# Philosophical questions answered. Interstellar cookies with plasma espresso served!



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I stole the idea from @Word Dispenser (she mentioned somewhere else answering philosophical questions instead of doing a questionnaire). There were 30-something questions, but I know no one likes walls of text, so here are ten that I found pretty interesting to answer.
*
1.* *Why do we call some religions “mythologies” (ancient Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc.) and others religions? Is this fair? What does this show about how relevant certain ideas are as society progresses?*

The difference between terms "mythology" and "religion" is in their corresponding shades of meaning. Essentially, they are the same, but people choose to call mythologies those religions that they see as outdated and no more followed by the major cultural or ethnic groups. It’s not the question of fairness, but of distinction between what people see nowadays as currently viable system of beliefs and what systems they think of as ones that lost their credibility. Current religions may very well turn into mythologies in the future, as new religions will arise.

By making this distinction people diminish the validity of mythologies (because myth now means something that is untrue and/or made-up) and emphasize the validity of religions (again, because the word doesn't have the same connotations as myths) despite them being practically the same thing at the core. 

What does it show about our society? It shows the fickleness of ideas in the society and that insofar ideas become outdated for whatever reason, society wants to distance itself from them as much and as quick as possible. Society progresses, ideas change, religions adapt. This is an inevitable process. In the past, most religions were polytheistic and people were trying to understand and describe forces of nature and different phenomena by existence of gods and deities. Now, as people learned more about the science behind those things, religions lean into the new realms that are more difficult to prove or disprove scientifically at this stage. I agree that some ideas are relevant only on certain stages of development and depend on the overall progress of society and understanding.

*2. If you dislike your family, are you obligated to spend time with them? Show up at family functions? Help them out in their time of need? Is a family even relevant anymore – especially when you have a close circle of friends?
*
No. I'm not obligated to spend time with family if I dislike them. What is more, I'm not obligated to do this even if I like them. I don't put much value in social attitudes and don't think that they bear substantial importance. What difference will it make If I won't show up at family functions? I don't get it. Apparently, social niceties are not my forte.

If my family will need help, my readiness to help them will depend on the level of my dislike towards them. If my dislike stems from their vile actions (they did something horrible to me or treated me badly etc.) then they'll receive no help from me. Just, no way. People who treated me like that are not my family and cannot reckon upon my help.

Family _is _relevant, but it also depends on the quality of the family itself. I consider my family to be a very good one. No friends can replace them and no matter what other people say about having a lot of friends and them being like a family, I don't buy it. It may work if your biological family is crap or you don't have one, otherwise nothing can replace the nighness of blood and no one will care for you the way your family do. Maybe I'm a lucky one to have a family like that, but since I have it, I understand that no matter how close, sincere, open, caring, understanding my friends may seem in the end they will go their own way. No one will appreciate me not for what I achieved or for what I can do, but for who I am the way my family does.

*3.* *People often talk about the growing gap between the rich and poor. However, today’s poor (in the United States, at least) are much better off than most people (not just the poor) were a century ago. Does it matter that there’s an increasing gap between the rich and the poor if the standard of living for the poor keeps going up?*

Why they are better? Because the standard of living keeps going up? Well, standard of living is a tool that is too easily manipulated and depends on the method of calculation and measurements used. The problem of this gap is not about who lives a better and richer life, but about inequality between different groups of people, which brings a number of other concerns. 

In whatever light I view it - inequality sucks. And if we are aiming at a progress as a human race we have to be concerned about people having equal access to fruits of the said progress and having an influence on processes happening in the world. Existence of gap between the poor and the rich enables the small group of people only to have all the power and influence, and that group becomes progressively smaller. This minority can dictate whatever they want to the rest of the world and the richer they are the more powerful and influential they become. Even if the living standards are increased for the poor over the last century (which is disputable, and there are other countries in the world except USA, you know) it doesn't mean that we should forget about the gap, because it’s not just the material values are important in and of themselves, but what such distribution brings and where it leads us.

*4.* *Is it truly worth it to die for a family member or friend? Yes, you’d be a hero, but that person would feel guilty for your death for the rest of their lives. Is that “brave” act actually cowardly because you’re transferring the guilt that you’d have felt if you did nothing and watched them die to your friend, who has to deal with the guilt of causing your death?*

If I won’t die for my family or a friend it will be considered an act of cowardice and if I’ll die for them it will be… the same act of cowardice. Hrmph. 

The answer largely depends on the circumstances. Dying for somebody else shouldn't necessarily involve notions of cowardice and guilt. What if I choose to die for another person because that person must complete some task that no one else except them can complete? That would be an act of necessity and hope that it would worth it in the end, even if I wouldn't live to witness it. 

I agree, that it can be cowardly action on my part in case I do it in order not to feel guilty for not doing it, but...wouldn't it be selfish of a person for whom I died to feel guilt? Why couldn't they except what happened, understand why it happened, appreciate and respect my choice and move further? By feeling guilty they themselves show a degree of selfishness. 

If, Merlin forbid, I happen to be in this circumstances I would orient myself by circumstances and gut feelings . Deep down if I don’t feel like it’s an act of cowardice then it is not. It’s simple as that. And how could I care about the cowardice and guilt if I’ll be already dead by the time? Huh?

*5.* *Is a day spent watching movies when you could’ve been working a day wasted or well spent?*

Depends on the day  
…and on the movies  
…and on the work XD

Every day can be a working day, but not every day can be a day-off!

Each day is potentially a day when I could’ve been working, what is more important is whether I loaf away the time while super important task sings the blues in the corner. If this is the case, then, yes, I’m inclined to say that watching movies was a waste of time because super important task got transformed into the megaurgent-cutthroat-nervousbreakdown-wtfwasIthinkingof task and this is just means me being shortsighted and heedless. Otherwise, I don’t see an inherent value in work for work’s sake. I like to be constantly occupied with something, but it shouldn’t be necessarily related to work.

*6.* *Can we ever be sure that our perception of things is right – without consulting other people? If we do consult others, how are we to know whether theirs is true or if we’re both deluded?*

No, we can never be sure that our perception is ultimately right. Our perception of things is right for us only - ahem, the Dress, ahem. Red for us is red only because our eye receptors and the brain decode it into a red pattern. If dogs could speak, they would say that it is all bleakish, and alien from Antares, who has an ability to distinguish a wider specter of visible colours would say that it is enthioprumeranic. Dog’s perception is right for the dog and Antarian’s perception is right for the Antarian, both of them, in their turn, could also have different perception within their corresponding counterpart groups. Same with humans. Our brain works hard to make our experience reliable and we have to thank it for not letting us see the world upside down.

How do I know that display in front of me is a TFT screen and not a giant soul-eating monster with slimy tentacles? I don’t. But I choose to believe in what my brain shows me and estimate its reliability on the basis of how subjectively successful I’m getting through life with its help. How do I know that my brain is real? Sure enough I don't know it, but I'm typing these letters right now and feel a thinking process going on inside and assume that it requires some sort of a substance that is able to absorb, process and create information.

Anyone who is skeptical can try and poke their screen with a fork or better strike it with a bat - the harder the better - and observe the results. But be warned! We can’t know for sure what is there really sitting (or flying, or standing, or hanging, or floating, or…jumping?) in front of us and what mood it is in today, and whether there is anything at all.
*
7.* *Would your life be better or worse if you knew the day, time, and place that you were going to die?*

Would I be the only one who posses this knowledge? Am I psychic? Cool! Special snowflake syndrome full throttle!

In all seriousness, my life wouldn’t be better or worse, it would be… a bit different. 
There are several equally possible scenarios. If I knew the date and it is coming soon I could go all nihilistic, ranting about meaningless of life and wanting it all be over as soon as possible. At the same time, since I know the place where it’ll happen, I will think through different plans in order to avoid it. Now it sounds even fun! Hey, Death, catch me if you can!

If the date I knew is really far or somewhere in the middle, nothing would change, I think. Maybe I take a notice that things are taking their natural course and knowing the place will be helpful so I could try to avoid death. But will I want that at such a respectable age? Will I even remember that information or sclerosis will get the best of me? Also, I could be quicker with projects planned and more daring with trying different stuff.

*8.* *Would you be a martyr and give up your reputation amongst your peers to do what you know is right? Or is it better to be pragmatic and sit and do nothing?*

What is “better”? Why is it better and better for whom? It all depends on the cause, circumstances and point of view.

Without going into deeper concerns about moral value of the action itself - was it better for pilots who crashed into the WTC to “sit and do nothing”? From the point of view of victims’ relatives and Islamic organizations that distance themselves from terrorism – yes, of course – it would be much better if pilots didn’t crush into Twin Towers. From the point of view of jihad supporters – not at all. They give up reputation amongst certain groups of people and raise profiles amongst the other ones. Everything’s relative.

Personally, I prefer to do what I know is right and while reputation is important, other people’s opinions are too low of a motivation to hinder me from doing what I think must be done. It doesn’t mean that pragmatic concerns are not in the picture, or that I leap into action headlong though. If it’s something very significant, first and foremost I have to think whether it’ll pan out, how it’ll affect me and other people, what would be the consequences etc. In other cases I just go with gut feelings.

*9.* *Would you rather be insane in a functional society, or one of the people running a profoundly dysfunctional society?*

I’d prefer not to be part of any of those societies tbh. This also depends on what "insane" and "dysfunctional society" imply. 

The first option is unappealing for obvious reasons – being dysfunctional person is no fun. If society around me is perfectly functional, people will be able to take care of me and I will live out my remaining days, but I won’t choose such existence voluntarily.

The second option is more appealing, but has its drawbacks. The most obvious of them is that if the society is so entirely dysfunctional then, without proper maintenance, very soon it will extinct. Taking into account that the whole society is like that, it’ll require a HUGE amount of control, maintenance and work on a day-to-day basis with only several people sane enough to carry out the task. We’ll need an army or robots, droids and other AI-bearers in order to run such society. Otherwise, in case we'll not be able to find a cure that will turn a dysfunctional society into a functional one, it’ll be pretty much hopeless scenario in which those in charge either will go insane because of the workload or choose to give up and leave society to its own devices trying to survive and waiting for their own dying day to come. 

*10.* *Is open-mindedness really a virtue if truly destructive ideas are spreading in society?
*
Open-mindedness doesn’t mean that one have to promiscuously swallow every shitty idea. Critical thinking should go hand in hand with open-mindedness; otherwise it’ll turn into chaotic and destructive holus bolus. There’s really not much can be done in terms of prevention of destructive ideas spreading, other than building another totalitarian society and shield it with an iron curtain, but…well, been there, done that. Instead of walling off from undesirable ideas, people should use their brains and filter what goes in and how it affects them.

Not sure that open-mindedness can be called a virtue, because it’s more of a predisposition towards the world, that I find highly desirable. To my understanding it is an ability to understand other people’s ideas, be open to other possibilities and ways of thinking and doing things, but it doesn’t imply automatic acceptance of those ideas or that we should agree with them. 

In addition @Jinsei's questionnaire under the spoiler. I made slight changes so as to fit the newer version of it.

* *






> *SCENARIO 1**
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


At first I would be puzzled because of such an abrupt break of relationship, then shocked because the news would hit me hard and apparently I didn't saw it coming, then upset because any illness sucks, especially if it's a terminal one, then angered because of realization that he eather thought that we weren't close to such a degree that he could share it with me, or been too protective and thought that I'll be better off without knowing, or thought that I'm a softie. I hate when people decide things for me, especially in terms of whether I'm supposed to know something or not. I understand that currently he has other concerns to think about, but apparently he didn't know me good enough to think that I can shrug it off like that. If we were in a relationship for 2 years and planned to get married it implied certain level of trust, understanding and intimacy between us. Why did he think that disappear without explanation would be a good idea? Through foul and fair and all that stuff.

If our relationships were really good and worthy fighting for I would find a way to speak to him and be there for him till the end, no matter what he thinks.

I think primary focus is on my inner response and feelings, how _I_ relate to this situation.



> *SCENARIO 2 **
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


I'll help for sure. If we were on good terms and our indifference didn't stem from hidden dislike of each other I don't see a problem in helping. The professor made it clear that students should work alone, but somehow forgot to assume measures to ensure his directions are followed. If one is putting restrictions of any kind they must be able to monitor that his instructions are observed, otherwise it is meaningless and puts parties involved in an uneven conditions. Somebody would follow professor's words, others don't and the results would be skewed.

My roommate doesn't ask for completing the test for them, but for tuition and I think that such kind of awakened interest in gaining knowledge must be encouraged and supported, even if it happened only at the end of the semester. This person wants to learn something finally! Cool. I'm in. Wrong would be to deny them opportunity to learn something new because of an artificially put restriction. I don't really care what professor would think as long as the roommate would gain something useful from my help. At the end of it, the goal of studying is in obtaining knowledge and brain building. My roommate is the one who must gain something from studying and not the professor.

The most influential concerns that directed my thought process were: whether they deserve help and if so what can be done in order to achieve the desirable result.


> *SCENARIO 3**
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


Project No. 2 for me. I prefer to work alone and honestly brainstorming isn't my forte. Necessity to work with many other specialists with possibly conflicting opinions and need to search for compromises doesn't sound appealing as well. Great impact is a luring thing, but if I understood the scenario correctly, it wouldn't be as much my personal achievement as it would be a group effort success. So, I would definitely choose the second project as I could concentrate on my individual vision and specific task, be in the process and my attention would not be digressed to other people's agenda.

Possibility to work alone, focus on one particular task and not face interference of other people have the most influence on my decision.


> *SCENARIO 4**
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


At the start, I will sit silently weighting out ideas that people toss around and think through best options and directions that we can take. I will try to form my own vision of the project and see how I can adjust it with ideas of other people. At some point I'll voice my thoughts and I think all four of us together will come to some unified understanding of what we want from this project and what we trying to achieve. It would be important to find out what are our strong suits and how can we share responsibilities in order to efficiently carry out the task and none of us grab the biggest piece of the pie. Probably the desire for efficiency and equality are the main influences here.


> *SCENARIO 5**
> 
> FOCUS ON THE SOURCES YOU DRAW NON-PHYSICAL ENERGY FROM HERE
> 
> ...


Listen to the music, watch TV series, read a book, browse the net for interesting information, envisioning stories or a bit of tangling maybe. Pretty much all the usual introverted "activities". I'm clearly a low energy person. After hard working days or weeks when I feel drained it can be enough just to not speak to anybody and do nothing, which is a passive recharging. But the most fulfilling thing, the one that is like a powerful active surge of energy, is an inspiration from getting to know something new and interesting. Frequently it's like - a minute ago I could barely sit straight and the next moment, after reading something interesting, my mind goes buzzing and I'm all excited and restless.


> *SCENARIO 6
> **
> FOCUS ON THINKING VS FEELING HERE
> 
> ...


I will choose Musician, Psychologist and Computer Programmer. Can I choose another one? I'll choose anyway Actress. I considered musician and actress before, as I wrote songs, took part in various dance, musical and theater groups, and it was very interesting and fulfilling for me and after graduation from school I wanted to enter University of Theater. I've never been an expressive person and interest in theater and music worked like a switch. In a sense it was like... a special environment where I could be someone else, the environment that granted me with excuse to act emotionally, to pour inner feelings, to be open, to tell things I never had the nerve to say in any other way, because I though people around wouldn't understand. It was an outlet basically. In theater I liked that I could act like someone else, in music I liked that I could finally vocalize in some way things that were roaming my head and deliver what was important to me, what I've been interested in. I abandoned both of them because, well, it's too hard to fight one's way through and of course money issues. When I finally applied I ended up with choosing between psychologist (as I've always been interested in ways our minds work), computer programmer (since I remember myself all technical/computer/software/etc stuff fascinated me) and my current career.

There are several careers in that list that I will never choose. I never wanted to be a teacher, as they go through such a lot of crap in their work. It would be a nightmare job for me. Medical Doctor is another one. Good career, but the idea of dealing everyday with bodies and their inward parts is extremely unappealing. Child Care is not even in debate. I'm not caring, gentle, patient and enduring enough.



> *SCENARIO 7
> **
> Click on the image below and pay close attention to the things that jump out to you, objects, thoughts, feelings, impressions, ideas etc. What do you see?**
> 
> ...


First thing that came to mind: 'This is Fantasy!' The place looks like it's fitting for the fellowship of the ring to sail their boats and probably even encounter the grand Argonaths round the corner. But wait, there were no rocks like that on the shores of the Great River, colour is mismatching. It fits more a landscape of prairies or a desert and behind those rocks or a canyon there must be a very hot day and sun is shining very high and brightly, but here, in the place from where the photo was taken, the lighting is soft and water is cool, oh, and there are green trees on the opposite bank. I wonder how tall they really are and how big are the rocks in comparison to human being. Photos like that can give a deceptive image of the real size of objects. Oh, wow, even further there are dead trees! How didn't I notice them earlier? This is interesting, fresh greenery side by side with dead trees with long creepy spidey branches. Whether they were the green ones before? Are they dancing? Are they reaching for the green trees to transform them into their likes?
The central part of the rock looks a bit like a head of coyote too.

Pff... I wish I knew why I focus on those things. This is just what I saw and I like fantasy-like pictures. I like when reality is presented in such a way that it becomes "dream about reality". There's something magical about it and prods me into thinking of stories behind. The picture is pleasant to look into, but could be even more surreal


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Honestly, I could see you as an INTJ. I'm very open to the idea of being wrong, and would like those who are more prolific and efficient at typing to help you. I need more evidence and knowledge to be entirely confident in my typing abilities. I make mistakes, and openly admit it. @Word Dispenser has typed you as an ISTJ, and I'm curious as to her thoughts. 

I am confident that you're an IXTJ, in the very least. You're obviously an introverted perceiving dominate, as perception is subjective to you. Discerning between Si/Ni is difficult for me, but I lean towards Ni. General consensus towards you is Si dom, though. 

I really need to quit procrastinating on studying the functions in depth.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

@hoopla, @To_august:
Well, to start with... I don't _think _I've ever had the pleasure of typing you, To_august. :laughing:

I may be mistaken, though-- You might've had a different name a long time ago, or something. Those sneaky name-changes.

As for what I think of this questionnaire-- Awesome. My philosophical questions thing is really taking off.

Anyway, to more directly answer hoopla's questions about my own thoughts regarding 'August's typing, I'd say that she makes very strong use of Te. So much so, that I considered Te-dom. But, that said, it's backed up by ironclad Ti in points where I'd say that Ti'd have to be demonstrative.

I'd say Si over Ni simply because I can't see this girl not being an Ne-valuer of some kind. She definitely values Ne. If I'm wrong, well, I know nothing about this and you should probably talk to someone else, haha. :laughing:

I see Ne leaking through in a lot of her more dreamy statements-- Particularly in Jinsei's Q, with the photograph.

I think Fi because she's very individualistic with her sentiments, and her views on family are hers, and hers alone-- She has very strong values, but Fi isn't necessarily strong in dimension. She has a fairly good idea of dislikes and likes, and I think I'm picking up on an ability to see that in others, but it's not as strong as the Te.

I'd say SLI-Te would be my guess, but that might just be my bias based on your prior typing.


----------



## Jinsei (Aug 4, 2014)

@To_august I vote INTJ... I saw a lot of Fi/Te coming out in the scenarios. I think your primary function is most likely introverted however I think F and T are fairly close in strength. I wouldn't put Fi as anything less than tertiary. I also think the Ni/Se axis came out clearly in the image test on scenario 7. Se fed you all sorts of objective details... you saw what was actually there... and Ni was generating questions trying to focus the image and understand it... even apply some imaginitive possibility to it. The Ni focusing effect to the wealth of sensory info Se was giving you seemed very clear to me. Leading with primary Si just doesn't fit for me so I am also curious as to @Word Dispenser's thoughts and where she saw Si. I would have imagined the sensory focus would have much more subjective "this is what this object means to me" focus rather than clear objective detail oriented observation, "Oh look at the trees, wait why are some dead? Could be..."

IF you are an "S" type... I would be more inclined to suggest ISFP (Fi - Se - Ni - Te), I do sense strong Fi in you so this isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility... but doesn't really fit with the strength of Te I also sense. So for now I am going INTJ.


----------



## Jinsei (Aug 4, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I'd say Si over Ni simply because I can't see this girl not being an Ne-valuer of some kind. She definitely values Ne. If I'm wrong, well, I know nothing about this and you should probably talk to someone else, haha. :laughing:
> 
> I see Ne leaking through in a lot of her more dreamy statements-- Particularly in Jinsei's Q, with the photograph.


First off I can completely see why you would say Ne from this write up @Word Dispenser. The thought stream, the questions, possibilities does seem very Ne like... however when you really look at where the underlying sensory focus lies. It seems very much an objective description of the actual objects and details... instead of a subjective one. The subjectivity that she applies to this seems to be coming more from the N side of things rather than the S side. I'll highlight these things in bold below:



To_august said:


> First thing that came to mind: 'This is Fantasy!' The place looks like it's fitting for the fellowship of the ring to sail their boats and probably even encounter the grand Argonaths round the corner. But wait, there were *no rocks like that on the shores of the Great River*, *colour is mismatching*. It fits more a landscape of prairies or a desert and behind those rocks or a canyon there *must be a very hot day and sun is shining very high and brightly*, but here, in the place from where the photo was taken, the *lighting is soft and water is cool*, oh, and *there are green trees on the opposite bank*. I wonder how tall they really are and how big are the rocks in comparison to human being. Photos like that can give a deceptive image of the real size of objects. *Oh, wow, even further there are dead trees*! How didn't I notice them earlier? This is *interesting, fresh greenery side by side with dead trees *with long creepy spidey branches. Whether they were the green ones before? Are they dancing? Are they reaching for the green trees to transform them into their likes?
> The central part of the rock looks a bit like a head of coyote too.


All that said... I'm an Ni dom and I can attest that when I really try hard and focus on what is going on with the N side of things... my internal thought process really does sound a lot like what was written above. The internal monologue would probably seem a lot like Ne, however the way you can tell the difference between the two is first off, identifying the initial sensory input and impression. Anyone with any kind of physical senses will have it lol... and it will either lean more towards objective (Se) or subjective (Si). Second, on the N side of things the objective Ne focus will attempt to expand things outward, connecting to as many other things or possibilities as it can. Ni however is trying to focus things like a lens focuses sunlight. Se see's millions of tiny photons and Ni generates all sorts of questions and possibilities with the aim of focusing every last one into a bright point of light that says, "AHA! That's what it is!"


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jinsei said:


> First off I can completely see why you would say Ne from this write up @_Word Dispenser_. The thought stream, the questions, possibilities does seem very Ne like... however when you really look at where the underlying sensory focus lies. It seems very much an objective description of the actual objects and details... instead of a subjective one. The subjectivity that she applies to this seems to be coming more from the N side of things rather than the S side. I'll highlight these things in bold below:


As said, rather than Se, I was seeing objective Te. I may be mistaken, as also said, but from this blurb you've pasted, I would still say Te-Si, or Si-Te, and would stubbornly say that any Ni that leaks through is simply role function.

Also-- I don't really follow letter dichotomies, and I'm mostly working from a Jung-to-Socionics framework. roud:

Ni is described very differently in Socionics, and not only that, I'm not seeing the Se sensory input. She's making observations, and she _could _very well be using Se. As an ISTJ, she'd have good use of Se as well. She'd have a fair use of Ni as a role function, which I can see.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Jinsei (Aug 4, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Also-- I don't really follow letter dichotomies, and I'm mostly working from a Jung-to-Socionics framework. roud:


Makes sense... we could be talking about the same thing then because I'm coming from the MBTI side of things lol

Now I'm curious about the differences in socionics. I haven't researched it much but I know that the over all types are flipped a bit for introverts when compared to MBTI ex: p = J and j = P

By the way, I really like the philisophical questions approach @Word Dispenser!


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> @_hoopla_, @_To_august_:
> Well, to start with... I don't _think _I've ever had the pleasure of typing you, To_august. :laughing:
> 
> I may be mistaken, though-- You might've had a different name a long time ago, or something. Those sneaky name-changes.


Beep-beep. Quick reminder derived from the interconstellational database. 
You did. Subject went under the same name.
I remember you were considering SEI and then SLI:kitteh: and the last time I've been typed I decided to end up with SLI-Te as well.

I'm fairly sure of TeFi myself, but perception is still a slippery topic. 
There's also this thing about rationality and irrationality:

* *






> *Rationals*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The thing is... I relate practically to everything written under "Rationals" and barely to anything from "Irrationals". Do you think it's a valid thing to bother about, or is it as accurate as any other description?

What if I am a Te dom? What if I am a Ne hidden agenda and it makes me to show it more frequently? What if I am an Ne... demonstrative?
Lol, I have so many what-ifs and probably I overthink it way too much. But I'm still curious and questions don't disappear anywhere.

What also upsets me is that I relatively easy spot Te and Fi, and from them work through the rest of the functions to match it all with a certain type, but end up with Si dominance that supposed to be the strongest of the strong and worldview of mine, but I have difficulty pinpointing how it manifests in my life at all.

I'm envious of all rational dominants now.



Jinsei said:


> @_To_august_ I vote INTJ... I saw a lot of Fi/Te coming out in the scenarios. I think your primary function is most likely introverted however I think F and T are fairly close in strength. I wouldn't put Fi as anything less than tertiary. I also think the Ni/Se axis came out clearly in the image test on scenario 7. Se fed you all sorts of objective details... you saw what was actually there... and Ni was generating questions trying to focus the image and understand it... even apply some imaginitive possibility to it. The Ni focusing effect to the wealth of sensory info Se was giving you seemed very clear to me. Leading with primary Si just doesn't fit for me so I am also curious as to @_Word Dispenser_'s thoughts and where she saw Si. I would have imagined the sensory focus would have much more subjective "this is what this object means to me" focus rather than clear objective detail oriented observation, "Oh look at the trees, wait why are some dead? Could be..."
> 
> IF you are an "S" type... I would be more inclined to suggest ISFP (Fi - Se - Ni - Te), I do sense strong Fi in you so this isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility... but doesn't really fit with the strength of Te I also sense. So for now I am going INTJ.


Thank you for the input.
Yeah, I would say that I focus on objective details and they make me wonder about what could they mean and explore further. If I would recall the very-very first thing that I thought when I saw the picture, it was simply - canyon, water, landscape. But such answer is too boring, and I think this is natural reaction of any human being with eyes when they see the picture - to identify what is actually there. No? I may be wrong about that 
In any case, in the first milliseconds I identify what is there and then start exploration.

How do you think Si would go about that? How it subjectively identifies the meaning? I think I had a hint of subjectivity in that it reminded me of LoTR.

I considered Fi dom before, but...well...I don't think I am. There's too much of a focus on people and relationships, and excess of this kind of information makes me cringe a bit.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

To_august said:


> Beep-beep. Quick reminder derived from the interconstellational database.
> You did. Subject went under the same name.
> I remember you were considering SEI and then SLI:kitteh: and the last time I've been typed I decided to end up with SLI-Te as well.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reminder, Duchess. *salute* :kitteh:

Haha, I totally understand what you mean, though.

With that particular dichotomy, gut-reaction, I'd say irrational for me. But, when I spend more time with it, there are things I can mix up and match. Particularly stress tolerance-- I don't know, really. I think that it depends on what the source of the stress is. If there's a crisis, I tend to be pretty calm, but if I'm having interpersonal stress, it tends to get to me pretty badly. So, I _think _that there are certain variables. 

But, if you think rational is closer to how you see the world, then maybe it's a good idea to expand on that.

I just closed myself off from letting myself keep re-typing myself, because I keep second-guessing and backtracking and it's a frustrating process when it comes back to the same thing, or maybe I'm just afraid of choosing anything else, because I can't make it make sense. :laughing:

It's interesting, though, that you point out that dichotomy. Have you considered Te-dom? Well, of course you have. But, what doesn't fit with Te-dom? 

Do you think you may be drawn to Fi more than Ne? 

It sounds like you're pretty sure that you value Te-Fi, so that's a start. Can you pinpoint whether you value Se/Ni, Si/Ne, or is that more tricky?


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> @hoopla, @To_august:
> Well, to start with... I don't _think _I've ever had the pleasure of typing you, To_august. :laughing:
> 
> I may be mistaken, though-- You might've had a different name a long time ago, or something. Those sneaky name-changes.
> ...


It was in a socionics thread. Far too lazy to dish it out for you... 

I find To_August fascinating, so I may or may not have stalked her... lol.

Te dominate I also could see. Clearly prefers Pi over Pe, but I'm fishy as to Si over Ni.. I could very well be mistaking high intelligence for Ni. The Fi is quite strong, which is where I can see ISTJ, but there's definitely some intuition at play here, which could make tert Ne a possibility. I've theorized that Te, along with Ne, is one of the least extroverted of the functions. Lots of Te doms mistake themselves for introverts. 

I know nothing in the realm of socionics, so this is from a Jungain folded into MBTI labels perspective (my typing approach).


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

hoopla said:


> I find To_August fascinating, so I may or may not have stalked her... lol.


She is definitely stalkable. :wink:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Thanks for the reminder, Duchess. *salute* :kitteh:
> 
> Haha, I totally understand what you mean, though.
> 
> ...


I agree. The stress thing can be tricky. I think stress tolerance overall depends more on stability of one's nervous system. Before OCD started to skew my mind I've been cooler then a cucumber no matter what, but, on the other hand, these were the times when I didn't yet face adult life and episodes of full-blown stress, so... At this point I'd say that it's low stress tolerance for me, but really it's hard to know for sure since I don't know how it would've developed if not for the said circumstances.

The other statements are pretty clear. I'm not spontaneous at all, don't change my decisions frequently, when I decided on something I stick with it until proven wrong. Sometimes I don't finish things that I start, but it's more of an exception to the rules. Statement about movements seems funny, but it fits too - my movements aren't gentle. I may think of myself as leaning to the democratic side of things, but I had experience with being in a leadership position and I turn out to be pretty authoritarian without even realizing it XD

I considered Te dom and it's interesting, "b..b..but *voice in the back of my mind* how can you be extraverted dominant!? Your energy level is so low and interaction with people drains you. You don't make friends easily and never take the lead to initiate social interactions!" "Oh, yeah, yeah. Crap. I know. So where did I end up with this again?:frustrating:"
Te-dom kind of fits and kind of doesn't. ESTJ have Ti ignoring and Ni PoLR and I don't relate to both positions for those functions. ENTJ - same with Ti, in addition they have Si PoLR and while I can see that (from the Socionics POV on Si at least to which I don't relate) I must be badly mistyped if I confuse base for PoLR, lol. There's always a possibility though.

I have nothing against Fi dominants and can easily see Fi as my dual seeking. Ne is fascinating beyond all reason as well  Perception is tricky. Between Se/Ni and Si/Ne I would say that it's eather Si/Ne in some order or higher Ni with lower Se. Overall Se and Fe are my lowest functions, I think.

I'll try to go through basic Jungian dichotomies.

_Extraverted / Introverted_

* *




*Extraverted types*



Psychic energy more often flows outwards.
Energy level increases when interacting with a large group of people.
Energy level decreases when they are alone.
Energy level is generally higher.
More often focused on their surroundings.
Tend to be more active and initiating.
Often make new friends easily.
Often better at presenting themselves.
Often prefer to work in a team.
*Introverted types*



Psychic energy more often flows inwards.
Energy level increases when they are alone.
Energy level decreases when interacting with a large group of people.
Energy level is generally lower.
More often focused on their thoughts and feelings.
Tend to be more passive, less initiating.
Often do not have many friends.
Often better at concentrating.
Often prefer to work alone.




Introverted, without doubt.
_
Ethical / Logical_

* *




*Ethical types*



More often make decisions based on their own feelings.
Rather talk about ethical evaluations ("good or bad").
Frequently better at solving interpersonal problems.
More often have problems with finding logical solutions.
Tend to prefer persuasion over argumentation.
More vulnerable to "logical" manipulation.
*Logical types*



More often make decisions based on logical reasons.
Rather talk about logical evaluations ("right or wrong").
Frequently interested in systems, structures and patterns.
More often have interpersonal problems.
Tend to prefer argumentation over persuasion.
More vulnerable to "ethical" manipulation.




Clearly Logical. Can't see myself being a feeling type.

_Rational / Irrational_

* *




*Rationals*



Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
Are more often rigid and stubborn.
Do not like to change their decisions.
Tend to finish what they started.
Usually have stiff movements.
Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
Low stress tolerance.
*Irrationals*



Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
Are more often flexible and tolerant.
Change their decisions frequently.
Tend to start new things without finishing them.
Usually have gentle movements.
Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
High stress tolerance.




Almost perfectly relate to Rational.
I leave Sensing/Intuitive undecided for now, but even without the last dichotomy the only possibility is... Ti dominant. Urgh!!! Why should it be this confusing?



hoopla said:


> Te dominate I also could see. Clearly prefers Pi over Pe, but I'm fishy as to Si over Ni.. I could very well be mistaking high intelligence for Ni. The Fi is quite strong, which is where I can see ISTJ, but there's definitely some intuition at play here, which could make tert Ne a possibility. I've theorized that Te, along with Ne, is one of the least extroverted of the functions. Lots of Te doms mistake themselves for introverts.


I agree with that. Te is far from being a social function, but still people who lead with it are characterized as extraverts and I wonder how really outgoing and social Te-dominants are.

Concerning Si and Ni. This is an ongoing dilemma. Just by reading about Ni I think: No way I'm _that_. Seeing the world through symbols and mystic visions? No. Just, no. The desk I sit behind is just a desk and plastic cup standing near me is just a plastic cup and not a symbol of consumerism and environmental contamination. But Ni descriptions tend to be magical to a fault.
On the other hand, in Socionics Ni is all about time and I see nothing special about it. I mean, what's special about feeling time and course of events. Aren't everybody doing that?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

To_august said:


> Concerning Si and Ni. This is an ongoing dilemma. Just by reading about Ni I think: No way I'm _that_. Seeing the world through symbols and mystic visions? No. Just, no. The desk I sit behind is just a desk and plastic cup standing near me is just a plastic cup and not a symbol of consumerism and environmental contamination. But Ni descriptions tend to be magical to a fault.
> On the other hand, in Socionics Ni is all about time and I see nothing special about it. I mean, what's special about feeling time and course of events. Aren't everybody doing that?


I absolutely understand your perspective on this. I find that both Ni and Si are 'magical', just in very different ways. Ni is more focused on abstraction and looking at things outside of reality while observing through time. Si is very much focused on reality while observing through time.

I think Entropic had an interesting post on Si and Ni not too long ago. Too bad he got himself banned again, the traitor!

Anywho... I really only have a very intuitive idea of what Ni and Si mean. Si seems more focused on internal subjective impressions of the environment, and how everything comes up to the present time, and leads into the future.

Lenore Thompson had a really good description of Ni and Si, in my opinion.

Socionics - the16types.info - Lenore Thomson's MBTI Wiki Explanation of Functions

And finally... Which Quadra are you sure that you belong to? Did you read Quadra descriptions?

Socionics Quadras


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

@_Word Dispenser_
Thank you. I skim-read Thomson's descriptions before and remember I related to Te and Ti the most. Notwithstanding they are described as pretty conflicting worldviews I related to both of them with preference on side of Te. 

Have to reread all descriptions so as not to be biased.

In the interim, breakdown by quadras. Gamma and Delta I relate to the most. Beta's Ti-Se was also surprisingly relatable.
*
Green *- I strongly relate to the statement, *Red *- I strongly oppose to it, *Black *- I'm neutral towards it or unsure, or it's only partially appealing.*

Apha*

* *




*Ti blocked with Ne
*

*Alpha types are inclined to discuss highly theoretical concepts as a source of intellectual stimulation and fun rather than for their practical merits. *- OK, maybe not exactly discuss, but I like to ponder on theoretical concepts and do this exactly for intellectual stimulation and not for practical purposes. This can be just higher-dimensional Ti though, not necessarily valued.
*Alpha types tend to value logically consistent beliefs and ideas, and behavior that is consistent with personal values. *- Yep. Logical consistency for the win!
*Alpha types typically follow through on their ideas in the form of group activity. * - No. My ideas have nothing to do with group activity.
*Fe blocked with Si
*

Alpha types tend to enjoy participating in groups where there is free exchange of positive emotional expression in an atmosphere pleasing to the senses.
*Alpha types are inclined to discuss stories told in detail and according to the sequence in which events happened, rather than "jump to the point" quickly. *- I don't enjoy such "sequential" story-telling. Please, just go straight to the point!
*Alpha types are inclined to show affection for others in the form of small practical services or gifts.*
Alpha types tend to feel energized in the positive atmosphere of special events, such as public holidays, parties and special celebrations. *- Sometimes I get infected by atmospheres of special events.*
*Fi blocked with Se
*

Alpha types prefer to avoid the discussion of controversial and unpleasant subjects regarding personal relationships while in groups, especially if leading to confrontations. *- I prefer to avoid any discussions regarding personal relationships. The realm of interpersonal relationships isn't one where I feel myself confident enough.*
Alpha types are inclined to be tolerating of minor past misdeeds by others, giving priority to reconciliation and a convivial atmosphere. - *Sometimes yes, sometimes no... It depends.*
*Te blocked with Ni
*

Alpha types are less likely to make investments that require long-term commitment and upkeep. They prefer short-term investments that offer a reliable outcome with minimal involvement. *- I do both long-term and short-term. Hard to say what I prefer. It depends more on a concrete goal.*
*Alpha types avoid taking direct life advice, preferring to experience and learn for themselves.* They perceive people who try to give such advice as pedantic.




*Beta*

* *




*Ti blocked with Se*



*Beta quadra types prefer situations where the power structure and hierarchy is clearly defined according to consistent rules where ambiguities are minimized. - *Yep. I like to know were I'm standing when dealing with people and always want to clear up any ambiguities.
*Beta quadra types are more confident analysing realistic characteristics of situations, people, and objects, rather than alternative and could-it-be scenarios. *- Yes, I'm definitely more confident with realistic things, but like to dwell on could-it-be's.
Beta quadra types are inclined to attribute to a new acquaintance traits that they have previously observed in other individuals belonging to the same group as they see the new acquaintance as belonging to (Aristocracy). *- I'm still fishy on Aristocracy versus Democracy topic.*
*Beta quadra types are inclined to look for general rules explaining people, politics, mechanisms and trends, rules that once defined can be applied generally, rather than go about things in a case-by-case way. *- MILLION TIMES YES TO THIS!
*Beta quadra types are energized by competitive situations where analytical tactics are emphasized.*
*Fe blocked with Ni*



Beta types tend to enjoy group activities where the whole group participates in generating a common emotional atmosphere, as in laughing at jokes, etc. *- Well. I like to laugh at jokes and have nothing against sharing common positive emotional atmosphere. I'm not the one who creates it though.*
Beta types tend to feel energized in the presence of people who share their beliefs and express them with obvious enthusiasm and emotion. *- Probably relate, but not sure. In any case, people who share my beliefs and are open about them are right people *
*Beta types tend to give more value to feelings when they are demonstrated with clear emotional expression, and tend to increase the level of their own emotional expression in order to get a reaction from other people.*
*Beta types tend to describe personal views of special meaning with "poetic" or "dramatic" expressions and language.*
*Beta types are often deeply concerned about social issues and the direction the world is heading. They believe that apathy is a significant cause of societal problems, and work to fight against it. *- YES! YES! YES!

*Fi blocked with Ne*



*Beta types are not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings*, especially when described in a subdued way. - I have a hard time describing my personal feelings, so, no, I definitely don't enjoy it.
*Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.*
*Te blocked with Si*



Beta types tend to look down on nuts-and-bolts, detailed work as a source of success, preferring to focus on "vision" and leadership. *- Largely indifferent to this statement. Leadership and vision are alluring, but work is work. The bottom line is the result. Shrug.*
*Beta types don't so much enjoy relaxed personal activities as they do competitive group activities. - Group activities are not a priority of mine in any case, no matter if it's a relaxed or competitive one.*




*Gamma*

* *




*Te blocked with Ni*



Gamma types take a longer-term view regarding efficiency and profitability, giving lower priority to the short term. *Likewise, they tend to aim at the broader benefits of decisions, rather than only at those affecting themselves, giving them an inclination for self-sacrifice.*- Same as in analogous statement from the Alpha block - I deal with both long-term and short-term investments. Depends on a concrete thing in question. The self-sacrificing part is true though.
*Gamma types like to talk about where present trends are leading* *in terms of potentially profitable events and undertakings.* - Lol. Te blocked with Ni is basically a smooth operator stereotype. I like to talk where trends are leading, but not necessarily in terms of profit. Profit isn't really a big motivator for me.
*Gamma types tend to give more value to ideas and concepts that are firmly connected to factual information. *- Yess!
*Fi blocked with Se*



*Gamma types take a hard-line approach regarding ethical principles and the punishment, even revenge, on those who break them.- *Yes! Lately I realized that I'm a huge grudge-holder and revenge-seeker!
*Gamma types place high value on personal loyalty, once they feel a close relationship has been established.- *Yep!
*Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance. *- Absolutely!!! Jerks don't change. This is what I keep telling everybody, but somehow people always think that they'll change and asshole will magically transform into a nice caring guy. I don't believe in that!
*Fe blocked with Si*



*Gamma types don't tend to form or maintain groups based on fun, emotional interaction, but only take groups seriously that perform some common productive activity or discuss serious topics. *- Overall relate, but I like to have fun too!
Gamma types reject the idea that it's best to avoid confrontations so as not to spoil the mood of those present, they prefer directness in settling or at least discussing disagreements. *- I don't seek confrontations, but believe that it's better to discuss disagreements so as not to pile half-words and harbor hostilities. I avoid full-blown confrontations though.*
Gamma types have difficulty relating to emotional atmospheres connected to "special dates" such as public holidays. - *Again, as in Alpha block - sometimes I connect, sometimes I don't. Depends on the "special date" and circumstances.*
*Ti blocked with Ne*



Gamma types do not see much point in deeply analyzing ideas that they see as having little practical application or connection to reality. *- Sort of relate because I definitely prefer to analyze practical ideas over possible ones, but could-it-be's are fun to ponder over too.*
*Gamma types are more inclined to speculate and discuss possible developments of present circumstances, or how these came about, than to speculate or analyze alternative scenarios or possibilities.*



*
Delta*

* *




*Te blocked with Si*



*Delta types make a point of talking about the rationale behind their actions and emphasizing the productiveness or unproductiveness of different ways of doing things - even in such emotional areas as personal relationships.*
Delta types value peaceful, refreshing activities where they are doing something useful and balancing out their inner world at the same time. *- I prefer productive and interesting activities, whether they are peaceful and refreshing is of second importance.*
*Delta types have the philosophy that they will have to rely on their own industriousness to achieve their goals rather than on luck, speculation, group effort, or strong leadership.*
*Ne blocked with Fi*



*Delta types love to share personal experience mixed with their own sentiments regarding their experiences, but all *in an insightful and *non-dramatic manner. - Whatever I discuss I prefer to do it in a non-dramatic manner, but I don't like to share my personal sentiments much, tbh.*
*Delta types like to talk about new beginnings, opportunities for personal growth, and their plans and prospects for the future. *- Not really...
*Fe blocked with Ni*



*Delta types rarely display their deep passions and vision, preferring instead to talk in more neutral terms about what they want to do and why.*
*Delta types reject dramatism and emotional affect in favor of wry humor and understatement.*
Delta types don't tend to form or maintain groups based on fun, emotional interaction, but only take groups seriously that perform some common productive or restful activity. *- It depends on a group. If it's a working environment, then I prefer group and myself being focused on the task. If I'm with friends, it can be just fun emotional interaction. I don't mind eather of them, but prefer to make a distinction between the two (work and fun).*
*Delta types generally dislike using poetic wording when describing their inner state,* but talk simply about what they feel or their bodily sensations.
*Se blocked with Ti*



*Delta types do not fare well in high-pressure situations where they are being forced to do things, are facing threatening opponents, or are submitted to rigorous discipline, but wear out quickly and look for a more peaceful and welcoming environment. *- I don't mind discipline. In fact I'm a very disciplined person myself, but I'm a perfectionist as well and have tons of inner do's and don'ts. So, when somebody approaches me with their own set of rules and pressures me, it's just too much. I have enough of this stuff already myself and when other people try to impose something on me it is infuriating.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Finally made it through all of the descriptions and have a barrel and a heap of questions, so, please, bear with me:kitteh:


> An Fi will look at a business tycoon and blame them for the state of the poor. A Te realizes that simply feeling bad for the poor won't accomplish anything, because you can't take emotions to the bank (a common Te proverb) you need to actually DO something. Even if you don't FEEL for them, building a huge corporation and then donating your equity to charity is worth more than a single person volunteering their entire life. For this reason, even though still hated by a generally large amount of people, *Bill Gates (textbook ENTJ according to typology forums) is more effective in donating ~$30 billion to build business around the globe for the poor and promoting philanthro-capitalism than an army of Mother Teresa's.*


As long as I agree with Te sentiments here and that doing something to improve the state of the poor is far more effective than just feeling bad for them, it may be questionable that Bill Gates is more effective than Mother Teresa in the big picture. I'm in no way diminishing Bill Gates' merits, but Mother Teresa became more of a symbol of goodness, charity, helping and care, and who knows how many people (wealthy ones included) her image and example inspired. So, it may not be all that linear and simple as the statement suggests.

Proceeding with Ti:


> p. 210: "Unlike *Extraverted Thinking, which is conceptual and generalized*, Introverted Thinking motivates strategic action in a specific situation. When ENTPs use it, they *don't start with abstract rules and apply them, step by step, to bring about a goal*. They recognize themselves as part of an ongoing process, and they keep adjusting their behaviors in terms of the whole picture."





> An ENTP salesperson might *pull together a host of small details and recognize in one mental image how a customer is likely to respond to a product*.





> *For ITPs,* *the world is a set of systems that are governed by certain underlying rules and principles* (physics is an example of such a system).





> *Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity*: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. *What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something.*


So, Extraverted Thinking is conceptual, generalized, abstract because the rules it uses can be applied along multiple frameworks (I pick that up partially from the Te general description)? How is that different from the two last statements quoted above about ITPs understanding the world as a set of systems ruled by the underlying unities? And where to place general Te's attunement to facts? They are clearly not abstract.
Why Te can not be used in the example with salesperson (for example, salesperson notices different facts (Te) and makes a prognosis on their basis)? 




> This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. You don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your email. Yet *Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working.*


The above is very true to me, but I wonder if this is because me simply being a Thinker.
This is an ongoing situation that I have with somebody who is an ethical ego:
Someone Else: Please, remind me what buttons should I press so I can save the picture.
Me: Look. Here is the common button used for multiple operations. You just click it and it brings up a menu of different options. You have to look up for the option you need. For example you frequently ask me where the downloaded content is saved, so here it is, or how to...
SE: Oh, please, just tell me where I have to click step-by-step. I don't want to know how this thing works.
Me: But if you understand the principle how this menu works, you can use it perfectly on your own without calling me every time you need to create a new folder or to do something else. Look. This menu works along the same principles practically in every window. You bring it up with this button and...
SE: When I'll need to know how to create a folder I'll ask you about it. Now, I just want to save the picture. Tell me where should I click first and where should I click afterwords. That's all I'm asking for.
Me: But..
SE: JUST TELL ME WHERE TO CLICK! I WANT TO SAVE THIS DAMN PICTURE!
Me: OK :/

Is it Ti? Is it Te? Is it simply logical ego?



> It makes no sense that someone should have to give a speech when they are crying. Vaughan doesn't only employ pathos, but he appeals to the long-term consequences that the teacher's arbitrary use of power would cause on the kid, such being made fun of. In doing so, *he violates the rules of extraverted judgement that students should not question teachers.* From his standpoint, there is nothing wrong with doing so, because he is appealing to principles that are much larger than arbitrary classroom rules and transcend the social roles of "student" and "teacher."


Huh? By that logic xNTJs shouldn't question teachers as they are Te egos, while this is not the case at all. I understand where the author is coming from, but no, extraverted judgement is not an adherence to rules.




> *EFJs who can accept an introverted stance will realize that* things don't have to be determined by what can be observed, and that they don't always have to agree with others just to get along; *they can introduce their own ideas, think with their own minds,* and determine how the world works through their own subjective perceptions.


Probably not linked with my type (or maybe just a little), but this indirectly implies that EFJs do not have their own ideas and do not think with their own minds _normally_, and I strongly disagree that any combination of cognitive functions is the source of stupidity.




> Another example: Suppose a new theory in biology says that rape behavior in humans is an evolutionary product which ensured that the losing males can pass on their genes. If you're not oriented to Ti and you have feminist leanings, you would probably object angrily to this theory because it views rape as natural. If you're oriented to Ti, you would judge this theory only *according to the objective evidence*. *Whether the theory attacks your position is irrelevant; if the evidence is good then you have to accept it.*


Is it Ti? Isn't it Te that concerns itself with objective evidence?
I totally relate to the statement above though. If this theory would be supported with satisfactory evidence I'd buy it. Why not? There are many disgusting things that are natural. Some people just see the notion of "natural" as a sort of justification, as if "natural = "good", "unnatural" = "evil". I don't get this stance.

Si description is very concise in comparison with other introverted functions  Ti and Ni ones are particularly grand and thorough, but Si...
Overall its description seems Te-ish ("When we use Introverted Sensation, we don't adjust to our surface perceptions. We package them and take them with us--*in the form of facts, numbers, signs*..."; "Introverted Sensation gives us the will to accumulate information--*names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines*) and even Ti-ish. This is what confuses me:


> p. 174: "*ISJs...don't believe for a minute that the universe is inherently rational. For these types, the outer world is a jumble of ever-changing perceptual experiences*, dictating ever-changing behavioral responses. What ISJs maintain, and maintain unconditionally, is their priorities, which stabilize perceptual reality and give it consistent meaning."





> *Si provides information about the fixed and stable, the facts / constancies of the universe.*





> *For ITPs,* *the world is a set of systems that are governed by certain underlying rules and principles* (physics is an example of such a system).


If ISJs understands the world as a jumble of perceptual experiences, how does it correspond with that Si provides information about stable facts and constancies of it? I see it as contradicting each other. I mean, if Si provides information about the fixed and stable facts/constancies of the universe it implies that rational order of the universe _do exist _and universe is not an incomprehensible jumble of "stuff". 
And how is it different from the last statement about ITPs seeing the world as being governed by underlying rules and principles?
I don't relate with the "ever-changing perceptual experiences" and strongly relate with both following quotes about facts and underlying principles. 



> For example, whereas from an Extraverted Sensation perspective, you might feel very impressed upon meeting a man wearing a fancy Italian suit (*signs call forth a natural response and need no interpretation*); from an Ni perspective, you would consciously say to yourself that he's wearing an Italian suit and this is supposed to make you think he's wealthy or upper-class or really has his act together or something like that, and therefore is supposed to make you feel impressed (*signs and what they mean are connected only arbitrarily*). Whether he really does have his act together is a matter upon which you reserve judgement. Consequently you don't feel impressed. You merely note the expected interpretation as no less a part of your environment than the suit itself.


Why Extraverted Sensation's natural response is being impressed? Fanciness of the suit makes them impressed, suit's colour, its cut? If so, then what it is about colour and the cut that is so impressive? I just don't understand why any human being should be impressed by "a man wearing a fancy Italian suit" without making intuitive guess that his suit might be the sign that he is reach or that he holds some higher position in a big company or something along these lines. Extraverted Sensation simply likes the suit and is impressed by the suit in and of itself?

I hope any kind soul will help me to clarify all this mess, that is, probably, just a mess in my head.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Bump^
Want more responses.

I wonder if people are confused by Socionics discussion in this thread. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that if cognitive functions are existing phenomena, they translate between systems. And different descriptions between systems simply aim at capturing the essence of the same functions from corresponding perspectives of those systems. So, feel free to offer your opinion.

Should I add a regular questionnaire, perhaps?

Naming some names  @Word Dispenser, @Jinsei, @hoopla and everybody else.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I was just stumped after your Quadra response. I mean, I may be an exception, or something, but I really understand that I am fairly overwhelmingly Alpha, and that's one thing that my husfiend also agrees with.

In your case, you're either over-thinking it and there's one that's fairly clear, or you're pretty split between a few.

Do you have anyone IRL that you discuss this stuff with? It may help. I'm not sure if I can provide anymore understanding into this, I'm afraid. :crazy:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I was just stumped after your Quadra response. I mean, I may be an exception, or something, but I really understand that I am fairly overwhelmingly Alpha, and that's one thing that my husfiend also agrees with.
> 
> In your case, you're either over-thinking it and there's one that's fairly clear, or you're pretty split between a few.
> 
> Do you have anyone IRL that you discuss this stuff with? It may help. I'm not sure if I can provide anymore understanding into this, I'm afraid. :crazy:


You've helped a great lot already!
Lenore Thomson's descriptions were particularly helpful. I think I finally captured what Ni is about through different perspectives that were presented in the article. Now it's time for Si and I just can't put my finger on it, except that logically it's some kind of perception of the background of the sensation through personal relationship with it.

Unfortunately no one to discuss it with  Nobody gives a damn about typologies in my RL.
It's quite possible that I'm over-thinking it, as I try not to be encapsulated in the vacuum of my own mind, trying to find out what I really use and prefer, while, in fact, we all use all the functions and, if desired, can find all of them within ourselves.


----------



## quaestio (Sep 24, 2014)

We understand the Si description differently. Here is my reading - I don't know if it would be considered correct but perhaps it'll help.

Reality is a jumble of experiences. It is a storm that cannot be controlled fully or understood or perceived beforehand. It has you at its mercy. To help, focus not on the Thinking or Intuitive principles, which you can't view (at least, not through Si), but what you or others can make stable. Stable principles for Si would be things that repeat or remind - "I'm worried this thing will happen because it did before in a similar situation" - but it's a poor representation of reality. So instead, there are facts. Things that are considered true because they have been shown to be over and over and over again. Things a person can rely on.

So you can probably see the link made here between Si and tradition, duty, loyalty. Priorities, comfort, interest. Not being adventurous. Facts over theories.

That's how I interpret the descriptions based upon what I've gathered about Si and how it makes sense to me. Hope it helps, though it could all be wrong.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

I'm not sure I have any helpful input @To_august but I'm going to follow this thread with interest. I'm a bit out of my depth on the socionics discussion (I need to educate myself more) but, for what it's worth, reading your original post felt like reading something I could have written (apart from the desire to be a musician/actress part).


----------

