Trial but why always error?
Little by little, I'll be posting some of my philosophical writings to assist people in typing me. Here's a start:
64. A transcendent object is inessential. That is to say, I perceive the same thing whether a transcendent object really exists or not. Its existence is interchangeable with its nonexistence in the sense that appearances do not change. The only thing that differs between the two cases is my interpretation of the appearances. In the case that I feel an object does not exist, I interpret appearances as being complete, so to speak; nothing is hidden; nothing is absent from the world before me. In the case that I feel an object does exist, I interpret appearances as being incomplete; there is something missing from the picture before me.
66. You are to a transcendent object what the Other is to you. You are the Other's transcendent object. The Other sees your appearance and posits that there is another side to it: your hidden side, your thoughts, your real feelings, etc.
67. Properly conceived, a purely transcendent object does not exist; it is nothing. Therefore, the Other is nothing, a void.
68. The self is a transcendent object contemplated by the Other. It is peculiar among transcendent objects for the fact that I know for sure it exists. It is the sole exception to the rule that transcendent objects should be considered as non-existent in the interests of achieving a strictly omniscient viewpoint of reality. It is also an exception to the rule that transcendent objects are interchangeable with nothing (i.e. it makes no difference to appearances whether they really are there or not). I would have a totally different experience--no experience at all---if I could be and were in fact interchanged with nothing.
69. The concept of "how I look to the Other," which is to say my face, is synonymous with a void. This is obvious from the fact that I am a fully transcendent object (for the Other), and a fully transcendent object, one that doesn't show up, in other words, displays nothing--has no appearance.
70. The only transcendent object that definitely exists is the ego. The study of objects, if conducted on sure ground, is thus basically psychological. By looking at the self, we can learn everything we can possibly know for sure about objects.
71. I am a something that shows nothing (to the Other); the Other is a nothing that shows something (to me).
72. A consciousness's appearance is at least in part synonymous with its blindness; how a consciousness appears is something it can't see.
73. The Other, if purely Other, does not exist, is nothing. But Others are in practice always somewhat akin to me. It is by virtue of this sense of similarity that I experience the Other as conscious.
74. The purest Other, my opposite number, so to speak, is my reflection. My reflection presents itself as an appearance with no inner content. It is all exterior, all facade. It is an image that stands for a void, an absence. It conceals nothing; it just lays bare. It is, in fact, precisely what nothing looks like. When I glance into a mirror, then, I experience something approaching omniscience, because, where I see my reflection, I cease to posit an object behind the scenes.
75. A clear, omniscient view of reality can be achieved by considering the universe as one's own reflection, then. When considering the universe in this way, the universe becomes a pure appearance without anything behind it.
76. When looking at one's reflection, what becomes of the ego? Now, the ego is an object posited by the Other. To the Other it is transcendent; to me, on the other hand, it is immanent. It is a transcendent appearance. That is when the Other looks at me. In the case of the reflection, the Other is divested of their look, rendered, in other words, fully blind. What are they blind to? Everything; everything is what transcends the reflection's awareness. Inasmuch as there is just a reflection, my appearance is all that there is to transcend the reflection's awareness. If the Other is purely Other and if (which is to say the same thing) at the same time I refrain from positing a transcendent object as the Other's ego, this is what must happen. The Other is, in this case, emptied out. By the same stroke, my ego becomes totally externalized into the reflection. I have not given the Other inner content; the Other cannot, then, give me inner content (and there is no other place for it to come from). Why? Because the Other in the case of the reflection lacks consciousness--I do not posit any consciousness behind its appearance--and so it cannot support an interpretation of what my appearance hides. So I am all "out in the open," as it were. From this it follows that my ego, when seen from an omniscient point of view, is the the face or appearance of nothing.
77. What does it mean for something to be the appearance of nothing? I see nothing--that is what I must say when I see my reflection. There are in reality two "I see nothings" said when I say it before my reflection; for when I say it, my reflection says it, as well. This means the statement has a double sense. My reflection expresses by saying it that it is blind. "I don't see." When I say it, I express, "Nothingness has an appearance for me." Whatever I say in general gets canceled out by my reflection's statement. If I say I am cold and speak the truth, my reflection will express that it is not cold by saying in the form of an apparent untruth that it is cold.
78. What happens when I lie? If I lie, I first of all constitute myself as a transcendent object for the Other; by the same stroke, I render the Other as a transcendent object for me, since only a consciousness can be conscious of a transcendent object, and another consciousness is, for me, a transcendent object. A lie always renders me ignorant, then; it presumes an object outside of my reach. When I lie, I not only make myself ignorant; I also make my reflection tell the lie in turn. When my reflection utters the falsehood that I've presented as a truth, it utters the falsehood in such a way that it appears as a revealed falsehood. That is to say, I know my reflection is lying; its words do not deceive me. Where I was disguisedly insincere, it is openly insincere.
79. All conversation ultimately takes place with your reflection. The failure to recognize this leads to absurdities like an animal attempting to attack what it sees in the mirror, or a man heatedly arguing with his voice echoing back at him from the walls.
80. We have taken the mirror image as our starting point for examining the phenomenon of reflection. But, in the case of a mirror, the reflection carries a slight distortion. Rather than acting in synchrony with me, as a full-fledged reflection would, it follows my lead. This is a distortion in the sense that it slightly waters down the identity that I have with my reflection in the mirror. A pure reflection does not follow my lead; rather, it acts in harmony with me. What must we get rid of in a mirror reflection to arrive at a pure reflection, and what is left? We must get rid of the phenomenon of repetition. My mirror reflection repeats me after I have done something, and repetition is an identity--in this case, my identity--separated from itself by an interval of time. We must also get rid of the spacial interval between myself and the mirror reflection, since this also introduces a slight non-identity between the two. In general, we will have to eliminate anything in the reflection that characterizes it as different from me. What is left, and does what is left even still qualify as a reflection? What is left is simply me, if I have eliminated all non-identities between myself and it. And what have I changed about the appearing-nothing that is my reflection by ridding it of differences from me? I have not added anything to it, because what I needed--myself--was already there, albeit in a distorted form. Did I subtract anything from it? No, because my reflection is already me; it is just separated from me in the case of a mirror and thereby distorted. What needs to change, then, in order to get rid of the reflection's impurity? The relationship between the appearance of nothing and nothing itself that we find in a mirror reflection needs to change. When I look into a mirror, the emptiness I detect is different from the emptiness's appearance. The two are not equivalent, and this is precisely what the impurity in the reflection consists of: a difference right in the heart of my identity; a difference between my identity and itself. To get rid of this non-identity in my identity, it is necessary to fully equate the appearance of nothing to nothing itself. What does that mean? It means, first of all, that I--not just the Other--am a nothing appearing. It is one thing to behold a nothing appearing (the Other); it is another to be a nothing appearing. To be a nothing appearing means to lack an appearance altogether. I tangibly do not appear; when I look for myself, I find nothing, and there is no other way it could be, because that is what my identity means. The self is, for itself, absent. Consciousness proposes its own existence, but there is no possibility of it ever demonstrating it as a truth. From an omniscient point of view, the self, being something that could not possibly be given to awareness, does not exist. We act as if there is a self, of course, and this act underlies everything we do, but there, in fact, isn't a self.
EIE-Ni (http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...e=EIE_subtypes). Your questionnaire answers & philosophical writings display DA cognition style. You're geared for contemplation of people's inner workings (perception & reflection). Your responses to things that make you smile/cry and to how you choose your friends & act around them point me to EIE.
Now that you mention it, DA cognition does make a lot of sense in light of my philosophical writings. That really narrows it down to ILI or EIE. I'm probably too pro Fe to be an ILI, so that makes EIE the most likely type. I'm an oddly introverted-looking extrovert, though, I must say, if I'm really an EIE.
More philosophy from me:
81. We found that there is no such thing as a pure reflection. The self, properly conceived, is always an impure reflection, which is to say a self different from itself. In what manner is the self different from itself? It isn't the case that the self is an object split in two. An object split in two can be put back together. The self rather is two in such a way that these two cannot ever be joined together. This consists in the fact that one portion of the self is appearance while the other half is what appears. The appearance is immanent--I have access to it--while what appears is transcendent--I do not have access to it. Now, what is transcendent, conceived from an omniscient point of view, simply doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, it can't be brought into a union with what does exist except by being made to exist. But what exists is always the appearance or facet of something transcendent. Even in the case of a pure appearance, an appearance with nothing behind it, a tangible nothingness transcends it. Moreover, to gain access to what transcends the appearance is to lose access to the original appearance in its isolation. It would be a unification but also a replacement of one actuality by another where instead I want both actualities.
82. We determined that the universe, conceived from an omniscient point of view, is my reflection, that my reflection is a nothing along with the appearance of that nothing, and that my self would be the unification of these two existences. This unification is realized in my reflection, but my reflection is always partly outside of my grasp as a pure transcendent in the form of the nothingness attached to the appearing nothing. That is to say my full reflection, or my identity, is always partly concealed. This can't be overcome by looking for the rest of my identity because the rest of my identity, the part of it that is not nothing-appearing but rather nothing in the pure sense as a transcendence, is precisely concealment, blindness. If I see everything, as I do when looking at things from an omniscient viewpoint, I have to see blindness as much as anything else; it can't be gotten rid of, as it is a part of the full picture of reality.
83. Blindness, which is to say nothing, is always blindness to something. It is relative; it presumes something outside it. If I must include blindness in a full picture of reality, how, then, can I have a genuinely full picture of reality? The answer is that blindness must be conceived of as a purely local phenomenon. That is to say, in a universe where there is A and B, A can be blind to B or B can be blind to A but A and B must both be visible from the broader omniscient viewpoint. This means that, in the reflection, nothing and nothing's appearance are both, in fact, kinds of appearances. The distinction between them lies in the fact that nothing posits its appearance whereas its appearance is self-contained, not positing at all. In general, where I find an appearance, I never can derive an object from it alone. An appearance taken by itself doesn't imply anything beyond itself. But if I conceive of an object, I always necessarily consider it as possibly or actually appearing. Objects necessarily have appearances; appearances do not necessarily have objects.
84. We have considered that there are two types of appearances which form the divided whole that is reality. There is the type of appearance that posits an appearance other than itself--this I call nothing or the transcendent--and there is the type of appearance that doesn't extend beyond itself--this I call the immanent. If A posits B but B does not posit A, how is it that I arrive back at A from B? The answer lies in the fact that "self-contained" does not mean devoid of relative qualities; on the contrary, anything immanent always involves an inner transcendence. In other words, something inside the immanent is blind to something else inside the immanent. How do we know this? We know this because reality forms a whole, and this whole necessarily includes blindness. I can't ever encounter the immanent without it carrying a transcendence inside it, then. Why? Because if I did, where would transcendence be at that point? I have to carry it with me into the immanent, or else it disappears altogether.
I'm bumping this thread with just a tiny bit of content, because I'm still not at all convinced one way or the other as to what my Socionics type is, and I would like to hear people's opinions.
Here's a link to page with my badly mixed, very amateurish musical compositions on it:
Here's one of the slightly better ones:
Here's a picture of me for VI purposes:
I think that both ILI and LII are off the list of possible typings for me. Two of my best friends are an ESFp and a very likely ESFj (she scores as an ESFJ in the MBTI and Alpha SF seems very plausible for her typing).
And I'm what you desire, like a siren in the night
Originally Posted by Starfall7w6 2w3 8w9 - The Free Spirit
@flames Hey, thanks for stopping by and suggesting a type. : ) *adds another vote to the EIE list*
Incidentally, I took a Reinen dichotomy test from Reddit the other day, and it said LIE. I think that result is pretty far off the mark--I would never dream of typing myself as a Te-dom--but I thought I would mention it. The test is here, for those interested: https://socionics-reinin-test.thyssenkrump.repl.run/
Some more philosophical writings of mine, to be scanned at your leisure for indications of my type:
What is negation? Insofar as negation is, it is a self-contradiction. This self-contradiction has two substructures: an absence and the presence it is relative to. Insofar as negation isn't, it is neither of these structures. One of these structures, namely absence, is itself a kind of negation; it is purely the absence of the presence it is related to. Negation in the primary sense negates this secondary, derivative negation. It is in this way that negation is always not itself. It negates negation which is what it is. By negating this secondary negation, primary negation instantly refers us, through the secondary negation, to its opposite, presence. They appear side-by-side, without delay, because they are both inherent components of the structure of negation, which is the basic principle of reality. The presence that the secondary negation directs us toward is the presence whereby negation is what it isn't. It is the identity of negation there outside negation. The essence of negation, the thing that it is, is always separated from negation. Negation is external to itself. It isn't what it is. Just as secondary negation refers us to presence, presence refers us back to primary negation. Presence is nothing more or less than the presence of negation; it explicitly refers to negation. This negation is primary rather than secondary because secondary negation refers to presence without its reference being reciprocated. Consider that darkness is purely the absence of light, whereas light is light, an absolute rather than something relative. As such, the basic structure of negation, which is to say reality, is triadic, consisting of a primary negation, a secondary negation as absence, and a presence that the secondary negation--the absence--is relative to.
Through the operation of negation and through that operation alone, one can derive all of existence. Affirmation is not equal to the task of deriving the whole of existence because a positive does not present negation as a negative; it presents negation as a positive, which is only one half of the reality. Affirmation is helpless to include within itself the other half of negation, which is to say the absence that relates to the presence that is affirmation.
What a thing is--its essence, in other words--is something about it that never changes and which on principle never could be changed without losing the thing in question. The essence of negation--the thing that it is and always must be--is self-contradiction. Whatever it is, it isn't, and whatever it isn't, it is. This means its essence can't be seen or grasped. Whenever I grasp the essence of negation, I am, in fact, grasping something that isn't it. If I can't grasp negation, if I can't see it, in what sense does it expose itself to me? I never encounter negation, but I automatically believe in it. Moreover, I can't get rid of this belief because all knowledge and all reality is predicated on it. If I believe that something exists without there being a possibility of its existence ever being demonstrated, I have faith in it. Faith in negation is an inherent and necessary faith.
The nearest we can come to directly grasping the essence of negation is by looking at what it does. It generates the particular universe that we live in. There are certain things in this universe that remain constant, such as physical laws, and these constancies hint at the character of the being that produces them. We can even go further than looking at unbroken trends in the universe's history. We can consider the question of what trends are on principle unbreakable. What must be true, no matter what reality I find myself in? The answer to that question will give us the nearest possible approximation to the essence of negation.
Continuing the writing above:
In attempting to determine what must be true no matter what, one can't simply look at what has always been true up until this point. That something has always been true does not guarantee it will be true in the future. One must instead take something, whatever it may be, and attempt to show that it is inessential to reality. If the attempt fails, the thing can be considered as a candidate for being an inherent aspect of the universe. Can we go any farther than proposing mere candidates? Yes. If the attempt to prove that something is inessential to reality must fail on principle, that thing is definitely essential to reality. The question, then, is what is something that, by denying, I necessarily affirm? Let's consider a concrete example. Suppose I know it is dark, rainy, and cold and I deny it is dark, rainy, and cold. My denial of the weather conditions does not alter them at all but rather emphasizes them. By saying it is not this and that, I draw my attention (and the attention of others) to the fact that it is this and that. In general, the more I deny my knowledge, the plainer it becomes. So my knowledge is a phenomenon that I can't deny without affirming it, which means that my knowledge is an inherent structure of reality, which, in turn, means that we learn something about negation's character from it.
We found that my knowledge is a phenomenon that we can't deny without affirming it, and from that concluded that it is a phenomenon inherent to reality. It is important, of course, to distinguish knowledge from that which the knowledge is knowledge of. If I know it is raining, my knowledge is different from the fact that it is raining. It is also important not to assume that knowledge always has an object that it knows. Consider cases where a person knows that they know nothing. Such knowledge, insofar as it knows nothing, is confronted not with an object but with absence. But entailed within this knowledge is, of course, a knowledge of my empty knowledge--I know that I don't know something. Knowledge of knowledge is also entailed in knowledge that does have an object. If I know that something is true, I also know that I know it is true. Thus, knowledge always entails knowledge of itself. It is self-referential. From this, it may seem that knowledge must be a thing. But the fact that it is always related to something, whether it be an absence or a presence, indicates otherwise. As we have seen, presence is absolute rather than relative. The thing--or the nothing--that is relative is absence. Can it really be true that knowledge is a kind of absence? As we said, knowledge knows itself. That means it takes a point of view on itself. A point of view is relative to and dependent on what it views; in other words, a point of view without the thing it views is impossible. But this can only mean that knowledge is, for itself, a thing, given that it is within its field of awareness. And yet knowledge, as a thing of a relative nature must also be an absence. The answer is that it is absence in the sense that it is relative to something other than itself and presence in the sense that it is related to itself. Viewed one way, from its own point of view, it exists; viewed the other way, from the object's viewpoint, it is just an empty shadow. What kind of entity exists for itself but not for others? That will be our next line of inquiry.
In continuation of the above writing:
My knowledge--which is to say my awareness, for to be aware of something is to know it, and to know something is to be aware of it--is an entity that exists for itself but not for others. What does that mean? It means that I have a certain vantage point on myself that is inaccessible to other vantage points. I have a view of myself that is mine alone. What exactly do I access by means of this view that can't be accessed by means of other views? It can't be any particular thoughts, feelings, or objects that I have access to, because all of these things can be experienced from other viewpoints that entail them. It can only be my view as the particular totality that it is. Any specific thing I see can be seen from other viewpoints; but the particular totality of things I see is unique to my viewpoint. What is the nature of this totality? It is everything, because everything I encounter, everything I can think of--in short, everything--is, of course, something within the field of my awareness. This means that access to everything is mine and mine alone. If another viewpoint had access to everything, it would simply be my viewpoint rather than another. But what about negation? We found that negation is completely transcendent; it is always somewhere else. Doesn't the fact that we apprehend something that is always out of sight make a real totality impossible? If I am blind to something, I can't say that my viewpoint takes it in, can I? But what if I am that very thing that I'm blind to. Then it is no longer cut off from me. Far from it. And what if, rather than a thing or a tangible void, it is a genuine nothingness? Then there is nothing in it for me to be blind to.
I have access to the totality that is everything because the point of view that takes everything in must be synonymous with my point of view. This is evident for two reasons. One, I obviously can't truthfully claim to perceive only some of things that I perceive. Two, I can't claim that there are some things that transcend my point of view, because anything that transcends my point of view is given to me in its transcendence, which means it is basically immanent--immanent as a transcendent thing. This, as we pointed out, raises the question of where negation, which is always transcendent, fits into the picture. By saying it is transcendent, I mean that I never encounter it and can't encounter it. It lies completely outside the limits of my perspective. That means it is excluded from the totality that is everything (which means it is nothing in a full-fledged sense rather than as a mere tangible void), separated from it as if by a gulf. The problem is in explaining the coexistence of this void and the totality that is everything. We can't directly connect them together, because if we did, negation would be a part of everything, an immanent thing rather than a genuine nothing. The problem arises, in fact, from considering negation as something that exists at the present moment. If negation does not exist right now, if it is not presently occurring, it remains possible for it to serve as the generator of the present reality and yet remain cut off from it. Negation occurred, but is not occurring right now--this is a necessary conclusion. It is necessary, moreover, to place the existence of negation before the start of time, because having it occur later than that would put it into direct contact with a present moment, making it not negation at all.
This short music composition of mine is basically my personality in musical form: https://soundcloud.com/user-321964225/citrine .
Not really, but I am more satisfied with it than I am with most of my compositions, and I thought it might serve as a stimulus for someone to type me.
EIE-Ni seems obvious to me.
I was going to ask a few Q's, not to help me type but for curiosity, but you've answered in a way so I'm no longer curious. Me adding my type opinion here is simply to give you feedback.
Oh, I do have a question but it's mostly rhetorical. Do you have 2+ close friends? Have them read the Top 3 Type Gulenko Profiles+Subtypes pages on wikisocion, and have them vote which most cohesively fits in their opinions.
My thank yous go out to the last two people who suggested types for me.
I have a couple of misgivings about ILI being my type. For one thing, one of my best friends is an MBTI ESFJ and very likely an ESFj in Socionics. We get along great, which shouldn't be the case if we're Conflictors (and before anyone suggests that she might be my Dual, let it be noted that another very good friend of mine is an ESFp). Another thing is that it doesn't make sense if you believe that a person's type must remain the same throughout their life. If you were to look at me now, ILI wouldn't by any means be the most outlandish thing to label me. I am quite spacey, to the point that I don't think it's even safe for me to drive a car, and that, as I understand it, is in keeping with being an Ni-dom. But I also have, in the past, been very emotionally expressive for prolonged periods of my life in a way that I don't think is compatible with me being an ILI. Maybe if you think type can change--I suppose I can look very ILI-ish these days--but otherwise, I don't think so.
Basically, my personality has been quite variable throughout my life, and to this day, there is quite a bit of variation in how I act, feel, and present myself.
I do have more than one close friend, thankfully. It would be very awkward, though, asking them to do the homework of assigning me a Socionics type (even though one of them--the ESFJ--actually used to administer MBTI tests as a part of her job). That's just not kind of thing we do when we hang out.
1. I'm afraid I cannot I cannot publically supply my retorts to your concerns. You are welcome to PM me.
2. 'In the past I was expressive' + variable appearance - both touch on the topic of #1.
3. Just ask them to read both pages. It's less than 1,000 words? Not a big deal, like at all. Can do it over text: "hey which sounds more like me?" "[paste 1]" "or [paste 2]" "or [paste 3]". Then let the know they can respond at their leisure. But it's your choice.
You can't publically respond to my concerns? Now I'm intrigued. (And yes, I will PM you.)
It's just awkward and, in appearance, excessively self-important asking friends to match my personality to a description. Also, I don't know which descriptions you actually mean because they're arranged in different ways on different parts of the website. A link would be most appreciated.
I took the test at sociotype.com recently, and it gave me a score of 100 for EIE and IEI, followed by 85 for EII, followed, in turn, by I-forget-what for IEE. Hardly the scores I would expect for an ILI.
I think it's safe to say that I'm an intuitive type and that I value Ni-Se over Ne-Si. That leaves four options: ENTj, INFp, INTp, and ENFj. Out of those four, I think ENTj can safely be discarded because I don't see myself in that type at all. As for ILI, it is difficult to reconcile the relative cold-bloodedness of that type with my overall history. There have been periods throughout my life when I've been cold, yes, but also periods during which I've been quite passionate and emotional. With regard to EIE, my main misgiving is that I don't seem to be an extrovert and I'm not so sure I can see Fe as my main function. If it were my main function, I think I would be focused on it all the time and constantly exuding it. Si as my weak point does make sense, though. Then there's IEI, which actually doesn't seem to be such a bad fit, although I'm far from convinced it's my type, largely because nothing about it describes me that well other than the spacey/imaginative part.
the best help you may get with giving a videointerview
in case you doubt in own type still after 10 years
also you may type people near you and check the possible your type by IR effects. it's important step, anyway
I can't see that my interactions with people point to any clear type. What would be most telling, I think, would be to look at the most distinctive relationships I've had and the ones that have drawn out the strongest feelings on both sides. But these interactions paint a very inconsistent picture if we're trying to place it in the frame of Socionics. A simple example would be the fact that I've had a wealth of bad times for a very extended period with people I have now, for an equally extended period of time, gotten along with very well. From what I can see, Socionics is fairly one-note in its description of a given type of relationship, making it hard to square it with the reality of my life. That's just one example. Another example is that I've had markedly different experiences, in many cases, with people who appear to belong to the same Socionics type.
nunki, I looked at five of your pictures, and I saw Ni, Se, and lots of Ti. Not in that order.
I don't think you are LSI or IEI or SLE, so that leaves EIE by default. The volume of your writing also points to EIE.
You don't look very happy, incidentally.
I am an unhappy person. Part of the reason for it is that, for a very long time, long enough to leave its mark on me, I had been deprived of normal human pleasures; part of the reason for it is that I'm not grateful enough for all of the wonderful circumstances that surround me.
LII > EII
arrived at that because after reading article "Philosophical Motivations of Types by V. Gulenko" I thought your perspective fit within "subjective idealists".
referring to Reinin dichotomies I chose strategic (consideration of your hobbies/interests feeding into overarching life goal), rational (enneagram 5 vibes from wordier questionnaire), and introverted.
I actually relate far more to Gulenko's Objective Idealist than I do to his Subjective Idealist.
Regarding your Enneagram typing of me, I'm probably a type 4, given that I usually score as one when I take an Enneagram test. Last time I took one, I scored as a 4w3. So 5 isn't even necessarily one of my more prominent types. The main thing that sets me apart from type 5 is that people belonging to that type usually try to minimize the emotional factor, whereas I'm quite comfortable with emotions.
I'm in a mood to waste time, so I went through silke's article on the information elements and crossed out things that are unlike me, underlined things that I identify with, and left the rest untouched. Here are the results:
Ne is generally associated with the ability to see various potentialities and possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize visible potential in others, be aware of different perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate associations and draw parallels, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate this curiosity in others.
Types that value Ne invest most of their time into discussing various points of view, broad spectrum attitudes, trends, and phenomena, further potential and options some of which may not have happened in actuality, thereby opening up new doors and adding in new tangents to a conversation. They perceive and voice multiple variations and alternative view points, try to mediate between them, and enjoy a lively discussion that would help them settle their uncertainties and provide some grounding. Typical Ne humor juxtaposes and blends seemingly unrelated aspects with elements of unconverntionality and even absurdism.Ni 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, over-reliance on mental imagery, seeing intangible hints of trends and relationships between processes or objects. Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how things will develop in the future which is usually based on past trends that they deem likely to recur. To assess these trends they seek to gather information of what's has taken place and transverse the time axis backwards and forwards. Thus, they often devote little time for living "in the now" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve mentally and psychologically demanding or competitive aspect.Se includes the ability to attain high level of awareness of the physical aspects of one's reality, to know how much physical force or power is latent or required, to be able to accurately estimate properties of material sort. Types that strongly value Se are much more comfortable taking concrete actions to change their physical surroundings. This may at times be perceived as disruptive and abrasive, particularly by Ne-types who feel that abrupt changes in their physical surrounding ruins their balance. In Se-quadras, interaction takes a more blunt and direct forms, resulting in a much strongly impacting physical atmosphere than Si-valuing types prefer. Se-types enjoy discussing possibilities but only if there is concrete gain from it, or it holds the potential to impact the "the real world". Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push concrete situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to subjectively assess the situation one is in.Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail. Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own internal perceptions when it comes to making physical estimations, instead of being guided by externally-driven image of what something is like. Si ego types are perceptive of individual sensory experiences and will try to adjust to them, given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort, thus minimizing potential direct sensory impact on others. In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links. Si types prefer to avoid causing too much upheaval and commotion and intruding on other people's space and boundaries, and will protect their personal well-being and comfort as well. They preferr to keep even flow of experiences and sensory congruity.Fe 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, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.Fi 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. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics (Fe) approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people).Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions. 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.
Since Te perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a Te type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A Te type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So Te types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.Ti is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal, though explicable, understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.
Types that value Ti naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgement, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort. They also have respect for people with clearly defined and internally consistent opinions, believing that a sense of internal certainty is necessary for orienting oneself in life. To these types, one's personal standards of truth are more reliable than public consensus.
They see overly pragmatic views as shallow, and try to limit public discussion of mundane practical matters. They are especially sensitive to redundant information.