Last edited by Kioshi; 03-18-2009 at 05:41 AM.
I'm curious as to how other infps would describe as you described. It'd give us more insight, as well as possibly determine how much of the romanticism and goth stuff differentiates yourself from some of the other infps. (I do think culture and studies play a huge part in differentiating between types.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I would guess that for most types the guidelines here exposed are to be considered valid.Originally Posted by Kioshi
I would say that, conceding an economics analysis, I am far better at performing static analysis than dynamic one or, rather, that the dynamic process is applied upon single "scenes" whose time span is shorter compared to the objects of the tought processes of my NiFe friend. Therefore, my reasoning is usually based on chains of causality that are forward-driven but not circular. Noticing circular patters is attributed to the advice from NiFeI analyze in terms of circular causality (dynamic stability, stationary states, and continuous turnover) or flow and flow-equilibrium.
Note: Many interpretations of SeTi seem to suggest analysis based on linear causality (stability, rigidity, and solidity) or force and force-equilibrium. This I think leads to some strange notions about INFP and Beta in general.
For what is word, my take on this: both functions can take passive and active stances. The passive stance is the processing of the mood-chaing. The control of moods is the active stance.I have difficulty with the Socionic functions, or more accurately with their interpretation.
The interpretation of NiFe in the link above seems bizarre. First it is presented as studying the flow of processes. Then the flow of process is presented metaphorically as a "chain of variable moods" or a "cobweb of spiritual experiences". Then there is a jump to presenting NiFe as controlling the flow of moods and emotional experiences. Then there is another jump to presenting NiFe as controlling moods and feeling "the necessary responsibility to correct these moods".
At this point nothing seems to make any sense to me.
As you say, you perceive disturbances. Since they are disturbances by your own definition, then they are incorrect, since if they would be correct, you would perceive them as part of the flow. From this unique perception stems the necessity to correct the disturbances/errors.I am very much aware of flows and rhythms of activity. But my attention is on disturbances in the flow. These signal problems. And I focus on solving my problems and on increasing my understanding.
The fact that you used the word "disturbance" implies that this concept is probably not alien, just embedded in your consciousness to a primal level so that you cannot detach and observe yourself in the process of correction. However, the fact stand stills.The concept of a correct mood is alien to me, unless by correct we mean genuine.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Personally I just try to maintain a safe environment for myself. Regarding people's moods, states and so on it's not that I control them as much as I can perceive them. I can see their overall state changing from happy to sad, rattled to relaxed, friendly to hostile. The same goes for the atmosphere of a place.
If I don't like the atmosphere of a place or a person I'll most likely leave because I don't really want to waste my time and effort or try to change it if I think I can pull it off.
In the end it's all down to having a suitable safe environment in which I'm comfortable to be myself.