Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
Thanks my dear : ) btw, here's a good link about the functions (@Olimpia), explained in their traditional socionics content. Obviously what I said was my interpretation of your situation, as you say, it's fun to interpret reality according to this socionics model... I don't think there's ultimately just one interpretation, and one that's more correct... what do you picture when I say the thing I do? are we talking about the same things?... we'll never know

subjective situation of fields (internal static fields)

 abstract processes of fields (internal dynamic fields)

fields: relationships between objects

Both elements can be seen in your case, but because you've assessed your judgement (static) to the situation, I think this is more a case of Fi.

Fe and Ne are present too.
Thanks for all that! It made me think about the way I personally prefer to see the world and how I learn best. I've just read Jung's 'Psychological Types' and as vague as Jung is as a writer, he still manages to sketch pretty clear boundaries between different functions. Or, at least, he does that in a way that speaks to me quite esily: I see where the difference between Fi and Fe is in his writings. Seeing those boundaries is very important to me. I don't do well in unstructured theory (guess I never finished my MA in cultural anthropology because of that). Reading the descriptions you linked me to made me realize that socionics seems to be way more intuitive/feeling oriented than I can take. I see some people use it with great ease and that's great, it means the system works. It's just not suitable for me. The more I dig into socionics, the more I feel confused and my mind is getting more and more clouded with all the fluidity of knowledge. All I see is nuances and different shades of gray and I can't even tell which parts apply to me and in what measure. So, in fact, I think I should wrap this up here and move on to Jung and some more modern approaches like perhaps Beebe. I'll probably leave here for some time to think in private.

One last thing. Something you said struck me on a personal level and made me rethink some of my choices in life. You said 'I don't think there's ultimately just one interpretation, and one that's more correct...' See, before I went to study anthropology, I never considered what you said to be even remotely possible. I don't think it would ever occur to me that there can be more than one correct interpretation of events. I could always see that there are many interpretations and many possibilities BUT one had to be true, and in face of that, others would have to be false. My studies showed me how terribly narrow-minded that view of the world is and I think I have suffered low self esteem ever since, and tried to circumvent my personal style of thinking because it was proved to me as faulty and shallow. I don't even know what that means, really . Just leaving it here for my future reference, if I come back to re-read this thread in the future.