chips and underwear's type

[The Exception]

You are getting fuzzy again, LIIs never do this.


They don't seem similar to me in a cognitive sense. Subteigh as I said seems fuzzy while chips is never like that.

I can be rather fuzzy sometimes.

Cannot place you, but ethical is one of the first things that pops up when I think of you.

Actually, you kinda remind me of @Suz.

I'll take that as a compliment. @Suz

[Suz]

I can be rather fuzzy sometimes.



I'll take that as a compliment. @Suz

ditto!

[Myst]

I understand what it means for Ti to be "an external function", but it seemed totally irrelevant for you to bring it up (apart from such language being needless in itself). First I was asked to describe in my own understanding after I had said I have historically had problems in conceptualising it, especially in relation to , then after being asked to describe that very same IM, you mentioned that I was "getting fuzzy again" after being perfectly clear about my typical thought process.

No, Ti being an external IE in contrast to Fi is quite relevant here. The thing is I did not have a problem with your Fi description on its own, you actually described that rather well, my problem was that you thought Ti was just like Fi too. So I needed to point out this difference between Ti and Fi. It is also the reason why Fi egos seem fuzzy to me as a Ti ego. (As I already explained, this is my POV. Socionics is about such differences exactly.) Overall I think you should improve your understanding on Ti because you kept saying you think Ti is like Fi in aspects where it most clearly is not.

Reminder on what I mean by "fuzzy": "You in comparison to her sound more vague, less clear, less explicit, less consistent in expressing your thoughts overall. You are somehow rambling, the impression of which I never get from her. Note this is my Ti ego POV You may not sound vague to some other people. But I find it relevant for typing her."

I relate alot to the 5 description but I'm not totally sure I'm a core type 5 anymore. I also relate quite a bit to every type except 2, 7, and 8. Other than 5, I probably relate to 9 the most.

It makes sense that you'd have a 9 fixation too. The LII guy you remind me of also has both 5 and 9, btw.

Why couldn't an Fi say such a thing?

They don't rely on others when deciding how they feel about something.

I can't recall anyone ever asking me advice on Fi related matters.

Yeah exactly.

My thinking can be rather impressionistic as well. An example would be typing someone. I get an overall vibe or impression from them. They remind me of other people that are known to be that type. Sometimes it's hard to justify to others in words why I think that type.

Seems like most people get this vibe thing.

I am capable of telling others what to do when I need to do so. But I don't feel fully comfortable doing that, maybe because I tend to resent it when others tell me what to do when I didn't ask them for it. I am far better at giving people suggestions on a good course of action than 'insisting' someone do something. The insisting part would be more fitting with Se.

Yes, you are very Ne/Si valuing.

I don't think everything can be fit neatly into a system from a practical standpoint but oftentimes with theories like socionics, I have a tendency to get carried away and be rather impractical with it. Start to see things as being socionically signficant that probably shouldn't be. I have to remind myself to step back and say to myself 'this is just a theory.' It can't explain everything.

From a practical standpoint? Elaborate on this more please?

Regarding comfort, for me it's more than just physical comfort, which Si measures. It's more about emotional comfort. Wanting harmony and pleasant relations between others. That would be more Fi, I think. Of course, Si comfort is still important to me but emotional comfort is even more so. If I could only have one, I'd pick emotional comfort. It's more personal. Physical comfort is not personal and if you're hurt physically its a temporary thing, whereas with emotional hurt it's hard to move on, it becomes ingrained in my psyche.

More Si/Ne valuing.

What Fi is, it is about your personal feelings towards things/people. Strong Fi will also be able to see this in other people. Do you think you do this consciously and with confidence?

I am quite confident in my judgements in the sense that I personally see them to be logically sound, they make sense to me, I know why I think the way I do and I can justify them to myself. But where I'm less confident is in what other people will think of them. I can convince myself easily but what about others?

Hm, this is some degree of confidence in Ti with low/devalued Se. Also, seems like conscious Ti (mental ring).

Interesting that Subteigh switched from LII to EII. I guess it's a trend that the cool people are doing.

Lol what do you mean by "cool" people?

I can be rather fuzzy sometimes.

See what I meant by "fuzzy" though, I explained it to Subteigh before, comparing him to you: "You in comparison to her sound more vague, less clear, less explicit, less consistent in expressing your thoughts overall. You are somehow rambling, the impression of which I never get from her. Note this is my Ti ego POV You may not sound vague to some other people. But I find it relevant for typing her." (Obviously "her" = you.)

[Socionics Is A Cult]

No, Ti being an external IE in contrast to Fi is quite relevant here.

The issue I raised with Ti being described as an external function was more to do with such descriptions moving away from what was important & obfuscating matters. It is far more useful to describe things in practical terms without needless abstractions.

[Myst]

The issue I raised with Ti being described as an external function was more to do with such descriptions moving away from what was important & obfuscating matters. It is far more useful to describe things in practical terms without needless abstractions.

Lol you are such Te>Ti valuing here.

Does @chips and underwear relate to this stance?

Anyway, I don't see why you'd even begin to think that defining Ti as an external IE is no good. What. Really, that's part of the core definition for Ti as an information element. It is absolutely not a "needless" abstraction.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Lol you are such Te>Ti valuing here.

Does @chips and underwear relate to this stance?

Anyway, I don't see why you'd even begin to think that defining Ti as an external IE is no good. What. Really, that's part of the core definition for Ti as an information element. It is absolutely not a "needless" abstraction.

Again, the point I made was whether this was a necessary deviation for this thread. To describe the distinction in such a way does not get to the meat-and-bones of what we were discussing, and is rather a fuzzy approach.

Why did you ask me if I knew if was an external function, when it is well-known and more readily understood that "thinking" functions are more objective (in the usual sense of the word) and more detached than "feeling" functions? Your attitude to me seemed like pointing out that "of course circles are round, the ratio of their circumference divided by their diameter = Pi", but further, converted into the wankery of describing it as an "external function"...it adds nothing. I'm not saying we can't have those discussions (I have taken part in many of them myself): I just found your deviation peculiar.

"External function" by itself doesn't mean anything: it is understood first by descriptions that are more readily understood and/or which cut straight to the point...and in this case, which are directly relevant to how the individual experiences an IM.

[Myst]

Again, the point I made was whether this was a necessary deviation for this thread. To describe the distinction in such a way does not get to the meat-and-bones of what we were discussing

It does. It is not a deviation, I was referring to this distinct difference in the context of OP's type.

and is rather a fuzzy approach.

Nope, but it is interesting you find Ti fuzzy from your POV and I find Fi fuzzy from my POV.

Why did you ask me if I knew if was an external function, when it is well-known and more readily understood that "thinking" functions are more objective (in the usual sense of the word) and more detached than "feeling" functions? Your attitude to me seemed like pointing out that "of course circles are round, the ratio of their circumference divided by their diameter = Pi", but further, converted into the wankery of describing it as an "external function"...it adds nothing. I'm not saying we can't have those discussions (I have taken part in many of them myself): I just found your deviation peculiar.

"External function" by itself doesn't mean anything: it is understood first by descriptions that are more readily understood and/or which cut straight to the point...and in this case, which are directly relevant to how the individual experiences an IM.

I asked you because you sounded like you didn't have the slightest idea when you said your Fi descriptions could apply to Ti as well. Nope. And again, not a "deviation". It does add quite a lot by pointing out where your ideas on Fi do *not* apply to Ti. I will however not repeat myself on this, I've explained this enough times in previous posts. Unless you have specific questions, there is nothing more to say on this issue.

Also, it is an external IE, not an "external function". As for my referring to the technical terms of the theory, if you or anyone else is having trouble understanding the definitions, asking about them is always OK.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I asked you because you sounded like you didn't have the slightest idea when you said your Fi descriptions could apply to Ti as well. Nope. And again, not a "deviation". It does add quite a lot by pointing out where your ideas on Fi do *not* apply to Ti. I will however not repeat myself on this, I've explained this enough times in previous posts. Unless you have specific questions, there is nothing more to say on this issue.

Also, it is an external IE, not an "external function". As for my referring to the technical terms of the theory, if you or anyone else is having trouble understanding the definitions, asking about them is always OK.

You probably missed my emphasis on describing when combined with rather than in isolation, and thus my reasoning about how an EII in such circumstances might see similarities with what they consider LII behaviours.

[The Exception]

Lol you are such Te>Ti valuing here.

Does @chips and underwear relate to this stance?

Actually, to some extent I do. Some Ti types I can hardly understand all of their abstractions. It makes sense to them but it's not in a useable format for public consumption. Then what good is it? Also practical examples are always useful for learning new theories.

[Myst]

You are a strategic type therefore you are not LII

LII has inert Sensing, hence a Strategic type.

Actually, to some extent I do. Some Ti types I can hardly understand all of their abstractions. It makes sense to them but it's not in a useable format for public consumption. Then what good is it? Also practical examples are always useful for learning new theories.

"To some extent", heh, I relate to it about as much as you do.

[The Exception]

LII has inert Sensing, hence a Strategic type.

"To some extent", heh, I relate to it about as much as you do.

Ok, prove it.