Si vulnerable / painful PoLR function of ENTjs and ENFjs

[FDG]

Si PoLR is just being concentrated on Ni matters at the expense of Si, the sensibility of our skin and organs is a whole another matter

an example I have in my mind is a recent discussion on a cycling forum between an ENTj and an ESTj

the ENTj kept saying that two cyclist with the same power per kg must climb at the same pace because the law of physics say so (this is Ni>Si, realy always abides to "core concepts"

the ESTj kept giving dumb suggestions on how actually heavier cyclists tend to climb slower, how "in real life" it doesn't play out that way, how the conditions of the athlete matter for the performance (Si>Ni special cases in reality always prevail to "core concepts")

of course the ESTj didn't understand that power per kg takes into account automatically all those factors, but we can forgive him cuz it's his polr


WHAT instead I can consider as being Si PoLR related is maybe the fact that I can consider pain to be "irrilevant" if it goes in the way of something I want to do "in the future"; even if the future is something very near...but this is common to ALL resolute types so it is only good for Se/Ni vs SiNe

(notice that it doesn't always translate in an advantageous condition given that you can just explode out of stress if you always consider pain to be irrilevant)

[marooned]

Actually I rather relate to Joy's headache description (though I don't have Si PoLR). I probably wouldn't do that with headaches... but generally when doctors have asked how something feels or how much it hurts, I have a hard time answering the question... I may lapse into describing how I visualize what it is, or my current theory about what it *might* be (my theories are usually wrong btw)... how the doctor reacts during our meeting often ends up affecting how serious or not serious I think it is, and this actually changes how I think I feel. This is what happens when I have no experience with a new problem. With headaches, however, I have memory of them... so I would only think something was odd about them if a) they're becoming more frequent now than they used to be; and/or b) they seem to be gradually increasing in intensity. If they follow the pattern of what they've always been, when the doctor asks if I have headaches I'll say yeah, but it's no different now than it was the rest of my life.

Another thing that might apply is, like every other day at work one of my co-workers has to ask me "what it's like outside" (as in temperature). I hate it when she asks me this. I don't know how to answer the question. Why can't she just look out the window? Or she'll ask how warm or cold it is. My answer is usually that it's "fine" or that it's not much different than it has been the rest of the week... or that I felt cold at first... but then I felt too warm... I hate this sort of question and I think it's unnecessary for her to ask, and I don't understand how any response I give her could tell her anything important. ETA: I also don't understand why she has to ask this question like every other day... doesn't she remember the long line of useless answers I've given her... gah.

ETA: I don't understand and never have understood how exactly Si is supposed to relate to your clothing.

[leckysupport]

Si PoLR is just being concentrated on Ni matters at the expense of Si, the sensibility of our skin and organs is a whole another matter

an example I have in my mind is a recent discussion on a cycling forum between an ENTj and an ESTj

the ENTj kept saying that two cyclist with the same power per kg must climb at the same pace because the law of physics say so (this is Ni>Si, realy always abides to "core concepts"

the ESTj kept giving dumb suggestions on how actually heavier cyclists tend to climb slower, how "in real life" it doesn't play out that way, how the conditions of the athlete matter for the performance (Si>Ni special cases in reality always prevail to "core concepts")

of course the ESTj didn't understand that power per kg takes into account automatically all those factors, but we can forgive him cuz it's his polr

Isn't that a Te vs. Ti argument?
IMO the LSE is basically saying that he doesn't care about the theory, all he cares about is what he has seen. It doesn't really look like a polr problem to me, it just sounds like he just didn't get the mathematics.

[FDG]

Isn't that a Te vs. Ti argument?
IMO the LSE is basically saying that he doesn't care about the theory, all he cares about is what he has seen. It doesn't really look like a polr problem to me, it just sounds like he just didn't get the mathematics.

I think the way they were wording it was a Ni vs Si matter - where the "theory" here is Ni (not Ti, there isn't a system, it's a dynamic theory of how a body moves), IMHO

the LSE later got the mathematics and "understood" it, but he was still mistrustful of how that could be applied "universally", voicing what I'd call the Si concerns he was voicing (yes, this also means that he didn't understand really the mathematics...probably he needed to assimilate it better, don't know)

clearly, when I say "dumb arguments", it's only because I value Ni too, probably you would hear the opposite from an ESTj

[Joy]

Actually I rather relate to Joy's headache description (though I don't have Si PoLR). I probably wouldn't do that with headaches... but generally when doctors have asked how something feels or how much it hurts, I have a hard time answering the question... I may lapse into describing how I visualize what it is, or my current theory about what it *might* be (my theories are usually wrong btw)... how the doctor reacts during our meeting often ends up affecting how serious or not serious I think it is, and this actually changes how I think I feel.

I've actually discussed this particular thing with other Ni dominants and Ni creatives as well, and it seems to be a pretty common thing, especially with Ni subtypes.

[FDG]

I've actually discussed this particular thing with other Ni dominants and Ni creatives as well, and it seems to be a pretty common thing, especially with Ni subtypes.

I have "discussed" too, and it's not common. Who's right? List me the people that have agreed with you because I won't believe a word you say.

[Joy]

FDG, I do not expect you to agree with/believe anything I say. It's quite apparent that we have very different understandings of Socionics. I've not challenged anything you've posted in a while, not because I've agreed with all of your posts that I've read, but because it's not my place to tell you what type you should believe yourself to be and because it's apparent that nothing good will come of our arguing about Socionics.

[Ezra]

Ashton is one of the few people who actually understands what Si really is, which is evinced through his posts at socionix. Having Si polr does not mean you are an absent-minded, physically-futile person who doesn't know when they're hungry and dresses like shit. The correlation between Si and health is one of the most prevalent misconceptions in the socionics community. Si is not health; it is the external dynamics of fields, which translates as a desire to have a continuous physical flow, a harmony with one's physical surroundings (as opposed to Se, which is akin to hopping from point to point, maximizing the intensity of each). Ezra, the bolded part of your description is accurate, but it doesn't capture the essence. The second part is not accurate. Anyone can enjoy aesthetics, health, etc.; it's about how one enjoys them. Si is my role and I am in very good shape, very physically coordinated, know how to manage my body, etc.

Okay, I took some points from this. However, the bolded bit isn't really going against what I said. I know anyone can enjoy aesthetics and health (which is why Ashton's argument for Expat's being an LSE is so shit; he "enjoys pubs" means he is Si creative, apparently). What I'm saying is that Si PoLR individuals are less able to place themselves in the right frame of mind to completely take in and derive maximum pleasure from their actions or environment. For example, a Si base type could lie on a beach for hours doing nothing but immersing themselves in their surroundings; the sea air, the calming waves, the soft, warm sand etc. A Si PoLR type simply a) could not give a shit about this kind of atmosphere and b) would become depressed if forced to sit there for hours on end. They simply can't get the same enjoyment from it as a Si ego type could.

you and Ezra shouldn't be allowed to respond to eachother... it creates a bullshit feedback loop.

Bionicgoat's authoritarian streak; this is one for the halls of fame.

Actually I rather relate to Joy's headache description (though I don't have Si PoLR). I probably wouldn't do that with headaches... but generally when doctors have asked how something feels or how much it hurts, I have a hard time answering the question... I may lapse into describing how I visualize what it is, or my current theory about what it *might* be (my theories are usually wrong btw)... how the doctor reacts during our meeting often ends up affecting how serious or not serious I think it is, and this actually changes how I think I feel. This is what happens when I have no experience with a new problem. With headaches, however, I have memory of them... so I would only think something was odd about them if a) they're becoming more frequent now than they used to be; and/or b) they seem to be gradually increasing in intensity. If they follow the pattern of what they've always been, when the doctor asks if I have headaches I'll say yeah, but it's no different now than it was the rest of my life.

Perhaps this says something more about Joy and yourself in terms of personal preference or mindframe (not functionally-speaking) as opposed to your both being Si devaluing, or Ni ego.

ETA: I don't understand and never have understood how exactly Si is supposed to relate to your clothing.

I think it's basically about Si's being related to coordination. An LIE, for example, has shit coordination, according to a few descriptions. So they'll dress like a retard, with no concern for what they're wearing, because it clearly doesn't matter if you're wearing a black t-shirt with black jeans on a summer's day, because they're serving their purpose as clothes, and you're not extremely uncomfortable.

[marooned]

I think it's basically about Si's being related to coordination. An LIE, for example, has shit coordination, according to a few descriptions. So they'll dress like a retard, with no concern for what they're wearing, because it clearly doesn't matter if you're wearing a black t-shirt with black jeans on a summer's day, because they're serving their purpose as clothes, and you're not extremely uncomfortable.

so really it's just back to the aesthetic sense. I suppose the "external dynamics of fields" would involve ones own subjective, internal experience ("fields") of how something appears...

[xyz]

Ashton is one of the few people who actually understands what Si really is, which is evinced through his posts at socionix. Having Si polr does not mean you are an absent-minded, physically-futile person who doesn't know when they're hungry and dresses like shit. The correlation between Si and health is one of the most prevalent misconceptions in the socionics community. Si is not health; it is the external dynamics of fields, which translates as a desire to have a continuous physical flow, a harmony with one's physical surroundings (as opposed to Se, which is akin to hopping from point to point, maximizing the intensity of each). Ezra, the bolded part of your description is accurate, but it doesn't capture the essence. The second part is not accurate. Anyone can enjoy aesthetics, health, etc.; it's about how one enjoys them. Si is my role and I am in very good shape, very physically coordinated, know how to manage my body, etc.

Sweet Jesus, thank you for these posts strrng.

[Steve]

Yeah basically having an Si PoLR is the extreme inability to experience a change in inner mental states directly stemming from blending and unifying what one experiences as an external flow (in the external environment)

[Ezra]

For anyone who's interested and who still hasn't seen it, here is Augusta's original description of Si, which can be found at socionics.us, along with descriptions of the other functions.

An object's internal state we view as the relationship between events that cause each other. This element perceives information about how processes are reflected in one's internal state — people's sense of health and sensations that are caused by processes taking place. Interaction in space is essentially the response of one object to another. Objects respond to other objects, creating certain sensations in each other. Such an individual perceives information from without as sensations related to what is happening. For example, the sensation of pain is essentially the reflection in a person's brain of a relationship between his functioning body and a process occurring in some part of the body that impedes this functioning.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and the sensations of people who are located within it. He is able to avoid physical discomfort and protect others from discomfort. This element determines the ability to recreate previously experienced aesthetic sensations — to recreate an object that provides one with aesthetic sensations that the author chooses. These people are able to distinguish previously experienced aesthetic sensations from new ones and are able to "collect" and remember them. This also implies the ability to set one's aesthetic and sensory needs in opposition to others' and demand their gratification, the ability to mould and perfect not only one's own aesthetic tastes and habits, but also those of other people. We might say that such individuals have the ability to impose their understanding of aesthetics and comfortable living on other people.

By the way, strrrng, the point I posted that you said was incorrect is not, as Augusta proves here (look at the bold).

[pezzonovante]

I'd like to add that most of what I've said in the past is true primarily of LIE's that have been caught in a downward spiral related to their PoLR. PoLR's really aren't that bad if you're pretty happy and healthy, overall.

That said, I agree with what you've said, largely. I mean, we still know what foods we like and don't like, but if a doctor asks questions like "do you get headaches" it's difficult to give an answer you're happy with. "Sometimes. I mean, it's not like some people I've known who get really bad headaches every week or whatever. But maybe ever other month or so I'll get one. It's usually not too bad though. I only get really bad headaches a few times a year, and even those headaches aren't like, the kind that make you throw up or anything like that. I do have a hard time with bright lights when that happens though. But like I said, that only happens a few times a year. I've wondered in the past if it could be related to the changing seasons? (etc.)..."

Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but even answering questions like "how much does it hurt on a scale of 1 to 10" can be sort of difficult to answer, compared to types with strong Si.

The most apparent aspect of the PoLR is, imo, the general lack of attention to it. Like, someone with a Si PoLR may wear clothes that are a little bit wrinkly or worn out, or they may wear the same style of clothes most of the time (like owning 5 similar light blue button down shirts), or they may wear clothes that match color-wise but not style-wise. They don't seem to notice that their surroundings are less than attractive as much as types with strong Si would.

Hey Joy, I'm back lol.. just couldn't stay away.

Everything you say describes me very well, though I don't think they are in any way exclusive to POLR types.

I think the distinction between types that have strong vs. weak is -

Strong types use very naturally, they are just in the moment and constantly seek out ways to increase their pleasure. When they choose what they wear, they don't have to follow any rules, they just look at something and gauge whether it looks good or not.

Weak types use in a very pre-determined way, using many rules-of-thumb to help them along the way. I can dress myself pretty well, but I have many rules that I have saved in my head that I've learned by watching dominants and reading stuff on the topic. I then attempt to pick clothes that satisfy all the constraints that I have set. Unfortunately, I only have enough knowledge of certain types of clothing (mostly dressy clothes), so my closet is filled with lots of similar stuff like you say. People often say that I dress well, but people who see me on a regular basis often comment on how I never deviate from my set style. Truth is, I would feel very uncomfortable wearing something other than what I usually wear, in fact it would probably bother me all day.

dominants aren't afraid to take risks in their areas of strength. They love trying new fashions, eating at untested restaurants, etc. Types with weak either choose to ignore certain areas, or exercise great caution in the ones they do care about. I think this is what leads to a lot of confusion regarding Role and POLR types. It's not all-or-nothing. You pick and choose which areas you care enough about to put effort into, and ones that you just don't give a shit about. For me, I could care less about maintaining a clean home or workplace, or maintaining my car, or things like that. But I take care of how I look, seek out good food, and take care of my health (to some degree though I am extremely resistant to visiting doctors). This is probably a product of how I was raised - I would argue that how a person chooses to use their functions really just depends on their circumstances.

In the same way, I'm not afraid to take chances with new sources of information, new techniques to accomplish something, etc.

[Joy]

welcome back

I once read something about how Obama, EIE, dresses. He was asked how he'd describe his look, and he said, "Simple. My theory on style is find something that fits and buy five - like blue suits. They come in handy when you’re running for President."

[munenori2]

I think the distinction between types that have strong vs. weak is -

Strong types use very naturally, they are just in the moment and constantly seek out ways to increase their pleasure. When they choose what they wear, they don't have to follow any rules, they just look at something and gauge whether it looks good or not.

Weak types use in a very pre-determined way, using many rules-of-thumb to help them along the way. I can dress myself pretty well, but I have many rules that I have saved in my head that I've learned by watching dominants and reading stuff on the topic. I then attempt to pick clothes that satisfy all the constraints that I have set. Unfortunately, I only have enough knowledge of certain types of clothing (mostly dressy clothes), so my closet is filled with lots of similar stuff like you say. People often say that I dress well, but people who see me on a regular basis often comment on how I never deviate from my set style. Truth is, I would feel very uncomfortable wearing something other than what I usually wear, in fact it would probably bother me all day.

+1

[strrrng]

By the way, strrrng, the point I posted that you said was incorrect is not, as Augusta proves here (look at the bold).

Just because Augusta said it, suddenly it's right? I don't think so.

Yeah basically having an Si PoLR is the extreme inability to experience a change in inner mental states directly stemming from blending and unifying what one experiences as an external flow (in the external environment)

I wouldn't expect most people to understand this lol

[force my hand]

Huh. This must be like what I sound like when I talk about Fe.

[pezzonovante]

welcome back

I once read something about how Obama, EIE, dresses. He was asked how he'd describe his look, and he said, "Simple. My theory on style is find something that fits and buy five - like blue suits. They come in handy when you’re running for President."

That is spot on for me. As time goes on I have become a lot more comfortable with colors, but as far as style or fit, I go with the tried-and-true. Once in a while I'll try something else and I always regret it and will return it if I can.

[pezzonovante]

One of my best friends is a SLI and I think he secretly harbors a grudge because I copy so much of this stuff. I have never made an attempt to explain socionics to him so I'm sure he just sees me as a plain old biter. I can't even imagine how poor my fashion sense would be if I didn't have him around over the years to learn from lol.

[pezzonovante]

Huh. This must be like what I sound like when I talk about Fe.

The same rule applies for Role functions and I can see it in play with my own . Basically I have certain ways of expressing emotions - phrases, voice tones/intonations, facial expressions that I can use on cue if I need to. But if the situation expands beyond the initial rule-based usage, I start feeling pretty damn awkward so I usually just make eye contact, laugh a lot at whatever they're saying, then run away.

EDIT - the part of my role that I don't understand that well is how it plays into my motivations. I tend to care a lot about the impression I leave on others, though I am not very good at managing it. Just a role function obsession maybe? If anyone has some insight on this, I'd love to hear it.

[Ezra]

Just because Augusta said it, suddenly it's right?

Correct. Her system, her rules. She defined the functions as they stand, hence, if you're talking about socionics, we use her word as absolute truth.

[Logos]

Correct. Her system, her rules. She defined the functions as they stand, hence, if you're talking about socionics, we use her word as absolute truth.

Understanding cannot nor should not be held in stasis in such manner.

[Ezra]

Okay, but you can't diverge from Augusta's descriptions if you want to become proficient in your understanding of classical socionics.

[strrrng]

Okay, but you can't diverge from Augusta's descriptions if you want to become proficient in your understanding of classical socionics.

not every one of her descriptions is good. And don't forget about Jung.

[Joy]

not every one of her descriptions is good.

probably true

And don't forget about Jung.

???

[strrrng]

???

Jung's descriptions capture the essence of the functions - regardless of what system you're using.

[Steve]

Correct. Her system, her rules. She defined the functions as they stand, hence, if you're talking about socionics, we use her word as absolute truth.

Aushra had some good concepts, but the way people are typed supposedly according to her principles seems fallacious and the inter-type relations of the people typed "according to her system" simply do not hold up IRL. So there must be aspects of it that need revising, OR aspects of it that people just need to interpret differently and correctly.

Actually Aushra derived her conception of the functions from Jung and Antoni Kepinsky's information metabolism, and while the essence of what she formed with the information elements is definitely legit, I think that she and/or other socionists ran too superfluously with the concepts of the functions and began attributing them to things that simply do not support the intertype relations observing them IRL.

[Steve]

???

Read through Jung's descriptions, and if you have any questions or need help understanding any of it, we'll be happy to explain. Jung doesn't directly talk about inter-type relations, but he has fundamentals in there that really allow you to get a sense of what's going on, and is particularly helpful in differentiating the extroverted functions from the introverted functions, such as with Se and Si.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

In particular, look at his description of Extroverted Feeling and Introverted Sensing.

[strrrng]

Read through Jung's descriptions, and if you have any questions or need help understanding any of it, we'll be happy to explain. Jung doesn't directly talk about inter-type relations, but he has fundamentals in there that really allow you to get a sense of what's going on, and is particularly helpful in differentiating the extroverted functions from the introverted functions, such as with Se and Si.

that is very accurate. I also think that the reason Si's feel that 'tension' about the Se attitude is because Se does things in a disconnected way. Si people can be fairly intense with something, but it's always blended with them as a subjective experience.

[Steve]

that is very accurate. I also think that the reason Si's feel that 'tension' about the Se attitude is because Se does things in a disconnected way. Si people can be fairly intense with something, but it's always blended with them as a subjective experience.

Exactly, it's the connectedness. I love feeling intense rushes like being at the beach and being slammed and tossed around by a huge wave, but to me it's intensely connected and what makes that kind of an experience so fulfilling is that that kind of intensity hurdles me into the depths of one-ness with my surroundings, experiencing the full force (yes I'm using the word force, but more in a dynamic sense of like a wave) that the essence of my experience has to offer.

I experienced the same thing when I was telling you about when I rode that roller coaster. I didn't feel the urge to scream at all because I was so intensely immersed in the experience, I was in supreme "take it in" mode. Rushing down the drop, seeing the steel ties to the track fly by, feeling the rushing wind and hearing the growl of the wind at the first drop (the growl of the wind is always the most at the first drop, obviously). I was just like "HOLY SHIT, YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH", I almost growled myself, lol like I was feeling waves of the power of the earth hurdling through me.

[strrrng]

I experienced the same thing when I was telling you about when I rode that roller coaster. I didn't feel the urge to scream at all because I was so intensely immersed in the experience, I was in supreme "take it in" mode. Rushing down the drop, seeing the steel ties to the track fly by, feeling the rushing wind and hearing the growl of the wind at the first drop (the growl of the wind is always the most at the first drop, obviously). I was just like "HOLY SHIT, YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH", I almost growled myself, lol like I was feeling waves of the power of the earth hurdling through me.

right, lol. I remember being on a roller-coaster, thinking 'is this death?', then just letting myself be hurled around, but it was much more intensely focused than what you described...all I cared about was the intensity

and hkkmr, what are you talking about...?

[Steve]

You need to read more Aushra if you want to discuss socionics. She understood Jung at a very deep level.

The things you have posted recently mostly reveal is a lack of reading on Aushra, a lack of understanding if you did read it, a lack of understanding about the fundamentals of thermodynamics and how the analogy correlates with information metabolism. In addition, you lack a understanding of how Aushra felt about typing(that it was diffucult) and how much of the descriptive content of socionic is by her hands(very little).

The thing is, it's very diffucult for me to correct you on these misunderstandings you have because you have adopted alternate definitions and interpretations of the functions which simply do not correspond with socionics in general.

If you want to discuss this, I can, but you must keep your eyes open and be willing to adjust your understanding of the functions in the short term in order to understand the perspective of personality that is advocated by Aushra rather then simply attack that perspective as being somehow inferior.

A lot of what I'm saying is not classical Socionics, but it is something that I believe most accurately describes inter-type relations.

Fair enough, I'll take a more thorough look at Aushra's stuff and evaluate it, so at least we're comparing apples for apples. Could you post the link here? This way it's in an easy place so that even others can follow the discussion.

[Steve]

Prediction is good, but so is understanding.

Um, there's understanding.

-Will respond to the rest later.

[Steve]

From what I've seen so far, the logic of information metabolism and the idea of dualism is fine, however I have a problem with the things she attributes to functions such as here:

Any kind of information is processed in one of two ways: information about objects и их структуре and their structure усваивается на фоне расстояния между ними — digested against the backdrop of the distance between them -- (белая логика) и на фоне их взаимного притяжения друге к другу — (white logic), and against the background of their mutual attraction for a friend to a friend -- (белая этика). (white ethics). Информация о процессах Information about processes и and осмысливается на фоне времени — conceived against the backdrop of time -- (белая интуиция) и на фоне самочувствия — (white intuition), and against the backdrop of self -- (белая сенсорика). (Sensorics white). Итак, есть четыре пространственные способности или умения психики: восприятие расстояний, восприятие притяжения-отталкивания, восприятие времени So, there are four or spatial ability skills psyche: the perception of distance perception attraction-repulsion, the perception of time и восприятие самочувствия в пространстве and self-perception in space.

I think her assumptions as to the nature of the functions are overly reductionist.

And pretty much I have an issue with model A.

[Steve]

Reductionist? Conceptual perhaps, but she uses induction more then reduction.

She does not provide descriptions, she provides concepts, and the words she gives to her concepts are vague and encompassing of the variant of description that can be attributed to them rather then being narrow, verbose and detailed. How the various description relates to the element is via the concept such as Idea, Time, Force, etc. It's not that socionic descriptions are right or wrong, but that they only grasp a piece of the concept rather then the whole.

The concept describes what makes one manifestation of an similar to another manifestation of an element, rather then the details that differentiate them.

Ok good. You pointed out something very important. That the ideas of "Idea, Time, Force" etc are CONCEPTUAL words - which is what I've always assumed them to be - words that are metaphorical and meant to give a hint at some conceptual aspect of a function. They are NOT the functions themselves - for example, having an Ni PoLR does not mean that you will have problems being on time somewhere - It's THESE kinds of misattributions that I've been criticizing, because this is what I've been seeing happen way too much on this forum.

If Aushra simply used those words as illustrations of conceptual aspects of the functions, then I don't have an issue with it (although there may be better words, but anyway), because when I typed myself back in June of 06, it was these kinds of words that I used in an abstract feel sense to determine that I was an ENTp, and that the idea of "structural logic" and "Intuition of possibilities" were things where I sensed that there was something underlying in them that resonates with me. (Especially the idea of Ti building and connecting things in a framework, as opposed to receiving seemingly disconnected bits of information as Te seems to me - I had noticed this dichotomy in my schooling and when I saw it as Ti and Te, it immediately resonated with me).

If Aushra only laid out these fundamentals, then it is the fault of her contemporaries for taking words that were originally meant to serve as conceptual hints of abstract phenomenon and turning them into defining aspects of people who possess those functions. It is THOSE people whom I criticize.

I still don't understand why Te is referred to as Business Logic though.

So for those of you who are using these conceptual words as the end all of the function, heed the following:

My assumption as to why Ni is called the intuition of time, is that I guess if you think of the concept of time, its something that we can't see but it's something that exists at the essence of reality, and its something that is dynamic, it moves, evolves, etc. And the fact that time exists everywhere I guess makes it a field. So what you have is a kind of invisible dynamic field, which I guess resembles internal dynamic fields (Ni) - See how this is just a metaphor of a concept, and does NOT have to do with the person's perception and dealing with time itself?

With Se being "force" or whatever, Aushra probably associated that word with it because of how Se seems to pulsate up and down and be much more topographic compared to Si, so it feels like there's always this push to change things (from an Si perspective, which Aushra was). Also, see some threads that strrrng has posted recently where the notion of "force" is addressed and clarified as it relates to Se.

So again, using these words as conceptual guides (which seem like they were derived through an Ne-mind such as hers that likes to find these little static associations - I'm the same way), and as METAPHORS to hint at the rough idea of a function is one thing and fine, as long as you realize that they are only metaphors. However the issue I have with Model A, and especially people's interpretations of it is that these words are not treated simply as conceptual metaphors, but instead they are taken in a literal sense. And for example that an INTjs agenda/motivation in life is to be healthy, and that they need their ESFj dual to provide that for them is utterly ridiculous.

[strrrng]

EXACTLY

[FDG]

Si -> Ne -> Ti -> Fe -> Ni -> Se -> Fi -> Te ----> return to Si -> Ne, repeat

I still have some trouble accepting this ring even if I have understood the rational behind it

[Steve]

What kind of mis-attributions? I've seen varying kinds, including those you have made recently. Mis-attributions are made by all, it's all the more important to recognize some made by oneself. And you dismiss the conceptual too easily.. metaphorical? The concepts are not metaphorical, but rather the concepts are a differentiation, a differentiation between "this" and "that".



Who are THOSE people you criticize? There is certainly a lot of noise, but I have written and linked a understanding of the topic earlier that I view as not noise. I don't expect you to understand it in one day or a week, but we should reconvene another time, perhaps when you or I find another topic worth commenting on.



A good question to answer, but is it one that I should answer for you or should you answer this one for yourself? Why do people consider Te to be business logic? Who are those people, what did Aushra consider Te to be, what have I represented Te with. If you understand how other people think of Te and why, how Aushra think of Te and why, and how I think of Te and why, perhaps you will understand what you think of Te and why.



A metaphor? No, I think not. A concept yes, but not the metaphor of one. The concept itself. What is time? Merely something we cannot see? We cannot see time? We can not sense time? It is a field element, a subjective one, it is a irrational one, it is a predictive one. We certainly sense time, at least I do, but a essence of reality? Is it a essense of reality? I thought it was subjective, I thought it was a field.. I thought it was just my perception.



Oh yes, is pulsating down for you right now? Or is this just a mis-attribution of ? I clarified too, did you not read the post.



Concepts, yes. Metaphors, no. The extraverted elements are concepts of the objects and things themselves, the fields describe how we feel about them, subjectively of course... because that's how feelings are. And as for Model A, your particular example does not really fit because that particular explanation of hidden agenda is not from a Model A source. It is from another model of socionics that is not built on Model A.

Let's cut to the chase, because it seems that we're just throwing theoretical words around and debating our use of words and concepts.

How about explaining how Model A accurately fits me and you, both as ENTps. That way we can debate its accuracy directly from its application.

[Steve]

Having pure theory doesn't quite cut it. The theory has to imitate what happens IRL - that's where I get the conclusions/observations I have, which support my views on information metabolism. I took a look at a few of the links you provided and yes there are aspects there that I can relate to make sense of, but I feel like you're just debating the theoretical interpretation of it, without any observational substance to back it up.

The best way to get into the mind of the creator is to look at the expectations of the theory in practice.

Also you've claimed I've misrepresented some of Aushra's principles. What exactly do you think I've misrepresented?

[Kristiina]

Ni PoLR can't be about not being on time because I'm often late. I just forget myself into my own thoughts and forget to do something in the real world. On the other hand, my INTp husband procrastinates as much as I do and he's rarely ever late. Go figure what it all means.

As for Si PoLR... I do get pleasure from introverted sensory things. e.g. choclate, a warm bath, the feeling of silk, a good pillow, etc. But when I get a PoLR hit, I find it extremely hard to forgive. I remember some PoLR hits that I have never forgiven, even years later.