# What does your vulnerable function look like to you?



## Buran (Nov 2, 2014)

Exactly what it says in the title. E.g. to me, an ISTp, Fe appears fake, needy, judgemental, and emotionally intrusive. What does your vulnerable function look like to you? I'm particularly interested in what Si looks like to EN_js, and what Ne looks like to IS_js.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Buran said:


> what Ne looks like to IS_js.


Delusional. Fake. Time wasters. People often see Fe as fake, but I don't know any betas who are.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

At best, it seems trite, insubstantial, superficial and a tad silly. That's generally my reaction to social settings or films that revolve around Fe, like a dinner party or Fe heavy films like the Mad Max remake, Hitch, or 300. It's all so dramatic, so flashy, and very much about image rather than substance (for betas) or just goofy and completely lacking in seriousness or depth (alphas).

I generally consider it at its worst when I run into people who create their personal identities around Fe. Those people I tend to see as fake, insincere, and annoying. It's undoubtedly a judgmental position and a bit unfair, but it's hard to overcome that gut reaction. Generally I feel pressured to meet their emotional demands, which would make _me_ feel fake and superficial, so I revolt against it and become disagreeable to spite them.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm really interested in how an xSE percieves Ni. Any ESE or LSE lurking here?


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

I see positive and negative qualities in Te, with the positive side being the whole to-the-point "It's logical. Just do it." badassery, and the negative aspect being the whole "I don't know what this white powder gold thing you're talking about is, but it sounds like fiction." and "If you think you need this much water at that temperature to make tea, then you don't know anything about physics and you're retarded." academic bullshit.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't actively go around hating Ti, but when I have to argue with a really obtuse Ti dom or need to pointlessly define and redefine things, it makes me feel like that entire mindset is the most pointless load of trash ever.

What typically makes it grate so much on me is that Ti types devalue Te, and the immature ones simply ignore all REAL evidence about the context in favor of their own mental fantasies.


----------



## Revolver Ocelot (Feb 25, 2015)

I don't think I have anything to say about Fe that hasn't been said. It comes off to me as invasive, manipulative, fake, controlling, needy, clingy, and insincere. Almost like a politician.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

It looks like a function that messes up peoples hidden agenda.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Insincere, lacking depth, vapid, over-the-top and just needless/superfluous. It also feels wrongly other-oriented in the sense that it doesn't seem to focus on you as a person. In fact, it's not looking at anyone or any one thing, which I think is what bothers me the most. Also, chaotic as hell but in a bad way.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Im vulnerable when I become enthralled or attached to things. However I make sure that does not happen often. When it does happen its magic, but the state of bliss means you are in the most danger.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

It often looks like purposeless focus on the irrelevant. Especially when Beta NFs do it.


----------



## Handsome Jack (May 31, 2015)

Fe looks fake and like mob mentality mode, Si looks like desperation when you've run out of options, and Fi looks like emo mascara tears.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Handsome Jack said:


> Si looks like desperation when you've run out of options


How so?


----------



## Handsome Jack (May 31, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> How so?


Reusing past solutions for present problems because nothing else worked.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> I don't actively go around hating Ti, but when I have to argue with a really obtuse Ti dom or need to pointlessly define and redefine things, it makes me feel like that entire mindset is the most pointless load of trash ever.
> 
> What typically makes it grate so much on me is that Ti types devalue Te, and the immature ones simply ignore all REAL evidence about the context in favor of their own mental fantasies.


I can relate to this. "First press that red button," "How do you know that button is red, maybe it's really purple, how can you really know..." "ok, first press that button with the mystery color..."


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Te. 
Abrupt. Hawk-eyed on "the point". Difficult to relax around and be natural with. Dry. Philosophically unsatisfying. Emotionally unsatisfying. 


* *




That really sounds simplistic. Wow. How sad.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

I think my Fe-POLR is starting to hurt.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Another Lost Cause said:


> I think my Fe-POLR is starting to hurt.


*vomits Fe rainbow all over you, hates self for faking Fe so hard*


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

I don't think I know any Ni-doms in real life, so it's hard for me to criticize my PoLR as a whole like some of the previous posters have done. There supposedly are a lot of Ni-doms on the forum, but for the most part, they do nothing to piss me off cognitively - they seem insightful and articulate and I can appreciate that.

There are some of what I'd consider manifestations of Ni, however, that make me uncomfortable when I see them expressed around me. One example is when someone makes a bold prediction about the future. Then a hidden mechanism goes off inside me that makes me try to prove with all my strength that they are wrong, especially if what they say somehow doesn't fit into my worldview.

My computer science professor at university recently said that we won't be able to pass our written exam unless we have done a certain ludicrous amount of programming before that point. Now, it's not like I don't want to practice, but damn, man. Now I have an added motivation to pass this exam, and it's purely to spite him - I want to prove that I'm the exception - which come to think of it, is probably _exactly what he wanted_.

There's an all-or-nothing, me-versus-them aspect to it, especially if the situation concerns me so closely.

So I guess there's something about Ni that, perhaps in combo with Fe, makes it look like psychological manipulation. I realize I have no means to counteract its claims with my rationality, so I want to ignore them and establish they are wrong _in the real world_, by my own practical action. But somehow I still feel constrained, weighed down by Ni evaluations and sometimes I go to the opposite end and accept them as inevitable truths, with an almost fatalistic approach.

I tend to see the world as a space open for my intervention. I refuse to accept any "truths" unless they make rational sense, have practical merit in my outlook. Otherwise they are just interesting general ideas, and there's always time to consider those.

(Also fuck it, I'm ESE now.)


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Still a baby in Socionics. I reckon Fi comes off as naive, estranged and disconnected. Se seems impulsive, careless and leading to bad consequences, with people's personal circumstances. Both go together quite well, like PB&J, they should go on a picnic actually.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

xxTJ: You must do everything by my strategy, bitch!
xxFP: You're the bitch!
xxTJ: You're right. You're not smart enough to be a bitch. You're just an idiot. Plain and simple. Did you even remember to wash your face today?
xxFP: I only wash it when I feel like it needs it.
xxTJ: Then, get out of my sight, you filthy retard!

This is Te, and Te-types delight in beating me while I am down.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Tumblr plot twists and mind blowing revelations. 

"OMG! What if Dumbledore was actually Harry Potter's grandfather guyz?"


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> xxTJ: You must do everything by my strategy, bitch!
> xxFP: You're the bitch!
> xxTJ: You're right. You're not smart enough to be a bitch. You're just an idiot. Plain and simple. Did you even remember to wash your face today?
> xxFP: I only wash it when I feel like it needs it.
> ...


Sounds more like you have a problem with Se than Te.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Trying to think of an answer to this, but so far I can't think of a better way to put my idea of what my PoLR can look like other than "stupidity."


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> Sounds more like you have a problem with Se than Te.


Well, look at you, an INTJ. Of course you wouldn't understand.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Quentyn said:


> Tumblr plot twists and mind blowing revelations.
> 
> "OMG! What if Dumbledore was actually Harry Potter's grandfather guyz?"


Shit. I hate this stuff. 

"Ok guys but IMAGINE THIS -- A fairytale coffee shop self-identified dragonkin ghetto AU for Harry Potter." Like bitch wuuuuuuuuuut?


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> Well, look at you, an INTJ. Of course you wouldn't understand.


If you have a problem with people being hostile towards you, perhaps you should start by showing less unprovoked hostility and arrogance towards others.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> If you have a problem with people being hostile towards you, perhaps you should start by showing less unprovoked hostility and arrogance towards others.


My hostility is always provoked.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> This is Te, and Te-types delight in beating me while I am down.


Heads up; pretty sure that's Se.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Heads up; pretty sure that's Se.


You sure it's not SiTe?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> You sure it's not SiTe?


Outside of some MBTI caricature of cognition, nope.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Extreme emotional explosion, typically anger, combined with a lot of strong body language. After the fact, the strong body language remains but I feel embarrassed that I allowed myself to get to that level of anger. I pride myself in keeping myself as stoic as I can.


----------



## Buran (Nov 2, 2014)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> You sure it's not SiTe?


If you are an LII, your vulnerable function is Se; Te is your ignoring function. See this.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Buran said:


> If you are an LII, your vulnerable function is Se; Te is your ignoring function. See this.


I'm an INFP.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> I'm an INFP.


Why does your type say LII then?

Either or, Se is the vulnerable function for both EII (INFP) and LII (INTP).


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Why does your type say LII then?
> 
> Either or, Se is the vulnerable function for both EII (INFP) and LII (INTP).


Oh, I see. I thought the vulnerable function was the last function of a type, which for an INFP would be Te. But yeah, it actually makes sense that INxPs would have vulnerable Se. That actually explains a lot.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> Oh, I see. I thought the vulnerable function was the last function of a type, which for an INFP would be Te. But yeah, it actually makes sense that INxPs would have vulnerable Se. That actually explains a lot.


Te and Se are both 1-dimensional for the EII, yet Te is _valued_ while Se is _not_. Note why the EII's dual is the LSE (ESTJ).


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Te and Se are both 1-dimensional for the EII, yet Te is _valued_ while Se is _not_. Note why the EII's dual is the LSE (ESTJ).


Well, I certainly want nothing to do with Se, so yeah I guess that makes sense.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Heads up; pretty sure that's Se.





> Outside of some MBTI caricature of cognition, nope.





Based on what? Is there some logic behind this? Why would Se be more likely than Te to boss him around and call him stupid? Sounds like a TJ to me. 

Te is like a nun with a ruler. How can you have your pudding if you didn't eat your meat?







It fits perfectly for TJ. TJ types in this very thread are invalidating him and telling him he is wrong, and if in fact people are that mean to him, he had it coming. lol. Te is just universally right. It has to be.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Based on what? Is there some logic behind this? Why would Se be more likely than Te to boss him around and call him stupid? Sounds like a TJ to me.


This is Socionics. Specific rules come from T. Imposing them is Se.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> Lol, you really have a hate boner for me, don't you.


You're one of those evil, hateful TJ's man. You're _so bad_. You're p_ractically H__itler!_


----------



## ObservantFool (Apr 1, 2015)

I really admire the creative side of Ne and often wish I had it myself so that I'd have more ideas to throw myself into and do something tangible with, but Ne in the abstract sense to me just feels like focusing on thoughts that play no part in my life and that I do not care about, and at times it can come across as unnecessary rebellion or pointless entertainment of possibilities. It can also feel like beating around the bush communication-wise, or like ideas are being brought up at rapid fire when I would like to slow down and examine their validity/relevance one at a time.


----------



## Buran (Nov 2, 2014)

At this point I feel that it would be useful to compare the ESTj and ESTp in order to contrast Te with Se. I have a good deal of experience with both types; my father is an ESTp, and a high school I had for two years and came to regard as a mentor is an ESTj.

When they need somebody to perform a task, they use very different methods. My father (ESTp) emphasises that the task _has to be done_, and if somebody (usually my INFj sister—they have a rocky relationship) resists, he simply pushes harder, pointing out various circumstances which warrant immediate and unquestioning execution of the task. He's capable of explaining the logic behind his actions, but only does so after the fact, and the process seems to exhaust him. My teacher (ESTj) would carefully explain the logic behind the action—_this is what we have to do, and this is why it's necessary_—in painstaking detail. He often gave the class advice, explaining patiently exactly _why_ he wanted things done in a certain way, or why certain behaviour would be beneficial in university or in the workplace.

In short, Te convinces, Se pushes.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Buran said:


> In short, Te convinces, Se pushes.


... and Se/Te Te/Se are just assholes...


----------



## ChkChkBoom (Nov 10, 2013)

Fi seems judgmental, self righteous and overly concerned with relational motives (which I don't even bother to contemplate majority of the time). There seems to be a lot of emotional projection too when around Fi doms. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Buran said:


> At this point I feel that it would be useful to compare the ESTj and ESTp in order to contrast Te with Se. I have a good deal of experience with both types; my father is an ESTp, and a high school I had for two years and came to regard as a mentor is an ESTj.
> 
> When they need somebody to perform a task, they use very different methods. My father (ESTp) emphasises that the task _has to be done_, and if somebody (usually my INFj sister—they have a rocky relationship) resists, he simply pushes harder, pointing out various circumstances which warrant immediate and unquestioning execution of the task. He's capable of explaining the logic behind his actions, but only does so after the fact, and the process seems to exhaust him. My teacher (ESTj) would carefully explain the logic behind the action—_this is what we have to do, and this is why it's necessary_—in painstaking detail. He often gave the class advice, explaining patiently exactly _why_ he wanted things done in a certain way, or why certain behaviour would be beneficial in university or in the workplace.
> 
> In short, Te convinces, Se pushes.


I also have experience with both and disagree. Se is more fluid. It is more adaptable. It adjusts to the object. Te is just ideology projected. It is a block universe. The Borg use logic too. 

I knew the symbol for Te looked familiar.










It is monist dogma.

Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality _may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely �external� environment of some sort or amount. Things are �with� one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word �and� trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite� has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity._

Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to _everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

_For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a _multum in parvo_plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not _all_ what the French call_solidaires_ with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.

*For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing*. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if _a _is once out of sight of _b_ or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, �out� of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as �other occasions� in reality�in _real _or absolute reality, that is.

The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word �or� names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead _or_ to the right _or_ to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.


 For every real dilemma is in literal strictness a unique situation; and the exact combination of ideals realized and ideals disappointed which each decision creates is always a universe without a precedent, and for which no adequate previous rule exists.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

I see Fi as pure selfishness. Its like a curse when I use it, taking away my power of reasoning, later I need to think what it was trying to tell me... In others it seems like some kind of error in interpreting of the meaning behind my words. It takes so much effort to think how Fi user might feel when I say something and the manipulation I have to put into my ideas can take all my energy away. Either way they misinterpret almost everything unless I flatter them.
I use Fi as sarcasm, pretending I am like you and I deeply believe something and have an agenda. It can be joined with Se in answering some boring questions about my life, yuck. If someone pressures Fi in me I start losing it...

I also feel petty for Fi doms/aux, I often wonder how they suffer in a lot of areas without having a lot of control over their thoughts and feelings.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

jkp said:


> I see Fi as pure selfishness. Its like a curse when I use it, taking away my power of reasoning, later I need to think what it was trying to tell me... In others it seems like some kind of error in interpreting of the meaning behind my words. It takes so much effort to think how Fi user might feel when I say something and the manipulation I have to put into my ideas can take all my energy away. Either way they misinterpret almost everything unless I flatter them.
> I use Fi as sarcasm, pretending I am like you and I deeply believe something and have an agenda. It can be joined with Se in answering some boring questions about my life, yuck. If someone pressures Fi in me I start losing it...
> 
> I also feel petty for Fi doms/aux, I often wonder how they suffer in a lot of areas without having a lot of control over their thoughts and feelings.


Fi is a closed universe. No one can defend. 

You will run into the same thing with TJ types. You will eventually run into their Fi. I was reading something on Te Polr, and it said that it isn't Te that is necessarily disliked. How could anyone dislike Te? It is the Fi subjective value judgement that is used as its rudder. Like that twit Sam Harris. Objective morality. The fucking arrogance of that. That everybody should live like you and this is the only way.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I honestly think Fi-Ne is a sensitive type in general regardless of health. Some criticisms that are tolerable for some are not for others. We cannot relate to ourselves as barometer. We have never been in that atmosphere. Each individual is self contained in a place that nobody else has access to.


That is true. Maybe its just me, but I consider having tough skin and the ability to override the feelings with logic to be an important step in my development along with developing healthy resilience towards needing to get along with everyone and conflict avoidance. In my experience avoiding conflict and listening to my fearful & duty "feelings" often leads me to end up in detrimental situations, because I'm not doing what I want, I'm being swayed by others even if their opinions are not valuable objectively.

For this reason I dig deep, suck it up, figure out what is objectively most beneficial for me and then I go do that, use the pain as fuel to burn. So much better. Can't make everyone happy man .


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> That is true. Maybe its just me, but I consider having tough skin and the ability to override the feelings with logic to be an important step in my development along with developing healthy resilience towards needing to get along with everyone and conflict avoidance. In my experience avoiding conflict and listening to my fearful & duty "feelings" often leads me to end up in detrimental situations, because I'm not doing what I want, I'm being swayed by others even if their opinions are not valuable objectively.
> 
> For this reason I dig deep, suck it up, figure out what is objectively most beneficial for me and then I go do that, use the pain as fuel to burn. So much better. Can't make everyone happy man .


I am sensitive and conflict avoidant in real life too. I don't like being evaluated by Te. lol. It does not paint a flattering portrait of myself. 

On Sundays here there is still at least one Church service on some channel. It is weird to watch a thing from home while getting high. Because you can't get high in church and relax. That is how I like my Te. From a distance. I like watching Dr Phil while high for the same reason. Your Te can't reach me on my couch, big boy. lol.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am sensitive and conflict avoidant in real life too. I don't like being evaluated by Te. lol. It does not paint a flattering portrait of myself.
> 
> On Sundays here there is still at least one Church service on some channel. It is weird to watch a thing from home while getting high. Because you can't get high in church and relax. That is how I like my Te. From a distance. I like watching Dr Phil while high for the same reason. Your Te can't reach me on my couch, big boy. lol.


?_? how is church Te? I don't understand, it has nothing to do with Te. Religion is nowhere near Te, they ask you to take things on faith for fuck's sake. Dr. Phil also says a lot of invalid bullshit to sell stuff. Not much reliable Te there, ppl just tend to believe because he is a "Dr."

There is a very obvious line between empirically useful knowledge which works and crap you'd rather stay away from, especially if you can't make out whats real and whats a lie.

This is for example loaded with Te:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> ?_? how is church Te? I don't understand, it has nothing to do with Te. Religion is nowhere near Te, they ask you to take things on faith for fuck's sake. Dr. Phil also says a lot of invalid bullshit to sell stuff. Not much reliable Te there, ppl just tend to believe because he is a Dr.
> 
> There is a very obvious line between empirically useful knowledge which works and crap you'd rather stay away from, especially if you can't make out whats real and whats a lie.


What? Te doesn't lie and always uses facts? lol

It is an objective standard. Orthodoxy. A bible or religion is an objective world law. A world law can be creationism or it can be evolution. Richard Dawkins is the same thing as a religious fundamentalist but on the other side. The particular source is irrelevant. 

Te dom is the firebrand preacher type. Per Jung. Like the John Lithgow preacher character who wants to ban dancing. That is Te. 

*This type of man gives, the deciding voice not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula ; all is wrong that contradicts it ; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions ; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man.
*


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Fi is a closed universe. No one can defend.
> 
> You will run into the same thing with TJ types. You will eventually run into their Fi. I was reading something on Te Polr, and it said that it isn't Te that is necessarily disliked. How could anyone dislike Te? It is the Fi subjective value judgement that is used as its rudder. Like that twit Sam Harris. Objective morality. The fucking arrogance of that. That everybody should live like you and this is the only way.


An INFP, when drunk, told me she wants to dictate others and show them how they are suppose to live life. She wants to enforce her own rules with authoritarian power and believes she would be the most just ruler, like it was her life calling, LOL. TJ on the other hand are, like you said, giving value to beliefs/facts which can consequently blind them, if taken to an extreme.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

jkp said:


> An INFP, when drunk, told me she wants to dictate others and show them how they are suppose to live life. She wants to enforce her own rules with authoritarian power and believes she would be the most just ruler, like it was her life calling, LOL. TJ on the other hand are, like you said, giving value to beliefs/facts which can consequently blind them, if taken to an extreme.


They turn into Te doms when drunk with courage. lol

And the thing about faith. Religion is totally a product of Te. Why do people think that the people who created religion were so stupid? lol. Faith works. It appeals to a large variety of people. How successful are Christianity and Islam? Strict rules and standards must be enforced for it to maintain that hold.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

I don't like parties.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I met this asshole yesterday. He was probably a TJ.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> What? Te doesn't lie and always uses facts? lol
> 
> It is an objective standard. Orthodoxy. A bible or religion is an objective world law. A world law can be creationism or it can be evolution. Richard Dawkins is the same thing as a religious fundamentalist but on the other side. The particular source is irrelevant.
> 
> Te dom is the firebrand preacher type. Per Jung. Like the John Lithgow preacher character who wants to ban dancing. That is Te.


) right. Te perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work. 

Either way, I don't care about what the religious think or the atheists say. What I care about is the wavelength of red for example and how to play the economy game to become rich.

Its all about how you take apart and fix or build a car for example. It has nothing to do with religious orthodoxy. You don't need faith to fix a car, you just need to understand the logic behind it's functioning. Religion is not logical, quite the opposite. Have you read the bible or the quran?  what a fucking joke.



> *This type of man gives, the deciding voice not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula ; all is wrong that contradicts it ; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions ; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man.
> *


Precicely. <.< there is only one objective truth, the universe is what it is despite flawed understanding of it. Debates about the nature of things are just that arguments over who is wrong and who is right. In the end there is only one answer and the possibility exists that nobody has thought of it, understood it or knows it.

To pretend that differing viewpoints can all be objectively correct borders on solipsism. Subjectively in one's mind sure, you only need to take a stroll through a sanatorium to understand.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> They turn into Te doms when drunk with courage. lol
> 
> And the thing about faith. Religion is totally a product of Te. Why do people think that the people who created religion were so stupid? lol. Faith works. It appeals to a large variety of people. How successful are Christianity and Islam? Strict rules and standards must be enforced for it to maintain that hold.


Agree, but I would't say it is JUST a product of Te. Picking pre-judged data from the outside is Je. So it can work with all functions but mostly it is presented as Te. The construct of religion seems to be a mix of different functions, each serving its role in creating a masterpiece of Te.
But when I talk about functions like this I do not mean to separate them from the psyche, I talk about how they manifest from it. They might exist outside of the brain as a kind of universal law but here I speak of human to object relation. So "killing an innocent is unjust" is a human made "Te" law, which could also be a kind of universal law, but practicing it as a law only makes it Te when it is being used as a common fact/belief by a human.


I also think that what FreeBeer said is a total misunderstanding of how functions work. "How Te works" is not the "how universal laws exist", although it wants to be accepted as such. Te is not a positive/negative value of something useful, and something "crap" is not not Te.

The video he presented can be understood with all the functions except F ones, in practical applications.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> ) right. Te perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.
> 
> Either way, I don't care about what the religious think or the atheists say. What I care about is the wavelength of red for example and how to play the economy game to become rich.
> 
> ...


See. You think a scientific/empirical model is the only valid explanation of things. 

Do you think the human mind is a product of the laws of nature, or do you think the laws of nature are a product of the human mind?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

jkp said:


> Agree, but I would't say it is JUST a product of Te. Picking pre-judged data from the outside is Je. So it can work with all functions but mostly it is presented as Te. The construct of religion seems to be a mix of different functions, each serving its role in creating a masterpiece of Te.
> But when I talk about functions like this I do not mean to separate them from the psyche, I talk about how they manifest from it. They might exist outside of the brain as a kind of universal law but here I speak of human to object relation. So "killing an innocent is unjust" is a human made "Te" law, which could also be a kind of universal law, but practicing it as a law only makes it Te when it is being used as a common fact/belief by a human.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, it is like he thinks that all Te users believe in nothing but science. They are all just naturally convinced by it or something.

Exactly. Sam Harris again. Moral laws are in the universe. They want the weight of science to enforce them.


----------



## fair phantom (Mar 5, 2015)

What does Se look like to me? well it depends.

Se can appear domineering, greedy, hasty, arrogant, insensitive, unimaginative, and lacking in subtlety. However I often find myself admiring it too. In many people it strikes me as powerful, realistic, refreshingly straightforward, dynamic, bold, able, alert, alive. Particularly when it is combined with Fi, I find myself admiring Se's ability to assert and act on what they think is right. I feel like Se, at its best, is a courageous force for the better.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> Hmm, this could be probable. Normally Ne inhibits such impulses due to the broader understanding that is achieved through intuitive perception, meaning that my way may not be the only way and to inhibit others from doing things their way would impede progress and diversity. The bad Se also makes Fi-Nes more inclined towards compromise and a live and let live attitude.
> 
> Personally I don't value what your INFP friend values, because its dumb for obvious reasons. It takes all kinds I guess. Type is just cognition. There is more to ppl then cognition.







I would say she has problems with the animus, I would associate the animus in INFPs with Se/Te. The volcanic suppressed will to power of some sort that erupts when the restraints are weakened.



> Mostly I'm only inclined to step in and control the situation in defense if the non aggression principle is violated, meaning I think its perfectly acceptable to defend oneself if under assault. Normally however I'm more inclined towards severe self criticism while I let others off the hook in comparison.
> 
> In my case this may have something to do with Schizoid PD, thus lacking much interest in other people or in forming relationships, if they don't peek my curiosity  and you'd have to be very strange indeed for me to be interested.
> 
> ...


I can totally relate to this. But you are not Schizoid, you seem too normal. Maybe just avoidant, if anything.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

For me, it's basically having very little regard for how I come across to others. 

Although to some extent I recognize that there is value in showing engagement with other people, hearing them out fully, connecting them, and being expressive my own way of dealing with my utter lack of awareness in that regard is by being satisfied that I don't care about it and continuing to do what I do. Basically, I know I may not come across positively to others, but defend against any kind of pushback in that area by telling myself that area doesn't matter. It's easy for me to fall to the rhetoric, I am who I am and if that rubs someone the wrong way I don't need to interact with them. If I say things that are "mean" or attacking in some way I may briefly make sure to smooth over the relationship part (Fi), but still could not care less about how I am perceived. 

From an outsider's perspective, I basically don't show a lot of positive emotion and even if I attempt to mask showing it, there's still a kind of controlled sense with it. I'm a master of the social smile (out of propriety) but find it difficult to show variation in how I express myself. People find my feelings extremely difficult to read, and on the whole I'm quite dispassionate at times others would openly empathize or actively show that they're feeling - and this _includes_ times when I'm attracted to someone romantically. The idea of expressing excitement about something or showing optimism seem like alien characteristics; they don't seem necessary to me. As do times when an individual or group expect me to participate in some kind of mutual rule of engagement; this is also foreign to me and makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

jkp said:


> I would say she has problems with the animus, I would associate the animus in INFPs with Se/Te. The volcanic suppressed will to power of some sort that erupts when the restraints are weakened.


I admit I'm not very good with the abstract and this manifests in some unease and uncertainty in concluding that she does or she does not have a problem with her animus, but it does sound about right.



> I can totally relate to this. But you are not Schizoid, you seem too normal. Maybe just avoidant, if anything.


I used to have APD yes or in a sense its still there, but I managed to overcome all symptoms through CBT. From observation I can tell many INFPs seem to have this problem. :/ nowadays I am more at risk of being overconfident and full of myself (avoidants are secret narcissists) then the opposite, yet a certain emotional numbness and disinterest in forming relationships persists. Its possible I still have dysthymia, which is common with APD. Idk, I'm used to depression and I have no clear memories of how its like not to be like this, so idk if that is still present or not.  I don't particularly feel sad, just grey and emotions can be rather shallow. I can function like other people and I do quite a lot of social stuff (my job for example requires it and I don't mind), but I lost something during the many years with APD it seems ;/, got too used to being alone and it turned into a habit of some kind.

I'd like to figure out a way to shake it off. I'd agree that I'm likely not Schizoid (hopefully). Maybe this is just introversion and depression. Don't know. Whatever it is I'll fix it eventually.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Buran said:


> Exactly what it says in the title. E.g. to me, an ISTp, Fe appears fake, needy, judgemental, and emotionally intrusive. What does your vulnerable function look like to you? I'm particularly interested in what Si looks like to EN_js, and what Ne looks like to IS_js.


Ne for me especially in Ne base types: weird in an often infuriating way, disconnected from reality in a completely nonsensical way, can also seem evasive and I often feel like they are trying to mess with me even when that's not the intention. Then sometimes it can also look brilliant in my supervisors.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

in the bases of this function: Hasty, pushy, not considering all alternatives because of an agenda, selfish, needlessly creating conflict, not willing to conduct themselves in a productive manner when things are serious, generally.

When you find sane Se doms..they are just effective. Bonus points if they're on my side.

And one more thing..intimidating.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Delusional. Fake. Time wasters. People often see Fe as fake, but I don't know any betas who are.


Oh yah sometimes it seems outright delusional. 

I agree on Fe with you as a beta heh


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Then sometimes it can also look brilliant in my supervisors.


I find supervisors impressive, but oh so very boring. I had an insecure moment when dealing with an ILE, where he just seemed to be able to match me on everything I cared about.



myst91 said:


> Oh yah sometimes it seems outright delusional.
> 
> I agree on Fe with you as a beta heh


I've never met a fake Se valuer; they will just tell you like it is. The fakest people I've ever met were all Ne valuing feelers.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)




----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Se PoLR: 

I tend to react very badly whenever people tell me how I should live my life. I hate it whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life. I hate it whenever people tell me how I should or should not behave. I crave being accepted unconditionally by people. And whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life, I start feeling "judged" by them, and I start feeling angry.

edit: Oops I just realised that I read the thread wrongly. As for how I find Se, I mainly find them aggressive/harsh/blunt/confrontational which kinda rubbed me the wrong way at times. And they are also unable to follow my train of thoughts whenever I go into abstract mode, can take things a little too literally at times.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Se PoLR:
> 
> I tend to react very badly whenever people tell me how I should live my life. I hate it whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life. I hate it whenever people tell me how I should or should not behave. I crave being accepted unconditionally by people. And whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life, I start feeling "judged" by them, and I start feeling angry.


With respect, I don't think that's exclusive to Se-doms. Se determines _how_ they give you that advice, such as if it's in a confrontational forceful way or not. In my experience Je-egos are more prone to give unsolicited advice in general.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Ne for me especially in Ne base types: weird in an often infuriating way, disconnected from reality in a completely nonsensical way, can also seem evasive and I often feel like they are trying to mess with me even when that's not the intention. Then sometimes it can also look brilliant in my supervisors.


What I notice in interactions with an ESTP friend is we view the world in a similar way. We notice the same things. He is very good at reading environments. ESTP may be the best "observer" type. They can do so many things. But how? By refusing to fail basically. I am shocked how successful my ESTP buddy has become. He was the biggest hothead, dropped out of high school. Now he is a successful businessman and can do nearly anything. lol. Like he is planting these trees and starting some kind of farm at his house. All this stuff he does. I am like, "Where did you learn all this shit?" He is like, "I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at first. I just kept refining the process until I figured it out." And the way he handles business. He bids on jobs. He said when he first started he was clueless. His bids were way off. But he learned. And now he is good at it. It is like he starts he will learn. It is a mindset that applies to all things. 

He has so much going on. I have no idea how he does it. He sees so much. Se is large. It is huge. It has breadth. He knows the right people for jobs too. Like he wanted me to do something a little shady once. He was upfront about it. He is like, "All you gotta do, is be you." I am like, "What? What am I?" He said, "I don't know either, that is why you are perfect." I am like the one person he can't put his finger on and he sees value in it. lol. 

But as to the original point I wanted to make, I finish his sentences a lot. We notice the same things but I try to expand them philosophically and continue in that direction, and he just isn't there.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Schizoid said:


> Se PoLR:
> 
> I tend to react very badly whenever people tell me how I should live my life. I hate it whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life. I hate it whenever people tell me how I should or should not behave. I crave being accepted unconditionally by people. And whenever people give me unsolicited advice into my life, I start feeling "judged" by them, and I start feeling angry.
> 
> edit: Oops I just realised that I read the thread wrongly. As for how I find Se, I mainly find them aggressive/harsh/blunt/confrontational which kinda rubbed me the wrong way at times. And they are also unable to follow my train of thoughts whenever I go into abstract mode, can take things a little too literally at times.





Verity said:


> With respect, I don't think that's exclusive to Se-doms. Se determines _how_ they give you that advice, such as if it's in a confrontational forceful way or not. In my experience Je-egos are more prone to give unsolicited advice in general.


Yeah, honestly this sounds more like Te PoLR to me, than Se PoLR. Se is less about offering advice but more about "Why do you sit and whine about not getting out of bed? Just get up already!" Actually, that video by Shia LaBeouf is a great example of Se (in retrospect idk why we didn't type him as an Se lead? SLE is a good typing):


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Verity said:


> With respect, I don't think that's exclusive to Se-doms. Se determines _how_ they give you that advice, such as if it's in a confrontational forceful way or not. In my experience Je-egos are more prone to give unsolicited advice in general.


I think this "how" is just an inherent consequence of how Se sees things concretely.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> What I notice in interactions with an ESTP friend is we view the world in a similar way. We notice the same things. He is very good at reading environments. ESTP may be the best "observer" type. They can do so many things. But how? By refusing to fail basically. I am shocked how successful my ESTP buddy has become. He was the biggest hothead, dropped out of high school. Now he is a successful businessman and can do nearly anything. lol. Like he is planting these trees and starting some kind of farm at his house. All this stuff he does. I am like, "Where did you learn all this shit?" He is like, "I didn't know what the fuck I was doing at first. I just kept refining the process until I figured it out." And the way he handles business. He bids on jobs. He said when he first started he was clueless. His bids were way off. But he learned. And now he is good at it. It is like he starts he will learn. It is a mindset that applies to all things.
> 
> He has so much going on. I have no idea how he does it. He sees so much. Se is large. It is huge. It has breadth. He knows the right people for jobs too. Like he wanted me to do something a little shady once. He was upfront about it. He is like, "All you gotta do, is be you." I am like, "What? What am I?" He said, "I don't know either, that is why you are perfect." I am like the one person he can't put his finger on and he sees value in it. lol.
> 
> But as to the original point I wanted to make, I finish his sentences a lot. We notice the same things but I try to expand them philosophically and continue in that direction, and he just isn't there.


Cool, btw some of it's simply in Se in ego, I think, I'm like this a lot too, though I can get frustrated at having not enough understanding initially. But yeah, it does not get in the way  I think the breadth part would be specific to Se base tho'.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Cool, btw some of it's simply in Se in ego, I think, I'm like this a lot too, though I can get frustrated at having not enough understanding initially. But yeah, it does not get in the way  I think the breadth part would be specific to Se base tho'.


Perhaps "persistence" goes along with the notion of "force" for Se. Maybe Se doesn't mind failure as much as other functions in general? It sees it as part of the game. A lot of athletes are about how losing is a fundamental part of their success. Like Michael Jordan said he has failed a billion times and that is why he succeeds. Malcolm X is another. Who is usually typed as some Se type. He made the best out of any situation he was put in. Prison. He just refused to go down. I think maybe Ne types and lower Se types are drained by that struggle. Se excels in it though.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Perhaps "persistence" goes along with the notion of "force" for Se. Maybe Se doesn't mind failure as much as other functions in general? It sees it as part of the game. A lot of athletes are about how losing is a fundamental part of their success. Like Michael Jordan said he has failed a billion times and that is why he succeeds. Malcolm X is another. Who is usually typed as some Se type. He made the best out of any situation he was put in. Prison. He just refused to go down. I think maybe Ne types and lower Se types are drained by that struggle. Se excels in it though.


Yep. :=)


----------

