitutes satisfaction or enjoyment of anything must be within Ne/Si.

But really concern for money, or enjoyment, or whether one seems to be a go-getter or not, is less related to this dichotomy than people think.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[crazedrat]

www.shutthefuckuppleaseimmediately.com

[717495]

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)".

It's fair to say I have no interest in these direct sources of entertainment like Harry Potter, but this is some stereotype that happens to fit for me. However sources all feed my inspiration is some way, and what ends up building is one of these worlds internally and nonexpressively. This is just one way, the analogous way of going about intuition, of just this one function out of the others, as to how my dominant function Ni is provided for. With any function's introverted or extroverted counterpart, one is perceived along the same field of knowledge, and that one is just done so in a sort of retrograde compared to the other. However I'm aware you have a tentative typing of me as an Ne ego, and this perception of fantasy worlds seem to only come in one form to you, and that would be of the Ne ego. However I think you miss the fact that attractions to these sources come in different reasons. What I think you're doing is associating a field with an information element, and not looking at how any function can perceive the field in a different way, none any more positive or negative, as they each are founded on a unique scale. I can see how mistakes can be made with such a limited stereotype that I do not know the origin of. The definition of Ni/Ne seem to continuously change with some people, so I can only assume you're usually wrong if you're usually changing your impressions on the IMs.

[Gilly]

The thing with DnD is, to me, it has nothing to do with "developing the world" in any concrete sense. The most interesting thing to me is my character growing, acquiring new abilities and getting stronger. I don't really "get into" the world, or even imagine its physical existence, at all. I'm more interested in seeing how I can manipulate the environment using my character and my own natural ingenuity.

[Gilly]

I think the mistake you are making, Archon, is attributing a "concrete" correlation to an abstract theory; there are no actual manifestations of Socionics functions, but only the differences in how people interpret situations differently.

[strrrng]

The thing with DnD is, to me, it has nothing to do with "developing the world" in any concrete sense. The most interesting thing to me is my character growing, acquiring new abilities and getting stronger. I don't really "get into" the world, or even imagine its physical existence, at all. I'm more interested in seeing how I can manipulate the environment using my character and my own natural ingenuity.

So? His point is that the plot and development of that type of thing unfolds in an Si manner -- gradual, sequential, filled with detail even if 'subjective', intricate yet all intertwined within the explicit context (as opposed to Ni, which seems to evolve 'out of nowhere' or have no direction).

Of course, I was absorbed in pokemon too. This is just about, as you said, peoples' interpretations -- specifically the subjectively-perceived developing context.

I think the mistake you are making, Archon, is attributing a "concrete" correlation to an abstract theory; there are no actual manifestations of Socionics functions, but only the differences in how people interpret situations differently.

You can't seriously be criticizing him on this, Mr. That Guy Has A Gun And Will Shoot Me = SeTi.

[Gilly]

So? His point is that the plot and development of that type of thing unfolds in an Si manner -- gradual, sequential, filled with detail even if 'subjective', intricate yet all intertwined within the explicit context (as opposed to Ni, which seems to evolve 'out of nowhere' or have no direction).

Right, that's one aspect of it. Doesn't mean it's the only reason DnD might appeal to someone.

Of course, I was absorbed in pokemon too. This is just about, as you said, peoples' interpretations -- specifically the subjectively-perceived developing context.

Right. See, the things I enjoyed about Pokemon were Se/Ni related: getting stronger, trouncing your rival when he tries to halt your progress at key moments, acquiring new moves, evolving into something better, faster, stronger, etc.

You can't seriously be criticizing him on this, Mr. That Guy Has A Gun And Will Shoot Me = SeTi.

There's a difference. I was talking about a cognitive process; he is trying to make a broad-spectrum correlation. If he said "People who like DnD for reason x are type y" then I wouldn't have a problem, but he's basically saying "People who like fantasy worlds are Si/Ne and Ni/Se types all think this is rubbish, with only minor exceptions."

Personally, I like fantasy for the idea of something grandiose going on, a sense of largeresque, a grand picture, the idea that these people lived in turbulent and significant times. It has nothing to do with enjoying the "atmosphere" of the story or the little physical details; sometimes those help to create a picture and add interesting nuance, but that's not what I'm in it for; to me, it's about the overall impression I get from the long-term evolution of the story.

[Jonathan]

CRAP. I just lost a long post. GAHHH. ARRRRGHHAH. I think I explained myself well, and now it's gone.

Let's see if I can summarize.

-General trends do not mean a direct 1:1 correlation between types and the trend.

I know how frustrating that can be...anyhow, I think you explained pretty well. Was this related to my post or something else?

I think what you're pointing out is that Socionics stuff can be manifested in many different ways, and so there may be some examples that are good representations of certain types as a whole, but that doesn't mean that those Socionics elements/types are manifested that way for everyone in those types....and also that some things in Socionics may be generally right but not apply 100% to everyone. (Is that kind of what you're saying? I know I've been accused of reading too fast before pulling the trigger when posting...)

My point though isn't that the Reinin descriptions quoted above don't apply to everyone; it's that they're not even an accurate description of the general overall trend.

I think the typical Reinin descriptions overall are biased by the fact that the people who came up with them were trying to explain traits of people unlike themselves in terms of the dichotomies (e.g., they see traits other people have that they don't share and then they think "so what types are those")...and that lead them in wrong, misleading, or inconsistent directions. And yes, probably a lot of what they came up with are possible manifestations of Socionics concepts, but what I'm contesting is that they're good descriptions of the trend.

Here's another example: Elsewhere, I read something that said that the Ni/Se types need to drink alcohol to relax or else have a scheduled vacation or party or movie or something. Now, yeah I can see how there may be people like that where those behaviors also related to their being Ni/Se. But I don't think the statement is even true of most Ni/Ses. I think it's at best only a minority.

Also, I think that extraverts may seem more "mobilized" than introverts, and may possibly be more inclined to have to go out to parties and stuff like that to relax...but that's a whole other issue.

[Jonathan]

PS...By the way, for those people who self-type as Gamma or Beta:

Would you rather have a job where you love what you did and it was close by and the people there are nice, and pays enough so you're not going to end up in deep financial trouble just trying to live simply, or a job that you hate where it's not really what you enjoy doing, and there are a lot of office "politics" and it's a long drive, and the place has a foul odor and is noisy, but it pays a little more so that you can buy fancier stuff?

(I know I'm kind of exaggerating in the description...just trying to make things a little more concrete....because I think stuff gets said in Socionics and it just sort of passes by unquestioned, but as soon as you flesh out what's saying, people may have a different impression.)

[Lotus]

PS...By the way, for those people who self-type as Gamma or Beta:

Would you rather have a job where you love what you did and it was close by and the people there are nice, and pays enough so you're not going to end up in deep financial trouble just trying to live simply, or a job that you hate where it's not really what you enjoy doing, and there are a lot of office "politics" and it's a long drive, and the place has a foul odor and is noisy, but it pays a little more so that you can buy fancier stuff?

I would pick the bolded. I don't need fancier stuff, tbh. Maybe I would do a shittier job so that I could travel more. I would love to see more places, etc. But that's it.

[strrrng]

Right, that's one aspect of it. Doesn't mean it's the only reason DnD might appeal to someone.

Right. See, the things I enjoyed about Pokemon were Se/Ni related: getting stronger, trouncing your rival when he tries to halt your progress at key moments, acquiring new moves, evolving into something better, faster, stronger, etc.

I guess you could say that these were stereotypically Se/Ni related, but I don't think it's a legitimate claim one way or the other. I'm sure my Fi-ENFp brother relished in these things (as he has in other video games like Halo 3, Call of Duty, even this fucking star wars shit), yet the manner in which he absorbed himself in the subjective development, the integration with whatever he was doing, still reflected an Si/Ne preference. That's why functions are cool, cause someone may "do" something supposedly according to one function, yet still go about it via the manner of another. Ah, the beauty of not conflating behavior with cognition

There's a difference. I was talking about a cognitive process; he is trying to make a broad-spectrum correlation. If he said "People who like DnD for reason x are type y" then I wouldn't have a problem, but he's basically saying "People who like fantasy worlds are Si/Ne and Ni/Se types all think this is rubbish, with only minor exceptions."

True, he was categorizing things; but I'm sure if you asked him about how it related to the function pairs, he could have easily given just as substantial a justification as you did for your example (which was pretty facile, for the most part). So... just because his rests on a categorization and yours doesn't, doesn't mean that you weren't categorizing on some level, and wouldn't create such a thing based on similar, hypostatized examples

Personally, I like fantasy for the idea of something grandiose going on, a sense of largeresque, a grand picture, the idea that these people lived in turbulent and significant times. It has nothing to do with enjoying the "atmosphere" of the story or the little physical details; sometimes those help to create a picture and add interesting nuance, but that's not what I'm in it for; to me, it's about the overall impression I get from the long-term evolution of the story.

Yeah, I generally relate to this. Personally, I don't find fantasy in its common forms desirable at all. I may possess 'fantastical' visions and such, but to me they are always related to a relevant, abstract theme that pervades timelines and contexts, not just some washed up delusion I concocted in boredom. And that's sort of the difference Jake was alluding to: that Si/Ne valuers seem to enjoy simply creating fantasy worlds in their heads more, because it allows them to explore an explicitly-manifest, subjective context (Si) in full detail, with a focus on all the different variations and abstract potentials that exist within its development (Ne). But... see, Ni/Se people, while possessing a more abstract lens with the subjective context, only focus on what they deem as relevant, centralized themes... so, a story-line or whatever could have a bunch of latent, embedded themes into it which would find no tangible manifestation, except in the observable qualities injected throughout the story (Se), i.e. the "real, direct" experience at that moment. So, the formerly-described style makes for a more integrative, stereotypically imaginative one than the latter, often times.

[strrrng]

Would you rather have a job where you love what you did and it was close by and the people there are nice, and pays enough so you're not going to end up in deep financial trouble just trying to live simply, or a job that you hate where it's not really what you enjoy doing, and there are a lot of office "politics" and it's a long drive, and the place has a foul odor and is noisy, but it pays a little more so that you can buy fancier stuff?

Um, the former without a fucking doubt lol. Firstly, material things mean shit to me (zomg he's not Se valuing!); secondly, I would never do something I disliked simply for extra money. Even if the difference in pay was substantial, who cares? If you can live happily, doing something you love, around people you appreciate and who appreciate you, everything is fine. God, I would kill myself if I ever got sucked into the other kind of situation.

[Gilly]

I guess you could say that these were stereotypically Se/Ni related, but I don't think it's a legitimate claim one way or the other. I'm sure my Fi-ENFp brother relished in these things (as he has in other video games like Halo 3, Call of Duty, even this fucking star wars shit), yet the manner in which he absorbed himself in the subjective development, the integration with whatever he was doing, still reflected an Si/Ne preference. That's why functions are cool, cause someone may "do" something supposedly according to one function, yet still go about it via the manner of another. Ah, the beauty of not conflating behavior with cognition

What a fucking cop out

True, he was categorizing things; but I'm sure if you asked him about how it related to the function pairs, he could have easily given just as substantial a justification as you did for your example (which was pretty facile, for the most part). So... just because his rests on a categorization and yours doesn't, doesn't mean that you weren't categorizing on some level, and wouldn't create such a thing based on similar, hypostatized examples

The point is, I gave a cognitive analysis; he made a sweeping generalization.

Yeah, I generally relate to this. Personally, I don't find fantasy in its common forms desirable at all. I may possess 'fantastical' visions and such, but to me they are always related to a relevant, abstract theme that pervades timelines and contexts, not just some washed up delusion I concocted in boredom.

Right, it's more personal than that. It's not just a day-trip to Never Never Land; it's about weaving between overriding themes that characterize and influence subjective perception, developed themes that re-manifest in seemingly strange places via abstract associations given certain environmental "triggers."

[strrrng]

What a fucking cop out

What are you talking about, nigga?

The point is, I gave a cognitive analysis; he made a sweeping generalization.

I wouldn't go so far as to call your description a cognitive analysis, lol. You basically took the O/F, I/E, S/D dichotomies, directly correlated them with some concrete example (i.e. the explicit quality = this guy has a gun, the explicit distance between us = he could harm me), and acted as if it was representative of the cognitive process. THE DICHOTOMIES ARE GENERAL REDUCTIONS TO GIVE A BRIEF ABSTRACT DEPICTION OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES IN FUNCTIONS OPERATION NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AS THE WAY THEY WORK ON A CONCRETE BEHAVIORAL LEVEL

[Gilly]

What are you talking about, nigga?

You know exactly what I'm talking about, lol.

I wouldn't go so far as to call your description a cognitive analysis, lol. You basically took the O/F, I/E, S/D dichotomies, directly correlated them with some concrete example (i.e. the explicit quality = this guy has a gun, the explicit distance between us = he could harm me), and acted as if it was representative of the cognitive process. THE DICHOTOMIES ARE GENERAL REDUCTIONS TO GIVE A BRIEF ABSTRACT DEPICTION OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES IN FUNCTIONS OPERATION NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AS THE WAY THEY WORK ON A CONCRETE BEHAVIORAL LEVEL

I see that you think the example was irrelevant or at least petty, but I don't see how this applies to your beef with what I am accusing Archon of.

And yeah, I do think it is representative of an ABSTRACTION of the cognitive process. That's OBVIOUSLY not what actually goes on in the neurons in our brains, or the exact way people's thoughts are processed. Totally different story.

[Lotus]

lol I would love to meet Gilly and Nick together in person. You two act like squabbling brothers or something.

[Gilly]

It's almost like we have something in common

[Lotus]

yeah, you're both like totally deluded, fantastical, and sometimes charming but usually douchey.

[strrrng]

You know exactly what I'm talking about, lol.

No, I really don't. I could reread my example and try to figure out how one could construe it as a cop-out, but I don't give enough of a motherfuck to do so.

I see that you think the example was irrelevant or at least petty, but I don't see how this applies to your beef with what I am accusing Archon of.

Because you engaged in just as simplistic/facile/categorical an "analysis" as he did, even if it wasn't expressed in exactly the same way.

And yeah, I do think it is representative of an ABSTRACTION of the cognitive process. That's OBVIOUSLY not what actually goes on in the neurons in our brains, or the exact way people's thoughts are processed. Totally different story.

Not even the neurons, just the actual perception. And since the words are a brief abstraction, it follows that they shouldn't be taken as literal correlations to behavior, i.e. external may mean explicitly observable, but that doesn't mean that every explicitly observable thing will correlate to the definition.

lol I would love to meet Gilly and Nick together in person. You two act like squabbling brothers or something.

Oh, it would be a ball

[strrrng]

yeah, you're both like totally deluded, fantastical, and sometimes charming but usually douchey.

I tend to think I reside more on the charming end

[Expat]

Would you rather have a job where you love what you did and it was close by and the people there are nice, and pays enough so you're not going to end up in deep financial trouble just trying to live simply, or a job that you hate where it's not really what you enjoy doing, and there are a lot of office "politics" and it's a long drive, and the place has a foul odor and is noisy, but it pays a little more so that you can buy fancier stuff?

The problem with your question, Jonathan, is that you made one job sound like paradise, and the other job, a living hell that just pays "a little more". The way you phrased it, you're almost making it impossible for anyone to pick the latter choice - except someone whose only concern is money - a "little more money" - to the total exclusion of everything else.

I will answer the question you should have asked: between a job that offers short-term convenience and comfort (even from a financial point of view), but seems to me to be going nowhere professionally, and a job that involves some immediate inconvenience (of whatever kind), but seems to offer the best outcome in the longer term, I will be inclined to pick the latter.

[The Exception]

I will answer the question you should have asked: between a job that offers short-term convenience and comfort (even from a financial point of view), but seems to me to be going nowhere professionally, and a job that involves some immediate inconvenience (of whatever kind), but seems to offer the best outcome in the longer term, I will be inclined to pick the latter.

Same here, even though LIIs are said to prefer the reasonable side of the dichotomy. Most of the LIIs I know would also prefer the latter in this case.

[strrrng]

I will answer the question you should have asked: between a job that offers short-term convenience and comfort (even from a financial point of view), but seems to me to be going nowhere professionally, and a job that involves some immediate inconvenience (of whatever kind), but seems to offer the best outcome in the longer term, I will be inclined to pick the latter.

Yeah, that's a bit different. It would depend on what profession I was in and how concerned I was with moving up in it. But, I wouldn't want to reside in any stagnating environment for too long. It's one thing if you have a consistent, decent job that's fulfilling and are surrounded by people you like; it's another to be doing something average, simply to get by and maintain an easy sense of comfort -- there is no challenge or personal growth there. So, in this sense, I would probably choose the latter, assuming I cared about the profession, simply because I would be more inclined to overcome obstacles than coast by in an idle existence.

[Gilly]

No, I really don't. I could reread my example and try to figure out how one could construe it as a cop-out, but I don't give enough of a motherfuck to do so.

You basically said "Well yeah that stuff is pretty Se/Ni in general but anyone can see it that way so it doesn't really matter."

Because you engaged in just as simplistic/facile/categorical an "analysis" as he did, even if it wasn't expressed in exactly the same way.

I don't see how it's facile. Given the definitions, it's perfectly legitimate. I know that's not what you think Se+Ti is, but that's how it goes when you use the IM definitions.

Not even the neurons, just the actual perception. And since the words are a brief abstraction, it follows that they shouldn't be taken as literal correlations to behavior, i.e. external may mean explicitly observable, but that doesn't mean that every explicitly observable thing will correlate to the definition.

Sigh. What is the "Actual perception?" There are no words that indicate the actual perception, so of course it's impossible to define the act of perceiving something. What it IS possible to define, however, is the aspect of reality that is being perceived. And it doesn't have to be in your vague, wishy-washy crap; there can be definitions. That example was extremely specific, but that doesn't make it any less an example of Se+Ti.

Oh, it would be a ball

Indeed. It would take a while to get rolling, but oh my...

[Gilly]

I will answer the question you should have asked: between a job that offers short-term convenience and comfort (even from a financial point of view), but seems to me to be going nowhere professionally, and a job that involves some immediate inconvenience (of whatever kind), but seems to offer the best outcome in the longer term, I will be inclined to pick the latter.

+1

[strrrng]

You basically said "Well yeah that stuff is pretty Se/Ni in general but anyone can see it that way so it doesn't really matter."

What I was pointing to, was that it could be vaguely categorized as Se+Ti, based on some simplification of the functional definitions, but that intrinsically, anyone could process such a thing, and still not use Se+Ti (because it isn't function-related essentially).

I don't see how it's facile. Given the definitions, it's perfectly legitimate. I know that's not what you think Se+Ti is, but that's how it goes when you use the IM definitions.

It's only "legitimate" in the sense that it can't be completely contradicted, based on the literal interpretation of a simplified set of explicit definitions. That doesn't make it legitimate in reality, just in accordance with some framework.

Sigh. What is the "Actual perception?" There are no words that indicate the actual perception, so of course it's impossible to define the act of perceiving something. What it IS possible to define, however, is the aspect of reality that is being perceived. And it doesn't have to be in your vague, wishy-washy crap; there can be definitions. That example was extremely specific, but that doesn't make it any less an example of Se+Ti.

"Actual perception" = the functions people are actually using and the more complex ways they are interpreting things. It's about noticing the subtleties in how people go about these things that, despite varying manners in what they do, don't vary at all.

It is possible to generally define a conceptual categorization that correlates with a subjectively-defined idea of what the psychological process is actually dealing with.

Excessive specificity does nullify qualitative correlation. You can't just over-commensurate things and act as if they possess the same level of substance.

Indeed. It would take a while to get rolling, but oh my...

lol. *considers stickam antics x100*

[Gilly]

What I was pointing to, was that it could be vaguely categorized as Se+Ti, based on some simplification of the functional definitions, but that intrinsically, anyone could process such a thing, and still not use Se+Ti (because it isn't function-related essentially).

sigh.

It's only "legitimate" in the sense that it can't be completely contradicted, based on the literal interpretation of a simplified set of explicit definitions. That doesn't make it legitimate in reality, just in accordance with some framework.

Yes, and we're TALKING about a framework. That's what a theory IS, except in your little world where you understand everything and it fits just fine in your head.

"Actual perception" = the functions people are actually using and the more complex ways they are interpreting things. It's about noticing the subtleties in how people go about these things that, despite varying manners in what they do, don't vary at all.

It is possible to generally define a conceptual categorization that correlates with a subjectively-defined idea of what the psychological process is actually dealing with.

Excessive specificity does nullify qualitative correlation. You can't just over-commensurate things and act as if they possess the same level of substance.

I can't even be bothered to wade through all of this bullshit. Go on pretending whatever you like, nick.

lol. *considers stickam antics x100*

*taps fingers maliciously*

[Lotus]

I tend to think I reside more on the charming end

You have your moments.

I will answer the question you should have asked: between a job that offers short-term convenience and comfort (even from a financial point of view), but seems to me to be going nowhere professionally, and a job that involves some immediate inconvenience (of whatever kind), but seems to offer the best outcome in the longer term, I will be inclined to pick the latter.

I would agree with this as well.

Indeed. It would take a while to get rolling, but oh my...

lol. *considers stickam antics x100*

*taps fingers maliciously*

God, hopefully not.

[strrrng]

sigh.




Yes, and we're TALKING about a framework. That's what a theory IS, except in your little world where you understand everything and it fits just fine in your head.

Whatever I have a framework; I just don't view it as some immutable set of definitions that takes precedent over variations.

I can't even be bothered to wade through all of this bullshit. Go on pretending whatever you like, nick.

Who's pretending?

*taps fingers maliciously*

*chuckles indifferently*

[strrrng]

You have your moments.

Ah huh.

God, hopefully not.

Yeah. I guess you wouldn't want to lose that much control over yourself (given what already happened in stickam lol).

[Gilly]

Whatever I have a framework; I just don't view it as some immutable set of definitions that takes precedent over variations.

But my framework allows for plenty of variation. Sure, each little tidbit has a solid interpretation, but as a whole picture of perception, a greater picture can be painted. It's like your computer screen: one little dot may be wholly and completely white, but that doesn't mean that the whole picture has to be white, or even shaded white; it could appear nearly black from a larger perspective. That's how perception works: we vary in what we see or are considering or placing emphasis on moment from moment, but in the greater picture, a pattern emerges.

Granted, that's a horrible way to go about typing people (hence why I rely on my impressions for such things), but as far as the theoretical framework goes, at least it's something to go on, rather than having vague, impressionistic ideas about what people are like that are susceptible to being "fooled" by outward behavior, and the vagueries of which lend themselves to misinterpretation, rationalization, and charlatanism.

Who's pretending?

You are, at least insofar as you believe you have a transmissable, valid system of typology. I'm not saying you get it all wrong, because I use my impressions too, but I think you are missing out.