Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
Well we both agree that you are an introvert. Which is right on as you emphasize and focus on a lot of individual aspects and perspectives rather than universal or social observations.

Your pragmatic sense comes from your interpretation of things like "love". Love to most feeler types is a connection, sometimes spiritual other times relational. You emphasize it being "chemical" when you say that "In terms of what love consists of though, it’s simply a chemical reaction." This is actually the heart of what Feeler types attribute to love, not only a feeling but sometimes a spiritual, magical connection.

I believe that you attribute characteristics to functions that don't exist hence you interpret what you equate to things like "people who are into philosophy must be N type" which is incorrect per socionics. You may want to brush up on your knowledge of the functions and what applies in the site that I have placed in my signature. It is a good reference for the functions and what they mean.
Well, I'm gonna go ahead and ask if you are not doing the same thing by saying that love is magical to all feelers? Even something as relevant as love, or spirituality, has to be relative to the functions you use. It's not what the value is itself, but how it manifests in the person right?
For me, nothing is magical and nothing is spiritual. But that doesn't mean that nothing carries a deeper meaning. It might even be a cultural difference here, in terms of what explanations are prefered and valued. When I listen to music for instance, I get transported into another world. I get completely lost in it and lose all connection to the real world. I imagine abstract scenarious and situations in my head. I disconnect/dismiss the world and all its meaningless troubles. But if you were to ask me what was happening, it's true that I wouldn't say it was something magical. It is probably just some simple scientific reaction in my head. But that reaction in itself is meaningless to me (Just like the reaction behind love is meaningless), its simply what lies in the core of it. What it produces for me, and how that is produced, matters a lot more than what it actually is.

The thing I wanted to stretch with mentioning psychology and philosophy, was more that I did not read it primarily for practical applications. I don't care how I can earn money from it, where it is most useful or something similar. The meaning and the core for me is understanding the theories, and the idea and thought that lies behind them. I do this to get better tools to understand people and the idea/thoughts that lies behind what they do. I don't care about profit, I care about what holds meaning and value to me.

All this said, I do see several components of the description in your site that I relate to. Listening to the right music and feeling at one with myself for example. And after reading the link to wikisocions description of the type, I can defintiely see parts of myself in that one as well, a lot more than I anticipated in fact. But at the same time, I have to say that there is much I don't see in myself either. The right clothes, the right food? Completely meaningless/irellevant to me. I'd much rather spend my day thinking about stuff. It's currently 14:04 in Denmark, yet I haven't even eaten breakfast yet, because I am much more interested in writing this argument. At first I didn't notice my hunger at all (I can go for a day without eating). Now I am simply ignoring it, because I am in the middle of something that is important to me. I am also too lazy to get up and actually start making the food, I just want the process to be over with, so I can come back to doing more interesting stuff.

Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
This is also another proof of your pragmatic and logical approach to thought "However I do see the necessity of defensive military actions, and know that it is sometimes the only rational solution. I am against most kinds of proactive military actions though, which is strongly related to my beliefs of cultural relativism (Which I wont get more in depth with here, since I don’t want to make it very political)."

Your descriptions are more dynamic than static. By far I see more Te (observations of logic of action).
This is a point I cannot argue with, as that is certainly my belief. I would assume that most people agreed on it though, since it's really only in extreme cases I would support any kind of military action, and even then I don't know if I would support it or rather just view it as a "neccesary evil" (Probably the latter). I don't know how many would argue against defensive actions if their country was under direct attack.


I may seem overly dismissive of the type. That is not my intention. I simply doubt that it is the right type for me, as it is pretty much a 180 from what I have otherwise been typed as, and so have to point out what doesn't make sense to me, or what I have trouble relating to.