Caring for your Delta NF (INFj & ENFp)

[Absurd]

But well it's good to know that there are nice LSEs around

Yup, story of my life, you've got that right. I see you get on really well with your identical here as well, it puts a smile on my face and brights my day, heck, even night.

[moredhel]

Stuff

Quite comprehensive, I still disagree that Te + Si = detail orientated, perhaps it can be but I seriously doubt it always is (just look at the 1 line posts most LSE's around here do). I admit my original view of Ti was not accurate so your right to pull me up that.

Your guessing at my motivations for certain actions which would change the function weighting in performing them.
Anyway you've brought up enough so that I shall consider a type me thread and we can clarify this all further.

Sorry one more thing

LSEs like to plan every detail if it were to be possible. And then get all agitated and fearful if things don't go exactly the way they plan.

This is LSI behavior not LSE http://www.socionics.us/wikisocion/L...ntrovert.shtml check the Ne PoLR description, I have also noticed this in LSI's.

[Marie84]

Socionics.org states Ti is

(+) Specificity, detail, detailed study, the thoroughness, rigor, in the hierarchy, laws, regulations, instructions, choosing the best option, the logic of the organization (in the first place this feature in Maxim)

(-) Abstractness, generality, flexibility, system, classification, typology, general rules, objectivity, truth, justice, analysis, logic, science criteria. (In the first place this function in Robespierre)

And Si:

(+) Pleasant, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, attraction, recreation, health, relaxation, wellbeing, enjoyment, pleasure, sensitivity, (in the first place this function in Dumas)

(-) Discomfort, discomfort, inconvenience, disharmony, ugliness, unattractive, fatigue, stress, illness, poor health, suffering and pain. (In the first place, this function Gabin)

While these are vague descriptions they seem to be fairly consistent with aspects of Ti and Si from what I've read.
Detailing would probably apply to Si in the sense of aesthetics and physical sensations, like focusing on how a product is made (the quality and what not), understanding what makes and what needs to be done to make something more aesthetically complimentary (such as putting an outfit together) and recognizing and knowing how to tweak their environment to make it more sensory pleasurable for themselves and others

Detail in Ti I think applies more to the analytical sense, making things very structured and logically coherent to themselves

"Efficiency" is often -related as well, in fact I'd say getting things done in the minimum amount of time/effort is everything to do with , nothing to do with .

It took me a while to get my head around why I found LSEs so inefficient when there's so much " = efficiency" stuff floating around. LSE efficiency is like, "Let's do each little step faster! 10 minute lunchtime today!", whereas I'm thinking, "Look you twat, half these steps are unnecessary."

Good point

[moredhel]

SLI art - I think this is a good example of Te+Si flavoured detail-orientation.

Si + Te would be attention to detail to produce quality (keyword is quality not detail), not really what I was talking about, just like your upset with the use of "efficiency" I think "detail" is being used too narrowly.

"Efficiency" is often -related as well, in fact I'd say getting things done in the minimum amount of time/effort is everything to do with , nothing to do with .

It took me a while to get my head around why I found LSEs so inefficient when there's so much " = efficiency" stuff floating around. LSE efficiency is like, "Let's do each little step faster! 10 minute lunchtime today!", whereas I'm thinking, "Look you twat, half these steps are unnecessary."

Yes, Te dom can be efficiency/productivity for the sake efficiency/productivity if not supported by a bigger picture from somewhere else, another function or perhaps another person. I personally work better in groups for this very reason.

[moredhel]

Socionics.org states Ti is

(+) Specificity, detail, detailed study, the thoroughness, rigor, in the hierarchy, laws, regulations, instructions, choosing the best option, the logic of the organization (in the first place this feature in Maxim)

(-) Abstractness, generality, flexibility, system, classification, typology, general rules, objectivity, truth, justice, analysis, logic, science criteria. (In the first place this function in Robespierre)

And Si:


While these are vague descriptions they seem to be fairly consistent with aspects of Ti and Si from what I've read.
Detailing would probably apply to Si in the sense of aesthetics and physical sensations, like focusing on how a product is made (the quality and what not), understanding what makes and what needs to be done to make something more aesthetically complimentary (such as putting an outfit together) and recognizing and knowing how to tweak their environment to make it more sensory pleasurable for themselves and others

Detail in Ti I think applies more to the analytical sense, making things very structured and logically coherent to themselves

Thanks Marie, I knew Ti mentioned detail somewhere I just couldn't find it and I was starting to buckle. I attributed Ti to analytical detail for a good reason .

My earlier points relate to analytical learning and explanations in detail which I attribute more to Ti then Te.

Also Marista and possibly you too HunterX, if you're using JCF definitions I type as an ENTJ in pure Jung Cognitive Functions so make of that what you will, but please don't confuse it with my socionics typing.

[moredhel]

this is a devaluation of time (Ni)

Correct that is what I was getting at when I posted that...in the Ni PoLR thread.

This constitute a devaluation of "efficiency" on both counts: Te and Ni (Te because Gamma Te valuers especially tend to want to get it done and over with as soon as possible without excessive regard for quality and perfection)

No it doesn't, the time spent going the extra mile is still productive/efficient and this is an outside case when Si has kicked in for a desire of quality. Still LSE.

In the Ni PoLR thread:

This is another indicator of Ni devaluing in favor of Si. Although I am aware that it does not necessarily point away from Ni valuing, it is difficult for me to see an Ni leading individual not valuing Ni matters like hidden meaning, symbolism, philosophical questions (I identify very much with such, though I can't speak for other IEIs and ILIs). Si also personally feels to me more "shallow" than Ni.

Again as an LSE I have an Ni PoLR so

Ti does mention analytical detail, but you first mentioned it in the context of your aversion towards Ti as "unnecessary detail".

Unnecessary is a subjective word. I consider analytical detail unnecessary in achieving a goal. You don't need to understand something inside out to use it effectively.

Which is very much "related" detail rather than "unnecessary" detail. The unnecessary detail you complain of, I insist is common to Te+Si. The SLIs and LSEs I know speak a fogton of everyday nonsense in all its factual detail it's worse than the worst lullaby.

I think you confuse LSE's with LSI's at least you were with you other point about planning for all instances and being upset if things don't go to plan. The LSE's I know vary but are normally fairly to the point. I don't know any SLI's though. It would also depend on what they are going into detail about.

Also, you mentioned:
You don't get bogged down by detail when explaining something because you're not good at remembering those details (Te+Si) due to it not being your main function or focus. I get the same problem as well. Which is why you actually need Ti to structure your thoughts into a more coherent flow.

More often than not its a combination between me being a poor communicator in person and preferring not to bore people with detail.
I pick up information very easily and tend to remember detail unconsciously but not in a form that communicates well, I draw quite accurate conclusions from small amounts of knowledge and I very quickly can make connections and spot problem areas and inefficiencies. Not trying to flatter myself that's just my main strength. I'm a practical problem solver first and foremost that's why I'm a programmer.

As for LSE one liners, they're merely lazy to fully express their thoughts which is why they give one liners? In any case arguing on analytical abstract topics isn't their strong suit, since the concrete stuff they know doesn't really "fit" into most arguments which is why they don't choose to write much.

Don't forget Ti is an LSE's ignoring function, analytical discussions are literally boring to an LSE it's not a weakness, well unless you consider being bored by them a weakness.

[Absurd]

In any case arguing on analytical abstract topics isn't their strong suit, since the concrete stuff they know doesn't really "fit" into most arguments which is why they don't choose to write much.

Straight on!

[Minde]

If we're going to talk about Te and going in-depth on a topic, I have just one word:

Expat


I'd also add Smilingeyes, but less people will argue with me about the former. And I don't feel like arguing right now.

...Then again, once the felt practicality of expounding disappeared, so did the expounding.


My experience with Te types is that so long as they care about you and think it might be worth it to spend the time, they'll explain something to you until you get it (which I appreciate). I think LIEs ramble more than LSEs, though. Actually, the more Si a LSE (or SLI) gets, the more it takes to get them to talk, I think.

Anyway.

[Beautiful sky]

SLI art - I think this is a good example of Te+Si flavoured detail-orientation.

Si + Te would be attention to detail to produce quality (keyword is quality not detail), not really what I was talking about, just like your upset with the use of "efficiency" I think "detail" is being used too narrowly.

"Efficiency" is often -related as well, in fact I'd say getting things done in the minimum amount of time/effort is everything to do with , nothing to do with .

It took me a while to get my head around why I found LSEs so inefficient when there's so much " = efficiency" stuff floating around. LSE efficiency is like, "Let's do each little step faster! 10 minute lunchtime today!", whereas I'm thinking, "Look you twat, half these steps are unnecessary."

Yes, Te dom can be efficiency/productivity for the sake efficiency/productivity if not supported by a bigger picture from somewhere else, another function or perhaps another person. I personally work better in groups for this very reason.

Who are you talking to/responding to? If you're such an Fi valuer and Fi is about perceiving relational connections on a subjective level, by putting things to a point of reference, than how can I notice who you're interacting with and what emotional/relationshipal level that interaction is if you don't point out who you're talking to? It's like you're talking to thin air. Talk about too lazy to make a change that matters, that rationally matters. The trademark of an LSE is "all I do is done well." Obviously, you're not doing Socionics very orderly or well. PEOPLE ARE IMPORTANT TO Fi TYPES; WE LIVE FOR HUMAN BEINGS.

If you're too lazy, than why type yourself a work-a-holic Te?

Unnecessary is a subjective word. I consider analytical detail unnecessary in achieving a goal. You don't need to understand something inside out to use it effectively.

Doesn't that depend on the goal? LSE don't have to, but they prefer to especially if it's in the area of their confidence. Do you lack confidence in Socionics? You can always use something more skillfully if you know how it works, because TeSi is a process type.

You seem to be confused and changing your stance and definition, typical of weak Logic (T). (You've called both details "broad reaching" and unnecessary "subjective" by now)

I've said it before, you value Ti and a structured flow of thought. Your need for order is apparent in how you arrange your files and the manner in which you choose to reply to posts (in some reply to Maritsa). Not strong evidence, but still.

Te is very orderly and organized.

More often than not its a combination between me being a poor communicator in person and preferring not to bore people with detail.
I pick up information very easily and tend to remember detail unconsciously but not in a form that communicates well, I draw quite accurate conclusions from small amounts of knowledge and I very quickly can make connections and spot problem areas and inefficiencies. Not trying to flatter myself that's just my main strength. I'm a practical problem solver first and foremost that's why I'm a programmer.

Extraverts are great at communicating in person; they are extraverts; things in the mind exert outwardly. Introverts are not good at this. That's Se in the subconscious block.

[The Greeter]

I am going to inject my opinion on "details" in this thread.

Details, in the context of the current discussion, is falsely associated with Te. What is being argued is actually the difference between Ni and Si and their relationship with detail.

I am not sure why, but the ability to pay attention to detail has been given a negative connotation in this thread. In fact, I have found the16types to generally have a condescending attitude towards those who can be described as detail-oriented (hence the rather poor opinion of Si). In my absence, this may have changed, but reading this thread is evidence that the opinion may still remain. Anyway, to the point.

Both Ni and Si treat the concept of "Detail" differently. Detail is just an entity, or some data to be processed by one of the four perceiving functions. Processing details in an introverted fashion means being able to "see" a sort of network with which one may: create a larger picture (Ni), or explicate a link between two or more seemingly discrete components (Si).

How is Ni able to conjure a larger picture? It does so by eliminating what it deems as "unnecessary" details. What Ni decides to eliminate is determined by the individual's experience, environment and other factors beyond the realm of Socionics. Therefore, the "unnecessary" is subjective and does not always yield truths. This is the problem with Ni: by ignoring or eliminating what the user thinks is an unnecessary detail, the user risks the validity of its conclusions, despite however internally consistent the network the Ni user has created with the components it chooses to consider and/or disregard may be.

In this forum, in any discussion involving Ni and details, the term "unnecessary" is taken as an objective description, thus Ni is perceived quite favourably.

Why does Si have a hard time conjuring a larger picture? Because the Si user finds it more difficult to disregard details. A Si user attempts to discover an explicit link between numerous seemingly distinct objects. The nature of the link is subject to, again, non-Socionics factors. The problem with Si is well-documented: by not disregarding some details, the Si user risks being unable to form a general overview, despite having made the correct network, and consequently, its goals seem purposeless.

Setting aside our natural biases of perceiving Ni's creative ability as superior to that of Si, the question is what is the advantages of these two approaches?

For Ni: Being able to see the larger picture is all well and good, but what benefit does it yield? In my opinion, quick action. For example, it is not necessary to see the events unfold because the outcome is obvious or inevitable.

For Si: Being able to see the picture in great detail allows for the "correct" action to be taken. I quote "correct" because that too is subjective, but I choose the term because, generally, with more details considered towards a conclusion, the more valid the conclusion usually becomes.

Of course there are many other aspects to Ni and Si, but I was strictly focused on what can be related to the discussion in this thread. The point is, one is not better than the other and both have their shortcomings and benefits.

[moredhel]

You're pulling what I said out of context. I meant that as a reason why I think you are SEI>IEI. LSE isn't the only type that devalues Ni.

Again, that only points to Si>Ni and not Ni PoLR per say.

FDG has already pointed out to you here that this does not necessarily relate to Ni PoLR.

Sorry I wasn't trying to sound condescending before, I know you were trying to establish Si>Ni for your typing but at the moment i'm not really interested so my goal was to prove LSE. I devalue Ni and value Si we agree.

What? I think you're missing my point. And desire for quality is not type related.

It's not exclusive to a type but yes it is, it's related to Si. There can be non type related reasons for wanting quality or even other functions that might want quality in certain instances but you'll find that quality is frequently attributed to Si.

Well yeah I guess you could call it subjective, but you did give it a context from the beginning:

You seem to be confused and changing your stance and definition, typical of weak Logic (T). (You've called both details "broad reaching" and unnecessary "subjective" by now)

Sorry I was trying to establish examples of functions using my own behavior and then defending that behavior against different peoples interpretations of type behavior and functions. As i'm not normally inclined to upfront say someone is wrong I first try to accommodate their logic and unfortunately that has involved a some twisting. Not to suggest my examples have always been perfect fits for the points i'm trying to get at.

Details are broad reaching in the sense that details can refer to an insanely large number of different things and to say details are related to one function is like saying happiness is related to one function. When I've been talking about detail it's been analytical detail or detail beyond whats practical, it's kind of hard to put words to so don't try to over analyse that. I used the word unnecessary as I consider this detail to be unnecessary not that detail itself is unnecessary, this is "subjective" because it's my view of unnecessary.

Te vs Ti in it's simplest form is practical vs analytical and analytical logic is a lot more detail orientated IMO and in most of the function descriptions as well.

I've said it before, you value Ti and a structured flow of thought. Your need for order is apparent in how you arrange your files and the manner in which you choose to reply to posts (in some reply to Maritsa). Not strong evidence, but still.

Marista view of Te and Ti is incorrect, at first I tried to make my behavior fit into her description which is why there is the occasional emphasis in the wrong place. Yes order and structure is mostly Ti related, Te likes order when it makes things more efficient (this is my behavior).

I would never mistake my conflictor for activity relations. As I've said, both LSIs and LSEs worry and plan too much about the future due to weak Intuition, but in different ways. LSIs form methods for coping with uncertainty and stick to them, LSEs sorts of feels that they're running straight on and gets upset if they hit the wall even though it's evident and they know they're gonna hit the wall.

Both worry about the future, only an LSI makes excessive plans.

When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears. In talking about their goals for the future, LSEs often leave out intermediate steps, leading others to consider them naive. In LSEs' opinion, the important thing is to express a clear goal; the step-by-step process of getting there is less important.

This is an extract from the LSE Ni PolR description it actually points away from excessive detail and planning. (That description is possibly more for Marista's benefit).

I think you're idolizing LSEs too much as a type.

Anyway, feel free to be whichever type you want. Most people change their type as their socionic understanding changes and you won't be an exception.

Cheers!

Sure I like LSE as a type because It describes me, I've always wanted to better understand myself both my strengths and weaknesses (and LSE has some big weaknesses as well) and socionics has helped me do that. I don't idolize it though, I see strengths and weaknesses in all the types and am flattered when I am typed other things because it means people are seeing that different strength in me. You won't see me change my type, LSE is the only self typing I have done because it's the only type that describes me, it's not even a case of I feel like i'm a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
I consider myself quite unique as do most people, so don't think I was in a rush to put myself in a box either.

Thanks for your input though, I appreciate that you've taken the time to consider my type and have done so without being aggressive and what not.

My experience with Te types is that so long as they care about you and think it might be worth it to spend the time, they'll explain something to you until you get it (which I appreciate). I think LIEs ramble more than LSEs, though. Actually, the more Si a LSE (or SLI) gets, the more it takes to get them to talk, I think.

Anyway.

I agree with this, appeal to my Fi enough and i'll write you a novel if it will help your understanding. I think detail tends to comes out through questions and 2 way communication, it shows that someone is taking an interest in what I have to say.

Who are you talking to/responding to? If you're such an Fi valuer and Fi is about perceiving relational connections on a subjective level, by putting things to a point of reference, than how can I notice who you're interacting with and what emotional/relationshipal level that interaction is if you don't point out who you're talking to? It's like you're talking to thin air. Talk about too lazy to make a change that matters, that rationally matters. The trademark of an LSE is "all I do is done well." Obviously, you're not doing Socionics very orderly or well. PEOPLE ARE IMPORTANT TO Fi TYPES; WE LIVE FOR HUMAN BEINGS.

If you're too lazy, than why type yourself a work-a-holic Te?

lol naw Marista you never asked me nicely .

[silke]

... As i'm not normally inclined to upfront say someone is wrong I first try to accommodate their logic and unfortunately that has involved a some twisting. Not to suggest my examples have always been perfect fits for the points i'm trying to get at.

This being accommodating of other people's logic is assigned to Merry types by the way. There is no question that you're Si-creative but a few comments that you've written in this thread do make me think you might be Si-ESE instead of LSE.

[moredhel]

... As i'm not normally inclined to upfront say someone is wrong I first try to accommodate their logic and unfortunately that has involved a some twisting. Not to suggest my examples have always been perfect fits for the points i'm trying to get at.

This being accommodating of other people's logic is assigned to Merry types by the way. There is no question that you're Si-creative but a few comments that you've written in this thread do make me think you might be Si-ESE instead of LSE.

Lol I had a feeling somebody would pick up on that an attribute it to something, I'm not Fe dom trust me . Working with other peoples logic is me simply coming onto these forums assuming most the people would know more than I and also me being Judicious.
With increased confidence in my own knowledge and in some cases decreased confidence in other peoples knowledge this situation is becoming less common although I'm still not inclined to outright say someone is wrong.

[Suz]

If you're too lazy, than why type yourself a work-a-holic Te?

On the contrary, a workaholic might always consider him or herself lazy because no matter how much they are doing, they feel they should be doing more.

A lazy person would be lounging around saying they have so much to do.

[Beautiful sky]

This is Te and efficiency, as written by my boyfriend:


"Watching this debt-ceiling fiasco over the last two weeks, I have figured out how to sum up what is wrong with American politics (on both sides) in one sentence: American politics is broken because people are responding ONLY emotionally to situations that demand ONLY logic."

He finds ways to (in how to) combine two things together for quick and efficient statements that don't have clutter; but, being a writer, he also knows how to expound upon things and make them filled with information.

I agree with this, appeal to my Fi enough and i'll write you a novel if it will help your understanding. I think detail tends to comes out through questions and 2 way communication, it shows that someone is taking an interest in what I have to say.



If you're too lazy, than why type yourself a work-a-holic Te?

lol naw Marista you never asked me nicely .

I'm getting way too tense at the above joking around...be serious. ARGH

LSE love to be at the center of attention, as extraverts, and often give lengthy explanations to things freely, without begging. They are open in conversations and their sensory part does not shy away from talks of sexual/physical nature. They express these opinions in the hopes that people will take steps to build close relations with them.

What are you Beta/Gamma? Do you need formalities in order to answer questions?
I don't need them; in my eyes, heart and opinion, all human being are created equally, and no such formality or hierarchy needs to be present in order for my dual to answer what I want them to.
I suppose you saying "I'm lazy." is like comforting your dual into thinking "ok, I don't have to worry about being too active because he isn't either."

My dual would say, "honey, I want to eat well and take care of myself for you." But, in actuality they are so busy that they would rather their dual take the lead. Even though their dual is a lazy person who has difficulty producing a lot of energy and drive to do things on their own, but nevertheless is willing to make/prepare HEALTHY (Si hidden agenda here) meals for their dual. That's what I do to my dual.

Marista view of Te and Ti is incorrect, at first I tried to make my behavior fit into her description which is why there is the occasional emphasis in the wrong place. Yes order and structure is mostly Ti related, Te likes order when it makes things more efficient (this is my behavior).

Brought to you by www.wikisocion.org....

"Most LSEs have an orderly home and work area and select their clothes carefully."

They put things in chronological order, record their to do list...on. If that's not orderly, I don't know what is and why are you constantly trying to twist the things I say or write to include some element of Ti?

If you're too lazy, than why type yourself a work-a-holic Te?

On the contrary, a workaholic might always consider him or herself lazy because no matter how much they are doing, they feel they should be doing more.

A lazy person would be lounging around saying they have so much to do.

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. Your comment expresses the negativist view of the LSE type in regards to never doing enough. I like it a lot.

[moredhel]

This is Te and efficiency, as written by my boyfriend:

Here we go again...

I'm getting way too tense at the above joking around...be serious. ARGH

Why is it humor upsets you more than direct insults?

LSE love to be at the center of attention, as extraverts and often give lengthy explanations to things freely

Sure as much as any Extratim that devalues Fe but it's a long way from a hard and fast rule. I find it's less with detailed explanations and more with a consistent presence though, a lot of (friendly) mocking other peoples logic/silly behavior and little bit of subtle leadership etc., depends on the group and depends on the LSE.

does not shy away from talks of sexual/physical nature

This is true. May be different for female LSE's *shrugs*

They express these opinions in the hopes that people will take steps to build close relations with them.

This is a bit of blanket statement for valued Fi but it's true.

Still I don't think LSE isn't inclined to launch into detailed descriptions about things, if people are actually interested and your addressing several people then sure a bit more detail will be involved because it's a one way situation. Again would depend on the LSE, the amount of detail someone uses when talking about something isn't strictly type related, I know I don't use a lot of detail.

Brought to you by www.wikisocion.org....

"Most LSEs have an orderly home and work area and select their clothes carefully."

They put things in chronological order, record their to do list...on. If that's not orderly, I don't know what is and why are you constantly trying to twist the things I say or write to include some element of Ti?

Oh good a wikisocion reference, there's hope for you yet . You'll notice that part comes under the Si creative function description and will also notice it mentions nothing about chronological order or to do lists, (To do lists aren't really to do with order anyway).

I keep a very orderly personal space, my house is tidy my desk and room even more so. An example of my "order" is having my closet arranged Shirts, Pants, T-Shirts, Jumpers, Jackets it's efficient and I can find things I'm looking for. When I use order it's primarily for efficiency, my room is very spatially efficient this is using Te to solve an Si problem.
So sure there's all the kinds of order that the LSE description uses but LSE's aren't the anal retentive nut jobs you try to make them out to be.

On the contrary, a workaholic might always consider him or herself lazy because no matter how much they are doing, they feel they should be doing more.

A lazy person would be lounging around saying they have so much to do.

I like this description as well.

[moredhel]

Makes sense. You come across as a patient and reasonable individual, and it surprised me that you did not respond in a manner I would have expected Fe valuers to. This might not mean much but I agree that you are Delta ST, and a pretty good one too. If you say that your intertype relations fit LSE, I see no reason to question otherwise.

It does mean something thank you , consider yourself my favorite conflictor .

[Suz]

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. Your comment expresses the negativist view of the LSE type in regards to never doing enough. I like it a lot.

I like this description as well.

thanks, guys.

[Beautiful sky]

Still I don't think LSE isn't inclined to launch into detailed descriptions about things, if people are actually interested and your addressing several people then sure a bit more detail will be involved because it's a one way situation. Again would depend on the LSE, the amount of detail someone uses when talking about something isn't strictly type related, I know I don't use a lot of detail.


So sure there's all the kinds of order that the LSE description uses but LSE's aren't the anal retentive nut jobs you try to make them out to be.

You contradict yourself fairly heavily; at first you said they are not detailed then you said depends on the detail and now you're saying they do offer details; I hope you see those contradictory patterns that I'm pointing out to you; this is the same method you use to type people, which I do believe produces inaccurate results and because I notice and eliminate certain contradictory information from my Ti role, I can see what matters and type with confidence and accuracy; and, I do believe that whatever effect produces in Minde, where she says certain doubts build in her is because she doesn't have a good grasp of the Ti function and can relate it to typing people. I am not the same way, obviously.


Now, now, be fair; LSE are quite anal...don't be contradictory here too.

This is Te and efficiency, as written by my boyfriend:

Here we go again...

You just want me to be nice to you because you see that as the idealization of your dual, but you have to realize that I have an idealization for my duals as well and you've taken a huge step towards that direction; a few posts ago, you looked like HA of "I want to be loved" and now you're looking like HA of "I want to be perfect," because you're structuring your posts to look like an LSE and you're improving your spelling and grammar to look like one too. Image, how you come off is very important in looking like an LSE and attracting your dual. These things are objective.

Here was my strategy, and you will not often hear people point out their strategy to you; hence, making me a strategic type; you went along which means you're a tactical type. That types you as LSE.

[Marie84]

I think linking type to efficiency is sort of a grey area since it's likely that different types view the means of being efficient differently
Like octopuslove's example of how she see's LSE, a type that's generally correlated to productivity when in actuality they're more prone to seek efficiency, in that sense, it doesn't mean that they'll accomplish it or that their means of achieving it will be consistent to that of others.

"Watching this debt-ceiling fiasco over the last two weeks, I have figured out how to sum up what is wrong with American politics (on both sides) in one sentence: American politics is broken because people are responding ONLY emotionally to situations that demand ONLY logic."

This is actually what my LSI father does an well as an LSI former student I knew, and I find it incredibly irritating. That being that they often speak as if they've discovered the cause and solution without considering that they're understanding of peoples motives and the issue at hand might not be so simplistic.
I think this is why (some) LSI's are driven to an authoritarian desire to correct what they perceive as the stupidity around them and instate a more sensible system that will make things more beneficial. In that sense, they're thinking efficiently, but from my bias perspective it seems inconsiderate and thick minded rather than efficient

[moredhel]

Stuff

There are a few glimmers of insight in there. You have some very rigid views though and you rush in too quickly to voice them. I'm not going to argue further about detail order ect. you agree with my type and this is enough .

I think linking type to efficiency is sort of a grey area since it's likely that different types view the means of being efficient differently
Like octopuslove's example of how she see's LSE, a type that's generally correlated to productivity when in actuality they're more prone to seek efficiency, in that sense, it doesn't mean that they'll accomplish it or that their means of achieving it will be consistent to that of others.

"Watching this debt-ceiling fiasco over the last two weeks, I have figured out how to sum up what is wrong with American politics (on both sides) in one sentence: American politics is broken because people are responding ONLY emotionally to situations that demand ONLY logic."

This is actually what my LSI father does an well as an LSI former student I knew, and I find it incredibly irritating. That being that they often speak as if they've discovered the cause and solution without considering that they're understanding of peoples motives and the issue at hand might not be so simplistic.
I think this is why (some) LSI's are driven to an authoritarian desire to correct what they perceive as the stupidity around them and instate a more sensible system that will make things more beneficial. In that sense, they're thinking efficiently, but from my bias perspective it seems inconsiderate and thick minded rather than efficient

I've thought her boyfriend may be an LSI for awhile now.
Your right about efficiency though LSE it tends to have a short term context, which may not be considered "efficient" in the long run. It's using these words in too general a context where people get into trouble.

[Beautiful sky]

Stuff

There are a few glimmers of insight in there. You have some very rigid views though and you rush in too quickly to voice them. I'm not going to argue further about detail order ect. you agree with my type and this is enough .

I think linking type to efficiency is sort of a grey area since it's likely that different types view the means of being efficient differently
Like octopuslove's example of how she see's LSE, a type that's generally correlated to productivity when in actuality they're more prone to seek efficiency, in that sense, it doesn't mean that they'll accomplish it or that their means of achieving it will be consistent to that of others.



This is actually what my LSI father does an well as an LSI former student I knew, and I find it incredibly irritating. That being that they often speak as if they've discovered the cause and solution without considering that they're understanding of peoples motives and the issue at hand might not be so simplistic.
I think this is why (some) LSI's are driven to an authoritarian desire to correct what they perceive as the stupidity around them and instate a more sensible system that will make things more beneficial. In that sense, they're thinking efficiently, but from my bias perspective it seems inconsiderate and thick minded rather than efficient

I've thought her boyfriend may be an LSI for awhile now.
Your right about efficiency though LSE it tends to have a short term context, which may not be considered "efficient" in the long run. It's using these words in too general a context where people get into trouble.

Again, Moredhel, get it together; he's a negativist type (LSE ARE NEGATIVIST TYPES) so he focuses on the things that are going wrong; not as a positivist type would, like me say "we'll be fine." LSI are positivist types. You should choose your relations and who to trust in typing a little more carefully as you may run into people who are not objective and who only seek support, manipulation, strategic persuasion and don't care about facts.

I can't believe you'd let her manipulate you into believing things that are not real; she can you know, she does have Se in her ego block and can read you better than I can and with the use of her Strategy, get you to cooperate, making me and my words extremely voiceless. You just have to go by facts.

When he says "I figured out how to..." That tells you he's a process type.

[Marie84]

I've thought her boyfriend may be an LSI for awhile now.
.

ftr I'm not typing Maritsa's bf but from how she's described him he sounds a lot like an LSI. My main reason for quoting that portion of what she posted that he stated was because it sounded very much like what an LSI would say based on my own experience with them and understanding of how the IE's work in them, and thus was a good example to counter how [I see] their approach to efficiency, which obviously as I mentioned, doesn't come across as being efficient to me

Your right about efficiency though LSE it tends to have a short term context, which may not be considered "efficient" in the long run. It's using these words in too general a context where people get into trouble

yeah, particularly the bolded from my understanding is something that would be annoying to Ni valuers

[FDG]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

[Beautiful sky]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

FDG, her strategy (being a strategic type, clearly), is for me to be another type and she will do any means to that extent to rally up support for herself even convincing people to believe in things that aren't there. That's being highly manipulative and very Se.

[FDG]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

FDG, her strategy (being a strategic type, clearly), is for me to be another type and she will do any means to that extent to rally up support for herself even convincing people to believe in things that aren't there. That's being highly manipulative and very Se.

I highly doubt that. She just uses socionics in a distorted people-i-like-are-socionics-compatible way, but let's not be too paranoid.

[Marie84]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

I think it's rude to just ignore someone without explanation so my last words to you (as a user, not a mod) is that I've decided a while ago to stop interacting with you as each time I have you've used it as an opportunity to fling insults and wish death on me. And seeing that neither of us has respect for the others opinions on Socionics it's probably mutually beneficial

[FDG]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

I think it's rude to just ignore someone without explanation so my last words to you (as a user, not a mod) is that I've decided a while ago to stop interacting with you as each time I have you've used it as an opportunity to fling insults and wish death on me. And seeing that neither of us has respect for the others opinions on Socionics it's probably mutually beneficial

Ignoring something that does not fit your world view won't make it go away, darling.

[moredhel]

Ignoring something that does not fit your world view won't make it go away, darling.

Sometimes ignoring a person makes them go away though .

[Minde]

Sometimes ignoring a person makes them go away though .

If only it worked more often. Some people just don't get the hints.

[Beautiful sky]

Ignoring something that does not fit your world view won't make it go away, darling.

Sometimes ignoring a person makes them go away though .

I don't think it's nice and kind to ignore people (I am making a declarative statement here); you're just saying that they don't have a voice and a right to have that voice, that devalues people. I believe in letting people say what's on their mind and finding yourself a way to understand them. That allows you to be flexible and adjust to your relations, keeping good relations and adjusting relations to you, and having relations around you. How can you be Fi and ignore human beings to the extent to let them be devalued as an object; that isn't right.

Unlike Minde, and I do disagree with her post, I don't want it to work, if it does than there's something wrong with me. When people don't get the hint, that means they want the attention of another person and an opportunity to build relations, if you don't give that to them than you're excluding the individual from having the potential of good relations with you, hence you devalue relations and potential of good relations. Because, you never know. How can you build positive and good relations if you ignore them, want them to get the hint, and go away? I suppose you'd narrow your relations down, but then you'd miss the world of possibilities of having other relations with important people. I just think that being an EII, I help my dual keep their relations around because they can be gruff and piss people off or away. I like to think that being a peacemaker and a negotiator of relations is a positive contribution to any relationship I have.

No matter how much trouble I've had with the most difficult of relations, Workaholics is one such person, I've never "casted her aside" or ignored her posts and you'll see that even with the difficulty we've had there is always a way to find a way to get along, you just have to try some differing ways. That is remaining positive.

[Beautiful sky]

Marie84, you're building a tautological understanding based on what you wish reality would be. It's painful to watch. After Maritsa posted her video, it should be glaringly obvious that she is at the very least an introverted person.

I think it's rude to just ignore someone without explanation so my last words to you (as a user, not a mod) is that I've decided a while ago to stop interacting with you as each time I have you've used it as an opportunity to fling insults and wish death on me. And seeing that neither of us has respect for the others opinions on Socionics it's probably mutually beneficial

When Matt, my bf says, "I figured out how to..." HOW is a black logic thing. He figured out the external activity of that situation and summed it up efficiently. Why do you continuously disregard facts?

"The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects."

[Suz]

When people don't get the hint, that means they want the attention of another person and an opportunity to build relations, if you don't give that to them than you're excluding the individual from having the potential of good relations with you...

How can you build positive and good relations if you ignore them, want them to get the hint, and go away? I suppose you'd narrow your relations down, but then you'd miss the world of possibilities of having other relations with important people.

In your fifty-some thousand posts 'round these parts, I've never ever agreed with you (or just about anyone) more than I do now.

Really, really important stuff.

I have to say, I agree as well.

[moredhel]

I hate to be the voice of pessimism, but more often than not if somebody is insistently seeking you out to disagree with you and attack your character it's not because they secretly want to get to know you better, it's because they are a dick.

And whats the most peaceful (Si) way to deal with unpleasant people? Ignore them

If it is their way of wanting to get to know you better then that is an absolutely terrible way to approach a delta.

[Beautiful sky]

Moredhel, that's a very nice broad message (a nice asking expression)!

[moredhel]

I hate to be the voice of pessimism, but more often than not if somebody is insistently seeking you out to disagree with you and attack your character it's not because they secretly want to get to know you better, it's because they are a dick.

And whats the most peaceful (Si) way to deal with unpleasant people? Ignore them

If it is their way of wanting to get to know you better then that is an absolutely terrible way to approach a delta.

I dunno.

In the case(s) I think you're referring to, I pretty much feel you and all; but I fear that way too often "ignorance" is just a guise for "better-than-thou arrogance".

I'm seeing the good love thy neighbor intentions here, which is admirable and is what I really love about EII's.
But sometimes it's a choice between seeing the good in everyone and leaving yourself wide open and vulnerable or approaching people more cautiously and maybe being a little judgmental at times.
I've noticed some EII's take approach A up until they get really burned by someone then they will consciously take approach B against their nature sad really.

[Marie84]

Sometimes ignoring a person makes them go away though .

If only it worked more often. Some people just don't get the hints.

Luckily at least with the internet you can actually control the barrier better than in real life

I hate to be the voice of pessimism, but more often than not if somebody is insistently seeking you out to disagree with you and attack your character it's not because they secretly want to get to know you better, it's because they are a dick.

And whats the most peaceful (Si) way to deal with unpleasant people? Ignore them

If it is their way of wanting to get to know you better then that is an absolutely terrible way to approach a delta.

Precisely

Sometimes the best way to deal with people and avoid more turmoil is to just get away from them, or at least keep a distance, especially if it goes on for an elongated period.

When Matt, my bf says, "I figured out how to..." HOW is a black logic thing. He figured out the external activity of that situation and summed it up efficiently. Why do you continuously disregard facts?

"The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects."

Believing that you have a complete understanding of something doesn't make it a fact

"American politics is broken because people are responding ONLY emotionally to situations that demand ONLY logic."

That's not to say that you can't believe this ^ is a fact, but I see it as a statement that's highly questionable more than anything

[Beautiful sky]

If only it worked more often. Some people just don't get the hints.

Luckily at least with the internet you can actually control the barrier better than in real life

Why would you want to do that? You're supposed to be a humanist/humanitarian (at least that's how you type yourself)!

[moredhel]

Luckily at least with the internet you can actually control the barrier better than in real life

Why would you want to do that? You're supposed to be a humanist/humanitarian (at least that's how you type yourself)!

That's a bit of a narrow definition don't you think? An EII also values a peaceful environment.
Nothing about being a humanist/humanitarian says you need to disregard personal opinions about people and love everyone equally, nor does it say you can't ignore people who are having a negative impact on your life and or environment, particularly when said people are in no need of aid and are simply being rude.

[FDG]

Whatever, Marie's typings are just too wrong for thinking that going around singing LA LA LAAA is something that will make anyone's life better. What is so lovely and humanitarian and peaceful about going around being butthurt and anal telling other people they are ti-fe 'cause they think you are being butthurt and anal. Nothing.