# Auxiliary Pe functions.



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Also, I wonder if application is not better attributed to Te.


I think that all extroverted functions tend to application, because they are object-oriented. But with the Je functions, it is volitional, while with the Pe functions, it is more instinctual, and less directed to conscious will--more reactionary, if you will, and less considered or thought-out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think that all extroverted functions tend to application, because they are object-oriented. But with the Je functions, it is volitional, while with the Pe functions, it is more instinctual, and less directed to conscious will--more reactionary, if you will, and less considered or thought-out.


Ok, because the way I experience it is that Se isn't per se, outside of more gut-level response, not very focused on application as much as it seeks experiences in itself.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Ok, because the way I experience it is that Se isn't per se, outside of more gut-level response, not very focused on application as much as it seeks experiences in itself.


Maybe Se in the inferior is like that, but it is actually much more. I know Keirsey gets a lot of grief, but he is right about SP types being all about utilitarian use of tools. Anything and everything is a tool to be handled, manipulated, and used to manipulate and accomplish tasks. That is very much an Se thing. "Macgyver" everything, you know. And it just happens. One doesn't "think" about how to handle the hockey stick, it just happens. The tool becomes a part of you. I drive a lot--all kinds of vehicles of all sizes, but all of them are just like a larger extension of myself. I don't have to think about how wide it is, or long, or how to turn it. It all just "is" and just happens. I could go on forever. Se is about physically manhandling space and time. Ne, as I see it, is more about mentally manhandling space and time--concepts are the tools. For Te and Fe, words and people are the tools--they use words to motivate, categorize, inform and delegate to get things done. They are more rational, because it takes rationalization to motivate people, or to inform them of their task. Of course, there is also the material side of things with Te, and I suppose Fe, but it is different from Se in that it is measured (and even measuring--think "eye-balling" a cut, versus the idea of "measure once, cut twice; measure twice, cut once." The first is Se, the second, Te. 

At least, that is how I see it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> Maybe Se in the inferior is like that, but it is actually much more. I know Keirsey gets a lot of grief, but he is right about SP types being all about utilitarian use of tools. Anything and everything is a tool to be handled, manipulated, and used to manipulate and accomplish tasks. That is very much an Se thing. "Macgyver" everything, you know. And it just happens. One doesn't "think" about how to handle the hockey stick, it just happens. The tool becomes a part of you. I drive a lot--all kinds of vehicles of all sizes, but all of them are just like a larger extension of myself. I don't have to think about how wide it is, or long, or how to turn it. It all just "is" and just happens. I could go on forever. Se is about physically manhandling space and time. Ne, as I see it, is more about mentally manhandling space and time--concepts are the tools. For Te and Fe, words and people are the tools--they use words to motivate, categorize, inform and delegate to get things done. They are more rational, because it takes rationalization to motivate people, or to inform them of their task. Of course, there is also the material side of things with Te, and I suppose Fe, but it is different from Se in that it is measured (and even measuring--think "eye-balling" a cut, versus the idea of "measure once, cut twice; measure twice, cut once." The first is Se, the second, Te.
> 
> At least, that is how I see it.


The thing though is that I equally find that your idea of Te is a little simple lol. Yes, Te is about rationalization but it's so much more than that. It's not just at the level of information, but it is very much about application. 

When you use the example of eye-balling to measure a cut, I don't think Te has to be that rigid in that it wants or needs the environment to be that controlled. If I need to make a specific size cut, I definitely feel Te plays a part in how you ultimately also need to determine it. I can eye-ball and randomly cut it, but even that eye-balling is going to recall some kind of definition of size. It doesn't have to be a system such as inches, but simply recalling the size of the cooking pan and comparing the size of the meat. It needs to match a realistic outcome, that's still Te imo, in how you compare one's thing to another thing to achieve a logical outcome.

Lol tbh I would like to hear how other non-Se types understand this but still value Te, as a comparison. I suspect that we are still very influenced by our preferred functions, here.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> You are right that Se in a way, strips away meaning from the object. It sees things exactly as they are so the color red is just that, a red color. Se with Fi would be more about creating personal sentiments towards it, red is such a nice color. The way Ni works would be to be attuned to the archetypal meaning red has. I wouldn't for example connect it to Christmas, but I may associate it to an idea of strength and intensity (of feeling), vitality and the like. Red is for example the color associated with heroism in Japan, which is why you often see the protagonist wearing red in Japanese fiction. I think compared to an Ne type that may just note that such connection exists, however, I would really bury myself in that. It's not the first time I get engrossed in an idea and really want to explore all the meaning found in it. I am not so interested in how this connects to something outside of itself. Context matters a lot, and I'm reminded of Lenore Thomson's definition of Ni of knowing the meaning of something in the context in which it exists and how this meaning can change depending on how you present a thing, even if the context remains the same.


This is where I'm curious if Se is the culprit here, or perhaps I've confused Ne.
Throughout high school the thing that annoyed me was when we had to look at the symbolism contained in a text. The teacher would point out the symbol and what it meant, or we students were asked to talk about our interpretations. I always found this kind of pointless. The teacher going on and on about what it represents, and all I could think of, is that really the meaning the artist was trying to portray.

I couldn't help but laugh that maybe the artist just liked it, yet the teacher wad reading into all this meaning where none exists. I Always felt I was just making stuff up and justify it as symbolism.

What really got me irked was a general test we had to do (back up for the final testing of school). There was an image and four interpretations of this image, only one if them correct. I found it completely ridiculous, how is there a correct interpretation? Everything about an individual is going to change what they see and what meaning they find in this image. Are they implying there is only one right way to see the world?

Even at uni when the design class was looking at two hangings pendulum lights and how they came together to represent two lovers. I could not help and think, yes this was what the designer was intending to portray, however the average person who has little art appreciation is really not going to care, and they may even have a completely different interpretation.


It was only years later after briefly studying semiotics that I realised what it was that I was picking up on. There are no signs inherent in the thing itself, rather the person brings the meaning/symbolism into the work itself. Context does matter, especially when going across time as learnt signs change.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I mean, I can see how Te is inferior to you by what you wrote, for example. It's lacking sophisticated use and awareness in the same way ego functions are, as you point out with me and Se. I definitely don't feel very one with my environment, no. If anything I'm more likely to feel detached.


You are reading too much into what I was saying. I was trying to find a simple, yet clear contrast in a single context--Se is reflexive and immediate, but Te is measured (and in this example, literally--see? subtle irony there) ;-). That was the one I could come up with on the fly. I know Te is much more than that (which I referenced earlier in my post), but didn't want to spend more words on something you already understood, so I spent my words on Se, and let you fill in the gaps with Te, so to speak.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Ksara said:


> My question is how close does a Pe aux relate to a Pe dom?
> If I believe neither description of Se dom or Ne dom is me by far, then would this also suggest I also would not identify with these functions in the auxiliary position also?


One thing I'd like to note is that Pe is known for being spontaneous, laid-back, and having an apatite for a broad range of external input. While I'm certainly more laid back and spontaneous than my ISTJ mother for instance, I believe that being dominant Ji leads me to be a lot less spontaneous and a bit more serious or intense than the usual Perceiver stereotype. I do go in for details and depth, while not always being up for something new (like Pe is sometimes made out to be). So in that sense I don't relate to Pe dominants.



> How different are they in the Auxilliary position? . . . Would an Fi Dom partially identify with either Ne or Se also?


I definitely identify with Ne, and often feel slightly torn between that and Fi - I wouldn't be me without my theorizing/imagining, just as I wouldn't be me without my personal ideals and empathetic heart. I find that while often I sense a 'kindred spirit-ness' with people who share Fi (ENFP, ISFP, ESFP), I am even more likely to get along easily in conversation and life-style with people who share Ne (ENFP, INTP, ENTP) probably because that's our external interaction function. hmm..... I think I might say.... my empathy and ideals are my identity, while mentally exploring interesting ideas and possibilities is my vitality and sort of the main point in life, does that make sense? I feel like my ideals (sense of what is beautiful and good) are sort of the springboard for Ne ideas. The ideas bounce around but always come back to check in with my ideals and be sorted into 'yes this feels true and right' and 'no, something feels a little off with this idea, it's not really 'me'. But... the act of bouncing around ideas feels very 'me' sooo, yes I do identify with Ne.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ksara said:


> This is where I'm curious if Se is the culprit here, or perhaps I've confused Ne.
> Throughout high school the thing that annoyed me was when we had to look at the symbolism contained in a text. The teacher would point out the symbol and what it meant, or we students were asked to talk about our interpretations. I always found this kind of pointless. The teacher going on and on about what it represents, and all I could think of, is that really the meaning the artist was trying to portray.


Sounds more like devalued Ni, to me, lol. 



> I couldn't help but laugh that maybe the artist just liked it, yet the teacher wad reading into all this meaning where none exists. I Always felt I was just making stuff up and justify it as symbolism.
> 
> What really got me irked was a general test we had to do (back up for the final testing of school). There was an image and four interpretations of this image, only one if them correct. I found it completely ridiculous, how is there a correct interpretation? Everything about an individual is going to change what they see and what meaning they find in this image. Are they implying there is only one right way to see the world?


Ultimately, one symbol is going to fit better the situation than the other, though. 



> Even at uni when the design class was looking at two hangings pendulum lights and how they came together to represent two lovers. I could not help and think, yes this was what the designer was intending to portray, however the average person who has little art appreciation is really not going to care, and they may even have a completely different interpretation.
> 
> 
> It was only years later after briefly studying semiotics that I realised what it was that I was picking up on. There are no signs inherent in the thing itself, rather the person brings the meaning/symbolism into the work itself. Context does matter, especially when going across time as learnt signs change.


Yes, semiotics is a very Ni school of thought, also. Context matter and an object has no inherent meaning in itself, but the context defines which interpretation is at any given moment, also the most likely.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Aelthwyn said:


> One thing I'd like to note is that Pe is known for being spontaneous, laid-back, and having an apatite for a broad range of external input. While I'm certainly more laid back and spontaneous than my ISTJ mother for instance, I believe that being dominant Ji leads me to be a lot less spontaneous and a bit more serious or intense than the usual Perceiver stereotype. I do go in for details and depth, while not always being up for something new (like Pe is sometimes made out to be). So in that sense I don't relate to Pe dominants.


I can relate. I'm not adverse to new things, but I do like to look before I leap. Sometimes I can find it annoying when the Ne Dom next to me wants to try something new when I'm aiming for something in particular. 



> I definitely identify with Ne, and often feel slightly torn between that and Fi - I wouldn't be me without my theorizing/imagining, just as I wouldn't be me without my personal ideals and empathetic heart. I find that while often I sense a 'kindred spirit-ness' with people who share Fi (ENFP, ISFP, ESFP), I am even more likely to get along easily in conversation and life-style with people who share Ne (ENFP, INTP, ENTP) probably because that's our external interaction function. hmm..... I think I might say.... my empathy and ideals are my identity, while mentally exploring interesting ideas and possibilities is my vitality and sort of the main point in life, does that make sense? I feel like my ideals (sense of what is beautiful and good) are sort of the springboard for Ne ideas. Thinking about interesting concepts or imagining other possibilities (I love creating fictional worlds for instance) seems to really energize me and feed my positive emotions. The Ne ideas bounce around exploring all kinds of things like why things are the way they are, how things could be, how things might turn out, how things are connected to eachother, why things are of value, how the world or the mind or society works, etc. but these ideas always come back to check in with my ideals and be sorted into 'yes this feels true and right' and 'no, something feels a little off with this idea, it's not really 'me'. But... the act of bouncing around ideas feels very 'me' sooo, yes I do identify with Ne.


For me I don't think seeing potential in people relates to me. I can relate to your novelistic tendencies in your imagination, I don't think my mind is constantly searching about how things could be or the many ways things could turn out. My mind tends to connect things and gives me answers. Yes I'm also interested in how things work too as I find it interesting.

When asking ENFPs about their Ne it seems very sporadically, taking one idea and create several more ideas from nothing that connects to the initial idea. I do not relate to this as I tend to be connecting information I have come across before. Ne doms can look at a situation see several potential outcomes. I don't do this, instead I tend to see one outcome that is most likely to happen or one outcome that will work. If asked a question the Ne Dom doesn't know they can easily come up with several possible answers. For me the information connects to give me an answer, everything just clicks into place and the answer comes through these connections (if this doesn't happen my answer is I don't know, and have to think about it haha). I don't think I really identify with dominant Ne which is why I'm questioning how close do auxiliary Pe uses relate to their Pe.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Sounds more like devalued Ni, to me, lol.
> 
> Ultimately, one symbol is going to fit better the situation than the other, though.


Yes that is true.
The problem I saw was that symbols are tied to context (especially when it comes to learnt symbols). From memory the image presented seemed to rely on cultural elements to get the right answer, and cultural elements and symbols can be different from culture to culture. For any one individual exposed to different contexts to then be penalized didn't make much sense to me at the time.



> Yes, semiotics is a very Ni school of thought, also. Context matter and an object has no inherent meaning in itself, but the context defines which interpretation is at any given moment, also the most likely.


I found it interesting looking into it. I was at odds with my class who much preferred analyzing art movements and saw this as the 'dryer' part of the unit.




If you have the time, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. If possible I'd also like to hear your reasoning.
My struggle seems to compare what's happening in my head to a particular cognitive process/s. 

You have suggested Ne, however I do not see the 'what ifs' Ne is always paired with. Have I ever come across something random that inspired me to creat a whole poem or back story, never. Have I ever looked at a situation and came up with many hypotheticals as to how it occurred, never. If presented with a problem do I hash out the whole situation and explore every avenue I think of, no.

Can I brainstorm? Yes. Usually I have an idea in mind, then it becomes a case of improving this idea through brainstorming (unless something significantly better pops into my head). If I find I am ever stuck between two ideas, well there are grading methods that can be used by scoring different aspects of the design. From here add them up and the winner has the highest score (the smart thing then to do is incorporate good qualities of the other designs into the chosen one).

What I have noticed my brain doing is aquiring the products from linking and relating information together. This happens when asked a question, or I'm to solve a problem, sometimes it just happens in conversation sparked by something said and other times I'm not even thinking about it. The answer comes from linking together many pieces of data (be it concepts I've learnt, something someone told me, a piece of information I read) and it is the connection between all these pieces of information that is my answer.

Now I do not know what data I have stored away, nor do I see the connection process. I see the answer/conclusion which may or may not be accompanied by all the pieces that connect together. Great when it is because it is much easier to explain. Sometimes I've had the eureka moment (as if everything fell into place, or I've looked at it differently or acquired information that was missing) yet can't quite explain it in language to myself yet.

If the answer does not come to me something may stick out (be it may not fit, or it may be a connection) which points my attention to where I should investigate first.

If neither of those things happen then I'm now forced to think to figure out the answer (which is much more taxing), so I generally look up the answer as it's much quicker.

There is no sense of taking the object, then speculating about many other what ifs creating new ideas, which is what Ne doms are good at. Hence my question, how close do IxxPs identify with their auxiliary function?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Ksara I think it's better to think of Ne more as being attuned to "potential" than "brainstorming" and "what if" scenarios. Sure, "what if" can play a role especially in Ne doms, but you aren't an Ne dom. Perception will be a slave to your Fi judgement if so. I'm really tired because I'm trying to correct a really messed up sleeping pattern so I don't quite feel like delving into the deeper intricacies of the theory as of this time but did you ever look into socionics? I'd recommend it. I think perhaps it will become clearer because how it's better structured compared to the MBTI. I do by and large, think, they tap into the same cognitive reality but just approach describing it differently. 

Another thing to take note which differs from the MBTI, is that in socionics, an INFP would be more FiNi than FiNe. They favor Ne as their form of intuition, but they are great at making sense of, and excelling at unconsciously take in Ni information. It's just not something they actively think about compared to Ne. Some INFPs I've met can also almost be more FiSi than they are FiN, like how I'm one of those wonky INTJs who come across as more NiFi than NiTe.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @Ksara I think it's better to think of Ne more as being attuned to "potential" than "brainstorming" and "what if" scenarios. Sure, "what if" can play a role especially in Ne doms, but you aren't an Ne dom. Perception will be a slave to your Fi judgement if so. I'm really tired because I'm trying to correct a really messed up sleeping pattern so I don't quite feel like delving into the deeper intricacies of the theory as of this time but did you ever look into socionics? I'd recommend it. I think perhaps it will become clearer because how it's better structured compared to the MBTI. I do by and large, think, they tap into the same cognitive reality but just approach describing it differently.
> 
> Another thing to take note which differs from the MBTI, is that in socionics, an INFP would be more FiNi than FiNe. They favor Ne as their form of intuition, but they are great at making sense of, and excelling at unconsciously take in Ni information. It's just not something they actively think about compared to Ne. Some INFPs I've met can also almost be more FiSi than they are FiN, like how I'm one of those wonky INTJs who come across as more NiFi than NiTe.


I'm guessing you're using the method of not sleeping until the right time?

Ah yes, potential. This is good when the path I'm taking is unclear.
Fortunately I spend a lot of time with an Ne Dom, I am definitely not Ne Dom haha.

I have delved into it. I do find it is much easier to read and comprehend (I find Jung to be quite convoluted). My main concern is do the socionics functions line up with mbti functions? Being labeled the same does not necessarily make it so. Also which sources do you believe to be most reputable on the subject of socionics?

I will look through it some more later and get back to you on what I think.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@Entropic been looking into Socionics Fi.

I do not relate to Fi as a leading function. I am not judgmental or self richeous (and have never been described like this by others). I don't actively seek to form close bonds, more so I am just aware of them. I don't set high expectations of others, nor do I get irritated if others don't agree with my valuation. I am actually quite hesitant to lable people as either good or bad and aren't always aware of others I'll will. I actually find this describes my partner much more than myself.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Ksara said:


> @_Entropic_ been looking into Socionics Fi.
> 
> I do not relate to Fi as a leading function. I am not judgmental or self richeous (and have never been described like this by others). I don't actively seek to form close bonds, more so I am just aware of them. I don't set high expectations of others, nor do I get irritated if others don't agree with my valuation. I am actually quite hesitant to label people as either good or bad and aren't always aware of others ill will. I actually find this describes my partner much more than myself.


If that was your take-away of Fi, then you might want to read Stratievskaya's ESI description. Hers is closer, at least, to an ISFP description (she's one herself). But there is another problem with Socionics descriptions. They tend to come from a Russian (read Soviet) world, and that kind of skews the descriptions in a way that feels unfamiliar to westerners, where independence and individuality are more prized than during Soviet times in the east. What Socionics description did you read where you came away with the above?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> If that was your take-away of Fi, then you might want to read Stratievskaya's ESI description. Hers is closer, at least, to an ISFP description (she's one herself). But there is another problem with Socionics descriptions. They tend to come from a Russian (read Soviet) world, and that kind of skews the descriptions in a way that feels unfamiliar to westerners, where independence and individuality are more prized than during Soviet times in the east. What Socionics description did you read where you came away with the above?


It was Wikisocion. I was looking at the functions and their position.

I'll have a look at that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ksara said:


> I'm guessing you're using the method of not sleeping until the right time?
> 
> Ah yes, potential. This is good when the path I'm taking is unclear.
> Fortunately I spend a lot of time with an Ne Dom, I am definitely not Ne Dom haha.
> ...





Ksara said:


> @Entropic been looking into Socionics Fi.
> 
> I do not relate to Fi as a leading function. I am not judgmental or self richeous (and have never been described like this by others). I don't actively seek to form close bonds, more so I am just aware of them. I don't set high expectations of others, nor do I get irritated if others don't agree with my valuation. I am actually quite hesitant to lable people as either good or bad and aren't always aware of others I'll will. I actually find this describes my partner much more than myself.


Trying to get up earlier, go to sleep earlier. Emphasis on trying. lol.

I do believe they line up, but socionics focuses on different aspects compared to the MBTI. As for reputable, I learned most on what's on wikisocion. I guess it's an ok source.

Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the descriptions of how a type should be, as much as I would try to focus on what Fi really is. In socionics Fi is defined as a static field function:



> White (Introverted) Ethics
> shorthand designation: Fi
> 
> This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.
> ...


Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Primer

See the difference?


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Aelthwyn said:


> I definitely identify with Ne, and often feel slightly torn between that and Fi - I wouldn't be me without my theorizing/imagining, just as I wouldn't be me without my personal ideals and empathetic heart. I find that while often I sense a 'kindred spirit-ness' with people who share Fi (ENFP, ISFP, ESFP), I am even more likely to get along easily in conversation and life-style with people who share Ne (ENFP, INTP, ENTP) probably because that's our external interaction function. hmm..... I think I might say.... my empathy and ideals are my identity, while mentally exploring interesting ideas and possibilities is my vitality and sort of the main point in life, does that make sense? I feel like my ideals (sense of what is beautiful and good) are sort of the springboard for Ne ideas. Thinking about interesting concepts or imagining other possibilities (I love creating fictional worlds for instance) seems to really energize me and feed my positive emotions. The Ne ideas bounce around exploring all kinds of things like why things are the way they are, how things could be, how things might turn out, how things are connected to eachother, why things are of value, how the world or the mind or society works, etc. but these ideas always come back to check in with my ideals and be sorted into 'yes this feels true and right' and 'no, something feels a little off with this idea, it's not really 'me'. But... the act of bouncing around ideas feels very 'me' sooo, yes I do identify with Ne.


Yep I think that's an extremely big difference between INFP and ENFP. I looooove contemplating why, why not, and what if. But I'm perfectly content leaving my ideas hanging without checking in to see how they line up with my ideals. It's sort of like collecting seashells. The shells have no value, they're just really fun to look at.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Trying to get up earlier, go to sleep earlier. Emphasis on trying. lol.


The emphasis is always on trying haha. I find external motivation helps. You get up when there's a reason to.



> I do believe they line up, but socionics focuses on different aspects compared to the MBTI. As for reputable, I learned most on what's on wikisocion. I guess it's an ok source.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the descriptions of how a type should be, as much as I would try to focus on what Fi really is. In socionics Fi is defined as a static field function:
> 
> ...


I think I do.

I do relate to the first two paragraphs of what you quoted. That's how I realised that I prefer Fi over Fe. The second paragraph describes my shopping experience (when I have no goal in mind). I know what I like/dislike and the desire to obtain things haha. I don't just act on my feelings, I don't need useless clutter in my life.

As for the last paragraph I'm not sure if I'm quite as adept at utilising Fi in that way. I am more self centred with it than being aware of others wishes.
Is it similar to this?:
Something happens and I know that this is going to upset person A (this being Fi identifying another's expectations or wishes?) which is going to lead to me having to handle their upset and being on my back which I find stressful. So I attempt to mitigate the issue (here this would be an attempt to avoid a risky collision?)...but somehow this does not always work and what I thought was going to happen does happen.
I find I do this, generally just to avoid having to deal with other's negative reaction because I'm not good at raising another's emotional state, and especially when I can see there is a solution to the problem and can't understand why they are still carrying on.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> If that was your take-away of Fi, then you might want to read Stratievskaya's ESI description. Hers is closer, at least, to an ISFP description (she's one herself). But there is another problem with Socionics descriptions. They tend to come from a Russian (read Soviet) world, and that kind of skews the descriptions in a way that feels unfamiliar to westerners, where independence and individuality are more prized than during Soviet times in the east. What Socionics description did you read where you came away with the above?


If I go by that discription you directed me to I do not think that describes me. I get an image of a moral crusader. Only allows others into their inner circle who can be trusted and fit their ethical criteria. It seems like an amorable character, but I don't think it's me.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Ksara said:


> If I go by that discription you directed me to I do not think that describes me. I get an image of a moral crusader. Only allows others into their inner circle who can be trusted and fit their ethical criteria. It seems like an amorable character, but I don't think it's me.


First of all, I begin to suspect that you are a Pe-dom, not an introverted-judging dominant. But that's just me. ;-) 

Secondly, Socionics descriptions tend to sound more strong than they mean, I suspect. I live in E. Europe, and have come to appreciate the directness of slavic cultures, but most westerners may miss what is happening. 

Fi-doms are _not_ crusaders. Crusading means going about and changing others to their views. That is not what Fi is about. It is more about not letting in others who do not conform to our views. Maybe some real life examples.

I have known people in the past, who were very mean to others who they deemed "less worthy." (less intelligent, capable, or not conforming to their political or religious views). I quickly see such types, and will not be close friends with them. In some cases, I have known them before I saw that side of them, and once I saw it, they became nonentities to me. The same has happened with people who I have discovered to be cruel to animals. I would say, even that I get along better with people who disagree with on most of those "important" points in life--philosophically, politically, religiously, etc. but who have respect for others' opinions and who care for people, than with those who I may agree with on those "important" points in life, but who don't respect people different from them. 

If I disagree with you, I won't try to correct you or argue with you--unless you want to discuss with me--in which case, if I feel that we respect each other, I will talk and even argue with you till we are blue in the face--so long as afterwards, we can shake hands and laugh about it. ;-) I don't hold grudges, and don't hold differences against us--so long as you can respect me, and I respect you. But treat another person like dirt--and that's it. I won't give you the time of day after that. 

I really think it's as simple as that. 

But I still suspect you are probably a Pe-dom. ;-) That doesn't mean you are an "extrovert" in the way the world looks at things, just that your extroverted perceiving function is stronger than your introverted judging function. But that is just my guess based on reading you here. So don't take my word at face value. That's yours to judge.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> This part makes me think INXJ. I think that this is how INXJs respond under super stress. And your desire for compromise, etc. makes me think Fe. INFJ?


I believed I use the Te/Fi axis, not Fe/Ti.
Te/Fi makes more sense to me.

My reason's for compromise is generally I don't have a strong opinion or I can see both sides as right and nothing is going to be achieved further arguing, often the case to agree to disagree doesn't work when it's with a close one who want's to share the same values. If i'm really against something I won't just go along, even if it upsets others.


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Have you taken a cognitive functions test yet?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

ksara said:


> i believed i use the te/fi axis, not fe/ti.
> Te/fi makes more sense to me.
> 
> My reason's for compromise is generally i don't have a strong opinion or i can see both sides as right and nothing is going to be achieved further arguing, often the case to agree to disagree doesn't work when it's with a close one who want's to share the same values. If i'm really against something i won't just go along, even if it upsets others.


intj?


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

Ksara said:


> I get the impression you felt similar in personality to an Se Dom? Differences yes, but not any extreme difference?
> 
> Standing next to my ENFP partner I can not see my Ne. Again next to my Se dom sister, I can not see Se in myself. I've had people describe my sister and I as complete opposites lol.
> If either of those two functions were in the secondary position then I would some what relate to either of them?


I think it was closer than I'd like to believe. A lot of the flaws we disliked in one another, we also disliked in ourselves. He was certainly bossier and a bit more selfish than I was, and I more intuitive and thoughtful {difference between tert Te and Ni}--but strong Se was definitely visible in both of us. 

But I think if a function were in the secondary position, you would definitely relate to either of them in some ways--either communication style, interests, things that grab your attention--unless something traumatic in your life happened to make you repress that aux function.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

AdroElectro said:


> Have you taken a cognitive functions test yet?


Haha yes I have. The results aren't always consistent.

I don't rely on it. I don't want to say I'm type xxxx because the test says so, I want to be able to say I'm type xxxx because this is how my mind predominately functions. See how it interconnects within my own mind


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> intj?


Process of elimination seems to suggest this. An area to investigate 


I do however have my answer, that a Pe aux is likely to relate to a Pe dominate world view. Not relaing is an indicator Pe may not be my auxiliary function.

Thank you for your help. I really do appreciate it 
(and of course everyone else who contributed)


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

Fi is the function to burn an information, be it a sensual or conceptual information, to your mind without any deduction, so it will be a belief. While Ti is the function to deduce some information, and then burn it to the mind, so it will be a principle. Te is the action to implement a belief fairly to the external world. If it is not an action, then it is not Te function. Fe is the action to defense a principle. The easier you to be provoked, and you actually take an action upon it, it indicates that your Fe function proportion is higher. But if you don't really take an action, it is your Ti that is high enough to repress your Fe function to run.

Here is my full explanation:
Fi : bridgeauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/introvert-feeling-function/
Ti : bridgeauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/introvert-thinking-function/
Te : bridgeauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/extrovert-thinking-function/
Fe : bridgeauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/extrovert-feeling-function/


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reybridge said:


> Fi is the function to burn an information, be it a sensual or conceptual information, to your mind without any deduction, so it will be a belief.
> Here is my full explanation:
> Fi : bridgeauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/introvert-feeling-function/


Sorry, but your Fi understanding... hm. no pulling punches here--fail.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Sorry, but your Fi understanding... hm. no pulling punches here--fail.


hmm.. what is your argument?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reybridge said:


> hmm.. what is your argument? i hope you have no argument so it is obvious that you are just blabbering. and i don't need to response it any further.


Well, to start with, saying it is pure "belief" and this bit from your blog:

"Fi is fair to the external world. For example, you are informed that there is a fire in your house. If you believe this information no matter who says it, no matter where you are, no matter what, it is because you have Fi functionality."

This is the exact opposite to the truth. Fi, as a psychic function is adverse to the external world. It is a movement away from the outside world. Fi generally exhibits itself externally in a negative way, not a positive way. 

But you don't have to listen to my "blabbering", as Jung, himself, stated: 


> It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away. It strives after an inner intensity, to which at the most, objects contribute only an accessory stimulus. The depths of this feeling can only be divined—they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence.




As I said, you inadequately, and wrongly attribute behavior and attitudes to Fi which are not representative of what Fi truly is. Here's where you can do your homework on the functions: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Psychological_Types

Oh, and Van der Hoop describes them in a more real-world way here: Socionics - the16types.info - Jungian Functions in Interpretation of J. H. van der Hoop

Pay especial attention to what he says about the difference between feeling and emotion. It's an excellent treatise on the topic.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> reybridge said:
> 
> 
> > hmm.. what is your argument? i hope you have no argument so it is obvious that you are just blabbering. and i don't need to response it any further.
> ...


I think you are too much believing in something that you like in the internet. It is fine, but if it makes you have no foundation for your argument, i think it is such a bad practice. You only have a belief that your argument is right, but you don't know why it is right.

Here is my argument.
1. There are 2 introverted judging function in jungian function system, Ti and Fi.
2. Ti function is logical.

Conclusion: anything which is not logical is generated by Fi function. Now, we just need to find something not logical.

A judging function always needs an information to be judged for sure. And information is gathered by perceiving function. You need to read my articles about perceiving function Se and Ne to continue understand this post completely.

For short, Se information is physical sensations. And Ne information is concepts. So, Fi will generates something which is not logical and is a concept, anf that is a belief. But if the information which is judged is a sensual information, then it is a desire or a passion, because you are passionate to something, or you desire something, is not reasonable as well. It is not logical.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

reybridge said:


> I think you are too much believing in something that you like in the internet. It is fine, but if it makes you have no foundation for your argument, i think it is such a bad practice. You only have a belief that your argument is right, but you don't know why it is right.
> 
> Here is my argument.
> 1. There are 2 introverted judging function in jungian function system, Ti and Fi.
> ...


Sorry... I also don't think you understand Fi well.



> For example, you are informed that there is a fire in your house. If you believe this information no matter who says it, no matter where you are, no matter what, it is because you have Fi functionality.


You are either wrong with your understanding of Fi, perceiving, and jugding, or you just use a bad example. Hearing about a fire in your house and firmly believing it no matter what has nothing to do with Fi. Any type can be this way. "A fire in your house" is a piece of information, thus a "perception," and doesn't involve a "value judgement." If believing such information ever involves a value judgement, it would be trust on the source of information, such as the person who tells the fire, not the information itself.

Furthermore, doing such doesn't imply being "naive," according to your blog. It can be either way. It can be a smart thing to do because when you don't have much time or enough information to judge the truthfulness of the information about the fire, it's probably smarter for you to believe it and take action, because what if this is true? You don't risk losing anything if you act on it.

I don't think anyone is going to not believe it if he/she witnesses it with his/her eyes, and, if not, it has nothing to do with function. "Perception" in cognitive function is not limited to perceiving reality with your five senses.



> Fi function causes you to believe that things you are perceiving are real.


I think this is either Se, or it has nothing to do with function but being a skeptical person or not. 
*
Here it's the biggest weakness of your blog and the your post I quote, your word usages are vague, thus causing confusion and contradiction. *It would not be such a problem if you are not trying to establish... all the ideas, concepts, theory, etc., in your blog. It would not be such a problem if your meaning of the words you use are less general in the framework of establishing a theory... It would not be such a problem if you are talking casually. 

Back to your post, "For short, Se information is physical sensations. And Ne information is concepts. So, Fi will generates something which is not logical and is a concept, anf that is a belief." It doesn't make sense to me.

So, Ne are "concepts," and then Fi generates something not logical and is a "concept," and that is a belief.
a. Are you implying that a concept is not logical? A concept, by nature, is pretty much a definition, a statement that is a result from a thought process, which may or may not be logical. A concept can appear as logical because it depends so much on--or heavily related to--the thought process. Concepts and definitions are the parts of the fundamental of any theory, philosophical or scientific.
b. If Ne itself makes concepts, and Fi also generates concepts, what's the difference? If there is a difference, you should elaborate on it.
c. What is a belief? What is concept?

Back to my quote from your blog, "...if the perceived things is gathered from Se function (See Extroverted Sensing Function), it will be a passion, and if the perceived things is from Ne function, it will be a belief because a belief is a concept (See Extroverted Intuition Function)."

I am getting that "passion" exclusively belongs to Se-user, and "belief" exclusively belongs to Ne-user, WHICH. IS. NOT. TRUE., unless you have your own definitions of those words, and if so you should define them. Anyone can have passion and belief. I think NF, seen as the dreamers and idealists, have as much passion as, if not more, than SP.

"Belief" _does not_ equal to a concept. A belief involves faith, while a concept doesn't. A belief is something you believe in, while you don't have to believe in a concept in order for it to be a concept.

The words "faith," "belief," "faithful," "passions," just don't mean anything to me in your blog because of the way you use them. XSFPs don't _always_ have passion. Passion does not just come from Se but also Fi (For Fi-dom it's pretty much about Fi), and the thing is if passion results from Fi, it would be invalid to say INFPs _can't_ have passion. I think, at least for Fi-dom or aux, they have to be passionate about something, which is also what they are _faithful_ in, in order to feel like doing it with passion. 

Let's go to your writing on Ti,


> But although they are very logical, it doesn’t mean that they will not believe or like anything. *It is because a deduction always needs some statements. And this statements may be a belief or a passion. That is true, since they are logical, the statements itself are probably the results of previous deductions.* But if you go through a statement to the statements of the statement and so on, there must be a dead end. *And this dead end is always a belief or a passion.* So, they must have at least a belief or a passion to support their logical nature.


WHAT ARE BELIEF AND PASSION? According to your writing on Fi, those two belongs to FiNe and FiSe, and it seems to me that you are saying that Ti needs those Fi material to conduct deduction, and the end result is either "a belief" or "a passion," which are also Fi materials, something "illogical."

Se:


> They don’t see the world as complicated concepts. They don’t like conceptual things. They will see a moving human being, not a thieve. They will see a paper, not money. But it is a simple matter which i think everyone understand, and *no one only use Se function without any other perceiving functions in his entire life.* Se function in XSXP personality is just like that you prefer coffee rather than tea. Se dominant personality will only use a concept which if he doesn’t use it, he can not continue his life.


Se is not the ability to perceive things with the five sense, although the two are very close. Se is more about an attitude... I don't agree with the bolded part, and I don't even know what you mean by "prefer coffee rather than tea..." Se _doesn't_ make preference. Again you use the word "concept" which I have no idea what you mean here. Really, what do you mean by "concept" here when you say "will only use a concept which if he doesn’t use it, he can not continue his life." So concept is not even anything complicated here, but something like what an apple is, what a person is?

Can't even go into everything you write in your blog.

P.L.E.A.S.E.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

uncertain said:


> Sorry... I also don't think you understand Fi well.
> 
> You are either wrong with your understanding of Fi, perceiving, and jugding, or you just use a bad example. Hearing about a fire in your house and firmly believing it no matter what has nothing to do with Fi. Any type can be this way. "A fire in your house" is a piece of information, thus a "perception," and doesn't involve a "value judgement." If believing such information ever involves a value judgement, it would be trust on the source of information, such as the person who tells the fire, not the information itself.
> 
> ...


You sure are stereotyping right? Please use your logical side in your writing. No one only use the same functions for his entire life. So, when i say no matter what in my "fire in the house" example, it is not describing the person, it is describing the function itself. Fi function is a believing function, because believing can happens without any logical explanation. So, it is kind of random (or rather probabilistic) whether a person decides to believe something or not to believe. Logical explanation will always has premises. And i didn't say that INFPs can not have a passion. This is your stereotypical mind talking. INFPs are just *probably* don't have passions/desire to fulfill. INFPs will rather believing in some conceptual information or understanding something than do some passionate things like singing or painting or gaming.

1. I want to tell you, a perceiving function is a function to gather information, not to judge. Attitudes are judgement. You don't use perceiving function to decide your attitudes. So, Se is not about attitudes at all. If there is someone who doesn't understand about these functions between us, it is you.

2. There are 2 kind of perceiving functions, which are extroverted and introverted. Extroverted perceiving function means it gathers information from external world. While introverted perceiving function gathers information from sources other than external world, of course this is your mind.

3. Se and Ne is extroverted perceiving functions, so they gather information from our 5 senses, because there is no other way to gather information from the external world without 5 senses. The difference is that Se function gathers physical information such as a touch, a sight, etc. While Ne gathers conceptual information, such as "tidiness", "clean", etc.

4. There are 2 kind of judging function, which are extroverted and introverted. Extroverted judging is a judgement which the direction is to the external world, while the introverted one direction is to a "place" other that the external world. And this is your mind of course. Ti and Fi are functions that judge any information coming from a perceiving function into your mind. Fi is not a logical judging function, so any information which don't have premises and is a concept (if the information come from Ne function) or a passion/desire (if the information come from Se function) is generated by Fi function. A passion/desire doesn't have premises. If you want to be massaged, it is a desire. But if you want to be understood, then it is your belief that you really want people to understand it. And by Ti, yes, Ti always needs a belief or a passion to works because Ti is a logical function which needs premises. This is why there is no one who don't use Fi at all in his life, even INTP and ISTP. They will have at least a belief or a passion/desire. Any result from Ti deduction saved in your mind is a principle or an instinct/common sense, not a belief nor a passion/desire anymore.

5. Ne function is about understanding something you sense by your 5 senses. But, this understanding is nothing if you don't judge it. In order for you to save this understanding to your mind, you need to use introverted judging function, be it Fi, or Ti. And when you recall this concept later, it is nothing to do with Fi function anymore, because recalling something out of your mind is a kind of gathering information, which is the work of introverted perceiving function.

Don't let a function overlaps another function. Because no function is overlap each other, just like "subtraction" and "addition", not "multiplication" and "addition".

EDIT:

Maybe i was mistaken about the meaning of the word "passion". It actually was a "desire" to be precise, because one can has a passion in something conceptual such as horoscope or etc.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

reybridge said:


> You sure are stereotyping right? Please use your logical side in your writing. No one only use the same functions for his entire life. So, when i say no matter what in my "fire in the house" example, it is not describing the person, it is describing the function itself. Fi function is a believing function, because believing can happens without any logical explanation. So, it is kind of random (or rather probabilistic) whether a person decides to believe something or not to believe. Logical explanation will always has premises. And i didn't say that INFPs can not have a passion. This is your stereotypical mind talking. INFPs are just *probably* don't have passions/desire to fulfill. INFPs will rather believing in some conceptual information or understanding something than do some passionate things like singing or painting or gaming.


Unless you mean everyone use all the eight functions, an INFP uses Ne, not Se. According to your blog, Ne causes belief and Se causes passion. If an INFP doesn't use Se, then he doesn't have passion. This is just a conclusion I made from your theory. I am not stereotyping here, and I personally don't believe that an INFPs can't have passion. 

If everyone uses all the eight functions, then it would be that everyone uses the same functions for his entire life. I personally take the four-functions model.

A person might believe in something or act in a certain way because of having a certain function. A function doesn't believe, a person does. So that "fire in the house" example can't possibly describe a function, but a person with that function at most.



> 1. I want to tell you, a perceiving function is a function to gather information, not to judge. Attitudes are judgement. You don't use perceiving function to decide your attitudes. So, Se is not about attitudes at all. If there is someone who doesn't understand about these functions between us, it is you.


I don't think attitudes are judgement, but an attitude affects/causes a judgement. You can have an attitude which is to not care about things, not have a passion, not have an opinion, not taking sides, etc.

When I say "Se is about an attitude," I am just trying to separate Se from the five senses. Yes, Se is a function and not an attitude. It reserves information gathered by the five senses as it is, not changing it or adding any judgement. People who have dom-Se or aux-Se tend to have a particular attitude toward life and the environment--see the physical world as it is (as perceived by the five senses), embrace it, absorb the present moment, etc. I think the SP group does tend to be so and tend to share this trait more often than other types, and NJs even though they also use Se.



> 3. Se and Ne is extroverted perceiving functions, so they gather information from our 5 senses, because there is no other way to gather information from the external world without 5 senses. The difference is that Se function gathers physical information such as a touch, a sight, etc. While Ne gathers conceptual information, such as "tidiness", "clean", etc.


Hmm... I don't know. You sure Ne-types don't get the physical?

And I think, things like "tidiness" and "clean" are subjective. It can look clean to me and dirty to you. To me, it's more like a judgement on the physical information being gathered. (Don't mean pointing to Fi or Ti or any other functions.)

But I like what you write here better, and I am not sure if I agree with the rest of your writing or not, even with what I comment here it's more complicated. Might get back to it later on.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

uncertain said:


> Unless you mean everyone use all the eight functions, an INFP uses Ne, not Se. According to your blog, Ne causes belief and Se causes passion. If an INFP doesn't use Se, then he doesn't have passion. This is just a conclusion I made from your theory. I am not stereotyping here, and I personally don't believe that an INFPs can't have passion.
> 
> If everyone uses all the eight functions, then it would be that everyone uses the same functions for his entire life. I personally take the four-functions model.
> 
> ...


I revise my my post. I think the word "passion" refers to any kind of information (Be it Se or Ne) after being judged by Fi function.

I think an attitude is definitely a judgement. When you choose to not care about something, then it is a judgement that justify your own mind. And this kind of judgement is called introverted judging function. As you get any information, anything you are thinking or feeling about these information is the process of the judging function actually.

I am quite sure that Ne function is not about physical objects, but it doesn't mean that any type without Se in the four first function can not get physical. This is my explanation of Ne:

You see an object which is square, brown, and you hear a "book" voice in that moment all for the first time. In this example, Se function will works to perceive the shape, the color, and the sound in a separate way. So, if you are then using any introverted judging function to save these Se information, now you have these information in you memories:
* square shape
* brown color
* "book" voice
In other side, with Ne function, you will have the following information :
* (square shape)-(brown color)-("book" voice)
What the Ne function perceives is not the object itself, but the "-" that connects each object.
If you don't use Ne function at all, you will not be able to make a "book" voice when you see a brown colored and square shaped object, even after the example event happened to you.


----------

