# Temperamental Hierarchy



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Before David Keirsey’s first book in 1978, the 16 types were divided into the four temperaments of Sensing-Thinkers, Sensing-Feelers, Intuiting-Thinkers, and Intuiting-Feelers. While they were not as descriptive as Keirsey’s, these four groups provide a symmetry, allowing for more intricate relationship diagrams and deeper understanding of how each of the types, with their respective cognitive functions, relate.

Everything that we do requires two things: a form of information, and a decision made based on this data. Even the most basic of actions, impulses and instincts, take in a stimuli from an outside source, interpret it (albeit non-cognitively), and react. Jung’s 8 psychological types were divided into two groups: irrational and rational. The irrational types, sensors and intuitives, were primarily based on gathering data, while the rational types, thinkers and feelers, were primarily based on making decisions.

Now, there are no ‘pure types’ that live off of merely one function. If one was a pure irrational type, they would be completely passive, not wishing to manipulate the external world at all, only experience it. If one was a pure rational type, they would be entirely active, constantly taking precipitous action without considering any information but their own drive. For a person to be balanced, they must both use an irrational, perceiving function to harvest data, and a rational, judging function to make decisions based on this information gathered. This knowledge allows for the accurate division of types into the original 16 temperaments proposed by Katherine Briggs and her daughter: NT, ST, NF, and SF.


Sensing-Thinkers - The Workers​
Sensing-Thinkers view the world in pure means. They take in information based in fact, and interpret that information logically. This makes them practical and pragmatic. They are the type that lives the most in reality, and are at their best when deciding things such as “will it work”, “how much resources will it use”, and “is it useful”.

Because of their basis in objective fact, resources are of the utmost importance to these types. They are not ones to waste time or energy doing things they consider pointless folly. This makes them antagonistic to their counter type, Intuiting-Feelers, who base their entire worth on things imperceptible to the naked eye, and are perfectly content spending their days in pleasant imaginings.

The standard by which Sensing-Thinkers determine their worth can be measured in quantifiable means. Whether this is money earned, places visited, or rank achieved, they base their sense of fulfillment on the amount of assets and resources they have gathered in the present moment,


Sensing-Feelers - The Lovers​
Sensing-Feelers, as sensors, do live in the present, but they are not objective and technical as Sensing-Thinkers are. They take in tangible information and interpret it humanely, making them the most sensitive and gentle of all the types. They are the most susceptible to conflict and crises, and have the most need for harmony, both inner and outer.

Due to their need for a safe and supportive environment, they place a large amount of importance in belonging. They need to both love and feel loved. This makes them the most accepting and people-focused, completely polar to their counter type, the intellectual and independent Intuiting-Thinkers.

Because of their focus on relationships, Sensing-Feelers base their sense of worth on the quality of their relationships with others, and the feelings of acceptance and goodwill these relationships entail. This can be a group of good friends, a caring family, or even a welcoming online community.


Intuiting-Thinkers - The Thinkers​
Like Sensing-Thinkers, Intuiting-Thinkers enjoy objective reasoning, but they prefer to focus their attention on intangible and conceptual information. They are the most attracted to theories, ideas, and structures, and enjoy independence in thoughts and actions. This makes them the most prone to abstract relationships, wanting to explain everything from a dispassionate standpoint.

Because of their strong drive for independence and detachment, Intuiting-Thinkers place much value in prestige and success. They are the most ambitious of the types, and can sometimes forget to factor in human subjectivity, leading them to be directly opposite to the humane Sensing-Feelers.

The sense of worth Intuitive-Thinkers have is based in their recognition, respect, and independence from the outside world. They base their self-esteem by positive impersonal relationships and achievements. The happy Intuitive-Thinker is the one who is an expert in his field, a leader in his career, or a holder of a patent.


Intuiting-Feelers - The Dreamers​
Intuiting-Feelers are the most holistic of all the types. They view the world through a filter of their internal self, desiring to find meaning and purpose in their external pursuits. This makes them the most passionate of all the types, driving to both inspire and to gain inspiration.


Due to their need for deeper purpose, these types place a great deal of emphasis on creativity and imagination. They are nearly completely separated from reality, much to the dismay of Sensing-Thinking types, their opposite. Intuitive-Feelers frequently find themselves thinking of things with absolutely no basis in fact.

Intuitive-Feelers base their sense of worth on their meaning in life, their sense of higher purpose. This could be a religion, a cause, or a belief. Intuitive-Feelers need to feel like their life means something in order to have strong self-esteem.


Typological Hierarchy​
Now, these temperaments are not two-dimensional. Each type has a piece of ST realism, NT ambition, SF sensitivity, and NF imagination in them, but in different degrees. Take, for example, the ESTP. The order of functions in this type is Se, Ti, Fe, and Ni. Because of their first two functions, their obvious first priority is resources and assets, and their first perspective on life is of a realistic nature. Their last two functions make up their least preferred perspective, one of imagination and inspiration. How do the other two temperaments fit in?

Look at the functions commonly referred to as loops: Se Fe and Ti Ni. As Se Fe comes before the other, the next priority, after assets, must be harmony and acceptance. Then comes Ti Ni, representing the NT drive for recognition and independence.

This would signify that the ESTP order of needs would be first assets, second belonging, third recognition, and fourth inspiration. This seems to fit almost perfectly with Maslow’s hierarchy of higher needs past the basic physiological necessities: security of resources, affection from others, development of self-esteem, and self-actualization! This is not surprising, considering the large majority of the population ESTPs make up.

A quick laying out of all the types and their order of proposed needs shows that each order only repeats once. When you examine the repetitive areas, you can see that the types that share the same hierarchy are the ones of the same temperament, but of opposite orientation and lifestyle preference. This means that, if you know your preferred orientation or your pointer variable, you can figure out your type based on the order of your needs.

Let’s say you first desire recognition, and are an ambitious person. Second, you want to be both inspired and to inspire, and need underlying significance in life. Third, you desire resources and assets, and take life realistically. Fourth and finally, you need a peaceful and harmonious environment.

This would make your order of preference NT, NF, ST, SF, and your order of functions NTFS. If you believe you are an extravert, you would be an ENTP (NeTiFeSi), and if you believe you are an introvert, you would be an INTJ (NiTeFiSe)!

Here is a quick little chart, so you don’t have to figure out the type’s hierarchies the hard way:

INTJ/ENTP: NT, NF, ST, SF
INTP/ENTJ: NT, ST, NF, SF
INFJ/ENFP: NF, NT, SF, ST
INFP/ENFJ: NF, SF, NT, ST
ISTJ/ESTP: ST, SF, NT, NF
ISTP/ESTJ: ST, NT, SF, NF
ISFJ/ESFP: SF, ST, NF, NT
ISFP/ESFJ: SF, NF, ST, NT​
Keep in mind that just because you have, for example, NT last doesn’t mean you can’t think logically and conceptually, and can’t sometimes be ambitious and independent. It just means the desires associated with NT types are of a low priority to you, and you are more likely to be meek, imaginative, and realistic than you are to be intellectual.

So, a quick recap:

ST types are realistic, down-to-earth, and grounded. They see the world objectively. Their main goal in life is to acquire and secure quantifiable measurements of success, such as assets and resources. However, they can be unimaginative, and are suspicious of those who waste resources, namely time and energy.

SF types are gentle, kind, and caring towards others. They are sensitive to conflict and tension. Their main goal in life is to acquire and secure harmonious relationships with themselves and others. However, they can be meek and passive, and are suspicious of those who act aloof and detached.

NT types are ambitious, curious, and intellectual. They thrive on conceptual thought and theories. Their main goal in life is to acquire and secure recognition and importance in the eyes of others. However, they can be arrogant and aggressive, and are suspicious of those who do not assert their independence.

NF types are imaginative, creative, and passionate. They desire underlying meaning in everything they do. Their main goal in life is to acquire and secure a significance in their thoughts and actions. However, they can be unrealistic and wasteful, and are suspicious of those who do not encourage creativity.

So, try it yourself. Try to determine your order of preference. You may be surprised at how accurate this method actually is!


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Blech!


----------



## IAmReason (Feb 11, 2014)

That is brilliant, whoever came up with the whole SJ/SP needs to relearn about functions/mbti, Administrators/Mods 
please archive the helpful document above if you have time to.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

IAmReason said:


> That is brilliant, whoever came up with the whole SJ/SP needs to relearn about functions/mbti, Administrators/Mods
> please archive the helpful document above if you have time to.


Aw, thank you! Frankly, I just came up with the hierarchy, not the pair theory, though I fleshed it out a bit. Keirsy did have a few good points, but he failed to realize the similarities between SJ types and between SP types was due to the functions, not actual predetermined temperaments. Functions form temperaments, not vice versa.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Blech!


Are you bleching at the idea, or at the wall of text?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

I relate more to the NF section than SF. 

Why does being an SF = harmonious relationships and caring for others ? 

I'm actually pretty aloof and detached so it's funny that I would be suspicious of myself.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I relate more to the NF section than SF.
> 
> Why does being an SF = harmonious relationships and caring for others ?
> 
> I'm actually pretty aloof and detached so it's funny that I would be suspicious of myself.


Do realize this is based upon general impressions, and does not cover everyone. SFs in general seek harmonious relationships with others. SFs in general act more negatively to people who act aloof and arrogant towards others. Also, your NF is second in your hierarchy, so could become a priority fairly easily if you feel your environment is calm and safe. All of the SFs I have communicated with (including xSFPs) related to the SF description.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Do realize this is based upon general impressions, and does not cover everyone. SFs in general seek harmonious relationships with others. SFs in general act more negatively to people who act aloof and arrogant towards others. Also, your NF is second in your hierarchy, so could become a priority fairly easily if you feel your environment is calm and safe. All of the SFs I have communicated with (including xSFPs) related to the SF description.


But why do you say that SFs are more people-oriented? 

If I followed this method I'd go with NF, NT, SF, ST which would make me either INFJ or ENFP. 

The SF description seems Fe while NF to be Fi.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> But why do you say that SFs are more people-oriented?
> 
> If I followed this method I'd go with NF, NT, SF, ST which would make me either INFJ or ENFP.
> 
> The SF description seems Fe while NF to be Fi.


They are not people oriented inasmuch positive relationship oriented. They need a friendly environment as a first priority. This is not yet entirely proven, true, but please do not use yourself as a reference point. If you find other SFs that agree, I'd be happy to reconsider.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> They are not people oriented inasmuch positive relationship oriented. They need a friendly environment as a first priority. This is not yet entirely proven, true, but please do not use yourself as a reference point. If you find other SFs that agree, I'd be happy to reconsider.


Why is a friendly environment the first priority? 

If a person happens to be focused inwardly, in their head, and internal judgment, why would their surroundings or outwardly relationships be of so much importance?


----------



## BPReed92 (Nov 28, 2012)

Funny thing is, while I was thinking to myself while pacing last night, this very concept came to my mind. I was imagining myself doing an MBTI video, and thinking of how I would describe the functions. I started with basic T, F, N and S (without going into introverted/extroverted functions). The concept was pretty much spot on with mine.

Good job! It makes sense.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

BPReed92 said:


> Funny thing is, while I was thinking to myself while pacing last night, this very concept came to my mind. I was imagining myself doing an MBTI video, and thinking of how I would describe the functions. I started with basic T, F, N and S (without going into introverted/extroverted functions). The concept was pretty much spot on with mine.
> 
> Good job! It makes sense.


Thank you.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Why is a friendly environment the first priority?
> 
> If a person happens to be focused inwardly, in their head, and internal judgment, why would their surroundings or outwardly relationships be of so much importance?


You misunderstand introversion. Introversion is abstraction; you filter the external environment according to your internal views. Introverted functions focus on both the internal and the external, it is the point of reference that matters. Fi users prefer individuality, Fe users prefer group consensus. Both types are focused on people. Sensing, in both aspects, is focused on tangible reality. Therefore, the SF user's first priority is in lack of tension in the immediate environment, either in a local or a global sense. As I said before, unless you can prove this to me by bringing in other SF users that disagree as strongly as you, my stance will not be swayed.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

I really... like this organization. I believe it fits (at least from my perspective)


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

O_o said:


> I really... like this organization. I believe it fits (at least from my perspective)


Thank you!


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

Um! hold up! stILL reaDinG!


----------



## IAmReason (Feb 11, 2014)

@EthereaEthos  I can't get over how accurate the temperamental-hierarchy actually is, Definitely My first temperament is NF, but then my supporting temperament is NT, and then SF and ST are my inferior temperaments


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> You misunderstand introversion. Introversion is abstraction; you filter the external environment according to your internal views. Introverted functions focus on both the internal and the external, it is the point of reference that matters. Fi users prefer individuality, Fe users prefer group consensus. Both types are focused on people. Sensing, in both aspects, is focused on tangible reality. Therefore, the SF user's first priority is in lack of tension in the immediate environment, either in a local or a global sense. As I said before, unless you can prove this to me by bringing in other SF users that disagree as strongly as you, my stance will not be swayed.


I think you misunderstood Feeling. 

Fi does not focus on people; it focuses on the self.
Fe is different. 

If I want lack of tension in my immediate environment, I will get out of my immediate environment. I don't care for peace in the world as much as I care about peace within myself. 

No one would deliberately oppose a peaceful environment in itself, since it's only human to want it.. but seeing it as a *main priority* is not the same.

I'm sure you will find others who might disagree as well, but I don't need support to state my opinion.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I'm genuinely impressed. This seems neat, explicable and reasonable.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Are you bleching at the idea, or at the wall of text?


It's more of the same. More generalizations that I've seen before. More dumping Si with Se and Ni with Ne.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> The way these work are opposites in themselves.
> 
> Fi works inwardly, deciding on what is important to them as an individual, what seems right or wrong, self-discovery, etc.
> 
> ...


I don't know, I just know that I was wrong, and this forum might never trust me again. I never meant to make sensors seem inferior, and I never meant to hurt anyone. I had an idea that I acted too hastily on, and I put it out without enough objective support. I'm sorry.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

I think I just experienced the one-sided idiocy of a loop... this is eye-opening.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I don't know, I just know that I was wrong, and this forum might never trust me again. I never meant to make sensors seem inferior, and I never meant to hurt anyone. I had an idea that I acted too hastily on, and I put it out without enough objective support. I'm sorry.


Don't beat yourself up for it. I've seen worse. The best thing to do is to move on an try to get a better understanding of where you went wrong rather than being upset at the fact that you were wrong. 

Many descriptions don't mean to make sensors seem inferior, but they end up doing so anyway and it's kind of annoying. It's not just you. 

*I'm more surprised at the amount of people who actually agree with what you wrote.. *I feel like if I didn't say anything, it would have led bigger misconceptions. 

I do still think there is more in common with the S/N + P/J types rather than F/T. 

Maybe it's better to look at Je, Ji, Pe, Pi if you want to group them further.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Don't beat yourself up for it. I've seen worse. The best thing to do is to move on an try to get a better understanding of where you went wrong rather than being upset at the fact that you were wrong.
> 
> Many descriptions don't mean to make sensors seem inferior, but they end up doing so anyway and it's kind of annoying. It's not just you.
> 
> ...


I have read quite a few articles on this split, and also on a few other dichotomies pertaining to the types. The only thing to do now is trudge on glumly. I've devoted myself to this cause, and I want to see it through to the end.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

I believe Je is the most directive, Pe is the most adaptable, Ji are the most accepting, and Pi types are the most planful, correct?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I have read quite a few articles on this split, and also on a few other dichotomies pertaining to the types. The only thing to do now is trudge on glumly. I've devoted myself to this cause, and I want to see it through to the end.


There's no need to be so glum. Researching this stuff is interesting no matter what you previously believed. There is always room for views to be changed and further improvement, which is why learning new things is fun!

No point in doing anything if it's not enjoyable, right? That's my philosophy. :wink:


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I believe Je is the most directive, Pe is the most adaptable, Ji are the most accepting, and Pi types are the most planful, correct?


What's the difference between adaptable and accepting?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> What's the difference between adaptable and accepting?


Passivity versus activity, I suppose. Pe seeks out dynamic environments to exercise it's adaptivity, while Ji types are generally more laid-back and internally oriented, taking life as it comes. Does this seem right?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Passivity versus activity, I suppose. Pe seeks out dynamic environments to exercise it's adaptivity, while Ji types are generally more laid-back and internally oriented, taking life as it comes. Does this seem right?


I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Why do you think so?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Why do you think so?


I think I might get it; EJ is the most directive, so IP is the most passive. EP is the most spontaneous, so IJ is the most deliberate. Does that sound right?


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I think I might get it; EJ is the most directive, so IP is the most passive. EP is the most spontaneous, so IJ is the most deliberate. Does that sound right?


I would say "planned" rather than deliberate. But it sounds about right to me.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I think I might get it; EJ is the most directive, so IP is the most passive. EP is the most spontaneous, so IJ is the most deliberate. Does that sound right?


What does introversion have to do with passivity?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> Do realize this is based upon general impressions, and does not cover everyone. SFs in general seek harmonious relationships with others. SFs in general act more negatively to people who act aloof and arrogant towards others. Also, your NF is second in your hierarchy, so could become a priority fairly easily if you feel your environment is calm and safe. All of the SFs I have communicated with (including xSFPs) related to the SF description.


IMO, your SF description describes ISFJs more than ISFPs. It's too Fe-ish for me. Also, it's very unflattering and condescending. 

As to my perspective, when I first read Keirsey's groupings, I also thought "bunk", but as I thought about it, and compared it to relationships I've had, I have to say that 1. I am much more similar to ISTP than ISFJ. I've had a couple of ISTP friends, and together, we make a dangerous pair. It's insane how we can build off each other, and amplify each other's strong points, and just think together in tandem. This isn't all that uncommon for ISFP and ISTP from what I've seen. I have also worked for years, hand in glove with an ISFJ in the ministry. We are much, much more unalike than alike. We may often reach the same conclusions, but we do it via entirely different routes. And there were frequently small skirmishes along the way--we got along great, and we realized that we meshed like two gears, but the truth was, I was a mystery to him. He never could grasp where I was coming from, and what made me tick. But he was an open book to me. Very non-symmetrical relationship. 

In other words, Keirsey's groupings, in real life, actually make more sense, IMO. I would like to add, that if you read his book, you will see the thinking that went into his system--how he came up with it. It has theoretical roots, but also lots of empirical observation, etc. It may not be convenient for what you are trying to do, but it does make sense from his perspective. He kind of rejected the ideas of introverted and extroverted functions, and just went with temperaments, so you are working from different data sets than he was. 

I see what you are doing, however, and will try to read through it more with that perspective, but just a cursory reading tells me I kind of prefer the simplicity of Keirsey's breakdown. Sorry. (I'll say it again, I also don't like your SF description--it also misses the mark for ISFJs, IMO--it's just too superficial and condescending--but I already said that, didn't I?)


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> What does introversion have to do with passivity?


She's saying there's a large correlation between being IP and being passive. It's quite possible there is no causation there at all, and maybe there is causation and we simply do not know why. But there is a large correlation between being introverted perceiving and being more passive than most (on average)


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> What does introversion have to do with passivity?


It's not introversion, but a reflection of EJ. EJ are most likely to impose on others, so IP are least. I assume.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> She's saying there's a large correlation between being IP and being passive. It's quite possible there is no causation there at all, and maybe there is causation and we simply do not know why. But there is a large correlation between being introverted perceiving and being more passive than most (on average)


That is just an assumption. I see no large correlation at all.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> IMO, your SF description describes ISFJs more than ISFPs. It's too Fe-ish for me. Also, it's very unflattering and condescending.
> 
> As to my perspective, when I first read Keirsey's groupings, I also thought "bunk", but as I thought about it, and compared it to relationships I've had, I have to say that 1. I am much more similar to ISTP than ISFJ. I've had a couple of ISTP friends, and together, we make a dangerous pair. It's insane how we can build off each other, and amplify each other's strong points, and just think together in tandem. This isn't all that uncommon for ISFP and ISTP from what I've seen. I have also worked for years, hand in glove with an ISFJ in the ministry. We are much, much more unalike than alike. We may often reach the same conclusions, but we do it via entirely different routes. And there were frequently small skirmishes along the way--we got along great, and we realized that we meshed like two gears, but the truth was, I was a mystery to him. He never could grasp where I was coming from, and what made me tick. But he was an open book to me. Very non-symmetrical relationship.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your opinion. It has been noted and shall be taken into consideration.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> It's not introversion, but a reflection of EJ. EJ are most likely to impose on others, so IP are least. I assume.


What makes them more likely to impose on others?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> IMO, your SF description describes ISFJs more than ISFPs. It's too Fe-ish for me. Also, it's very unflattering and condescending.
> 
> As to my perspective, when I first read Keirsey's groupings, I also thought "bunk", but as I thought about it, and compared it to relationships I've had, I have to say that 1. I am much more similar to ISTP than ISFJ. I've had a couple of ISTP friends, and together, we make a dangerous pair. It's insane how we can build off each other, and amplify each other's strong points, and just think together in tandem. This isn't all that uncommon for ISFP and ISTP from what I've seen. I have also worked for years, hand in glove with an ISFJ in the ministry. We are much, much more unalike than alike. We may often reach the same conclusions, but we do it via entirely different routes. And there were frequently small skirmishes along the way--we got along great, and we realized that we meshed like two gears, but the truth was, I was a mystery to him. He never could grasp where I was coming from, and what made me tick. But he was an open book to me. Very non-symmetrical relationship.
> 
> ...


I know. I'm working on a better grouping now.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> That is just an assumption. I see no large correlation at all.


That is very interesting. I've seen it in just about every IP I know. Or at least, most IPs I know are more passive than other people I know. Do you consider yourself to be less passive than the people around you? What makes you think this?

And it's quite possible you're right, IPs are not passive, the wrong word is being used


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> What makes them more likely to impose on others?


They are extraverted judging dominants. They hold both themselves and others to a set external standard.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> That is very interesting. I've seen it in just about every IP I know. Or at least, most IPs I know are more passive than other people I know. Do you consider yourself to be less passive than the people around you? What makes you think this?
> 
> And it's quite possible you're right, IPs are not passive, the wrong word is being used


As I said before, personal observations aren't reliable. 
_People see what they want to see._

No, I do not. What I consider myself to be has no matter in that anyway. I simply don't see the "large correlation" with passiveness and IP. Generalizations can be wrong.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm not sure about Pi types being planful or deliberate, honestly. Their primary mode is to take in information in a subjective way. I don't see that relating to planning. Maybe IxTJs and especially INTJs will have some orientation to planning, but as a INFJ I don't relate to that at all. I don't conciously make plans. I do gather information, which I guess might seem like "planning" if I was really awful at planning.

...maybe we look deliberate on the outside? 

I'd be more apt to say the IP types are deliberate. IJs are...something else. Usually they're locked off in their own little worlds, mulling in whatever their strange way of percieving the world is. I'm not sure what the right word is to describe that state.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> As I said before, personal observations aren't reliable.
> _People see what they want to see._
> 
> No, I do not. What I consider myself to be has no matter in that anyway. I simply don't see the "large correlation" with passiveness and IP. Generalizations can be wrong.


Many things can be wrong. But what is MBTI but several groups of massive generalizations?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ENTrePeneur said:


> That is very interesting. I've seen it in just about every IP I know. Or at least, most IPs I know are more passive than other people I know. Do you consider yourself to be less passive than the people around you? What makes you think this?
> 
> And it's quite possible you're right, IPs are not passive, the wrong word is being used


Maybe less assertive? But, IMO, passive is not really off the mark. I think the problem is _where_, or under what circumstances would we be passive? When it comes to things, I'm not passive at all. I am quite willing to grab something--a tool or whatnot, and just start using it, and even if I've never used it before, be relatively competent with it. On the other hand, it can also take a lot of willpower to get up and actually start doing something, and my extroverted kids have to drag me to do things... But, when it comes to relationships with other people, I tend to be much more passive, and not proactive or active in pushing things along. I'd rather wait for them to call me, for instance, and assertiveness? naw. none. That doesn't mean that I won't get aggressive if I'm stressed out, or feel walked all over, but yeah, in relationships, I'm more passive. I've also discovered that my wife (INTP) is also passive--more so than I. In comparison to her, I'm a go-getter, in fact. We don't have wide social circles, to be honest...

So, IMO, passive is not really that far off the mark, at least when it comes to relationships. And yeah, I'd have to say this is comparatively speaking--against others I know.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Would it be better to say they are unassuming and accepting, more likely to consider new things?


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> I'm not sure about Pi types being planful or deliberate, honestly. Their primary mode is to take in information in a subjective way. I don't see that relating to planning. Maybe IxTJs and especially INTJs will have some orientation to planning, but as a INFJ I don't relate to that at all. I don't conciously make plans. I do gather information, which I guess might seem like "planning" if I was really awful at planning.
> 
> ...maybe we look deliberate on the outside?
> 
> I'd be more apt to say the IP types are deliberate. IJs are...something else. Usually they're locked off in their own little worlds, mulling in whatever their strange way of percieving the world is. I'm not sure what the right word is to describe that state.


She didn't say Pi was deliberate at all.. unless I'm missing something?


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

ENTrePeneur said:


> She didn't say Pi was deliberate at all.. unless I'm missing something?


Yes, you are. She said: "I think I might get it; EJ is the most directive, so IP is the most passive. EP is the most spontaneous, so IJ is the most deliberate. Does that sound right?"

And you replied that you thought "planned" was better than deliberate. It's on the previous page.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> I'm not sure about Pi types being planful or deliberate, honestly. Their primary mode is to take in information in a subjective way. I don't see that relating to planning. Maybe IxTJs and especially INTJs will have some orientation to planning, but as a INFJ I don't relate to that at all. I don't conciously make plans. I do gather information, which I guess might seem like "planning" if I was really awful at planning.
> 
> ...maybe we look deliberate on the outside?
> 
> I'd be more apt to say the IP types are deliberate. IJs are...something else. Usually they're locked off in their own little worlds, mulling in whatever their strange way of percieving the world is. I'm not sure what the right word is to describe that state.


Would contemplative and introspective be better?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Many things can be wrong. But what is MBTI but several groups of massive generalizations?


And what is theory without questioning? 

People once thought the earth was flat. That was a massive generalization, no?


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> Would contemplative and introspective be better?


It rings more true to me. I think contemplative captures the feeling I was trying to get at. Do you relate to that, as a IJ?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> It rings more true to me. I think contemplative captures the feeling I was trying to get at. Do you relate to that, as a IJ?


Definitely. So, the benefit of IJ types is that they are contemplative, would the downside be that they are single-minded?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Maybe less assertive? But, IMO, passive is not really off the mark. I think the problem is _where_, or under what circumstances would we be passive? When it comes to things, I'm not passive at all. I am quite willing to grab something--a tool or whatnot, and just start using it, and even if I've never used it before, be relatively competent with it. On the other hand, it can also take a lot of willpower to get up and actually start doing something, and my extroverted kids have to drag me to do things... But, when it comes to relationships with other people, I tend to be much more passive, and not proactive or active in pushing things along. I'd rather wait for them to call me, for instance, and assertiveness? naw. none. That doesn't mean that I won't get aggressive if I'm stressed out, or feel walked all over, but yeah, in relationships, I'm more passive. I've also discovered that my wife (INTP) is also passive--more so than I. In comparison to her, I'm a go-getter, in fact. We don't have wide social circles, to be honest...
> 
> So, IMO, passive is not really that far off the mark, at least when it comes to relationships. And yeah, I'd have to say this is comparatively speaking--against others I know.


I see it as more of an inclination to stay on the sidelines, but when something goes against my views, I would definitely speak up, not passively let things go as they are. When something seems wrong, I speak. I don't see this as being passive.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Definitely. So, the benefit of IJ types is that they are contemplative, would the downside be that they are single-minded?


I would say IP is just as much contemplative and introspective. Why not?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I see it as more of an inclination to stay on the sidelines, but when something goes against my views, I would definitely speak up, not passively let things go as they are. When something seems wrong, I speak. I don't see this as being passive.


I mean passive in the sense that they stand back unless provoked. Would reactive be better?


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> And what is theory without questioning?
> 
> People once thought the earth was flat. That was a massive generalization, no?


I'm not saying your questions are bad. I'm merely questioning your questions. :kitteh:

(but while some may have thought the earth was flat, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that people did actually believe the Earth truly was round. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Columbus or anything like that. )


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

zazara said:


> I see it as more of an inclination to stay on the sidelines, but when something goes against my views, I would definitely speak up, not passively let things go as they are. When something seems wrong, I speak. I don't see this as being passive.


yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean in normal relationships. Do you let things happen to you, or do you tend to make them happen? Do you call your friends with suggestions of things to do? Or do you let them call you? Which is more likely for you? 

But this conversation seems a bit confusing to me. Are we talking about IP types (ISFP, INFP, ISTP, INTP) or Pi types, (ISFJ, ISTJ, INFJ, INTJ)? It seems both terms are being batted around, but since six pages or more seem to have appeared since I started writing my first post, I haven't been able to follow the entire conversation... ;-)


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I would say IP is just as much contemplative and introspective. Why not?


Intro - inside
Spectare - to look

Dominant Pi. While Ji types consult there inner self for judgments, Pi consult their inner slf for observations. They use experiences and archetypal assumptions as data.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean in normal relationships. Do you let things happen to you, or do you tend to make them happen? Do you call your friends with suggestions of things to do? Or do you let them call you? Which is more likely for you?
> 
> But this conversation seems a bit confusing to me. Are we talking about IP types (ISFP, INFP, ISTP, INTP) or Pi types, (ISFJ, ISTJ, INFJ, INTJ)? It seems both terms are being batted around, but since six pages or more seem to have appeared since I started writing my first post, I haven't been able to follow the entire conversation... ;-)


We are discussing Ji types for reactive passivity, and Pi for introspection.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I mean passive in the sense that they stand back unless provoked. Would reactive be better?


Oh I see what you mean now. I'm not sure, but that does sound like a better word for it. 




ENTrePeneur said:


> I'm not saying your questions are bad. I'm merely questioning your questions. :kitteh:
> 
> (but while some may have thought the earth was flat, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that people did actually believe the Earth truly was round. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Columbus or anything like that. )


Why question my questions? 

(Then it would be that it was a massive generalization to assume that people didn't think the world was flat. Still a massive generalization. I can think up of different massive generalizations that were wrong. You get my point.)


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> Why question my questions?
> 
> (Then it would be that it was a massive generalization to assume that people didn't think the world was flat. Still a massive generalization. I can think up of different massive generalizations that were wrong. You get my point.)


I question your questions to make your questions better.

No, it would merely be evidence of people applying conclusions from bad sampling. :kitteh:


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

This is much more fun to do in a group. Fe, I assume?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean in normal relationships. Do you let things happen to you, or do you tend to make them happen? Do you call your friends with suggestions of things to do? Or do you let them call you? Which is more likely for you?


Ah relationships ~ I wasn't even thinking about it in that way. whoops. You're right. I let things happen most of the time.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Ah relationships ~ I wasn't even thinking about it in that way. whoops. You're right. I let things happen most of the time.


So IP types are passive in relationships, and reactive in actions?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> I question your questions to make your questions better.
> 
> No, it would merely be evidence of people applying conclusions from bad sampling. :kitteh:


Questioning with no good reason is just silly. What's your point? 




EthereaEthos said:


> This is much more fun to do in a group. Fe, I assume?


Not necessarily.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

zazara said:


> Questioning with no good reason is just silly. What's your point?


I don't know. I just wanted to debate with someone about something. :kitteh:

You can go back to helping esther improve her theory now.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> Definitely. So, the benefit of IJ types is that they are contemplative, would the downside be that they are single-minded?


Single-minded perhaps, but I also think inert. When they're unhealthy--or especially if they were to loop--it becomes enough to observe, without needing to do. Or maybe that's just me, since I'm a 5.

I'm concerned about single-minded, because I think it could be mistaken for the stubbornness of a Ji dom. Pi doms are...not necessarily stubborn (think ISFJ), but they seem to have a tendency to slip away from reality. A single word for that? Haven't found it yet.

Though--I do see what you mean by single-minded--they assume that everybody else sees things just as they do. But in fact, their perspective is highly subjective. If they don't remember that and make good use of their Je, they'll end up quite...pushy.



zazara said:


> I would say IP is just as much contemplative and introspective. Why not?


Yeah, those words could describe all introverts, but I thought that "contemplative" spoke to the P-dom nature of IJs. 

What do you think is the major difference between IPs and IJs? How do you think Ji vs Pi dominance manifests in terms of temperament?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So IP types are passive in relationships, and reactive in actions?


What kind of actions are you talking about here? Like catching a ball kind of thing?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> I don't know. I just wanted to debate with someone about something. :kitteh:
> 
> You can go back to helping esther improve her theory now.


That name again? *sighs*


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> That name again? *sighs*


Why not? I like it. :kitteh:


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> What kind of actions are you talking about here? Like catching a ball kind of thing?


Like in everyday life. They are more likely to only act directive towards others when crossed. A sort of passive-assertive behavior.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Like in everyday life. They are more likely to only act directive towards others when crossed. A sort of passive-assertive behavior.


Emotionally speaking?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Emotionally speaking?


Exactly! They act distant until prompted! …right?


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

zazara said:


> But why do you say that SFs are more people-oriented?


exactly why SP/SJ is a better comparison than SF/ST


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

spiderfrommars said:


> Yeah, those words could describe all introverts, but I thought that "contemplative" spoke to the P-dom nature of IJs.
> 
> What do you think is the major difference between IPs and IJs? How do you think Ji vs Pi dominance manifests in terms of temperament?


They are both focused internally so I'd think it would be hard to tell on a superficial level. 

Well.. Ji = Fi/Ti and Pi = Si/Ni

How do you differentiate from F/T and S/N functions?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> exactly why SP/SJ is a better comparison than SF/ST


If you notice, we are working on a solution to this problem. Do you want to help?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Exactly! They act distant until prompted! …right?


I would personally say yes.. but I don't know how the workings of a Ti-dom differ in that case.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> They are both focused internally so I'd think it would be hard to tell on a superficial level.
> 
> Well.. Ji = Fi/Ti and Pi = Si/Ni
> 
> How do you differentiate from F/T and S/N functions?


F/T requires conscious thought... so Ji is contemplative (internal cognition), while Pi is introspective (internal observation)!


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I would personally say yes.. but I don't know how the workings of a Ti-dom differ in that case.


My ISTP cousin acts quite aloof, and my INTP teacher is distant to the point of seeming arrogant.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> F/T requires conscious thought... so Ji is contemplative (internal cognition), while Pi is introspective (internal observation)!


This is a stupid question, but can you explain the difference between contemplative and introspective? My english vocabulary knowledge is still a work in progress.. I thought they were similar.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> How do they "view the world".. literally? with their eyes? in the way they take in information?
> 
> My Te is working up a sweat here.



Both Se and Ne use the five senses to perceive the external world, but Ne rejects the physical aspect, while Se rejects the dynamic aspect. Se is in the present, observing external details, while Ne is in the future, observing implied possibilities and speculations.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Structuring is a good one, as of right now I'm favoring the word "compartmentalizing", I think it may be the precision we need to continue on the discussion. Both "structuring" or "compartmentalizing" work, just to compartmentalize seems more direct in relation to Ji.


Ok... so they organize what they see according to their value (Fi) or understanding (Ti) invested in that data?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> Sometimes I wish I was an ESTP.. you guys are so cool..  (almost as cool as the ISFPs. :kitteh


ESTP's and ISFP's ALL accept flattery, gifts and bribes. PM me if you need to know where to these. I will kindly accept them on behalf of ALL ESTP and ISFP everywhere.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Both Se and Ne use the five senses to perceive the external world, but Ne rejects the physical aspect, while Se rejects the dynamic aspect. Se is in the present, observing external details, while Ne is in the future, observing implied possibilities and speculations.


Rejecting?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Ok... so they organize what they see according to their value (Fi) or understanding (Ti) invested in that data?


Determining which is important or logical..


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Rejecting?


Your right, that is too harsh. Tends to ignore.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Determining which is important or logical..


It makes sense.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

No one can reject the physical aspect of the world. They'd fall off a cliff and die. Same with the reverse of course.. but the idea is in the right place I think. I'd say one is _more in favor_ of the other, and then they have Ni/Si to back up with it which is internally driven.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> Ok... so they organize what they see according to their value (Fi) or understanding (Ti) invested in that data?





zazara said:


> Determining which is important or logical..


Yes on both accounts. Fi organizes what they value, or what they feel in harmony with while Ti organizes the "understanding", or what logic they find within harmony. When I use the word harmony, I'm using specifically the textbook definition: *"a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity. *

Both Fi and Ti identify with harmony in different ways. The Fi user harmonizes their values while the Ti user harmonizes their "understanding" in a "logical" fashion/format.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Yes on both accounts. Fi organizes what they value, or what they feel in harmony with while Ti organizes the "understanding", or what logic they find within harmony. When I use the word harmony, I'm using specifically the textbook definition: *"a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity. *
> 
> Both Fi and Ti identify with harmony in different ways. The Fi user harmonizes their values while the Ti user harmonizes their "understanding" in a "logical" fashion/format.


So the Fi dominant would want to live life according to their ethical values, while the Ti dominant according to their logical values... both living life how they want to live, and allowing others to live their own way. Ji dominants are non-directive, reactive, and driven to follow the wills of their internal values. Live and let live, how you want to live it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Ji = internal harmonization
Je = external harmonization

Pi = internal _____
Pe = external _____


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Both Se and Ne use the five senses to perceive the external world, but Ne rejects the physical aspect, while Se rejects the dynamic aspect. Se is in the present, observing external details, while Ne is in the future, observing implied possibilities and speculations.





EthereaEthos said:


> Your right, that is too harsh. Tends to ignore.


I wouldn't put it that way. 

Se is focused on the present and Ne is focused on the possible. Ne doesn't ignore/reject anything. Se doesn't ignore/reject anything. Neither "doesn't" do something. It's just not where their focus. Some Se-dom's reject/ignore possibilities. Some Ne-doms reject/ignore the present. I think language that says "they don't do this" gives the impression that they "don't do this".


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> So the Fi dominant would want to live life according to their ethical values, while the Ti dominant according to their logical values... both living life how they want to live, and allowing others to live their own way. Ji dominants are non-directive, reactive, and driven to follow the wills of their internal values. Live and let live, how you want to live it.


Yes, while Fi will rather understand the differing values among others, Ti would rather understand the underlying logic among others. What can tick off a Fi user is inconsistent values within an individual, what can tick off a To user is inconsistent logic within an individual.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

zazara said:


> Ji = internal harmonization
> Je = external harmonization
> 
> Pi = internal _____
> Pe = external _____


Seems to me that perceivers like to keep our options open. Extroverted perceivers don't like anything they perceive limits or controls us. We want freedom.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Yes, while Fi will rather understand the differing values among others, Ti would rather understand the underlying logic among others. What can tick off a Fi user is inconsistent values within an individual, what can tick off a To user is inconsistent logic within an individual.


So, how would that tie into Pi and Pe?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> I wouldn't put it that way.
> 
> Se is focused on the present and Ne is focused on the possible. Ne doesn't ignore/reject anything. Se doesn't ignore/reject anything. Neither "doesn't" do something. It's just not where their focus. Some Se-dom's reject/ignore possibilities. Some Ne-doms reject/ignore the present. I think language that says "they don't do this" gives the impression that they "don't do this".


I'm not understanding, if I'm doing one thing that means I'm not doing a different thing. If I'm eating cake that means that I'm not, not eating cake. If Se is doing one thing while Ne is doing another, and you are one or the other that means when you are using one then you aren't using the other. As an Se user, you dont naturally use Ne the way you do Se, you use Se constantly meaning you can't be using Ne constantly, unless youre implying that all Se users use Ne just as much as Ne users and vice versa.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Seems to me that perceivers like to keep our options open. Extroverted perceivers don't like anything they perceive limits or controls us. We want freedom.


So, Pi is internal flexibility while Pe is external flexibility?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I'm not understanding, if I'm doing one thing that means I'm not doing a different thing. If I'm eating cake that means that I'm not, not eating cake. If Se is doing one thing while Ne is doing another, and you are one or the other that means when you are using one then you aren't using the other. As an Se user, you dont naturally use Ne the way you do Se, you use Se constantly meaning you can't be using Ne constantly, unless youre implying that all Se users use Ne just as much as Ne users and vice versa.


That's a very limited way of seeing it. Ne doesn't mean you can't use your five senses.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, Pi is internal flexibility while Pe is external flexibility?


What is internal flexibility?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, how would that tie into Pi and Pe?


Pi users tend to "believe" what they see, there is no compartmentalizing, so instead a Pi user tends to find those with alike visions or ways to see, doesnt have to be the same, but the perception has to be alike. The Pe user tends to want to drag others around them with them on their journeys of experiencing new perceptions. The Pi user builds on their perception throughout time and experience while Pe chases/looks for new perceptions throughout time and experience. 

Maybe we could get a little more precise, but this is what I have for now.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> In mbti your first extraverted function decides if youre a P or J, while in socionics your first function defines if youre a perceiver a not. Hence mbti INTJ= socionics INTP. There's a lot more to socionics but @ephemereality will probably explain the rest. I just wanted to give you an easy way to remember that switch and why there is a switch.


But.. the first function of INTJ is Ni so ... ? 

I think I've delved so much into MBTI that it's hard to picture it right away in a different system. 

Plus, it's strange that I relate more to the ISFp profile on this than ISFj: 
Ethical-Sensory Intratim - ISFj (The Guardian)
Sensory-Ethical Intratim - ISFp (The Peacemaker)

That's just judging it from the surface though. ISFp is a painter and ISFj is a policeman?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

zazara said:


> But.. the first function of INTJ is Ni so ... ?
> 
> I think I've delved so much into MBTI that it's hard to picture it right away in a different system.
> 
> ...


Let's use INTJ for our example. The INTJ's first extraverted function is Te which is a Judging function, so in mbti they would be a Judger. Since the INTJs first function is Ni, a perceiving function, that means they would be a perceivers in socionics. Thats why mbti INTJ= socionics INTP.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Messy thread. Interesting, but messy. So let's see:



arkigos said:


> Not sensations in the sense that that may connotate. Se is Everything. Just, everything. Experiences, really. I give the anecdote of my ESFP brother yanking me to the local game shop to do Magic: The Gathering tournaments and Pathfinder roleplaying campaigns. He LOOOOOVES that stuff. My ESFP brother in law, too... though he is more into playing one of the thousand board games he owns. I literally avoid them to get out of doing some geeky thing. They are just, like @_zazara_ says, sponges of stuff. They just want to experience stuff that interests them. They are definitely DOERS, but not like adrenaline junky doers. No. My brother is terrified of heights. He just wants to do stuff. If we are in the wilderness, he wants to take me hiking, if we are at his house he wants to cook or play video games, or play guitar, or go on a road trip or go.... bowling... or whatever. Just STUFF. Life, reality, the world... visit family, or go dancing if they like dancing, or food if they like food or whatever.
> 
> My ENFP wife and I are just exhausted by it. We wanna go home and chat about theories and the nature of humanity and our culture. Stuff that isn't real, though it may represent reality.


I wanted to quote this first of all because YES pretty much. Gf is like this (yes, archetypal ESFP in my opinion too). I don't understand where she gets all this energy from. Always this need to do something, to experience. Also, it touches on my signature I am using right now because this is Se mentality in a nutshell to me. It wants to experience all that is real in order to really feel that realness. I have moments of that like when I ride that rollercoaster ride and you feel the wind in your face, hear the people screaming, the G-force as you are pulled back into the seat etc. For me also, it's very viscerally tied to emotion and emotional attachment due to Fi. There's this funny video though exaggerated, that captures how I think of inferior SeFi in a nutshell:






And as much as I admit to hate it, it's not too far off despite being presented in a comedic manner (also notice his different dispositions as he switches cognition in the vid between cheerful and serious). I have had moments as an adult, where I have been running around yelling on my balcony during times of extreme weather like that time when it was hailing and raining at the same time, including there being a thunderstorm. Of course gf tells me she wants to see this so she can join in/poke fun at it. Guh, just let me die in a corner somewhere. Jung is right that the inferior is like a fucking child like that and I doubt it will ever really grow up. 



zazara said:


> Just butting in here, but Socionics seems a bit more complicated to me. I haven't exactly looked into it at all.. though I've heard that the J/P letters switch at times? Does that mean the temperaments switch as well? IP = IJ ?
> 
> Took the test before on one of the sites, but I've learned not to trust tests nowadays.. and then there are some people who seem to have totally different Socionics types as compared to their MBTI types. What's up with that? (.. if you don't mind explaining.)
> 
> I have a feeling many people here haven't looked much into Socionics as well.


I think @Shadow Logic explained the outlier. The switch only occurs for introverts though, because the j/p letter (lower case to avoid confusion) denotes something different in socionics. Instead, what socionics does is that j or p explains the nature of your lead function. If you are a judging dominant type, you're a j, and if a perceiving dominant type, you're a p. Compared to the MBTI that groups people based on the *first extroverted* function so if you are a P, your first extroverted function is perception and if a J, it's judgement. 

As for people who have different socionics types, I tend to think of them as people who honestly don't understand the systems well enough to see that they are all just describing the same Jungian type. Of course, opinions are differing on this subject, but that's my personal opinion. Hence for introverts, you'll have the J/P switch so I'm an INTJ but an INTp, because NiTe in both cases. The argument to keep the systems separate is that people tend to stare themselves blind at function descriptions and notice how the descriptions are different instead of seeing in my opinion, the unified and common core that goes beyond various buzzwords people may use to denote a type or function. 



zazara said:


> But.. the first function of INTJ is Ni so ... ?
> 
> I think I've delved so much into MBTI that it's hard to picture it right away in a different system.
> 
> ...


Yeah, because the descriptions highlight different aspects. Socionics tends to (over)emphasize the dominant or base function, but MBTI tends to (over)emphasize the auxiliary.



EthereaEthos said:


> I enjoy doing the work. It makes the results more true to me. Also, I have a loyalty to MBTI, and socionics is nearly impossible to connect with it, considering the completely different directions the theories took.


Fair, but seems so highly unnecessary especially as your system would essentially not be that much different from socionics except perhaps different ways to describe the same thing.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

zazara said:


> I do love learning about theories and humanity and all that as well, but I noticed that I try to tie it into either myself (for self-discovery purposes since I'm all about that) and reality if I can. I love learning about new things in general, theories included. That's an experience. Hm.. basically, I'll do whatever seems interesting to me.
> 
> I've been told that it's crazy for a sensor to possibly be interested in theories and things that are not of this world. I don't see why not. Though I'm guessing this is mainly because of my Fi and wanting to understand myself.
> 
> ...


Yes... and that is the funny thing, Se will even do abstract stuff, or conceptual stuff... Sure, why not? Let's sit down and talk about thermodynamics. That's probably interesting. I find that Se-doms tend to get a little distractable and antsy when we REALLY get into it... more like they want to have learned it, but the process of learning it requires perhaps more focus than they bargained for. At that point it is a contest of motivation. If the subject means a lot to the other person, an ESFP is going to really fight to rein themselves in. If it seems like there will be interesting bits, any Se will muscle through the rest.

I don't think anything is outside the scope of Se in terms of what could be experienced. Even sitting having a philosophical discussion is an experience to have. Philosophy is interesting, and while I think all Se-doms want to get the most out of it as quickly as possible... and while it might take them some serious willpower, by god they are gonna do it if it interests them. 

Like my brother with typology. He kept saying, "One night, you are gonna come over, I'll make some food and you are just gonna lay this typology thing on me. Just go to town. I'll bring a notepad and just listen to you all night. Let's do it. How about tomorrow?"

And he did just that. He even made his wife (ESTJ) sit there the whole time. She spent literally the whole night texting. She couldn't be less interested, though I don't know what to derive from that, if anything. He just listened, and did the typical Se/Fi thing of resisting stereotype and over-conceptualized crap theories like a greased fox. He @_zazara_'d it. His intelligence was clear, his orientation with reality over decoupled theory was clear. He didn't give me an inch concerning wayward interpretation. It either fit him and resonated in his reality or it was no deal. You'd think that after hours of rejecting and questioning, and wishy washing that he'd be tired of it. Nope. He was a black hole. He would have stayed until morning had he not decided to give in to his wife no less than 3 hours after she first asked to go home. I can only describe it as a black hole... endless ability to absorb, yet never induct or reciprocate (until he had time to internalize it all, if he ever bothered to).

It's fascinating. It was also EXHAUSTING. I yearn for reciprocation in those scenarios. Brainstorming. Se types probably see it as brainstorming... but to me it's like standing waist deep in the ocean. It's supposed to be dynamic but in the end I feel beat up, having gotten nowhere.

This same thing happened with another ESFP. Someone pointed me at her and told me to teach her typology. She just listened. I stumbled and stuttered and rambled around and she just listened and listened. After like, over an hour of talking, I said "what do you think?" and she shrugged and said,

"I don't know, I just find it interesting. I like learning about this stuff."

And I was about to jump out the window. Her feedback was just so much dynamic unorganized STUFF.. it was like I sat there building some lego thing why she just watched, and then if I asked her what she thought, she said it wasn't right and dumped another 1000 pieces on top of it. "Does that help?" 

*jumps out window*



EthereaEthos said:


> I enjoy doing the work. It makes the results more true to me. Also, I have a loyalty to MBTI, and socionics is nearly impossible to connect with it, considering the completely different directions the theories took.


I am the same way. I've seen it associated with Ti. It would make sense. The need to disconnect from the object, to internalize the logical process. I have to build it from the ground up to connect with it and 'own it' and fully understand it. It just has to happen. Te inevitably sees that as unnecessary. It probably is, but you can't stop it. Fi does the same thing in its arena.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> Your descriptions suck like a lot of descriptions written by intuitives for sensors. The workers label particularly sucking.


Might you, possibly, be able to create a better one? It seems as though it'd be better to have the sensing descriptions written from a sensing perspective if the source of the problem is an intuitive attitude.

...actually, this is directed at any Sensor. Do any of you have better descriptions for SJ or SP?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Yes... and that is the funny thing, Se will even do abstract stuff, or conceptual stuff... Sure, why not? Let's sit down and talk about thermodynamics. That's probably interesting. I find that Se-doms tend to get a little distractable and antsy when we REALLY get into it... more like they want to have learned it, but the process of learning it requires perhaps more focus than they bargained for. At that point it is a contest of motivation. If the subject means a lot to the other person, an ESFP is going to really fight to rein themselves in. If it seems like there will be interesting bits, any Se will muscle through the rest.
> 
> I don't think anything is outside the scope of Se in terms of what could be experienced. Even sitting having a philosophical discussion is an experience to have. Philosophy is interesting, and while I think all Se-doms want to get the most out of it as quickly as possible... and while it might take them some serious willpower, by god they are gonna do it if it interests them.
> 
> ...


Isn't the issue more that you seek Fe reciprocation ideally with Ne/Si, whereas they seek Ni? I don't mind people who just listen as long as they ask me questions to show interest. I definitely don't need them to blurt things out on their own accord though, to show that they understand. If they ask the right kinds of questions I innately know that they do.

There's this good scene from Game of Thrones about that actually (I assume my previous post was too long for you?): 






He's feeding her so much NiTe.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@ephemereality 
I'm getting the gist of what you're saying, but socionics seems to fly over my head.. 

I don't know why but I feel like I have to learn EVERYTHING about MBTI first before stepping into that neighboring galaxy. They look similar for sure, but I'm guessing that they are totally different in another way. Too many theories floating around in my head is just going to make me end up confusing the two. Even after all I've learned about MBTI, I still think I am new to it. I don't know enough yet.. I need more information. 

@arkigos
Not even 4 months into this website and I've got my own VIP badge thing and now a catchphrase to bat? *"He zazara'd it."* Awesome.  (More like the sad realities of an obsession.)

Yes ~ I'm not sure how Se-doms and Se-auxs differ in that area, but when I am interested,_ I am interested._ .. or as anyone who really knows me would say, _incredibly stubborn_. It's all or nothing. 

The black hole image you described is exactly how I work. This would also explain the crazy 80+ page type me threads and whatnot. I become a black hole and don't even realize it.. until I'm done taking it all in and step back to look at it like "whoa, did I do that? my bad." It's not that I don't understand things right away. I just can't help but wanting to know more and ask questions. It can get a little chaotic to say the least.. 

Maybe I'm more like a leech, or a vampire. I suck your blood, and don't give anything back in return. Perhaps a "thank you" if I'm feeling nice. Oh well. :mellow:

Kidding (kind of), but I hope I do give back more than a "I don't know" sometimes. I mean, I do _try_ to brainstorm and contribute.. and I like to believe that I can do so decently if I put my mind to it. Though it's true most of the time I simply question what doesn't seem right. Hang in there, lego-builder.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> ...actually, this is directed at any Sensor. Do any of you have better descriptions for SJ or SP?


Seeing as I'm the only other sensor here at the moment.. are you speaking about the wacky descriptions in the OP? SF + ST? If so, then yes. I believe I can. 

Though I should tell you to read through the whole thread and find out that the maker of this thread already _agreed _that she had made a big mistake. This is old news, man. 

Why are you only directing this question to sensors anyway?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> @ephemereality
> I'm getting the gist of what you're saying, but socionics seems to fly over my head..
> 
> I don't know why but I feel like I have to learn EVERYTHING about MBTI first before stepping into that neighboring galaxy. They look similar for sure, but I'm guessing that they are totally different in another way. Too many theories floating around in my head is just going to make me end up confusing the two. Even after all I've learned about MBTI, I still think I am new to it. I don't know enough yet.. I need more information.
> ...


You might be interested in knowing how Stratiyevskaya describes the interaction between Ni and Se types (this is about ESFP/SEE-INTJ/ILI):

What about ILI? SEE soon grows tired of manipulating the sluggish and apathetic Balzac. *ILI extinguishes and suppresses activity of SEE; his suggestive sensing is like a black hole for the exuberant energy of his dual.* It is only on the surface that it seems like SEE is manipulating ILI and claiming all the victories. In fact, ILI is constantly provoking the initiative of his dual, making him chase himself, exhausting him in tactical games, cooling down his passions, extinguishing his fierceness, knocking down his ambitions, taking away some of the "harmful", "destructive" energy of his dual.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> You might be interested in knowing how Stratiyevskaya describes the interaction between Ni and Se types (this is about ESFP/SEE-INTJ/ILI):
> 
> What about ILI? SEE soon grows tired of manipulating the sluggish and apathetic Balzac. *ILI extinguishes and suppresses activity of SEE; his suggestive sensing is like a black hole for the exuberant energy of his dual.* It is only on the surface that it seems like SEE is manipulating ILI and claiming all the victories. In fact, ILI is constantly provoking the initiative of his dual, making him chase himself, exhausting him in tactical games, cooling down his passions, extinguishing his fierceness, knocking down his ambitions, taking away some of the "harmful", "destructive" energy of his dual.


.. is it strange to say that I can see myself relating a little bit more to ILI than SEE in that description? 

I am more "constantly provoking" than having "exuberant energy" ..or at least I think I am. How odd. I'm probably interpreting it wrong.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Isn't the issue more that you seek Fe reciprocation ideally with Ne/Si, whereas they seek Ni? I don't mind people who just listen as long as they ask me questions to show interest. I definitely don't need them to blurt things out on their own accord though, to show that they understand. If they ask the right kinds of questions I innately know that they do.
> 
> There's this good scene from Game of Thrones about that actually (I assume my previous post was too long for you?):
> 
> ...


I did read your last post and agreed, but then kept reading and that is sometimes like having a butterfly flutter past... and all is lost.

Perhaps you are right, but it was not clear at all whether she understood. That could have been my floundering to explain. I think that if it were explained better, she'd have gotten it better... so it was ultimately a schism in communication style. It helps me a lot to see where they are at so I can adapt to it and fill in gaps and emphasize what needs to be emphasized. There is a dynamic missing there with Se doms I thought was worth noting, though it appears better framed as INTP - ESFP interaction than just how ESFPs are.... it IS how they are, but other types can engage it better.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> .. is it strange to say that I can see myself relating a little bit more to ILI than SEE in that description?
> 
> I am more "constantly provoking" than having "exuberant energy" ..or at least I think I am. How odd. I'm probably interpreting it wrong.


It's because you're an introvert. Here's the entire article: Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations INTp and ESFp by Stratiyevskaya

Here's the ISFP/ESI-ENTJ/LIE one: Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations ENTj and ISFj by Stratiyevskaya



arkigos said:


> I did read your last post and agreed, but then kept reading and that is sometimes like having a butterfly flutter past... and all is lost.
> 
> Perhaps you are right, but it was not clear at all whether she understood. That could have been my floundering to explain. I think that if it were explained better, she'd have gotten it better... so it was ultimately a schism in communication style. It helps me a lot to see where they are at so I can adapt to it and fill in gaps and emphasize what needs to be emphasized. There is a dynamic missing there with Se doms I thought was worth noting, though it appears better framed as INTP - ESFP interaction than just how ESFPs are.... it IS how they are, but other types can engage it better.


Right, so your issue is that she doesn't show any visible sign of understanding that she understood (fairly sure Ygritte is an ESFP here also, which simplifies this analogy a lot)? I can imagine that an ESTP would reciprocate more satisfyingly either way. ESFPs are Te types so they will process logic through Te and it helps if you cater them based on Te or they will likely yes, get more confused and frustrated because Ti opposes Fi too much.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> It's because you're an introvert. Here's the entire article: Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations INTp and ESFp by Stratiyevskaya
> 
> Here's the ISFP/ESI-ENTJ/LIE one: Socionics - the16types.info - Duality Relations ENTj and ISFj by Stratiyevskaya
> 
> ...


Yeah, with ESTP there is more reciprocation... but they are still a black hole. Just a more amicable one in that situation, more willing to mollify or share the appreciation perhaps. They still dump more and more dynamics all over the place... but if I can frame it as desirable to an ESTP, they'll typically get swept up a bit and not fight every step of the way. Then, they'll come back with well formulated rebuttals that you can't break through, and plenty of fight once they've had time to work through it... the end result being somewhat the same.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@ephemereality 

Whoa, that's a LOT of words there.. it scares me. 

It's funny how articles look kind of tough and menacing in a way as compared to an actual conversation. I can't stop to question an article. It's set in stone.. uh.. code. I'll probably take a crack at it eventually. I think I need to really understand the basics of socionics first before delving into duality and all that fun stuff. Though everything seems intimidating at first glance. Like riding a bike ~ I need my training wheels first or else I'll fall and get hurt in the process.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

zazara said:


> Whoa, that's a LOT of words there.. it scares me.
> 
> It's funny how articles look kind of tough and menacing in a way as compared to an actual conversation. I can't stop to question an article. It's set in stone.. uh.. code. I'll probably take a crack at it eventually.


Try copying it out and writing responses, taking notes. That sometimes helps me process. Or stop and talk about it to yourself/the computer/your dog. I have issues with a non-interactive medium as well, and like to have conversations while learning. That is, when you feel ready to read it.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

zazara said:


> Seeing as I'm the only other sensor here at the moment.. are you speaking about the wacky descriptions in the OP? SF + ST? If so, then yes. I believe I can.


Then let's hear it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that no Intuitive will be able to give you a description you find satisfying, because your thinking is so different, so it's rather vital we actually get Sensing opinion on, well, themselves. 



> Though I should tell you to read through the whole thread and find out that the maker of this thread already _agreed _that she had made a big mistake. This is old news, man.


Has the maker since revised it? Or have we basically gotten nowhere with this? If it's the latter, which it's at least likely to be, then there's still a rather big, gaping hole in our understanding of the thing you and monemi have accused the OP of not understanding. You want to prevent future incidents like it, you're going to have to provide an alternative so an Intuitive can use that instead. 



> Why are you only directing this question to sensors anyway?


Because monemi believed that the problem with the writeup was that it was written by an Intuitive.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Then let's hear it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that no Intuitive will be able to give you a description you find satisfying, because your thinking is so different, so it's rather vital we actually get Sensing opinion on, well, themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not yet revised this. Zazara, a few others, and myself are working on a new set of dichotomies on which to represent the types. We are thinking the Ji-Pe-Pi-Je set should be sufficient.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Might you, possibly, be able to create a better one? It seems as though it'd be better to have the sensing descriptions written from a sensing perspective if the source of the problem is an intuitive attitude.
> 
> ...actually, this is directed at any Sensor. Do any of you have better descriptions for SJ or SP?


Oh dear, it feels like writing a paper at school all over again and I'm out of practice.

What you need to remember about SP's as a group is that the one thing we all share is that we NEED to be free. We have a lust for life. We don't want to practice and prepare for life. We want to live now. Other types pride themselves on knowledge or accumulating power or security. But we take pride in our freedom. When we feel we are being limited or controlled, we grow restless or rebellious or passive aggressive or react in any number of ways. But you must know that we're up to something. 

When it comes down to it, this is the one trait SP's all have in common.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Oh dear, it feels like writing a paper at school all over again and I'm out of practice.
> 
> What you need to remember about SP's as a group is that the one thing we all share is that we NEED to be free. We have a lust for life. We don't want to practice and prepare for life. We want to live now. Other types pride themselves on knowledge or accumulating power or security. But we take pride in our freedom. When we feel we are being limited or controlled, we grow restless or rebellious or passive aggressive or react in any number of ways. But you must know that we're up to something.
> 
> When it comes down to it, this is the one trait SP's all have in common.


But most Ne's, or at least Ne doms (to my knowledge) behave similarly.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I have not yet revised this. Zazara, a few others, and myself are working on a new set of dichotomies on which to represent the types. We are thinking the Ji-Pe-Pi-Je set should be sufficient.


Ooooooh. Okay then, sorry. 

...now I want to try and guess what Ji, Pe, Pi, and Je mean. XD

Is Ji something like judging one's own internal responses to things (So, "I felt revulsion at that? Okay, why? _Should_ I feel revulsion at that?", or for something that implies Feeler a bit less "I believe this thing to be true. Why? _Should_ I believe it to be true?"), whereas Pi is more like "I believe this thing to be possible. Why? What in the environment indicates to me it could happen?"

As for Je and Pe, is that more like...hm...well I guess Je could be more like "There's this thing in the environment. How closely does it match whatever it's supposed to be, and if it's something totally new how does it affect my existing things?" Whereas Pe is more like "There's this thing in my environment. How can I use it to benefit me?" 

Am I totally off base? That just seemed fun. XD


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> But most Ne's, or at least Ne doms (to my knowledge) behave similarly.


But, but, but... sensors are nothing like intuitives. (Sorry about the sarcasm, but it's funny.)


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Ooooooh. Okay then, sorry.
> 
> ...now I want to try and guess what Ji, Pe, Pi, and Je mean. XD
> 
> ...


Pi seem to be more planful and introspective, Pe is more flexible and spontaneous, Ji is more reactive and individualistic, Je is more directive and standardizing.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> But, but, but... sensors are nothing like intuitives. (Sorry about the sarcasm, but it's funny.)


So the importance of dividing the types into groups is not to find the unique aspects, but make the categories that do fit more appealing? Curse you Keirsey!!!!!!!!!!!! :tongue:


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Pi seem to be more planful and introspective, Pe is more flexible and spontaneous, Ji is more reactive and individualistic, Je is more directive and standardizing.


...hrm. 

So, to get it a little clearer...

Pi will analyze how their current mindset is working out for them and attempt to shape it in directions that look promising, whereas Pe won't necessarily do that, but instead will be very quick to look at the external things in their environment and change up their actions as they play around with the new thing? 

Whereas Ji will, as sort of an opposite of Pi, view new ways of thinking as things to analyze and check for compatibility with (not greater effectiveness than) their old way of thinking, and Je will look at new external objects and see whether they can be fitted to one's current set of actions and interests?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> ...hrm.
> 
> So, to get it a little clearer...
> 
> ...


Exactly! I think...


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> But most Ne's, or at least Ne doms (to my knowledge) behave similarly.



Thinking on it, maybe it's a difference of reasons _why_ they want freedom. 

SP's view the experience and the journey as a vital part of life, not to achieve ends but for its own sake. Meanwhile, Ne doms want freedom to pursue their new theories and ideas, and thus want to be able to go where they please not simply because they value that in and of itself, but because it allows them to just immediately examine anything.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Thinking on it, maybe it's a difference of reasons _why_ they want freedom.
> 
> SP's view the experience and the journey as a vital part of life, not to achieve ends but for its own sake. Meanwhile, Ne doms want freedom to pursue their new theories and ideas, and thus want to be able to go where they please not simply because they value that in and of itself, but because it allows them to just immediately examine anything.


Interesting...


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

So, what else have we got on the JiJePiPe split?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, what else have we got on the JiJePiPe split?


Have we yet assigned these functions to personality types in certain orders? As far as I can go with my own type (plus the one other that kind of fits, in my sig) I have to say I personally am pretty strongly Ji--something has to fit within my own experience to be accepted by me, and something has to fit with the conception I have of my identity for me to accept it as part of who I am. So!


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Chained Divinity said:


> ...hrm.
> 
> So, to get it a little clearer...
> 
> ...


I dont agree with this. Youre using the wrong words to describe Ji and Pi. Ji are introverted rationals, analyzing is a rational act. Pi are introverted perceivers, viewing is is the act of perceiving. So Ji will analyze while Pi will view.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I dont agree with this. Youre using the wrong words to describe Ji and Pi. Ji are introverted rationals, analyzing is a rational act. Pi are introverted perceivers, viewing is is the act of perceiving. So Ji will analyze while Pi will view.


This seems a little semantic to me, but I'll attempt to match the phrases of perception to the perceiving function more. 

Pi perceives the benefits of adopting new ways of thinking. 

Ji judges new ways of thinking according to how they line up with the old ways.

Better?

(Also, small note, I have indeed noticed that Pi matches up to Judging types more often when you think about it--they're the ones that are already oriented towards how things affect the outside world via Fe and Te, after all. However, I don't really think the current idea of Ji could ever accurately be described as a perceiving function, even if it does match more to Perceiving types than Judging, since Perceivers determine whether something is true or ethical according to their own understanding and principles as a personality trait)


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Pi perceives the benefits of adopting new ways of thinking.
> 
> Ji judges new ways of thinking according to how they line up with the old ways.
> 
> Better?


No. I don't think you should assume that. 
Why do you say so?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

zazara said:


> No. I don't think you should assume that.
> Why do you say so?


I'm not really sure what your complaint is. This is sort of me setting definitions rather than proving a claim...are you asking me why those functions are relevant dividing lines?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> I'm not really sure what your complaint is. This is sort of me setting definitions rather than proving a claim...are you asking me why those functions are relevant dividing lines?


It's not a complaint, just a disagreement. 

How does Ji deal with the past? I don't think it relates.
If Pi = Si/Ni, does not Si deal with the past?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Chained Divinity said:


> This seems a little semantic to me, but I'll attempt to match the phrases of perception to the perceiving function more.
> 
> Pi perceives the benefits of adopting new ways of thinking.
> 
> ...


No Pi introvertedly perceives by storing and molding perceptions while Ji compartmentalizes information. Pe seeks to perceive new perceptions while Je seeks to craft/build the outside world. The moment you are looking for a benefit you are rationalizing (J), the moment you are looking for new ways to "see" an aspect you are perceiving (P).


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

zazara said:


> It's not a complaint, just a disagreement.
> 
> How does Ji deal with the past? I don't think it relates.
> If Pi = Si/Ni, does not Si deal with the past?


Oh, okay. Just was a little confused for a sec. XD

Hrm. How to articulate this...XD

Alright, Si's fundamental method _of_ dealing with the past involves doing what Pi does. They call to mind how a thing in the world interacted with them the last time (or few times), they perceive that it interacted with them a certain way, and then they adjust their attitude towards the object accordingly. Ji...well it wasn't entirely clear to say it deals with the _old_ ways exactly, but it deals with the initial idea of what the object or idea in your head was--before the outside world butted in. In this way, it _doesn't_ connect with Si or Ni, because the groups of personalities involved with those adjust what they think of things based on outcomes.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> No Pi introvertedly perceives by storing and molding perceptions while Ji compartmentalizes information. Pe seeks to perceive new perceptions while Je seeks to craft/build the outside world. The moment you are looking for a benefit you are rationalizing (J), the moment you are looking for new ways to "see" an aspect you are perceiving (P).


From my (slightly limited) understanding, both P and J are about looking for benefits, to some degree--after all, the idea of Ne is seeing what possible uses a thing might have, too. The difference between the two is more that Judging types analyze a thing's benefit more narrowly, according to how it affects existing activities, whereas Perceiving types conceive of whole new activities around a thing.

That's why Judging traits are associated with aversion to change and Perceiving traits with openness to it. The Judger sees a change only as how it affects their existing activities (eliminates them), whereas the Perceiver sees a change as what benefits they might get out of it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Chained Divinity said:


> From my (slightly limited) understanding, both P and J are about looking for benefits, to some degree--after all, the idea of Ne is seeing what possible uses a thing might have, too. The difference between the two is more that Judging types analyze a thing's benefit more narrowly, according to how it affects existing activities, whereas Perceiving types conceive of whole new activities around a thing.


Ne isnt looking for benefits though, its just looking. There is no motive, hence why its an irrational function. Its the judging functions that pinpoints a motive or premise. Ne just looks for possibilities but once Ji catches something of interest (interest being how the new piece of information relates to stored information) it starts to analyze and compartmentalize. A perceiving function literally only perceives, its the judging functions that focuses on a benefit/motive.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

monemi said:


> Oh dear, it feels like writing a paper at school all over again and I'm out of practice.
> 
> What you need to remember about SP's as a group is that the one thing we all share is that we NEED to be free. We have a lust for life. We don't want to practice and prepare for life. We want to live now. Other types pride themselves on knowledge or accumulating power or security. But we take pride in our freedom. When we feel we are being limited or controlled, we grow restless or rebellious or passive aggressive or react in any number of ways. But you must know that we're up to something.
> 
> When it comes down to it, this is the one trait SP's all have in common.


This might be true for e7 but idk if it fully applies to se as a whole. I think se is more about feeling realness and really indulging that rather than seeking freedom per se.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> This might be true for e7 but idk if it fully applies to se as a whole. I think se is more about feeling realness and really indulging that rather than seeking freedom per se.


Oh great, another type wanting to come up with a description for SP's. Why oh why would sensors get fed up of reading intuitives negative focused descriptions. Please, please, please focus on our negative qualities and ignore the stuff we're actually proud of. Thanks for that.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> Oh great, another type wanting to come up with a description for SP's. Why oh why would sensors get fed up of reading intuitives negative focused descriptions. Please, please, please focus on our negative qualities and ignore the stuff we're actually proud of. Thanks for that.


I still didn't get a response to my own description. 



Chained Divinity said:


> Thinking on it, maybe it's a difference of reasons _why_ they want freedom.
> 
> SP's view the experience and the journey as a vital part of life, not to achieve ends but for its own sake. Meanwhile, Ne doms want freedom to pursue their new theories and ideas, and thus want to be able to go where they please not simply because they value that in and of itself, but because it allows them to just immediately examine anything.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

monemi said:


> Oh great, another type wanting to come up with a description for SP's. Why oh why would sensors get fed up of reading intuitives negative focused descriptions. Please, please, please focus on our negative qualities and ignore the stuff we're actually proud of. Thanks for that.


Amen.

My suggestion for intuitives (Ne in particular, I think) is to take the terms you use to describe your intuition, and use the same ones to describe Se. I'd be curious to see how it sounds... Just transplant them, swapping Se for Ne, and post something. I'd like to see that...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

monemi said:


> Oh great, another type wanting to come up with a description for SP's. Why oh why would sensors get fed up of reading intuitives negative focused descriptions. Please, please, please focus on our negative qualities and ignore the stuff we're actually proud of. Thanks for that.


Since when did I ever actually come up with a description? I didn't, unless you want to look at the post I left arkigos where I explained how Se is like to me where I if anything emphasized how childlike it is and how I don't like that part of myself at all, which is hardly a flattering description of how inferior sensation is like. Just because I'm an intuitive doesn't mean I don't know what Se is like or know what Se is like for my ESFP girlfriend. I have personally experienced Se because I'm after all an Se type, just of inferior character. So give me the whole "you're an N so you don't know" is just so much fucking bs. Based on that experience I also know that Se has nothing to do with seeking freedom to avoid pain, which is decidedly a stereotype E7 trait, not Se trait. You can keep complaining that I'm an N so therefore I'll always be biased or I can't understand, but then you're no better than the people you complain about. 

I have been ardently arguing for that S in general has nothing to do with being unable to understand theory, being intelligent, seeking concrete hands-on experience for a long time now but go ahead and place me with all the other people you think are discriminating against you.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> This might be true for e7 but idk if it fully applies to se as a whole. I think se is more about feeling realness and really indulging that rather than seeking freedom per se.


Could you explain to me what feeling realness means? I could make some guesses but I'd really need a clearer explanation in order to comment.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Since when did I ever actually come up with a description?


I'm not her, but just reading that "indulging" part in what she quoted from you, I find it rather negative. One doesn't find descriptions of intuition using such words... Like I suggested, let one of you intuits use the words you use to describe your intuition, but plug in Se where you would use the word Ne or Ni or intuition. I'd love to see this... (and I'm asking you to do it, because you know how to describe yourselves, and I'd rather see someone do it "in line" rather than me retrofitting Se into someone else's description)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I'm not her, but just reading that "indulging" part in what she quoted from you, I find it rather negative. One doesn't find descriptions of intuition using such words... Like I suggested, let one of you intuits use the words you use to describe your intuition, but plug in Se where you would use the word Ne or Ni or intuition. I'd love to see this... (and I'm asking you to do it, because you know how to describe yourselves, and I'd rather see someone do it "in line" rather than me retrofitting Se into someone else's description)


Ok look, all functions are indulging into something. When I engage Ni, I indulge in Ni content. I don't read the word "indulge" as negative by any means. Just that you wish to maximize or fully experience something to the fullest and this is particularly true for the perception functions. And I've written so much about Ni elsewhere I won't bother because people don't even get what I am trying to describe usually, and want to pin it down to associations, pattern-seeking etc which imo Ni is decidedly not so I just give up.

Also really, when it comes to Se-Ni and Ne-Si, I have stopped thinking of them as separate in the first place. They must naturally cognitively co-exist. What matters is where I place my psychological focus first.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> Could you explain to me what feeling realness means? I could make some guesses but I'd really need a clearer explanation in order to comment.


I can't. It's just something you need to experience. You know what it is when you experience it. It's a sense of the world being alive, that is real, that it exists.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Ok look, all functions are indulging into something. When I engage Ni, I indulge in Ni content. I don't read the word "indulge" as negative by any means.


So, you've used "indulge" to describe yourself, as you engage Ni? This is how you prefer to describe it for yourself? Or, given your 'druthers, would you use other terms?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I can't. It's just something you need to experience. You know what it is when you experience it. It's a sense of the world being alive, that is real, that it exists.


Hrm, okay...

...is that sort of like wanting to go see and walk around in and maybe even touch the actual, real coliseum, as opposed to the Ne indulgence of thinking about the nature of the coliseum and what its nature might say about Rome?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> Hrm, okay...
> 
> ...is that sort of like wanting to go see and walk around in and maybe even touch the actual, real coliseum, as opposed to the Ne indulgence of thinking about the nature of the coliseum and what its nature might say about Rome?


And why would such ponderings only belong to Ne?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> And why would such ponderings only belong to Ne?


Well...hm. I could sort of see it as a Ti thing as well, but Ne's also quite suited to it--after all, Ne is about leapfrogging off of things to conceive of ideas about what they might be used for or cause or something like that. This isn't to say that sensors _can't_ do all that, but they are more focused on things like, I don't know, the exact way in which the coliseum was run, or the structure of the coliseum, than the _implications_ of it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> This might be true for e7 but idk if it fully applies to se as a whole. I think se is more about feeling realness and really indulging that rather than seeking freedom per se.


I can't speak for Se as a whole either, but as an Se user who is not e7, I'd agree with what she said. The need for freedom. I seek freedom before feeling realness.. because I'm already feeling realness to start with. There's no need to consciously pursue reality because reality is all around us. We are in it. It's like searching for air. You're breathing it. Seeking freedom resonates more to me. I think that would apply to all SPs as well.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

zazara said:


> I can't speak for Se as a whole either, but as an Se user who is not e7, I'd agree with what she said. The need for freedom. I seek freedom before feeling realness.. because I'm already feeling realness to start with. There's no need to consciously pursue reality because reality is all around us. We are in it. It's like searching for air. You're breathing it. Seeking freedom resonates more to me. I think that would apply to all SPs as well.


By the way, I _still_ haven't gotten a response to my thought that for SPs this freedom is freedom to _experience_, whereas for Ne-users it's more the freedom to _experiment_.

Right off the bat I'm starting to see problems in that ISTPs are supposed to be about messing around with things mechanically, too, but I feel like I'm onto something...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> So, you've used "indulge" to describe yourself, as you engage Ni? This is how you prefer to describe it for yourself? Or, given your 'druthers, would you use other terms?


It's a word I'd primarily use for Pe first (yes, Ne too, and I may use the words "lost" for intuition in general), because of the objective need of breadth over depth, but if looking at what perception really is at a general level or for the matter, cognition as a whole, it's truly just an ego indulgence. Cognitive type is inherently part a neurosis; people often forget about that. 

With that said, I have a tendency to use "strong" words to describe experience in general that people often don't agree with, because experience itself is something I indulge in and is something very visceral to me like how I used to describe the enneagram 5 need to know and understand as just that, a need, as opposed to a curiosity other people seem to go by. I don't understand "curiosity" but I understand "needs". 

I tend to summarize Ni as the experience of intuiting the archetype but when I sit in my room and keep experiencing the same content on repeat without really doing anything else than experiencing it, yes, it is an indulgence obviously. It's just that I may not be as inclined to actively go and seek out experience like that because it's introverted. No need to maximize and enhance in the same way that Pe does. Let's take this video for example, Ne in a nutshell:






How can one _not_ call that indulgent to a degree? Similarly, there's this scene from Stein's Gate where the ISFJ gets lost in Si and just goes "oooh" and I would call that indulgent too but obviously in a very different kind of way. 

Ni in particular, I might describe as being lost in the archetype content if focusing too much on it. You become reality-removed. Jung emphasized this point a lot when he described Ni as well and it's true - when you get out of touch with reality which you will when you are an Ni type in particular because it's balanced by Se that's in a sense more reality-observant than Si is being subjective as opposed to objective, you start seeing things not there. That's what intuition does in general but Ni sees the symbolic. These things replace the real or actual world, because to the Ni type, the physical reality has an inherent deadness to it and it's very easy to start thinking that the only way to make this deadness come alive is by imagining all the things it's not by seeing that which is not there. Hence, you become reality-removed like Jung's example of the INTJ woman who lived at a brothel without being aware it was one. The solution of course is not to indulge further into Ni to the point you start becoming psychotic, but to embrace the livid and lush reality Se actually offers. I can have weird moments where I can stop thinking and go, "hey, this world around me, it actually exists, it lives, look how pretty it is". Pretty much a very downplayed version of the other video I linked from Soul Eater:






This is inferior SeFi, but of course it's going to look much more mature in a dominant SeFi type like my girlfriend. No weird "woohoo the world is awesome!!!!!111" but more "I like ice-cream so I'll go get some". 

If I were to write any kind of description really, I wouldn't just focus on the good but I would focus on the good _and_ the bad because to me it's important to provide an objective and holistic impression of something. You can't understand dominant Se without also knowing its counterpart of inferior Ni for example, and how inferior Ni types can become extremely paranoid and start reading meaning and intent into things that's clearly exaggerated or out of place. The film The Machinist exemplifies this for example:








Chained Divinity said:


> Hrm, okay...
> 
> ...is that sort of like wanting to go see and walk around in and maybe even touch the actual, real coliseum, as opposed to the Ne indulgence of thinking about the nature of the coliseum and what its nature might say about Rome?


No. I don't need to see because I am already _seeing_. I am already experiencing. I _feel_ it. The world and its aliveness. It feels real, I know it's there, it exists. It doesn't have to relate to experiencing objects from say, a picture to reality (actually, I think Se types are more likely to think that because the picture alone isn't satisfying). This is a much more basic, grounded and visceral experience of reality itself.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> Well...hm. I could sort of see it as a Ti thing as well, but Ne's also quite suited to it--after all, Ne is about leapfrogging off of things to conceive of ideas about what they might be used for or cause or something like that. This isn't to say that sensors _can't_ do all that, but they are more focused on things like, I don't know, the exact way in which the coliseum was run, or the structure of the coliseum, than the _implications_ of it.


See... these are the sort of wrong assumptions people make about sensor types. I couldn't care less how the coliseum was run, personally. I would love to see it in person, because of how evocative it is. Just seeing photos of it, in fact, tend to be evocative for me, but to be able to stand inside, and imagine the sights and sounds of a ravenous crowd screaming like animals for the life of a gladiator--men, women and children--all crying for blood... And the thoughts of how a society could glorify such things--what led to that, and how such things also led to the downfall of an empire--and then, as a Christian, I think of the forefathers of my faith, standing there, being torn limb from limb, or torched for the pleasure of a crowd greedy for more blood, and how in a relatively short time, Rome would be gone, but the faith that led those people to their deaths would live on--it just goes on and on--and all of this is merely started by, brought to life by, and made real to me by experiencing the Coliseum in person. It's like when I am thinking, working. I have a hard time sitting still for long periods. My mind comes up blank on something, or I reach one of what I call my brick walls, and I can't go further. I get up and walk around or pace. Yeah, one could say it gets the blood flowing, but for me, the movement itself, and the sensory activity also gets my creative juices flowing. I love working outside in my back yard in the summer. I can sit there with my phone or computer, and write, study, read and work, and just keep going. In the background are the birds, the breeze, the smells of my wife's flowers, the noises of the neighbors, the muffled sound of a car driving up the neighboring street, etc... all of that is part of the process, it stimulates my brain and imagination. What happens inside can often be vastly different from what is going on outside, or they can run parallel rails, working together (like with the Coliseum). It may not be how you would see things, or describe things, but it is how I do.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> By the way, I _still_ haven't gotten a response to my thought that for SPs this freedom is freedom to _experience_, whereas for Ne-users it's more the freedom to _experiment_.
> 
> Right off the bat I'm starting to see problems in that ISTPs are supposed to be about messing around with things mechanically, too, but I feel like I'm onto something...


Not sure about Ne, but I'd say Se would be both experience _and_ experiment. .. but I see experimenting as an experience when I look at the word. Trying new things. I love that. 

No one is "supposed" to be doing anything.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> I can't speak for Se as a whole either, but as an Se user who is not e7, I'd agree with what she said. The need for freedom. I seek freedom before feeling realness.. because I'm already feeling realness to start with. There's no need to consciously pursue reality because reality is all around us. We are in it. It's like searching for air. You're breathing it. Seeking freedom resonates more to me. I think that would apply to all SPs as well.


I think you misunderstand what I mean. Of course to an Se type the reality is already there, but I think an Se type would want to discriminate it more so to speak, finding that which is worth a bit more than everything else, using Ji as a navigating point on deciding what has worth and value and what has no worth and value. I think @ferroequinologist kind of summarized what I was trying to say though more from the account of personal experience. If all of reality has exactly the same equal worth to you, then what need is there for you to seek out specific experiences that are a bit more valuable than the others? It would all just disappear into the foreground if so. 

I'll ask my ESFP girlfriend about it, but I am not sure she'll agree.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> I still didn't get a response to my own description.


Freedom to experience sort of narrows it down to physical experience. Being limited in any capacity is going to grind on me. I dislike being told what words I can use. I dislike being told what mannerisms I can use. I simply dislike being told who I am (especially when they are wrong), what I can and can't do etc... Most SP's won't bother arguing with you. In a situation like the MBTI community, the gut reaction is to walk out on it altogether. 

It's simply having a sense of freedom that you highly value. Intuitive descriptions are limiting. 



ephemereality said:


> Since when did I ever actually come up with a description? I didn't, unless you want to look at the post I left arkigos where I explained how Se is like to me where I if anything emphasized how childlike it is and how I don't like that part of myself at all, which is hardly a flattering description of how inferior sensation is like. Just because I'm an intuitive doesn't mean I don't know what Se is like or know what Se is like for my ESFP girlfriend. I have personally experienced Se because I'm after all an Se type, just of inferior character. So give me the whole "you're an N so you don't know" is just so much fucking bs. Based on that experience I also know that Se has nothing to do with seeking freedom to avoid pain, which is decidedly a stereotype E7 trait, not Se trait. You can keep complaining that I'm an N so therefore I'll always be biased or I can't understand, but then you're no better than the people you complain about.
> 
> I have been ardently arguing for that S in general has nothing to do with being unable to understand theory, being intelligent, seeking concrete hands-on experience for a long time now but go ahead and place me with all the other people you think are discriminating against you.


I would never be so presumptuous as to tell Intuitives what their dominant functions are about and correct them on their own descriptions. I'll leave you at that. 



zazara said:


> I can't speak for Se as a whole either, but as an Se user who is not e7, I'd agree with what she said. The need for freedom. I seek freedom before feeling realness.. because I'm already feeling realness to start with. There's no need to consciously pursue reality because reality is all around us. We are in it. It's like searching for air. You're breathing it. Seeking freedom resonates more to me. I think that would apply to all SPs as well.


^^This!

It's like when people talk about the world suddenly feeling surreal during significant moments in their life. The world doesn't feel surreal to me at significant moments. That "realness" is my norm. My world is alive, vibrant, ugly and beautiful 24/7. I don't need to seek realness. What I want is freedom and the world seems to be bent on limiting it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think you misunderstand what I mean. Of course to an Se type the reality is already there, but I think an Se type would want to discriminate it more so to speak, finding that which is worth a bit more than everything else, using Ji as a navigating point on deciding what has worth and value and what has no worth and value.
> 
> I'll ask my ESFP girlfriend about it, but I am not sure she'll agree.


Perhaps to you "indulging in reality" is more or less the same of what "seeking freedom" to an Se user. Letters can only do so much to describe how people truly feel. The confusion might just be from your choice of words. 

I wonder if there is a big difference between a Pe-Ji and Ji-Pe.. I am not an Se-dom, but I can relate just as much I believe.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

zazara said:


> Perhaps to you "indulging in reality" is more or less the same of what "seeking freedom" to an Se user. Letters can only do so much to describe how people truly feel. The confusion might just be from your choice of words.
> 
> I wonder if there is a big difference between a Pe-Ji and Ji-Pe.. I am not an Se-dom, but I can relate just as much I believe.


Thinking about this word "indulge" I can't help but think that that word more ought to be used with one's weaker functions. Like you said, one doesn't indulge in the air one breathes. But one can indulge in donuts, or maybe, to keep this with the air analogy, one can indulge in swimming--snorkeling or scuba diving... One can dive for a while, but one can't stay there. I suppose in that sense, I can indulge my Ni, but I guarantee I can't live there--it would kill me... Same for Te. I can't live there--it exhausts me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

monemi said:


> I would never be so presumptuous as to tell Intuitives what their dominant functions are about and correct them on their own descriptions. I'll leave you at that.


What makes you assume I have an issue with people discussing my dominant? I discuss the functions I understand, period, and I don't discriminate if you are Fe dom, Se dom, Fi dom, Te dom. I have an understanding of something, I didn't agree with you in this one. It has nothing to do with your type which is to say I would never deny someone their personal experiences, but anecdotes are useless in order to validate something. 



> It's like when people talk about the world suddenly feeling surreal during significant moments in their life. The world doesn't feel surreal to me at significant moments. That "realness" is my norm. My world is alive, vibrant, ugly and beautiful 24/7. I don't need to seek realness. What I want is freedom and the world seems to be bent on limiting it.


Why would surreal and real be equalized here? Surrealness would be a separation from the realness, yes?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> If all of reality has exactly the same equal worth to you, then what need is there for you to seek out specific experiences that are a bit more valuable than the others? It would all just disappear into the foreground if so.


There is always more to explore. The freedom to explore what you want, physically, mentally, and emotionally speaking. I would never say "you've seen one, you've seen them all" .. every experience is uniquely different in itself. It's beautiful. 

Value is not in terms of measuring reality, but in what we can take from it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> Perhaps to you "indulging in reality" is more or less the same of what "seeking freedom" to an Se user. Letters can only do so much to describe how people truly feel. The confusion might just be from your choice of words.
> 
> I wonder if there is a big difference between a Pe-Ji and Ji-Pe.. I am not an Se-dom, but I can relate just as much I believe.


Sure, there's a point where word choices become meaningless because a word can mean many things depending on the person. @arkigos would describe Ne as symbolic and I just automatically flinch because it's certainly not a symbolism I'm familiar with at all, because I associate Ni with symbolism. 

And well, in a way there is, in a way there isn't a difference just like there is between Pe-Ji and Pi-Je. Jung thought most people are ambiverts that is, they are neither truly preferring of introversion nor extroversion, so in a sense they will neither be truly ESTPs or ISTPs but say, just xSTPs or even more generally speaking, STs, because another thing I notice with ambiverts is that they don't necessarily have a dominant function preference either, but their dominant and auxiliary blend a lot so people end up being confused over if they are say, ENFP or INFP.



zazara said:


> There is always more to explore. The freedom to explore what you want, physically, mentally, and emotionally speaking. I would never say "you've seen one, you've seen them all" .. every experience is uniquely different in itself. It's beautiful.


That's because of Se objectivity to a degree though in that every physical instance is unique in a sense. 



> Value is not in terms of measuring reality, but in what we can take from it.


Measurement would be Te. I was referring to Ji or in your case, Fi. It's different in that it would be deciding what is more important, more valuable, personal, what have you. I suck at Fi when I have to pair it with Se so I won't try to explain it more than that. I think you should know what I mean though. Or hopefully.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> There is always more to explore. The freedom to explore what you want, physically, mentally, and emotionally speaking. I would never say "you've seen one, you've seen them all" .. every experience is uniquely different in itself. It's beautiful.
> 
> Value is not in terms of measuring reality, but in what we can take from it.


So, Se types are on a self-seeking journey, with Fi trying to find congruence with their internal values, and Ti trying to find expansion of their inner understanding? Sort of like Ne types, but Se attempts to find this thing they are eternally seeking through personal experience of physical events?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Thinking about this word "indulge" I can't help but think that that word more ought to be used with one's weaker functions. Like you said, one doesn't indulge in the air one breathes. But one can indulge in donuts, or maybe, to keep this with the air analogy, one can indulge in swimming--snorkeling or scuba diving... One can dive for a while, but one can't stay there. I suppose in that sense, I can indulge my Ni, but I guarantee I can't live there--it would kill me... Same for Te. I can't live there--it exhausts me.


I'm not going to get caught up in words here.. but I think he means indulging as in genuinely delving into something, not sinking, but going into the deep end I guess. 

Kind of like indulging in food. If you absolutely love strawberries, then it's reasonable to assume that you eat more strawberries than those who are allergic. I don't see it as negative so much, but there could be a better word. ..


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> See... these are the sort of wrong assumptions people make about sensor types. I couldn't care less how the coliseum was run, personally. I would love to see it in person, because of how evocative it is. Just seeing photos of it, in fact, tend to be evocative for me, but to be able to stand inside, and imagine the sights and sounds of a ravenous crowd screaming like animals for the life of a gladiator--men, women and children--all crying for blood... And the thoughts of how a society could glorify such things--what led to that, and how such things also led to the downfall of an empire--and then, as a Christian, I think of the forefathers of my faith, standing there, being torn limb from limb, or torched for the pleasure of a crowd greedy for more blood, and how in a relatively short time, Rome would be gone, but the faith that led those people to their deaths would live on--it just goes on and on--and all of this is merely started by, brought to life by, and made real to me by experiencing the Coliseum in person. It's like when I am thinking, working. I have a hard time sitting still for long periods. My mind comes up blank on something, or I reach one of what I call my brick walls, and I can't go further. I get up and walk around or pace. Yeah, one could say it gets the blood flowing, but for me, the movement itself, and the sensory activity also gets my creative juices flowing. I love working outside in my back yard in the summer. I can sit there with my phone or computer, and write, study, read and work, and just keep going. In the background are the birds, the breeze, the smells of my wife's flowers, the noises of the neighbors, the muffled sound of a car driving up the neighboring street, etc... all of that is part of the process, it stimulates my brain and imagination. What happens inside can often be vastly different from what is going on outside, or they can run parallel rails, working together (like with the Coliseum). It may not be how you would see things, or describe things, but it is how I do.


I spent most of 3 years traveling Europe as an adult and this was one of the things that I loved. Just connecting with places and wanting to know who these people were. What did these places say about these people? What were their values and beliefs? Checking out the architecture and touching those walls and connecting with the past. I grew up in England and Germany and spent time in Holland and France and Spain and Belgium and Switzerland. My mother would take me to see the Moorish architecture in Spain, the Palace of Versailles, and castles and cathedrals. Every trip to her parents she would pull over to see Stonehenge before it became recognized as a world heritage site (they roped it off), it was a spot where I used to try to stretch and walk around, when I was learning to spell my name, I wrote it on one of the stones. I felt a deep connection with history growing up.

I enjoy sitting down at a ruins, with a notepad and pencil and doodling in the missing parts and adding in the people that would have been there and what they would have been wearing. I'm pretty good at sketching but I'm not good at anything that takes more than 20 minutes. I don't seem to have any use for colour because it requires a longer attention span. But I've always felt like I've been in a race against my attention span when drawing, so I just got faster and faster at it. I like bringing dead places back to life.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, Se types are on a self-seeking journey, with Fi trying to find congruence with their internal values, and Ti trying to find expansion of their inner understanding? Sort of like Ne types, but Se attempts to find this thing they are eternally seeking through personal experience of physical events?


Is this accurate?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> And well, in a way there is, in a way there isn't a difference just like there is between Pe-Ji and Pi-Je. Jung thought most people are ambiverts that is, they are neither truly preferring of introversion nor extroversion, so in a sense they will neither be truly ESTPs or ISTPs but say, just xSTPs or even more generally speaking, STs, because another thing I notice with ambiverts is that they don't necessarily have a dominant function preference either, but their dominant and auxiliary blend a lot so people end up being confused over if they are say, ENFP or INFP.


Would you say that the tertiary and inferior get blended as well? An ISFP's inferior is Te while ESFP's is Ni. So if the dom-aux get blended, would it be right to assume that the same happens on the lower end of the functions? 



> That's because of Se objectivity to a degree though in that every physical instance is unique in a sense.


Is it only limited to _physical_ instance though? I would say it's more than that..



> Measurement would be Te. I was referring to Ji or in your case, Fi. It's different in that it would be deciding what is more important, more valuable, personal, what have you. I suck at Fi when I have to pair it with Se so I won't try to explain it more than that. I think you should know what I mean though. Or hopefully.


Eh.. I get the idea.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, Se types are on a self-seeking journey, with Fi trying to find congruence with their internal values, and Ti trying to find expansion of their inner understanding? Sort of like Ne types, but Se attempts to find this thing they are eternally seeking through personal experience of physical events?


Wouldn't Fi try to find expansion of their inner understanding as well?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Wouldn't Fi try to find expansion of their inner understanding as well?


But in a more ethical sense, coming as an eternal search for self-actualization and concrete expression.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Why would surreal and real be equalized here? Surrealness would be a separation from the realness, yes?


The way they describe a change in perception of their surroundings. It sounds like The Wizard of Oz, they're Dorothy landing in Oz after coming from Kansas. I feel myself change when things get intense, but the world looks the same to me. It makes me wonder if my "normal" is other peoples "surreal". My heart beats faster, time seems to slow down but I think that's just my brain speeding up and my muscles wind tight and ready for action. But that sense of things being surreal that other people describe, like when they describe 9/11, my perception of reality remained the same.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> But in a more ethical sense, coming as an eternal search for self-actualization and concrete expression.


I'd partly agree to what you said, but self-seeking journey sounds very Fi to me.. I don't know much about Ti at all to say that this is the same sort of journey we're on.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I'd partly agree to what you said, but self-seeking journey sounds very Fi to me.. I don't know much about Ti at all to say that this is the same sort of journey we're on.


I use the term loosely. Both Se types want to live life as they want to live it, and seek for staying true to their internal code.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I use the term loosely. Both Se types want to live life as they want to live it, and seek for staying true to their internal code.


Sure. Wouldn't this apply to Ne as well?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

zazara said:


> I'm not going to get caught up in words here.. but I think he means indulging as in genuinely delving into something, not sinking, but going into the deep end I guess.
> 
> Kind of like indulging in food. If you absolutely love strawberries, then it's reasonable to assume that you eat more strawberries than those who are allergic. I don't see it as negative so much, but there could be a better word. ..


My thoughts were simply that indulging is something you do consciously--one eats strawberries by choice. One breathes air by necessity. For the first we go "yum" and the second--we gasp without it. ;-)


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These aren't really assumptions, honestly, they're just sort of me guessing at things in the hopes I finally have pieced something meaningful together. 

But in thinking about it, the main difference I see between Se and Ne is that Se sort of gets its inspiration from physical experiences and places and things, yes? 

As an Ne-aux (At least--Socionics says I'm Ne-_dom_ even), I can definitely say that going to the Coliseum doesn't really enhance my thinking about it. It's an object, not the history surrounding it, and that's something I've thought about most common sights to see. XD

I do feel a sense of awe when I'm there, though, because the thing is legitimately a place where the ancients...mattered, I guess...but I don't go further than that. Rather, what gets me thinking the most about the Coliseum (or Rome, really) is someone providing me with information on it, or even a discussion on the topic. Words, information, and people are my inspirations. 

So is that it? Is it sort of a "What you draw inspiration from" thing?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> Would you say that the tertiary and inferior get blended as well? An ISFP's inferior is Te while ESFP's is Ni. So if the dom-aux get blended, would it be right to assume that the same happens on the lower end of the functions?


If you don't have a dominant, then you can't have a defined inferior either, so yes, that's a correct assumption to make. 



> Is it only limited to _physical_ instance though? I would say it's more than that..


Sure. I used the world "physical" in a looser sense to separate from intuitive content that is _not_ physical, though can still be concrete. To me, intuition is akin to well, seeing things not there. It's to the point where I can start physically seeing things not there almost like hallucinations except I know it's not real. The physical reality loses shape, it transforms and metamorphs. Which is to say the object doesn't stop being there, but I just don't see it anymore it's not where my emphasis lies. No idea how much sense it makes, but to draw a more concrete example: 
@Blissful Melancholy was describing to me how he finally realized how his hands looked liked yesterday, and he freaked out when he realized he's got all these fingerprint lines on his fingers. He's never paid attention to it like that before, the visceral realness of it, that it's actually there. This is why inferior sensation is reality-removed.

Similarly, when I see people, I don't really see their physical presentation as much as I see into or through them. I see their actual essence of who they are. I can wrap this is metaphors if I want, but it's not so much that you're blonde, tall and with a slender body, dressed in a green shirt and blue jeans, but I see a person sitting by the sea alone, waiting for the whale to come. Stuff like that.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

zazara said:


> I'd partly agree to what you said, but self-seeking journey sounds very Fi to me.. I don't know much about Ti at all to say that this is the same sort of journey we're on.


What Ti seeks really depends on the person from my observations of the ESTP forum. One might seek self-improvement. One might seek a better life. One might seek new experiences. One might seek more (sex/love/adrenalin/wealth/status). Ti always looks like Se's bitch to me. Se wants, Ti and Fe play catch up to make it happen, Se wanted it yesterday. Se isn't inherently good or bad. So it's as likely to be constructive as it to be self-destructive. In general, Se-dom has a lot of drive.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> Freedom to experience sort of narrows it down to physical experience. Being limited in any capacity is going to grind on me. I dislike being told what words I can use. I dislike being told what mannerisms I can use. I simply dislike being told who I am (especially when they are wrong), what I can and can't do etc... Most SP's won't bother arguing with you. In a situation like the MBTI community, the gut reaction is to walk out on it altogether.
> 
> It's simply having a sense of freedom that you highly value. Intuitive descriptions are limiting.


Well that's true of me as an Ne user as well, so valuing freedom seems to be...less than the whole of it. 





> I would never be so presumptuous as to tell Intuitives what their dominant functions are about and correct them on their own descriptions. I'll leave you at that.


I'm seriously going to invite you to tell me what you think Ne is, as opposed to Se. Just make a guess or something, because I genuinely want to figure this out now and you seem to have a problem with all the ideas listed thus far. XD


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> What Ti seeks really depends on the person from my observations of the ESTP forum. One might seek self-improvement. One might seek a better life. One might seek new experiences. One might seek more (sex/love/adrenalin/wealth/status). Ti always looks like Se's bitch to me. Se wants, Ti and Fe play catch up to make it happen, Se wanted it yesterday. Se isn't inherently good or bad. So it's as likely to be constructive as it to be self-destructive. In general, Se-dom has a lot of drive.


I should just point out that Se being dominant over Ti seems like something that would happen among Se-_doms_, but... :tongue:

We need a damn ISTP now. XD


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> Sure. Wouldn't this apply to Ne as well?


Yes, with Ne more attributed to potential, and Se more attributed to reality. So, seeking congruence with the inner self is in P types, with the Pe doms valuing more the experience, Ji doms more valuing the meaning drawn from it.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> The way they describe a change in perception of their surroundings. It sounds like The Wizard of Oz, they're Dorothy landing in Oz after coming from Kansas. I feel myself change when things get intense, but the world looks the same to me. It makes me wonder if my "normal" is other peoples "surreal". My heart beats faster, time seems to slow down but I think that's just my brain speeding up and my muscles wind tight and ready for action. But that sense of things being surreal that other people describe, like when they describe 9/11, my perception of reality remained the same.


Things have very rarely gotten that intense for me, but when they do my tendency is basically like yours, plus a tendency to get tunnel vision a bit. I try to stop focusing on anything but the event as it's happening, the water I'm falling into, whatever. 

...actually, random question--when you're doing something you find intense, do you find being cheered on, encouraged, whatever, helpful? Because the assumption of a lot of people I've met is that it is when usually I find it kind of distracting at a critical moment. XD

(Oh, and Zazara and ferroequinologist, I would actually appreciate if you guys answered so I could determine whether or not that distinction's more an introvert/extravert thing. XD)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Well that's true of me as an Ne user as well, so valuing freedom seems to be...less than the whole of it.
> 
> 
> I'm seriously going to invite you to tell me what you think Ne is, as opposed to Se. Just make a guess or something, because I genuinely want to figure this out now and you seem to have a problem with all the ideas listed thus far. XD


I seems to me, when I read Ne descriptions, a lot of the positive points about Se have already been "claimed" by Ne. And all that is being left for Se are the negative aspects of it. 



Chained Divinity said:


> I should just point out that Se being dominant over Ti seems like something that would happen among Se-_doms_, but... :tongue:
> 
> We need a damn ISTP now. XD


This is part of why I think it's difficult to group people by one function. 



Chained Divinity said:


> Things have very rarely gotten that intense for me, but when they do my tendency is basically like yours, plus a tendency to get tunnel vision a bit. I try to stop focusing on anything but the event as it's happening, the water I'm falling into, whatever.
> 
> ...actually, random question--when you're doing something you find intense, do you find being cheered on, encouraged, whatever, helpful? Because the assumption of a lot of people I've met is that it is when usually I find it kind of distracting at a critical moment. XD
> 
> (Oh, and Zazara and ferroequinologist, I would actually appreciate if you guys answered so I could determine whether or not that distinction's more an introvert/extravert thing. XD)


I'm bordering on adrenalin junkie. I've had lot of intense experiences to draw on. I don't desire or need to be cheered on. I'm focused on what I'm doing and unless my confidence has been rattled, this wouldn't distract me. Of course, I'd never admit to it distracting me in real life. The most response it would ever get from me is a cocky grin. In general, I dislike admitting to vulnerability.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> I seems to me, when I read Ne descriptions, a lot of the positive points about Se have already been "claimed" by Ne. And all that is being left for Se are the negative aspects of it.


I don't entirely see how the desire to seek out things rather than test out ideas is inherently negative, though. I mean, Se _can_ test theories and all that, under my original description, it just isn't as interested in doing so. 

But anyway, that's sort of a side discussion honestly. I'd kind of like to hear from you about your thoughts on what Ne ought to be. 






> I'm bordering on adrenalin junkie. I've had lot of intense experiences to draw on. I don't desire or need to be cheered on. I'm focused on what I'm doing and unless my confidence has been rattled, this wouldn't distract me. Of course, I'd never admit to it distracting me in real life. The most response it would ever get from me is a cocky grin. In general, I dislike admitting to vulnerability.


Ahhhh, okay. You're at least not the type to constantly brag, though, yes? XD

For my own part, I'm fine admitting to the majority of vulnerabilities I have _some_ of the time. I dislike directly expressing fear, I dislike expressing intellectual incompetence, and I dislike expressing preferences that don't match up with what I usually prefer. Other inabilities, things like being cheered on being distracting, that sort of thing, I will admit to readily.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> I don't entirely see how the desire to seek out things rather than test out ideas is inherently negative, though. I mean, Se _can_ test theories and all that, under my original description, it just isn't as interested in doing so.
> 
> But anyway, that's sort of a side discussion honestly. I'd kind of like to hear from you about your thoughts on what Ne ought to be.
> 
> ...


How Ne looks to me? Ne seeks a large volume of scattered ideas and draws conclusions from them. Sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Ne users often can't explain how they made these leaps. At time they can be stubborn in their sureness that they are correct and unwilling to explore the possibility of holes in the patterns and connections they find. They will draw a connection and build and build and build on it, but the foundation of all these thoughts can be built on a correlation that might not be a real connection. 

Most descriptions of Ne are written by Ne's (same with Ni) and focus on celebrating the positives of Ne and ignore the real problems associated with it. I don't know how it should be written, but it seems this is the way Se descriptions are approached. 



I brag at times, but for entertainment value. When I know someone is cocky (fun), I love trash talking with them while we compete. Also, uptight people who dislike ostentatious presentation are just fun to tease. I'm bound to play it up when someone has a stick up their arse. It's not so much that I care about prestige or status, but that it bothers them is hilarious.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Similarly, when I see people, I don't really see their physical presentation as much as I see into or through them. I see their actual essence of who they are. I can wrap this is metaphors if I want, but it's not so much that you're blonde, tall and with a slender body, dressed in a green shirt and blue jeans, but I see a person sitting by the sea alone, waiting for the whale to come. Stuff like that.


How about seeing emotion? Is that physical as well? I would see someone's mood or the way in which they present themselves before looking into shirt colors and all that.. but maybe I already see all those details that I don't pay attention to the fact that I am seeing it or not because that's how I've always seen things.. 




Chained Divinity said:


> ...actually, random question--when you're doing something you find intense, do you find being cheered on, encouraged, whatever, helpful? Because the assumption of a lot of people I've met is that it is when usually I find it kind of distracting at a critical moment. XD
> 
> (Oh, and Zazara and ferroequinologist, I would actually appreciate if you guys answered so I could determine whether or not that distinction's more an introvert/extravert thing. XD)


It really depends on what I'm doing (intense?).. usually I'd like people to shut up because cheering sounds like yelling and yelling is distracting. I don't know anyone who would say no to encouragement though. What are you trying to understand?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> Well that's true of me as an Ne user as well, so valuing freedom seems to be...less than the whole of it.


I've been thinking about this whole valuing freedom thing. For myself, I can't say I consciously think about it or seek it. It's more like I presume it until it is crossed. I just think/do/feel as I wish until someone tries to stop me. I do have my own set limits--those values--that also limit me, but since I set those, those aren't usually a problem. It's when others cross me at the level of limiting my freedom outside my values that my hackles go up. But I can't say it's something I fight for or consciously seek... But that's my perspective...




> I'm seriously going to invite you to tell me what you think Ne is, as opposed to Se. Just make a guess or something, because I genuinely want to figure this out now and you seem to have a problem with all the ideas listed thus far. XD


That would be interesting... I have to say, my wife is an INTP, and her Ne, after all these years, is the one thing that can knock me back faster than anything. It is a mood killer, it is a vision killer. It just deflates me like nothing else can--not always, mind you. I really enjoy watching it in action, and frequently attempt to stoke her Ne fires, just because it's fun to listen to, and I enjoy her beautiful mind--but there are things and there are times when it just **grates**. And never can I say I understand where does it come from, and where does it go, and how it gets there... It's all wicked voodoo to me... And I wouldn't even attempt to describe its workings... (like invading the inner sanctum)


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> Oh dear, it feels like writing a paper at school all over again and I'm out of practice.
> 
> What you need to remember about SP's as a group is that the one thing we all share is that we NEED to be free. We have a lust for life. We don't want to practice and prepare for life. We want to live now. Other types pride themselves on knowledge or accumulating power or security. But we take pride in our freedom. When we feel we are being limited or controlled, we grow restless or rebellious or passive aggressive or react in any number of ways. But you must know that we're up to something.
> 
> When it comes down to it, this is the one trait SP's all have in common.





ephemereality said:


> This might be true for e7 but idk if it fully applies to se as a whole. I think se is more about feeling realness and really indulging that rather than seeking freedom per se.


 @monemi Is this "need to be free" a characteristic of the SP temperament in general or the function of Se itself?

I think this might be the distinction that @ephemereality was getting at.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> How Ne looks to me? Ne seeks a large volume of scattered ideas and draws conclusions from them. Sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Ne users often can't explain how they made these leaps. At time they can be stubborn in their sureness that they are correct and unwilling to explore the possibility of holes in the patterns and connections they find. They will draw a connection and build and build and build on it, but the foundation of all these thoughts can be built on a correlation that might not be a real connection.
> 
> Most descriptions of Ne are written by Ne's (same with Ni) and focus on celebrating the positives of Ne and ignore the real problems associated with it. I don't know how it should be written, but it seems this is the way Se descriptions are approached.
> 
> ...


So, would the best type descriptions for personal advancement be written by the type whose dom is the opposite of the type being written?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> So, would the best type descriptions for personal advancement be written by the type whose dom is the opposite of the type being written?


It would be interesting to have not one description written by a single person, but a collective conclusion decided on by a group of 16 people, one of each type. .. like a council or something.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> It would be interesting to have not one description written by a single person, but a collective conclusion decided on by a group of 16 people, one of each type. .. like a council or something.


32 people, to allow for unamity in 2 of each type. We need to do this.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> Things have very rarely gotten that intense for me, but when they do my tendency is basically like yours, plus a tendency to get tunnel vision a bit. I try to stop focusing on anything but the event as it's happening, the water I'm falling into, whatever.
> 
> ...actually, random question--when you're doing something you find intense, do you find being cheered on, encouraged, whatever, helpful? Because the assumption of a lot of people I've met is that it is when usually I find it kind of distracting at a critical moment. XD
> 
> (Oh, and Zazara and ferroequinologist, I would actually appreciate if you guys answered so I could determine whether or not that distinction's more an introvert/extravert thing. XD)


I can only speak from my sports playing days in high school, but when I played basketball and soccer (football for you non-Americans), when I was in the zone, I didn't hear anything except what mattered to me. You talk about tunnel vision, it was sort of like that... it's like you are moving, but it's slow motion, and the other guy is moving--but he's even slower motion, and you can see what he's going to do next, and you already know what you are going to do to avoid him, and then with the shot--it is like the basket comes to you--but not really. It's so hard to explain, but the crowds? What crowds? Cheers? What cheers? I sense none of that, and if somebody shouted out my name (which, I believe the cheerleaders would do) I never heard it. It was a bit different in soccer, as the field is much bigger, and you are spread out a bit further, so you don't get quite that zone feeling--or at least I didn't. But you do tune out everything that doesn't matter then, and you only perceive those things that matter, but at some point, you aren't "noticing" like you would think. It's like you feel where all your teammates are--you just know your halfback is behind you to the left, the center to your right, and you also know where the defense is, so you try not to kick so your center could accidentally go off-sides (that's really his problem, but for some reason, I would think of it). So, no, sideline noise is no issue to me either way when playing. It is nonexistent.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> 32 people, to allow for unamity in 2 of each type. We need to do this.


True~ If this actually happens, that would be amazing. My ideas don't usually get too far past the inside of my head.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> True~ If this actually happens, that would be amazing. My ideas don't usually get too far past the inside of my head.


Let's start building this. Who should be in it?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Let's start building this. Who should be in it?


I think it's a matter of want more than should. Unless you'd like to "nominate" some people.. I'm not much of a picker. :tongue:


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I think it's a matter of want more than should. Unless you'd like to "nominate" some people.. I'm not much of a picker. :tongue:


Well, definitely the people contributing to this thread, if they want.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> I don't entirely see how the desire to seek out things rather than test out ideas is inherently negative, though. I mean, Se _can_ test theories and all that, under my original description, it just isn't as interested in doing so.


NOOO! Maybe Se-doms, but not this guy. The thing is, Se is where much of my experimenting also takes place--but usually I run it through my mind first, and then have to try it out in the real world. Think rearranging furniture. I can only visualize it so far, even with measuring. I either need super accurate paper models, or to draw it out in a program on my computer, or barring that, move the furniture myself. That is a concrete example. But there are other things I also experiment with that are maybe less "practical" or real... Also, maybe because I'm Fi, but I "experiment" on people, by saying things or doing things, and judging reactions. I never realized how much I do that until I discovered MBTI, and started reading that ISFPs do this, and at first I was like, "No way!" and then I read how it works, and started thinking, and hmmm. I guess I do... duh... But I love experimenting, trying new things, and many of them are not just play things or purely physical, but to allow me to stretch my understanding of things. My youngest is like that too. She has these science books, and always, always has to try all the experiments in the books, and then play with them further. She's not a very verbal kid, and seems to be struggling in school, but her grasp of physics concepts surprises me. I think she's Se dominant, too, btw. ESTP is my personal guess. She's 9-ish. But, IMO, experimentation is a huge part of Se--things we think just have to have a physical representation. BTW, some of the greatest scientists, I would suspect are/have been XSTPs, rather than XNTPs or XNTJs.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@EthereaEthos

I just remembered this video I saw not too long ago ~ maybe you'll find it intriguing. roud:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> @_monemi_ Is this "need to be free" a characteristic of the SP temperament in general or the function of Se itself?
> 
> I think this might be the distinction that @_ephemereality_ was getting at.


Ahh! I see. That makes more sense. 'Need to be free' would be a characteristic shared by SP temperament. I haven't seen Se operate the same way in all SP's. It's the only aspect of Se that I observe universally shared by SP's. Otherwise Se in real world fluctuates too much from type to type due to their other functions to fairly describe us all by Se. Se looks different from group to group from what I can tell.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> @EthereaEthos
> 
> I just remembered this video I saw not too long ago ~ maybe you'll find it intriguing. roud:


I can't see it right now, on a school network. I think you should create a group for this idea. You'd make the best group leader.

I'll check out the video later.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Sure. I'd be willing to participate. I've done some descriptions, but haven't put them out there a whole lot.


Nice! INTJ-win! roud:


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> That would probably be best.


So now what?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

zazara said:


> I can't speak for Se as a whole either, but as an Se user who is not e7, I'd agree with what she said. The need for freedom. I seek freedom before feeling realness.. because I'm already feeling realness to start with. There's no need to consciously pursue reality because reality is all around us. We are in it. It's like searching for air. You're breathing it. Seeking freedom resonates more to me. I think that would apply to all SPs as well.


I can't claim to be an SP user, and I'm definitely not E7. However, now that I'm a little older and my Se has developed more, all of the sudden freedom has become an important value to me. It has always been there, but just not so obvious. My narrow impression and structure has eased some to include more freedom. I can see that it relates to Se.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> So now what?


Well, you name the group whatever you want, upload an image for the avatar, and save!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I think this might be the distinction that @ephemereality was getting at.


Not quite, because to me SP temperament = Se cognition in the first place, as I don't make that kind of distinction really. What I was really getting at is that monemi began drawing comparisons to how Se is akin to freedom compared to say, security, especially in the sense of being free from the environment, choices, etc in order to avoid pain (she even used that particular wording), and that to me started to sound a lot more like stereotype enneagram 7 think than it did Se cognition because seeking freedom etc touches on life motivations that is related to the enneagram theory, but there's nothing about Se that itself would align itself more towards security or freedom or such values. One of my most important values is freedom for example, though more in the lines of freedom to be who I am, which can be quite aptly summarized by this quote:



Marilyn Manson from "King Kill 33" said:


> You never gave me a chance to be me, or even just a fucking chance just to be.


What has this to do with Ni? None, of course, though Marilyn Manson too is an INTJ. And I spoke to my girlfriend about this too*, and she agrees with me that she doesn't relate to monemi's nor zazara's idea that Se relates to some sense of freedom because it assumes an underlying inhibition or boundary in the first place, which to her seems strange as a dominant type because Se logic at is simplest is pretty much "I want, I go get". If there is an obstacle, then Se will simply overcome that obstacle, or may even purposefully lay out obstacles in order to enhance the experience itself (read for example previously mentioned Stratiyevskaya article about how the SEE/ESFP type tries to woe the dual ILI/INTJ and before someone quips that Stratiyevskaya is an N type, no, she's not, but an ESI/ISFP). 

So this idea of freedom to experience, that seems either a) unrelated to Se or any kind of cognition or b) related more to leading with or being strongly influenced by some kind of rational function that would hold Se back.

*I tried to probe her to post in this thread. Maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Not quite, because to me SP temperament = Se cognition in the first place, as I don't make that kind of distinction really. What I was really getting at is that monemi began drawing comparisons to how Se is akin to freedom compared to say, security, especially in the sense of being free from the environment, choices, etc in order to avoid pain (she even used that particular wording), and that to me started to sound a lot more like stereotype enneagram 7 think than it did Se cognition because seeking freedom etc touches on life motivations that is related to the enneagram theory, but there's nothing about Se that itself would align itself more towards security or freedom or such values. One of my most important values is freedom for example, though more in the lines of freedom to be who I am, which can be quite aptly summarized by this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember reading something about how Se climbs mountains because they are there. This seems to relate.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I can't claim to be an SP user, and I'm definitely not E7. However, now that I'm a little older and my Se has developed more, all of the sudden freedom has become an important value to me. It has always been there, but just not so obvious. My narrow impression and structure has eased some to include more freedom. I can see that it relates to Se.


That's funny, because freedom is probably one of my main values in life, if not the most important. As a kid I was crazy. I did not listen to anyone. No one could hold me down or tell me what to do and I took pride in that fact. Now as I am maturing, I have come to realize that a little structure here and there isn't so bad. Of course I'm still young and my brain is still developing, but I do notice the change in attitude as I've grown. Perhaps it's my Ni.. or just maturity. I don't know.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> How about seeing emotion? Is that physical as well? I would see someone's mood or the way in which they present themselves before looking into shirt colors and all that.. but maybe I already see all those details that I don't pay attention to the fact that I am seeing it or not because that's how I've always seen things..


No, that's a "feel" (I know, vague, but meh). I don't really notice what you notice though. It's more vibes etc, that people radiate certain emotions. Also, it seems more like you just describe Fi dominance to me. All these things accumulate into certain ideas or impressions of people like some people I see them as snakes with black poison dripping from their fangs, or others walking endlessly within a forest that keeps changing itself and refuses to let sunlight in so they will never find their own way out etc. I don't always get strong impressions like these, but when I do it's very visceral that can be explored quite deeply.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> So this idea of freedom to experience, that seems either a) unrelated to Se or any kind of cognition or b) related more to leading with or being strongly influenced by some kind of rational function that would hold Se back.


Would Ji be a rational function ? I don't know about Se-doms but it could be my Fi that feels so strongly about the idea. 

Then again, it could also be the way one was raised (possibly?).. my childhood environment was definitely not the healthiest for a free-spirited type of person.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> Would Ji be a rational function ? I don't know about Se-doms but it could be my Fi that feels so strongly about the idea.
> 
> Then again, it could also be the way one was raised (possibly?).. my childhood environment was definitely not the healthiest for a free-spirited type of person.


The tl;dr version:

irrational = perception functions
rational = judgement funcitons

So yes, Ji is a rational function.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> The tl;dr version:
> 
> irrational = perception functions
> rational = judgement funcitons
> ...


And the rationals are much easier to determine, correct?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, that's a "feel" (I know, vague, but meh). I don't really notice what you notice though. It's more vibes etc, that people radiate certain emotions. Also, it seems more like you just describe Fi dominance to me. All these things accumulate into certain ideas or impressions of people like some people I see them as snakes with black poison dripping from their fangs, or others walking endlessly within a forest that keeps changing itself and refuses to let sunlight in so they will never find their own way out etc. I don't always get strong impressions like these, but when I do it's very visceral that can be explored quite deeply.


That's very interesting.. I wish I could see people like that. Actually, I think I could if I tried hard enough, but it would definitely not be natural. 

I'm getting an image of Willy Wonka in my head just thinking about it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> And the rationals are much easier to determine, correct?


Not necessarily. It's quite easy to spot extreme examples of irrationality like the vids I already linked. Socionics already delved into the behavioral differences too:

Temperament - Wikisocion


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Not necessarily. It's quite easy to spot extreme examples of irrationality like the vids I already linked. Socionics already delved into the behavioral differences too:
> 
> Temperament - Wikisocion


Interesting.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> That's very interesting.. I wish I could see people like that. Actually, I think I could if I tried hard enough, but it would definitely not be natural.
> 
> I'm getting an image of Willy Wonka in my head just thinking about it.


Similarly, I probably could try to focus on the emotion first but that's very difficult yes. It's much easier for me to see people as a cluster of (archetypal) metaphors.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Not necessarily. It's quite easy to spot extreme examples of irrationality like the vids I already linked. Socionics already delved into the behavioral differences too:
> 
> Temperament - Wikisocion


Can Socionics and MBTI be intertwined in a way or are they completely different? 

It seems like the only thing that is truly similar are the functions themselves..


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Not quite, because to me SP temperament = Se cognition in the first place, as I don't make that kind of distinction really.


That's fair. From my standpoint it seemed that you two were talking about two different, albeit similar, concepts. This is what I wanted to point out, but didn't quite know how to phrase it. I guess I projected that onto you as making the distinction whereas it was me.

The difference here is that to you SP = Se, but to her SP temperament characteristics are not necessarily the same as Se cognition. Two different concepts that may have some overlap in meaning. I know that you separate motivations from cognition and relate it to Enneagram concepts, whereas in this case, she ties it to the temperament itself. I don't think that either way is wrong, just two different ways to understand something.

Personally, I don't equate SP to Se because ISxPs could be considered Si users rather than Se. I can see how despite this potential difference in cognition between ISxPs and ESxPs, they would share similar traits at a temperamental level.

I know that you are not overly fond of Nardi, but I'm going to use him for the following example. He identified this "christmas tree lights" brain pattern in xNxP types and claimed that this was evidence of Ne in action. However, I wonder if he has actually identified a brain pattern that is common amongst xNxP types rather than Ne itself (thinking about INxP users as having Ni and ENxPs users having Ne).

NOTE: The purpose of the last paragraph is to illustrate how temperament and cognitive characteristics could be viewed as conceptually separate things (at least, how I view them). I do not wish to argue here whether you think my line of reasoning is accurate or not. If you wish to discuss it further, start another thread or pm me. Thanks!

EDIT: The above note is meant to be addressed to people in general rather than @_ephemereality_.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zazara said:


> Can Socionics and MBTI be intertwined in a way or are they completely different?
> 
> It seems like the only thing that is truly similar are the functions themselves..


I don't see them as fundamentally different, just that they organize and understand type differently. Socionics focuses more on what is referred to as information exchange i.e. how one expresses the cognition of a type, whereas MBTI is more about how a type itself is structured in someone's psyche.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Do you guys have an INTP yet for participation?

*will get to the rest of the things to respond to in a bit XD*


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Not quite, because to me SP temperament = Se cognition in the first place, as I don't make that kind of distinction really. What I was really getting at is that monemi began drawing comparisons to how Se is akin to freedom compared to say, security, especially in the sense of being free from the environment, choices, etc in order to avoid pain (she even used that particular wording), and that to me started to sound a lot more like stereotype enneagram 7 think than it did Se cognition because seeking freedom etc touches on life motivations that is related to the enneagram theory, but there's nothing about Se that itself would align itself more towards security or freedom or such values. One of my most important values is freedom for example, though more in the lines of freedom to be who I am, which can be quite aptly summarized by this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You keep dragging socionics anneagram into MBTI. This is the MBTI subforum. I'd be more interested in your opinion if you stayed on MBTI.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Do you guys have an INTP yet for participation?
> 
> *will get to the rest of the things to respond to in a bit XD*


No, and your welcome to join in if you want.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

zazara said:


> Can Socionics and MBTI be intertwined in a way or are they completely different?
> 
> It seems like the only thing that is truly similar are the functions themselves..


As I've read up on socionics and MBTI, they are different enough that I don't think the two should be mixed up together.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Nice, we've got an INTP, INTJ, ISFP, INFJ, and an INTJ and ESTP if @ephemreality and @monemi want to join. Now all we need is an Fe, Te, and Si doms to be partly functional.


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Nice, we've got an INTP, INTJ, ISFP, INFJ, and an INTJ and ESTP if @ephemreality and @_monemi_ want to join. Now all we need is an Fe, Te, and Si doms to be partly functional.


I'm here too!


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

ENTrePeneur said:


> I'm here too!


Oh, and an Ne dom too! Welcome to the party!


----------



## ENTrePreneur (Aug 7, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Oh, and an Ne dom too! Welcome to the party!


Thanks!


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

On second thought, @EthereaEthos I'll let you be the leader of this and make it yourself. I don't like the responsibility of taking care of a group. roud:


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> On second thought, @EthereaEthos I'll let you be the leader of this and make it yourself. I don't like the responsibility of taking care of a group. roud:


Ok! Thank you for considering it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Ok! Thank you for considering it.


I'm still in though ~


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Nice, we've got an INTP, INTJ, ISFP, INFJ, and an INTJ and ESTP if @ephemreality and @_monemi_ want to join. Now all we need is an Fe, Te, and Si doms to be partly functional.


Could we perhaps advertise in the forums of the various types we need?

I'm thinking we find an ESFJ, ISTJ and...ENTJ, I guess.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Could we perhaps advertise in the forums of the various types we need?
> 
> I'm thinking we find an ESFJ, ISTJ and...ENTJ, I guess.


No, that'd be annoying.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Could we perhaps advertise in the forums of the various types we need?
> 
> I'm thinking we find an ESFJ, ISTJ and...ENTJ, I guess.


Go ahead. Er, don't.


----------



## King Nothing (Sep 8, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Could we perhaps advertise in the forums of the various types we need?
> 
> I'm thinking we find an ESFJ, ISTJ and...ENTJ, I guess.


What do you need?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

King Nothing said:


> What do you need?


Ah, nice, I didn't think we were going to get anyone of your type...

Well, what we're doing right now is gathering 2 people of every type to write the description for types opposite them. So, you're an Si-dom, meaning you'd write about the function Ne--good parts and bad. 

Interested?


----------



## King Nothing (Sep 8, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Ah, nice, I didn't think we were going to get anyone of your type...
> 
> Well, what we're doing right now is gathering 2 people of every type to write the description for types opposite them. So, you're an Si-dom, meaning you'd write about the function Ne--good parts and bad.
> 
> Interested?


I'd be more than happy to.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@EthereaEthos, I'd like to join as an ESFP. Has this already begun? If it hasn't -- and even if it has -- I'd like to suggest that it be divided into groups of people who work together and come up with descriptions for specific types and functions. So many people in one group chat wouldn't be something feasible and the ideas would be difficult to follow through with proper contemplation. Also, easier to group people who share functions together so that the process of description writing itself becomes easier for everyone involved, and no information is lost in exchange because of incomprehensibility. After each group has finished, we can reconvene in a group chat to discuss each group's work and make the necessary modifications to remove bias and correct errors.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> @EthereaEthos, I'd like to join as an ESFP. Has this already begun? If it hasn't -- and even if it has -- I'd like to suggest that it be divided into groups of people who work together and come up with descriptions for specific types and functions. So many people in one group chat wouldn't be something feasible and the ideas would be difficult to follow through with proper contemplation. Also, easier to group people who share functions together so that the process of description writing itself becomes easier for everyone involved, and no information is lost in exchange because of incomprehensibility. After each group has finished, we can reconvene in a group chat to discuss each group's work and make the necessary modifications to remove bias and correct errors.


We only have a single group, but different function threads for the dominant users. Rules could be implemented to limit contributions of non-dominant users until a full stance is formed. Welcome to the group!


----------



## IAmReason (Feb 11, 2014)

@EthereaEthos I just started a thread there to confirm my type, and whatever it comes back as, I would like to join the team as an INFJ/INTJ/INTP


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

IAmReason said:


> @EthereaEthos I just started a thread there to confirm my type, and whatever it comes back as, I would like to join the team as an INFJ/INTJ/INTP


Gladly. You will be sent an invite when your type is confirmed.


----------

