# What we TRULY need



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I think he's an SLE because I have had a voice chat with him; he's a type 5 though, so that plays a role.


I'm curious about how long it took you to get from being new to socionics to typing people with a degree of confidence. Was it a while? I've been at socionics since @Word Dispenser introduced it to me but I'm still a little unsure even with my own type! I'm just looking for an indication of the learning curve, really.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I think he's an SLE because I have had a voice chat with him; he's a type 5 though, so that plays a role.


I see, that makes sense. I was pretty sure that Ti was in his Ego-block. He's most likely Ti/Fe. But I've no idea about other functions.
The type 5 could be the reason why his Se isn't evident.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> I'm curious about how long it took you to get from being new to socionics to typing people with a degree of confidence. Was it a while? I've been at socionics since @_Word Dispenser_ introduced it to me but I'm still a little unsure even with my own type! I'm just looking for an indication of the learning curve, really.


I don't think I'll ever be able to type anyone with any degree of certainty.

If I typed someone as an LSE and then they came up to me and said they thought they were more likely an LSI, I would probably find ways in which that was true after being addressed with their thoughts.

Because of my own uncertainty, I'm reluctant when typing, and will be far more likely simply to provide information, and ask questions that might reveal their cognition to those who _have _more confidence than I.

But, I'm kind of naturally a pseudo-confident person. And, I suppose it's in my nature to cause chaos and uncertainty as well... So, maybe I'm not the best person to go to when it comes to typing people. :kitteh:


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think I'll ever be able to type anyone with any degree of certainty.
> 
> If I typed someone as an LSE and then they came up to me and said they thought they were more likely an LSI, I would probably find ways in which that was true after being addressed with their thoughts.
> 
> ...


This is the problem with a dominant Pe -- or Ne leading function, as you say in this part of town -- even in MBTI you see them messing around and never settling because they naturally want to explore all the possibilities. My question is why you can't harness your ignoring function when you get in this state of confusion. Your vision is there, and I know it's usually undervalued, but what's stopping you accessing it when Ne doesn't work? I think that's going to be my mission for the next few weeks: I want to understand when we utilize each faculty and why... or rather why we don't switch to another function when one doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> This is the problem with a dominant Pe -- or Ne leading function, as you say in this part of town -- even in MBTI you see them messing around and never settling because they naturally want to explore all the possibilities. My question is why you can't harness your ignoring function when you get in this state of confusion. Your vision is there, and I know it's usually undervalued, but what's stopping you accessing it when Ne doesn't work? I think that's going to be my mission for the next few weeks: I want to understand when we utilize each faculty and why.


Well, my ignoring function, Ni, isn't going to be very helpful in this regard. More likely my demonstrative function, Te. 

But, in either case, subconsciously, I don't value these functions, and I can't consciously turn them on at will, you know? Functions don't work like that. At least I don't think so.

I don't go around saying, "Ti, power on!" And then go do some calculus. It doesn't work like that.

I think _most _of the time, our base function is what's overpowering everything, and the other stuff kinda leaks through in order to fulfill those base function demands.

So, here I go, Ne Ne Ne Ne. Then _if_ Te comes along, it's _only_ to help out the Ne. Which means even _more _Ne. Generally.

And if you consider the actual _valued _functions in this case, what's going on is more likely to involve _those_ than any of the ones that _aren't _valued, but those non-valued ones _will _of course be a part of the personality.

So it'd be more like.. Ti is serving Ne. Fe is serving Ne. Everything is serving Ne. Possibilities! Expand! Moar food! Expand! Experience! Expand! Interest! Fun! Awesomeness! Tangents! SHINY THINGS. LIFE IS GOOD.

I _could _be completely wrong, though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> I'm curious about how long it took you to get from being new to socionics to typing people with a degree of confidence. Was it a while? I've been at socionics since @Word Dispenser introduced it to me but I'm still a little unsure even with my own type! I'm just looking for an indication of the learning curve, really.


Not really sure since it's been a gradual process over the course of the years I've been learning about the cognitive functions in general. I think I've felt proficient at least the past 1-2 years of about the 3 years I've been learning about it.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> This is the problem with a dominant Pe -- or Ne leading function, as you say in this part of town -- even in MBTI you see them messing around and never settling because they naturally want to explore all the possibilities. My question is why you can't harness your ignoring function when you get in this state of confusion. Your vision is there, and I know it's usually undervalued, but what's stopping you accessing it when Ne doesn't work? I think that's going to be my mission for the next few weeks: I want to understand when we utilize each faculty and why... or rather why we don't switch to another function when one doesn't seem to work.


Since when does Ni equate to confidence in typing or "vision"? Who says Ni users cannot be confused? A function she devalues is likelier to cause her MORE confusion.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, my ignoring function, Ni, isn't going to be very helpful in this regard. More likely my demonstrative function, Te.
> 
> But, in either case, subconsciously, I don't value these functions, and I can't consciously turn them on at will, you know? Functions don't work like that. At least I don't think so.
> 
> ...


Te would just lead you down each path set by Ne based on evidence, no? I figured you'd theoretically want to sub in Ni and get to a single point of clarity/one line of reasoning.

I understand that there probably isn't a conscious 'switch', but I am interested in what our brains do when we can't use a certain function. If it fails over and over, what happens? :crazy:


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Amaterasu said:


> Since when does Ni equate to confidence in typing or "vision"? Who says Ni users cannot be confused? A function she devalues is likelier to cause her MORE confusion.


Ne branches, Ni pulls towards singularity. I'm just curious about whether we can utilize functions further down when the nature of our dominant ones are not advantageous. I meant no more than that.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Occams Chainsaw said:


> Te would just lead you down each path set by Te based on evidence, no? I figured you'd theoretically want to sub in Ni and get to a single point of clarity/one line of reasoning.
> 
> I understand that there probably isn't a conscious 'switch', but I am interested in what our brains do when we can't use a certain function. If it fails over and over, what happens? :crazy:


I dunno, Te seems pretty decisive to me. It is or it isn't, kind of deal.

I don't think functions 'fail', really. We have a certain grasp of things psychologically.

So, say I had to help put Ikea furniture together and move it. I have 2D Se, and seeing everything exactly as it is in its space tends to be pretty difficult for me. Not only would I find this experience to be incredibly taxing psychologically, but it would also annoy the Hell out of me. Not only is it undervalued, but it's also pretty weak. It's not that it fails-- It's just weak, and it's tiresome to use it.

Now, let's take 2D Fe. This is valued, actually, so it's a lot more pleasant to experience in my environment, and to use, but it's still weak. I would probably enjoy partaking in it, but extended use of it is exhausting mentally, and I would definitely not have an affinity for understanding the social environment, so I would probably end up missing some cues and possibly embarrassing myself a little bit.

Just my take. Again, could be completely wrong. It just depends on what situation you're forced into. It's not just about your skill, but even your comfort level and whether you're enjoying what you're doing or not.


----------



## Occams Chainsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> I dunno, Te seems pretty decisive to me. It is or it isn't, kind of deal.
> 
> I don't think functions 'fail', really. We have a certain grasp of things psychologically.
> 
> ...


Oh. So you can utilize the other functions consciously but it's just not comfortable. Okay. Perhaps I should just stick to working out my type until I understand it a little better!
@Amaterasu
Thanks both for setting me straight.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Typing needs a good understanding of the model and functions. Of course, a typing can never be 100% accurate.
Because it's not what the guy say that is important, but how he say it. There are a lot of uncounscious processes in the human psyche, and that's what you need to find and know, to type someone.
But once you've collected concrete data, and if it fits to a type and his dynamics, then you can be pretty sure of the typing.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

tangosthenes said:


> Eh no, it's just that when I do a quiz I have so many questions about possible interpretations that I almost need the original test creator there in order for me to slap them with my thinking process so they can tell me *EXACTLY *WHAT THEY MEAN.
> 
> was this a response to me? just crossed my mind that it might not be.


That's exactly my problem when taking online quizzes. Also, sometimes I'm forced into choosing an option when none of them apply, which I think diminishes the accuracy of the end result.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

westlose said:


> Typing needs a good understanding of the model and functions. Of course, a typing can never be 100% accurate.
> Because it's not what the guy say that is important, but how he say it. There are a lot of uncounscious processes in the human psyche, and that's what you need to find and know, to type someone.
> But once you've collected _concrete _data, and if it fits to a type and his dynamics, then you can be pretty sure of the typing.


You can't really collect _concrete_ data on someone's psych state/way of thinking etc because it's all _ephemeral_. You can, however, be certain of things.

Sorry about the anal details. It's just, I LOVE it when I can use this. Which is really rare because I don't pay attention to those things. God, Ti really is my 3rd, not 4th!


----------

