The Suggestive Function: Cruel Oppressor of the Young

[Marie84]

I've always had difficulties differentiating necessary actions/information as well as being able to develop information via my own understanding.
Some examples;
In school, I would copy every word of info my teachers wrote down (if it wasn't already provided from a sheet). An LII friend of mine used to tell me that I just needed to write down the basics and word them in a language that was useful to me (which was true, but didn't help me much).
I can't evaluate the efficiency of what I'm doing, if I'm given a deadline (for instance) I'll use that entire period to work and revise it even if I probably didn't need to. A lot of the time I've put something out there that I worked really hard on and later find out I neglected more necessary input.

Another big downfall is a rather unwarranted annoyance of people who disregard Te.
I recently got into a scuffle with my ILE mom, who spent a bunch of money trying to plant her own garden from seedlings (keeping in mind she knows squat about botany).
Low and behold, nothing grew and I asked her why she didn't bother asking professionals/seeking professional sources on *how* to go about doing this properly, she figured that it was all common sense and didn't require experience. In which she did this *again* without doing what I said above and it, again, didn't grow. I see this as a massive waste of time and money that could have been easily solved by not relying on ones own understanding and instead looking to reliable sources

[Marie84]

@HaveLucidDreamz regarding the mini-essay on the pros and cons of fantasy: well said, sir. I agree with your premise. Fantasies are a lot like alcohol -- they can be an entertaining diversion, and also provide relief from emotional pain, but in so doing both present a danger to the weak-willed of becoming addictive and preventing one from dealing with one's problems.



Those are... highly non-standard definitions. Is this your own theory, or are you arguing that this is how classical socionics defines the elements?

As I understand it, Si is primarily concerned with monitoring the flow of physical sensation: comfort/discomfort, (physical) pleasure/pain, wet/dry, rough/smooth, sweet/sour, etc. It's the dynamic connections between physical processes.

Fe, on the other hand, monitors the dynamic internal emotional state: happy/sad/angy/calm/excited/passionate/melancholy, etc. Fe isn't "about" anything, although it can be caused by things -- Si, for example: "This comfortable chair makes me feel happy!" Or Ni: "This dream for the future I have makes me feel passionate!"

Fi is feelings and sentiments "about" things: like/dislike, respect/disrespect, good/bad, admiration/scorn, acceptance/rejection, etc. It categorizes people and things according to personal sentiments.

Fe and Fi can be difficult to distinguish, because a lot of the English words we use to talk about feelings are ambiguous, and could refer to either one -- the word "feelings" itself, for example. Fe is often not even expressed in words, but in tone of voice and body language.

The best way I can think of to sum it up is that Fi is opinion and sentiment about things, while Fe is inner emotional energy.

[stanprollyright]

I forgot to eat breakfast this morning. It completely slipped my mind.

[Mediator Kam]

I have never been able to aptly talk about myself positively because I really really need someone to be able to examine me in totality and choose what parts of my personality and actions have the most promise. I have failed a couple interviews because I am unable to give information that the interviewer wants to hear and I end up sounding like I am bragging on myself.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mediator Kam]

I think that's a wrong approach, to try to say what the other would like to hear. I was like this previously and I could not understand why I used to fail. Later I began to be myself, because if you try to please the ear of the interviewer you may end up into a hostile environment, they won't like you after all, if you're not what they thought. You won't like them as well.
Not only that being yourself brings you in places which can give you much more satisfaction, but IME you're even more successful - like you said, maybe trying to present your qualities in a certain manner makes them sound fake or inflated.

This is the thing. I am trying to be myself, but it's not working. Myself shouldn't be involved in working for a company, it should be making ice cream or something that is fun and makes people happy in a direct manner.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mediator Kam]

So that's probably what you're made for. Did you try non-profit organizations, helping foundations or things like this? Like Bardia does, you'll definitely not be refused having a such kind heard, well of course, unless there's a special position to whatever technical department, or something.

I should think about that. hmmm

[tcaudilllg]

): I read encyclopedias because no one wanted to be my friend.

Why not?

[Creepy-male]

I have failed a couple interviews because I am unable to give information that the interviewer wants to hear and I end up sounding like I am bragging on myself.

I think the key with interviews is to confine your explanations of yourself to things only of interest to the interviewer, rather than give them your personality profile/life story.

That confined perspective in the interview is just there to get at the point quicker (communication), so don't be all like "oh its a bunch of corporate dehumanization"...

Anyways things that are important are like qualifications, specifically in logical terms, not so much like personality traits, but what credentials you have that make you an asset for the organization. Some personality traits are good, but not too many -- think professional, like "positive", "solution oriented", and "team player".... also just don't bullshit them with buzzwords, be able to elaborate on why you feel these traits fit you and be honest.

By being honest I mean sincere, instead of completely bullshitting -- use exclusion, don't put focus on your blemishes, focus on your positive aspects to sell yourself to the prospective employer as a good fit for their organization. In other words, exclude negative information... which isn't the same as lying.

Which leads to the next point; outside of qualifications also be sure you have a rationale for why you want to work there or if its a higher level job, be sure you know about the corporation/company and the work they do and the industry they are in.

Really that's most of it, in my opinion... but then again I'm just playing the role of the self-proclaimed expert here.

Anyways the above, mastering all of that is the art of acing the interview. There is also the art of getting the interview.

[Mediator Kam]

This is why I mentioned this. I am Ne seeking during an interview. The interviewer is in a position of respect and regard for me(hence they can "help me" with what is bolded), so I throw everything but the kitchen sink at them, hoping they will latch onto stuff about me that are important to them as an employer. I am exaggerating a bit here, but changing diapers at a hospital, working a soup kitchen, and volunteering as a tutor are all equally valuable to me. As of now, I have no employment experience and I come home empty all the time. I read the books and think a lot about what I plan on saying, then I go there and not say much and when I start talking, I think it sounds great at the time, but then a couple days later, I realize the vapidity of my statements. I think it sounded great at the time, but only because what I said came to me off the top of my head.

I really feel I should be given a job without all these questions. Someone should be able to see my ability without it.