Give me some ideas what information this is related to?

[mu4]

i always think to myself "WHY HE DID THIS" not "how he did this"
when you starting to look
at why's
you notice much more
its much deeper
than you actually see
somebody can act flirty
and there is the reason why he is like that
maybe he is not a big flirt in general
somebody can act depressed
and be totally happy
but why he acts this way?

Give me some ideas what information this is related to?

[12345]

Fi? It may depend on the context.

[mu4]

Fi? It may depend on the context.

why static?

what is being described is dynamic?

Mood, motive, change

Why is it ethics of relations, Attraction, repulsion?

Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.

[12345]

"WHY HE DID THIS" not "how he did this"

Relation
Object

understanding the (...) nature (...) of personal relations

However, like i said, I'm not sure.

[mu4]

Relation
Object

However, like i said, I'm not sure.

It's ethical I think, but relation?

The why being suggested I don't see as attraction or repulsion.

"somebody can act flirty
and there is the reason why he is like that"

"somebody can act depressed
and be totally happy"

"but why he acts this way?"

Is the context something like this? I don't see any qualities described below being shown.

Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.

But other qualities are being shown. Words are being used to describe, "Flirty, depressed, happy".

[Gilly]

Ni and/or Fe.

To rephrase: instead of "why did he do this?" think "What was his goal in doing this?" or "What internal state at that moment caused him to behave in such a way?"

[12345]

Ni and/or Fe.

Yeah, it's possible. If, then Ni and Fe.

To rephrase: instead of "why did he do this?" think "What was his goal in doing this?" or "What internal state at that moment caused him to behave in such a way?"

or "what kind of person he is, and how can I jujdge his act through the prism of his approach to life"
Without a context we can only guess

[mu4]

Ni and/or Fe.

To rephrase: instead of "why did he do this?" think "What was his goal in doing this?" or "What internal state at that moment caused him to behave in such a way?"

Are you sure you're not rephrasing this with your own personal information elements?

Introverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.

The verbalization is strictly in the past and turn into the present. No estimation of future behavior is speculated on. In fact it is entirely situational and non-causal.

"somebody can act flirty
and there is the reason why he is like that
maybe he is not a big flirt in general"

"somebody can act depressed
and be totally happy
but why he acts this way"

But reasons and evaluations are being processed instead of just perception.

"its much deeper
than you actually see"

[Gilly]

or "what kind of person he is, and how can I jujdge his act through the prism of his approach to life"

That would be the Ne + Fi approach to the same issue, I suppose.

From the broadest perspective possible, it's about seeing patterns in people's behavior and "seeing more" to them than they might show in an immediate context. So obvious we're working with Intuition and Ethics; we might need more information about the author to deduce his/her type, because the example doesn't quite give us everything we need to type him/her.

However I see, above all, an interest in the causal emotional process that "leads" to a specific behavior: what were the events that led up to this particular behavior. Were there more focus on how a specific behavior deviated from a person's normal self, then I would say Ne+Fi would be a better fit.

[mu4]

From the broadest perspective possible, it's about seeing patterns in people's behavior and "seeing more" to them than they might show in an immediate context. So obvious we're working with Intuition and Ethics.

However I see, above all, an interest in the causal emotional process that "leads" to a specific behavior: what were the events that led up to this particular behavior. Were there more focus on how a specific behavior deviated from a person's normal self, then I would say Ne+Fi would be a better fit.

"somebody can act flirty
and there is the reason why he is like that
maybe he is not a big flirt in general"

"somebody can act depressed
and be totally happy
but why he acts this way"

Is it about seeing patterns or exceptions and situations?

We can frame the two observations in a more structured manner.

Someone can act a certain way
But whats the dynamic
That causes the behavior outside the normal behavior

Any more ideas?

[Gilly]

Are you sure you're not rephrasing this with your own personal information elements?

Not entirely, but I think we should actually examine what's being said before jumping to conclusions.

The verbalization is strictly in the past and turn into the present. No estimation of future behavior is speculated on.

Ok, but just because there's no future emphasis doesn't negate the fact that other criteria for Ni are present.

In fact it is entirely situational and non-causal.

I disagree, it seems to be asking "What are the things that would lead this person to behave differently from how they normally are?"

But reasons and evaluations are being processed instead of just perception

Right, reasons as in motivations, as in the subjective content or preference in the situation that caused a person to act a specific way: "What led to this?"

[Gilly]

Is it about seeing patterns or exceptions?

Now that you phrase it that way, the overall focus is on the fact that said behavior might be an exception, so perhaps we are dealing with Ne+Fi.

[mu4]

Now that you phrase it that way, the overall focus is on the fact that said behavior might be an exception, so perhaps we are dealing with Ne+Fi.

I've only tried to show the structure of it.

It is perception of dynamic in the static, and you think this is Ne+Fi, two static elements?

I'll be more general.

"somebody can act flirty
and there is the reason why he is like that
maybe he is not a big flirt in general"

"somebody can act depressed
and be totally happy
but why he acts this way"

Someone can act a certain emotion situationally
And there is a reason why
But maybe this is not the normal emotional state

First there is a dynamic information observation

Then there is a information request

The static observation is left speculative(maybe)

[tereg]

Sounds mainly to me

[Gilly]

Well, I think what is being primarily examined, what there is the most emphasis on throughout the poem, is the confluence of processes that leads to the observed behavior: Ni+Fe. However, the focus of the poet seems to be on the fact that an observed behavior might not necessarily be characteristic of the individual in question, which makes me think that the poet is probably an Ne+Fi type.

[mu4]

It's not a poem.

[Gilly]

Ok, well it was structured like one, so I just assumed.

[Gilly]

Why don't you stop being pedantic and tell us what you think it is and why?

[Gilly]

You think it's a Ti type asking for Fe? An Fi type asking for Te?

[mu4]

Sounds mainly to me

What relationships/attraction/repulsion is being discussed?

[mu4]

You think it's a Ti type asking for Fe? An Fi type asking for Te?

This is not a test, I want to see what other people think.

If I had to describe it, it's emotional observations asking for a internal reason, respecting multiple and opposing possibilities for a persons natural state.

It seems a lot of conscious thought is being channeled into this method of thinking.

As far as possible alternatives to the questions and observations that can posed by different people

What did the person want?
What profit did that behavior engender?
What kind of person is he to do this?
Is this person depressed?
Is this person flirty?
Is this person interested in me?
Is this person going thru some troubles?
Did I do something to make this person depressed?

But the question is...

WHY HE DID THIS [Based on emotional observations]

And this is the request.

[Gilly]

So you're not testing; just being testy.

*sigh*

[mu4]

So you're not testing; just being testy.

*sigh*

I'm just asking questions and making observations.

I might be being cold, but not testy. I also try not to use the symbols unless I have to. I'm trying to describe things in plain words, once something is described then we can associate.

[tereg]

What relationships/attraction/repulsion is being discussed?

It is the relationship between, or the linkage of the speculated motivation of certain actions of a person other than yourself to what it actually is. It seeks to understand a motivation that is foreign to oneself, but open to accepting it once it is understood. The person who tries to and succeeds in understanding the foreign motivation (and accepts the rationale) feels a deeper sense of bond through a sense of emotional discovery.

Edit: Another example would be gaining an understanding of an action that is foreign to oneself, but is perhaps more skeptical of its rationale. Repulsion comes when the rationale does not fall in line with their code of ethics. Hence, the motivation might be understood, but it does not satisfy the person's ethics.

[mu4]

It is the relationship between, or the linkage of the speculated motivation of certain actions of a person other than yourself to what it actually is. It seeks to understand a motivation that is foreign to oneself, but open to accepting it once it is understood. The person who tries to and succeeds in understanding the foreign motivation feels a deeper sense of bond through a sense of emotional discovery.

The bold is not being verbalized, you're reading into it a bit and I think thru your own ego elements.

As far as as how motivations(emotions) are recognized and discovered verses assessment of closeness, likes and dislikes, it is described as thus below.

Extroverted ethics is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings.

Introverted ethics is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an Fe approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked").

[mu4]

Another example would be gaining an understanding of an action that is foreign to oneself, but is perhaps more skeptical of its rationale. Repulsion comes when the rationale does not fall in line with their code of ethics. Hence, the motivation might be understood, but it does not satisfy the person's ethics.

Understanding something that is foreign to oneself.

This seems somehow more object oriented, the object being the foreign object that is not oneself. And the perception of that internal fluctuation within that person.

Where as is described as internal as well as a field and the distance between two people as assessed by oneself.

[iAnnAu]

All that stood out to me is that it sounds almost exactly how Merky posts. Blunt but tentative, jumping around but impatient to get to the point. I wondered if you took just phrases out of a larger dialogue?

ETA: It also just occurred to me that it looks like it was lifted out of an AIM chat or something. I've noticed people tend to communicate in chat very differently than otherwise ...

[mu4]

All that stood out to me is that it sounds almost exactly how Merky posts. Blunt but tentative, jumping around but impatient to get to the point. I wondered if you took just phrases out of a larger dialogue?

ETA: It also just occurred to me that it looks like it was lifted out of an AIM chat or something. I've noticed people tend to communicate in chat very differently than otherwise ...

It is just someone describing how they always think, it's not really related to any context. So this is why I wanted to analyze it. It's outside of context.

I can notices a focus on people, so ethical. I can notice observation of emotions, request for internal reason(but not some estimation of relational closeness) and respect that it is perhaps just a temporary expression versus some character quality.

[tereg]

Understanding something that is foreign to oneself.

This seems somehow more object oriented, the object being the foreign object that is not oneself. And the perception of that internal fluctuation within that person.

This is why I think what is in the OP is static in nature. The thing that is being analyzed and understood is an "object" called "the motivation".

Where as is described as internal as well as a field and the distance between two people as assessed by oneself.

Right. The processing of the understanding is a rather internal process. You are relying on your own intuition and experience to build and recreate something that you initially do not understand. The closer you can get to recreating the actual object and its primary building blocks, the more understanding you start to gain from it.

[mu4]

This is why I think what is in the OP is static in nature. The thing that is being analyzed and understood is an "object" called "the motivation".

is not a object, it's a field.

is a object and called the "the motivation".

Latin = Emotivo

[Gilly]

You're not being "cold," just annoying. You ask for my observations, then you question them as though you know better, without raising any real objections.

[tereg]

The bold is not being verbalized, you're reading into it a bit and I think thru your own ego elements.

What I'm saying is that the motivation itself to understand another person's motivations is largely to compare it to one's own code of ethics or standards. I was simply trying to respond to why the process is done in the first place (to understand so that we can either appreciate the gain in knowledge and empathy or gain clarity of the rationale to better be able to compare with an internal ethic -- to which it can either be accepted or rejected).

[tereg]

is not a object, it's a field.

is a object and called the "the motivation".

Latin = Emotivo

Ok, this largely depends on how the understanding is achieved, yes?

How is the understanding processed?

[FDG]

Fi will use the Fe strictly depending on the structure of the field, while Fe will try to use it and eventually, afterwards, if really necessary, mold it.

[mu4]

Ok, this largely depends on how the understanding is achieved, yes?

How is the understanding processed?

Is it being processed? Or is there is a request for additional information.

What is being observed consciously, "Emotion"
What is being sought, "Reason"
What is not determined, "Character"

[tereg]

Is it being processed? Or is there is a request for additional information.

This is what I mean. Some people need to request externally for more information. Other people call on their own set of intuition/experiences/speculations

[mu4]

This is what I mean. Some people need to request externally for more information. Other people call on their own set of intuition/experiences/speculations

So do you think it could be emotion requesting reason rejecting assessment based on the situation?

So someone that is perceptive of others emotional states, seeks understanding of others and reject categorical assessment.

[mu4]

You're not being "cold," just annoying. You ask for my observations, then you question them as though you know better, without raising any real objections.

I seek to understand others perspectives, so I ask questions. I know your perspective only thru what is told and what I can analyze. So I ask questions to clarify.

For objections, my own perspective is objection enough.
I know my own perspective better so this is where my confidence resides.

[Gilly]

Yeah but you never actually raised any objections, other than the apparent fact that you thought I was missing something.

[mu4]

Yeah but you never actually raised any objections, other than the apparent fact that you thought I was missing something.

My perspective is my objection, where it differs from yours is the objection, where it is the same there is no objection.

You raise some objections which are not really objections.

I disagree, it seems to be asking "What are the things that would lead this person to behave differently from how they normally are?"

This is a situational question. What are the things that (situationally) would lead this person to behave differently from how they normally are?

Situation normal vs situation abnormal.

I will take back the non-causal terminology as there are situational causes, which do not hold consistent over time and other causes which are more consistent over time.

Of course,

every unique event is a situation.

but when we describe a pattern from many situations there is one sort of analysis,

when we seek to describe the specifics of a single situation there is another sort of analysis.