Si vulnerable / painful PoLR function of ENTjs and ENFjs

[Steve]

I have never left out the importance of the predictive element. But this is not where the criticism exists. I am criticizing the understanding that you are expressing of the information elements. Even if you had a better methodology, which does not seem to be the case, and not proveable in any case. The only evidence you bring to back up this superiority in prediction is your own subjective experience. So what am I left to evaluate, but your understanding.

Specifics? I'd be happy to address each instance.

As for your misrepresentation of Augusta, for one you criticizes her concepts of the information elements as if they were "descriptions", which they are not. Beyond that, you use her terminology without understanding her concepts within that terminology at least you willfully disregard some of the ideas in your description of Ni. Also you express the idea that you do not understand why people consider Te "business logic", but I think if you happen to gain that understanding of why people consider Te "business logic", you might actually learn something, if not of socionics then at least of how other people think.

I stated initially that SOMEONE was using those words as descriptions, since I see them frequently used as such on this forum - with people even developing new spinoff theories based on them, however I didn't know whether it was Aushra or one of her contemporaries that used those words as descriptions. I believe I acknowledged in an earlier post in this thread that I don't necessarily take issue with the words she provided being used as concepts to roughly illustrate aspects to help visualize the function in one's mind. Personally I find those conceptual words to be ok, but not the best way to think of the functions.

In terms of the business logic thing, I don't know - my Ne can't come up with anything at the moment to figure out where the connection of EOD relates to business somehow. I see the Ti structural logic connection much more easily. Maybe you could help me out? How does Te relate to the idea of "business logic"? (and I'm not interested in more links, I want YOU to explain it to me from your OWN understanding).

In regards to what I think of ENTp, this might be a good time for me to comment.

I think a ENTp with Ne(idea) and Ti(logic) in their ego would prefer to concentrate on Concepts and Understanding, rather then Prediction and Description. I think we prefer to leave Prediction and Description to our actions that influence the world in a more non-verbal manner.

I'm not sure what you mean by prediction and description, but I guess I generally agree that overall, ENTps tend to be more concept/analytic focused than say their duals.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ni PoLR is indirectly related to time, in the sense that the types with Ni PoLR are rarely if ever late.

Ni PoLR types do not handle uncertainty. They need to know what is happening and when it is happening, as I believe they struggle with uncertainty because they are unable to predict or see possible patterns or courses of action that could occur.

So in a sense, if one expands this to a Ni to a more developed state, Ni is good at predicting possible events and seeing outcomes, wether in past, present future *or in the mind* This I believe is related to the 'time' aspect.

The dimensions are x,y,z and time. Ni is present, past future and mind. It's an unconcious link to tie it in with fourth dimension in that way, I would surmise.

However, to describe Ni, I know it would be convenient to sum it up with a word or two, but perhaps such word(s) do not exist in the language. On that, I see no harm in giving it a proper couple of paragraphs to detail what it does and can do, just like we do with other functions.

[strrrng]

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".

the point is that the metaphors themselves are in no way descriptions of the functions in their actuality.

[JRiddy]

The functions are conceptual and not metaphorical.

The functions are a byproduct of information metabolism and a abstraction created to describe how the human brain differentiates information.

You can try and describe the functions in their "actuality", but I rather believe there is a lack of knowledge in what the functions are conceptually. I'm asking that others understand the functions conceptually, before trying to describe them "actually". Because what is being described is not actually the socionic concepts but rather another idea given the same name, only loosely related.

I think it's important that we draw the distinctions between information aspects, IM elements, and functions. When we talk about how people act in a real-world or metaphorical sense, we are describing how IM elements work in their functional position (e.g., "lead", "creative", "PoLR", etc.). When we talk about what people focus on, we are typically describing IM elements; that is, we are discussing the mechanisms the mind uses to metabolize (read: "process") information. When we speak of information aspects, however, we are describing the way that the socionics model divides all the possible information in the world.

The very big idea behind socionics is that preferences for certain kinds of information are the primary determinants of personality (or at least sociotipy). So of course it's meaningful to talk about being related to theory and possiblities, or related to business and enterprise, but theory and enterprise are really the individual's response to obtaining information of a certain kind. In that sense, it is highly important that socionist focus on creating clear, meaningful definitions of the information aspects, and describe how preferences for them lead to personality traits.

As someone fairly new to socionics, I am only beginning to understand this, but the overemphasis on traits and behaviors among the socionics community is dangerous in that it makes the study no better than MBTI or Big 5 or what have you. I am beginning to see why my initial desire to oversimplify the InformAspects (CamelCase makes things cool right?) was so wrong-headed: because it focuses on stereotypical examples of IM in action instead of the reasons behind that.

As an example, I will use an Infospect (that's got a ring to it, maybe?) with which I am very familiar, . Though it's easy to describe it as a focus on theories and potentialities, this only represents a subset of the manifold ways in which it is expressed. What it really is, conceptually, is the [b]internal statics of bodies[/i]. In other words, the intrinsic fundamental qualities of objects, concepts, people, etc. Theories and possibilities arise because the (relatively) easy recognition of fundamentals creates a need to explain. Again, I'm no expert at this, but I think it would do a lot of good if we tried to approach our descriptions like this.

In that since, I'm in total agreement with anyone who wants to focus on the conceptual.

[strrrng]

The functions are conceptual and not metaphorical.

The functions are a byproduct of information metabolism and a abstraction created to describe how the human brain differentiates information.

You can try and describe the functions in their "actuality", but I rather believe there is a lack of knowledge in what the functions are conceptually. I'm asking that others understand the functions conceptually, before trying to describe them "actually". Because what is being described is not actually the socionic concepts but rather another idea given the same name, only loosely related.

that is shit...

anyway, I'm bored with your ramblings, trying to cover your own ass. You like to play with words and twist meanings around, so there is no point in debating with you. I'll put it nicely: shut your fucking mouth

[Steve]

.

Ok, I decided to read the entire thread again, because something seemed off to me, and like WTF!? You are seriously full of shit. You didn't even address the issues that I had brought up in my posts, you just claimed that I did not properly understand Aushra but failed to show how, except for general statements about how I'm assuming wrong things. You basically threw up a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and hid behind vague language, and I'm not sure why. You basically got lost in the theory and found convenient vagueries to serve as some sort of protection, and I don't understand the need to. Then when I finally asked for some more real-world type characteristics with the ENTp example, you didn't have much to say and seemed unsure, unconfident and reluctant, which leads me to believe that you've basically accepted something that seems logically totally correct, but haven't totally thought through its manifestations for yourself and actually examined the content in its applied form. I understand that you may have this whole framework in your head that is very personal to you and it's hard to remove yourself form it (I've experienced the same thing) but if that's what the issue is, please try and see things from the person listening to you's point of view as to discuss things in a more mutually relatable way.

You wrote a post specifically addressing a problem you had with Aushra's "description" of the elements. Have you decided what she wrote is valid or invalid? Or does it provide no use for you?

Let's recap that post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...3&postcount=39

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.

I said that I believed that most of her fundamental concepts were legitimate (with some words being questionable), but that how people had interpreted her system was faulty (people claiming to be following her principles but coming up with observations that do not hold up IRL). So I said that either the aspects themselves need revision, or that people need to get their heads out of their asses and interpret them correctly. I did not criticize her concepts in and of themselves.

When I say you do not understand, it means something and that meaning seems lost on you. When I say that you do not understand, I'm saying you do not see the logical connections within your mind between something that I'm saying and what I am meaning, or what Augusta is saying and what she is meaning. So you saying that you see the "structural logic connections" seems to be clearly false, because you haven't seen the connection between what I've said and the meaning of my criticism. And I've yet to see how you've made the neccessary "structural logical connections" within Aushra's writings to understand it.

What the fuck are you talking about? I said that I understand why the words "structural logic" are associated with Ti, but that I did not understand how the words "business logic" became associated with Te. Other than that, all I see in that paragraph is a bunch of clouds and smoke.

I've already explained my understanding earlier what I think of , but I don't think I said it relates to business logic. I can see how some would relate it to business logic or call it such because of it's relation to the introverted element , which I've noted is a pre-cursor element. From use of , the preference of certain behaviors can be evaluated against other behaviors. And in this sense, when one directs behavior towards "profit" or "away from loss" one could be said to be using . So in a sense we can say that the "business" logic of is the direction of our behavior based on feelings of profit and loss, or good and bad, attraction and repulsion.

What is this?!? And no you haven't explained your understanding earlier. I still don't understand what the Te business logic connection is, and especially how Fi somehow contributes to that deduction. I can imagine what the connection would be vaguely but I don't think that "business logic" works well for Te. Fi doesn't evaluate certain behavioral preferences over other preferences - that's way to general of a characteristic. But to tell you the truth, I really don't care so much about the label as I do the concept of the function itself, so I ask you, what characteristics would a Te dominant (such as Expat) have?

I understand her aspect of the thermodynamic cycle, and the logic seems to line up externally, but it just doesn't sit right - it seems she is connecting apples and oranges - tying two things together in a seemingly coherent way on the surface but beneath the surface falls apart.

I would say prediction relates to looking into the future, while description relates to looking at what the external characteristics of objects. Beyond that, I don't know what else you would call them... wait maybe I do. I'll tell you make those "structural logical connections" in your mind.

As far as prediction and description goes with socionics. Socionics needs to be a descriptive theory of reality, one that is moldable and flexible. It can't be too restrictive to be predictive by putting a bunch of traits into little boxes.

Sarah made a great post on socionix addressing this issue:

http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?...indpost&p=9538

From an earlier post:

In addition, you lack a understanding of how Aushra felt about typing(that it was diffucult)

Sometimes typing is difficult, other times it isn't. It depends on the person being typed. Sometimes all one needs is one picture or one video, or one sound byte, or even a few quotes from the person to get a sense of their functional values and how they're viewing reality.

Once you get a sense of the quadra vibes, its easy to determine a person's quadra fairly quickly. With some people I can off the bat say "He's either Alpha or Delta extrovert" or "Alpha or Beta introvert". But usually to get the best sense of a person, you have to see them in action and hear them articulate their thoughts (best done in video interviews).

[Steve]

My english is very good, but in some cases the words do not come out in the way I intended. I view the world visually anyways, rather then linguistically.

This could be an issue here as well.

[strrrng]

I have used my words rather consistently in my opinion, with the full structural relations to the concepts that I am attempting to describe. While you've attributed my words to things like metaphor, used personal understanding or interpretation of the concepts inconsistently to describe another idea of information processing.

Like when I use the word concept, I don't mean metaphor. I defined my concepts earlier via the referenced links and my commentary, and that is the understanding I've been trying to convey.

arrogant...jargon...bullshit...whatever...

[JRiddy]

JRiddy certainly understood me, so your opinion is not consequential.

Hey, don't bring me in to this. I'm trying to sort things out. In fact, I'm not even exactly sure why y'all are arguing. What's the phrase..."talking past each other."

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not entirely sure what you guys have been talking about over the last few pages, it's became a little vague, well at least to me.

Perhaps you guys could let me know what you think about some general musings of Ni I posted here? Cheers.

Ni PoLR is indirectly related to time, in the sense that the types with Ni PoLR are rarely if ever late.

Ni PoLR types do not handle uncertainty. They need to know what is happening and when it is happening, as I believe they struggle with uncertainty because they are unable to predict or see possible patterns or courses of action that could occur.

So in a sense, if one expands this to a Ni to a more developed state, Ni is good at predicting possible events and seeing outcomes, wether in past, present future *or in the mind* This I believe is related to the 'time' aspect.

The dimensions are x,y,z and time. Ni is present, past future and mind. It's an unconcious link to tie it in with fourth dimension in that way, I would surmise.

However, to describe Ni, I know it would be convenient to sum it up with a word or two, but perhaps such word(s) do not exist in the language. On that, I see no harm in giving it a proper couple of paragraphs to detail what it does and can do, just like we do with other functions.

[strrrng]

Some people certainly understand me, so your opinion is not consequential.

my understanding of you is precisely why I made that post.

but it's always entertaining to see someone hide behind that rationalization. That's the way things work, right? As long as you have a few "right-minded" people who agree with you, no worries .

you still were spewing a bunch of bullshit to cloud the central issue of the argument

[strrrng]

Aushra certainly would understand me, you can read her, but she's not in English.

I think JRiddy understands the concepts, but he doesn't want to be bothered it seems.

Logos has said he sees where I'm going some of the time.
Glamourama says she doesn't have a hard time understanding me.

Kioshi seems to have a similar understanding as me, I think what he writes is very dense and different from me but good a lot of the time.

FDG says a lot of things I agree with, and seems to understand me a bit too.

Aushra is your best bet, imo, the other people don't need to be bothered.

wow, you're such a noble student of the socionics art, I'm sure aushra would gladly pass the torch down to you. this is just another example of how much shit you talk and how little you understand.

[Steve]

That has nothing to do with translating your posts and what you write. I'm really just looking for someone to translate what YOU write since you are pretty damn bad at conveying your ideas and you think you're the shit....

That's been my issue with this debate. Most of the time I don't exactly see an actual point that's being conveyed. I would be more than happy to discuss the information elements/functions as they relate to actual types (and that's what I originally set out to do), because ultimately that's the purpose - but it's been impossible to do that because of this big fuzziness that's been pulled into this.

I understand the points Aushra makes, I just don't understand what aspects of them hkkmr thinks I don't understand because he hasn't been clear in conveying his qualms, and there have been contradictions.

[JRiddy]

I think the primary difficulty we're running into here is one of semantics. All this "metaphorical" vs. "conceptual" stuff isn't getting anyone anywhere. And Hmmkr, this is not meant to be anything other than constructive criticism, but your English is not altogether clear. That's fine. But you have acted defensively when anyone criticizes your ability to convey your ideas clearly, and shift the blame onto others for not understanding you. Try restating your thoughts instead of using ad hominem or ad verecundiam fallacies.

And strrrng, your responses are often far to short to be in any way helpful, and rife with more ad hominem nonsense than the democratic presidential campaign. Please include some form of reasoning in your posts. I know you're all like "Fuck ", but please restrain your anger and remain civil.

I'm not saying any of this to try to gain some sense of superiority by remaining above the fray, and I'm not trying to say that I'm right any everyone else is wrong. But this forum is ostensibly supposed to support the free interchange of ideas about socionics. These ridiculous departures from decorum do nothing but hamper everyone's understanding.

[strrrng]

hkkmr, I understand the functions completely. If you doubt that, go read my descriptions of Fe and Ni in the "learn" thread. And I will have more soon

[JRiddy]

You and Steve don't understand the concepts laid out in Aushra's writings. You guys have taken the terminology and concepts she has laid down and applied your own subjective observations to them. You and Steve don't understand how information processing is the same as the thermodynamic cycle, and this is the big idea that Aushra integrated into Jung Typology.

Socionics is most certainly not the dogmatic adherence to everything Augusta wrote and said. It could be argued that she was overzealous in her attempts to link psychological processes with ideas in natural science. Even if information processing is the same as the thermodynamic cycle, what does that mean? It's not blatantly obvious why that is so important, or what it implies about personality or relationships.

[meatburger]

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.

+2!! My ENTj friend looks good in his clothes but there is an element sometimes where i can see he is unconfident about it. I remember a funny face he made when he was wearing these really tight jeans. His house / room used to be filthy and he didn't seem to care. I know a balding ENTj who wore a cap everwhere. Hats are banned in the casino but he took it off to go in there then put it back on again inside. Hes now shaved his head and he looks awesome! He will also not try new restaurants tending to want to stick with the same he had last time.

Im curious about the link to to mechanical aptitude and Si. Ive watched ISTp's repairing remote control cars and the way they put all the pieces back together so easily i suspect is mental rotation or something. ISFp's also seem to have this incredible artistic flair too.

[Brilliand]

The reason why your dual is the dual, is because they provide the information you need to get to the next step. And this information travels step by step, type to type thru the entire socion until it is repeated.

For Asking types at least, it seems like the Benefactor would do a better job (than your dual) of pulling you along the cycle. But for Declaring types, the Benefactor would be almost useless...

Can the information cycle work the other way (getting from to via )?

[Steve]

Socionics is most certainly not the dogmatic adherence to everything Augusta wrote and said. It could be argued that she was overzealous in her attempts to link psychological processes with ideas in natural science. Even if information processing is the same as the thermodynamic cycle, what does that mean? It's not blatantly obvious why that is so important, or what it implies about personality or relationships.

Bingo.

I'm honestly too tired of debating, because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, although it does seem to have benefitted some like JRiddy, so idk maybe its worth it. I'm not even going to quote posts and respond anymore to this confused debate, it's just not worth it. I am however completely open to discussing the manifestations of the functions/information elements.

[xyz]

Im curious about the link to to mechanical aptitude and Si. Ive watched ISTp's repairing remote control cars and the way they put all the pieces back together so easily i suspect is mental rotation or something. ISFp's also seem to have this incredible artistic flair too.

<shrug> Wish I could tell ya how.

[FDG]

I generally understand easily what hkkmr says, and I think he has good insights. The only "problem" I've encountered is that his way of systematizing information is very "static" whereas mine is very "dynamic" (it could be argued that systematization must be static)

[Steve]

I generally understand easily what hkkmr says, and I think he has good insights. The only "problem" I've encountered is that his way of systematizing information is very "static" whereas mine is very "dynamic" (it could be argued that systematization must be static)

Yeah I agree that systemization of information probably does need to be a static - like in a Ti way - that's how I do it.

[strrrng]

I generally understand easily what hkkmr says, and I think he has good insights. The only "problem" I've encountered is that his way of systematizing information is very "static" whereas mine is very "dynamic" (it could be argued that systematization must be static)

that's what I felt, which is why I didn't read a lot of the posts - because they had a boring quality

[Kristiina]

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.

+3

I always wear sporty-casual. ...but lately I'm developing another combination of club-slutty clothing. Now I have to be extremely careful not to try and mix them! I'd look like a hooker if I actually tried to match a mini skirt with a sports sweater and gym shoes.

[JRiddy]

It's not clear from Ashura's article you posted why these types of information are like (or essentially are...I couldn't decipher if she was using the combustion cycle as a metaphor or suggesting that information is essentially the same thing as thermodynamic energy) the thermodynamic concepts she introduces. The image of the four-stroke engine and the corresponding IM aspects makes sense on its head for the extroverted ones, but I don't see a rigorous description of the nature of that linkage. And there seems to be no attempt altogether to explain the introverted aspects at all; she just gives what she thinks they are.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Ashura is horrible or Socionics is wrong--it is my hope indeed that it is a correct and valuable tool for understanding personality and relationships in a meaningful way--but if this is the theoretical basis, then we are on shaky ground.

[Brilliand]

I've been thinking about the fact that Declaring types have functions in their ego block that aren't adjacent in the information flow. I think that this would cause useful transformations that don't flow in the same direction. Basically, an ESE (for instance) would be able to translate into , without loss.

It seems that extratim elements move the information between rational and irrational, whereas intratim elements serve as inputs for their complementary element. Therefore, extratim types use their creative functions for output, whereas intratim types use their creative functions for input.

This seems somewhat backwards - aren't extratim elements the outgoing ones? Or rather, extratim elements pay more attention to the outside world. But that sounds alarmingly static (i.e. extratim goes with irrational) - I wouldn't want to form a system that applied only to static types.

[Joy]

It's not clear from Ashura's article you posted why these types of information are like (or essentially are...I couldn't decipher if she was using the combustion cycle as a metaphor or suggesting that information is essentially the same thing as thermodynamic energy) the thermodynamic concepts she introduces. The image of the four-stroke engine and the corresponding IM aspects makes sense on its head for the extroverted ones, but I don't see a rigorous description of the nature of that linkage. And there seems to be no attempt altogether to explain the introverted aspects at all; she just gives what she thinks they are.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Ashura is horrible or Socionics is wrong--it is my hope indeed that it is a correct and valuable tool for understanding personality and relationships in a meaningful way--but if this is the theoretical basis, then we are on shaky ground.

Did she ever even actually link them like that? Or was she just saying that Ne is like kinetic energy (etc.), period, and people here assumed that they must be connected like that? I know I who posted that article here a while back, but I don't recall now. The concept of kinetic energy (etc.) relating to the various information aspects makes sense to me, but saying that Ne turns into Fe (or whatever it was) doesn't.

[Azeroffs]

Can you relate to this statement?

"This is also manifested in a relative lack of awareness of the immediate surroundings, as in noticing where objects may be if you don't have to deal with them particularly, and of your own physical sensations. "

I know one way this manifests itself in me is that I hate when people ask me to get something and don't tell me exactly where it is. I just can't find things unless I already have a good idea of where it's at. There have been a few times where I'm looking for something in a messy drawer and a person standing over me is like "it's right there" and I start getting frustrated asking "where?!" They'll just end up grabbing it themselves or pointing at it like it was obvious, and then I feel like a jackass.

[Lobo]

Can you relate to this statement?

"This is also manifested in a relative lack of awareness of the immediate surroundings, as in noticing where objects may be if you don't have to deal with them particularly, and of your own physical sensations. "

I know one way this manifests itself in me is that I hate when people ask me to get something and don't tell me exactly where it is. I just can't find things unless I already have a good idea of where it's at. There have been a few times where I'm looking for something in a messy drawer and a person standing over me is like "it's right there" and I start getting frustrated asking "where?!" They'll just end up grabbing it themselves or pointing at it like it was obvious, and then I feel like a jackass.

Wouldn't this be an Se related issue though? At least that's how I see it.

[Azeroffs]

The way I understand it, is a drive to interact with your surroundings. is the recognition of surroundings. sees something it likes and is drawn towards it. just takes it all in.

[Lobo]

The way I understand it, is a drive to interact with your surroundings. is the recognition of surroundings. sees something it likes and is drawn towards it. just takes it all in.

Actually, this is something that is confusing about Socionics. On one hand, in terms of information aspects, information would be the location of things in the surroundings, while information is about how the surroundings are felt. On the other hand, both of them as functions is like you are mentioning, and similar to what I've read before. I find it confusing :/.

[Azeroffs]

Actually, this is something that is confusing about Socionics. On one hand, in terms of information aspects, information would be the location of things in the surroundings, while information is about how the surroundings are felt. On the other hand, both of them as functions is like you are mentioning, and similar to what I've read before. I find it confusing :/.

Yeah, see is a static picture. So, it sees everything analyzes and the things that are most interesting pop out. It's like looking at a picture.

is like a video, you're focusing on whatever is moving and whatever has the most effect on you, but you're just observing everything.

With a picture, you're more likely to pick out things of interest and comment on them. With a video you're more likely to sit back and enjoy because if you try to interact with any moment you'll miss the flow of things.

So, Se will easily notice things that stand out, but Si is basic recognition of everything. I've heard it put that extroverted functions want use and introverted functions want truth. Se wants to use/interact with its surroundings at any specific moment and Si wants to know whats going on and how it's changing. It's like Se wants to grab on to something before it changes and Si enjoys the change.

[Lobo]

It still seems kind of iffy to me to make such a distinction. I would assume that Si as the 4th function would be sensitive towards things dealing with what is felt "internally." So theoretically, for example, the person would not be comfortable with comments involving how repulsive they are either because of a physical attribute, or other aspects that could cause repulsiveness in general (maybe being boring, disrespectful, etc). I would think this is why I find ILEs for example to be very conscience at times of how they are portraying themselves, and are usually one of the most respectful people I encounter, never touching subjects that could be too personal and carefully using physical touch. Actually, I would never imagine them smothering someone with affection. So this is the idea I have of Si-polr. But again, it could be the difference between information aspects and functions.

[FDG]

Well, I don't know, it's not that easy for anybody to find something if you don't know where to look, right? Am I missing something? You meant to use a particular context?

[Azeroffs]

It still seems kind of iffy to me to make such a distinction. I would assume that Si as the 4th function would be sensitive towards things dealing with what is felt "internally." So theoretically, for example, the person would not be comfortable with comments involving how repulsive they are either because of a physical attribute, or other aspects that could cause repulsiveness in general (maybe being boring, disrespectful, etc). I would think this is why I find ILEs for example to be very conscience at times of how they are portraying themselves, and are usually one of the most respectful people I encounter, never touching subjects that could be too personal and carefully using physical touch. Actually, I would never imagine them smothering someone with affection. So this is the idea I have of Si-polr. But again, it could be the difference between information aspects and functions.

ILEs are conscious of how they portray themselves? Yeah its a stereotype but I thought all ILE were just crazy jokers with little tact. :tongue:

Never touching subjects that are too personal. That's characteristic of Fi-PoLR. Si is the physical feelings, not emotional feelings.

Well, I don't know, it's not that easy for anybody to find something if you don't know where to look, right? Am I missing something? You meant to use a particular context?

That was the point of my story of having someone looking over me and easily seeing what I can't. I'm sure everyone has problems finding things, but I'm relatively a lot worse than the average. And that was just an example of how I see Si-PoLR in myself. What I'm trying to figure out is how others experience it in terms of being unaware of your surroundings.

Another example is that people will be like "look at that over there" and have a hard time seeing it. Or, remembering exactly what someone said even if it was literally just said. I sometimes have a hard time focusing on people's words. I just zone out so easily, but idk if it's just me or what.

[717495]

I relate to the initial post. I'm never actually focused on what is going on around me, and I can't find objects when described to me. Sometimes when alone, I'll attempt to really try to see whats going on around me, via opening my eyes wider, going outside and looking around, just trying to wake myself up. I relate this all to Se POLR. It is a mental function though and oftentimes can get a more fluid result if I just imagine what is going on around me, when someone tells me to look at this on TV, I'll have a tendency to stick to my current project and lie to them in regards to if I saw it or not. This happens every time, or else I'd really have to force myself to pay attention to the physical object being described, and I'd oftentimes loose out on the intuitive implications of it. I guess that's a major weakness of being an LII: weak physical intuition.

If you've seen the TV show called Heroes, that Indian scientist who is trying to find the locations of the Heroes, to me portrays the LII temperament and POLR Se in this regard. Often times you can tell he gets overexcited at the physical, thus can't make intuitive connections quickly enough.

[717495]

I would imagine that one with Si POLR would more so dislike attempts to find physical comfort and pleasure (dislike of finding one with surroundings), usually with no initial mindset of why, but that it's bothersome and/or useless.

I don't know where this belongs in the equation, but my EIE friend hides cookies from her family and eats all of them when they all go to bed.

[Jonathan]

Interesting thread. Sereno, I agree, some of the concepts around Si vs. Se in Socionics seem contradictory or confusing. Just to clear up a minor thing though: ILE would not have Si PoLR. Si is the 4th function of LIE.

I think one of the challenges in Socionics is that Augusta never really liked Jung's conception of introversion vs. extraversion, so one of the things she came up with was to say all the Xi elements are passive and the Xe elements active.

I think there may be a truth to that, but only if you qualify what "active" and "passive" are; if you look, say, at base-Si people, I don't think that their experience of life is just completely passive like sitting back and watching TV (or active only in the use of their 2nd function). I think rather that all introverts appear more passive because their activeness is more inside their mind.

Now I once knew someone who I think was most likely SEI and who watched TV about 57 hours per week. But other uses of Si, such as doing arts and crafts or handiwork, seem to be a more active use of it. I suppose it's still passive if it's all based on how something strikes you. But I think to say "Xi = being passive" kind of gives the wrong impression.

Nevertheless the idea that Xi is about truth and Xe about use....that kind of makes sense. I like that one.

There is a kind of tension between irrat. Xi being dynamic and also "passive," and irrat. Xe being static and also "active", and that relates to the question of which Sx element is really about scanning or "taking in" ones environment. This tension predates Socionics. In Jung's model, extraverted sensing was about taking in and enjoying what's outside; and for that reason his conception of it is much more like Si in Socionics.

(This is just an aside, but sometimes it seems that in typology in general, people latch onto various possible dichotomies and then try to "fit" them all into the same dichotomy, and that's why Socionics can be so confusing. I think that in moments of frustration with Socionics at least. I'm never totally convinced that Socionics completely makes sense and that all the definitions are consistent or sensible.)

To an extent, one can see that there are just different possible uses of Si, which is okay within the model. Often when Si is explained, it is as a sort of artistic perception, like noticing I like this, and this tastes good. But then when discussing other aspects of Si, especially Delta-Si it tends to more like dealing with details and handling all the nitty-gritty physical stuff like what carpenters and handymen do, or what nurses do, or making sandwiches and doing all the kinds of stuff one has to do to be a good host (see, it becomes even more different when used as a 2nd function Ej types) . The first tends to emphasize the "passive" quality, and the second the "dynamic" quality. Whether it's really all talking about the same thing is an interesting question.

As to whether seeing what's there in the refrigerator is Se or Si...I'm not sure. Se people seem to be good at it. I think everyone in the Sx clubs is probably better at it than the people in the Nx clubs. I mean, it may not be about Se vs. Si but rather just being aware of the physical environment, so whether one is aware in an Se or Si way, even though those are two ways of going about it, they get to the same place.

[717495]

Well yes Jonathan, that makes sense about S types being good at noticing the physical, since if there is a need to do this, any S type has that strength. That is why I like the function chart, to explain what dichotomies locate the function, and not assume that one element is of the same means in different areas. Se deals with territory and geometric qualities, so there is usually a tendency for Se types to be natural at finding objects of this classification, however if someone were to give me instructions is an Si format, relating it to other objects "not quite this, looks like this" without any precision to physical measurement, I'd more easily be able to identify the object.

[Lobo]

Interesting thread. Sereno, I agree, some of the concepts around Si vs. Se in Socionics seem contradictory or confusing. Just to clear up a minor thing though: ILE would not have Si PoLR. Si is the 4th function of LIE.

Hehe, meant to say LIE, instead of ILE btw .