Question re Filatova type descriptions

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

I think that what she means (not that I necessarily agree) is that Se --> focus on reality, what is "real" and Ne--> focus on potentialities

So the ISFj with Ne PoLR would particularly weary of risks (including running out of food, money) and the INFj with Se PoLR is less focused on real, practical matters and therefore more prone to being a bit reckless by default.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Slava]

Se producing = spontaneous creative punch in the face.

Check out that new creepy movie with Sandra Bullock, Premenitions, she seems very meek at first and the kicks some ass... The girl in this fight scene seems like one of those isfj... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tiBGOEoVM i cant help but laugh at the bad Ne at the end.

[Phaedrus]

Does it make sense to categorize those things under Se (like Filatova has), with different manifestations of this depending on which other functions are working in conjunction with it? In my mind, it does, but I'm interested in others' opinions.

I don't know which explanation is the most correct functionally, but the difference Filatova describes between ISFjs and INFjs --

ISFj: Her strong sense is represented in her economic activity: she’s zealous, honest and conscientious, especially in domestic circumstances. She generally keeps a lot of products in storage (i.e. buried, in a shed, garage). Always makes sure there are reserves. She makes sure that there is a minimum of waste, whether it is remaining floor panels or remainders of food products.

This thrift contributes to allow her to accumulate a sufficient means in order to buy a necessary quantity of articles in daily life, which symbolize welfare – gifts for others, household machines etc. She obtains everything via honest labor and scrupulous economy, not by reckless adventure or by dishonest mechanizations – such would contradict her moral principles.

INFj: Find it difficult to efficiently complete household tasks, organize their budget, and purchase necessary things.

-- is very accurate, and that is the most important thing for me. She has got the types right. If she also has got the functions right I leave for others to determine. Expat has mentioned that he thinks that Stratiyevskaya confuses the functions, and maybe he is right about that, but her descriptions of the types as whole units are also very accurate.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[UDP]

contrasted with the INFj:

Find it difficult to efficiently complete household tasks, organize their budget, and purchase necessary things.

And ENFp:

IEE is not too interested in the world of material things. She is not able to keep up with it and prefers that another take charge of such matters. She is not confident in the necessity of one purchase over another and needs another person with which to confer. Financially she’s often negligent, her money interests her more so in terms of its immediate use than in terms of obtaining new experiences in life.

I hadn't before seen Se associated with being economical. This is interesting to me. Comments?

INFjs are economical. They just have issues when it comes to people over money. Money is always more expendable than people. NF idealism.

ENFps are as it was - not too interested in the world of material things.


LIIs don't like doing unnecessary things, and thus are relatively acetic. The more healthy I am, the more acetic.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

I think that what she means (not that I necessarily agree) is that Se --> focus on reality, what is "real" and Ne--> focus on potentialities

So the ISFj with Ne PoLR would particularly weary of risks (including running out of food, money) and the INFj with Se PoLR is less focused on real, practical matters and therefore more prone to being a bit reckless by default.

And why do you not necessarily agree? Actually, you've just articulated a much better rendition of Se than most of what I see in Socionics. Se does involve focus on shared external physical reality. Ne does involve potentialities. Who could disagree with that?

Somehow, people (not you, necessarily) have gotten onto this thing that Se is all about physical violence, or at the very least psychological manipulation.

Se types focus on clear plain reality that's outside of them. Sometimes that makes them get physical or manipulative.

I think part of the problem, besides some less-than-perfect descriptions from Augusta and other Socionists, is that there are a lot of people on this forum who's type says that should be against Se, and therefore they have a very distorted, negative view of what Se is.

[Exodus]

I think that what she means (not that I necessarily agree) is that Se --> focus on reality, what is "real" and Ne--> focus on potentialities

So the ISFj with Ne PoLR would particularly weary of risks (including running out of food, money) and the INFj with Se PoLR is less focused on real, practical matters and therefore more prone to being a bit reckless by default.

And why do you not necessarily agree? Actually, you've just articulated a much better rendition of Se than most of what I see in Socionics. Se does involve focus on shared external physical reality. Ne does involve potentialities. Who could disagree with that?

Somehow, people (not you, necessarily) have gotten onto this thing that Se is all about physical violence, or at the very least psychological manipulation.

Se types focus on clear plain reality that's outside of them. Sometimes that makes them get physical or manipulative.

So Se types are just blockheads? That's no better an interpretation. And I fail to see the logical connection.

Of course you can make these traits sound either negative or positive; that goes for anything. But they still all apply to Se.

[Expat]

I think that what she means (not that I necessarily agree) is that Se --> focus on reality, what is "real" and Ne--> focus on potentialities

So the ISFj with Ne PoLR would particularly weary of risks (including running out of food, money) and the INFj with Se PoLR is less focused on real, practical matters and therefore more prone to being a bit reckless by default.

And why do you not necessarily agree? Actually, you've just articulated a much better rendition of Se than most of what I see in Socionics. Se does involve focus on

What I do not necessarily agree with is attributing "being more economical" to Se. I think I can see why she'd think so, but I'm not sure I agree.

[Expat]

I realized that I forgot to ask my question: Does it make sense to categorize those things under Se (like Filatova has), with different manifestations of this depending on which other functions are working in conjunction with it? In my mind, it does, but I'm interested in others' opinions.

I'm going to make a distinction without a difference, perhaps.

I would not categorize them under Se specifically. I would categorize them under the Se-Ni preference in Gamma and Si-Ne for Delta. Which may amount to the same thing, but I think that attributing them to Se "only" may lead to other misunderstandings.

The Delta quadra, being Si-Ne rather than Se-Ni, is more "present details" oriented. And that's precisely what the INFj and the ENFp need most, or appreciate most, in their duals: how to be practical and efficient about daily, physical, practical needs (Si + Te). I mean that's what Slacker Mom seems to need the most from her ISTp husband. So an INFj "missing an ESTj" might have a little with difficulty on a day-to-day basis with such matters:

Find it difficult to efficiently complete household tasks, organize their budget, and purchase necessary things.

Which are Si + Te related.

The ISFj, on the other hand, is Se-Ni with Te - Ni in the super-id. What the ISFj "misses" from the ENTj dual is not how do deal with daily, physical, practical needs (definitely not ). The ISFj is more than confident in Si matters. Where the ISFj would like the help of the ENTj's Te + Ni is about efficiency in practical matters in the longer term - as in investments, for instance. So it makes perfect sense of the ISFj to be conservative about money in the longer term (ie being thrifty) and quite confident about a budget and buying necessary things on a daily basis.

[FDG]

Se is about seeing reality and acting on it, if you only see reality then you can only push forward to make your dreams come true as long as the forces that are against your dreams do not outweigh yours.

The distinction that Diana makes also has to be referred to positive negative, negative types generally are more concerned about saving money, ceteris paribus (same age sex societal position education same base function (ex. esfps spend A LOT more than ESTps but estps spend more than ISTjs even if istjs are positivists)

we could rank the dichotomies but now my mental capabilities are not exactly at their best

[Expat]

Somehow, people (not you, necessarily) have gotten onto this thing that Se is all about physical violence, or at the very least psychological manipulation.

Se types focus on clear plain reality that's outside of them. Sometimes that makes them get physical or manipulative.

Se is Static-Irrational, so as FDG said:

Se is about seeing reality and acting on it,

That is Se for Se EPs ie Se-dominants. For them, due to this, the "physical violence" or at least "physical -- excitement" aspect is quite significant. It is less helpful for ISTjs or ISFjs who are Se IJs with creative Se. For those, Se as "reality-focused" as opposed to "potentials-focused" is more accurate.

[Angel von Himmel]

Also why is the type description section locked?

It should be unlocked now.